There is a concept of "Tortious interference with contract rights". If you are aware that a contract is in place, and convince someone to break the terms of the contract you can be held liable. And the standard of proof is a lot lower than criminal law.
It's pretty unlikely that the school was completely unaware there were terms and conditions, and they really should have considered the possibility they were in breach of these terms.
I'd be surprised if it even worked better on an 80386. Early 90's compilers weren't too bad especially with common idioms like that. Watcom 10 would convert that to a REP MOVSB I'm sure but may well miss this on something more obscure like Duffs Device.
That specific example would have poor performance for odd numbered "count" since 32 bit CPUs are pretty much always better at 32-bit word aligned moves.
It will possibly attract few developers who previously felt that the free-to-play rule didn't fit their business model. Probably very few will switch from free-to-play. Those who wanted to most likely weren't developing for the Ouya in the first place.
It's really all about subtext. It's a statement - "This deal gets done by Wednesday or I walk away from it". By buying a ticket he's showing clear pigheadedness, and giving an absolute deadline.
Facebook want the deal as well, so they can use this to pressure their ditherers
Well, as a narcissist, I get a sadistic pleasure from my Machiavellian trolling. Maybe I am a psychopath.
I'm sot sure about how useful this sort of test is though. Almost everyone has a sense of schadenfreude. I think most people will deny this publicly. Someone who answers "trolling is important to me" is probably going to spend the rest of the test in a troll mindset, and possible exaggerate their position.
There's also the question of what a troll is. Posting how the moon is a ridiculous liberal myth, and responding earnestly to idiots who take you seriously is pretty harmless, although that itself could be said to be "Dark Tetrad" stuff.
It does have its fans. The fact that it has a huge amount of interior space for its size and removable rear seats makes it very practical, and its proponents seem to like its ugliness.
What they are saying is Gawker's actions harmed the plaintiff. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial.
Whether the existence of this leak odes harm the movie is up to Tarantino to prove. However if it does, then Gawker knew, or should have realised that the leak was an unofficial leak, that linking to it will result in more people going there.
This whole "it's only a link" argument is irrelevant unless gawker didn't realise what they were linking to.
BT has a monopoly on the telephone network. There's no way that the government would be able to take them away. Sky and TalkTalk use the BT infrastructure so that threat would be meaningless to them because the government has no say in who BT leases their infrastructure to.
A "followup law" would suggest there was a law in the first place.
Why would the government legislate something that would result in a Commons defeat (Lib Dems will not support it and the Conservatives have no majority) when they've managed to achieve their stated aim and won the votes?
Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities.
They mean transgender people.
Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker?
No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a completely different issue, maybe even from software installed locally.
So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.
XP was just a consumer version of Windows 2000 though, and was quite happy working with the tools for NT4. Plus, I very much doubt they used XP from its release date.
The main reason companies use Windows is because it work. Sure, Linux probably does as well, possibly better, but it only needs to be good enough. A recognisable brand name is comforting to the execs who make this decision.
It's that whole "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" thing again. And the machines do seem to have been pretty robust and generally secure for a good decade or so.
Pretty much nobody is seriously using it as a currency. Some companies are accepting it in payment, but pretty much all of them will convert the bitcoins straight into dollars. They don't circulate!
If it was used as a currency, in any serious way, economies based on it would suffer! The gold standard was abandoned for good reason. A crypto currency has every single one of these disadvantages.
Seems that the people who created bitcoin are the people who had to invest least in creating them. If they have any sense, they'll have sold off their coins months ago and will be living the millionaire lifestyle. Everyone who buys them is simply providing a gift to the early adopters.
Ultimately this seems like a bunch of early adopters attempting to cause a short term devaluation in other currencies for personal gain.
I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.
That's what I was wondering. Italy will have worded this very carefully to be in accordance with EU laws, but I'll be amazed if Google doesn't mount a legal challenge. I expect this will ultimately decided at the top level of the European courts. I'm sure the rest of Europe is looking on in anticipation to see how this goes.
Slashdot Mirror
People with skill, time and hardware access tend not to be able to hold down a job. The fact that it's not 100% effective does not make it useless.
There is a concept of "Tortious interference with contract rights". If you are aware that a contract is in place, and convince someone to break the terms of the contract you can be held liable. And the standard of proof is a lot lower than criminal law.
It's pretty unlikely that the school was completely unaware there were terms and conditions, and they really should have considered the possibility they were in breach of these terms.
I'd be surprised if it even worked better on an 80386. Early 90's compilers weren't too bad especially with common idioms like that. Watcom 10 would convert that to a REP MOVSB I'm sure but may well miss this on something more obscure like Duffs Device.
That specific example would have poor performance for odd numbered "count" since 32 bit CPUs are pretty much always better at 32-bit word aligned moves.
It will possibly attract few developers who previously felt that the free-to-play rule didn't fit their business model. Probably very few will switch from free-to-play. Those who wanted to most likely weren't developing for the Ouya in the first place.
They're smart people with transferable skills. They can find other jobs.
It's really all about subtext. It's a statement - "This deal gets done by Wednesday or I walk away from it". By buying a ticket he's showing clear pigheadedness, and giving an absolute deadline.
Facebook want the deal as well, so they can use this to pressure their ditherers
Well, as a narcissist, I get a sadistic pleasure from my Machiavellian trolling. Maybe I am a psychopath.
I'm sot sure about how useful this sort of test is though. Almost everyone has a sense of schadenfreude. I think most people will deny this publicly. Someone who answers "trolling is important to me" is probably going to spend the rest of the test in a troll mindset, and possible exaggerate their position.
There's also the question of what a troll is. Posting how the moon is a ridiculous liberal myth, and responding earnestly to idiots who take you seriously is pretty harmless, although that itself could be said to be "Dark Tetrad" stuff.
It does have its fans. The fact that it has a huge amount of interior space for its size and removable rear seats makes it very practical, and its proponents seem to like its ugliness.
No.
:P
The Journalistic principle existed long before Betteridge mentioned it, so it's incorrect to name it Betteridge's law of headlines
What they are saying is Gawker's actions harmed the plaintiff. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial.
Whether the existence of this leak odes harm the movie is up to Tarantino to prove. However if it does, then Gawker knew, or should have realised that the leak was an unofficial leak, that linking to it will result in more people going there.
This whole "it's only a link" argument is irrelevant unless gawker didn't realise what they were linking to.
Ofcom is non governmental though and would have no interest in breaking up BT just because they didn't play ball with political demands.
BT has a monopoly on the telephone network. There's no way that the government would be able to take them away. Sky and TalkTalk use the BT infrastructure so that threat would be meaningless to them because the government has no say in who BT leases their infrastructure to.
New BT customers are given a screen during setup that asks them whether they want to use the filters or not. It looks like this.
So stop believing what you read in the Guardian or some of the more hysterical tech sites.
A "followup law" would suggest there was a law in the first place.
Why would the government legislate something that would result in a Commons defeat (Lib Dems will not support it and the Conservatives have no majority) when they've managed to achieve their stated aim and won the votes?
Nope. Still going to be active choice. That article is based on what the government asked for, not what the ISPs actually agreed to.
They mean transgender people.
No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a completely different issue, maybe even from software installed locally.
Since the ISPs are implementing this without any government funding, your guess is wildly wrong.
There's really no evidence that this is the case. Just speculation. PC Pro actually did some journalism and found that the actual ISPs had received no complaints
So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.
Well, part of the problem is that most of what you read about the "UK porn filter" is bollocks.
Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.
Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
China, on the other hand, has a mandatory government imposed filter.
I'm sure you can see the difference.
The thing is, I think someone so forthright as to ask that question would probably appreciate that answer.
XP was just a consumer version of Windows 2000 though, and was quite happy working with the tools for NT4. Plus, I very much doubt they used XP from its release date.
The main reason companies use Windows is because it work. Sure, Linux probably does as well, possibly better, but it only needs to be good enough. A recognisable brand name is comforting to the execs who make this decision.
It's that whole "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" thing again. And the machines do seem to have been pretty robust and generally secure for a good decade or so.
Pretty much nobody is seriously using it as a currency. Some companies are accepting it in payment, but pretty much all of them will convert the bitcoins straight into dollars. They don't circulate!
If it was used as a currency, in any serious way, economies based on it would suffer! The gold standard was abandoned for good reason. A crypto currency has every single one of these disadvantages.
Seems that the people who created bitcoin are the people who had to invest least in creating them. If they have any sense, they'll have sold off their coins months ago and will be living the millionaire lifestyle. Everyone who buys them is simply providing a gift to the early adopters. Ultimately this seems like a bunch of early adopters attempting to cause a short term devaluation in other currencies for personal gain.
Do you have numbers for these? And are these deaths where the book was just a factor or those where there was a direct chain of causality?
I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.
That's what I was wondering. Italy will have worded this very carefully to be in accordance with EU laws, but I'll be amazed if Google doesn't mount a legal challenge. I expect this will ultimately decided at the top level of the European courts. I'm sure the rest of Europe is looking on in anticipation to see how this goes.