The UI that Apple purchased was nowhere near a complete system. Apple added a lot of improvements of their own. Microsoft clearly copied from Apple, not Xerox.
Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.
For longer journeys (more than 3 hours), this is still faster than any other means of transport could reliably provide.
I think it's extremely unlikely that armed forces will enter the Ecuadorian embassy. It's possible, although less likely, that the British government will terminate diplomatic relations, and storm the building that was the embassy, but I think this is unlikely.
I could be wrong. Of course I could. I'm honestly surprised the British government didn't just pass this to Sweden and tell them to deal with it.
If the British government did what you're suggesting Ecuador might hypothetically do, and I wasn't a British citizen, (and if the "British Commonwealth" was still called that), then I'd definitely not want to go there.
It'd really raise a media fuss, and probably gain Ecuador a lot of tourism.
Yes. I know for a fact that I love to visit countries that have demonstrate they're willing to shut down an embassy and eject visitors over a diplomatic pissing contest.
His answers are very likely to be biased. But so are everyone else's. So what you do, is point out the bias in the answers.
So, assuming Slashdot is so important to international diplomacy that the US government employs a shill to post here. You're suggesting that he might lie. Can you point to a single thing he posted in that comment that isn't either clearly an opinion or independently verifiable by an average person with internet access?
If he's lying, point out his lies. If he's biased, point out his bias. This makes no difference whatever his motivations are.
That's a somewhat bizarre usage of "terrorism", that differs from how most people would understand it.
Normally when people use the term, they're referring to non-governmental organisations. The fact that your dictionary doesn't include this definition just means that your dictionary fails to adequately describe the usage of the word as used in common parlance.
The very fact that you need to defend your usage suggests that many people simply don't understand the meaning to be this.
The fact that you feel the need to defend your usage, rather than simply clarify your meaning suggests that you used it for its emotive effect rather than its descriptiveness.
But I agree. Bravo Ecuador for managing to use this situation to put a positive spin on itself, despite its own tendency to cover up the truth and censor the media.
I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?
That they believe they have diplomatic mechanisms to force them to do this. They're not going to storm the embassy. That would be a violation of the treaty and therefore international law. They've found a legal loophole (or are claiming to have done so) and are challenging the Ecuadorian government to call their bluff.
Here's the legislation being used. I have no idea what part of that the legal experts think they can use to justify whatever they plan to do but whatever it is they plan, there's certainly no justification for storming the embassy.
A website that would be illegal in every single country that's signatory to the Berne convention operated in Sweden based on a belief that Swedish law was somehow different. It turns out that Swedish law is pretty much the same and deliberately facilitating copyright infringement is illegal there as well.
Not sure that makes them a puppet of the US. It simply demonstrates that Swedish copyright law doesn't work the way many Slashdot users think that it should.
The wikipedia article mentions lots of "claims" and "unnamed sources", but nothing concrete.
If I say "fruit is nutritious and delicious", then it's true whether I'm paid by the fruit marketing board or not. If he says Ecuador has a terrible record on freedom of speech, then whether he's paid or not makes no difference to the accuracy of the statement. Essentially, accusations that the poster is a shill is a subtle ad hominem.
The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force
Ecuador's Foreign Minister said that the UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force. The UK has said no such thing without an awful lot of reading between the lines. But I'm sure he'll be happy to know that you've fallen for the blatant spin.
There's no need for the UK to do this. They can eliminate the Ecuador embassy entirely by diplomatic means.
These are going to be designed to be very idiot proof. While you can only do so much to protect reckless idiots, onboard diagnostics can make sure it doesn't fly if things aren't running perfectly, and that it won't fly if it hasn't been serviced in a while. We can also make sure there's enough redundancy so that if one engine fails, the thing can still land safely.
Actually I'm surprised there isn't a pilot's car club, since this is a commonly complained about problem. At least where I live, there's this company that will rent cars on a per-minute basis. You book a car, use a swipe card to get in, and pay by the hour. Seems a similar scheme operating at small airports would be profitable.
Flying cars as you describe them are mentioned, but this does seem to be more about a flying vehicle as a replacement for the car. So the ability to drive on roads isn't really needed.
People wouldn't be in control of them, except to tell them where they should go. They'd be completely computer controlled. They'd also fly at a very low altitude, nowhere near general airspace, and nowhere near airports.
The OP was, in all probability, being blinded by an obsession with open source, but it's at least possible that there's a valid business justification.
But I do agree. It sounds like the submitter is planning to run a business as a hobby. Something I gather is not a good idea. My comment was more by way of offering a counterpoint. If you can trivially save $3000 then you should.
I agree. Although this is something that both parties are responsible for. Something that wasn't made clear was whether she brought this up with the organisers. And if she didn't, whether there was a reason she was unwilling or unable to.
Doesn't seem much different from a car exploding if driven recklessly. If a car explodes killing nearby pedestrians when driven above the speed limit, the manufacturer would be at fault as well.
Are you surprised that someone did something so stupid? If someone does do this, then there's a limit to how much harm you can prevent for the idiot doing so, but this then resulted in the death of bystanders, when the company knew full well how to prevent that. Manufacturers are expected to make things as safe as possible in the manner they're typically used. If they're typically used incorrectly, then this should be considered in the design.
These things tend not to be quite so frivolous when you look into them.
Straight Dope Boards suggests that there was a design issue that the gas can manufacturer knew about, that would result in an explosion. A slight redesign would have meant that the 4 year old would have survived.
Slashdot Mirror
The UI that Apple purchased was nowhere near a complete system. Apple added a lot of improvements of their own. Microsoft clearly copied from Apple, not Xerox.
When you're paying as much as flights cost back then, you could afford to be elitist.
Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.
For longer journeys (more than 3 hours), this is still faster than any other means of transport could reliably provide.
Never understood this. Why crush the car? Why not sell it? Change the locks if necessary, but it's not like the car is being punished here.
They don't care. They don't have to pay for the near misses or the accidents caused indirectly. They only care about what they have to pay for.
I think it's extremely unlikely that armed forces will enter the Ecuadorian embassy. It's possible, although less likely, that the British government will terminate diplomatic relations, and storm the building that was the embassy, but I think this is unlikely.
I could be wrong. Of course I could. I'm honestly surprised the British government didn't just pass this to Sweden and tell them to deal with it.
If the British government did what you're suggesting Ecuador might hypothetically do, and I wasn't a British citizen, (and if the "British Commonwealth" was still called that), then I'd definitely not want to go there.
Yes. I know for a fact that I love to visit countries that have demonstrate they're willing to shut down an embassy and eject visitors over a diplomatic pissing contest.
His answers are very likely to be biased. But so are everyone else's. So what you do, is point out the bias in the answers.
So, assuming Slashdot is so important to international diplomacy that the US government employs a shill to post here. You're suggesting that he might lie. Can you point to a single thing he posted in that comment that isn't either clearly an opinion or independently verifiable by an average person with internet access?
If he's lying, point out his lies. If he's biased, point out his bias. This makes no difference whatever his motivations are.
That's a somewhat bizarre usage of "terrorism", that differs from how most people would understand it.
Normally when people use the term, they're referring to non-governmental organisations. The fact that your dictionary doesn't include this definition just means that your dictionary fails to adequately describe the usage of the word as used in common parlance.
The very fact that you need to defend your usage suggests that many people simply don't understand the meaning to be this.
The fact that you feel the need to defend your usage, rather than simply clarify your meaning suggests that you used it for its emotive effect rather than its descriptiveness.
But I agree. Bravo Ecuador for managing to use this situation to put a positive spin on itself, despite its own tendency to cover up the truth and censor the media.
That they believe they have diplomatic mechanisms to force them to do this. They're not going to storm the embassy. That would be a violation of the treaty and therefore international law. They've found a legal loophole (or are claiming to have done so) and are challenging the Ecuadorian government to call their bluff.
Here's the legislation being used. I have no idea what part of that the legal experts think they can use to justify whatever they plan to do but whatever it is they plan, there's certainly no justification for storming the embassy.
A website that would be illegal in every single country that's signatory to the Berne convention operated in Sweden based on a belief that Swedish law was somehow different. It turns out that Swedish law is pretty much the same and deliberately facilitating copyright infringement is illegal there as well.
Not sure that makes them a puppet of the US. It simply demonstrates that Swedish copyright law doesn't work the way many Slashdot users think that it should.
The wikipedia article mentions lots of "claims" and "unnamed sources", but nothing concrete.
Really it should make no difference.
If I say "fruit is nutritious and delicious", then it's true whether I'm paid by the fruit marketing board or not. If he says Ecuador has a terrible record on freedom of speech, then whether he's paid or not makes no difference to the accuracy of the statement. Essentially, accusations that the poster is a shill is a subtle ad hominem.
Ecuador's Foreign Minister said that the UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force. The UK has said no such thing without an awful lot of reading between the lines. But I'm sure he'll be happy to know that you've fallen for the blatant spin.
There's no need for the UK to do this. They can eliminate the Ecuador embassy entirely by diplomatic means.
It's also experimental. They probably factor the risk of losing a couple into the budget. They got through a couple of X43's as well.
I'll just leave this here
It's an oldie.
These are going to be designed to be very idiot proof. While you can only do so much to protect reckless idiots, onboard diagnostics can make sure it doesn't fly if things aren't running perfectly, and that it won't fly if it hasn't been serviced in a while. We can also make sure there's enough redundancy so that if one engine fails, the thing can still land safely.
What about a taxi?
Actually I'm surprised there isn't a pilot's car club, since this is a commonly complained about problem. At least where I live, there's this company that will rent cars on a per-minute basis. You book a car, use a swipe card to get in, and pay by the hour. Seems a similar scheme operating at small airports would be profitable.
Flying cars as you describe them are mentioned, but this does seem to be more about a flying vehicle as a replacement for the car. So the ability to drive on roads isn't really needed.
People wouldn't be in control of them, except to tell them where they should go. They'd be completely computer controlled. They'd also fly at a very low altitude, nowhere near general airspace, and nowhere near airports.
The OP was, in all probability, being blinded by an obsession with open source, but it's at least possible that there's a valid business justification.
But I do agree. It sounds like the submitter is planning to run a business as a hobby. Something I gather is not a good idea. My comment was more by way of offering a counterpoint. If you can trivially save $3000 then you should.
I agree. Although this is something that both parties are responsible for. Something that wasn't made clear was whether she brought this up with the organisers. And if she didn't, whether there was a reason she was unwilling or unable to.
Doesn't seem much different from a car exploding if driven recklessly. If a car explodes killing nearby pedestrians when driven above the speed limit, the manufacturer would be at fault as well.
Are you surprised that someone did something so stupid? If someone does do this, then there's a limit to how much harm you can prevent for the idiot doing so, but this then resulted in the death of bystanders, when the company knew full well how to prevent that. Manufacturers are expected to make things as safe as possible in the manner they're typically used. If they're typically used incorrectly, then this should be considered in the design.
Yes. He was also found to be at fault.
These things tend not to be quite so frivolous when you look into them.
Straight Dope Boards suggests that there was a design issue that the gas can manufacturer knew about, that would result in an explosion. A slight redesign would have meant that the 4 year old would have survived.