My understanding is that the top tier ISPs have peering agreements, in which each side agrees to carry the others traffic for free. However, when the amount of traffic in each direction is unequal, some kind of financial remuneration will usually be part of the contract.
I suspect that there's a lot more traffic coming into Hungary than is going out.
I don't know about EU antitrust law, but in the US, MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly, not of having one.
So, even if you think Apple has a monopoly via the iPod Touch, you'd be extremely hard-pressed (read: would not be able) to show that they abuse it (in a legal sense).
We already took the necessary steps. We now lock the cockpit door. End of story. Everything else is done to terrorize the populace and make rich people richer.
There are separate copyrights for songwriting and performing the song. The former would certainly belong to an easily-identifiable person or two, but the latter has the complications stated by the GP.
He's a millionaire. He doesn't have a country. He doesn't care at all what happens to Afghanistan -- that's why he made it appear as if it that's where he was hiding at the time, so we'd trash it and ignore him altogether.
That's an absurd derivative of the GP's statement. Physical property is not the same as imaginary property created by a clause of the Constitution. There is no legal rationale for copyright to extend beyond the creator's death. Physical property, however, does not disappear, nor does it exist as a mere mental construct.
Why do you pair a console with a PC, but the iPhone with another smartphone? That's ridiculous. Either pair the iPhone with a PC/laptop or pair the Wii with an XBox360 or PS3. There are plenty of games that are exclusive to one console or another, for a variety of reasons. And each manufacturer has different policies for what they will accept.
Getters are good because they abstract the data model away from the object interface. It doesn't matter where the data comes from or how it's stored because access is always through a method (if needed).
What's stupid about Java is that it doesn't hide the getters and setters behind properties. Just like the data model should be irrelevant, so should the fact that you may be calling a method to get a value.
Object Pascal (and perhaps C#) does it right. The getter may be a private data field or it may be a method. It's unimportant to the user of the object.
The OP stated an opinion. A citation would be meaningless. And enums are not objects in Java, though they must be declared within an object. Which is stupid, as enums are types, just like objects are.
GE is in the process of transferring several hundred, possibly up to a couple thousand, jobs from India to Michigan (Livonia). They have a list of applications several hundred miles long at this point.
And the alternative is a pat-down. I agree completely that everything introduced since 9/11 is theater, at best. (I think it's the Federal government taking over where the terrorists failed.)
But, still, in context, the scanner cannot be both invasive and ineffective. The purpose is to allow TSA personnel to see under your clothes. If it is effective, it is invasive. If ineffective, it's also not invasive.
Many of your examples have the victim (subject) on private property. It doesn't matter where the photographer is; if the subject is on private property, they have an expectation of privacy. "How much" probably depends on where they are exactly. The front lawn with no fence is probably different than in the bedroom.
They aren't trying to steer anyone. You are reading way too much into it. And if I happen to be wrong, so what? If they have a good idea, why not run with it? What the FUCK does their newness in the Linux world matter? They can't force anyone else to play along, so where's the harm in them trying?
You seem like an arrogant prick who hates change just because.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that the top tier ISPs have peering agreements, in which each side agrees to carry the others traffic for free. However, when the amount of traffic in each direction is unequal, some kind of financial remuneration will usually be part of the contract.
I suspect that there's a lot more traffic coming into Hungary than is going out.
Apple is not an IT company, and never really has been. Today, they are a consumer electronics company that also makes computers.
I don't know about EU antitrust law, but in the US, MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly, not of having one.
So, even if you think Apple has a monopoly via the iPod Touch, you'd be extremely hard-pressed (read: would not be able) to show that they abuse it (in a legal sense).
Your stupidity knows no bounds. Since when is preventing "fair use" illegal?
We already took the necessary steps. We now lock the cockpit door. End of story. Everything else is done to terrorize the populace and make rich people richer.
The Gynecologist is a medical doctor and is actually promoting the well-being of his or her patient.
The TSA employee is a terrorist.
There are separate copyrights for songwriting and performing the song. The former would certainly belong to an easily-identifiable person or two, but the latter has the complications stated by the GP.
He's a millionaire. He doesn't have a country. He doesn't care at all what happens to Afghanistan -- that's why he made it appear as if it that's where he was hiding at the time, so we'd trash it and ignore him altogether.
Why the fuck would Google appeal a $1 judgment?
If he were to do that, he'd also be displaying his idiocy to the world.
Modding an XBox360 is neither the same action, nor the same intent (as the exemption).
That's an absurd derivative of the GP's statement. Physical property is not the same as imaginary property created by a clause of the Constitution. There is no legal rationale for copyright to extend beyond the creator's death. Physical property, however, does not disappear, nor does it exist as a mere mental construct.
The government does. That's why ISPs are also government-created monopolies. Idiot.
Why do you pair a console with a PC, but the iPhone with another smartphone? That's ridiculous. Either pair the iPhone with a PC/laptop or pair the Wii with an XBox360 or PS3. There are plenty of games that are exclusive to one console or another, for a variety of reasons. And each manufacturer has different policies for what they will accept.
Getters are good because they abstract the data model away from the object interface. It doesn't matter where the data comes from or how it's stored because access is always through a method (if needed).
What's stupid about Java is that it doesn't hide the getters and setters behind properties. Just like the data model should be irrelevant, so should the fact that you may be calling a method to get a value.
Object Pascal (and perhaps C#) does it right. The getter may be a private data field or it may be a method. It's unimportant to the user of the object.
The OP stated an opinion. A citation would be meaningless. And enums are not objects in Java, though they must be declared within an object. Which is stupid, as enums are types, just like objects are.
GE is in the process of transferring several hundred, possibly up to a couple thousand, jobs from India to Michigan (Livonia). They have a list of applications several hundred miles long at this point.
I am tired of attorneys trying to rationalize their bad behavior. Lawyering is a tool and like all tools it can be used for both good and evil.
These two sentences are contradictory. How can you blame a tool for the way it is used? How can the tool itself be unethical?
What kind of woman has several abortions without it being a (convenient) form of birth control?
And the alternative is a pat-down. I agree completely that everything introduced since 9/11 is theater, at best. (I think it's the Federal government taking over where the terrorists failed.)
But, still, in context, the scanner cannot be both invasive and ineffective. The purpose is to allow TSA personnel to see under your clothes. If it is effective, it is invasive. If ineffective, it's also not invasive.
Many of your examples have the victim (subject) on private property. It doesn't matter where the photographer is; if the subject is on private property, they have an expectation of privacy. "How much" probably depends on where they are exactly. The front lawn with no fence is probably different than in the bedroom.
Given the purpose of this machine, how can it be both invasive and ineffective?
Mac OS X is a "proper" Unix. X is crap. It was crap when you had to configure it on Linux by playing with modelines, and it's crap now.
It's a quote from the article, you ignorant and stupid prick.
They aren't trying to steer anyone. You are reading way too much into it. And if I happen to be wrong, so what? If they have a good idea, why not run with it? What the FUCK does their newness in the Linux world matter? They can't force anyone else to play along, so where's the harm in them trying?
You seem like an arrogant prick who hates change just because.
Please kill yourself. That quote is directly from the linked "article".