One weird bit of law in all states is that you can not usually sue the owners of a company. The company yes, the owners, no.
That's not weird at all. It's practically necessary. The problem is that the owners of a company have little or no direct control over that company's actions. They merely provide the money that is used by the company's board to finance the company's operations, in exchange for which the company periodically pays them a dividend. The limit of their control over the company is that if enough of them agree they can hire and fire members of the board. They have no right to directly supervise the company's actions. They have no right to veto the company's actions. It would therefore seem a little unreasonable to hold them directly responsible for those actions they have no direct control over. The limit of their responsibility should, it seems to me, be the same as they potentially stand to profit from the actions -- i.e. their dividends. Suing a company, therefore, makes perfect sense, as doing so prevents the owners from benefitting from the company's illegal behaviour by applying a financial penalty that will, in the end, reduce the dividend that is paid to them.
Even though I am an owner of MegaEvilChemCorp no one can sue me or put me in jail for the damages MegaEvilChemCorp may do even if they blow up or poison half a state.
Holding shareholders criminally liable for a company's actions would completely destroy corporate investment as we know it. Nobody sane would be willing to invest in any companies, as they would have no way to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for crimes that may be committed in their name without their knowledge. Financing any new non-trivial business would become almost impossible.
This is the UK. The people there couldn't give a shit about pro-abortion (few religious people, other than those at death's door)
You may say that, but note that we still don't have abortion on demand, but only in cases where there is demonstrable risk to the health of the mother or unborn child.
and pro-Republican is a US only
"Republican" is commonly understood to mean "opposed to Monarchy" or possibly (in some contexts) "in favour of independence for Northern Ireland". Both viewpoints that I suspect the UK government would like to ban, if they could. The word has meaning outside of the US party that took its name.
Finally, yes. However, as my device isn't a phone, and apparently the only problem with 3.0 is that phone functionality was broken, I don't think there was any valid reason I couldn't have had the opportunity months ago.
so frame jobs are a valid argument against fighting child porn?
No. But they are a valid argument against all forms of vigilante justice, as vigilantes typically do not have the resources/intelligence to discover whether the person they are targetting has been framed. For all its flaws, a jury trial is the only way we have of doing that that's even approaching reliable.
There are well-known cases of people having their houses burned down, being beaten up, or even worse, simply because somebody incorrectly accused them of being a pedophile. Which is why releases of information like what Anonymous appear to have acquired here need to be prevented: we have no idea how accurate that info is, but somebody out there is going to assume it's 100% reliable.
Like the GUI and everything else, and Disney invented Snow White. It's all bullshit.
Yep. HTC were making Windows CE-based phones years before the iPhone was released. And then there were the Palm-based phones, which I think predated even those. Both of those systems had similar features to iPhones before iPhones were released.
But, hey, who ever let reality get in the way of PR?
Apple did not steal from Xerox. Apple was already developing a GUI back in the late '70s.
The first GUI computer, the Xerox Alto, was designed in 1973, 2 whole years before Jobs & Wozniak started developing the Apple I, and 5 years before work started on the Lisa, Apple's first GUI computer.
The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones.
Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...
So sell all your goods on a contract that looks like this:
We will provide goods to you on credit on the condition that they remain in our posession as long as the debt is outstanding. We may cancel the credit and reclaim goods in our possession if you leave our store.
That way, the transaction technically isn't a purchase by cash, but a purchase by credit which is settled in cash immediately afterwards.
Europe has freedom of speech, subject to laws and regulations which may be enacted limiting speech.
Not quite. It's actually subject to laws and regulations which may be enacted limiting speech and which are necessary for the protection of the rights of others or the prevention of crime. A law which arbitrarily limited speech without being reasonably aimed at one of the two above goals would not be allowed under European human rights law.
AIUI, if anyone with the administrative priveleges to remove a post were in the UK, this would apply to them, regardless of the physical location or network address of the server.
No, because even if the source to the application framework isn't available, you can still (a) install your own applications on top of it without google's permission and (b) install your own kernel under it.
Here's a question: How does it make a SF title any better to have been written in the last hundred million seconds out of 100,000 years? Isn't keeping up with the present the domain of the Twitterverse?
Because part of the purpose of the SF genre is to explore what authors think may be the eventual outcome of current trends. Obviously, in doing so, those who are exploring the latest trends are likely to be writing stories that are more relevant to the thoughts of their readers with regards to the same trends. So when I read, say, a Charles Stross story, I might find the authors thoughts about the future importance of virtual economies insightful, and it might provoke me to think myself about what is likely to happen in that direction. On the other hand, if I read an Asimov story about robots, all I get is the story, because the dialogue concerning the development of AI has already progressed well beyond the thoughts that were embedded in those books.
The sense-of-wonder that many of us seek in SF can only be provoked by truly novel ideas, and those are more likely to come from modern books.
Claiming on the back cover that the date is 9000 AD instead of 900 AD doesn't magically make it scifi instead of fantasy, sorry.
You're right. And I haven't read this particular book, so I can't comment on it specifically, but speaking in general terms, what makes "science fantasy" a subgenre of science fiction is that the author typically has a detailed explanation of why the apparently-fantastic elements of the story are actually plausible elements of a future society. The canonical example is probably Anne McAffrey's dragons, revealed after several books of the series to have been genetically engineered by colonists who were concerned that future generations might not keep the technology required to allow their colony to survive alive by themselves. Sure, the basis of the technology seems scientifically sketchy (how *exactly* are they able to transport themselves? how does a telepathic link to their rider work?) but no more so than a lot of stuff that's broadly accepted as science fiction (how does a hyperdrive work? where do the nanobots get enough energy to transform an entire world into goo from?).
Stephen King is popular because he knows how to tell a good yarn
He used to, long time ago, but he lost the knack - now he mostly just tells a long yarn
Fortunately the books in the list, The Stand and the Dark Tower series, are in the former category (at least the beginning of the Dark Tower is, anyway...)
Depends how sensible you are. $1M invested well could yield $50K per annum interest, which will likely be more than enough to live on for the foreseeable future if you have low expenses.
Speculation has less effect on a larger market. The only thing that can make bitcoin less volatile is an increase in the number of people using it for the purpose it was designed for, rather than as a make-money-fast scheme. Unfortunately, I don't suspect stories like this help.
Bad news - this likely won't mean it gets a lock on its position any quicker, due to technical reasons. Essentially, the device has to listen for a few seconds to receive the complete signal.
Worse news - each network will require its own proprietary chip, so increased access to GPS networks will come with increased cost, complexity, heat and power issues.
The other scenario is that the US can shut down GPS if it believes it is being used by terrorists. The EU might not agree with that assessment, and want to keep it open. Having Galileo gives them that option.
It's been years since I read it, but IIRC the main theme of the book is that everyone should question their beliefs. So, the atheist scientist ends up accepting that there are things that exist but which cannot be proven to exist, while the evangelical Christian preacher comes to question whether the god he has worshipped his entire life really exists. I think Sagan's primary point was that we should avoid being blinkered into thinking anything we believe is the absolute truth.
Slashdot Mirror
One weird bit of law in all states is that you can not usually sue the owners of a company. The company yes, the owners, no.
That's not weird at all. It's practically necessary. The problem is that the owners of a company have little or no direct control over that company's actions. They merely provide the money that is used by the company's board to finance the company's operations, in exchange for which the company periodically pays them a dividend. The limit of their control over the company is that if enough of them agree they can hire and fire members of the board. They have no right to directly supervise the company's actions. They have no right to veto the company's actions. It would therefore seem a little unreasonable to hold them directly responsible for those actions they have no direct control over. The limit of their responsibility should, it seems to me, be the same as they potentially stand to profit from the actions -- i.e. their dividends. Suing a company, therefore, makes perfect sense, as doing so prevents the owners from benefitting from the company's illegal behaviour by applying a financial penalty that will, in the end, reduce the dividend that is paid to them.
Even though I am an owner of MegaEvilChemCorp no one can sue me or put me in jail for the damages MegaEvilChemCorp may do even if they blow up or poison half a state.
Holding shareholders criminally liable for a company's actions would completely destroy corporate investment as we know it. Nobody sane would be willing to invest in any companies, as they would have no way to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for crimes that may be committed in their name without their knowledge. Financing any new non-trivial business would become almost impossible.
This is the UK. The people there couldn't give a shit about pro-abortion (few religious people, other than those at death's door)
You may say that, but note that we still don't have abortion on demand, but only in cases where there is demonstrable risk to the health of the mother or unborn child.
and pro-Republican is a US only
"Republican" is commonly understood to mean "opposed to Monarchy" or possibly (in some contexts) "in favour of independence for Northern Ireland". Both viewpoints that I suspect the UK government would like to ban, if they could. The word has meaning outside of the US party that took its name.
It seems another youtube user who had downloaded a copy reposted it, and the original author added it to his playlist. See: http://www.facebook.com/badlipreading/posts/296640680348638
Finally, yes. However, as my device isn't a phone, and apparently the only problem with 3.0 is that phone functionality was broken, I don't think there was any valid reason I couldn't have had the opportunity months ago.
so frame jobs are a valid argument against fighting child porn?
No. But they are a valid argument against all forms of vigilante justice, as vigilantes typically do not have the resources/intelligence to discover whether the person they are targetting has been framed. For all its flaws, a jury trial is the only way we have of doing that that's even approaching reliable.
There are well-known cases of people having their houses burned down, being beaten up, or even worse, simply because somebody incorrectly accused them of being a pedophile. Which is why releases of information like what Anonymous appear to have acquired here need to be prevented: we have no idea how accurate that info is, but somebody out there is going to assume it's 100% reliable.
Can't make a phone, AAPL thought of it first?
Like the GUI and everything else, and Disney invented Snow White. It's all bullshit.
Yep. HTC were making Windows CE-based phones years before the iPhone was released. And then there were the Palm-based phones, which I think predated even those. Both of those systems had similar features to iPhones before iPhones were released.
But, hey, who ever let reality get in the way of PR?
Apple did not steal from Xerox. Apple was already developing a GUI back in the late '70s.
The first GUI computer, the Xerox Alto, was designed in 1973, 2 whole years before Jobs & Wozniak started developing the Apple I, and 5 years before work started on the Lisa, Apple's first GUI computer.
The only reason they didn't release the Honeycomb source wasn't because of some shift to evilly exploiting the open source community (*cough* DARWIN), it was because it really really wasn't intended for phones.
Fine. However, as the owner of a v2.2 tablet whose manufacturer never released a software update, I'd have appreciated the opportunity to update it myself...
I think the general idea is that quotation marks have been used because the word's a quotation. May be wrong, but that was just the impression I got.
So sell all your goods on a contract that looks like this:
We will provide goods to you on credit on the condition that they remain in our posession as long as the debt is outstanding. We may cancel the credit and reclaim goods in our possession if you leave our store.
That way, the transaction technically isn't a purchase by cash, but a purchase by credit which is settled in cash immediately afterwards.
Europe has freedom of speech, subject to laws and regulations which may be enacted limiting speech.
Not quite. It's actually subject to laws and regulations which may be enacted limiting speech and which are necessary for the protection of the rights of others or the prevention of crime. A law which arbitrarily limited speech without being reasonably aimed at one of the two above goals would not be allowed under European human rights law.
"You're a pedophile and hurt small chidren!"
"Got any proof of that?"
"Ur, no. But you still are!"
"Okay then. No harm done. You just proved yourself to be a former editor of a recently defunct tabloid newspaper , yes?"
"Uhh ..."
FTFY.
Well, of course they are. It's a joint committee, so at least some of them must be Tories...
AIUI, if anyone with the administrative priveleges to remove a post were in the UK, this would apply to them, regardless of the physical location or network address of the server.
No, because even if the source to the application framework isn't available, you can still (a) install your own applications on top of it without google's permission and (b) install your own kernel under it.
Here's a question: How does it make a SF title any better to have been written in the last hundred million seconds out of 100,000 years? Isn't keeping up with the present the domain of the Twitterverse?
Because part of the purpose of the SF genre is to explore what authors think may be the eventual outcome of current trends. Obviously, in doing so, those who are exploring the latest trends are likely to be writing stories that are more relevant to the thoughts of their readers with regards to the same trends. So when I read, say, a Charles Stross story, I might find the authors thoughts about the future importance of virtual economies insightful, and it might provoke me to think myself about what is likely to happen in that direction. On the other hand, if I read an Asimov story about robots, all I get is the story, because the dialogue concerning the development of AI has already progressed well beyond the thoughts that were embedded in those books.
The sense-of-wonder that many of us seek in SF can only be provoked by truly novel ideas, and those are more likely to come from modern books.
Claiming on the back cover that the date is 9000 AD instead of 900 AD doesn't magically make it scifi instead of fantasy, sorry.
You're right. And I haven't read this particular book, so I can't comment on it specifically, but speaking in general terms, what makes "science fantasy" a subgenre of science fiction is that the author typically has a detailed explanation of why the apparently-fantastic elements of the story are actually plausible elements of a future society. The canonical example is probably Anne McAffrey's dragons, revealed after several books of the series to have been genetically engineered by colonists who were concerned that future generations might not keep the technology required to allow their colony to survive alive by themselves. Sure, the basis of the technology seems scientifically sketchy (how *exactly* are they able to transport themselves? how does a telepathic link to their rider work?) but no more so than a lot of stuff that's broadly accepted as science fiction (how does a hyperdrive work? where do the nanobots get enough energy to transform an entire world into goo from?).
Stephen King is popular because he knows how to tell a good yarn
He used to, long time ago, but he lost the knack - now he mostly just tells a long yarn
Fortunately the books in the list, The Stand and the Dark Tower series, are in the former category (at least the beginning of the Dark Tower is, anyway...)
Depends how sensible you are. $1M invested well could yield $50K per annum interest, which will likely be more than enough to live on for the foreseeable future if you have low expenses.
"Grace" is not Americanised from "Jee Un"??
Park is, for all practical purposes, solely a Korean family name.
Really?
Ponzi schemes pretend to be investment schemes. Bitcoin doesn't.
There, that's the end of that comparison. Now perhaps we can move on to some actual analysis?
Speculation has less effect on a larger market. The only thing that can make bitcoin less volatile is an increase in the number of people using it for the purpose it was designed for, rather than as a make-money-fast scheme. Unfortunately, I don't suspect stories like this help.
Bad news - this likely won't mean it gets a lock on its position any quicker, due to technical reasons. Essentially, the device has to listen for a few seconds to receive the complete signal.
Worse news - each network will require its own proprietary chip, so increased access to GPS networks will come with increased cost, complexity, heat and power issues.
Good news -- you have been misinformed. Single chip GPS/Galileo IC with sub-1-second acquisition and similar power usage to current GPS-only chips.
The other scenario is that the US can shut down GPS if it believes it is being used by terrorists. The EU might not agree with that assessment, and want to keep it open. Having Galileo gives them that option.
It's been years since I read it, but IIRC the main theme of the book is that everyone should question their beliefs. So, the atheist scientist ends up accepting that there are things that exist but which cannot be proven to exist, while the evangelical Christian preacher comes to question whether the god he has worshipped his entire life really exists. I think Sagan's primary point was that we should avoid being blinkered into thinking anything we believe is the absolute truth.