Who isn't considering Alaska part of the country? That plant is only proposed. From Wikipedia:
Toshiba never began the expensive process for approval that is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In other words, no one has yet sought a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor yet. TFA is about a company that is, if not at that stage, is certainly under way toward it. Galena's plan is currently stalled.
A poor place to hide, since most sports recently are already cesspools of corruption. If anything, it is sports corruption the Olympics (or rather the Olympics are merely a manifestation of the corporitization already present in sports.)
Because India isn't still technically in a state of war with the US (the Korean War never had a peace treaty, only an armistice, so it is still technically in a state of war), they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in China, which India is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if India gets a long range missile.
How will the system distinguish between children and adults? At a guess, I'm thinking you would need some sort of login system, where known adults would have a login they could use to access "uncensored" Internet (oh and yeah I'm guessing torrents would be censored by default too, since of course you can use that for porn also), which means they will be able to track anyone accessing "undesirable" content. Oh but of course the government would never do such a thing... right? Only people who access illegal things need to worry about the government watching you! Just think of the children!
And anyways it'll never work, new sites spring up way to fast for a censor to keep track of them all, unless you use a white-list for approved content, so again, if you browse "unapproved" content, you will need to log-in to the system, which allows for tracking. Paranoid? Maybe. You can bet many governments would absolutely love such a system, though.
And of course, if you decry the system as restrictive, you must be a pedophile who hates children and wants them to see porn. Obviously.
On a 10 hour or longer flight I would personally rather one of the pilots take turns sleeping than both try to stay awake at the same time. The latter is just asking for them to both fall asleep at the same time: the former keeps one of them awake and fully aware at all times (which, if you notice, very much helped in this case). Obviously, both of them shouldn't be asleep at the same time (also, there are generally 3 people in the cockpit, if I am not mistaken, so 2 should be awake at all times).
I wondered about that myself. It looks like the main problem is humidity: they apparently have extremely humid summers, and while the temperature varies a bit by location, it looks like it ranges from 20-27C. Speaking as someone who lives in a humid climate, anything over 22-23C or so is hot enough that AC is appreciated, and anything over 30C is extremely uncomfortable without it (that sounds weird if you live in a dry area, since that isn't terribly hot without humidity).
But, I don't really know for sure having never been there, nor do I know how widespread aircon use is.
I'm not sure how that would even help. The nuclear reactors supplied 30% of Japan's total power: without building new power plants, I wouldn't expect the coal plants to be able to take up that much extra production, and I don't believe they could have gotten new plants online by now. That means by summer they won't have enough power, not with the extra demands air-conditioning is going to put on the grid. That means rolling blackouts are nearly a certainty.
In winter/spring, they may have not needed all their production capability, so they may not have seen the issues yet, but you can't simply expect existing plants to be able to put out ~40% more power, which is what they need. No way will Japan be able to use as much power as they were, not for years, unless they re-activate those reactors.
As for how many, the Aegis Radar system can track 100+, and this system is based on that, so at the very least it should be able to track a hundred of so. Realistically, if more than 100 missiles get launched, they would never be able to be shot down in time. An ABM shield is currently only useful against an accidental, terrorist, or rogue launch of under a few dozen missiles: any more and no missile-based defense system is going to be able to stop it.
As far as interceptors go, it would be launching Patriot missiles, and the US has over 1000 launchers for them in service, so taking out a half-dozen missiles wouldn't really be a challenge. Again, in the case of a major launch by China or Russia, no missile shield even close to being built is going to do anything at all to stop it.
His post was correct. It may not be a relevant response to your post, but the 3.5" floppies were based on a Sony design, so his response was perfectly 100% correct and informative.
OTOH, that was 30 years ago, so "Offtopic" might be a better moderation.
They would but 49 members of the engeniering branch, with no climate experience, quit and now work for a non-profit with ties in to the coal industry. Oh they also wote the letter in question for the article.
False, unless you have a different source from TFA. The letter was organized by someone from that non-profit. There is no indication whatsoever that all or the majority of the individuals who signed it are otherwise affiliated with that organization (Plants Need C02). Also, only most of them had engineering backgrounds, not all (one of them at least was a meteorologist). Link to fill text and signatories.
Spreading falsehoods is not the way to invalidate climate change deniers.
If the people refusing vaccinations were the only ones affected by that refusal, i'd agree with you.
(Devil's advocate): you can apply that argument to nearly anything, ever. Every action you take or do not take affects others to some degree or another.
It has, according to Wikipedia, been tested using exhaustive-solution solvers, which does prove it is impossible. So not undecided, no, but not proven by them (they were correct, though, so they deserve recognition for that.)
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.
...Because Motorola is an American company, and is therefore obligated to follow US law. They also have to follow German law: but they don't have to enforce the injunction.
That depends on the power you attribute to the creator. If you say that god is omnipotent and omniscient, it becomes unnecessary for him to nudge evolution along a different path, because he can order things so that they don't need a nudge. Humans have to tweak the parameters because we aren't omniscient, so we don't know what the results will be with a given set of parameters, but a creator would.
Obviously it is still possible for him to interfere if he so chooses, but he wouldn't need to for the natural order to arrive at the desired end. You can, of course, argue that it is fitting for him to interfere at key points, or that he would still need to in order to teach mankind about himself, but that would fall under the purview of religion and philosophy.
There is a third form you missed entirely, to which (I think) parent is referring. A situation where an intelligence creates the initial conditions necessary for life (in the case of the universe, the laws and parameters that govern it, or in a more local scale, the materials and conditions on the Earth that would bring about life in the end) which results in a "designed" life evolving on its own, as a consequence of those initial conditions, much like how this experiment outlines certain specific parameters that it hopes will bring about more advanced "brains".
Well, I think that is a possibility under ID anyways, I'm certainly not an expert on it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I think in this case the question is whether an action that effectively takes place on a server you do not own, that happens to violate the TOS of whatever service you took the action under, counts as "unauthorized access" of that server. For example, uploading porn to Facebook (I presume that is against their TOS, anyways). In that case, Facebook could argue that they did not authorize you to upload porn, and therefore you accessed their server in an unauthorized fashion. It's certainly a weak argument, IMO, but the text is open to that interpretation. But only if you interpret it broadly, which you shouldn't.
You seem to be thinking of EULAs, which are different from TOS. Terms of Service are for... well, services that you run on computers (notably, in this case, computers you do not own, such as using Facebook). For example, Facebook can have it in their TOS that you cannot host, say, a picture of your butt on Facebook. If the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was interpreted broadly, it could be a crime to put such a picture on their servers (it would count as "unauthorized access"). Making backup copies of software or restricting it to only one copy may involve a TOS, but more likely it is part of the EULA (which is similar but not the same). There really isn't any way you can justify making a backup copy of software as "unauthorized access" even in the loosest possible sense, so that wouldn't apply (it may be considered illegal under copyright law, but that would be a different issue). Violating copyright is illegal because copyright is already enforced by law. TOS are not.
Note that conducting actual hacking without permission would definitely count as "unauthorized access", but not because it violates the TOS (although obviously permissive TOS may make it not a crime, just as permissive copyright makes copying software not a crime). Anyways, the court basically said that what counts as computer fraud and abuse under the law is open to interpretation by judges, not simply the company involved... which is good, and sane, and logical, and consistent with legal precedent. Note of course that a TOS violation may be a criminal act, but only because it is illegal already.
Oh, IANAL BTW: the above is simply my armchair opinion.
If a sales clerk scans your original sales receipt or swipes your driver's license (a government-issued ID, like a passport, is also accepted) then you're probably shopping at an affiliate of The Retail Equation.
(Emphasis mine)
Uhhh, I would have thought that scanning the original receipt was standard practice at every retail store (ok granted I've only worked at one). Why would a large retail store not do that to verify the receipt is valid?
Anyways, yet another reason to shop online, and yet another nail in Best Buy's coffin. Hint to Best Buy: the way to get business back isn't to make customer's experiences worse.
And therefor, violating a TOS can't automatically be seen as criminal activity. Kudos to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for having their head on straight.
Actually, the question is whether the law on the books that makes it illegal if an action "exceeds authorized access" applies to TOS violations, since the TOS outline what counts as authorized access. You can argue very easily that using a service in a manner that breaks the TOS does, in fact, violate the law (by exceeding what you were authorized in the TOS), but this court argues that the language is somewhat ambiguous and in the case of criminal law, you should always err on the side of leniency unless Congress makes itself clear. Basically, an action cannot be criminal unless the law clearly and explicitly states it is.
The case has nothing to do with corporations ability to make an action illegal, specifically, but rather whether an action (violating the TOS) is already criminal under the current law. Agreed about the court having it's head on straight, this judge seems extremely rational.
Yes, they don't have much communication and cooperation with the 'security industry' since it is mostly full of leeches and parasites who make money spreading fear. Now, this doesn't excuse them from failing to acknowledge issues, since that's just as bad, but the less this 'industry' leeches itself to OS X the better.
Yeah, just let the trojan spread unacknowledged. Ignore it and it will eventually go away, right?
"Leeches" or not, someone needs to work on stopping malware. MS didn't step up the plate in the past, and I have little reason to think Apple will now (after all, their website still claims "Macs don't get viruses".)
The companies are complaining not because the textbook is actually copying them (which would be a violation of copyright), but because the free texbooks are copying their ideas. The example TFA gives is that the copyrighted textbook uses a picture of a bear to illustrate the laws of thermodynamics, and the open-source version uses another different but similar picture of a bear (properly licensed under a CC license).
Basically, the companies are claiming they hold the copyright to the idea of using a bear to illustrate a law of thermodynamics. I call that "bullshit." They don't have a leg to stand on under copyright law, IMO (well, they shouldn't, IANAL so I cannot say for certain). Ideas can, infact, be freely copied: you cannot copyright them, and you never could.
Now, if they'd patented that idea, it'd still be bullshit, but maybe they'd have had a case legally speaking.
Revolution is the ultimate democratic action: the people rising up en masse against tyranny (or for tyranny, in some cases. Democracy doesn't always work for freedom).
Far different from script kiddies "hacking" (actually DDoSing, which isn't "hacking" any more than driving a Fisher Price toy is "driving") a few government websites because they are pissed off over something (even if they are right to be pissed). That is more like scribbling graffiti: not democratic, just annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Who isn't considering Alaska part of the country? That plant is only proposed. From Wikipedia:
Toshiba never began the expensive process for approval that is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In other words, no one has yet sought a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor yet. TFA is about a company that is, if not at that stage, is certainly under way toward it. Galena's plan is currently stalled.
A poor place to hide, since most sports recently are already cesspools of corruption. If anything, it is sports corruption the Olympics (or rather the Olympics are merely a manifestation of the corporitization already present in sports.)
Because India isn't still technically in a state of war with the US (the Korean War never had a peace treaty, only an armistice, so it is still technically in a state of war), they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in China, which India is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if India gets a long range missile.
How will the system distinguish between children and adults? At a guess, I'm thinking you would need some sort of login system, where known adults would have a login they could use to access "uncensored" Internet (oh and yeah I'm guessing torrents would be censored by default too, since of course you can use that for porn also), which means they will be able to track anyone accessing "undesirable" content. Oh but of course the government would never do such a thing... right? Only people who access illegal things need to worry about the government watching you! Just think of the children!
And anyways it'll never work, new sites spring up way to fast for a censor to keep track of them all, unless you use a white-list for approved content, so again, if you browse "unapproved" content, you will need to log-in to the system, which allows for tracking. Paranoid? Maybe. You can bet many governments would absolutely love such a system, though.
And of course, if you decry the system as restrictive, you must be a pedophile who hates children and wants them to see porn. Obviously.
On a 10 hour or longer flight I would personally rather one of the pilots take turns sleeping than both try to stay awake at the same time. The latter is just asking for them to both fall asleep at the same time: the former keeps one of them awake and fully aware at all times (which, if you notice, very much helped in this case). Obviously, both of them shouldn't be asleep at the same time (also, there are generally 3 people in the cockpit, if I am not mistaken, so 2 should be awake at all times).
I wondered about that myself. It looks like the main problem is humidity: they apparently have extremely humid summers, and while the temperature varies a bit by location, it looks like it ranges from 20-27C. Speaking as someone who lives in a humid climate, anything over 22-23C or so is hot enough that AC is appreciated, and anything over 30C is extremely uncomfortable without it (that sounds weird if you live in a dry area, since that isn't terribly hot without humidity).
But, I don't really know for sure having never been there, nor do I know how widespread aircon use is.
I'm not sure how that would even help. The nuclear reactors supplied 30% of Japan's total power: without building new power plants, I wouldn't expect the coal plants to be able to take up that much extra production, and I don't believe they could have gotten new plants online by now. That means by summer they won't have enough power, not with the extra demands air-conditioning is going to put on the grid. That means rolling blackouts are nearly a certainty.
In winter/spring, they may have not needed all their production capability, so they may not have seen the issues yet, but you can't simply expect existing plants to be able to put out ~40% more power, which is what they need. No way will Japan be able to use as much power as they were, not for years, unless they re-activate those reactors.
I was going to accuse you of giving a knee-jerk reaction against anyone saying something good about Windows 8, but then I checked OP's post history.
This is literally his only post, so yea, shill.
As for how many, the Aegis Radar system can track 100+, and this system is based on that, so at the very least it should be able to track a hundred of so. Realistically, if more than 100 missiles get launched, they would never be able to be shot down in time. An ABM shield is currently only useful against an accidental, terrorist, or rogue launch of under a few dozen missiles: any more and no missile-based defense system is going to be able to stop it.
As far as interceptors go, it would be launching Patriot missiles, and the US has over 1000 launchers for them in service, so taking out a half-dozen missiles wouldn't really be a challenge. Again, in the case of a major launch by China or Russia, no missile shield even close to being built is going to do anything at all to stop it.
His post was correct. It may not be a relevant response to your post, but the 3.5" floppies were based on a Sony design, so his response was perfectly 100% correct and informative.
OTOH, that was 30 years ago, so "Offtopic" might be a better moderation.
Well, to be fair, we don't know anything in space that has nuclear* weapons. We do know parts of the Muslim world do.
*Weapons specifically: yes, stars are nuclear, but they aren't weapons. Not yet, anyways.
They would but 49 members of the engeniering branch, with no climate experience, quit and now work for a non-profit with ties in to the coal industry. Oh they also wote the letter in question for the article.
False, unless you have a different source from TFA. The letter was organized by someone from that non-profit. There is no indication whatsoever that all or the majority of the individuals who signed it are otherwise affiliated with that organization (Plants Need C02). Also, only most of them had engineering backgrounds, not all (one of them at least was a meteorologist). Link to fill text and signatories.
Spreading falsehoods is not the way to invalidate climate change deniers.
If the people refusing vaccinations were the only ones affected by that refusal, i'd agree with you.
(Devil's advocate): you can apply that argument to nearly anything, ever. Every action you take or do not take affects others to some degree or another.
It has, according to Wikipedia, been tested using exhaustive-solution solvers, which does prove it is impossible. So not undecided, no, but not proven by them (they were correct, though, so they deserve recognition for that.)
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ? God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.
...Because Motorola is an American company, and is therefore obligated to follow US law. They also have to follow German law: but they don't have to enforce the injunction.
That depends on the power you attribute to the creator. If you say that god is omnipotent and omniscient, it becomes unnecessary for him to nudge evolution along a different path, because he can order things so that they don't need a nudge. Humans have to tweak the parameters because we aren't omniscient, so we don't know what the results will be with a given set of parameters, but a creator would.
Obviously it is still possible for him to interfere if he so chooses, but he wouldn't need to for the natural order to arrive at the desired end. You can, of course, argue that it is fitting for him to interfere at key points, or that he would still need to in order to teach mankind about himself, but that would fall under the purview of religion and philosophy.
There is a third form you missed entirely, to which (I think) parent is referring. A situation where an intelligence creates the initial conditions necessary for life (in the case of the universe, the laws and parameters that govern it, or in a more local scale, the materials and conditions on the Earth that would bring about life in the end) which results in a "designed" life evolving on its own, as a consequence of those initial conditions, much like how this experiment outlines certain specific parameters that it hopes will bring about more advanced "brains".
Well, I think that is a possibility under ID anyways, I'm certainly not an expert on it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I think in this case the question is whether an action that effectively takes place on a server you do not own, that happens to violate the TOS of whatever service you took the action under, counts as "unauthorized access" of that server. For example, uploading porn to Facebook (I presume that is against their TOS, anyways). In that case, Facebook could argue that they did not authorize you to upload porn, and therefore you accessed their server in an unauthorized fashion. It's certainly a weak argument, IMO, but the text is open to that interpretation. But only if you interpret it broadly, which you shouldn't.
You seem to be thinking of EULAs, which are different from TOS. Terms of Service are for... well, services that you run on computers (notably, in this case, computers you do not own, such as using Facebook). For example, Facebook can have it in their TOS that you cannot host, say, a picture of your butt on Facebook. If the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was interpreted broadly, it could be a crime to put such a picture on their servers (it would count as "unauthorized access"). Making backup copies of software or restricting it to only one copy may involve a TOS, but more likely it is part of the EULA (which is similar but not the same). There really isn't any way you can justify making a backup copy of software as "unauthorized access" even in the loosest possible sense, so that wouldn't apply (it may be considered illegal under copyright law, but that would be a different issue). Violating copyright is illegal because copyright is already enforced by law. TOS are not.
Note that conducting actual hacking without permission would definitely count as "unauthorized access", but not because it violates the TOS (although obviously permissive TOS may make it not a crime, just as permissive copyright makes copying software not a crime). Anyways, the court basically said that what counts as computer fraud and abuse under the law is open to interpretation by judges, not simply the company involved... which is good, and sane, and logical, and consistent with legal precedent. Note of course that a TOS violation may be a criminal act, but only because it is illegal already.
Oh, IANAL BTW: the above is simply my armchair opinion.
If a sales clerk scans your original sales receipt or swipes your driver's license (a government-issued ID, like a passport, is also accepted) then you're probably shopping at an affiliate of The Retail Equation.
(Emphasis mine)
Uhhh, I would have thought that scanning the original receipt was standard practice at every retail store (ok granted I've only worked at one). Why would a large retail store not do that to verify the receipt is valid?
Anyways, yet another reason to shop online, and yet another nail in Best Buy's coffin. Hint to Best Buy: the way to get business back isn't to make customer's experiences worse.
And therefor, violating a TOS can't automatically be seen as criminal activity. Kudos to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for having their head on straight.
Actually, the question is whether the law on the books that makes it illegal if an action "exceeds authorized access" applies to TOS violations, since the TOS outline what counts as authorized access. You can argue very easily that using a service in a manner that breaks the TOS does, in fact, violate the law (by exceeding what you were authorized in the TOS), but this court argues that the language is somewhat ambiguous and in the case of criminal law, you should always err on the side of leniency unless Congress makes itself clear. Basically, an action cannot be criminal unless the law clearly and explicitly states it is.
The case has nothing to do with corporations ability to make an action illegal, specifically, but rather whether an action (violating the TOS) is already criminal under the current law. Agreed about the court having it's head on straight, this judge seems extremely rational.
Yes, they don't have much communication and cooperation with the 'security industry' since it is mostly full of leeches and parasites who make money spreading fear. Now, this doesn't excuse them from failing to acknowledge issues, since that's just as bad, but the less this 'industry' leeches itself to OS X the better.
Yeah, just let the trojan spread unacknowledged. Ignore it and it will eventually go away, right?
"Leeches" or not, someone needs to work on stopping malware. MS didn't step up the plate in the past, and I have little reason to think Apple will now (after all, their website still claims "Macs don't get viruses".)
Of course with my luck Sony will be repositioning themselves as a DRM company
That would be a good thing, in a way. Certainly make it easier for the pirates.
The companies are complaining not because the textbook is actually copying them (which would be a violation of copyright), but because the free texbooks are copying their ideas. The example TFA gives is that the copyrighted textbook uses a picture of a bear to illustrate the laws of thermodynamics, and the open-source version uses another different but similar picture of a bear (properly licensed under a CC license).
Basically, the companies are claiming they hold the copyright to the idea of using a bear to illustrate a law of thermodynamics. I call that "bullshit." They don't have a leg to stand on under copyright law, IMO (well, they shouldn't, IANAL so I cannot say for certain). Ideas can, infact, be freely copied: you cannot copyright them, and you never could.
Now, if they'd patented that idea, it'd still be bullshit, but maybe they'd have had a case legally speaking.
by that reasoning, revolution is never an option.
Revolution is the ultimate democratic action: the people rising up en masse against tyranny (or for tyranny, in some cases. Democracy doesn't always work for freedom).
Far different from script kiddies "hacking" (actually DDoSing, which isn't "hacking" any more than driving a Fisher Price toy is "driving") a few government websites because they are pissed off over something (even if they are right to be pissed). That is more like scribbling graffiti: not democratic, just annoying.