Moving around in space is nothing like flying around in the air
Exactly. Imagine a tight inside loop being performed by a maneuverable aircraft. The drag experienced as the nose pitches up causes the "forward" velocity to fall, so the plane can follow an approximately circular path. A spacecraft on the other hand wouldn't lose forward velocity until it was actually pointing backwards, so its loop would follow an elongated arc instead of a circle. Other maneuvers break down in similar ways, once you imagine them taking place in a vacuum.
These thought experiments already assume that the spacecraft has a perfect attitude control system, unlimited maneuvering fuel and is outside a gravity well, all highly unlikely in a "real solar system" situation.
Re:There is one thing the UK government *could* do
on
No Pardon For Turing
·
· Score: 1
We'll see what Inter Library Loan comes up with, another campus library may have a copy to scan.
Re:There is one thing the UK government *could* do
on
No Pardon For Turing
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I found some citations that indicated that. I'm ordering it through ILL now, since it doesn't seem to be indexed by the various databases and search engines.
Re:There is one thing the UK government *could* do
on
No Pardon For Turing
·
· Score: 2
Is this the entire text? It seems like it's just a quoted section...
Damn, I was really hoping Germany was going to let all parties prevail in all the lawsuits - by banning all Apple, Samsung and Motorola products at once. That would have been great.
P.S. and the lawful evil lawyers can be ordered to act in a way that furthers good, when doing so (endlessly litigating in exchange for specie and wenches) happens to align with their evil principles.
Then you aren't playing it right. Lawful evil follows a fixed set of (evil) principles, while chaotic neutral follows no fixed set of principles, generally acting neither towards good or evil.
As a public corporation, Google is supposed to be chaotic neutral, but also must employ many lawful evil individuals who can file amicus curiae briefs upon demand of their corporate overlords.
I don’t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats.
Exactly, she is saying that, had she been more aware of the fact that many Solvenians do not want to be a party to ACTA, she might have been able to find some legal recourse to refuse to sign the agreement.
It's likely that even had she refused to sign, she would have been subsequently compelled to do so by her superiors in government.
Maybe, but I'm sure he's aware of the Fallout series, which also (apparently) didn't bear mention in his responses.
Killer7 is a great game, and as open to a myriad of literary interpretations as any of the classic books of the 20th century. It's really cheap on the used market these days, and came out for most of the previous-gen systems. People should check it out.
I do this myself, but unfortunately I can't convince my university division's so-called "UNIX admin" to disable remote root logins, let alone password authentication, on our machines. In spite of this it's somehow a "security risk" to run our (computer science) lab's web applications on port 80.
And since when is an adopted child not the parents' kid?
Indeed. After an adoption is finalized, there is no legal difference between biological and adopted children, except that in some cases parents of an adopted child may be eligible for some specific forms of welfare.
Fortunately, California forbids social workers from discriminating between potential adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. What I just don't understand is why people view the ability to marry as more important than the ability to adopt. Californians never had an initiative ballot to amend the constitution against gay adoption.
That only makes sense if Adam was made from Eve, since the Y chromosome is essentially a degenerate X with the SRY (sexual selection) gene and a handful of others. Over time the mammalian Y tends to shrink, so that eventually it only holds the SRY - witness the kangaroo.
Even genetically male humans are physiologically female during the first weeks of development.
Anyway, does ancient Hebrew even have another word that just means "rib?" If not, then you're just interpolating.
It isn't allowed. What actually happens is that donations are given to the campaign fund, while lobbyists tell legislators what positions they want them to take (and why). The lawmakers know who's propounding what, and who's given them money, and make a connection - all without an act of explicit bribery having taken place.
They aren't stupid enough to leave a paper / voice / data trail that could be used to prove wrongdoing.
Based on what I've found about California laws, it's the same thing - committing a crime which directly leads to accident doesn't change accidental responsibility. Being drunk while driving is just a crime, and if you hit something it's just an accident.
Fault-finding for insurance purposes is not bound in this way, of course.
So by acknowledging that identity theft doesn't actually deprive the person of their identity
Look, have you ever had your identity stolen? I have, and it happened to be during a month-long camping trip. Imagine my surprise to learn that my balance was -$300 or so after trying to buy some lentils and a beer!
All in all, I suffered 1) temporary loss of sole claim to my identity and 2) temporary inability to purchase food (which was terrible). After a couple of weeks my money was returned to me, and my claim to my identity (backed up by the factual nature of my own existence, paper trail, state ID, etc.) was recognized as supreme.
Even this crime which, unlike copyright infringement, is commonly referred to as a "theft" by the law, is clearly not the same as e.g. a straightforward theft of property. Really what is stolen is not my identity, but rather uniquely identifying personal data that can be briefly used to impersonate me, before becoming useless.
Obviously, one's actual, literal identity can never be stolen.
I thought a drunk driver was criminally responsible for committing the crime of driving while drunk? Does this responsibility carry over to accidents that occurred just because of this criminally wasted driver?
You don't get it. The parent is pointing out that the fine for committing a crime should not be given to the victim, not that there should be no fine.
If you park on my curb, and I call the city, it is the city and not I that will keep the fine for your parking violation (which is an infraction, but it doesn't invalidate the example).
If I steal your time, do I come into possession of all that extra time I stole? If I steal your idea, are you deprived of it? If I steal your identity, do I actually come into possession of it, and REALLY become you, and you suddenly lack an identity? If I steal your freedom (say, through fraud, by identifying you as the criminal who did $X, when I know otherwise), do I have MORE freedom than I did before?
Apples to oranges. Stealing time is a figure of speech, not an actual crime. Stealing an idea, which really is similar to copyright infringement, is also not theft because you don't lose the idea. Stealing someone's identity typically does make it difficult or impossible for them to use it - and no, it doesn't require that the identity thief somehow literally become the victim.
Finally, the fraudulent prosecutor example also deals with crimes other than theft. Just because it is possible to construct colloquialisms using "theft" or "stealing" in these examples does not make them valid legal comparisons to actual theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Moving around in space is nothing like flying around in the air
Exactly. Imagine a tight inside loop being performed by a maneuverable aircraft. The drag experienced as the nose pitches up causes the "forward" velocity to fall, so the plane can follow an approximately circular path. A spacecraft on the other hand wouldn't lose forward velocity until it was actually pointing backwards, so its loop would follow an elongated arc instead of a circle. Other maneuvers break down in similar ways, once you imagine them taking place in a vacuum.
These thought experiments already assume that the spacecraft has a perfect attitude control system, unlimited maneuvering fuel and is outside a gravity well, all highly unlikely in a "real solar system" situation.
We'll see what Inter Library Loan comes up with, another campus library may have a copy to scan.
Yeah, I found some citations that indicated that. I'm ordering it through ILL now, since it doesn't seem to be indexed by the various databases and search engines.
Is this the entire text? It seems like it's just a quoted section...
Damn, I was really hoping Germany was going to let all parties prevail in all the lawsuits - by banning all Apple, Samsung and Motorola products at once. That would have been great.
P.S. and the lawful evil lawyers can be ordered to act in a way that furthers good, when doing so (endlessly litigating in exchange for specie and wenches) happens to align with their evil principles.
Then you aren't playing it right. Lawful evil follows a fixed set of (evil) principles, while chaotic neutral follows no fixed set of principles, generally acting neither towards good or evil.
As a public corporation, Google is supposed to be chaotic neutral, but also must employ many lawful evil individuals who can file amicus curiae briefs upon demand of their corporate overlords.
I don’t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats.
Exactly, she is saying that, had she been more aware of the fact that many Solvenians do not want to be a party to ACTA, she might have been able to find some legal recourse to refuse to sign the agreement.
It's likely that even had she refused to sign, she would have been subsequently compelled to do so by her superiors in government.
It seems this guy doesn't know Killer7.
Maybe, but I'm sure he's aware of the Fallout series, which also (apparently) didn't bear mention in his responses.
Killer7 is a great game, and as open to a myriad of literary interpretations as any of the classic books of the 20th century. It's really cheap on the used market these days, and came out for most of the previous-gen systems. People should check it out.
Don't forget about parametric conversion or harmonic generation. I'm not sure how well developed our x-ray nonlinear materials are though.
SFTP is SSH - that's what the "S" is for. I guess they just don't want you to have command line access...
By default, rsync simply uses SSH. It can also use any remote shell or the rsync protocol.
Horrifying. Still, it would be easy to use SSH forwarding to keep using an FTP-only client, but I guess the people who know that use rsync.
I do this myself, but unfortunately I can't convince my university division's so-called "UNIX admin" to disable remote root logins, let alone password authentication, on our machines. In spite of this it's somehow a "security risk" to run our (computer science) lab's web applications on port 80.
Are you certain of that?
I am if I set the file attributes to prevent modification or allow undeletion.
Can't really expect most people to (be able to) do that, though...
I believe Dreamhost handles this by issuing a separate password for FTP.
They should handle it by only supporting SFTP.
a recording made in 1935 won't enter the Public Domain until 2067
I'd say that's extremely optimistic considering that US life expectancy is now 76 years. I guess it was lower in 1935 though.
And since when is an adopted child not the parents' kid?
Indeed. After an adoption is finalized, there is no legal difference between biological and adopted children, except that in some cases parents of an adopted child may be eligible for some specific forms of welfare.
Fortunately, California forbids social workers from discriminating between potential adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. What I just don't understand is why people view the ability to marry as more important than the ability to adopt. Californians never had an initiative ballot to amend the constitution against gay adoption.
That only makes sense if Adam was made from Eve, since the Y chromosome is essentially a degenerate X with the SRY (sexual selection) gene and a handful of others. Over time the mammalian Y tends to shrink, so that eventually it only holds the SRY - witness the kangaroo.
Even genetically male humans are physiologically female during the first weeks of development.
Anyway, does ancient Hebrew even have another word that just means "rib?" If not, then you're just interpolating.
It isn't allowed. What actually happens is that donations are given to the campaign fund, while lobbyists tell legislators what positions they want them to take (and why). The lawmakers know who's propounding what, and who's given them money, and make a connection - all without an act of explicit bribery having taken place.
They aren't stupid enough to leave a paper / voice / data trail that could be used to prove wrongdoing.
Based on what I've found about California laws, it's the same thing - committing a crime which directly leads to accident doesn't change accidental responsibility. Being drunk while driving is just a crime, and if you hit something it's just an accident.
Fault-finding for insurance purposes is not bound in this way, of course.
So by acknowledging that identity theft doesn't actually deprive the person of their identity
Look, have you ever had your identity stolen? I have, and it happened to be during a month-long camping trip. Imagine my surprise to learn that my balance was -$300 or so after trying to buy some lentils and a beer!
All in all, I suffered 1) temporary loss of sole claim to my identity and 2) temporary inability to purchase food (which was terrible). After a couple of weeks my money was returned to me, and my claim to my identity (backed up by the factual nature of my own existence, paper trail, state ID, etc.) was recognized as supreme.
Even this crime which, unlike copyright infringement, is commonly referred to as a "theft" by the law, is clearly not the same as e.g. a straightforward theft of property. Really what is stolen is not my identity, but rather uniquely identifying personal data that can be briefly used to impersonate me, before becoming useless.
Obviously, one's actual, literal identity can never be stolen.
I thought a drunk driver was criminally responsible for committing the crime of driving while drunk?
Does this responsibility carry over to accidents that occurred just because of this criminally wasted driver?
You don't get it. The parent is pointing out that the fine for committing a crime should not be given to the victim, not that there should be no fine.
If you park on my curb, and I call the city, it is the city and not I that will keep the fine for your parking violation (which is an infraction, but it doesn't invalidate the example).
If I steal your time, do I come into possession of all that extra time I stole? If I steal your idea, are you deprived of it? If I steal your identity, do I actually come into possession of it, and REALLY become you, and you suddenly lack an identity? If I steal your freedom (say, through fraud, by identifying you as the criminal who did $X, when I know otherwise), do I have MORE freedom than I did before?
Apples to oranges. Stealing time is a figure of speech, not an actual crime. Stealing an idea, which really is similar to copyright infringement, is also not theft because you don't lose the idea. Stealing someone's identity typically does make it difficult or impossible for them to use it - and no, it doesn't require that the identity thief somehow literally become the victim.
Finally, the fraudulent prosecutor example also deals with crimes other than theft. Just because it is possible to construct colloquialisms using "theft" or "stealing" in these examples does not make them valid legal comparisons to actual theft.