If anyone still believed that Anonymous stands for anything other than DDoSing websites for the lulz, entering a war on the side of a randomly chosen party will be an eye opener for them.
Exactly, the problems in this case were not with OpenOffice but using it in tandem with MSOffice2000 and then putting all the blame on OpenOffice for lack of interoperability.
I know that it happens with a lot of kids because I happened to live in a ghetto area for a few years. When the police got tough on them, parents started training their kids to steal, mug and break in because they couldn't be held liable. If you allow a crime to go unpunished that will be abused.
As far as I understand it these metamaterials are built out of circuits that have to be about 1/10 of the target wavelength. We already have 32nm semiconductors so it shouldn't be that hard. Getting it to work in 3D, on the other hand, isn't going to be easy.
The difference between this model and reality is basically the difference between the prisoner's dilemma and its iterated version. IRL it's possible to react to parties not keeping their promises.
It shouldn't matter whether something was written by you, another person, software or a monkey with a typewriter. It's the parties that take part in the communication that are responsible for it. If we make a distinction, we will see lots of people evade responsibilities putting the blame on computers ("I didn't hack that company, a script that I've written did."). Free speech shouldn't depend on how the speech in question was created. I can't help but feel that this is just another attempt to criminalize Google search results.
Microsoft milked their business partners for quite a big load of cash and is now at the point where they have a bigger income from Android phones than from their own ones. They are extorting money from Android without contributing anything to it, and now Google is standing up for his allies and hitting them back. I agree that this is not how patents are supposed to work, but Google didn't lobby for the current system. And frankly I don't see how a bogus licencing is more ethical than a bogus suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Corruption shouldn't be a problem for a man who has just offered up $25K.
Instead, they wait until a word is already forgotten, and then include it.
Thank God!
"You see, Your Honor, I only bet this politician that he won't reduce the taxes on my company. I lost."
It's been obsoleted by PNG for more thanlike 15 years now. They could just as well choose floppy.
He should defend himself in court.
is just a test of memory, not reasoning.
What you learned in school is irrelevant at that level.
If anyone still believed that Anonymous stands for anything other than DDoSing websites for the lulz, entering a war on the side of a randomly chosen party will be an eye opener for them.
Exactly, the problems in this case were not with OpenOffice but using it in tandem with MSOffice2000 and then putting all the blame on OpenOffice for lack of interoperability.
Child insurance? You Germans think of everything.
I know that it happens with a lot of kids because I happened to live in a ghetto area for a few years. When the police got tough on them, parents started training their kids to steal, mug and break in because they couldn't be held liable. If you allow a crime to go unpunished that will be abused.
But what if a kid steals, gets into a fight or robs people? Who will be liable?
It's not just waste heat, ambient heat (like on a sunny day) could also pose problems.
As far as I understand it these metamaterials are built out of circuits that have to be about 1/10 of the target wavelength. We already have 32nm semiconductors so it shouldn't be that hard. Getting it to work in 3D, on the other hand, isn't going to be easy.
The difference between this model and reality is basically the difference between the prisoner's dilemma and its iterated version. IRL it's possible to react to parties not keeping their promises.
It shouldn't matter whether something was written by you, another person, software or a monkey with a typewriter. It's the parties that take part in the communication that are responsible for it. If we make a distinction, we will see lots of people evade responsibilities putting the blame on computers ("I didn't hack that company, a script that I've written did.").
Free speech shouldn't depend on how the speech in question was created. I can't help but feel that this is just another attempt to criminalize Google search results.
Math is not a model of anything. You should learn game theory before bashing it.
Don't blame math for the people misusing it.
The Chinese argument is that their CO2 emission per capita is still less than of most developed countries.
Condoms.
Assuming artificial wombs will be safer.
But not because of infertility.
Most of the time they just kill them without asking.
Microsoft milked their business partners for quite a big load of cash and is now at the point where they have a bigger income from Android phones than from their own ones. They are extorting money from Android without contributing anything to it, and now Google is standing up for his allies and hitting them back. I agree that this is not how patents are supposed to work, but Google didn't lobby for the current system. And frankly I don't see how a bogus licencing is more ethical than a bogus suit.