'I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show".'
The way courts in the US work is that the judge is only supposed to base their decision on the case as presented by the plaintiff and the defendant. This is to prevent a judge form injecting their own "facts" as all of the relevant testimony, law, and precedent are public records.
"Diversity for the sake of diversity is NOT a good thing." -1, offtopic
No one is promoting that. The point is that if there is no known correlation between merit and gender/race/etc. yet your employee demographics are vastly different than the labor pool you are hiring from, then you have a biased hiring system and you are rejecting people who would otherwise qualify on merit.
The *actual* definition of a CubeSat is a satellite built in multiples of a 1 L unit that is compatible with an OPAL microsatellite used as a launcher. MarCO meets the specifications for a 6U CubeSat.
MarCO itself is not large enough to meet the specifications of a microsatellite.
"I just doubt that it needs to cost $2 million dollars..."
Why do you doubt this? What is the largest HVAC control you have ever installed? What research have you done on the cost of HVAC control for comparable sized installations?
A high-school student was able to "engineer" a system that requires all of the walkie-talkies to be turned off for 15 minutes to operate. That is to say, not engineering at all because of the failure to start with defining requirements such as what other systems will be running simultaneously.
Making the last mile a public utility *is* regulation. It is not helpful to treat "regulation like a dirty word, especially if you are trying to implement regulation.
The "fraud nor morally questionable" part comes from the fact that they were actively advising people to invest one way so that they could invest the other.
a) I never heard this claim at the time. b) For cable retransmission of a broadcast signal it doesn't even help since you still have to leave the time where the ads would have been played for those receiving the signal via broadcast. Only once you have individual streams can you just continue playing the content.
The summary claims that "the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media", but SCOTUS has not only not ruled on free speech here they specifically state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with their decision. To wit: "Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues".
This is actually a due process ruling, on whether the jury instructions were sufficient for a criminal case vs. a civil case.
In addition, the conviction has not been overturned. The case has been reversed and remanded back to the lower court to retry with correct jury instruction, but the defendant is not free yet.
"they even demand this on the part of their partners"
Because otherwise they would never be able to add anything that involved anyone else ever without asking for new permissions at any change and supporting all possible combinations of acceptance and rejection. Want to add an "Export to Facebook" bridge? Can't do it, no license. Want to apply Instagram filters and bring it back into Google Photos? Can't do it, no license.
That bit of Apple's license is only good by itself if they don't interoperate with anything else.
" You only need a license if you want to be able to make copies of something and put them in public for your own purposes"
No they need at license to do that for any purpose. You want to send a link to someone for a picture you have in Google Photos? If someone follows that link that's a public display and Google needs a license to show the picture to them or else it is a copyright violation.
The abstract litteraly says 2.8x2.8 square microns.
Yes, that makes no sense. No, aardvarkjoe is not incorrect since the intention was to quote from the paper.
I have access to the full text, and the body also says 2.8x2.8 square microns. However, looking at the microphotograph of the device it looks like what they meant was 2.8x2.8 microns square, i.e. a square that is 2.8 microns on each side.
a) Think of everything people expect a photo hosting service to do. How to you think you can legally do them without those permissions? b) Nothing in there refers to public posting that the user did not request.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have replied to the wrong message, since you and I are actually agreeing.
'I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show".'
The way courts in the US work is that the judge is only supposed to base their decision on the case as presented by the plaintiff and the defendant. This is to prevent a judge form injecting their own "facts" as all of the relevant testimony, law, and precedent are public records.
"Diversity for the sake of diversity is NOT a good thing."
-1, offtopic
No one is promoting that. The point is that if there is no known correlation between merit and gender/race/etc. yet your employee demographics are vastly different than the labor pool you are hiring from, then you have a biased hiring system and you are rejecting people who would otherwise qualify on merit.
The *actual* definition of a CubeSat is a satellite built in multiples of a 1 L unit that is compatible with an OPAL microsatellite used as a launcher. MarCO meets the specifications for a 6U CubeSat.
MarCO itself is not large enough to meet the specifications of a microsatellite.
The article explicitly states that it is becoming too hard to source replacements for failing parts, so in fact it *is* breaking.
"Why are they supposed to replace it if it does the job?"
As stated in the article, replacement parts are now becoming too hard to source.
"I just doubt that it needs to cost $2 million dollars..."
Why do you doubt this? What is the largest HVAC control you have ever installed? What research have you done on the cost of HVAC control for comparable sized installations?
Do your doubts have any foundation?
A high-school student was able to "engineer" a system that requires all of the walkie-talkies to be turned off for 15 minutes to operate. That is to say, not engineering at all because of the failure to start with defining requirements such as what other systems will be running simultaneously.
"I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country."
That is because they use direct action: They firewall international connections and they tamper with content in flight.
"how is open source software any better?"
Failing to set a development schedule in the first place is much more efficient.
Making the last mile a public utility *is* regulation. It is not helpful to treat "regulation like a dirty word, especially if you are trying to implement regulation.
If you must refrain from exercising a right or priviledge in order to preserve that right or priviledge, then you don't have that right or priviledge.
'It does not even contain the word "record" or "recording"'
Therefore that definition cannot reject recordings as being music and you have disproven your own claim.
Music, by definition, is a pony, because I have just defined it so.
That is not a useful definition since no one else will use it. However, it more entertaining that a tautology like "music is live music".
The "fraud nor morally questionable" part comes from the fact that they were actively advising people to invest one way so that they could invest the other.
"there is nothing even remotely close to socialism in the US"
The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which puts every long-term resident of Alaska on the dole.
Slashdot editors are now actually editing.
a) I never heard this claim at the time.
b) For cable retransmission of a broadcast signal it doesn't even help since you still have to leave the time where the ads would have been played for those receiving the signal via broadcast. Only once you have individual streams can you just continue playing the content.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.
What is more likely, that Slashdot was successfully engaging in a cover up, or that they failed to establish editorial coverage over a weekend?
The summary claims that "the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media", but SCOTUS has not only not ruled on free speech here they specifically state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with their decision. To wit: "Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues".
This is actually a due process ruling, on whether the jury instructions were sufficient for a criminal case vs. a civil case.
In addition, the conviction has not been overturned. The case has been reversed and remanded back to the lower court to retry with correct jury instruction, but the defendant is not free yet.
"Please cite a real example"
Strictly speaking that's not a relevant counterargument since the question is about what could or couldn't they do not what are or aren't they doing.
"they even demand this on the part of their partners"
Because otherwise they would never be able to add anything that involved anyone else ever without asking for new permissions at any change and supporting all possible combinations of acceptance and rejection. Want to add an "Export to Facebook" bridge? Can't do it, no license. Want to apply Instagram filters and bring it back into Google Photos? Can't do it, no license.
That bit of Apple's license is only good by itself if they don't interoperate with anything else.
" You only need a license if you want to be able to make copies of something and put them in public for your own purposes"
No they need at license to do that for any purpose. You want to send a link to someone for a picture you have in Google Photos? If someone follows that link that's a public display and Google needs a license to show the picture to them or else it is a copyright violation.
The abstract litteraly says 2.8x2.8 square microns.
Yes, that makes no sense. No, aardvarkjoe is not incorrect since the intention was to quote from the paper.
I have access to the full text, and the body also says 2.8x2.8 square microns. However, looking at the microphotograph of the device it looks like what they meant was 2.8x2.8 microns square, i.e. a square that is 2.8 microns on each side.
What limitations had you placed on that video you posted?
Or was it really just publicly available to everyone, so you really have nothing justify your fears about privacy?
a) Think of everything people expect a photo hosting service to do. How to you think you can legally do them without those permissions?
b) Nothing in there refers to public posting that the user did not request.