There are many situations other than forum posting where it is desirable to include third-party content in your site. Advertisements are the first thing that jump to mind, but web widgets are also becoming popular. Having some browser markup that will limit what the third-party code can do would enable this to be done safely, without having to trust the third party or load and filter third-party content server-side.
Those nukes were developed with French support. It really wasn't till after the 6-day war that the US became the primary western military supporter of Israel.
The only thing NSFW about the link is that it says "What the fuck" in the title/url. So unless you have a really braindead tripwire at work it shouldn't be a problem.
And if it were a criminal offense, the problem with allowing anyone to sue is that you run into double jeopardy issues. Assume I broke a law, and I know that someone may sue me to enforce the law, instead I get a puppet organization to sue me first, do a poor job and intentionally loose the case. Alternately, a well-intentioned, but incompetent activist group could arrive at the same result inadvertently. Either way I am now off scot-free, assuming you don't allow double jeopardy.
On the other hand assume that you do allow double jeopardy, then a well motivated group of people could then continue to bring the same case against me over and over again though different puppet organizations, even if I was innocent. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment to allow this.
I've thought about this quite a bit with regard to corrupt politicians whose district attorney will not bring a case against them. The only recourse in those situations is to hope they run afoul of laws in a higher jurisdiction (state or federal), who don't have problems charging them with a crime. This situation bothers me enough that I do think it would be worthwhile creating some additional method of bringing charges against politicians, but it would have to be devised carefully for it to work.
This is nothing like indexing. The terms of the settlement (which are actually broader than what google was doing before it was sued) are more like google going through the WSJ subscription only archives and posting preview copies of the works on it's own site. Then google will sell you the full copy, and pay the WSJ what they decide to pay, whether the WSJ agreed to any of this or not. It's not hard to see why the WSJ would take issue with this.
Class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to absolve future infringement against an entire class just because a few people agreed to the terms. This settlement should have dealt solely with liability for past infringement, and terms of further distribution should be handled in an opt-in manner, or by changing the law (which does need to be changed to better handle abandoned works).
To add to this excellent post, it is also critical as a means of keeping law enforcement in line. If the police obtain evidence by means of unlawful search and seizure, the judge can and should ban that evidence from being presented in court. It isn't banned from being printed in the media though; free speech and all.
Yes, I want the people deciding my fate to make their decision based on what they heard about the case on Fox News rather than information that meets reasonable criteria to be considered evidence.
The assumption was that the charge would somehow go to bettering the environment. Instead it goes into the retailer's pocket.
Retails are free to charge whatever they want for their products. The only reason they are the price they currently are, rather than higher, is because they know that if they charged more, they would actually loose money due to decreased business. This is true regardless of whether they are a monopoly charging what the market will bear or a business in a market place where they have to charge competitive prices.
If all the retailers in the area suddenly gain an additional source of revenue, then eventually one will find that they are able to lower their prices and hopefully attract more customers by doing so. Their competitors will have to follow suit. Of course 5c per trip isn't going to be noticeable to customers in and of itself, nor is the additional revenue going to be significant by itself. But it will be factored into the bottom line, and the price decisions will be made based on that bottom line. The obtainable profit margin will not have changed just because of this law.
It is different because you have constant sensory input. It is the difference between sensing temperature with your skin, and by looking at a thermometer. You become aware of changes in temperature immediately whether you were thinking about it or not.
With this device, you become "intuitively" aware of what direction you are facing all the time, whether you are actively navigating somewhere or just walking around a building. It becomes part of your situational awareness rather than a tool you can use when you need it. Because it is always present it changes how you think about navigating, and the mental models that you build up as you move around, because you now include (accurate) direction in everything. Alot of people don't think about direction at all, or only do when they are on major streets that align with the grid. Very few people think in terms of cardinal direction when they are indoors, and often simplify direction when on windy roads. This device changes how they think in those situations.
Yeah, I live in NM, and remember when the WIPP site opened up and how difficult it was to get it through people's head's that the stuff being stored was just secondary waste that had been exposed to radioactive sources, and not nuclear material itself. That was mostly what I was thinking of when I mentioned medical and scientific waste, although they do have some primary waste as well.
I don't have a hard time imagining crooked corporations paying to have their chemical waste disposed under the table like this, but who has nuclear waste that would do this? At least here in the US I can't see a power plant getting away with this - they have to keep close account of their material and it is audited pretty closely as well. That would leave mostly medical and scientific sources. I suppose they don't dispose of that directly so the company they paid to take care of it must be crooked.
The people that made this decision deserve to fry. Too bad it is impossible to create a justice system that I would actually trust to make those sort of decisions.
But the problem is, Apple has explicitly disallowed "frameworks" -- and this definitely sounds like a framework.
No, they haven't. They disallow (and don't provide any mechanism for) the installation of shared libraries that more than one application uses and they disallow the inclusion of any type of interpreter, or VM that could allow people to run applications that haven't been blessed by Apple and sold through the iPhone App Store.
I know that java can be compiled, and there is absolutely no reason that someone couldn't write a Java->Cocoa wrappers and submit a compiled version of a java app if they wanted. AFAIK, no one has tried*. What Apple refused to include was Sun's port of the Java VM, which breaks both the rules above.
* I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to waste my time developing anything for the iPhone given their approval policies.
Actually, with the poor power management experience that I have had with Linux, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a windows GUI browser had better battery life then command-line linux.
The other major disadvantage to an e-ink display is refresh rate. If you had a normal display, you could have web-browsing and other interactive features on the second display, and use the e-ink display for low power, static display. It would really increase the usefulness of the system. Think an ebook that flipped open/over to become an N800.
Oh, give me a home where the penguins roam
And the frigid astronomers play
Where seldom is heard a single word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
How often at night when the heavens are bright
With the light from the glittering stars
Have I stood there amazed and asked as I gazed
If their glory exceeds that of ours
Home, home on Ridge A
And the frigid astronomers play
Where seldom is heard a single word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
Where the air is so pure, the zephyrs so free
The breezes so calm and light
That I would not exchange my home on Ridge A
For all of the cities so bright
You are assuming that humans are the primary host. That's what's scary about these cross-species viruses. Even if a strain were to mutate that killed every single human it infected within hours, as long as it is harmless to it's original animal host then it will continue to spread just fine. And if that species shares a close environment with humans (rats, birds, etc), then it will continue spreading to us as well.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many situations other than forum posting where it is desirable to include third-party content in your site. Advertisements are the first thing that jump to mind, but web widgets are also becoming popular. Having some browser markup that will limit what the third-party code can do would enable this to be done safely, without having to trust the third party or load and filter third-party content server-side.
Those nukes were developed with French support. It really wasn't till after the 6-day war that the US became the primary western military supporter of Israel.
The only thing NSFW about the link is that it says "What the fuck" in the title/url. So unless you have a really braindead tripwire at work it shouldn't be a problem.
And if it were a criminal offense, the problem with allowing anyone to sue is that you run into double jeopardy issues. Assume I broke a law, and I know that someone may sue me to enforce the law, instead I get a puppet organization to sue me first, do a poor job and intentionally loose the case. Alternately, a well-intentioned, but incompetent activist group could arrive at the same result inadvertently. Either way I am now off scot-free, assuming you don't allow double jeopardy.
On the other hand assume that you do allow double jeopardy, then a well motivated group of people could then continue to bring the same case against me over and over again though different puppet organizations, even if I was innocent. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment to allow this.
I've thought about this quite a bit with regard to corrupt politicians whose district attorney will not bring a case against them. The only recourse in those situations is to hope they run afoul of laws in a higher jurisdiction (state or federal), who don't have problems charging them with a crime. This situation bothers me enough that I do think it would be worthwhile creating some additional method of bringing charges against politicians, but it would have to be devised carefully for it to work.
Sir, an enemy craft is approaching! ... an Air Hippo.
What is it man?
It appears to be
My. God.
This is nothing like indexing. The terms of the settlement (which are actually broader than what google was doing before it was sued) are more like google going through the WSJ subscription only archives and posting preview copies of the works on it's own site. Then google will sell you the full copy, and pay the WSJ what they decide to pay, whether the WSJ agreed to any of this or not. It's not hard to see why the WSJ would take issue with this.
Hou did yow end wp with tuo 'w' keys?
Class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to absolve future infringement against an entire class just because a few people agreed to the terms. This settlement should have dealt solely with liability for past infringement, and terms of further distribution should be handled in an opt-in manner, or by changing the law (which does need to be changed to better handle abandoned works).
So, it instinctively directs the cameras towards the hot women all the time, distracted from important things it should look at?
I think you meant that you can't call California sparkling wine "Champagne", which is true for the reason you outlined.
Yes, you can. I'm pretty sure none of the cheap bottles of champagne we buy for New Years were imported. For example, any of these.
Okay, here's the applicable law. The US considers champagne to be a semi-generic term, and isn't protected the same way that some other terms are.
The protocol used by iPod remotes is every bit as proprietary as this.
To add to this excellent post, it is also critical as a means of keeping law enforcement in line. If the police obtain evidence by means of unlawful search and seizure, the judge can and should ban that evidence from being presented in court. It isn't banned from being printed in the media though; free speech and all.
Yes, I want the people deciding my fate to make their decision based on what they heard about the case on Fox News rather than information that meets reasonable criteria to be considered evidence.
The assumption was that the charge would somehow go to bettering the environment. Instead it goes into the retailer's pocket.
Retails are free to charge whatever they want for their products. The only reason they are the price they currently are, rather than higher, is because they know that if they charged more, they would actually loose money due to decreased business. This is true regardless of whether they are a monopoly charging what the market will bear or a business in a market place where they have to charge competitive prices.
If all the retailers in the area suddenly gain an additional source of revenue, then eventually one will find that they are able to lower their prices and hopefully attract more customers by doing so. Their competitors will have to follow suit. Of course 5c per trip isn't going to be noticeable to customers in and of itself, nor is the additional revenue going to be significant by itself. But it will be factored into the bottom line, and the price decisions will be made based on that bottom line. The obtainable profit margin will not have changed just because of this law.
It is different because you have constant sensory input. It is the difference between sensing temperature with your skin, and by looking at a thermometer. You become aware of changes in temperature immediately whether you were thinking about it or not.
With this device, you become "intuitively" aware of what direction you are facing all the time, whether you are actively navigating somewhere or just walking around a building. It becomes part of your situational awareness rather than a tool you can use when you need it. Because it is always present it changes how you think about navigating, and the mental models that you build up as you move around, because you now include (accurate) direction in everything. Alot of people don't think about direction at all, or only do when they are on major streets that align with the grid. Very few people think in terms of cardinal direction when they are indoors, and often simplify direction when on windy roads. This device changes how they think in those situations.
Yeah, I live in NM, and remember when the WIPP site opened up and how difficult it was to get it through people's head's that the stuff being stored was just secondary waste that had been exposed to radioactive sources, and not nuclear material itself. That was mostly what I was thinking of when I mentioned medical and scientific waste, although they do have some primary waste as well.
I don't have a hard time imagining crooked corporations paying to have their chemical waste disposed under the table like this, but who has nuclear waste that would do this? At least here in the US I can't see a power plant getting away with this - they have to keep close account of their material and it is audited pretty closely as well. That would leave mostly medical and scientific sources. I suppose they don't dispose of that directly so the company they paid to take care of it must be crooked.
The people that made this decision deserve to fry. Too bad it is impossible to create a justice system that I would actually trust to make those sort of decisions.
No, were not. Our instruments are still not nearly sensitive enough to say that.
But the problem is, Apple has explicitly disallowed "frameworks" -- and this definitely sounds like a framework.
No, they haven't. They disallow (and don't provide any mechanism for) the installation of shared libraries that more than one application uses and they disallow the inclusion of any type of interpreter, or VM that could allow people to run applications that haven't been blessed by Apple and sold through the iPhone App Store.
I know that java can be compiled, and there is absolutely no reason that someone couldn't write a Java->Cocoa wrappers and submit a compiled version of a java app if they wanted. AFAIK, no one has tried*. What Apple refused to include was Sun's port of the Java VM, which breaks both the rules above.
* I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to waste my time developing anything for the iPhone given their approval policies.
MonoTouch compiles the code into a native executable, rather than shipping with a VM. Apple has no reason to disallow that.
Actually, with the poor power management experience that I have had with Linux, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a windows GUI browser had better battery life then command-line linux.
The other major disadvantage to an e-ink display is refresh rate. If you had a normal display, you could have web-browsing and other interactive features on the second display, and use the e-ink display for low power, static display. It would really increase the usefulness of the system. Think an ebook that flipped open/over to become an N800.
Oh, give me a home where the penguins roam
And the frigid astronomers play
Where seldom is heard a single word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
How often at night when the heavens are bright
With the light from the glittering stars
Have I stood there amazed and asked as I gazed
If their glory exceeds that of ours
Home, home on Ridge A
And the frigid astronomers play
Where seldom is heard a single word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
Where the air is so pure, the zephyrs so free
The breezes so calm and light
That I would not exchange my home on Ridge A
For all of the cities so bright
Bruce Schneier can kill a man with a single 0 bit.
You are assuming that humans are the primary host. That's what's scary about these cross-species viruses. Even if a strain were to mutate that killed every single human it infected within hours, as long as it is harmless to it's original animal host then it will continue to spread just fine. And if that species shares a close environment with humans (rats, birds, etc), then it will continue spreading to us as well.