And if that all cost $100 then Amazon, etc. would be losing a shitload of money from all of their free shipping offers. I've shipped much more valuable and fragile items for a lot less.
It's not a 1U, it's a much smaller blade that only weighs about 18lbs. And there isn't much insurance cost since it's non-functional, encased in lucite, and apparently only worth about $143 based on the auction prices. More like shipping an $143 piece of artwork to hang on the wall...
"Irreplaceable" but yet still only worth $143 in the open market. Most shippers insure the first $100 for free, so the insurance on this couldn't be more than a couple bucks...
After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...
The absolutely can (and do) argue that. All that it takes is to convince a jury that the defendant is not guilty of the crime of which they are accused. And if they do a good job at that the prosecution is free to drop the case and try under a different statute. But of course most prosecutors wouldn't be dumb enough to try someone for a crime like robbery when there is another crime (malicious and willful destruction of property) that carries a similar sentence and is much more appropriate.
And it's *extremely* unlikely that a grand jury would be used for a case as silly as this. Something as minor as this would just be presented to a judge for probable cause before a trial could be set. Of course in this case there's no way it's going to a trial anyway, Russell Brand can afford great lawyers and it will undoubtedly be plea bargained to a misdemeanor and a fine...
Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery.
No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?
Was the context in this case enough to consider it theft/robbery? I seriously doubt it - more like willful destruction of property. Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.
Then again, in the end it may not make much of a difference. Willful destruction of property has similar punishment to theft in many jurisdictions, including being a felony based on the property's value...
From the article, there appears to be a physical threat, destruction of private property, and disturbing the peace. In cases like this, pick a side, they're both probably just as guilty of some of those charges and more.
And on the other side, harassment and possibly assault (which is the definition of "feeling physically threatened" regardless of whether the threat was carried out). I can't imagine the circumstances (ie. being goaded into it) wouldn't be taken into account. If not then it's just going to *reinforce* the behavior of sleazy paparazzi to get in someone's face enough to get a reaction and then sue to make money off of the incident! No need to even take and sell the photos any more...
You are comparing Jewish persecution to wanting to blow up an airplane?! Godwin's Rule is for *analogies*, not completely offensive non sequiturs. Fail.
So deep down in your heart, are you ever planning on blowing up an airplane that you are on? If not, then I think the system is working!:) The point is they do a background check so that they don't have to make you take off your shoes and belt.
If the check was done well, it's a lot better security than the theater at the airport. Just ask the Israelis.
Besides, most of the wait in the "regular" lines is just due to all of the people. The last few times I went through once I was at the X-ray machines, etc, it only took as long as it would to take off my shoes, toss my bag on a belt, and walk through a machine (ie. less than a minute).
No, that's not the fact at all if you RTFA. You just get to go in a different line that has an expedited process (ie. it's back to the normal, sane level of security checks that existed before 9/11).
Everyone still goes through the security check, some people just get treated a lot better than others - like the Congressman who in 2004 literally tried to walk through with a loaded gun in his briefcase, and was "detained briefly" and given a plea bargain with no jail time. If it were anyone else they'd still be locked up without trial...
Actually if you think about it 20% from search engine crawlers would mean either the crawlers are ridiculously overcrawling, or there are just too many damn crawlers. How the hell can 1 out of 5 accesses to web sites be involved in trying to help people find web sites!? That's insane. So the real answer is not found in analyzing the data, it's analyzing the source.
Basically, some random bullshit hosting company saw a trend with its low-traffic customer websites and is now extrapolating that to the Internet in general. It's like trying to gauge worldwide automobile traffic patterns by sitting on a lawn chair in front of your house and counting cars.
The summary is ok, but the title is completely wrong. It could well be 51% of HTTP requests, but far as 'Internet traffic", it's probably a tiny fraction of a percent.
In fact, why is it even surprising or newsworthy that 50% of HTTP requests are malicious? Anyone who runs a public web server will be able to see that pretty quickly (though as long as it's configured correctly the actual traffic will be tiny (consisting of a whole bunch of 404's).
Another dentist insight: dentists don't like to RTFA...
But super-sharp teeth can cause problems. “If you have sharp teeth they are more likely to break,” says Donoghue. To overcome this, the animals seem to have been able to re-sharpen and repair worn teeth throughout their lives — a quality that other vertebrates have failed to evolve.
Actually, moron is a bit harsh. He was smart enough to talk someone out of $6B and then hold onto it once it fell in his lap. And even better, he was smart enough to sell all of his Yahoo stock immediately because he knew what a pile of crap he had sold them. Ok, maybe he wasn't a moron at all, just a guy who is much better at getting people to give him money than building anything useful.
I should have said "one lucky bastard". And as usual, it's better to be lucky than good...
He wasn't talking about the ink used to create the check, he was talking about the ink used to print the name and amount on the check. I'm sure you can see the potential issues with that...
Mark Cuban is a moron, and always has been. His major claim to fame is that he found an even bigger moron at Yahoo to pay $6B for Broadcast.com. If Yahoo hadn't given him all of that for no results they might not have had to start patent trolling to survive...
Vudu: PC, Mac, iPad/phone, Xbox 360, PS3, a bunch of STBs, NAS devices, and almost every TV and BD player with a network connection.
And as far as selection, VUDU has pretty much every new release, and a bunch of stuff before it even comes out on DVD (or even in the theater). They also had 1080p movies for years, whereas Apple has had them for what, a week now? (and how many do they even have?) Do you have any source beyond your personal opinion that says Apple's selection is much better?
The difference here is Vudu doesn't give a shit where you watch their stuff - they just sell movies, so in fact they are motivated to let you watch it anywhere. Whereas Apple is motivated to make sure you can only watch it on hardware you bought from them. So, I guess an "Apple user" would use this if they wanted to be able to use whatever hardware they wanted (say, a PS3 instead of the shitty AppleTV), and not be stuck with whatever Apple tells them they need to buy.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? For a busy person with a good income, that could be worth the equivalent of $1000 of labor just to rip a few dozen DVDs. Unless you really do have no life and nothing else you'd rather be doing than babysitting a computer on your weekends...
I think their primary argument will be that he was tethering (and even admitted it in court). Since tethering was clearly not allowed by the ToS and AT&T has an added service allowing tethering if he wanted to do it, they really do have a pretty good case not only for dropping him, but winning their appeal. If he is going to hold AT&T to their side of the contract, he has to hold up his side as well...
Someone who hasn't actually broken their ToS and yet has still been throttled needs to sue AT&T for this to really go anywhere.
Yeah, it's all well and good for the proponents of this strategy except for the small detail that they mostly academics and lawyers, not prisoners risking a maximum sentence.
It's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma... applied to actual prisoners for once!
If *everyone* accused calls the bluff of getting the maximum punishment after a trial conviction, the system might actually break down and they have to release lots of prisoners early (which is already happening to some extent now). If some of the people call the bluff and some don't, those that do may get their ass reamed (maybe literally) in prison and those that don't get a plea bargain.
Honestly, I think one of the braver things someone can do is violate a law they truly believe is wrong in order to get it tested in the courts. Either way they are going to get reamed by the system, and not many people are willing to sign up for that...
I don't even have a Mac but I'm not stupid enough to pretend OSX is not a solid operating system these days. And I'm getting a bit jealous of my girlfrend's Macbook Air, it really is an outstanding piece of design and engineering and at least a bit less overpriced than it used to be. Based on their sales, clearly consumers agree...
Funny thing is the summary doesn't even get the 2001 connection right when it says "Fidler admits that other prior art influenced him, such as the tablets being used as computing devices in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Prior prior art.""
From the actual article: Fidler recalls having seen the movie and though he says he wasn’t consciously thinking of it all those years later, he acknowledges it could have been an influence.
Pretty damn big leap between someone asking him about the movie and saying he never made the connection but it could have been a subconscious influence, and claiming he admitted that 2001 definitely influenced him as prior art. Even more, nothing in the story mentions any other prior art at *all* beyond that, and they made it sound like this was just one example of several. WHY to the submitters have to paraphrase so badly that they add their own interpretation??
That's completely what it is. Why would a "chief marketing officer" suggest something unless it were advantageous to his company? We all know his motivation is not to take in *less* money from customers...
Slashdot Mirror
Elsevier withdrew their support for the RWA three weeks ago.
Maybe an update that included that little detail would have been more useful?
And if that all cost $100 then Amazon, etc. would be losing a shitload of money from all of their free shipping offers. I've shipped much more valuable and fragile items for a lot less.
It's not a 1U, it's a much smaller blade that only weighs about 18lbs. And there isn't much insurance cost since it's non-functional, encased in lucite, and apparently only worth about $143 based on the auction prices. More like shipping an $143 piece of artwork to hang on the wall...
"Irreplaceable" but yet still only worth $143 in the open market. Most shippers insure the first $100 for free, so the insurance on this couldn't be more than a couple bucks...
After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...
The absolutely can (and do) argue that. All that it takes is to convince a jury that the defendant is not guilty of the crime of which they are accused. And if they do a good job at that the prosecution is free to drop the case and try under a different statute. But of course most prosecutors wouldn't be dumb enough to try someone for a crime like robbery when there is another crime (malicious and willful destruction of property) that carries a similar sentence and is much more appropriate.
And it's *extremely* unlikely that a grand jury would be used for a case as silly as this. Something as minor as this would just be presented to a judge for probable cause before a trial could be set. Of course in this case there's no way it's going to a trial anyway, Russell Brand can afford great lawyers and it will undoubtedly be plea bargained to a misdemeanor and a fine...
Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery.
No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?
Was the context in this case enough to consider it theft/robbery? I seriously doubt it - more like willful destruction of property. Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.
Then again, in the end it may not make much of a difference. Willful destruction of property has similar punishment to theft in many jurisdictions, including being a felony based on the property's value...
From the article, there appears to be a physical threat, destruction of private property, and disturbing the peace. In cases like this, pick a side, they're both probably just as guilty of some of those charges and more.
And on the other side, harassment and possibly assault (which is the definition of "feeling physically threatened" regardless of whether the threat was carried out). I can't imagine the circumstances (ie. being goaded into it) wouldn't be taken into account. If not then it's just going to *reinforce* the behavior of sleazy paparazzi to get in someone's face enough to get a reaction and then sue to make money off of the incident! No need to even take and sell the photos any more...
You are comparing Jewish persecution to wanting to blow up an airplane?! Godwin's Rule is for *analogies*, not completely offensive non sequiturs. Fail.
Enjoy your pieces of flair, douche bag...
So deep down in your heart, are you ever planning on blowing up an airplane that you are on? If not, then I think the system is working! :) The point is they do a background check so that they don't have to make you take off your shoes and belt.
If the check was done well, it's a lot better security than the theater at the airport. Just ask the Israelis.
Besides, most of the wait in the "regular" lines is just due to all of the people. The last few times I went through once I was at the X-ray machines, etc, it only took as long as it would to take off my shoes, toss my bag on a belt, and walk through a machine (ie. less than a minute).
No, that's not the fact at all if you RTFA. You just get to go in a different line that has an expedited process (ie. it's back to the normal, sane level of security checks that existed before 9/11).
Everyone still goes through the security check, some people just get treated a lot better than others - like the Congressman who in 2004 literally tried to walk through with a loaded gun in his briefcase, and was "detained briefly" and given a plea bargain with no jail time. If it were anyone else they'd still be locked up without trial...
Actually if you think about it 20% from search engine crawlers would mean either the crawlers are ridiculously overcrawling, or there are just too many damn crawlers. How the hell can 1 out of 5 accesses to web sites be involved in trying to help people find web sites!? That's insane. So the real answer is not found in analyzing the data, it's analyzing the source.
Basically, some random bullshit hosting company saw a trend with its low-traffic customer websites and is now extrapolating that to the Internet in general. It's like trying to gauge worldwide automobile traffic patterns by sitting on a lawn chair in front of your house and counting cars.
If you get a fairly large chunk of traffic from Google's bots, then you must have almost no *actual* daily traffic :)
The summary is ok, but the title is completely wrong. It could well be 51% of HTTP requests, but far as 'Internet traffic", it's probably a tiny fraction of a percent.
In fact, why is it even surprising or newsworthy that 50% of HTTP requests are malicious? Anyone who runs a public web server will be able to see that pretty quickly (though as long as it's configured correctly the actual traffic will be tiny (consisting of a whole bunch of 404's).
Another dentist insight: dentists don't like to RTFA...
But super-sharp teeth can cause problems. “If you have sharp teeth they are more likely to break,” says Donoghue. To overcome this, the animals seem to have been able to re-sharpen and repair worn teeth throughout their lives — a quality that other vertebrates have failed to evolve.
Is there any compensation that has to be applied to fossils which are over 200 million years old?
No, I think their tooth patents are all expired...
Actually, moron is a bit harsh. He was smart enough to talk someone out of $6B and then hold onto it once it fell in his lap. And even better, he was smart enough to sell all of his Yahoo stock immediately because he knew what a pile of crap he had sold them. Ok, maybe he wasn't a moron at all, just a guy who is much better at getting people to give him money than building anything useful.
I should have said "one lucky bastard". And as usual, it's better to be lucky than good...
He wasn't talking about the ink used to create the check, he was talking about the ink used to print the name and amount on the check. I'm sure you can see the potential issues with that...
Mark Cuban is a moron, and always has been. His major claim to fame is that he found an even bigger moron at Yahoo to pay $6B for Broadcast.com. If Yahoo hadn't given him all of that for no results they might not have had to start patent trolling to survive...
Better availability across devices!? Yeah, right.
iTunes: PC, Mac, iPad/phone, AppleTV.
Vudu: PC, Mac, iPad/phone, Xbox 360, PS3, a bunch of STBs, NAS devices, and almost every TV and BD player with a network connection.
And as far as selection, VUDU has pretty much every new release, and a bunch of stuff before it even comes out on DVD (or even in the theater). They also had 1080p movies for years, whereas Apple has had them for what, a week now? (and how many do they even have?) Do you have any source beyond your personal opinion that says Apple's selection is much better?
The difference here is Vudu doesn't give a shit where you watch their stuff - they just sell movies, so in fact they are motivated to let you watch it anywhere. Whereas Apple is motivated to make sure you can only watch it on hardware you bought from them. So, I guess an "Apple user" would use this if they wanted to be able to use whatever hardware they wanted (say, a PS3 instead of the shitty AppleTV), and not be stuck with whatever Apple tells them they need to buy.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? For a busy person with a good income, that could be worth the equivalent of $1000 of labor just to rip a few dozen DVDs. Unless you really do have no life and nothing else you'd rather be doing than babysitting a computer on your weekends...
I think their primary argument will be that he was tethering (and even admitted it in court). Since tethering was clearly not allowed by the ToS and AT&T has an added service allowing tethering if he wanted to do it, they really do have a pretty good case not only for dropping him, but winning their appeal. If he is going to hold AT&T to their side of the contract, he has to hold up his side as well...
Someone who hasn't actually broken their ToS and yet has still been throttled needs to sue AT&T for this to really go anywhere.
Yeah, it's all well and good for the proponents of this strategy except for the small detail that they mostly academics and lawyers, not prisoners risking a maximum sentence.
It's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma... applied to actual prisoners for once!
If *everyone* accused calls the bluff of getting the maximum punishment after a trial conviction, the system might actually break down and they have to release lots of prisoners early (which is already happening to some extent now). If some of the people call the bluff and some don't, those that do may get their ass reamed (maybe literally) in prison and those that don't get a plea bargain.
Honestly, I think one of the braver things someone can do is violate a law they truly believe is wrong in order to get it tested in the courts. Either way they are going to get reamed by the system, and not many people are willing to sign up for that...
I don't even have a Mac but I'm not stupid enough to pretend OSX is not a solid operating system these days. And I'm getting a bit jealous of my girlfrend's Macbook Air, it really is an outstanding piece of design and engineering and at least a bit less overpriced than it used to be. Based on their sales, clearly consumers agree...
Funny thing is the summary doesn't even get the 2001 connection right when it says "Fidler admits that other prior art influenced him, such as the tablets being used as computing devices in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Prior prior art.""
From the actual article: Fidler recalls having seen the movie and though he says he wasn’t consciously thinking of it all those years later, he acknowledges it could have been an influence.
Pretty damn big leap between someone asking him about the movie and saying he never made the connection but it could have been a subconscious influence, and claiming he admitted that 2001 definitely influenced him as prior art. Even more, nothing in the story mentions any other prior art at *all* beyond that, and they made it sound like this was just one example of several. WHY to the submitters have to paraphrase so badly that they add their own interpretation??
That's completely what it is. Why would a "chief marketing officer" suggest something unless it were advantageous to his company? We all know his motivation is not to take in *less* money from customers...