SciFi channel have been showing TOS weekdays at 11am for a while now, so if you want the original version you already have plenty of options. I'd bet the updated version will come on Sky One pretty quickly, seeing as they often lag only a week or so behind US broadcasts.
If you actually bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that it doesn't do that at all - the severed nerves are surgically connected to an intact muscle, such as the pecs, and once the nerves can activate parts of the muscle they attach the appropriate electrodes to the appropriate parts of the muscle.
Britain is getting hit because the fuckwit Blair keeps wanting to be Bush's lapdog. That much is obvious to anyone who actually bother to follow the news.
We need leaders who can make desicions without having to go through the red tape of the courts.
The "muslim terrorists" make up a tiny little fraction of muslims. Some of them might want that, but without the US and the UK giving muslims everywhere plenty of reasons to hate them they'd have a far tougher time recruiting.
That's simplistic, and mostly wrong. Orwell was politically very left wing, though he early distanced himself from most of the established socialist and communist parties because he, contrary to most of these parties, had a very strong and consistent dislike of any organizations that were willing to accept totalitarianism in order to further socialist goals.
In that he was very much in line with Marx and Engels, for instance, who spent the entire second chapter (of four) of the Communist Manifesto on lambasting forms of socialism they saw as useless and/or reactionary.
Regarding Orwell's views on socialism, the Wikipedia link you provides includes this paragraph quoting Orwell's "Why I Write":
Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". (Why I Write) Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism (and potential totalitarianism).
When it comes to a chip manufacturer stating memory storage capacity, then megabits is the standard. Deal. The reason it's stated that way is because it indicates the number of addressable units.
Wrong. Willfull copright infringement is a criminal offense in the US, with up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $250.000 in fines. Additionally, an infringer may be held liable under civil law for statutory damages of up to $150.000. This is a result of the No Electronic Theft Act, passed in 1997
As for the copyright violations - that is a tough one. The copyright to an email and a jpeg rests with the author. However this was published and in such a fashion that it might actually be public domain. In the USA one must register the copyright prior to publishing and if this is not done the copyright becomes imperfect and as such enters limbo. (IANAL but I have researched this).
Research some more. Registration is not required in any country that have ratified the Berne convention on copyright, which includes the US. In the US registering copyright is required in some cases if you want to pursue an infringement case, but the registration can be done when you decide to go to court - it doesn't need to have been registered on or before publication.
No, it isn't. It is slighly smaller. And it has a population density more than four times that of the US. It also has a significant pollution problem, which the government is currently spending a fortune just to keep in check and concern is growing over how to combat it. Importing garbage is unlikely to be high on their priority list.
Yes, you just buy them off people on IRC. According to a security expert I used to work with, the going rate for 10,000 credit card numbers WITH expiry date and security code, and recently verified to work, was around $50 a couple of years ago.
It's not only that. Cellphone usage in countries like Nigeria is growing far faster than in a rich but low usage country like the US simply because in Nigeria as in many other developing countries it is hard and expensive to get landlines, and the landline services are unreliable.
The reason landlines are cheap in industrialised countries is because the telcos have had a hundred years to amortise the cost of laying down copper lines, whereas countries like Nigeria have a very underdeveloped network of phone lines, and still struggle with an economy that is so weak that the average income is low enough to make it economically worthwhile for a lot of people to steal copper phone lines for the scrap metal value.
Cellphone networks are simply cheaper to build out and operate than landlines when they don't have to compete with an existing infrastructure.
Hence Nigeria's number of about 20 million cellphones vs. ca. 1.4 million landlines in a population of about 130 million.
Or you could see the CIA world factbook, which shows that your estimate is ridiculously far off. Note that while the CIA world factbook lists ca. 1.7billion cellphones, a lot of the numbers are from 2004 and 2003.
Even in the US the coverage is more than 50%, and in many European countries it's close to 100%. There are actually at least a couple of countries with more than one cellphone subscription per person (I think Finland and either Taiwan or South Korea, but I may be mistaken).
Fortunately for us these "corporate empires" have to compete, and while it might be more profitable for them to treat something rather than cure it, it will be more profitable for them to cure something than have a competitor cure it first. And when it comes to patents, they expire quite soon, and international patent regulations allow forced licensing.
The more tragic part of this is that they are trying to make it more acceptable for a boot to take long enough for it to be worthwhile to go and do something else while waiting to be able to log in...
Eh.. Yes, you get that per year. Exactly where was it you got the impression that the quoted returns were per year from?
Did you read this bit:
The team found that a spammer who bought shares the day before starting an e-mail campaign and then sold them the day after could make a return on his or her investment of 4.9%.
And of these people, how many more have died as a result of effects of obesity, of food poisoining from badly prepared food, choked to death on their food etc.? 160 people is a drop in the ocean. I'll keep eating my rare steaks as often as before, thank you.
Oh, and the only flavor I want is beef. Proper meat hardly needs any seasoning - it's the meat with a hint of the taste of blood I want, as well as the texture of meat that's almost falling apart, not the taste of soy disguised with spices.
If you seriously consider soy to be in any way comparable to beef, you have never eaten a decent piece of meat in your life or have no sense of taste...
In this case it would seem a natural action, since taking this evidence in the worst way the contents of the drive in itself would be sufficient to prove she was guilty. There is no reason for the court to consider other evidence in that case unless the defence claims to have evidence that could counteract the worst possible findings on the hard drive. Did they claim that and get rebuffed by the judge? In that case, and ONLY in that case, would I agree with you.
As for pursuing the case with other evidence, in all likelihood, without the harddrive it would be impossible to convict her, as you would be unable to prove that she had an infringing copy. Which is exactly why the court has discretion to treat willfull destruction of evidence in this way.
The court doesn't know. Which is exactly why destroying evidence is such a serious crime. To take it further: The court also doesn't know whether you destroyed evidence that would have proved someone else did it, or that would have implied other people. Destroying evidence makes it impossible for justice to be done, and so the court has the discretion to treat any destruction of evidence extremely harshly.
Now, of course, the court must be convinced that you were the one who destroyed the evidence, and that it was intentional. It's not "evidence appears to have been destroyed, therefore the court must assume you're guilty", but that the court has found it proven that YOU destroyed evidence, willfully, despite knowing about the court case, and therefore the court is required to consider taking the evidence in the worst way a reasonable person would interpret it, and if the destroyed evidence taken in that way together with any other evidence presented would meet the evidence standard required, then the court may decide to enter a default judgement.
There could be a million reasons, yes, and evidence destruction is NOT taken as prima facie evidence of guilt. What happens is that the court looks at the destroyed "evidence" and considers what that evidence might have meant for the case and takes that into account. If the destroyed evidence, taken in the worst way that is plausible, taken together with whatever other evidence that is available, would be sufficient for a guilty verdict under the evidence standard applicable, then entering a default judgement is perfectly reasonable.
The alternative would be a strong incentive for destroying evidence on the odd chance that you'd not be found out or "worst case" get charged with obstruction of justice.
What you're saying makes no sense. If the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt without the evidence they destroy, the evidence destruction doesn't matter. These regulations are there exactly for the cases where the tampering with evidence conceals information that might tip the scales.
Otherwise, there would be no reason not to destroy as much evidence as possible for serious crimes, as it might destroy enough that the rest isn't sufficient to get beyond reasonable doubt.
If the defendant claims to not have been the one to tamper with the evidence, then that is a matter that the court should resolve beyond reasonable doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
SciFi channel have been showing TOS weekdays at 11am for a while now, so if you want the original version you already have plenty of options. I'd bet the updated version will come on Sky One pretty quickly, seeing as they often lag only a week or so behind US broadcasts.
If you actually bothered to read the article, you'd have seen that it doesn't do that at all - the severed nerves are surgically connected to an intact muscle, such as the pecs, and once the nerves can activate parts of the muscle they attach the appropriate electrodes to the appropriate parts of the muscle.
We need leaders who can make desicions without having to go through the red tape of the courts.
In other words you want fascism.
The "muslim terrorists" make up a tiny little fraction of muslims. Some of them might want that, but without the US and the UK giving muslims everywhere plenty of reasons to hate them they'd have a far tougher time recruiting.
In that he was very much in line with Marx and Engels, for instance, who spent the entire second chapter (of four) of the Communist Manifesto on lambasting forms of socialism they saw as useless and/or reactionary.
Regarding Orwell's views on socialism, the Wikipedia link you provides includes this paragraph quoting Orwell's "Why I Write":
Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". (Why I Write) Therefore, one can look at Nineteen Eighty-Four as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend or support it. However, as many reviewers and critics have stated, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism (and potential totalitarianism).
In
When it comes to a chip manufacturer stating memory storage capacity, then megabits is the standard. Deal. The reason it's stated that way is because it indicates the number of addressable units.
Wrong. Willfull copright infringement is a criminal offense in the US, with up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $250.000 in fines. Additionally, an infringer may be held liable under civil law for statutory damages of up to $150.000. This is a result of the No Electronic Theft Act, passed in 1997
Research some more. Registration is not required in any country that have ratified the Berne convention on copyright, which includes the US. In the US registering copyright is required in some cases if you want to pursue an infringement case, but the registration can be done when you decide to go to court - it doesn't need to have been registered on or before publication.
No, it isn't. It is slighly smaller. And it has a population density more than four times that of the US. It also has a significant pollution problem, which the government is currently spending a fortune just to keep in check and concern is growing over how to combat it. Importing garbage is unlikely to be high on their priority list.
Recycling isn't all, or even mostly, about the energy, but about reducing the need for raw materials.
Oops. Just realised you wrote "not insignificant"... I read it as "not significant"... That's what I get from getting too little sleep :)
How would $960k extra a month not significant if your revenue from other sources is $3.8 million?
Yes, you just buy them off people on IRC. According to a security expert I used to work with, the going rate for 10,000 credit card numbers WITH expiry date and security code, and recently verified to work, was around $50 a couple of years ago.
The reason landlines are cheap in industrialised countries is because the telcos have had a hundred years to amortise the cost of laying down copper lines, whereas countries like Nigeria have a very underdeveloped network of phone lines, and still struggle with an economy that is so weak that the average income is low enough to make it economically worthwhile for a lot of people to steal copper phone lines for the scrap metal value.
Cellphone networks are simply cheaper to build out and operate than landlines when they don't have to compete with an existing infrastructure.
Hence Nigeria's number of about 20 million cellphones vs. ca. 1.4 million landlines in a population of about 130 million.
Even in the US the coverage is more than 50%, and in many European countries it's close to 100%. There are actually at least a couple of countries with more than one cellphone subscription per person (I think Finland and either Taiwan or South Korea, but I may be mistaken).
Fortunately for us these "corporate empires" have to compete, and while it might be more profitable for them to treat something rather than cure it, it will be more profitable for them to cure something than have a competitor cure it first. And when it comes to patents, they expire quite soon, and international patent regulations allow forced licensing.
The more tragic part of this is that they are trying to make it more acceptable for a boot to take long enough for it to be worthwhile to go and do something else while waiting to be able to log in...
Did you read this bit:
The team found that a spammer who bought shares the day before starting an e-mail campaign and then sold them the day after could make a return on his or her investment of 4.9%.
How long do you think their campaigns are?
And of these people, how many more have died as a result of effects of obesity, of food poisoining from badly prepared food, choked to death on their food etc.? 160 people is a drop in the ocean. I'll keep eating my rare steaks as often as before, thank you.
Oh, and the only flavor I want is beef. Proper meat hardly needs any seasoning - it's the meat with a hint of the taste of blood I want, as well as the texture of meat that's almost falling apart, not the taste of soy disguised with spices.
If you seriously consider soy to be in any way comparable to beef, you have never eaten a decent piece of meat in your life or have no sense of taste...
As for pursuing the case with other evidence, in all likelihood, without the harddrive it would be impossible to convict her, as you would be unable to prove that she had an infringing copy. Which is exactly why the court has discretion to treat willfull destruction of evidence in this way.
Now, of course, the court must be convinced that you were the one who destroyed the evidence, and that it was intentional. It's not "evidence appears to have been destroyed, therefore the court must assume you're guilty", but that the court has found it proven that YOU destroyed evidence, willfully, despite knowing about the court case, and therefore the court is required to consider taking the evidence in the worst way a reasonable person would interpret it, and if the destroyed evidence taken in that way together with any other evidence presented would meet the evidence standard required, then the court may decide to enter a default judgement.
The alternative would be a strong incentive for destroying evidence on the odd chance that you'd not be found out or "worst case" get charged with obstruction of justice.
Otherwise, there would be no reason not to destroy as much evidence as possible for serious crimes, as it might destroy enough that the rest isn't sufficient to get beyond reasonable doubt.
If the defendant claims to not have been the one to tamper with the evidence, then that is a matter that the court should resolve beyond reasonable doubt.