If one was an unpublished author in any way, and then is Unabomber, "and began to write letters as a calling card, can be deduced from very similar writing styles and structures of work and unpublished incriminating / unpopularized previous evidence that at least raise the suspicion that the writer of the earlier work was somehow tied to the crimes, though not directly. Of course, all bets are off if it is possible that someone could have analyzed previously the author to imitate.
Or that either their previous work or their terrorist "press releases" were deliberatly in a different style. e.g. maybe they thought they had to write in a specific way to be published in a certain field or they are trying to incriminate someone else.
Um, why don't they just use the hydrogen as fuel? (of course, they might need to make modifications to current aircraft or even make new aircraft - but this is the military, they have money to burn)
Military aircraft tend to be operated for a lot longer than civilian aircraft. Including aircraft which have both military and civil versions. However much money they have buying new aircraft for it's own sake just dosn't happen.
You *are* aware that most naval vessels are nuclear powered right?
I'm sure "might get hit by a missile/bomb/torpedo/etc" is a major consideration when designing and building a warship. At least after what happened to HMS Hood.
What part of "works with existing cars and existing refueling stations" is confusing you hippes?
Which means you don't need to replace existing vehicles or existing infrastructure and you don't need to do things in one go.
There's only recently been an announcement of a standard plug for electric cars. Note that an "announcement" is not manufacturing, or even a commitment to manufacturing.
Together with the claim that this will be able to recharge at a similar speed to filling a tank with liquid fuel.
We've still got the inevitable patent wrangles, the embrace-extend debacles, breakaway standards, and the litigation and class action suits to go before we'll have a standard plug, and then we have to build the charging infrastructure, on top of a creaking already over-strained electrical grid.
Until such an infrastructure exists there isn't going to be that much demand for the cars. Who's going to put up the money?
This isn't about making "gas" though. It's about making a kerosene-like jet fuel (also known as diesel). So not quite the same cars that most people drive.
So is potentially useful for ships, aircraft (plenty of commercial airports located on or near to the sea), trucks, buses, construction, agriculture, etc, etc.
But it's easy to put a nuclear reactor in a ship, and not so easy to put one in a fighter jet.
A nuclear powered aircraft carrier needs regular supplies of jet fuel, via ships which are easier to sink than a warship. Having a carrier able to produce fuel for its aircraft solves a major logistics issue as well as potentially freeing ships from escort/guard duty.
Hey, I just had the craziest idea.
Convert any binary file to base 4 and then convert that to:
0 = A, 1 = T, 2 = G, 3 = C
Or something like that.
And then order a vial of it from one of these companies.
Now you can finally keep all the porn you want inside a tiny container much smaller than a hard drive.
If it were practical such storage devices would already exist. Probably as some sort of "cyborg computer". Would probably also have the entertainments industry frantically researching how to make an artifical organism and lobbying to outlaw making their content into plasmids.
You don't have to even have the original person's DNA.
All you need is some which will give the right results when manipulated in a certain way. Indeed the majority of a person's DNA is likely to be irrelevent.
DNA is hardy - you don't need any special stuff to keep it around, preserve, or maintain it.
Especially when it's not inside a cell which also contains things passing microbes are likely to consider "food".
My wife's boss had death threats and faeces shoved in his mailbox by these terrorists because his company does IT work for the London office of a large Japanese conglomerate with a partly owned subsidiary that was once a supplier (not of animals) to Huntingdon Life Sciences. They use exactly the same twisted mentality as Al Qaeda to justify their attacks on the most vaguely related of targets.
They call this "tertiary targeting". If anything SHAC closer to the fictional SPECTRE (or SPECTRE) than Al Qaeda. Though the fictional entities probably have a better "intelligence staff" and are thus less likely to hit the "wrong target". (The average Al Qaeda operative, at least in the US and UK, appears to be capable of failing to win a Darwin Award. With out even enough of them or an ADC special.)
Actually the UK has a problem with extremist animal rights activists who do go round bombing things.
Not just in the UK these people are also in other parts of Europe and North America (probably Australia too). In some cases there appears to be exactly the sort of international criminal conspiracy which the "War on Terror" (together with draconian "anti terrorist" legislation) is supposedly about stopping.
Some of these are now behind bars and rightly so.
The obvious problems are that not all of them are where they belong, the "authorities" are reluctant to use the law they claim are needed and the media just won't "call a spade a spade".
Where the definition of 'terrorist cell' is up to the authorities, and in this case means 'animal rights activist'. It could mean anything according to this corrupt, overbearing government.
Though ironically terrorists (at least in the UK) are far more common amongst "animal rights activists" than amongst Muslims. However it isn't PC to refer to the likes of SHAC as terrorists. Indeed it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if the BBC were to find some other term to refer to the IRA.
But even back in the 1980's they did stupid things like use the first and last name as the primary keys and ignored the SSN, policy number, group number, date of birth, and middle name as indexes as well.
Even though it would make more sense to first use policy number followed by name/DOB if there were several people on the same policy.
If you can't be in government for a salary, then you're in it for the bribes. Not that paying a decent salary renders a politician immune to corruption, but at least he doesn't have to be on the take simply to put food on the table.
Thing is that overpaying can also encourage corruption. Most definitly amongst politicians and bankers.
And just how do you propose to discern between those people who desire to serve the public and those people who say they desire to serve the public but are really more interested in power?
Most effective solution is to disqualify anyone who claims they want to serve the public and pick someone at random from the rest.
I think that's a fantastic idea to be perfectly blunt. I don't see any point in holding them ransom though. Simply throwing out all the bullshit laws they've passed for the last 100 years and executing them for abuse of power would be enough. Then put in place people who actually want to serve the public... and term limits.
There's also the idea of holding them accountable, on pain of death, to any promises they make before being elected. (Including execution if they do something they didn't mention before the election.)
That's because piracy articles don't generally argue for the GPL.
There's also the matter that articles about GPL violations tend involve commercial piracy. Whereas "piracy" articles tend to be about non commercial activities. This being a distinction copyright laws tend to make too.
Websense, a U.S. based Internet filtering software maker There. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product.
As much as they can within the limitations of the product.
They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned.
If they actually did this you might end up with something usable in one country... Except for that it would be very difficult to get a consensus if that was anything other than a "micronation".
Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around.
How much of this is applicable to this entire industry? Especially selling to management who don't realise their claims are at best dubious.
But if they're so blatant as to say "YOU CANT EVER SUE us," the courts may be prone to simply ignore it and throw the whole thing out.
Even in the absence of a law voiding such clauses in contracts if you were to sue on the basis of a beach of contract the defendent would have a tough time using that claim in court. If the judge had a good sense of humor he/she might treat the case as uncontested.
As a consumer you might have right above and beyond whatever is in the contract. They cannot put a clause, for example, that goes against any laws.
They can, however clauses are null and void. It isn't unknown for companies, especially large companies, to put clauses they know full well are unenforcable in contracts to call people's bluff.
Forgive me for being ignorant, but what do you mean? You get to cancel your contract with no fee if you disagree with the new terms?
Contracts are subject to the "law of the land". An applicable law may well mean that minimum terms of contract are null and void if other terms are changed. (Possibly even if terms which are themselves null and void being added is the only change.)
In somewhere like the US finding out which laws are applicable can be tricky since there can be many sources of laws and a relevent statute, ordinance or court case need have nothing to do with telecommunications.
Unfortunately, ID cards by their nature cannot be produced in a central, well guarded, press. The technology for creating them must be cheap enough to distribute to hundreds of local offices. Which means it is cheap enough for criminals to duplicate.
The cost to renew a contract with Microsoft is only the cost of the contract, the cost to change to Linux would be way higher, since you have to replace your whole application platform, teach the users how to use Linux and all the new apps, teach the techies the ins and outs of Linux etc. etc. etc.
This may not be the case because Microsoft likes to change their platforms frequently. Indeed they are just now bringing out Windows 7 and there's a new MS Office coming out soon.
Slashdot Mirror
If one was an unpublished author in any way, and then is Unabomber, "and began to write letters as a calling card, can be deduced from very similar writing styles and structures of work and unpublished incriminating / unpopularized previous evidence that at least raise the suspicion that the writer of the earlier work was somehow tied to the crimes, though not directly. Of course, all bets are off if it is possible that someone could have analyzed previously the author to imitate.
Or that either their previous work or their terrorist "press releases" were deliberatly in a different style. e.g. maybe they thought they had to write in a specific way to be published in a certain field or they are trying to incriminate someone else.
Um, why don't they just use the hydrogen as fuel? (of course, they might need to make modifications to current aircraft or even make new aircraft - but this is the military, they have money to burn)
Military aircraft tend to be operated for a lot longer than civilian aircraft. Including aircraft which have both military and civil versions.
However much money they have buying new aircraft for it's own sake just dosn't happen.
You *are* aware that most naval vessels are nuclear powered right?
I'm sure "might get hit by a missile/bomb/torpedo/etc" is a major consideration when designing and building a warship. At least after what happened to HMS Hood.
What part of "works with existing cars and existing refueling stations" is confusing you hippes?
Which means you don't need to replace existing vehicles or existing infrastructure and you don't need to do things in one go.
There's only recently been an announcement of a standard plug for electric cars. Note that an "announcement" is not manufacturing, or even a commitment to manufacturing.
Together with the claim that this will be able to recharge at a similar speed to filling a tank with liquid fuel.
We've still got the inevitable patent wrangles, the embrace-extend debacles, breakaway standards, and the litigation and class action suits to go before we'll have a standard plug, and then we have to build the charging infrastructure, on top of a creaking already over-strained electrical grid.
Until such an infrastructure exists there isn't going to be that much demand for the cars. Who's going to put up the money?
This isn't about making "gas" though. It's about making a kerosene-like jet fuel (also known as diesel). So not quite the same cars that most people drive.
So is potentially useful for ships, aircraft (plenty of commercial airports located on or near to the sea), trucks, buses, construction, agriculture, etc, etc.
But it's easy to put a nuclear reactor in a ship, and not so easy to put one in a fighter jet.
A nuclear powered aircraft carrier needs regular supplies of jet fuel, via ships which are easier to sink than a warship.
Having a carrier able to produce fuel for its aircraft solves a major logistics issue as well as potentially freeing ships from escort/guard duty.
Hey, I just had the craziest idea.
Convert any binary file to base 4 and then convert that to: 0 = A, 1 = T, 2 = G, 3 = C Or something like that.
And then order a vial of it from one of these companies. Now you can finally keep all the porn you want inside a tiny container much smaller than a hard drive.
If it were practical such storage devices would already exist. Probably as some sort of "cyborg computer". Would probably also have the entertainments industry frantically researching how to make an artifical organism and lobbying to outlaw making their content into plasmids.
You don't have to even have the original person's DNA.
All you need is some which will give the right results when manipulated in a certain way. Indeed the majority of a person's DNA is likely to be irrelevent.
DNA is hardy - you don't need any special stuff to keep it around, preserve, or maintain it.
Especially when it's not inside a cell which also contains things passing microbes are likely to consider "food".
My wife's boss had death threats and faeces shoved in his mailbox by these terrorists because his company does IT work for the London office of a large Japanese conglomerate with a partly owned subsidiary that was once a supplier (not of animals) to Huntingdon Life Sciences. They use exactly the same twisted mentality as Al Qaeda to justify their attacks on the most vaguely related of targets.
They call this "tertiary targeting". If anything SHAC closer to the fictional SPECTRE (or SPECTRE) than Al Qaeda. Though the fictional entities probably have a better "intelligence staff" and are thus less likely to hit the "wrong target". (The average Al Qaeda operative, at least in the US and UK, appears to be capable of failing to win a Darwin Award. With out even enough of them or an ADC special.)
Actually the UK has a problem with extremist animal rights activists who do go round bombing things.
Not just in the UK these people are also in other parts of Europe and North America (probably Australia too). In some cases there appears to be exactly the sort of international criminal conspiracy which the "War on Terror" (together with draconian "anti terrorist" legislation) is supposedly about stopping.
Some of these are now behind bars and rightly so.
The obvious problems are that not all of them are where they belong, the "authorities" are reluctant to use the law they claim are needed and the media just won't "call a spade a spade".
Where the definition of 'terrorist cell' is up to the authorities, and in this case means 'animal rights activist'. It could mean anything according to this corrupt, overbearing government.
Though ironically terrorists (at least in the UK) are far more common amongst "animal rights activists" than amongst Muslims. However it isn't PC to refer to the likes of SHAC as terrorists. Indeed it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if the BBC were to find some other term to refer to the IRA.
But even back in the 1980's they did stupid things like use the first and last name as the primary keys and ignored the SSN, policy number, group number, date of birth, and middle name as indexes as well.
Even though it would make more sense to first use policy number followed by name/DOB if there were several people on the same policy.
We already exclude the mentally retarded
As well as children, people in prison (even some people who have at some time in the past been in prison).
If you can't be in government for a salary, then you're in it for the bribes. Not that paying a decent salary renders a politician immune to corruption, but at least he doesn't have to be on the take simply to put food on the table.
Thing is that overpaying can also encourage corruption. Most definitly amongst politicians and bankers.
And just how do you propose to discern between those people who desire to serve the public and those people who say they desire to serve the public but are really more interested in power?
Most effective solution is to disqualify anyone who claims they want to serve the public and pick someone at random from the rest.
I think that's a fantastic idea to be perfectly blunt. I don't see any point in holding them ransom though. Simply throwing out all the bullshit laws they've passed for the last 100 years and executing them for abuse of power would be enough. Then put in place people who actually want to serve the public ... and term limits.
There's also the idea of holding them accountable, on pain of death, to any promises they make before being elected. (Including execution if they do something they didn't mention before the election.)
That's because piracy articles don't generally argue for the GPL.
There's also the matter that articles about GPL violations tend involve commercial piracy. Whereas "piracy" articles tend to be about non commercial activities. This being a distinction copyright laws tend to make too.
Websense, a U.S. based Internet filtering software maker
There. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product.
As much as they can within the limitations of the product.
They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned.
If they actually did this you might end up with something usable in one country... Except for that it would be very difficult to get a consensus if that was anything other than a "micronation".
Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around.
How much of this is applicable to this entire industry? Especially selling to management who don't realise their claims are at best dubious.
But if they're so blatant as to say "YOU CANT EVER SUE us," the courts may be prone to simply ignore it and throw the whole thing out.
Even in the absence of a law voiding such clauses in contracts if you were to sue on the basis of a beach of contract the defendent would have a tough time using that claim in court. If the judge had a good sense of humor he/she might treat the case as uncontested.
As a consumer you might have right above and beyond whatever is in the contract. They cannot put a clause, for example, that goes against any laws.
They can, however clauses are null and void. It isn't unknown for companies, especially large companies, to put clauses they know full well are unenforcable in contracts to call people's bluff.
Forgive me for being ignorant, but what do you mean? You get to cancel your contract with no fee if you disagree with the new terms?
Contracts are subject to the "law of the land". An applicable law may well mean that minimum terms of contract are null and void if other terms are changed. (Possibly even if terms which are themselves null and void being added is the only change.) In somewhere like the US finding out which laws are applicable can be tricky since there can be many sources of laws and a relevent statute, ordinance or court case need have nothing to do with telecommunications.
Unfortunately, ID cards by their nature cannot be produced in a central, well guarded, press. The technology for creating them must be cheap enough to distribute to hundreds of local offices. Which means it is cheap enough for criminals to duplicate.
Or to infiltrate some of these offices.
The cost to renew a contract with Microsoft is only the cost of the contract, the cost to change to Linux would be way higher, since you have to replace your whole application platform, teach the users how to use Linux and all the new apps, teach the techies the ins and outs of Linux etc. etc. etc.
This may not be the case because Microsoft likes to change their platforms frequently. Indeed they are just now bringing out Windows 7 and there's a new MS Office coming out soon.
Yes perhaps "lowest bidder" is oversimplification to you, but "lowest total cost over ownership" works doesn't it?
Remembering that many so called TCO assessments do not even make a "good faith" attempt at measuring.
If you RTFA, you will discover that the contract was in fact never tendered at all, so that minor point is irrelevant.
Thus the contract is null and void.