Can there still be interaction between the galaxy that just disappeared, and a galaxy mid-way between us? Yes.
Can there still be interaction between the middling galaxy and us? Yes.
Just because we can't interact directly with it doesn't mean that all influence and interaction is gone.
Finally, the dynamics of interrupting another team member for a quick answer to a quick question differ between working in person and working remotely.
If they can't bug you right away,
That's a good thing, I would say.
Don't let them interrupt you 10x a day.
They'll try to solve problems themselves.
Do some research, hit the bookshelves,
Think things through, stretch themselves.
In the process they'll pick up their game
Not wait like zombies, which is a shame,
Or crying "I don't know," which is lame.
No, they want you there because they are incompetent at managing, so they've got to have endless meetings and interrupt you all the time to justify their existence. The whole "management is giving people a task, the tools they need to solve it, and making sure nobody else gets in the way" mentality is GONE.
We complain about "hover parents", but micromanagers (or "hovermanagers) are just as toxic.
Granted we can no longer see them, but that's a pretty arbitrary assumption to say that they have disappeared from our universe, any more than it's okay to say that it's us who disappeared. Even if we can't see them, it's a safe bet that they're still governed by the same laws of physics we are. It would be really strange if their (or our) laws of physics suddenly changed just because we can't see each other any more. Not being able to see each other is just one consequence of those laws in the universe we continue to share.
It's more likely they can't stand the insufferable whiners on the internet who can't stop talking about how horrible the world is.
The ping time would be horrendous,
The energy required tremendous,
But they don't want your stash of p0rn
To them naked walrus are stupendous.
Burma Shave
What would happen if the expansion of our knowledge outpaced the expansion of the universe? Is there a cross-over point, so that we (or our robotic descendants) will be able to literally control the universe? And if so, should we?
All they have to do is keep the time period when someone was assigned an ip address. Someone makes a complaint wrt your ip, you get a notice. If they decide to sue, your ISP can be forced to cough up the personal info connected with that ip..
You actually have to start legal proceedings to get their name and address. The cost of that is none-zero, so I don't see it being broadly used as a way to get people's info for other purposes.
I'd argue even 20 years is too much. 20 years was back in the days before big box stores, online retail etc. Now anything culturally relevant gets to market saturation in a year or two. Everything else is a trickle and you could probably still gobble up via the luddite/collector types being willing to actually pay for a box set of stuff. Say you missed a few episodes of Chuck. Not enough to justify purchasing a season on Bluray but enough that you are annoyed that you can't catch up. The show is doen and you have the general jist of how things work out so the value to you might be fairly low, lower than the studios are willing to part with their precious bits. At some point, and at a much earlier point than current copyright requires the customers value should be the approximate value charged for the content (ie near zero).
Things are worth what a buyer pays a seller for. Obviously, if you missed a few episodes of Chuck, and it bothers you that much, why shouldn't they pick up a few bucks to relieve your itch? Setting the price below a certain amount doesn't increase purchases because the market will already be saturated.
you whippersnappers these days, we had to ctrl alt delete 5 times a day and liked it! no one had ever even gotten one to run for 40 days uptime anywhere. did i mention our clock speed was 120mhz and we had to reinstall windows from 54 floppy diskettes and had a 1 gb hdd!
You hipsters - we had to do a power cycle to restart, and no windows, floppies, of hard disks - just a 1mhz cpu, a couple of tape drives, and a serial port. And we had FUN!
I think you're missing the point - the goal is to stop illegal downloading, not make money off it. Making an example of a few people every week will have a chilling effect. Already, something like 87% of those who got a second notice before this law was passed have stopped.
Come off it... back in the pre-internet days people who wrote letters to the editor had to confirm their identity (their name and phone number were in the phone book, and the newspaper would phone them). Even people who wrote unpopular opinions had to identify themselves. No hiding behind a nic.
When certain people were complaining "OMG they have my address and a photo of my home", that was totally bogus in terms of a threat. Anyone who uses their name in public had better expect that it's very easy to find the address from all sorts of public records, and google streetview to get a pic of your home.
I posted my full address in several of those discussions to show that it's ridiculous to be afraid of someone knowing where you live - didn't get a single threat. Kind of a bummer, actually, because it would have been fun posting the kooks "collective wisdom" for your enjoyment:-(
Times are changing. Look at the Cosby allegations. They're being taken seriously by the public precisely because the victims refuse to be anonymous.
It's getting harder to embarrass people, because the rest of the public will smell an opportunistic rat behind the exposure. Look at Rob Ford. He ran - and won - for his city counsel seat after the crack video, the "I'm gonna kill that motherf*cker" video, and who can count how many other blunders. Nobody who counts cares.
Since when is DOWNLOADING illegal?
Since when is copyright infringement as a non commercial individual not a civil issue?
Illegal: against the law. The law is clear, and the copyright holders have, under this law, the right to institute proceedings against downloaders. That is a civil action.
The story fails to provide which parts of the act were changed, the courts in Canada have already ruled against such practice, this too shall not stand.
Here. And no, the courts have not ruled against this, since the law has only been in force for one day.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
Actually, not. The actual law says that it's $5,000.00 max per proceeding (legal action). Each copyright holder is entitled to initiate their own proceedings. See the part I bolded? "A copyright holder" - singular.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to
all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
If Sony sues and settles, that doesn't mean that Microsoft can't sue as well, because downloading their software would not be included in Sony's proceedings. Sony can only institute actions in relation to subject matter that THEY are the copyright holders.
Depends on if it's private or commercial. Statutory damages are a minimum of $500 per for individuals. Copyright Act.
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
The problem for individuals is that there can be multiple proceedings from different copyright holders, and they are additive. You download a movie and a song, the movie copyright holder can only proceed against you for the movie, and the song copyright holder can only proceed against you for the song, so they would be different cases, with different plaintiffs.
If 6 different copyright holders all take action at the same time for different infringements, you could be facing multiple fines. $5,000 for your kid grabbing a movie is going to hurt. $30,000 half a dozen movies and songs is more like a bomb going off.
470k years is literally nothing on the time-scales required for a significant change in the Sun's energy output. Just for comparison, dinosaurs appeared 232 million years ago, and disappeared 66 million years ago.
Maybe not, but it's certainly significant on the human time scale. Neanderthals were interbreeding with humans only 50,000 years ago, and only got their start between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
The average human contains between 60 and 200 individual mutations. Who knows what our descendants will be like 470,000 years from now?
Won't work for physical goods that require a physical address. Also, easy enough to cross-index with other info (drivers' licenses, medical insurance, municipal taxes, etc.)
We want them to start putting the OS on its OWN memory space, while having a full 8 GB of the user to use. Apple could do this easily without ruining their profit margins. hey are purposefully holding back on flash memory and we shouldnt just sit back and take it. The profit rake from memory is OBSCENE right now.
Or you can just not buy Apple. Also, all the devices mentioned are 16gig, not 8gig. And it's not like you need to drag along all your videos and photos in you iThingee... you should be moving them to both a laptop and a USB key or flash card. That will free up memory. If you don't back up and you lose or break your iDevice, then what?
Entitlement, and trying to profit from willful ignorance and opportunistic lawyers. All operating systems consume space. And upgrades usually take more space.
They contend the upgrades to the operating system end up taking up as much as 23 percent of the storage space on their devices
So, let them revert to the older version and gain back the space lost in the upgrade. Oh, they can't? C'est la vie.
"These misrepresentations and omissions cause these consumers to 'upgrade' their Devices from iOS 7 (or other operating systems) to iOS 8," it said. "Apple fails to disclose that upgrading from iOS 7 to iOS 8 will cost a Device user between 600 MB and 1.3 GB of storage space - a result that no consumer could reasonably anticipate."
Did they think that iOS 7 took zero space? Tellingly, the chart they provide doesn't have any figures on how much space the previous OS took up. Guess they only decided to sue AFTER they noticed people complaining about how much space iOS8 took, and never bothered to check how much space was consumed by the OS before the upgrade, so they don't even know how much space the upgrade cost them.
And Jack Dorsey was fired, and Ev Williams was fired... big deal. Getting rid of your CEO is a good way to get a stock boost. Microsoft shares jumped when it was announced that Steve Balmer was leaving.
Couple that with the low stock value, and some might even see Twitter as a buy... or maybe now's the time to acquire the company...
Slashdot Mirror
Can there still be interaction between the galaxy that just disappeared, and a galaxy mid-way between us? Yes.
Can there still be interaction between the middling galaxy and us? Yes.
Just because we can't interact directly with it doesn't mean that all influence and interaction is gone.
Finally, the dynamics of interrupting another team member for a quick answer to a quick question differ between working in person and working remotely.
If they can't bug you right away,
That's a good thing, I would say.
Don't let them interrupt you 10x a day.
They'll try to solve problems themselves.
Do some research, hit the bookshelves,
Think things through, stretch themselves.
In the process they'll pick up their game
Not wait like zombies, which is a shame,
Or crying "I don't know," which is lame.
Burma Shave
No, they want you there because they are incompetent at managing, so they've got to have endless meetings and interrupt you all the time to justify their existence. The whole "management is giving people a task, the tools they need to solve it, and making sure nobody else gets in the way" mentality is GONE.
We complain about "hover parents", but micromanagers (or "hovermanagers) are just as toxic.
Granted we can no longer see them, but that's a pretty arbitrary assumption to say that they have disappeared from our universe, any more than it's okay to say that it's us who disappeared. Even if we can't see them, it's a safe bet that they're still governed by the same laws of physics we are. It would be really strange if their (or our) laws of physics suddenly changed just because we can't see each other any more. Not being able to see each other is just one consequence of those laws in the universe we continue to share.
It's more likely they can't stand the insufferable whiners on the internet who can't stop talking about how horrible the world is.
The ping time would be horrendous,
The energy required tremendous,
But they don't want your stash of p0rn
To them naked walrus are stupendous.
Burma Shave
What would happen if the expansion of our knowledge outpaced the expansion of the universe? Is there a cross-over point, so that we (or our robotic descendants) will be able to literally control the universe? And if so, should we?
All they have to do is keep the time period when someone was assigned an ip address. Someone makes a complaint wrt your ip, you get a notice. If they decide to sue, your ISP can be forced to cough up the personal info connected with that ip..
So fast to disown Teh Shatner? About as famous as any canadian who has ever lived he is.
The begging question is, why would these superstars leave the great white north? Uh-huh. Because they can!.
Sadly, it's worth it if you guys keep Justin Bieber out of our hair.
You actually have to start legal proceedings to get their name and address. The cost of that is none-zero, so I don't see it being broadly used as a way to get people's info for other purposes.
I'd argue even 20 years is too much. 20 years was back in the days before big box stores, online retail etc. Now anything culturally relevant gets to market saturation in a year or two. Everything else is a trickle and you could probably still gobble up via the luddite/collector types being willing to actually pay for a box set of stuff. Say you missed a few episodes of Chuck. Not enough to justify purchasing a season on Bluray but enough that you are annoyed that you can't catch up. The show is doen and you have the general jist of how things work out so the value to you might be fairly low, lower than the studios are willing to part with their precious bits. At some point, and at a much earlier point than current copyright requires the customers value should be the approximate value charged for the content (ie near zero).
Things are worth what a buyer pays a seller for. Obviously, if you missed a few episodes of Chuck, and it bothers you that much, why shouldn't they pick up a few bucks to relieve your itch? Setting the price below a certain amount doesn't increase purchases because the market will already be saturated.
you whippersnappers these days, we had to ctrl alt delete 5 times a day and liked it! no one had ever even gotten one to run for 40 days uptime anywhere. did i mention our clock speed was 120mhz and we had to reinstall windows from 54 floppy diskettes and had a 1 gb hdd!
You hipsters - we had to do a power cycle to restart, and no windows, floppies, of hard disks - just a 1mhz cpu, a couple of tape drives, and a serial port. And we had FUN!
I think you're missing the point - the goal is to stop illegal downloading, not make money off it. Making an example of a few people every week will have a chilling effect. Already, something like 87% of those who got a second notice before this law was passed have stopped.
Come off it ... back in the pre-internet days people who wrote letters to the editor had to confirm their identity (their name and phone number were in the phone book, and the newspaper would phone them). Even people who wrote unpopular opinions had to identify themselves. No hiding behind a nic.
When certain people were complaining "OMG they have my address and a photo of my home", that was totally bogus in terms of a threat. Anyone who uses their name in public had better expect that it's very easy to find the address from all sorts of public records, and google streetview to get a pic of your home.
I posted my full address in several of those discussions to show that it's ridiculous to be afraid of someone knowing where you live - didn't get a single threat. Kind of a bummer, actually, because it would have been fun posting the kooks "collective wisdom" for your enjoyment :-(
Times are changing. Look at the Cosby allegations. They're being taken seriously by the public precisely because the victims refuse to be anonymous.
It's getting harder to embarrass people, because the rest of the public will smell an opportunistic rat behind the exposure. Look at Rob Ford. He ran - and won - for his city counsel seat after the crack video, the "I'm gonna kill that motherf*cker" video, and who can count how many other blunders. Nobody who counts cares.
Since when is DOWNLOADING illegal? Since when is copyright infringement as a non commercial individual not a civil issue?
Illegal: against the law. The law is clear, and the copyright holders have, under this law, the right to institute proceedings against downloaders. That is a civil action.
The story fails to provide which parts of the act were changed, the courts in Canada have already ruled against such practice, this too shall not stand.
Here. And no, the courts have not ruled against this, since the law has only been in force for one day.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to
all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
If Sony sues and settles, that doesn't mean that Microsoft can't sue as well, because downloading their software would not be included in Sony's proceedings. Sony can only institute actions in relation to subject matter that THEY are the copyright holders.
(a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and
(b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.
The problem for individuals is that there can be multiple proceedings from different copyright holders, and they are additive. You download a movie and a song, the movie copyright holder can only proceed against you for the movie, and the song copyright holder can only proceed against you for the song, so they would be different cases, with different plaintiffs.
If 6 different copyright holders all take action at the same time for different infringements, you could be facing multiple fines. $5,000 for your kid grabbing a movie is going to hurt. $30,000 half a dozen movies and songs is more like a bomb going off.
470k years is literally nothing on the time-scales required for a significant change in the Sun's energy output. Just for comparison, dinosaurs appeared 232 million years ago, and disappeared 66 million years ago.
Maybe not, but it's certainly significant on the human time scale. Neanderthals were interbreeding with humans only 50,000 years ago, and only got their start between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.
The average human contains between 60 and 200 individual mutations. Who knows what our descendants will be like 470,000 years from now?
Sanctions are also targeted at named individuals in Syria, Iran, and China. They will no longer be able to use their credit cards, etc.
Won't work for physical goods that require a physical address. Also, easy enough to cross-index with other info (drivers' licenses, medical insurance, municipal taxes, etc.)
We want them to start putting the OS on its OWN memory space, while having a full 8 GB of the user to use. Apple could do this easily without ruining their profit margins. hey are purposefully holding back on flash memory and we shouldnt just sit back and take it. The profit rake from memory is OBSCENE right now.
Or you can just not buy Apple. Also, all the devices mentioned are 16gig, not 8gig. And it's not like you need to drag along all your videos and photos in you iThingee ... you should be moving them to both a laptop and a USB key or flash card. That will free up memory. If you don't back up and you lose or break your iDevice, then what?
Entitlement, and trying to profit from willful ignorance and opportunistic lawyers. All operating systems consume space. And upgrades usually take more space.
They contend the upgrades to the operating system end up taking up as much as 23 percent of the storage space on their devices
So, let them revert to the older version and gain back the space lost in the upgrade. Oh, they can't? C'est la vie.
"These misrepresentations and omissions cause these consumers to 'upgrade' their Devices from iOS 7 (or other operating systems) to iOS 8," it said. "Apple fails to disclose that upgrading from iOS 7 to iOS 8 will cost a Device user between 600 MB and 1.3 GB of storage space - a result that no consumer could reasonably anticipate."
Did they think that iOS 7 took zero space? Tellingly, the chart they provide doesn't have any figures on how much space the previous OS took up. Guess they only decided to sue AFTER they noticed people complaining about how much space iOS8 took, and never bothered to check how much space was consumed by the OS before the upgrade, so they don't even know how much space the upgrade cost them.
Are you suggesting that other races rather die of hunger than eat animals?
Must be a weird vegan community you were raised in.
Or PETA.
And Jack Dorsey was fired, and Ev Williams was fired ... big deal. Getting rid of your CEO is a good way to get a stock boost. Microsoft shares jumped when it was announced that Steve Balmer was leaving.
Couple that with the low stock value, and some might even see Twitter as a buy ... or maybe now's the time to acquire the company ...