Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Winterford that it is actually possible to not use Gmail. In fact, it is possible to not use any Google services at all. Furthermore, he can make that decision on an individual basis: no need to convince a majority of fellow voters to go along with him as he must do in order to change his government.
Right. Consequently, the courts are the exclusive preserve of the rich.
US courts can and sometimes do award legal fees to defendants who can prove that a suit brought against them was frivolous. IMHO they should do it more often, but it does happen.
No one owns data under USA law. Their TOS may get them some sort of license for any copyrightable content (creative expression on Facebook? I suppose there is some...) but it very unlikely that it can get them ownership of the copyrights: that requires an explicit instrument of conveyance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. "Noise" is what it's all about.
These people are talking about short-term random jitter.
> Doesn't Man = Nature?
According to the Church, no.
But best in the universe? Unlikely.
> A 15 horsepower plane is a really, really unsafe and miserable vehicle. It's
> just an underpowered and fragile disaster waiting to happen.
15hp continuous is not 15hp peak. It has batteries.
> Pray tell, why should a system such as Air Traffic Control even be
> accessible on a public network such as the internet?
Why do you believe that it is?
Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Winterford that it is actually possible to not use Gmail. In fact, it is possible to not use any Google services at all. Furthermore, he can make that decision on an individual basis: no need to convince a majority of fellow voters to go along with him as he must do in order to change his government.
> perhaps it is the dark matter.
No. Whatever dark matter is, it cannot be baryonic matter of any sort.
> ...we will have stable, completely synthetic, super-heavy elements with cool
> properties.
And which will be even harder to manufacture than anti-matter. How much chemistry can you do with six atoms?
If it worked for any kind of 'at 'an, or 'ist the world would not be infested with governments.
Looking in the mirror should suffice.
Yes, but not for the reason you hope.
So the anti-gun lobby can produce statistice that contradict those produced by the pro-gun lobby. Amazing.
> I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar.
"Unobtainium" is much, much older than that silly movie.
Unobtainium.
4. Yawn.
n/t
> ...blogs listed ham radio alongside 35 mm film and VHS tape as technologies
> slated to disappear.
But blogs have never been wrong about anything else!
> Getting rid of the Morse Code requirement... ...was a mistake.
> Some closed source software explicitly prohibit modificatiion (unknown
> whether it counts in memory) and reverse-engineering.
Yes, EULAs often contain unenforceable bullshit.
> This is probably illegal.
It may be breach of contract for some users of a few programs to use it. It is not copyright infringement nor is it any sort of a crime in the USA.
> I would say the same about open source software. Especially the ones with
> the licence agreement that forces me to publish any derivative works.
What open source license does that? (Hint: the GPL, for example, does not require you to publish anything.)
> I have the feeling that if I were to bypass this, a court could feel I am
> circumventing something.
Your feeling is incorrect.
Right. Consequently, the courts are the exclusive preserve of the rich.
US courts can and sometimes do award legal fees to defendants who can prove that a suit brought against them was frivolous. IMHO they should do it more often, but it does happen.
No one owns data under USA law. Their TOS may get them some sort of license for any copyrightable content (creative expression on Facebook? I suppose there is some...) but it very unlikely that it can get them ownership of the copyrights: that requires an explicit instrument of conveyance.
> It aint their data, it's the owners data.
Under US law data cannot be owned.
Such insurance is available in the USA.