This paper reads like a biologist saying "given, say, fish - how can we go about killing them?"
Not really, it's more like "Given this species and it's environmental factors, what change in those factors could lead to it's extinction?" which is an entirely reasonable and useful question to ask.
Given that this is a legalistic situation, I'd imagine the duration, or re-admission criteria, would be specified at the time that the exclusion were imposed.
3. Conviction or civil judgment finding a violation by any Person or any subsidiary or affiliate of any Person under State or Federal Antitrust Statutes.
No mention of "criminal" there, so the rules still apply.
The suspension is not automatic (according to my reading of the rules), and certainly is not permanent (the phrase "temporarily disqualifying a Person from participating in Maricopa County Procurements" gives that one away). So it's nothing like as serious as you imply.
I decided that I wasn't earning enough, so I handed in my notice. They immediately offered me a 4-digit pay rise, which I took. I didn't have another job to go to, but was confident that I could get one if I needed to. This was a few years ago, before the IT job market crash.
What we need is corporate transparency, just like the governmental transparency the people of the world have slowly been winning
Governmental transparency has it's cost - the Labour Party here in the UK used to have chinese walls between their fundraisers and the executive, so policy could not be affected by donations. Now that it's all in the Commons register, anyone can go and look up who's sponsoring the parties, and accuse them of giving favours to their donors. It's getting so bad that we're considering state financing of political parties to remove this element of corruption. It's a nice idea on the surface, but has dangerous consequences (which parties get funded and how much?)
That is a literal interpretation of what he said, but the clear implication (reinforced elsewhere) is that the quotee doesn't believe that the effect exists at all. Yet he still expresses it in terms of chance and probability.
"It is probably also fair to say that the chances of his observing something may be close to zero."
It makes me uncomfortable when someone talks about something that is immutably either true or false - such as whether superconductors can convert em to gravity - as a probability. It's as if they're saying, "There are a number of different realities, it's unlikely that ours has this law of physics". I don't think that's really what they are trying to say.
[American Physical Society spokesman Robert Park] compares attempting to go below the ground state to trying to travel "south of the South Pole."
This is not a scientific statement. It's just like saying "The atom can't eb split, because atom means an indivisible thing". "South Pole" is a point that is defined to be the southernmost place, so by definition can't be travelled south of. The "ground state" is the lowest energy level that we have observed, and according to our current theory is the lowest possible state. Robert Park is being unscientific in equating this theoretical prediction with a semantic truth.
I agree entirely. If the US election events had been happening in Africa, we would all have been shaking our heads and lamenting their poor grasp of democracy. In fact, we were anyway (not that ours is that much better). As to the terrorists, the whole thing is a confusing mess - but there are a lot of factors that don't add up, and enough precedents for this kind of atrocity being a set-up that the possibility can't just be dismissed. After all, George Bush Snr. did support the creation of the taleban.
Most of the terrorists were Saudi, where the US-supported regime (for oil reasons) conducts some of the most abusive repression of it's people in the world.
I agree. Regarding quote in the/. story, if it's illegal for him to administer the domain, then it's also illegal for him to shut it down. If the law says "You must hand over the keys", then that he must do. He can contact ICANN and tell them that.za has been taken from him against ICANN rules, and they can then do whatever they want (like cut them off from the central DNS system maybe). Would I be right in thinking that.za domains would continue to resolve within South Africa, but not from the rest of the world?
Why should it be cheaper? They spent about as much on it as three movies, it's over 3 hours long, and it's not as if the theaters are easier to clean up after. And (nearly) everyone went in knowing the plot, it's holes, shortcomings, and excessive rambling.
Google's links are not redirected via their server, and a lot of people would object to them "gathering data on their users' browsing activities". However, automatically checking the top link after each search (or scheduling it for checking) should be possible.
What should they do if a page is unavailable, though? What if it's only down for a few seconds?
The mapping between patent licences and software licences does not have to be 1:1. They can say "These patents are free for use in LGPL software, so long as that software is only linked to applications licenced under one of our approved licences". They could even disallow calling of GPL'd dynamic libraries from software that is not under an approved licence. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this is a good idea or not, just tossing the idea into the ring.
It may be that they are doing it for precisely the reason that they give in the policy statement; that is, for defensive purposes. Someone hits them with a patent infringement case, they hit back with their portfolio.
Au contraire, my friend; the requirement for GNU software to come with source prevents this from happening (other than in small-scale obscure projects maybe).
Can someone explain to me why someone would use use two backwards apostraphes at the beginning, and two sets of double-quotes at the end of a quotation ``like this'' ''? I've seen similar things to this all over usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
The suspension is not automatic (according to my reading of the rules), and certainly is not permanent (the phrase "temporarily disqualifying a Person from participating in Maricopa County Procurements" gives that one away). So it's nothing like as serious as you imply.
I decided that I wasn't earning enough, so I handed in my notice. They immediately offered me a 4-digit pay rise, which I took. I didn't have another job to go to, but was confident that I could get one if I needed to. This was a few years ago, before the IT job market crash.
That is a literal interpretation of what he said, but the clear implication (reinforced elsewhere) is that the quotee doesn't believe that the effect exists at all. Yet he still expresses it in terms of chance and probability.
I agree entirely. If the US election events had been happening in Africa, we would all have been shaking our heads and lamenting their poor grasp of democracy. In fact, we were anyway (not that ours is that much better). As to the terrorists, the whole thing is a confusing mess - but there are a lot of factors that don't add up, and enough precedents for this kind of atrocity being a set-up that the possibility can't just be dismissed. After all, George Bush Snr. did support the creation of the taleban.
Most of the terrorists were Saudi, where the US-supported regime (for oil reasons) conducts some of the most abusive repression of it's people in the world.
I agree. Regarding quote in the /. story, if it's illegal for him to administer the domain, then it's also illegal for him to shut it down. If the law says "You must hand over the keys", then that he must do. He can contact ICANN and tell them that .za has been taken from him against ICANN rules, and they can then do whatever they want (like cut them off from the central DNS system maybe). Would I be right in thinking that .za domains would continue to resolve within South Africa, but not from the rest of the world?
None of the UK or FR mirrors have 1.0 yet, but the IE one does:
ftp://ftp.eunet.ie/mirrors/ftp.mozilla.org/
And it's quick, too.
Why should it be cheaper? They spent about as much on it as three movies, it's over 3 hours long, and it's not as if the theaters are easier to clean up after. And (nearly) everyone went in knowing the plot, it's holes, shortcomings, and excessive rambling.
Google's links are not redirected via their server, and a lot of people would object to them "gathering data on their users' browsing activities". However, automatically checking the top link after each search (or scheduling it for checking) should be possible.
What should they do if a page is unavailable, though? What if it's only down for a few seconds?
The mapping between patent licences and software licences does not have to be 1:1. They can say "These patents are free for use in LGPL software, so long as that software is only linked to applications licenced under one of our approved licences". They could even disallow calling of GPL'd dynamic libraries from software that is not under an approved licence. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this is a good idea or not, just tossing the idea into the ring.
It may be that they are doing it for precisely the reason that they give in the policy statement; that is, for defensive purposes. Someone hits them with a patent infringement case, they hit back with their portfolio.
Couldn't they change their name to "Society Interested in Gnu/LINUX", and use the natural abbreviation "SIGLINUX"?
OK, I'll bite, what code has been misappropriated for inclusion in the Linux kernel?
Au contraire, my friend; the requirement for GNU software to come with source prevents this from happening (other than in small-scale obscure projects maybe).
I'm not bitching, just curious where this idiom comes from. Anyway, I posted that to the wrong story (should have been the nitrogen fullerenes one).
Can someone explain to me why someone would use use two backwards apostraphes at the beginning, and two sets of double-quotes at the end of a quotation ``like this'' ''? I've seen similar things to this all over usenet.