[ Of course this was criticised by the head of the Met police, who couldn't do anythign else really since it undermines his we-must-shoot-innocent-people-in-the-head style of policing ]
"when they start suggesting" !? - they already are, and not just suggesting but demanding.
All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.
Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:
[...snip...] for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).
female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes).
If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed. But don't bitch and moan when the letter of the law is followed
Two sets of laws are in conflict here, question is which do you follow. Federal law is trying to get him to do something (turn over video) that state law explicitly says he does not have to do.
The ("a little shady") jurisdiction question is everything, you can't just say "jurisdiction issue aside..." because it is the issue.
Same difference, because having Free Software automatically implies that there aren't required recurring payments for the software to work.
No it doesn't. It does imply that you have the right (legally / theoretically) to get someone else in to fix it, but nothing stops it being time-bombed or similar.
In practical terms, however, if you fall out with your software developers to the extent that you get security to escort them off premises (as happened here) you have a whole bunch of problems, including:
- securing the current system (remote access, backdoors, phone-home...) - getting the code - checking the code is complete, compiles, and compiles to the current binary - checking the code is "correct", not time bombed or trapped - figuring out how to use/operate the software
Free vs. commercial software has no bearing on any of these issues, even the issue of getting the code (you might have the right to the code under GPL or similar, maybe you even have your valid-for-three-years "written offer" under 3b, but are the developers going to honour that (quickly) when you are already in dispute with them ?).
The only way to avoid (some of) these issues is to be properly prepared in advance which means having the code verified etc. (and then held in escrow if need be) by an independent party. Software escrow agents do this stuff all the time, and it's a normal part of the enterprise software purchase process (when it's done right). With free / open source software, you could keep the code yourself and do away with the escrow storage (but not the verification, which is the main expense), but that doesn't mean you should.
Then, lets look beyond the issue of the software actually working (or not) when you stop paying support.
You've got a complex hardware+software system with a terminated support contract, warranty and vendor liability probably just went with that termination too, and you just threw your trained vendor operators off the site.
The software might still work, but who is going to operate it ? Who's going to train you, the vendor ? Are you really going to sit down without a clue and start pushing buttons ? Is your liability insurance going to cover this situation and cover you if you push the wrong button and crush a few dozen cars ?
Or... just maybe... you need to sit down and work things through for a few days before you start pushing buttons.
At the end of the day, regardless of software licence, you need to:
a) ensure you maintain a good relationship with suppliers
or
b) ensure you're properly prepared (contractually and practically - and during the sales process when you have some leverage) if the relationship does go sour
or, preferably,
c) both of the above
Re:Israel is not "attacking the civilian populatio
on
Lead PHP Developer Quits
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Israel is attacking military targets that Hezbollah has purposly intermingled amongst civilians
like civilian airports ? power stations ? sewage works ?
pretty big targets to be hit "accidentally".
In fact, Israel has taken pains to inform civilians
And then killed them when they flee their homes in response to those warnings. And then attacked red cross ambulances evacuating the wounded. And attacked the UN convoys taking aid to those too frightened to move. And the unarmed UN observers (in a bunker, apparently detroyed by precision guided weapon, after repeated requests from the UN not to hit those coordinates). And then shelled the UN rescue effort for the observers.
Sure, Hezbolla is throwing back random unguided rockets, but the IDF does not have that excuse, they are supposedly using modern precision guided weapons, it's pretty hard to believe all these are all accidentally off-target.
Finally, today's news quote:
The Israeli military's radio station in south Lebanon today warned that the army "will totally destroy any village from which missiles are fired toward Israel".
So, in their own words, this is defintely purposeful.
Just send your money to an overseas bank, then conduct the transaction from there.
Applies equally to both cases (ban or tax). Given the industry arguments against the ban, one can conclude that this might represent a significant hurdle for a lot of US consumers / gamblers.
When Yahoo US posted material legal in the US and not legal in France (but accessible from France), they got fined in France.
What did they do ? - Try and get the US courts to rule that US (1st amendment) law applied to their internet site. Appealed all the way to the supremes (who have declined to take it - ie. the US establishment is ducking the issue so far).
Sooner or later they will have to face it, as some non-US country is going to arrest a US CEO in transit to make the point. Then the US will have to face up to the fact that using your legal system to impose your values beyond your borders is going to work for other countries too. Countries whose values the US doesn't like but is going to end up having to live with.
How long before Chavez tries to collect massive retrospective taxes going back a few years (following Putin's example) ? Where would US oil execs ba able to go then - nowhere where Venezuela has an extradition treaty and, probably more importantly, nowhere where it could buy an extradidtion for a million or so barrels of cheap oil.
Sorry, but you're not making a whole load of sense here.
makes sense to me
McAfee found a design flaw back in February and quitely fixed it
GP point is that we don't know that is what happened.
What we know is that versions post the Feb. update are not vulnerable. So, the Feb. update did something that made this exploit stop working.
That does not, however, mean that it was designed to block the exploit based on knowledge of the exploit. In fact, as GP suggested, it is actually quite common for code changes to stop a security exploit from working as an unintentional side effect (in the same way as they can and do enable new exploits as a side effect).
EULAs are just for consumer stuff, in business ("enterprise" software I guess) there is invariably a real contract, in which there is invariably indemnity and liability.
> Or do you know of a single instance where a commercial software company has been sued for a software bug?
Yep. I recall EDS paid over $100M compensation to HMRC for buggy uk tax credits system (not sure if HMRC actually filed suit but you can be sure it threatened to to get that settlement).
Also, I know of plenty of instances where litigation has been threatened over software bugs.
Personally, I don't take these as idle threats. If I went into a project review and the customer brings in lawyer+contract then I'd be worried, and if I came out of it and said "pay no attention, no one ever got sued for a bug", then I'd be fired.
I'd just have to wonder about the incredible tension the kite's main lead would be under. We're talking HUGE forces here. One of those "if it snaps, someone's gonna die" kind of tensions.
can't be much different to towing the ship with a tug - which is pretty common.
forces on anchor cables and mooring lines are also likely to be pretty similar.
you are right on the "someone's gonna die" level on tension (well known with eg. mooring lines), but it's going to be a manageable risk because it is already managed with ships of this size.
If a user has a dead motherboard 3 months into ownership of the computer, and it's swapped out [...] activation fails.
Don't mix up activation with what is a legal license. Activation is a relatively crude enforcement tool which is why it can be overridden (which is what they do over the phone). MS specifically differentiates between replacement of a defective motherboard (no new licence required) and upgrade (new licence required - old one stays with the old, not dead, board).
Conversely, you can successfully activate copies which are in violation of the eula - as in the case in TFA.
So does that mean that the 'License' has no validity once removed from the system it was initially affixed to?
Yes, it means exactly that.
It is a license limited to the original system. It is not transferrable. That might feel unfair, but then again it almost certainly cost a lot less than a full retail license.
Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections
Nope, the two are completely unlinked.
Freely elected governments can, and sometimes do, engage in terrorism, and terrorists can be, and are, freely elected into government (both Jews and Arabs in recent Israeli/Palestinian history).
Has a lot of good info on underground vs. overhead for proposed new powergrid in Scotland.
Estimates of lifetime cost ratios (table 8 at the end of the document) are between 6.9 - 10.2 for traditional fluid-filled cable and still 4.9 - 7.8 for newer (and arguably less proven) XLPE insulation technology.
Also, this is recent tech which you would use to build your grid _now_ - go back a couple of decades and the difference was much larger. At Dinorwig - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_power_statio n - they had to run the first few miles of cable underground because of national-park restrictions, and there you're looking at water-cooled cable requiring acutal cooling stations (size of small house) every couple of miles. While it's very impressive to see an entire power station underground, with no visible power lines, it was definitely not cheap to do it that way.
Bottom line is that the overhead option is using a few feet of air to get its insulation for free, and it's always tough to compete with free.
Kind of kills the market for the third party vendors who already provide tools which do just that.
Maybe those vendors would have an anti-trust case against Adobe for doing it.
Would be ironic given Adobe's anti-trust allegations against MS for essentially doing the same thing (adding a "Save as PDF" tool to the MS office toolbar).
They made it just about impossible for someone to cancel. The information on how to do it is kept as far from sight as possible
It's on the end of the keyword "cancel" in your aol software. It was that way 5 or 6 years ago when I used it, briefly, and it is still that way now according to a quick look at their website. Hardly hidden.
when you finally find it your told you *must* do it over the telephone
I call bullshit. I have personally cancelled AOL accounts by email - as (was then) described on the info on the "cancel" keyword. This may vary by country, but fax and snail mail were also listed options I think.
All it took was one polite email, in which I took the two minutes or so trouble to explain why I didn't need the service anymore - so they already had info to put in whatever crm systems it probably goes in. Also took care to put in the requested security identifying info (can't remember what it was now).
Obviously if you don't put that info in first, you are going to go round the loop getting asked for it (especially security/id info - I'm sure we'd be annoyed if they cancelled accounts without verifying that).
Granted, this was all several years ago, but the scare stories about AOL being impossible to cancel were around back then too. It wasn't impossible, in fact it was one of the easier ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd buy airline stock when it bottoms out (good luck calling the floor on it). Right now it is in freefall, at least in London.
Course not - much more important to have the real terrorists alive for interrogation.
If you're a real terrorist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasin_Hassan_Omar - refuse to surrender, have a rucsack with you (all allegedly), then you just get a taser.
[ Of course this was criticised by the head of the Met police, who couldn't do anythign else really since it undermines his we-must-shoot-innocent-people-in-the-head style of policing ]
From http://www.dft.gov.uk/ - airline security statement.
Also note it's only "sufficient and essential for the flight".
What you do for the several hours people are waiting to get on the flight is anybodys guess.
Note also the bit about having to drink any baby milk - previously held to be only an urban legend http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/milk.htm. Fiction becomes reality.
If you don't like how the laws are written, that's fine, then lobby to get them changed. But don't bitch and moan when the letter of the law is followed
Two sets of laws are in conflict here, question is which do you follow. Federal law is trying to get him to do something (turn over video) that state law explicitly says he does not have to do.
The ("a little shady") jurisdiction question is everything, you can't just say "jurisdiction issue aside..." because it is the issue.
Same difference, because having Free Software automatically implies that there aren't required recurring payments for the software to work.
No it doesn't. It does imply that you have the right (legally / theoretically) to get someone else in to fix it, but nothing stops it being time-bombed or similar.
In practical terms, however, if you fall out with your software developers to the extent that you get security to escort them off premises (as happened here) you have a whole bunch of problems, including:
- securing the current system (remote access, backdoors, phone-home...)
- getting the code
- checking the code is complete, compiles, and compiles to the current binary
- checking the code is "correct", not time bombed or trapped
- figuring out how to use/operate the software
Free vs. commercial software has no bearing on any of these issues, even the issue of getting the code (you might have the right to the code under GPL or similar, maybe you even have your valid-for-three-years "written offer" under 3b, but are the developers going to honour that (quickly) when you are already in dispute with them ?).
The only way to avoid (some of) these issues is to be properly prepared in advance which means having the code verified etc. (and then held in escrow if need be) by an independent party. Software escrow agents do this stuff all the time, and it's a normal part of the enterprise software purchase process (when it's done right). With free / open source software, you could keep the code yourself and do away with the escrow storage (but not the verification, which is the main expense), but that doesn't mean you should.
Then, lets look beyond the issue of the software actually working (or not) when you stop paying support.
You've got a complex hardware+software system with a terminated support contract, warranty and vendor liability probably just went with that termination too, and you just threw your trained vendor operators off the site.
The software might still work, but who is going to operate it ?
Who's going to train you, the vendor ?
Are you really going to sit down without a clue and start pushing buttons ?
Is your liability insurance going to cover this situation and cover you if you push the wrong button and crush a few dozen cars ?
Or... just maybe... you need to sit down and work things through for a few days before you start pushing buttons.
At the end of the day, regardless of software licence, you need to:
a) ensure you maintain a good relationship with suppliers
or
b) ensure you're properly prepared (contractually and practically - and during the sales process when you have some leverage) if the relationship does go sour
or, preferably,
c) both of the above
like civilian airports ? power stations ? sewage works ?
pretty big targets to be hit "accidentally".
In fact, Israel has taken pains to inform civilians
And then killed them when they flee their homes in response to those warnings.
And then attacked red cross ambulances evacuating the wounded.
And attacked the UN convoys taking aid to those too frightened to move.
And the unarmed UN observers (in a bunker, apparently detroyed by precision guided weapon, after repeated requests from the UN not to hit those coordinates).
And then shelled the UN rescue effort for the observers.
Sure, Hezbolla is throwing back random unguided rockets, but the IDF does not have that excuse, they are supposedly using modern precision guided weapons, it's pretty hard to believe all these are all accidentally off-target.
Finally, today's news quote:
So, in their own words, this is defintely purposeful.
Fact is neither side cares about civilian lives.
Just send your money to an overseas bank, then conduct the transaction from there.
Applies equally to both cases (ban or tax). Given the industry arguments against the ban, one can conclude that this might represent a significant hurdle for a lot of US consumers / gamblers.
Think french law also, and german and....
When Yahoo US posted material legal in the US and not legal in France (but accessible from France), they got fined in France.
What did they do ? - Try and get the US courts to rule that US (1st amendment) law applied to their internet site. Appealed all the way to the supremes (who have declined to take it - ie. the US establishment is ducking the issue so far).
Sooner or later they will have to face it, as some non-US country is going to arrest a US CEO in transit to make the point. Then the US will have to face up to the fact that using your legal system to impose your values beyond your borders is going to work for other countries too. Countries whose values the US doesn't like but is going to end up having to live with.
How long before Chavez tries to collect massive retrospective taxes going back a few years (following Putin's example) ? Where would US oil execs ba able to go then - nowhere where Venezuela has an extradition treaty and, probably more importantly, nowhere where it could buy an extradidtion for a million or so barrels of cheap oil.
Can't tax the interbutt when the countries are offshore.
In the same way, you'd say they can't stop it.
But they are having a pretty good go at that by legislating against the money (credit card) transfers.
Just amend that bill to tax the transfers to online gambling companies instead of prohibit it outright.
because a passenger is usually aware of the road conditions and will shut up at the appropriate time
I wish that were true
s/passenger/wife&kids/ and it is easily provable false.
On the phone you can shut the other party up with one push of a button.... wish that were true for wife&kids too.
Sorry, but you're not making a whole load of sense here.
makes sense to me
McAfee found a design flaw back in February and quitely fixed it
GP point is that we don't know that is what happened.
What we know is that versions post the Feb. update are not vulnerable. So, the Feb. update did something that made this exploit stop working.
That does not, however, mean that it was designed to block the exploit based on knowledge of the exploit. In fact, as GP suggested, it is actually quite common for code changes to stop a security exploit from working as an unintentional side effect (in the same way as they can and do enable new exploits as a side effect).
EULAs are just for consumer stuff, in business ("enterprise" software I guess) there is invariably a real contract, in which there is invariably indemnity and liability.
> Or do you know of a single instance where a commercial software company has been sued for a software bug?
Yep. I recall EDS paid over $100M compensation to HMRC for buggy uk tax credits system (not sure if HMRC actually filed suit but you can be sure it threatened to to get that settlement).
Also, I know of plenty of instances where litigation has been threatened over software bugs.
Personally, I don't take these as idle threats. If I went into a project review and the customer brings in lawyer+contract then I'd be worried, and if I came out of it and said "pay no attention, no one ever got sued for a bug", then I'd be fired.
I'd just have to wonder about the incredible tension the kite's main lead would be under. We're talking HUGE forces here. One of those "if it snaps, someone's gonna die" kind of tensions.
can't be much different to towing the ship with a tug - which is pretty common.
forces on anchor cables and mooring lines are also likely to be pretty similar.
you are right on the "someone's gonna die" level on tension (well known with eg. mooring lines), but it's going to be a manageable risk because it is already managed with ships of this size.
If a user has a dead motherboard 3 months into ownership of the computer, and it's swapped out [...] activation fails.
Don't mix up activation with what is a legal license. Activation is a relatively crude enforcement tool which is why it can be overridden (which is what they do over the phone). MS specifically differentiates between replacement of a defective motherboard (no new licence required) and upgrade (new licence required - old one stays with the old, not dead, board).
Conversely, you can successfully activate copies which are in violation of the eula - as in the case in TFA.
dunno wtf. happened to that url, should have been:
o .mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_d
So does that mean that the 'License' has no validity once removed from the system it was initially affixed to?
u rPC_do.mspxrel=url2html-32541http://www.microsoft. com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx>. I find it hard to believe these guys didn't know.
Yes, it means exactly that.
It is a license limited to the original system. It is not transferrable. That might feel unfair, but then again it almost certainly cost a lot less than a full retail license.
MS have been pretty clear on OEM licenses and transfers, eg. ahref=http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/Yo
Repeat after me: Terrorism is when you fly planes into skyscrapers, not when you allow free elections
Nope, the two are completely unlinked.
Freely elected governments can, and sometimes do, engage in terrorism, and terrorists can be, and are, freely elected into government (both Jews and Arabs in recent Israeli/Palestinian history).
"Coward" is french isn't it ?
The people at the top have to know so they can they leak the info when politically necessary.
[ Same answer as "why does the whitehouse need to know who every undercover CIA agent is ?" ]
The fuels are _liquid_ hydrogen and _liquid_ oxygen. Last time I looked they were only liquid at well below freezing point of water.
Things only get hot when these two are mixed together - in the engine. Getting them hot (and mixed) in the tank is a bad idea - think Challenger.
I would actually like to see some figures to back that up.
3 326-4DB9-AAA1-44537AE9B885/0/text.pdf
o n - they had to run the first few miles of cable underground because of national-park restrictions, and there you're looking at water-cooled cable requiring acutal cooling stations (size of small house) every couple of miles. While it's very impressive to see an entire power station underground, with no visible power lines, it was definitely not cheap to do it that way.
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CBDD84F3-
Has a lot of good info on underground vs. overhead for proposed new powergrid in Scotland.
Estimates of lifetime cost ratios (table 8 at the end of the document) are between 6.9 - 10.2 for traditional fluid-filled cable and still 4.9 - 7.8 for newer (and arguably less proven) XLPE insulation technology.
Also, this is recent tech which you would use to build your grid _now_ - go back a couple of decades and the difference was much larger. At Dinorwig - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_power_stati
Bottom line is that the overhead option is using a few feet of air to get its insulation for free, and it's always tough to compete with free.
These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:
Only if the upstream distributor uses 3(b).
If they used 3(a) - as most do - then the downstream guy has no written offer to pass on.
Kind of kills the market for the third party vendors who already provide tools which do just that.
Maybe those vendors would have an anti-trust case against Adobe for doing it.
Would be ironic given Adobe's anti-trust allegations against MS for essentially doing the same thing (adding a "Save as PDF" tool to the MS office toolbar).
They made it just about impossible for someone to cancel. The information on how to do it is kept as far from sight as possible
It's on the end of the keyword "cancel" in your aol software. It was that way 5 or 6 years ago when I used it, briefly, and it is still that way now according to a quick look at their website. Hardly hidden.
when you finally find it your told you *must* do it over the telephone
I call bullshit. I have personally cancelled AOL accounts by email - as (was then) described on the info on the "cancel" keyword. This may vary by country, but fax and snail mail were also listed options I think.
All it took was one polite email, in which I took the two minutes or so trouble to explain why I didn't need the service anymore - so they already had info to put in whatever crm systems it probably goes in. Also took care to put in the requested security identifying info (can't remember what it was now).
Obviously if you don't put that info in first, you are going to go round the loop getting asked for it (especially security/id info - I'm sure we'd be annoyed if they cancelled accounts without verifying that).
Granted, this was all several years ago, but the scare stories about AOL being impossible to cancel were around back then too. It wasn't impossible, in fact it was one of the easier ones.
It would make tremendous sense for Microsoft to split into a number of companies
Except that MS doesn't see it that way - or they wouldn't have spent $$$ appealing the court ruling that told them to do just that.