Want to be attractive to women ? - be attached, preferably obviously so, and to a good looking woman.
Want to be unattractive / ignored ? - be single, and looking. Make it obviously so to be even more unattractive.
And for the real killer, wnat to be stopped in the street and engaged in coversation by women (often including some really good lookers) ?
- try carrying a small baby. works every time.
A word of warning though - if borrowing a baby for this purpose, do your research well first. A significant part of the initial conversation will actually be questions to test if it is really _your_ baby. Answer unconfidently or obviously wrong, and watch the encounter draw rapidly to a close...
Why ? Who knows. Some speculate that women are attracted to men carrying babies because they "want" (biologically) a mate who will stick around to help raise the kids. Nature and hormones are clearly not logical.
To read the passive RFID chips you need to send a signal to them (which they use to send you one back).
Passive rfid ranges are _low_. For cars, they are talking about powered rfid tags (ie. big ones with batteries in) to get the signal as far as the roadside.
I don't see any way this is going to work at sniper range - but even if it did, your outgoing signal would have to be enough to fry everything relatively close to you, and you'd need a _big_ receiver.
Who the hell is going to want to be a sniper when you have to expose a large RF receiver and carry a high-power RF emitter (think about it) ?
This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.
Still the case. All this judgement said is that the libel/slander must be proved first, before the anonymity is lifted.
This protects anonymity by saying you can't get the courts, isps etc. to expose an author simply by suing them. To get the exposure you first have to prove the merits of your case.
Victims of slander don't lose by this, only people who want to use meritless accusations of slander to expose anonymous authors. If you have a case, no problem, if you don't, but just want to expose the writer so you can take other action (like dismissing an employee), then too bad - this court isn't going to help you.
1) We invented it- Its ours. On that train of thought, move the UN headquarters to Europe and let the Europeans pay to run their "invention"
Not a bad idea since we have at least two redundant sets of parliament buildings which each function part time because noone could agree where they should go. So lets rent one to the UN and the EU lot can stay in one place at the other. Should be a money saver.
2) Sharing obviously is making problems. Fine, close in/out of US routes, and allow countries to "buy in". Countries can then set up their own "internets" and route to the US and we'll route back.. for a modest fee of course.
Er, we already do have our own "internets" - they are the ones you connect your network to to form the "internet". Routing in and out of the US is already handled just fine by peering arrangements - and there are fees - not necessarily modest - which normally even out (but if the peering gets too asymmetric the gaining side (in traffic terms) pays the other). See, it's even all nice and capitalist.
"The vast majority of computer invention was also done by the American Department of Defense"
Invention is about being first, developing it afterwards is not invention.
First computers/ designs:
Babbage (UK) - first mechanical design
Turing (UK) - father of computing theory
First large scale electromechanical calculators -
Harvard Mark I (US) - 1944
Colossus (UK) - 1944
In this case the former went into early history books not because it was first but because the latter was completely classified - until 1970 (quite possibly because it was still in use for code breaking)
First stored program computer - Baby - Manchester University (UK).
Europe seems to have been a pioneer in world wars and ethnic cleansing
Only a pioneer in the sense that it existed before the US.
Europe "discovered" the US in the first place and "settled" it - well discovered and settled apart from the little matter of the population there beforehand who were were ethnically cleansed...
The US is _built_ on ethnic cleansing.
In terms of wars, Europe had european wars (long before the US existed), they became world wars when the US / Japan decided to join in.
No it isn't stealing, it is Plaigarism, and that is exactly what any scientist smart enough to be Nobel Prize would accuse you of.
If he claimed "he stole my paper", his audience would assume you raided the stationery cupboard, wheras by using the correct word (Plaigarism) he instantly conveys to his audience exactly what you did.
Similarly "he stole my music" means one thing, and "he infringed my copyright on my music" means something entirely different.
It is distinct from theft. In your example (depending on where you are) you'd find yourself prosecuted for something like "taking a motor vehicle without the owners consent" (TWOC), which is a different offence.
More here note the quote about english law: "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other".
In the case of copying, there is no appropriation of property (permanent or otherwise) because the owner of the original is clearly not deprived of it.
Which is why there are specific offences relating to copyright (just as with TWOC and cars).
No matter how much the music industry twists it, it is not theft.
From the consumers point of view (where their faq is aimed) it is limited - either your ISP is signed up or it isn't.
All the FAQ says is that you need broadband (and you could read that that is just because of the download size because elsewhere they mention it taking hours to download typical show over dial-up).
I wouldn't have thought that 90% was high enough to advertise without availability caveats, and if it is not even documented in FAQs etc. you are talking about 1 in 10 of your users who are definitely going to be calling your support lines with a major (known, unresolvable) problem. That is a lot.
private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs
So how do they get away with none of the documentation (or announcements) mentioning the limitation to certain ISPs ?
Or is it because of trial stage is invite-only and they've limited the invites to those ISPs ?
What happens if you go via a different UK ISP (not cennected to that network) - maybe then it falls back to Geo-IP and a different route (or different auth servers) ?
To quote their FAQ: 13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP? No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only. [Top]
15. What do I need to use iMP? FOR PC (and the High Definition tests): A broadband connection at home - 512kbps or higher
So, Geo-IP and no mention of needing to use specific partner ISPs (I do vaguely remember this being a requirement for some free streaming content, possibly BBC, but that was some time ago).
They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.
In future they might well simply require some form of confirmation of your tv licence details to prove that you've paid for it - which is the real goal. Restricting the downloads to UK only is only an approximation - since not everyone in the UK has a tv licence.
The point of the article isn't really the merits of the argument, but that they also apply to videogames (as do your points i and ii).
Both videogames and religious texts (and movies and other media) contain explict violence, which arguably needs a mature adult mind to put into proper context, and which is blamed for inciting extremes of violence in a small proportion of viewers (cause and effect impossible to prove though - as you note), and is even used as the justification for violence but some of the perpetrators.
So the question is why should videogames be subject to restrictions not placed on other media where the same violent effects are alledged (with dispute about cause and effect).
If the difference is that the lawmakers happen to like some forms of media (eg. hollywood and the bible) but not others, then how ethical is the regulation ?
That would be true if they really did "break in." However, I suspect that never occurred at all.
It is bad for them either way.
Allegedly they _claimed_ to have broken in to get the "evidence" and on that basis are demanding money.
So, either they did break in (oops, possibly illegal)
Or, they made fraudulent claims about evidence in order to extort money. Oops, illegal too.
I reckon it's worse for them if they didn't break in.
I don't think it is necessarily a defect in the counter-claims - they appear to be throwing the RIAA's own claims back at them. If those claims prove to be technically unfounded then the RIAA lose. If they prove to be technically unfounded and that the RIAA knew that and still continued to demand money, then that (by my guess) is where RICO comes in.
Define "professional level". If you mean "I paid an extra $200 for the 'pro' version" then you're off by a few orders of magnitude.
I have seen indemnity clauses in several software development and support contracts - probably the majority of the contracts I've seen in fact. And no they weren't for safety critical software.
You can get indemnity. You will have to pay for it. The lawyer time alone on some of the contracts I can recall was well into four figures - scale appropriately for the software price.
If you're betting 500k/day on _any_ software you'd be also be negligent not to have a proper contract (not a eula) with the supplier. At that point you make a decision to get indemnity or not. If you do, the supplier takes some of that risk and most likely insures themselves (if not, you'd better know they are big enough to cover it). Or you insure the risk yourself. Or you take the risk. Your decision.
Indemnity gets written into software contracts all the time. Including for "free" (as in speech) software.
For free (as in beer) software ? - well, it's worth every cent you paid for it.
What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.
Problem is that they aren't (all) - therefore your whole basis is incorrect. Probability of discovering miscarriage of justice in timeframe of typical life sentence is far from negligible (based on experience to date).
If embryo cells are taken at scheduled destruction date (eg. if can only be kept for limited time by law), probability of any other result is nil.
What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
What it took is clearly explained in TFA (and summary) for those that can read.
[ The words "cord" and "blood" might be useful clues. ]
As to the taking of cord blood "killing who knows how many babies", well, I'm stumped there, never heard of even one death and can't see how it could happen - care to provide a reference ?
Or perhaps you just don't have the faintest clue about obstetrics ? [ not a good starting point if you want your criticism / anger to be taken even slightly seriously ]
SCO bought a freakin license to include a copy of MySQL that's not GPL. It's not like SCO bought the company
No, it's like MySQL _sold_ them something.
There are (I expect) a large number of people reaing this who believe that SCO is not a company you should do business with.
It would be interesting to know why MySQL did business with SCO, maybe on principle they turn no customer away, or maybe a need for money overrode. The latter case might be a legitimate concern for the community.
Slashdot Mirror
Dating doesn't work logically like that.
Want to be attractive to women ? - be attached, preferably obviously so, and to a good looking woman.
Want to be unattractive / ignored ? - be single, and looking. Make it obviously so to be even more unattractive.
And for the real killer, wnat to be stopped in the street and engaged in coversation by women (often including some really good lookers) ?
- try carrying a small baby. works every time.
A word of warning though - if borrowing a baby for this purpose, do your research well first. A significant part of the initial conversation will actually be questions to test if it is really _your_ baby. Answer unconfidently or obviously wrong, and watch the encounter draw rapidly to a close...
Why ? Who knows. Some speculate that women are attracted to men carrying babies because they "want" (biologically) a mate who will stick around to help raise the kids. Nature and hormones are clearly not logical.
Not going to work.
To read the passive RFID chips you need to send a signal to them (which they use to send you one back).
Passive rfid ranges are _low_. For cars, they are talking about powered rfid tags (ie. big ones with batteries in) to get the signal as far as the roadside.
I don't see any way this is going to work at sniper range - but even if it did, your outgoing signal would have to be enough to fry everything relatively close to you, and you'd need a _big_ receiver.
Who the hell is going to want to be a sniper when you have to expose a large RF receiver and carry a high-power RF emitter (think about it) ?
This is news because typically people are held responsible for slander and the consequences can be costly.
Still the case. All this judgement said is that the libel/slander must be proved first, before the anonymity is lifted.
This protects anonymity by saying you can't get the courts, isps etc. to expose an author simply by suing them. To get the exposure you first have to prove the merits of your case.
Victims of slander don't lose by this, only people who want to use meritless accusations of slander to expose anonymous authors. If you have a case, no problem, if you don't, but just want to expose the writer so you can take other action (like dismissing an employee), then too bad - this court isn't going to help you.
1) We invented it- Its ours. On that train of thought, move the UN headquarters to Europe and let the Europeans pay to run their "invention"
Not a bad idea since we have at least two redundant sets of parliament buildings which each function part time because noone could agree where they should go. So lets rent one to the UN and the EU lot can stay in one place at the other. Should be a money saver.
2) Sharing obviously is making problems. Fine, close in/out of US routes, and allow countries to "buy in". Countries can then set up their own "internets" and route to the US and we'll route back.. for a modest fee of course.
Er, we already do have our own "internets" - they are the ones you connect your network to to form the "internet". Routing in and out of the US is already handled just fine by peering arrangements - and there are fees - not necessarily modest - which normally even out (but if the peering gets too asymmetric the gaining side (in traffic terms) pays the other). See, it's even all nice and capitalist.
"The vast majority of computer invention was also done by the American Department of Defense"
Invention is about being first, developing it afterwards is not invention.
First computers/ designs:
Babbage (UK) - first mechanical design
Turing (UK) - father of computing theory
First large scale electromechanical calculators -
Harvard Mark I (US) - 1944
Colossus (UK) - 1944
In this case the former went into early history books not because it was first but because the latter was completely classified - until 1970 (quite possibly because it was still in use for code breaking)
First stored program computer - Baby - Manchester University (UK).
Sorry but US is not looking like majority...
Europe seems to have been a pioneer in world wars and ethnic cleansing
Only a pioneer in the sense that it existed before the US.
Europe "discovered" the US in the first place and "settled" it - well discovered and settled apart from the little matter of the population there beforehand who were were ethnically cleansed...
The US is _built_ on ethnic cleansing.
In terms of wars, Europe had european wars (long before the US existed), they became world wars when the US / Japan decided to join in.
No it isn't stealing, it is Plaigarism, and that is exactly what any scientist smart enough to be Nobel Prize would accuse you of.
If he claimed "he stole my paper", his audience would assume you raided the stationery cupboard, wheras by using the correct word (Plaigarism) he instantly conveys to his audience exactly what you did.
Similarly "he stole my music" means one thing, and "he infringed my copyright on my music" means something entirely different.
It is distinct from theft. In your example (depending on where you are) you'd find yourself prosecuted for something like "taking a motor vehicle without the owners consent" (TWOC), which is a different offence.
More here note the quote about english law: "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other".
In the case of copying, there is no appropriation of property (permanent or otherwise) because the owner of the original is clearly not deprived of it.
Which is why there are specific offences relating to copyright
(just as with TWOC and cars).
No matter how much the music industry twists it, it is not theft.
From the consumers point of view (where their faq is aimed) it is limited - either your ISP is signed up or it isn't.
All the FAQ says is that you need broadband (and you could read that that is just because of the download size because elsewhere they mention it taking hours to download typical show over dial-up).
I wouldn't have thought that 90% was high enough to advertise without availability caveats, and if it is not even documented in FAQs etc. you are talking about 1 in 10 of your users who are definitely going to be calling your support lines with a major (known, unresolvable) problem. That is a lot.
private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs
So how do they get away with none of the documentation (or announcements) mentioning the limitation to certain ISPs ?
Or is it because of trial stage is invite-only and they've limited the invites to those ISPs ?
What happens if you go via a different UK ISP (not cennected to that network) - maybe then it falls back to Geo-IP and a different route (or different auth servers) ?
To quote their FAQ:
13. Will internet users abroad be able to get iMP?
No. The BBC will be using Geo-IP technology to restrict usage to UK users only. [Top]
15. What do I need to use iMP?
FOR PC (and the High Definition tests):
A broadband connection at home - 512kbps or higher
So, Geo-IP and no mention of needing to use specific partner ISPs (I do vaguely remember this being a requirement for some free streaming content, possibly BBC, but that was some time ago).
They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.
In future they might well simply require some form of confirmation of your tv licence details to prove that you've paid for it - which is the real goal. Restricting the downloads to UK only is only an approximation - since not everyone in the UK has a tv licence.
I mean, really, what sort of ads are you going to get with that
glue
bikes
spandex
was that so hard ?
The point of the article isn't really the merits of the argument, but that they also apply to videogames (as do your points i and ii).
Both videogames and religious texts (and movies and other media) contain explict violence, which arguably needs a mature adult mind to put into proper context, and which is blamed for inciting extremes of violence in a small proportion of viewers (cause and effect impossible to prove though - as you note), and is even used as the justification for violence but some of the perpetrators.
So the question is why should videogames be subject to restrictions not placed on other media where the same violent effects are alledged (with dispute about cause and effect).
If the difference is that the lawmakers happen to like some forms of media (eg. hollywood and the bible) but not others, then how ethical is the regulation ?
That would be true if they really did "break in." However, I suspect that never occurred at all.
It is bad for them either way.
Allegedly they _claimed_ to have broken in to get the "evidence" and on that basis are demanding money.
So, either they did break in (oops, possibly illegal)
Or, they made fraudulent claims about evidence in order to extort money. Oops, illegal too.
I reckon it's worse for them if they didn't break in.
I don't think it is necessarily a defect in the counter-claims - they appear to be throwing the RIAA's own claims back at them. If those claims prove to be technically unfounded then the RIAA lose. If they prove to be technically unfounded and that the RIAA knew that and still continued to demand money, then that (by my guess) is where RICO comes in.
I have seen indemnity clauses in several software development and support contracts - probably the majority of the contracts I've seen in fact. And no they weren't for safety critical software.
You can get indemnity. You will have to pay for it. The lawyer time alone on some of the contracts I can recall was well into four figures - scale appropriately for the software price.
Add "get indemnity from supplier" to your list.
If you're betting 500k/day on _any_ software you'd be also be negligent not to have a proper contract (not a eula) with the supplier. At that point you make a decision to get indemnity or not. If you do, the supplier takes some of that risk and most likely insures themselves (if not, you'd better know they are big enough to cover it). Or you insure the risk yourself. Or you take the risk. Your decision.
Indemnity gets written into software contracts all the time. Including for "free" (as in speech) software.
For free (as in beer) software ? - well, it's worth every cent you paid for it.
and if it had had, it would have expired by now anyway
What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.
Problem is that they aren't (all) - therefore your whole basis is incorrect. Probability of discovering miscarriage of justice in timeframe of typical life sentence is far from negligible (based on experience to date).
If embryo cells are taken at scheduled destruction date (eg. if can only be kept for limited time by law), probability of any other result is nil.
What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Prisoners are used in medical research.
What it took is clearly explained in TFA (and summary) for those that can read.
[ The words "cord" and "blood" might be useful clues. ]
As to the taking of cord blood "killing who knows how many babies", well, I'm stumped there, never heard of even one death and can't see how it could happen - care to provide a reference ?
Or perhaps you just don't have the faintest clue about obstetrics ? [ not a good starting point if you want your criticism / anger to be taken even slightly seriously ]
adhere to what is generally considered "right" back home when they conduct business abroad
like not turning over user details or log files to authorities looking for authors of material they disagree with ?
*cough* Rackspace *cough*
So far looks like turning over such info *is* considered "right" in the USA - at least according to your government authorities.
...Infopath, OneNote, Visio, Project
Nope, probably meant 32G or 64G see eg. microsofts info
2^32 is not relevant - google intel and PAE
"What am I missing?"
that a sale involves supplying something in return, not just taking money.
The fact that taking the 30 pieces of silver leaves the bad guys poorer isn't really the important bit, is it ?
SCO bought a freakin license to include a copy of MySQL that's not GPL. It's not like SCO bought the company
No, it's like MySQL _sold_ them something.
There are (I expect) a large number of people reaing this who believe that SCO is not a company you should do business with.
It would be interesting to know why MySQL did business with SCO, maybe on principle they turn no customer away, or maybe a need for money overrode. The latter case might be a legitimate concern for the community.