Oh yay, the Roman Polanski example is brought up yet again.
Read up on the story, theres a *lot* of judicial misconduct in it - thats the reason for the current situation, its not as simple as Polanski is being allowed to get away with child rape.
In the UK, as part of the Distance Sales Act regulations, you *have* to accept returns for most things "for no reason" for up to 14 days from the date of delivery (not the date of shipping).
The customer simply says "I want to return the item under the Distance Sales Act" and you are obliged to accept the return in full.
And it hasn't caused major upheaval here, despite being law now for over a decade.
Yes, it can be used to throw out any extradition request - but Kim Dotcom had better be especially careful about where he travels in future...
NZ is only the *current* jurisdiction this is being fought in, it can quite easily become dozens of other countries at the behest of the American judicial system.
In the U.K., if you go with Sky, you pay nothing for their Sky+HD DVR - you get one delivered regardless of what level of subscription you take out, they don't charge a specific rental for it, and they don't take it away once you cancel.
The fact that Airbus used to optimise its wings for the non-cruise periods rather than the cruise - because it was worth it. They didn't really switch until they introduced the A340-500/600 aircraft, and the A380 initial wing was leaning toward the non-cruise optimisation as well until they introduced a twist into later models and shifted the optimisation to the cruise phase. Boeing has always optimised for cruise in its wing philosophy.
Planes spend enough time at lower altitudes that you do have to make concessions to optimise for it - when you start getting into the fuel use with flaps and slats extended, it especially starts to make sense at a certain point.
Optimisations at low altitude have a larger pay off than optimisations at higher altitudes - theres more induced drag because the airs thicker.
When the support contract ended, it wasn't just "prohibitively expensive" to continue operations, it was impossible - Airbus withdrew the manufacturers certificate, without which no one could fly Concorde commercially. It wasn't as simple as getting another entity to pick up the support contract.
Your first issue isn't an issue - if this *is* a manufacturing or design issue that caused the fire, why should the premium payer pool bear the cost of the payout and not the body which shipped a defective device?
If the premium payer pool bears the cost, then that affects the risk pool, which affects premiums for future coverage.
Retrieving the costs from the manufacturer should *theoretically* leave the risk pool unaffected, meaning there is no additional risk for future premiums to cover.
Go make your own SDK, or pay Sony for the one they made.
You can't realistically claim, at all, that you bought the PS4 with software development in mind, considering there was never any suggestion that you could do so for free, so your argument pretty much fails at the first hurdle.
Oh, and look, we have another Slashdotter *nasty*, *dirty* word - you guys are out in force today. "Shill"! Haven't been called one of those in years... Nope, I'm not taking any money from Sony to point out they aren't doing anything wrong here.
Wow, theres that nasty, dirty word that Slashdotters just *love* to throw around - "censorship".
I bet you personally love to perform a bit of "censorship" on your own credit card details, passwords, PINs, security details and sex life... doesn't make it a *bad* thing to do so.
But then we have your sig, don't we. Just shows how out of touch with reality you really are...
Copyright law being used for what it was intended then? Rather than something snarky like the summary claims - people are distributing the SDK without permission or reasonable grounds for fair use, and Sony is using the law to prevent someone from distributing copyrighted material without permission...
They also get accidentally reused for things that arent on the label, often aren't cleaned properly when refilled... you see where I am going?
Understandable after not seeing them in over 20 years, those are false assumptions. Pill bottles are only used for what is on the label. The label is not replaced. The bottles are only reused a limited number of times if and only if they are prescribed that way. Many are not.
Yup, a pharmacist may be regimented enough to not reuse a pill bottle, but what about standard Joe Blogs and his wife? Putting half their medication into a random pill bottle for safe keeping, travelling etc, and then sticking it in the medicine cabinet and forgetting... wait a minute, is this really oxycodone or is it paracetamol...?
And as pill bottles are required to be child proof, how are they easier on people with arthritis?
Understandable ignorance from someone that has nothing to compare to. Pill bottles are not required to be child proof, but you must ask for an alternative. There are alternative cap options for those with physical ailments. Even with standard caps, pushing and rotating with a palm is much easier than pushing pills out of blister packs for people with arthritis.
So its not a blanket statement as was originally used then, eh?
There are many scenarios where its got nothing to do with stock management - emergency care drugs, for example.
My wife is a GP - she is issued a drugs bag for home visits, which means she carries around morphine, adrenaline and a whole bunch of other stuff. Once that bag and its contents is issued to her, it cannot be issued to someone else for use - it she were to hand the bag back, it would have to be destroyed, another GP wouldn't get it because the chain of "custody" has been broken.
That means that my wife has to regularly do "stock" rotations on her drugs bag, which means old stock simply gets destroyed when its traded in for newer, longer life stuff.
Now think of that same scenario for millions of doctors around the world, for care homes, for home carers etc etc etc all issued drugs for use in an emergency, but that emergency never arising...
I would also guess that the expiration date is for more than the potency of the drug - its also for the accuracy of the box instructions, listed side effects etc, which the manufacturer also has to make reasonable effort to keep up to date.
Taking drugs from a 10 year old prescription in your medicine cabinet may mean the drugs themselves are still potent, but they may no longer list the severe side effect that was discovered 8 years ago, especially when taken with other medicine...
Yeah, no one looks at that stuff anyway, but the drugs companies have to cover themselves somehow for the inevitable legal fall out.
In the UK, it is *incredibly* uncommon for you to get a pill bottle any more - you get prescribed a specific dosage for a set period, which almost always corresponds to a specific container, so a 2.5mg tablet twice a day for 14 days means you get a 28 dose box with two 14 pill blister strips in it.
I wouldn't know why you would get handed a generic pill bottle with individual pills in it these days, I haven't seen it happen in a couple decades.
Even with PAE, a process couldn't address more than the 4GB limit, so you are still stuck if your single process app needed a larger memory space and you were on a 32bit x86 system:/
For fucks sake, did you actually read my post *at all*?!
Yes, vaccines *work* in the same way - I didn't say they don't. What I did say is that in quite a few cases it can be easier to produce a vaccine for a child than for an adult - and it is, in quite a few cases you can't simply use the child vaccine in an adult, it simply won't work due to the immunological response the adult body will have. There is a reason why Chicken Pox is a *serious* illness in adulthood that can cause death but not really considered a fatal illness for children - because children's bodies work differently! Which is why the shingles vaccination has to be done very carefully for older patients (its a much higher concentration than children are given for chicken pox).
Vaccinating adults is entirely possible, but what can be effective for a child isn't necessarily so for an adult - and in any case, vaccinating in an underdeveloped immune system will always produce better long term results than vaccinating in a developed immune system. That is why we target kids - for both the immediate benefit and for the long term benefits.
My wife (a doctor) is currently laughing her head off at your post...
Take a look at how Tdap vaccine is given based on age - the adult vaccine is formulated differently with a lesser quantity of antigens than the child vaccine, because the vaccine in adults can trigger swelling of the arm its given in, while that doesn't occur in children. Other vaccines require significantly more active ingredient in the adult vaccine because of the immunological response - but increasing the concentration means the formulation of preservative etc has to also change...
There are many many ways in which the age contributes to the vaccine given. Doesn't mean the process of vaccination works differently, but it does mean that the same treatments may be ineffective in an adult, requiring a different vaccine to be developed.
In quite a few cases it can be easier to produce a vaccine for a child than for an adult - children's medicine is quite different from adult medicine, some treatments which are very effective in a child can be useless in an adult, which is why paediatrics is a major speciality all on its own, it has to be!
You have to understand that the vast majority of British and Commonwealth political issues such as this are more based in tradition than actual ability - while the governor general does "serve at Her Majesty's pleasure", that would never be exercised these days, as the position is largely controlled via "recommendations" given by the countries head of government and not from the Queen herself.
It would be extremely unusual if the Queen were to simply sack a governor general, and would probably prompt a constitutional crisis - its no different to the fact that the Queen cannot really do anything politically even in the UK. She "chooses" the head of the largest party in Parliament to form a government, but the last time she actually exercised a choice (asking someone other than the head of the largest party), there was significant debate about it and there were a lot of calls for her to be removed altogether as a result.
In Canada, considering the governor general as "head of state" has been a common aspect of successive governments for decades - so the submitter doesn't actually misspeak...
Renewables does *nothing* to solve the dependence on oil for plastics and oil derivatives - which are pretty much currently 50% of the crude oil market. And growing.
No, not a start-up, a new subsidiary. Stop misusing terms - this has the full backing of Google as a throwaway corporation, it's not five people in a bedroom with a great idea struggling to pay their bills.
The exit limit is defined by the certifications gained by the airframe from the aviation body responsible for regulating commercial aviation in that territory - most local bodies defer to the FAA and EASA but they aren't required to and can allow something like this in their own territory.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yay, the Roman Polanski example is brought up yet again.
Read up on the story, theres a *lot* of judicial misconduct in it - thats the reason for the current situation, its not as simple as Polanski is being allowed to get away with child rape.
In the UK, as part of the Distance Sales Act regulations, you *have* to accept returns for most things "for no reason" for up to 14 days from the date of delivery (not the date of shipping).
The customer simply says "I want to return the item under the Distance Sales Act" and you are obliged to accept the return in full.
And it hasn't caused major upheaval here, despite being law now for over a decade.
Yes, it can be used to throw out any extradition request - but Kim Dotcom had better be especially careful about where he travels in future...
NZ is only the *current* jurisdiction this is being fought in, it can quite easily become dozens of other countries at the behest of the American judicial system.
In the U.K., if you go with Sky, you pay nothing for their Sky+HD DVR - you get one delivered regardless of what level of subscription you take out, they don't charge a specific rental for it, and they don't take it away once you cancel.
The fact that Airbus used to optimise its wings for the non-cruise periods rather than the cruise - because it was worth it. They didn't really switch until they introduced the A340-500/600 aircraft, and the A380 initial wing was leaning toward the non-cruise optimisation as well until they introduced a twist into later models and shifted the optimisation to the cruise phase. Boeing has always optimised for cruise in its wing philosophy.
Planes spend enough time at lower altitudes that you do have to make concessions to optimise for it - when you start getting into the fuel use with flaps and slats extended, it especially starts to make sense at a certain point.
Optimisations at low altitude have a larger pay off than optimisations at higher altitudes - theres more induced drag because the airs thicker.
When the support contract ended, it wasn't just "prohibitively expensive" to continue operations, it was impossible - Airbus withdrew the manufacturers certificate, without which no one could fly Concorde commercially. It wasn't as simple as getting another entity to pick up the support contract.
Theres no point - you would get much better efficiency gains if you could optimise the wing for both climb and cruise, rather than one or the other.
Your first issue isn't an issue - if this *is* a manufacturing or design issue that caused the fire, why should the premium payer pool bear the cost of the payout and not the body which shipped a defective device?
If the premium payer pool bears the cost, then that affects the risk pool, which affects premiums for future coverage.
Retrieving the costs from the manufacturer should *theoretically* leave the risk pool unaffected, meaning there is no additional risk for future premiums to cover.
It's even got a name - price establishment.
Go make your own SDK, or pay Sony for the one they made.
You can't realistically claim, at all, that you bought the PS4 with software development in mind, considering there was never any suggestion that you could do so for free, so your argument pretty much fails at the first hurdle.
Oh, and look, we have another Slashdotter *nasty*, *dirty* word - you guys are out in force today. "Shill"! Haven't been called one of those in years... Nope, I'm not taking any money from Sony to point out they aren't doing anything wrong here.
Wow, theres that nasty, dirty word that Slashdotters just *love* to throw around - "censorship".
I bet you personally love to perform a bit of "censorship" on your own credit card details, passwords, PINs, security details and sex life... doesn't make it a *bad* thing to do so.
But then we have your sig, don't we. Just shows how out of touch with reality you really are...
Copyright law being used for what it was intended then? Rather than something snarky like the summary claims - people are distributing the SDK without permission or reasonable grounds for fair use, and Sony is using the law to prevent someone from distributing copyrighted material without permission...
They also get accidentally reused for things that arent on the label, often aren't cleaned properly when refilled... you see where I am going?
Understandable after not seeing them in over 20 years, those are false assumptions. Pill bottles are only used for what is on the label. The label is not replaced. The bottles are only reused a limited number of times if and only if they are prescribed that way. Many are not.
Yup, a pharmacist may be regimented enough to not reuse a pill bottle, but what about standard Joe Blogs and his wife? Putting half their medication into a random pill bottle for safe keeping, travelling etc, and then sticking it in the medicine cabinet and forgetting... wait a minute, is this really oxycodone or is it paracetamol...?
And as pill bottles are required to be child proof, how are they easier on people with arthritis?
Understandable ignorance from someone that has nothing to compare to. Pill bottles are not required to be child proof, but you must ask for an alternative. There are alternative cap options for those with physical ailments. Even with standard caps, pushing and rotating with a palm is much easier than pushing pills out of blister packs for people with arthritis.
So its not a blanket statement as was originally used then, eh?
They also get accidentally reused for things that arent on the label, often aren't cleaned properly when refilled... you see where I am going?
And as pill bottles are required to be child proof, how are they easier on people with arthritis?
There are many scenarios where its got nothing to do with stock management - emergency care drugs, for example.
My wife is a GP - she is issued a drugs bag for home visits, which means she carries around morphine, adrenaline and a whole bunch of other stuff. Once that bag and its contents is issued to her, it cannot be issued to someone else for use - it she were to hand the bag back, it would have to be destroyed, another GP wouldn't get it because the chain of "custody" has been broken.
That means that my wife has to regularly do "stock" rotations on her drugs bag, which means old stock simply gets destroyed when its traded in for newer, longer life stuff.
Now think of that same scenario for millions of doctors around the world, for care homes, for home carers etc etc etc all issued drugs for use in an emergency, but that emergency never arising...
I would also guess that the expiration date is for more than the potency of the drug - its also for the accuracy of the box instructions, listed side effects etc, which the manufacturer also has to make reasonable effort to keep up to date.
Taking drugs from a 10 year old prescription in your medicine cabinet may mean the drugs themselves are still potent, but they may no longer list the severe side effect that was discovered 8 years ago, especially when taken with other medicine...
Yeah, no one looks at that stuff anyway, but the drugs companies have to cover themselves somehow for the inevitable legal fall out.
In the UK, it is *incredibly* uncommon for you to get a pill bottle any more - you get prescribed a specific dosage for a set period, which almost always corresponds to a specific container, so a 2.5mg tablet twice a day for 14 days means you get a 28 dose box with two 14 pill blister strips in it.
I wouldn't know why you would get handed a generic pill bottle with individual pills in it these days, I haven't seen it happen in a couple decades.
Even with PAE, a process couldn't address more than the 4GB limit, so you are still stuck if your single process app needed a larger memory space and you were on a 32bit x86 system :/
Isn't it past your bed time...? Do you need a diaper change already?
For fucks sake, did you actually read my post *at all*?!
Yes, vaccines *work* in the same way - I didn't say they don't. What I did say is that in quite a few cases it can be easier to produce a vaccine for a child than for an adult - and it is, in quite a few cases you can't simply use the child vaccine in an adult, it simply won't work due to the immunological response the adult body will have. There is a reason why Chicken Pox is a *serious* illness in adulthood that can cause death but not really considered a fatal illness for children - because children's bodies work differently! Which is why the shingles vaccination has to be done very carefully for older patients (its a much higher concentration than children are given for chicken pox).
Vaccinating adults is entirely possible, but what can be effective for a child isn't necessarily so for an adult - and in any case, vaccinating in an underdeveloped immune system will always produce better long term results than vaccinating in a developed immune system. That is why we target kids - for both the immediate benefit and for the long term benefits.
My wife (a doctor) is currently laughing her head off at your post...
Take a look at how Tdap vaccine is given based on age - the adult vaccine is formulated differently with a lesser quantity of antigens than the child vaccine, because the vaccine in adults can trigger swelling of the arm its given in, while that doesn't occur in children. Other vaccines require significantly more active ingredient in the adult vaccine because of the immunological response - but increasing the concentration means the formulation of preservative etc has to also change...
There are many many ways in which the age contributes to the vaccine given. Doesn't mean the process of vaccination works differently, but it does mean that the same treatments may be ineffective in an adult, requiring a different vaccine to be developed.
In quite a few cases it can be easier to produce a vaccine for a child than for an adult - children's medicine is quite different from adult medicine, some treatments which are very effective in a child can be useless in an adult, which is why paediatrics is a major speciality all on its own, it has to be!
You have to understand that the vast majority of British and Commonwealth political issues such as this are more based in tradition than actual ability - while the governor general does "serve at Her Majesty's pleasure", that would never be exercised these days, as the position is largely controlled via "recommendations" given by the countries head of government and not from the Queen herself.
It would be extremely unusual if the Queen were to simply sack a governor general, and would probably prompt a constitutional crisis - its no different to the fact that the Queen cannot really do anything politically even in the UK. She "chooses" the head of the largest party in Parliament to form a government, but the last time she actually exercised a choice (asking someone other than the head of the largest party), there was significant debate about it and there were a lot of calls for her to be removed altogether as a result.
In Canada, considering the governor general as "head of state" has been a common aspect of successive governments for decades - so the submitter doesn't actually misspeak...
Renewables does *nothing* to solve the dependence on oil for plastics and oil derivatives - which are pretty much currently 50% of the crude oil market. And growing.
The Middle East isn't going anywhere soon...
No, not a start-up, a new subsidiary. Stop misusing terms - this has the full backing of Google as a throwaway corporation, it's not five people in a bedroom with a great idea struggling to pay their bills.
The exit limit is defined by the certifications gained by the airframe from the aviation body responsible for regulating commercial aviation in that territory - most local bodies defer to the FAA and EASA but they aren't required to and can allow something like this in their own territory.