The British Comet investigation is regularly held up as the start of Air Accident Investigation procedures that are used to this very day. Plus the DC-10 Sioux City incident involved the engine 3 fanblade disintegrating and severing all three hydraulics lines, not a cargo door. There was also a second incident involving a DC-10 and hydraulics, when the left hand engine of one was ripped off on takeoff, which also severed all hydraulics in the left hand wing, resulting in the droops retracting and the aircraft stalling on the left side, resulting in a crash.
Because unlike the majority thought on slashdot that goes 'All patents are extremely broad and prior art can be found in anything that remotely looks like it might use a part of the patented thing' - which is wrong - patents can include already known technology but applied in new ways, for example this would have been something like 'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to a gaming environment manipulated by user inputs on consumer entertainment console systems and their controllers'. The prior art of, or usage in items such as pagers or cell phones would not have a standing here because it doesnt pertain to the precise grounds covered by the patent.
NB I dont know exactly waht the patent says, the above is simply an example as to how a patent can be applied to a new usage from old techniques.
'British Rail' hasnt existed for a decade, they arent to blame for the current problems - the previous Tory and the current Labour governments are the ones to blame.
Or does it have forboding connotations for todays civilisation in the 'developed' world. If a civilisation that was developed to a vast extent a thousand years before the current western world reached the same standard, and then that civilisation fell to the current standard, does that mean our western civilisation is destined for the same?
The Sainsburys selfservice units require you to insert the card and enter your PIN. If you swipe it instead, the magnetic strip informs the unit that the card is C&P enabled, and the unit will decline the card, so if you have a C&P card you must use it in the chip reader. If your card isnt C&P enabled, you can still sign on an electronic pad but theres no signature checking.
Actually, the way I understand it is the external magnetic strip reader in the EPOS unit only serves to populate the C&P unit, the transaction is accepted or declined by the C&P unit as it would if you put the card in the slot yourself and the PIN isnt transfered back from the unit because its not needed. The 'Seperate PIN pad and reader' in the link you posted isnt talking about the method Sainsburys uses, as in all cases on that page its still the C&P unit, whether its a single pad/reader or split devices, that does the verification and not the EPOS unit that the teller swipes the card in.
My local Sainsburys has no objections if you insert the card directly into the unit instead of handing the card to the teller, as its all the same to them. Handing the card is only done to provide people with a transition method from older verification methods to the new C&P and Sainsburys at least will be phasing this out over the next 24 months, requiring you to insert the card directly.
And this is something I dont believe in. What if I develope a Google API application, release it under the GPL3 and then 6 months down the line, Google change their licensing, locking it down or charging a fee for it.
What then? Whats my liability?
This is bringing politics into software licensing far far too much.
Using that logic, you cannot distribute under the GPL3 an app created for a third party service that requires a identification code or key, without the distributor creating said codes for every downloader. And that may be against the terms of service. Think 'Google API' for a good example.
In normal legal understanding, distributing software to your employees is essentially distributing the code to yourself as a company, since its the company as an entity that accepts the license terms, not any individual within the company (same as any license or contract, the contract remains valid if the signature signed or accepted on behalf of the company and then left).
Thats why you can argue that you dont have to distribute the sourcecode to employees, because they are part of the company entity and thus it would be distribution to yourself.
If you try to argue that the individual distributor (the IT department support desk member?) is still liable for the terms of the license, then that liability will follow them if they quit from the company and cease to have access to the sourcecode (under certain clauses within the GPL). This is a huge implication.
Im sorry, but 'modern science' has only been around for... ooh around 400 years or so. The Earths ecosystem has 4.5billion years on us, please tell me how you intend to conduct experiments that require long time periods in a human lifetime?
By putting a higher entity into the equation, you are only moving the problem one step higher in a hierachy - how did that entity come about? This is why ID is so pointless (in my opinion), it doesnt answer the question! It doesnt even come close.
But where does the Intelligent Designer come from? Thats the crux of the matter, you dont 'prove' anything by claiming Intelligent Design, you just move the buck up one more level. At some point you are going to have to sit back and think about HOW LIFE ORIGINATED, not just lay the blame on a higher entity and consider the matter closed.
No, the loser pays the costs awarded by the Judge. Costs are not automatically awarded, and a Judge can even burden the winner with all costs if he sees fit, or award a percentage of costs (80%) to be paid by the loser, or not award costs at all.
I am whatever OSX sets me up as by default. I still need to input my password for system updates, preference changes and other things, but I can most definately put stuff into/Applications without entering a password.
I get the same as the GP, I can copy anything into/Applications with no password prompt at all, and I havent changed anything (clean install of Tiger, no changes to the user settings).
Firstly, Im not American, and havent ever lived in America. Im a person capable of independant thought and independant choice, and I choose not to blindly follow the 'I want it, give it to me' crowd.
Just because someone produces something that you might label as 'culture' doesnt give you the inherent right to that production for anything less than the asking price. Its as simple as that, and that is something you dont seem to get. The labelling of things as 'culture' seems to be a way of justifying the act of taking it without recompense.
Who would have produced that 'culture' if they hadnt payed for it? Would it have simply appeared? You overestimate the number of artists that produce content solely because they like doing it.
I also think you are overestimating the number of independants in the market, yes there are some but they dont come anywhere close to the majority - also I fail to see how the independants are prevented from marketing their own product, they have the same access to radio stations, tv, the internet, print media....
Aside from that, the fact that independants react differently does not require the RIAA/MPAA companies to react in the same manner. They want to be payed, its their right to want it because they produced it.
I hope you are being sarcastic, but incase you arent....
The whole point of this 'mass infringement movement' is to get stuff for free. You really think that even 1% of the people that use Bittorrent for acquiring illegal content even cares about the IP system in anyway? You think the majority would understand what you are talking about if you brought the matter of civil disobediance up with them? No, its about getting something for 'free', avoiding paying the costs, keeping up with their TV shows before they are broadcast in their country.
A BitTorrent site, on the other hand, merely has the potential to give thousands or millions of people access to free movies, music, TV shows, software, and porn, and the only threat it poses is to the business models that are founded on restricting free speech. Which one is the real threat?
If those business models that are 'founded on restricting free speech' stop paying for production of the content that goes to make up the main core of all these torrent sites, what will the sites offer? The content isnt free, you just arent paying the asking price for it. The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment.
You still have the last version of the code you downloaded, whats missing? The codebase Apple forked Darwin from still exists and is out there, what have they removed from you? Or are you saying that others should be responsable for keeping your codebase as feature rich as possible?
By using the codebase that Apple forked from, you would gain the same headstart as Apple did, so what obligation do they have to you?
You can 'prefer' any license you want, but dont act all pompus when someone else exercises their own freedom and licenses their software under a more liberal license than you would like.
They don't have to give back changes, and can fuck the community.
The community licensed the code under the BSD license and therefor doesnt expect anything back, so how can Apple be 'fucking' them? Give over with the sense of entitlement, there are levels of freedom above what you use.
Seeming as XMLHttpRequest is a nonestandard control first provided by Microsoft in IE and then 'tucked' into somewhere vaguely appropriate by other browser vendors when it became obvious it would be a useful control, you really dont have a leg to stand on in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
The British Comet investigation is regularly held up as the start of Air Accident Investigation procedures that are used to this very day. Plus the DC-10 Sioux City incident involved the engine 3 fanblade disintegrating and severing all three hydraulics lines, not a cargo door. There was also a second incident involving a DC-10 and hydraulics, when the left hand engine of one was ripped off on takeoff, which also severed all hydraulics in the left hand wing, resulting in the droops retracting and the aircraft stalling on the left side, resulting in a crash.
Because unlike the majority thought on slashdot that goes 'All patents are extremely broad and prior art can be found in anything that remotely looks like it might use a part of the patented thing' - which is wrong - patents can include already known technology but applied in new ways, for example this would have been something like 'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to a gaming environment manipulated by user inputs on consumer entertainment console systems and their controllers'. The prior art of, or usage in items such as pagers or cell phones would not have a standing here because it doesnt pertain to the precise grounds covered by the patent.
NB I dont know exactly waht the patent says, the above is simply an example as to how a patent can be applied to a new usage from old techniques.
'British Rail' hasnt existed for a decade, they arent to blame for the current problems - the previous Tory and the current Labour governments are the ones to blame.
Or does it have forboding connotations for todays civilisation in the 'developed' world. If a civilisation that was developed to a vast extent a thousand years before the current western world reached the same standard, and then that civilisation fell to the current standard, does that mean our western civilisation is destined for the same?
The Sainsburys selfservice units require you to insert the card and enter your PIN. If you swipe it instead, the magnetic strip informs the unit that the card is C&P enabled, and the unit will decline the card, so if you have a C&P card you must use it in the chip reader. If your card isnt C&P enabled, you can still sign on an electronic pad but theres no signature checking.
Actually, the way I understand it is the external magnetic strip reader in the EPOS unit only serves to populate the C&P unit, the transaction is accepted or declined by the C&P unit as it would if you put the card in the slot yourself and the PIN isnt transfered back from the unit because its not needed. The 'Seperate PIN pad and reader' in the link you posted isnt talking about the method Sainsburys uses, as in all cases on that page its still the C&P unit, whether its a single pad/reader or split devices, that does the verification and not the EPOS unit that the teller swipes the card in.
My local Sainsburys has no objections if you insert the card directly into the unit instead of handing the card to the teller, as its all the same to them. Handing the card is only done to provide people with a transition method from older verification methods to the new C&P and Sainsburys at least will be phasing this out over the next 24 months, requiring you to insert the card directly.
Why blame MS? Apple could quite easily have kept in the part of EFI that allows BIOS compatability booting, but they didnt.
And this is something I dont believe in. What if I develope a Google API application, release it under the GPL3 and then 6 months down the line, Google change their licensing, locking it down or charging a fee for it.
What then? Whats my liability?
This is bringing politics into software licensing far far too much.
Using that logic, you cannot distribute under the GPL3 an app created for a third party service that requires a identification code or key, without the distributor creating said codes for every downloader. And that may be against the terms of service. Think 'Google API' for a good example.
In normal legal understanding, distributing software to your employees is essentially distributing the code to yourself as a company, since its the company as an entity that accepts the license terms, not any individual within the company (same as any license or contract, the contract remains valid if the signature signed or accepted on behalf of the company and then left).
Thats why you can argue that you dont have to distribute the sourcecode to employees, because they are part of the company entity and thus it would be distribution to yourself.
If you try to argue that the individual distributor (the IT department support desk member?) is still liable for the terms of the license, then that liability will follow them if they quit from the company and cease to have access to the sourcecode (under certain clauses within the GPL). This is a huge implication.
Im sorry, but 'modern science' has only been around for ... ooh around 400 years or so. The Earths ecosystem has 4.5billion years on us, please tell me how you intend to conduct experiments that require long time periods in a human lifetime?
By putting a higher entity into the equation, you are only moving the problem one step higher in a hierachy - how did that entity come about? This is why ID is so pointless (in my opinion), it doesnt answer the question! It doesnt even come close.
But where does the Intelligent Designer come from? Thats the crux of the matter, you dont 'prove' anything by claiming Intelligent Design, you just move the buck up one more level. At some point you are going to have to sit back and think about HOW LIFE ORIGINATED, not just lay the blame on a higher entity and consider the matter closed.
No, the loser pays the costs awarded by the Judge. Costs are not automatically awarded, and a Judge can even burden the winner with all costs if he sees fit, or award a percentage of costs (80%) to be paid by the loser, or not award costs at all.
I am whatever OSX sets me up as by default. I still need to input my password for system updates, preference changes and other things, but I can most definately put stuff into /Applications without entering a password.
I get the same as the GP, I can copy anything into /Applications with no password prompt at all, and I havent changed anything (clean install of Tiger, no changes to the user settings).
- Windows XP Starter
- Windows XP Home
- Windows XP Pro
- Windows XP Pro Corp
- Windows XP Home N
- Windows XP Pro N
And thats not including the hardware specific versions:How about just holding down the mouse button for a little longer than normal? That produces a right click....
Well, a couple of points...
Firstly, Im not American, and havent ever lived in America. Im a person capable of independant thought and independant choice, and I choose not to blindly follow the 'I want it, give it to me' crowd.
Just because someone produces something that you might label as 'culture' doesnt give you the inherent right to that production for anything less than the asking price. Its as simple as that, and that is something you dont seem to get. The labelling of things as 'culture' seems to be a way of justifying the act of taking it without recompense.
Who would have produced that 'culture' if they hadnt payed for it? Would it have simply appeared? You overestimate the number of artists that produce content solely because they like doing it.
I also think you are overestimating the number of independants in the market, yes there are some but they dont come anywhere close to the majority - also I fail to see how the independants are prevented from marketing their own product, they have the same access to radio stations, tv, the internet, print media....
Aside from that, the fact that independants react differently does not require the RIAA/MPAA companies to react in the same manner. They want to be payed, its their right to want it because they produced it.
I hope you are being sarcastic, but incase you arent....
The whole point of this 'mass infringement movement' is to get stuff for free. You really think that even 1% of the people that use Bittorrent for acquiring illegal content even cares about the IP system in anyway? You think the majority would understand what you are talking about if you brought the matter of civil disobediance up with them? No, its about getting something for 'free', avoiding paying the costs, keeping up with their TV shows before they are broadcast in their country.
A BitTorrent site, on the other hand, merely has the potential to give thousands or millions of people access to free movies, music, TV shows, software, and porn, and the only threat it poses is to the business models that are founded on restricting free speech. Which one is the real threat?
If those business models that are 'founded on restricting free speech' stop paying for production of the content that goes to make up the main core of all these torrent sites, what will the sites offer? The content isnt free, you just arent paying the asking price for it. The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment.
You have no inherent entitlement to the content.
Simple, different communities. Theres still no entitlement to the code.
You still have the last version of the code you downloaded, whats missing? The codebase Apple forked Darwin from still exists and is out there, what have they removed from you? Or are you saying that others should be responsable for keeping your codebase as feature rich as possible?
By using the codebase that Apple forked from, you would gain the same headstart as Apple did, so what obligation do they have to you?
You can 'prefer' any license you want, but dont act all pompus when someone else exercises their own freedom and licenses their software under a more liberal license than you would like.
They don't have to give back changes, and can fuck the community.
The community licensed the code under the BSD license and therefor doesnt expect anything back, so how can Apple be 'fucking' them? Give over with the sense of entitlement, there are levels of freedom above what you use.
I can buy all three seperate, or I can save money and get the package. I fail to see a problem.
Seeming as XMLHttpRequest is a nonestandard control first provided by Microsoft in IE and then 'tucked' into somewhere vaguely appropriate by other browser vendors when it became obvious it would be a useful control, you really dont have a leg to stand on in that regard.