Re:Long intervies processes suck
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the UK employers cannot fire you for furthering yourself, so all you have to do is tell them you have a Job Interview and they have to give you off reasonable time for it, not sure if its paid or unpaid, pretty sure its paid.
Btw i have never tried this with anything but Windows and it applies to both Win9X and XP...
Well, have you ever considered a hardware fault?
No, Im not saying Windows is as solid as a rock, it does randomly munge configurations, I know Ive seen it. But what Im saying, and presenting evidence for, is the fact that its not as UNSTABLE as what NoMoreNicksLeft seems to make it out to be. A home windows user may seem to have this occur more often, but when I was doing tech support for neighbours and friends (I gave up 18 months ago, and never did it for family) and I was called upon, Id take one look at their system and see jsut how much crap is installed. Joe Public seems to install everything off of magazine cover disks, he downloads ever trial product off the net, he runs every screensaver that someone sends him. This is what usually causes Windows to become unstable, or it turns out to be a hardware issue.
1) They arent physically identical systems, but yes noone is authorised to install anything. But wait a minute, your post I was replying to stated A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it.. Id say installing software is messing with it, and if the software screws the system up, then its hardly 100% Windows fault, now is it. Ive definately had Linux software munge systems before, its rare but it happens, but granted Windows being munged by software installations is more frequent, but still rare.
2) No, I refuse to touch anyone elses systems. My father isnt computer literate, hes as knowledgable as anyone else who uses a computer at work.
3) I seem to recall one specific instance of a kernel update munging filesystems. Seems to me that needs an update to make the system work. And if you look at Redhats update list, quite a few of them are to 'make things work'. Same with KDE, Gnome ad nauseum. The only stuff that DOESNT seem to require usability updates is decades old UNIX software like Vi, X, sh etc. Im not saying Windows doesnt have issues, but all versions of windows have been perfectly usable on an install, driver installation excepted, and arent the unusable things you seem to be claiming. Again what you seem to be spreading is straight FUD.
With Windows XX out of the picture, the only reason for backups at all will be catastrophic disk failure. Hard drives are so cheap, that I'm wondering why Gateway and Dell aren't offering machines with 2 identical drives, and mirroring on by default. One dies, customer gets a new one, and it rebuilds the mirror. No backup.
And accidental deletions, children playing with the computer, physical damage to the computer, theft, intrusion, software failure (happens on non MS operating systems as well). Windows and Disk failures arent the only reason for backups....
What Microsoft should fear the most, is people waking up and realizing that:
A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it.
B) It's not normal to have to reinstall the OS every 3 weeks.
C) It's not normal to have to upgrade to the latest version of the OS just for the machine to behave normally (Note: though this isn't true if you want the latest security patches).
D) If you use an OS other than windows, all the previous problems disappear.
A) Funnily enough, non of my windows installations screw up their configurations randomly. And Ive been responsable for 150 systems.
B) My WinXP install is now 8 months old, after a complete new system install. My dads Win98 install dates from 1999, still completely usable. None of my friends need to reinstall every 3 weeks, and those 150 systems i mentioned before dont need it either.
C) So every Linux Distribution version is a new features version, fixes absolutely nothing in the previous version? Every version of KDE doesnt include bugfixes? Get real.
D) Yes, Windows has issues, but what you are spreading is just FUD.
I have no idea who that is:) Im not a gaming geek, enough said. My knowledge of gaming, and related celebraties extends to a casual game of something every now and then.
Firstly its their code, and the reason Carmack gives is a very valid one - keep your paying customers happy before your non paying customers. He does agree that a royalty free license is not the same as a GPL license, but regardless of the difference, theres going to be some hard feelings if he just released the code right after someone forked over a large amount of money to use it.
As for your second point, I cant actually think of one single opensource project that has taken the Doom, Quake, Quake2 source code and done something memorable with it. There were a couple of ports to different platforms, but no real memorable independant projects with new gaming material.
Also what a lot of people are overlooking is that South Korea probably isnt going to take up even a 10% share of pixel perfect monitors that samsung outputs, so it wont be a case of the rest of the world getting only dead pixel ones, but the chance of receiving a pixel perfect one only goes down by 10%. South Korea definately isnt a big enough market to receive all of samsungs pixel perfect monitors, they will still be sent around the world. The manufacturing process today produces more pixel perfect monitors than dead pixel ones.
You should be optimistic, as they ARE weighted in favor of being fair. The manufacturing process produces almost as many 10+ dead pixel screens as it does 2+, its all a game of chance. The ISO standards are there to say that a maximum of X pixels is allowable for a Class 2 device, and a Class 2 device is a standard consumer screen. Before the standards came into effect, you were lucky if you got as FEW as 5 dead pixels on your screen, they were too expensive to throw away. Now adays, such panels go to other uses, like announcement screens in airports etc.
Why would they loose in court for fraud? They havent done anything fraudulant. You are right in that the current accepted policy is based on an imperfect manufacturing process, but if the manufacturer correctly classes the panel as a Class 2 under the ISO 13406-2 standard, you have no basis for a court case, as you have no expectation for a perfect screen. The standard doesnt say 'theres a chance' it says 'you should, at most, accept X number of dead pixels, more than X number of dead pixels exceeds Class 2 status'. The very basis of the standard expects there to be dead pixels, hence the Class 1 standard which says there must be no dead pixels.
Time machines dont work at all, a Class 2 TFT screen barely detracts from the expereince, but works perfectly for the purpose it was sold. Slight difference there.
If you had actually correctly read the thread parents post, it was full of 'ifs' 'maybes' 'possiblys' and such. Noone has been successfully prosecuted for misleading advertisements pertaining to TFT screens and dead pixels, and creditcard companies do refuse to refund purchases for items that were correctly sold, such as Class 2 TFT panels are. His claim of 'implied warranties' has no place in court, he was sold a Class 2 device and it is warrantied as such, including the limitation of a number of dead pixels. Just because he purchased it with the belief that it should be perfect does not alter the terms of which it was sold under, so long as the item was sold as a Class 2 item and not hyped up. These monitors are not 'obviously defective' because they are sold with the limitation of dead pixels, they arent sold as Class 1 items, and thus anyone taking a retailer to the small claims court would loose their court money.
As for your IRC conversation, its remarkable how easy it is to not notice a few dead pixels on a screen. For example, the Thinkpad I jsut sold had one dead pixel, and it was so unnoticable that it actually took me a few moments to look for and find it to point it out to the person i sold the laptop to. Four pixels out of 1.3million on a 17" TFT panel is a small amount and certainly is nowhere near your ridiculous analogy of a stereo system that only plays 3/4 of a song.
Article 15 1.a pertains to MANNED vessels, and ILLEGAL acts of violence, agression or theft against said vessels and crew/passengers or property. Let us quote article 15:
Article 15
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(1) Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(2) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(3) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph 1 or sub-paragraph 2 of this article.
So, our act of 'piracy' isnt covered by 1.a, as its not against another ship or aircraft, or persons or property on board such. It also isnt covered under 1.b as the 1989 International Convention on Salvage only excludes items such as 'fixed or floating vessels or platforms engaged in exploitation, exploration or production of seabed mineral deposits' and 'property permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk.' of which our bouys arent, they are tethered to the sea floor, so the act of salvage of the bouy is legal, which infact negates article 15 entirely.
Bear in mind that during the above thread, we were explicitly discussing bouys in International Waters, you seem to be under the impression otherwise.
(1) I know, but the EEZ does not extend Internationa Waters limits, it only protects the rights of the nation holding the EEZ to exploitation rights, it does not grant full Territorial Waters rights to the 200mile extent. The US is not alone in claiming this 200mile EEZ.
(2) and (3) The 1989 International Convention On Salvage excludes international savlage rights for such items as 'Oil rigs or other tethered or floating vessels engaged in the act of mineral exploitation or exploration' and also excludes 'items intentionally attached to the shoreline', shoreline is quite different from sea floor. Seems tethered bouys in international waters are fair game then.
(4) I see you are taking me literally.
(5) If this is in international waters, which is what the thread was assuming, then they have no say in the matter, and any attempt to stop or interfere with the salvage could be deemed as Piracy on the High Seas. They couldnt even charge them with theft if the salvage boat put into port at the previous owners country.
International waters start at varying distances, historically they were the range at which a shore battery could potentially hit a ship at sea, so the range of that battery then, usually set at 3 nautical miles. Between 1945 and 1982, various countries declared limits from 3 miles, all the way out to 200 miles.
The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was agreed in 1982 and set in force in 1994, and that limited full rights to 12 miles, and a further 24 miles for reasons of prevention of smuggling. At various points around the globe, territorial waters laws are overruled by various 'rights of passage', including military vessels, which are allowed to maintain stances in such areas that would be deemed illegal in normal territorial waters. Such zones include the Gibraltar Straits, where the territorial owner cannot bar transit access to a nation they are not at war with.
Exploration rights, or rights to exploit mineral deposits on teh sea bed, extend out to 200 miles for each coastal nation, and where these overlap, both nations have equal rights.
Whoes going to complain when some enterprising young person starts hauling these Bouys in and sells them for parts/scrap/technology? An unmanned item in international waters has no property claim against it, anyone can take ownership of it.
In the UK atleast and if you buy online we have a legal right to return any bought product before 14? days have passed with no questions asked, as long as its still worth selling.
Yes, this is called the distance selling act, you have up to 14 days to signal your intention to return the product citing the aforementioned act, and you are responsable for carraige charges. The goods have to be as new for this to apply.
In the uk I think I can legally return any product by law if I'm not happy with what I bought... but I also think you *need* to kick up the shit in the showroom you bought it from to do so. (trading standards would come down on them like a ton of bricks) And bad publicity usually makes any store stand down.
In the UK you have no inherent right to return something no questions asked, unless as covered under the Distance Selling Act as stated above. If you made this purchase instore, then you are only covered under the Sales of Goods act, or store policy. Basically the Sales of Goods act says you can return an item for refund if the goods are not fit for the purpose they were sold for, not bought for (common mistake, they have to be sold for a purpose and fulfil that purpose, they can be bought for any reason at all).
As most LCT/TFT are sold as Class 2 items, and state so on the box or the unit themselves, certain number of dead pixels are allowed for on the screen, and this does not affect the requirement that the item be fit for the purpose of viewing, IE you cannot return a Class 2 device that is within teh ISO 13406-2 Class 2 limits. Your local Trading Standards office will confirm this.
The reason this ISO class system was created was because TFT screens were incredibally hard to make without dead pixels, even todays manufacturing lines have a low yield of perfect screens. So you have a choice, accept the possibility of a few dead pixels and get a cheaper screen, or demand a perfect screen and pay more for it. The consumer cant always stamp their feet and demand high quality for low price. A certain level of quality, yes, but not perfection 100% of the time.
The RIAA are offering the infected WMA files, so no copyright law hs been broken. Now you may have had the intention of downloading copyrighted material illegally when you searched for the file, but intent does not mean a law has been broken. Even tho you may be under the impression the file is illegal, the copyright owner has given it to you, so its veyr much legal.
You are of course correct, in my post I was only trying to explain the difference between entrapment and a sting operation. Because the copyright holder is offering this file, he is granting you permission to download it, and thus all is well under copyright, and this is deemed as an unlawful attack on your computer.
Piracy meant unlawful copying as far back as 1771 when it was first applied to violations of Patents and Copyrights. So no, it wasnt due to the PR firms, and it wasnt a changed term, the origional meaning still applies, what differentiates the two is context. Guess what, the english language changes over the course of time, gay was once a term you could use in public toward a person without it having sexual orientation connotations. Hardware meant a hammer. Times change, people change, language changes.
If you searched for 'Britney Spears - Toxic' and got 4 files returned which match, you still have a choice whether or not to actually download them. These arent offered to you, you went out of your way to find them, you DID initially seek them. If you are on a network which enforces its 'Copyrighted, Not copyrighted' flags for files, and this was misflagged, then you might have a point, but Bittorrent and the rest do not have such a system, and you cant just search for non copyrighted material. If they suddenly turned up in your Shared folder, in a push manner, then its entrapment, but this isnt, and its nothing like your 'In real life' example either.
No, entrapment is enticing you into doing something you wouldnt have done without being asked. This is a sting, which the police use frequently to catch drug pushers. Basically the difference is how you received the goods, you have to make the concious decision to download that specific file, rahter than them pushing it at you. Since this file will be in amongst normal files, its a sting. If this was the only file, then it would still be a sting. If they approached you and offered you the file, its entrapment. Since you are requesting the file, its not entrapment. This is why police officers have to wait to be approached to either be sold drugs or to sell drugs (depending on if they are after the pusher or user), they cannot approach the suspect and request it. Same with prostitution, they have to play word games with the prostitute to get her to offer him services without him asking for it.
I agree, and I should have taken the time to look up US public donations but unfortunately I didnt, so I apologise if anyone takes offense at my post stereotyping the US people.
When the appeal was put out, a post was made on a mailing list I frequent which suggested that all those people who missed out on the Dell server offer a few weeks back might want to think about donating that cash to this cause. All in all, I think we collectivly donated more than £10,000 UKP. Come on people, these guys need it and we have it in excess (even the poorest over here can donate something and hardly feel it), currently the UK government has pledged $96million, while the UK public has donated $69million. Yes, the UK public has donated the same amount that the US government has pledged.
The firm, in which BAE Systems has a 20% stake, was given £250m aid by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985 to help launch the 150-seater A320 jet which has spawned a family of aircraft and sold 1,800. The aid, partly used to set up manufacturing facilities to build A320 wings at Broughton, north Wales, plus interest at less than commercial rates, was repaid by the end of 1999.
Airbus is still repaying up to £100m a year of the £450m UK launch-aid for the wide-bodied A330/340 series of planes which was given in 1988. It was awarded a further £530m in 2000 for the A380 superjumbo.
All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.
* Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment.
* Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price
"When you consider that the A320 Airbus launch development funding has been repaid twice over and with interest and that revenues from the A330/40 will have tripled the original investment by 2017, even Gordon Brown must be smiling. When you add corporation tax and the revenue generated from aerospace workers taxes he must be breaking out into a broad grin."
There are many more where those came from. The simple fact of the matter is that Airbus has yet to default on a single one of its loans under the 1992 agreement, so your statement is pretty much bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK employers cannot fire you for furthering yourself, so all you have to do is tell them you have a Job Interview and they have to give you off reasonable time for it, not sure if its paid or unpaid, pretty sure its paid.
Btw i have never tried this with anything but Windows and it applies to both Win9X and XP...
Well, have you ever considered a hardware fault?
No, Im not saying Windows is as solid as a rock, it does randomly munge configurations, I know Ive seen it. But what Im saying, and presenting evidence for, is the fact that its not as UNSTABLE as what NoMoreNicksLeft seems to make it out to be. A home windows user may seem to have this occur more often, but when I was doing tech support for neighbours and friends (I gave up 18 months ago, and never did it for family) and I was called upon, Id take one look at their system and see jsut how much crap is installed. Joe Public seems to install everything off of magazine cover disks, he downloads ever trial product off the net, he runs every screensaver that someone sends him. This is what usually causes Windows to become unstable, or it turns out to be a hardware issue.
Im not lucky, Im just not an computer idiot.
1) They arent physically identical systems, but yes noone is authorised to install anything. But wait a minute, your post I was replying to stated A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it.. Id say installing software is messing with it, and if the software screws the system up, then its hardly 100% Windows fault, now is it. Ive definately had Linux software munge systems before, its rare but it happens, but granted Windows being munged by software installations is more frequent, but still rare.
2) No, I refuse to touch anyone elses systems. My father isnt computer literate, hes as knowledgable as anyone else who uses a computer at work.
3) I seem to recall one specific instance of a kernel update munging filesystems. Seems to me that needs an update to make the system work. And if you look at Redhats update list, quite a few of them are to 'make things work'. Same with KDE, Gnome ad nauseum. The only stuff that DOESNT seem to require usability updates is decades old UNIX software like Vi, X, sh etc. Im not saying Windows doesnt have issues, but all versions of windows have been perfectly usable on an install, driver installation excepted, and arent the unusable things you seem to be claiming. Again what you seem to be spreading is straight FUD.
With Windows XX out of the picture, the only reason for backups at all will be catastrophic disk failure. Hard drives are so cheap, that I'm wondering why Gateway and Dell aren't offering machines with 2 identical drives, and mirroring on by default. One dies, customer gets a new one, and it rebuilds the mirror. No backup.
And accidental deletions, children playing with the computer, physical damage to the computer, theft, intrusion, software failure (happens on non MS operating systems as well). Windows and Disk failures arent the only reason for backups....What Microsoft should fear the most, is people waking up and realizing that: A) It's not normal for your computer's configuration to get screwed up unless you're messing with it. B) It's not normal to have to reinstall the OS every 3 weeks. C) It's not normal to have to upgrade to the latest version of the OS just for the machine to behave normally (Note: though this isn't true if you want the latest security patches). D) If you use an OS other than windows, all the previous problems disappear.
A) Funnily enough, non of my windows installations screw up their configurations randomly. And Ive been responsable for 150 systems.B) My WinXP install is now 8 months old, after a complete new system install. My dads Win98 install dates from 1999, still completely usable. None of my friends need to reinstall every 3 weeks, and those 150 systems i mentioned before dont need it either.
C) So every Linux Distribution version is a new features version, fixes absolutely nothing in the previous version? Every version of KDE doesnt include bugfixes? Get real.
D) Yes, Windows has issues, but what you are spreading is just FUD.
I have no idea who that is :) Im not a gaming geek, enough said. My knowledge of gaming, and related celebraties extends to a casual game of something every now and then.
Firstly its their code, and the reason Carmack gives is a very valid one - keep your paying customers happy before your non paying customers. He does agree that a royalty free license is not the same as a GPL license, but regardless of the difference, theres going to be some hard feelings if he just released the code right after someone forked over a large amount of money to use it.
As for your second point, I cant actually think of one single opensource project that has taken the Doom, Quake, Quake2 source code and done something memorable with it. There were a couple of ports to different platforms, but no real memorable independant projects with new gaming material.
Also what a lot of people are overlooking is that South Korea probably isnt going to take up even a 10% share of pixel perfect monitors that samsung outputs, so it wont be a case of the rest of the world getting only dead pixel ones, but the chance of receiving a pixel perfect one only goes down by 10%. South Korea definately isnt a big enough market to receive all of samsungs pixel perfect monitors, they will still be sent around the world. The manufacturing process today produces more pixel perfect monitors than dead pixel ones.
You should be optimistic, as they ARE weighted in favor of being fair. The manufacturing process produces almost as many 10+ dead pixel screens as it does 2+, its all a game of chance. The ISO standards are there to say that a maximum of X pixels is allowable for a Class 2 device, and a Class 2 device is a standard consumer screen. Before the standards came into effect, you were lucky if you got as FEW as 5 dead pixels on your screen, they were too expensive to throw away. Now adays, such panels go to other uses, like announcement screens in airports etc.
Why would they loose in court for fraud? They havent done anything fraudulant. You are right in that the current accepted policy is based on an imperfect manufacturing process, but if the manufacturer correctly classes the panel as a Class 2 under the ISO 13406-2 standard, you have no basis for a court case, as you have no expectation for a perfect screen. The standard doesnt say 'theres a chance' it says 'you should, at most, accept X number of dead pixels, more than X number of dead pixels exceeds Class 2 status'. The very basis of the standard expects there to be dead pixels, hence the Class 1 standard which says there must be no dead pixels.
Time machines dont work at all, a Class 2 TFT screen barely detracts from the expereince, but works perfectly for the purpose it was sold. Slight difference there.
If you had actually correctly read the thread parents post, it was full of 'ifs' 'maybes' 'possiblys' and such. Noone has been successfully prosecuted for misleading advertisements pertaining to TFT screens and dead pixels, and creditcard companies do refuse to refund purchases for items that were correctly sold, such as Class 2 TFT panels are. His claim of 'implied warranties' has no place in court, he was sold a Class 2 device and it is warrantied as such, including the limitation of a number of dead pixels. Just because he purchased it with the belief that it should be perfect does not alter the terms of which it was sold under, so long as the item was sold as a Class 2 item and not hyped up. These monitors are not 'obviously defective' because they are sold with the limitation of dead pixels, they arent sold as Class 1 items, and thus anyone taking a retailer to the small claims court would loose their court money.
As for your IRC conversation, its remarkable how easy it is to not notice a few dead pixels on a screen. For example, the Thinkpad I jsut sold had one dead pixel, and it was so unnoticable that it actually took me a few moments to look for and find it to point it out to the person i sold the laptop to. Four pixels out of 1.3million on a 17" TFT panel is a small amount and certainly is nowhere near your ridiculous analogy of a stereo system that only plays 3/4 of a song.
Bear in mind that during the above thread, we were explicitly discussing bouys in International Waters, you seem to be under the impression otherwise.
(1) I know, but the EEZ does not extend Internationa Waters limits, it only protects the rights of the nation holding the EEZ to exploitation rights, it does not grant full Territorial Waters rights to the 200mile extent. The US is not alone in claiming this 200mile EEZ.
(2) and (3) The 1989 International Convention On Salvage excludes international savlage rights for such items as 'Oil rigs or other tethered or floating vessels engaged in the act of mineral exploitation or exploration' and also excludes 'items intentionally attached to the shoreline', shoreline is quite different from sea floor. Seems tethered bouys in international waters are fair game then.
(4) I see you are taking me literally.
(5) If this is in international waters, which is what the thread was assuming, then they have no say in the matter, and any attempt to stop or interfere with the salvage could be deemed as Piracy on the High Seas. They couldnt even charge them with theft if the salvage boat put into port at the previous owners country.
International waters start at varying distances, historically they were the range at which a shore battery could potentially hit a ship at sea, so the range of that battery then, usually set at 3 nautical miles. Between 1945 and 1982, various countries declared limits from 3 miles, all the way out to 200 miles.
The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was agreed in 1982 and set in force in 1994, and that limited full rights to 12 miles, and a further 24 miles for reasons of prevention of smuggling. At various points around the globe, territorial waters laws are overruled by various 'rights of passage', including military vessels, which are allowed to maintain stances in such areas that would be deemed illegal in normal territorial waters. Such zones include the Gibraltar Straits, where the territorial owner cannot bar transit access to a nation they are not at war with.
Exploration rights, or rights to exploit mineral deposits on teh sea bed, extend out to 200 miles for each coastal nation, and where these overlap, both nations have equal rights.
Whoes going to complain when some enterprising young person starts hauling these Bouys in and sells them for parts/scrap/technology? An unmanned item in international waters has no property claim against it, anyone can take ownership of it.
In the UK atleast and if you buy online we have a legal right to return any bought product before 14? days have passed with no questions asked, as long as its still worth selling.
Yes, this is called the distance selling act, you have up to 14 days to signal your intention to return the product citing the aforementioned act, and you are responsable for carraige charges. The goods have to be as new for this to apply.
In the uk I think I can legally return any product by law if I'm not happy with what I bought... but I also think you *need* to kick up the shit in the showroom you bought it from to do so. (trading standards would come down on them like a ton of bricks) And bad publicity usually makes any store stand down.
In the UK you have no inherent right to return something no questions asked, unless as covered under the Distance Selling Act as stated above. If you made this purchase instore, then you are only covered under the Sales of Goods act, or store policy. Basically the Sales of Goods act says you can return an item for refund if the goods are not fit for the purpose they were sold for, not bought for (common mistake, they have to be sold for a purpose and fulfil that purpose, they can be bought for any reason at all).
As most LCT/TFT are sold as Class 2 items, and state so on the box or the unit themselves, certain number of dead pixels are allowed for on the screen, and this does not affect the requirement that the item be fit for the purpose of viewing, IE you cannot return a Class 2 device that is within teh ISO 13406-2 Class 2 limits. Your local Trading Standards office will confirm this.
The reason this ISO class system was created was because TFT screens were incredibally hard to make without dead pixels, even todays manufacturing lines have a low yield of perfect screens. So you have a choice, accept the possibility of a few dead pixels and get a cheaper screen, or demand a perfect screen and pay more for it. The consumer cant always stamp their feet and demand high quality for low price. A certain level of quality, yes, but not perfection 100% of the time.
The RIAA are offering the infected WMA files, so no copyright law hs been broken. Now you may have had the intention of downloading copyrighted material illegally when you searched for the file, but intent does not mean a law has been broken. Even tho you may be under the impression the file is illegal, the copyright owner has given it to you, so its veyr much legal.
You are of course correct, in my post I was only trying to explain the difference between entrapment and a sting operation. Because the copyright holder is offering this file, he is granting you permission to download it, and thus all is well under copyright, and this is deemed as an unlawful attack on your computer.
Piracy meant unlawful copying as far back as 1771 when it was first applied to violations of Patents and Copyrights. So no, it wasnt due to the PR firms, and it wasnt a changed term, the origional meaning still applies, what differentiates the two is context. Guess what, the english language changes over the course of time, gay was once a term you could use in public toward a person without it having sexual orientation connotations. Hardware meant a hammer. Times change, people change, language changes.
If you searched for 'Britney Spears - Toxic' and got 4 files returned which match, you still have a choice whether or not to actually download them. These arent offered to you, you went out of your way to find them, you DID initially seek them. If you are on a network which enforces its 'Copyrighted, Not copyrighted' flags for files, and this was misflagged, then you might have a point, but Bittorrent and the rest do not have such a system, and you cant just search for non copyrighted material. If they suddenly turned up in your Shared folder, in a push manner, then its entrapment, but this isnt, and its nothing like your 'In real life' example either.
No, entrapment is enticing you into doing something you wouldnt have done without being asked. This is a sting, which the police use frequently to catch drug pushers. Basically the difference is how you received the goods, you have to make the concious decision to download that specific file, rahter than them pushing it at you. Since this file will be in amongst normal files, its a sting. If this was the only file, then it would still be a sting. If they approached you and offered you the file, its entrapment. Since you are requesting the file, its not entrapment. This is why police officers have to wait to be approached to either be sold drugs or to sell drugs (depending on if they are after the pusher or user), they cannot approach the suspect and request it. Same with prostitution, they have to play word games with the prostitute to get her to offer him services without him asking for it.
I agree, and I should have taken the time to look up US public donations but unfortunately I didnt, so I apologise if anyone takes offense at my post stereotyping the US people.
When the appeal was put out, a post was made on a mailing list I frequent which suggested that all those people who missed out on the Dell server offer a few weeks back might want to think about donating that cash to this cause. All in all, I think we collectivly donated more than £10,000 UKP. Come on people, these guys need it and we have it in excess (even the poorest over here can donate something and hardly feel it), currently the UK government has pledged $96million, while the UK public has donated $69million. Yes, the UK public has donated the same amount that the US government has pledged.
Just remember that your boss is your boss, hes not accountable to you, you are to him.
- The firm, in which BAE Systems has a 20% stake, was given £250m aid by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985 to help launch the 150-seater A320 jet which has spawned a family of aircraft and sold 1,800. The aid, partly used to set up manufacturing facilities to build A320 wings at Broughton, north Wales, plus interest at less than commercial rates, was repaid by the end of 1999.
-
All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.
- "When you consider that the A320 Airbus launch development funding has been repaid twice over and with interest and that revenues from the A330/40 will have tripled the original investment by 2017, even Gordon Brown must be smiling. When you add corporation tax and the revenue generated from aerospace workers taxes he must be breaking out into a broad grin."
There are many more where those came from. The simple fact of the matter is that Airbus has yet to default on a single one of its loans under the 1992 agreement, so your statement is pretty much bullshit.Airbus is still repaying up to £100m a year of the £450m UK launch-aid for the wide-bodied A330/340 series of planes which was given in 1988. It was awarded a further £530m in 2000 for the A380 superjumbo.
Source (including unwarranted inflamatory title)
* Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment.
* Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price
Source
Source
Food is a need, a necessity. Everything traded on p2p networks is a luxury. Grow the fuck up.