If the prosecution tries to obfuscate, the judge can sanction them, and the jury can see they are being treated like fools. The basics of this case are not even technical: 1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services. 2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
You or I might not personally agree that these goods should be considered criminal, but the fact that they're a crime goes a bit beyond "the government *thinking*". They *are* illegal.
Ah, shame then that everyone took traffic to equal hidden services... Of course hidden services are likely to be dodgy, but that is itself a proportion of tor traffic, I would expect most tor traffic is evetually accessing public websites.
As long as the top level politicians are disciples of the cult of Politically Correctness the real problem, the problem with the Islamic barbarism will still remain.
That is true. Admitting that there is a problem with islam would be a very big step towards improvement. But since this is categorically denied, it is not possible to find a solution.
BTW, the vast majority of the victims of radical islam are themselves muslims. Maybe it is time for muslims to stand up and say, no, peeps, contrary to what political correctness suggest, we actually do have a problem in our religion, and here in the west it is actually possible to do something about it.
The point, rather obviously, is not to exterminate muslims, but to make the fringes of islam less barbaric.
But there's a problem also with assuming that there's a systemic problem with a whole belief system like that. Even if it were true (which I don't think it is, and doesn't seem to be from the muslims that I know) if you start saying there's a problem with this group you single them out for discrimination which is exactly the sort of response that the extreme fringes want you to do.
Yeah cause wanting a laptop means you can infer developer ability. Wait, I can play this game too: I question *your* competence as a developer because you've just made a load of assumptions on a person based on virtually no evidence.
There's a bunch of reasons he could want a laptop, perhaps he works from different sites often?
I'm beginning to think that Android has a real fragmentation problem.
I don't know if you're deliberately taking the piss... you do know people have been saying this for years?
Still, no matter how much it is said it remains to be proved that this is an actual problem rather than an imagined one.
It would be best if Google focuses on offering a top-notch Android experience and - at the same time - alow for Geeks to fiddle with their devices, root them and such.
If Google implements a fixed release cylce and does end-user marketing whilst catering to the geek crows (opinion leaders) at the same time, then they can leapfrog the vendors messing with their own versions of android and allow for more seamless updates. In fact, I think they should offer customisation services for every vendor who want's their own visuals in the launcher and specifically support vendors who stick as close as possible to the mint Android experience.
So this is pretty much what they do do. That freedom to allow 'geeks' to fiddle with their devices is the same freedom the vendors use to customise (and occasionally improve) the experience.
Whatever they do, they have to put some effort into curbing fragmentation, because that's the number 1 thing that bugs Androids attractiveness.
(a) nothing you have suggested helps, you lose the ability to amend the system then you lose the freedom of the system. (b) perhaps for you, but I doubt most people buying phones are that bothered about upgrades. The missteps that Apple and Google have made in upgrades recently have actually made people not want upgrades. ie, I like the device I bought, please don't change it.
Likewise, if Apple sticks to they minimised choices and manageble line of systems and devices, they'll continue to have the edge in that department and maintain their market, no matter how powerful Google gets in the low- and midrange global markets.
My 2 cents.
The idea that Apple owns the high-end and Android is only mid and low end is hopelessly out-of-date. Perhaps in the US, but the rest of the world Android sits at around 80% share and that is not just mid and low end devices.
Only if you have someone else in your debt. If there's no debt (ie buying an object in a shop) then they can accept or decline whatever form of payment they want. (in the UK atleast)
I think it depends *where* you insure. Like insuring consumer deposits is a good idea because you personally losing all your money to a collapsing bank is catastrophic for you, and it's not like banks would act irresponsibly because they know their *customers* were safe, like they care about their customers. Insuring the entire organisation, which is what we effectively got with TooBigToFail, does make them irresponsible yes because then the existence of the bank itself that employs the people that might act recklessly, is at risk.
With the massive caveat that real money banks are backed and insured at the state-level (atleast in Europe, where most governments guarantee a certain amount of savings), while who the hell knows how well these websites are capitalised and secured.
I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades... People still want to see films, but forcing all films through the cinema is just backwards. The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately! Big films that benefit from it will still play in cinema, but we simply don't need to push every single film through a centralised viewing venue anymore. Cinemas will still exist but they will be fewer, and for special occasions rather than the only route.
Fuck you. You can't tell me what I can think or say.
So, what you're saying is... his right to tell you things is trumped by your wish to not hear things? Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means...
That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.
Actually the laws here are biased towards the consumer. If the price is reasonable believed to be not a mistake (which this clearly wasn't) then the offer has to be honoured by the shop because otherwise you'd have a million bait-and-switch false adverts by shops. The consumer does still get 7 days to cancel.
Far as I know this isn't an enforcable condition, consumer protection laws in the UK are strong and the price on the website is considered a shopfront, and therefore an offer and something they have to honour.
*Unless* it's obviously a mistake, which this clearly is, and then they don't.
Or you could look at it that the vendor made the OFFER and *I* ACCEPTED their offer can you not?
The GP is slightly wrong misleading in that the price on Amazon *is* considered an offer (nomatter what they put in their T&C) and that your acceptance of it does make it binding, *unless* it's obviously a mistake. This was obviously a mistake therefore they don't have to honour it.
You cannot use 'slippery slope' argument and then complain about other people making 'either/or' arguments! They are *the same* concept! You saying that this is a slippery slope is exactly an either/or proposition: That we should not do this thing because it *will* lead to this other thing.
C is the high-level language there. If you want actual control over your target, you'll need to use assembly.
Luxury! You trust a compiler? When I were a lad we inputted the hex codes directly. / Well of course we had it tough... tape and a magnetised pin was all we needed. / You kids don't know you were born... we used to program using a cigarette end to burn holes in the punch cards. / etc...
You guys are reminding me of my manager that thinks 2 things can both be 'number one' priority. He's asking *which* to concentrate on, and for someone new to the field I think it's reasonable to only start with only one language.
I am loath to join the general chorus of hate for Ubisoft and EA. Complaining about these companies being too focussed on commercial success and not enough of user-entertainment/"art" seems futile: they are, first and foremost, commercial companies.
I'm never quite convinced by this argument. Just because you can do something does not mean you must, and these companies are run be actual people, who can make decisions that aren't only following the dollar. Ultimately if you just want to make money then be a bank, everyone else has a certain amount of duty to provide their service, aswell as to being commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
If the prosecution tries to obfuscate, the judge can sanction them, and the jury can see they are being treated like fools. The basics of this case are not even technical:
1. Some people set up a marketplace where consenting adults could exchange goods and services.
2. The government thinks that should be a crime.
You or I might not personally agree that these goods should be considered criminal, but the fact that they're a crime goes a bit beyond "the government *thinking*". They *are* illegal.
Ah, shame then that everyone took traffic to equal hidden services... Of course hidden services are likely to be dodgy, but that is itself a proportion of tor traffic, I would expect most tor traffic is evetually accessing public websites.
How would you do a traffic study on a network that is encrypted or otherwise as private as it is?
Well I imagine you run an exit node and see what comes through it. Exit nodes are unencrypted (necessarily) so it should be fairly easy to do.
That is true. Admitting that there is a problem with islam would be a very big step towards improvement. But since this is categorically denied, it is not possible to find a solution.
BTW, the vast majority of the victims of radical islam are themselves muslims. Maybe it is time for muslims to stand up and say, no, peeps, contrary to what political correctness suggest, we actually do have a problem in our religion, and here in the west it is actually possible to do something about it.
The point, rather obviously, is not to exterminate muslims, but to make the fringes of islam less barbaric.
But there's a problem also with assuming that there's a systemic problem with a whole belief system like that. Even if it were true (which I don't think it is, and doesn't seem to be from the muslims that I know) if you start saying there's a problem with this group you single them out for discrimination which is exactly the sort of response that the extreme fringes want you to do.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/0...
Depends if someone makes a suggestion that answers...
Yeah cause wanting a laptop means you can infer developer ability. Wait, I can play this game too: I question *your* competence as a developer because you've just made a load of assumptions on a person based on virtually no evidence.
There's a bunch of reasons he could want a laptop, perhaps he works from different sites often?
I'm beginning to think that Android has a real fragmentation problem.
I don't know if you're deliberately taking the piss... you do know people have been saying this for years?
Still, no matter how much it is said it remains to be proved that this is an actual problem rather than an imagined one.
It would be best if Google focuses on offering a top-notch Android experience and - at the same time - alow for Geeks to fiddle with their devices, root them and such.
If Google implements a fixed release cylce and does end-user marketing whilst catering to the geek crows (opinion leaders) at the same time, then they can leapfrog the vendors messing with their own versions of android and allow for more seamless updates. In fact, I think they should offer customisation services for every vendor who want's their own visuals in the launcher and specifically support vendors who stick as close as possible to the mint Android experience.
So this is pretty much what they do do. That freedom to allow 'geeks' to fiddle with their devices is the same freedom the vendors use to customise (and occasionally improve) the experience.
Whatever they do, they have to put some effort into curbing fragmentation, because that's the number 1 thing that bugs Androids attractiveness.
(a) nothing you have suggested helps, you lose the ability to amend the system then you lose the freedom of the system.
(b) perhaps for you, but I doubt most people buying phones are that bothered about upgrades. The missteps that Apple and Google have made in upgrades recently have actually made people not want upgrades. ie, I like the device I bought, please don't change it.
Likewise, if Apple sticks to they minimised choices and manageble line of systems and devices, they'll continue to have the edge in that department and maintain their market, no matter how powerful Google gets in the low- and midrange global markets.
My 2 cents.
The idea that Apple owns the high-end and Android is only mid and low end is hopelessly out-of-date. Perhaps in the US, but the rest of the world Android sits at around 80% share and that is not just mid and low end devices.
What would using Lollipop do for me that whatever version of Android I'm currently using not? Is there a major benefit?
...this being the exact point of the article...
Because it is illegal not to accept it.
Only if you have someone else in your debt. If there's no debt (ie buying an object in a shop) then they can accept or decline whatever form of payment they want. (in the UK atleast)
I think it depends *where* you insure. Like insuring consumer deposits is a good idea because you personally losing all your money to a collapsing bank is catastrophic for you, and it's not like banks would act irresponsibly because they know their *customers* were safe, like they care about their customers. Insuring the entire organisation, which is what we effectively got with TooBigToFail, does make them irresponsible yes because then the existence of the bank itself that employs the people that might act recklessly, is at risk.
With the massive caveat that real money banks are backed and insured at the state-level (atleast in Europe, where most governments guarantee a certain amount of savings), while who the hell knows how well these websites are capitalised and secured.
So who still thinks Bitcoin is a usable practical idea?
I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades...
People still want to see films, but forcing all films through the cinema is just backwards. The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately! Big films that benefit from it will still play in cinema, but we simply don't need to push every single film through a centralised viewing venue anymore. Cinemas will still exist but they will be fewer, and for special occasions rather than the only route.
Fuck you. You can't tell me what I can think or say.
So, what you're saying is... his right to tell you things is trumped by your wish to not hear things? Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means...
That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.
Actually the laws here are biased towards the consumer. If the price is reasonable believed to be not a mistake (which this clearly wasn't) then the offer has to be honoured by the shop because otherwise you'd have a million bait-and-switch false adverts by shops. The consumer does still get 7 days to cancel.
Far as I know this isn't an enforcable condition, consumer protection laws in the UK are strong and the price on the website is considered a shopfront, and therefore an offer and something they have to honour.
*Unless* it's obviously a mistake, which this clearly is, and then they don't.
Or you could look at it that the vendor made the OFFER and *I* ACCEPTED their offer can you not?
The GP is slightly wrong misleading in that the price on Amazon *is* considered an offer (nomatter what they put in their T&C) and that your acceptance of it does make it binding, *unless* it's obviously a mistake. This was obviously a mistake therefore they don't have to honour it.
You cannot use 'slippery slope' argument and then complain about other people making 'either/or' arguments! They are *the same* concept! You saying that this is a slippery slope is exactly an either/or proposition: That we should not do this thing because it *will* lead to this other thing.
Grab the source and rebuild it for i386.
Yeah, if you think it's that easy then you're a fool...
Raspberry Pi A+?
C is the high-level language there. If you want actual control over your target, you'll need to use assembly.
Luxury! You trust a compiler? When I were a lad we inputted the hex codes directly.
/
Well of course we had it tough... tape and a magnetised pin was all we needed.
/
You kids don't know you were born... we used to program using a cigarette end to burn holes in the punch cards.
/
etc...
You guys are reminding me of my manager that thinks 2 things can both be 'number one' priority. He's asking *which* to concentrate on, and for someone new to the field I think it's reasonable to only start with only one language.
Just because you know someone's going to bring it up again for no apparent reason with armchair justification. Thought I'd get it out of the way...
I am loath to join the general chorus of hate for Ubisoft and EA. Complaining about these companies being too focussed on commercial success and not enough of user-entertainment/"art" seems futile: they are, first and foremost, commercial companies.
I'm never quite convinced by this argument. Just because you can do something does not mean you must, and these companies are run be actual people, who can make decisions that aren't only following the dollar. Ultimately if you just want to make money then be a bank, everyone else has a certain amount of duty to provide their service, aswell as to being commercial.