Not a Wikipedia "law"; but relating to the conduct of congessional staffers. See TFA :
the sheer breadth of changes emanating from the House reflects an abuse of public time and equipment, said Potter, now chairman of the Ethics Resource Center.
"That kind of usage, plus the fact that they're changing one person's material, is certainly wrong and ought to be at a minimum the focus of some disciplinary action," he said.
9/11 made the world we live in seem more dangerous. Challenger made space flight seem more dangerous. Now, since most of us are not going to fly in space...
I said confidence was affected, not simply personal fear of death.
I haven't tried it wiht Google, but other sites which try to prevent you keeping a copy, I pause near the end and wait a few seconds, till it's all buffered, then open the cache and sort it by time, find the swf file near the top, and copy it out. Usually it's deleted the moment you finish watching. There may be a way to prevent the deletion, but this works.
One reason they skipped it was ther crews could now be 7 or more, not 2 or 3. And there was no modular capsule to pop off as in lunar rockets, so making that possible would have made the already horribly complex craft even more so.
The law is not a prohibition only against the initial photographer of such things... it's against ALL PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION of pornographic material depicting (real) minors!
The interesting decision that seems to have been made is that burning one CD and hiding it in a shoebox in your wardrobe is considered "publication and distribution". I would have thought they would at least have to make an argument that there was an intent to distribute. The point being that penalties for distribution are much higher than possession. Seems this is going the same way as drug laws; they can't find any way to get at the actual producers, who are probably overseas, so they punish the endusers more to make it seem they're doing something.
Typing google.com instantly directs you back to google.xx, and even if you do manage to reach google.com and type in a query you'll once again be directed to google.xx showing the results of your query.
Try: http://www.google.com/ncr. ncr = No Country Redirect. Of course, they may change how this works, but it does so far, at least in Hong Kong.
I can fill my arsonist tendencies by simply hacking into someone's oven and overheating it!
Don't worry -- it's run by Microsoft software, so you know it'll be invulnerable to evil hacking scum.
Microsoft Consumer Experience
TMIO is a Microsoft "MCX" (Microsoft Consumer Experience)® partner. This means we are part of the overall plan Microsoft has for a living experience with their products. Our applications include Microsoft's.NET (pronounced, "dot net") platform for hand held devices, Windows Explorer for the web browser, and Microsoft Media Center for controlling "My Oven" anywhere inside your home.
PS -- odd how Roland linked to his own blog on ZDnet, recycling the NASA story, without bothering to reference the manufacturer's site. An oversight, I guess.
For starters, the link to Roland the Plogger's blog entry on zdnet didn't get a "nofollow" tag, and that page, in turn, has multiple links to his Plogger sites. So he's using Slashdot for "search engine optimization" again. Sigh.
That's because the no-follow link is given to the "submmitter" link, his website, But he sneakily links to his ZDnet blog in the story, without any notice that it's his site. And when you go there, you find Roland's trademarked warmed-over crap pasted from ther sites about this joke technology that "won awards in 2003", but will never be used in real life.
Much fuss is made of the remote control aspect, which is trivial. What would be more interesting is the combination of refrigerator and oven. On the face of it, that sounds incredibly wasteful and inefficient, perhaps it's not, maybe they use superlightweight insulation. That might actually have been interesting.
99.9% of chinese folks don't even consider themselves repressed
And you know this how? As a resident of Hong Kong, I can assure you that 99.9% of Chinese folk know they are oppressed, but aren't stupid enough to say so in public.
And even more important: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?
"Rich billionaires"!!
Moving right aloing, this isn't an "important question", it's a stupid one. No one can spend a billion dollars on anything in secrecy; most especially not the CEO of an American company.
In Australia in 1981 the govt introduced Division 10BA, allowing 150% of the investment in a movie to be written off as a tax deduction. Along with a few good movies (eg Mad Max and The Year of Living Dangerously, bringing Mel Gibson to stardom), this led to a lot of very bad movies, packaged by tax consultants, with the sole aim of getting a movie in the can to satisfy the tax requirements, regardless of any saleability. With no deductions available for promotion these would turn up, if at all, late night on TV years later. The abuses became so blatant that the deduction wa reduced in subsequent years, till in 1988 it was a relatively sane 100%.
So to compare, one camp has declared war on spyware, and has assembled the best generals in the industry and the largest groups of regular troops, and launched a major assault on the spyware mainland, already capturing several cities. The other camp has gotten together at the local university to sit around writing beatnik poetry about how bad spyware is.
Even if that were so, what's wrong with more than one group taking on the issue? Also, while MS et al have the big guns, recall that the Sony Rootkit was well known to all these parties who took no action till it was publicised by a blogger. A group that, while not pure of commercial concerns, has DIFFERENT concerns can only encourage more openness and discourage coverups and footdragging.
A species (chimpanzees, our "closest" relatives, for example) with 21 pairs of chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. Do the fossil records indicate critters with 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4.... pairs of choromosomes?
Ever heard of Downs Syndrome?
The chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome is trisomy 21, a extra copy of chromosome number 21. This means that instead of having the normal 2 copies of chromosome number 21, the person with Down syndrome has 3 copies of chromosome number 21.
A postscript; I was distracted by your wilful misinterpretation of my post. My point is that if you simply state "the price was $7.4 billion dollars"; this means money in the sense of numbers on a cheque. If you mean moosepelts or anything else, you say so; or at least use the word "value". This is important in stock transactions, as the value is aften quite notional; as any attempt to liquidate will drive the price down; or if the deal was made at a peak of the market, the value can be tiny before anyone can cash out. Though in the case of Disney and Pixar a crash seems unlikely, Disney has been on a slide and Jobs has presided over some disasters in his time. Lots of people were stock-option millionaires in 1999 and broke a year later without having a chance to spend it.
"Also the price of Pixar was $7.4 billion with a b dollars."
No, it wasn't. Zero with a z dollars. From TFA: "in an all-stock transaction, expected to be completed by this summer. Under terms of the agreement, 2.3 Disney shares will be issued for each Pixar share."
Why isn't it possible, for example, to allow companies to make training contracts
Who says it isn't possible? I don't know of anyone who does, but I can't think why it should be out of the question. It could be done by agreeing to a non-compete clause for a specified period, for instance, so you couldn't be poached by a competitor. You can't actually force someone to work if they don't want to, but you can give them a disincentive to quitting.
What gave you the idea students were crushed by tanks? The Tank Man was never crushed; he stood in front of the tanks for half an hour then was pulled away. Noone was crushed by a tank that day that anyone knows of. kthx read up on history then post yes?
That man wasn't. Since you link to Wikipedia, this is what it says (now, you can change it later)
Estimates of civilian deaths vary greatly: the Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 400-800 died, while the Chinese Red Cross put the figure at 2,600. Student protestors claim that over 7,000 were killed. Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress the remaining supporters of the movement.
And photos of dead students are trivial to find, I've got a whole book of them. How many were "crushed" by tanks" vs being shot, bludgeoned to death I don't know and I don't thnk the manner of death is terribly relevant.
What people need to realize is that Google doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
They could continue as they have, using US-based servers outside of China's control. Then they might be blocked from China. They don't want that, but they DO have a choice. The choice is between money and being moral. Like most businesses, they chose money. It's sad that being moral isn't even considered a possibility. Murdoch dumped BBC news from his TV broadcasts in China for exactly the same reason. It's easy to talk about democratic values, empowerment etc.; wait till they have to put their money where their mouths were to see who's sincere.
The first few posts on Slashdot are so mind numbing.
Well, the whole topic is. "People can steal data with USB drives!" News? Ten years ago I was stealing data with floppies. Copied a whole mailing list. (Didn't use the parts I wasn't supposed to, it just simplified things to have the whole thing.) Most "secret" data is basically text, you can fit hundreds of pages onto a floppy.
Anyway, it's impossible to prevent people bringing in floppies, let alone USB dongles. If it bothers you, just open the cases and disconnect any USB sockets. (Use AT keyboards and mice, still easy to get.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not a Wikipedia "law"; but relating to the conduct of congessional staffers. See TFA :
I said confidence was affected, not simply personal fear of death.
I haven't tried it wiht Google, but other sites which try to prevent you keeping a copy, I pause near the end and wait a few seconds, till it's all buffered, then open the cache and sort it by time, find the swf file near the top, and copy it out. Usually it's deleted the moment you finish watching. There may be a way to prevent the deletion, but this works.
One reason they skipped it was ther crews could now be 7 or more, not 2 or 3. And there was no modular capsule to pop off as in lunar rockets, so making that possible would have made the already horribly complex craft even more so.
9/11 was our 9/11.
Challenger was Challenger.
The two aren't similar in any way, shape or form, except that people who shouldn't have died, did.
They were both shocking surprises that shoook the country's confidence and made the world seem more dangerous.
For the Baby Boomers it was JFK's assassination. For their parents it was Pearl Harbor. They all still affect us in different ways.
The interesting decision that seems to have been made is that burning one CD and hiding it in a shoebox in your wardrobe is considered "publication and distribution". I would have thought they would at least have to make an argument that there was an intent to distribute. The point being that penalties for distribution are much higher than possession. Seems this is going the same way as drug laws; they can't find any way to get at the actual producers, who are probably overseas, so they punish the endusers more to make it seem they're doing something.
Try: http://www.google.com/ncr. ncr = No Country Redirect. Of course, they may change how this works, but it does so far, at least in Hong Kong.
Don't worry -- it's run by Microsoft software, so you know it'll be invulnerable to evil hacking scum.
PS -- odd how Roland linked to his own blog on ZDnet, recycling the NASA story, without bothering to reference the manufacturer's site. An oversight, I guess.That's because the no-follow link is given to the "submmitter" link, his website, But he sneakily links to his ZDnet blog in the story, without any notice that it's his site. And when you go there, you find Roland's trademarked warmed-over crap pasted from ther sites about this joke technology that "won awards in 2003", but will never be used in real life.
Much fuss is made of the remote control aspect, which is trivial. What would be more interesting is the combination of refrigerator and oven. On the face of it, that sounds incredibly wasteful and inefficient, perhaps it's not, maybe they use superlightweight insulation. That might actually have been interesting.
And you know this how? As a resident of Hong Kong, I can assure you that 99.9% of Chinese folk know they are oppressed, but aren't stupid enough to say so in public.
"Rich billionaires"!!
Moving right aloing, this isn't an "important question", it's a stupid one. No one can spend a billion dollars on anything in secrecy; most especially not the CEO of an American company.
In Australia in 1981 the govt introduced Division 10BA, allowing 150% of the investment in a movie to be written off as a tax deduction. Along with a few good movies (eg Mad Max and The Year of Living Dangerously, bringing Mel Gibson to stardom), this led to a lot of very bad movies, packaged by tax consultants, with the sole aim of getting a movie in the can to satisfy the tax requirements, regardless of any saleability. With no deductions available for promotion these would turn up, if at all, late night on TV years later. The abuses became so blatant that the deduction wa reduced in subsequent years, till in 1988 it was a relatively sane 100%.
Even if that were so, what's wrong with more than one group taking on the issue? Also, while MS et al have the big guns, recall that the Sony Rootkit was well known to all these parties who took no action till it was publicised by a blogger. A group that, while not pure of commercial concerns, has DIFFERENT concerns can only encourage more openness and discourage coverups and footdragging.
I assume it was there and since been fixed. Occasionally they do correct errors.
Ever had a dog hump your leg?
Ever heard of Downs Syndrome?
So a Downs sufferer has 23.5 pairs."OR". And when you state it in DOLLARS (without using "worth"), you imply MONEY.
Any of:
The price was X billion shares./ The price was Y billion dollars./ The price was Z billion dollars worth of shares.
A postscript; I was distracted by your wilful misinterpretation of my post. My point is that if you simply state "the price was $7.4 billion dollars"; this means money in the sense of numbers on a cheque. If you mean moosepelts or anything else, you say so; or at least use the word "value". This is important in stock transactions, as the value is aften quite notional; as any attempt to liquidate will drive the price down; or if the deal was made at a peak of the market, the value can be tiny before anyone can cash out. Though in the case of Disney and Pixar a crash seems unlikely, Disney has been on a slide and Jobs has presided over some disasters in his time. Lots of people were stock-option millionaires in 1999 and broke a year later without having a chance to spend it.
OF COURSE NOT.
Read what I wrote.
No, it wasn't. Zero with a z dollars. From TFA: "in an all-stock transaction, expected to be completed by this summer. Under terms of the agreement, 2.3 Disney shares will be issued for each Pixar share."
Who says it isn't possible? I don't know of anyone who does, but I can't think why it should be out of the question. It could be done by agreeing to a non-compete clause for a specified period, for instance, so you couldn't be poached by a competitor. You can't actually force someone to work if they don't want to, but you can give them a disincentive to quitting.
That man wasn't. Since you link to Wikipedia, this is what it says (now, you can change it later)
And photos of dead students are trivial to find, I've got a whole book of them. How many were "crushed" by tanks" vs being shot, bludgeoned to death I don't know and I don't thnk the manner of death is terribly relevant.It's still "Communist" as in Communist Party controlled. How "communist" the "Communists" are is debateable.
They could continue as they have, using US-based servers outside of China's control. Then they might be blocked from China. They don't want that, but they DO have a choice. The choice is between money and being moral. Like most businesses, they chose money. It's sad that being moral isn't even considered a possibility. Murdoch dumped BBC news from his TV broadcasts in China for exactly the same reason. It's easy to talk about democratic values, empowerment etc.; wait till they have to put their money where their mouths were to see who's sincere.
Well, the whole topic is. "People can steal data with USB drives!" News? Ten years ago I was stealing data with floppies. Copied a whole mailing list. (Didn't use the parts I wasn't supposed to, it just simplified things to have the whole thing.) Most "secret" data is basically text, you can fit hundreds of pages onto a floppy.
Anyway, it's impossible to prevent people bringing in floppies, let alone USB dongles. If it bothers you, just open the cases and disconnect any USB sockets. (Use AT keyboards and mice, still easy to get.)