When the show ended there were arguments over whether or not Avon actually dies in the final scene. He is surrounded by guards, it cuts to black and there is a lot of gunfire....
Presumably he is gunned down like the rest of his crew BUT he could have survived... Somehow? Surely? Maybe?
According to the article the actor that played Avon (Paul Darrow) will be the only actor to return. Set 25 years after the last series hopefully the question of Avon's survival will be answered.
Apologises to anyone that didn't no what happened to Avon at the end and has been slowly working their way through the series:)
Sorry, I was merely trying to go within Kruetz's "no philosophy please" sentiments from the original post (which I didn't include in my post)
I was trying not to get into a debate over the differences are between a school that doesn't make a profit and one that does.
And suggesting that if you included such things as endowments in the equation the concept runs a little vague. I understand it is not given back to investors or owners, but how this effects the school itself is unclear.
A school can be perfectly fine, and still run for profit, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to register.edu if they choose.
If they're for-profit, they should be considered a business or commercial entity, NOT an educational entity.
I'm trying not to be philosophical, but with Harvard's endowment valued at around $18.3 billion, I do wonder where the line is drawn. That is an awfully large pot of money for a school to be sitting on.
I know it used for good things, but still I'm not sure why we should be so anti Dawn and her Beauty School...
The article says that the law will allow "consumers to sue marketers who ignore their wishes [not to be spammed]" I'm curious over how the law would treat individual spammers. Would it allow people to sue Hot_Cindy9876@yahoo.com? or would it be the supplier of the product that Cindy was advertising that is held responsible. This might be especially difficult if the product (or website) is foreign, eg CrazyAsianPron.tw
It also seems a bit negative for anti-spam groups to criticise the laws before they are enacted.
I would have thought they would be all for this kind of thing, even if it doesn't work, at least it is a start and shows that some States are trying to do the right thing.
Just because they haven't done it perfectly first time is no reason to complain. Wait and see what happens, it might work out ok, and if it doesn't then start pushing for it to be reworked.
Arg, honestly I'm so glad I live in New Zealand. I could not stand to use a phone system where I had to pay to get things.
It costs me NZ 20 cents to send anyone anywhere in the world a SMS. I'm on the Vodafone GSM network so I don't have access to everyone, but if I do have access the cost is always the same. And I never have to pay to recieve anything.
As for the failure rate of messages I would say that 99% get through, and that when they don't I'm advised of the failure and don't have to pay. The only time I've noticed it happening is on New Years Eve at midnight and I can fully understand why the problem occurs.
While I agree mostly with your proposed IP system, I must point out that "the patenter should have to prove that there was no prior art." Would be an incredibly difficult task. To prove that something doesn't exist can be close to impossible.
They might be able to show that it doesn't appear that there is any prior art, but they might miss something. To then hold them liable for this is a bit excessive.
It would be more reasonable to simply have the Patent Office search significantly more thoroughly then they currently do, and also to make challenging a patent (proposed or accepted) far more simple, especially if the challenge is based upon prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
When the show ended there were arguments over whether or not Avon actually dies in the final scene. He is surrounded by guards, it cuts to black and there is a lot of gunfire....
:)
Presumably he is gunned down like the rest of his crew BUT he could have survived... Somehow? Surely? Maybe?
According to the article the actor that played Avon (Paul Darrow) will be the only actor to return. Set 25 years after the last series hopefully the question of Avon's survival will be answered.
Apologises to anyone that didn't no what happened to Avon at the end and has been slowly working their way through the series
Sorry, I was merely trying to go within Kruetz's "no philosophy please" sentiments from the original post (which I didn't include in my post)
.edu if they choose.
:)
I was trying not to get into a debate over the differences are between a school that doesn't make a profit and one that does.
And suggesting that if you included such things as endowments in the equation the concept runs a little vague. I understand it is not given back to investors or owners, but how this effects the school itself is unclear.
A school can be perfectly fine, and still run for profit, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to register
But I feel the world has moved on...
If they're for-profit, they should be considered a business or commercial entity, NOT an educational entity.
I'm trying not to be philosophical, but with Harvard's endowment valued at around $18.3 billion, I do wonder where the line is drawn. That is an awfully large pot of money for a school to be sitting on.
I know it used for good things, but still I'm not sure why we should be so anti Dawn and her Beauty School...
The article says that the law will allow "consumers to sue marketers who ignore their wishes [not to be spammed]" I'm curious over how the law would treat individual spammers. Would it allow people to sue Hot_Cindy9876@yahoo.com? or would it be the supplier of the product that Cindy was advertising that is held responsible. This might be especially difficult if the product (or website) is foreign, eg CrazyAsianPron.tw
It also seems a bit negative for anti-spam groups to criticise the laws before they are enacted.
I would have thought they would be all for this kind of thing, even if it doesn't work, at least it is a start and shows that some States are trying to do the right thing.
Just because they haven't done it perfectly first time is no reason to complain. Wait and see what happens, it might work out ok, and if it doesn't then start pushing for it to be reworked.
Arg, honestly I'm so glad I live in New Zealand. I could not stand to use a phone system where I had to pay to get things.
It costs me NZ 20 cents to send anyone anywhere in the world a SMS. I'm on the Vodafone GSM network so I don't have access to everyone, but if I do have access the cost is always the same. And I never have to pay to recieve anything.
As for the failure rate of messages I would say that 99% get through, and that when they don't I'm advised of the failure and don't have to pay. The only time I've noticed it happening is on New Years Eve at midnight and I can fully understand why the problem occurs.
While I agree mostly with your proposed IP system, I must point out that "the patenter should have to prove that there was no prior art." Would be an incredibly difficult task. To prove that something doesn't exist can be close to impossible.
They might be able to show that it doesn't appear that there is any prior art, but they might miss something. To then hold them liable for this is a bit excessive.
It would be more reasonable to simply have the Patent Office search significantly more thoroughly then they currently do, and also to make challenging a patent (proposed or accepted) far more simple, especially if the challenge is based upon prior art.