I like the idea, but I think that the biggest problems they might encounter on a larger scale is the need to obtain easements as the pipes will inevitably run onto private property at some point.
Each party bears its own costs. Google can afford it, though, I think. Don't know about the couple, but considering they originally sued for $25,000 (I imagine they were trying to get a quick cash settlement out of it), I'm thinking they probably wouldn't bear the burden quite so well.
This will be a successful plan because Google's previous blocking of pornography-related terms from autocomplete was a spectacular success at preventing people from finding pornography.
Tort law pertains to a civil wrong done through intentional tortious acts like battery, assault, or through negligence, or through defamation, or through products liability, etc. Tort damages are damages for tortious actions, not contractual ones. It has nothing to do with this situation.
Faith in reliance (properly termed detrimental reliance) is where one party performs in an agreement in reliance to the promises of another party. For example, if a party promised another party $10000 if they decide to go to college, and the other party does indeed go to college in reliance of that promise of $10000, then that is detrimental reliance. Neither Amazon nor Wikileaks performed anything in reliance of another's promise. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I do not think these terms mean what you think they mean.
In any case, I think it's hardly necessary to call me an idiot, although you are absolutely correct when you noted that the internet allows people who don't know what the "FRAK" they are talking about to post.
You are correct that it is a matter of contract law, however, as many people have noted above, there was already a breach in the contract because Wikileaks violated the Amazon AUP (a material breach, possibly). Thus, Amazon has the option to terminate performance on their side of the contract because of the material breach.
I'm fairly sure businesses are entitled to change their minds when they realize they've made a mistake that might cost them more than they bargained for. Requiring all businesses to charge full on ahead even in the face of losses doesn't make much sense.
I think it's substantially more likely that they booted Wikileaks because: 1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS 2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs 3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
I don't think it's fair to expect Amazon to keep them on even in the face of potentially high losses. Businesses are in the business of making money, after all, and this is just a financial no brainer.
See, this kind of belief in market forces only works if there is a competitive market for internet access. Cable and internet providers are natural monopolies - they tend to be the only people servicing a particular area. People must stop believing that market forces will fix everything, especially when market failures exist in so many situations.
I think the general trends to predictions about future technology is that optimistic predictions often winds up being wrong (which isn't too say that overly cautious predictions are any better - like Bill Gate's 637 kb of memory claim).
I'm still waiting for my ticket to the moon from Pan Am to be a reality, 9 years after 2001, and 48 years after 1968.
As an old Mythbusters episode demonstrated - fecal coliform bacteria is on EVERYTHING and is just a fact of life. A healthy immune system quash it like any other pathogen and you wouldn't give it a second thought (or a first one, for that matter).
I place a lot of blame on the marketing people for this. Soap manufacturers were the first. Despite the fact that soap already kills like 99% of the germs on contact, soap marketers started dumping stuff like triclosan into their products to tout their "antibacterial effects". Now triclosan and its ilk are in everything and everyone must have it, even if it's completely pointless. Seriously, do we really need triclosan covered toothbrushes? Has anyone in the past 100 years really gotten sick because of their toothbrush?
It's not the district, it's not the administrators, it's just one teacher who sent it off without permission. Let's not judge all Americans by a singular nutcase.
Maybe it's me, but isn't the proper headline "Students NOT banned from bringing pencils to school"?
After all, the district said that the teacher sent the memo without permission of the superintendent and that it did not reflect district policy. So we got an overzealous and whacked out teacher, which is certainly not news.
(a)any object at least 300 years old when found which—
(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;
(ii)when found, is one of at least two coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time and have that percentage of precious metal; or
(iii)when found, is one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time;
(b)any object at least 200 years old when found which belongs to a class designated under section 2(1);
(c)any object which would have been treasure trove if found before the commencement of section 4;
(d)any object which, when found, is part of the same find as—
(i)an object within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) found at the same time or earlier; or
(ii)an object found earlier which would be within paragraph (a) or (b) if it had been found at the same time.
(2)Treasure does not include objects which are—
(a)unworked natural objects, or
(b)minerals as extracted from a natural deposit,
or which belong to a class designated under section 2(2).
The object found was at least 300 years old and "(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;". Thus, it will likely fall under the definition found in the statute.
Under the British Treasure Act of 1996, such a find like this belongs to the Crown. However, the boy may be compensated as a reward by the Secretary of State.
First, I think slashdotters are fairly familiar with who Ron Paul is and what party he belongs to. Second, that's a direct quote from the news article, which doesn't note his party affiliation either. So, unless you think slashdot editors have the power to manipulate other journalists to leave off Ron Paul's party affiliation to conform to your perceived bias, I can't see any sort of basis for your belief.
What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone. Heck, it doesn't even have a screen. All it needs is the simplest or the cheapest microprocessors that is capable of making a call. Yet, it still costs £60 to £80.
The example cited in the story of Avatar is a pretty obvious example. But even in less obvious examples like Children of Men, which had very long and well-done long-takes, at least some of the long takes are done through compositing and CGI. The two, CGI, are not mutually exclusive.
Frankly, I'm afraid that overuse of long takes would just result in another annoying cinematic cliche.
I wonder how the engineers for the Green Float concept solved (if, indeed they did) how such a lily-pad city concept would be able to withstand tsunamis, which a floating city in the middle of the Pacific Ocean would be especially vulnerable. Unlike tsunamis on land, a lily-pad city, I'd think, would add the additional complication that the city could sink or fragment or capsize, trapping or killing a lot of people.
Also, with regards to the "carbon-negative" claim - do they mean carbon negative with regards to its operation? Or are they also including the incredible amount of carbon that would've had to be emitted in the construction of such a structure?
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea, but I think that the biggest problems they might encounter on a larger scale is the need to obtain easements as the pipes will inevitably run onto private property at some point.
That was Ted Stevens, not George W. Bush.
Each party bears its own costs. Google can afford it, though, I think. Don't know about the couple, but considering they originally sued for $25,000 (I imagine they were trying to get a quick cash settlement out of it), I'm thinking they probably wouldn't bear the burden quite so well.
This will be a successful plan because Google's previous blocking of pornography-related terms from autocomplete was a spectacular success at preventing people from finding pornography.
Tort law pertains to a civil wrong done through intentional tortious acts like battery, assault, or through negligence, or through defamation, or through products liability, etc. Tort damages are damages for tortious actions, not contractual ones. It has nothing to do with this situation.
Faith in reliance (properly termed detrimental reliance) is where one party performs in an agreement in reliance to the promises of another party. For example, if a party promised another party $10000 if they decide to go to college, and the other party does indeed go to college in reliance of that promise of $10000, then that is detrimental reliance. Neither Amazon nor Wikileaks performed anything in reliance of another's promise. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I do not think these terms mean what you think they mean.
In any case, I think it's hardly necessary to call me an idiot, although you are absolutely correct when you noted that the internet allows people who don't know what the "FRAK" they are talking about to post.
You are correct that it is a matter of contract law, however, as many people have noted above, there was already a breach in the contract because Wikileaks violated the Amazon AUP (a material breach, possibly). Thus, Amazon has the option to terminate performance on their side of the contract because of the material breach.
I'm fairly sure businesses are entitled to change their minds when they realize they've made a mistake that might cost them more than they bargained for. Requiring all businesses to charge full on ahead even in the face of losses doesn't make much sense.
I think it's substantially more likely that they booted Wikileaks because:
1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS
2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
I don't think it's fair to expect Amazon to keep them on even in the face of potentially high losses. Businesses are in the business of making money, after all, and this is just a financial no brainer.
My friend, allow me to be the first to introduce you to DVR...
Alaska balances their budget by taking more federal dollars than the other states. They are the number one recipient of federal pork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html
Plus, she is only a supporter of the Constitution when it's the parts of the Constitution she likes.
See, this kind of belief in market forces only works if there is a competitive market for internet access. Cable and internet providers are natural monopolies - they tend to be the only people servicing a particular area. People must stop believing that market forces will fix everything, especially when market failures exist in so many situations.
I think the general trends to predictions about future technology is that optimistic predictions often winds up being wrong (which isn't too say that overly cautious predictions are any better - like Bill Gate's 637 kb of memory claim).
I'm still waiting for my ticket to the moon from Pan Am to be a reality, 9 years after 2001, and 48 years after 1968.
As an old Mythbusters episode demonstrated - fecal coliform bacteria is on EVERYTHING and is just a fact of life. A healthy immune system quash it like any other pathogen and you wouldn't give it a second thought (or a first one, for that matter).
I place a lot of blame on the marketing people for this. Soap manufacturers were the first. Despite the fact that soap already kills like 99% of the germs on contact, soap marketers started dumping stuff like triclosan into their products to tout their "antibacterial effects". Now triclosan and its ilk are in everything and everyone must have it, even if it's completely pointless. Seriously, do we really need triclosan covered toothbrushes? Has anyone in the past 100 years really gotten sick because of their toothbrush?
The obvious next logical step would be body scanners to get into your car, and should you refuse, your car will grope you inappropriately.
Although I'm sure the car fetishists are salivating at that prospect already.
It's not the district, it's not the administrators, it's just one teacher who sent it off without permission. Let's not judge all Americans by a singular nutcase.
Maybe it's me, but isn't the proper headline "Students NOT banned from bringing pencils to school"?
After all, the district said that the teacher sent the memo without permission of the superintendent and that it did not reflect district policy. So we got an overzealous and whacked out teacher, which is certainly not news.
It is defined in the first section of the law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/section/1
Meaning of 'Treasure'
(1)Treasure is—
(a)any object at least 300 years old when found which—
(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;
(ii)when found, is one of at least two coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time and have that percentage of precious metal; or
(iii)when found, is one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time;
(b)any object at least 200 years old when found which belongs to a class designated under section 2(1);
(c)any object which would have been treasure trove if found before the commencement of section 4;
(d)any object which, when found, is part of the same find as—
(i)an object within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) found at the same time or earlier; or
(ii)an object found earlier which would be within paragraph (a) or (b) if it had been found at the same time.
(2)Treasure does not include objects which are—
(a)unworked natural objects, or
(b)minerals as extracted from a natural deposit,
or which belong to a class designated under section 2(2).
The object found was at least 300 years old and "(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;". Thus, it will likely fall under the definition found in the statute.
And the boy will also live in the forest with a band of merry toddlers who may accost the rich and give to the poor.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents
Whoops, here's the proper link. The other was just section 10 of the Treasure Act.
Under the British Treasure Act of 1996, such a find like this belongs to the Crown. However, the boy may be compensated as a reward by the Secretary of State.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/section/10
Section 4 of the Treasure Act
(1)When treasure is found, it vests, subject to prior interests and rights—
(a)in the franchisee, if there is one;
(b)otherwise, in the Crown.
I think you're being a bit paranoid.
First, I think slashdotters are fairly familiar with who Ron Paul is and what party he belongs to. Second, that's a direct quote from the news article, which doesn't note his party affiliation either. So, unless you think slashdot editors have the power to manipulate other journalists to leave off Ron Paul's party affiliation to conform to your perceived bias, I can't see any sort of basis for your belief.
What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone. Heck, it doesn't even have a screen. All it needs is the simplest or the cheapest microprocessors that is capable of making a call. Yet, it still costs £60 to £80.
Is it me or does £60 to £80, or about $95 to $127 dollars seem extremely overpriced for a phone with essentially no features?
The example cited in the story of Avatar is a pretty obvious example. But even in less obvious examples like Children of Men, which had very long and well-done long-takes, at least some of the long takes are done through compositing and CGI. The two, CGI, are not mutually exclusive.
Frankly, I'm afraid that overuse of long takes would just result in another annoying cinematic cliche.
I wonder how the engineers for the Green Float concept solved (if, indeed they did) how such a lily-pad city concept would be able to withstand tsunamis, which a floating city in the middle of the Pacific Ocean would be especially vulnerable. Unlike tsunamis on land, a lily-pad city, I'd think, would add the additional complication that the city could sink or fragment or capsize, trapping or killing a lot of people.
Also, with regards to the "carbon-negative" claim - do they mean carbon negative with regards to its operation? Or are they also including the incredible amount of carbon that would've had to be emitted in the construction of such a structure?