Public schools in virginia receive public funding, public grants, and staff performing research get public funding for it. And yes, the public pays the tuition for most students at most universities in the form of student loans.
The reason it all exists the way it does it to maximize the appeal of these arms on paper when it comes time to drum up valuation for them or sell them off. Additionally, the way they have it structured likely makes it look like they should owe little to no taxes when that time of year comes.
Maybe the summary was misleading and I didn't read beyond that so I'm not about to argue the details. Either way, the cost of a single live account subscription for Microsoft is essentially nothing regardless of duration. A lifetime access account is great PR spin... just one year makes them seem cheap.
Actually with the way they changed the subscription models regarding families they already look pretty greedy, might as well make it cheap and greedy.
The bypass would work for any xbox live account. He could write down random id's from rankings and the internet and bypass their login credentials to use their live accounts. He could just shift from account to account if any subscriptions expired.
So yes, this exploit at the very least allows for what is effectively permanent play... or least until the bug was fixed.
This might have been a simple to find bug but that's exactly why it would have been so damaging. They could at least give the kid a permanent XBox Live subscription. He would have effectively had one if he hadn't disclosed the bug.
How does that mitigate it... the other cars will be clogging up the roads. There is pretty much no large scale zombie apocalypse type scenario where cars will actually be useful.
Oh yes, you've made a very compelling argument to support your assertion that I've suggested a dichotomy... oh wait, nvm. You simply made the unsupported assertion.
Bitcoin is not subject to, artificially limited by, nor of value due to copyright. You are not stealing bitcoin, you are stealing the value that bitcoin represents. That value is not some abstract hypothetical potential profit loss but a fairly easy (within a reasonable margin for exchange variation) to quantify amount of spending power in any currency in the world.
If I steal your credit card number (and bitcoin is ultimately nothing more than a secret number that allows you to unlock a persons money and spend it) and then buy something with it I've stolen pretty much the same thing. A number that allows me buy goods using a system that operates entirely on streams of bits.
If I hack your bank account and transfer the money out, that money also is a stream of bits. The same of your paypal account.
These things are unique and set up in such a way that the value, just like an individual tangible CD, can only be possessed by one person.
Software does not actually belong to the guy who holds a copyright in the case of copyright violation the software actually belongs to the guy sharing it and violating the copyright. You can steal a copyright, you can't steal the software. If you copy the software, you both now have copies and nothing is lost from the source. Software that is shared becomes no less functional no matter how much it is shared, software can be possessed by every person and they will all have the same thing with the same intrinsic value.
Bitcoin is not software but of course there is theft. But that has nothing to do with copyright infringement being theft. If I steal your office cd it's theft. That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that torrenting your copy of office is NOT theft.
And you'd pay the same amount less in either CC or cash without it. Since the average person never or nearly never is able to use the chargeback mechanism on a CC and most who do are lying and claiming unauthorized use (since you do NOT qualify for a Chargeback if you are unhappy with a purchase) we are almost universally worse off for it existing.
No, you are focusing on irrelevant mechanics. What you stole is the VALUE. This is no different than if you stole my paypal balance and there are a number of other laws which apply beyond simple theft because of the unauthorized use of my computer.
Just because a black market enables the trade of things which should be illegal doesn't mean it doesn't enable the trade of things which should not be.
There could be nothing like Wikileaks without a black market.
"Hmm. I suppose the question is where to draw the line. I think we would agree that if I were to touch someone else's clothes and *create* their wardrobe malfunction, it would clearly be *over* the line. I guess I'm focusing on that line between "action taken by viewer" and "accident occurring to viewed". I see placing a camera in a non-normal viewing position below the skirt to be as much a personal attack as picking up that person's skirt to look (and by the way, if I were to like on the floor staring upwards I would expect skirt wearers to give me a wide berth), and I understand you to be drawing the line at contact - if it might be seen from below on a stairwell or ledge, then creating a viewpoint from below may be tacky but not illegal."
I agree. And in the woman in red moment you mention reactions would range all over the place. Some would feel shy and/or embarrassed in a strip club even though those women are intentionally giving the views for money. I was in a situation where a woman intentionally wore cut jean shorts and no panties and spread her legs to give a peek through to the guy sitting next to me. She was going for the pretend it was an accident aspect and looking circumspectly for his reaction. She noticed my more open smile and peek and gave me a dirty look.
Being perverted and horny might be something that is fair game to judge you and leave you single but it isn't criminal. Actually violating someone's space physically, is where I see a line being crossed. If the man had lifted the skirt with a stick I'd see a slap as a fair game response. A criminal record... not so much.
Cheerleaders wear short skirts, there is generally less visible under them than if they'd worn a revealing bikini.
"A photograph taken from a camera held, say, below waist-level would have a viewpoint that the subject would not reasonably expect to be public"
That sounds like a very specific line targeted at a very specific piece of clothing. We shouldn't be making laws just to enable people to be protected from angles they didn't consider when choosing clothing that reveals their undergarments. Similar views would be found if walking up stairs or one had fallen down and legs splayed or as Paris Hilton showed us, climbing out of a car.
Really, the women have the option to select what can be seen under the skirt. They could wear nothing or shorts or anything between.
Whether or not someone would be happy about is beside the point. Just because people don't want you to do it doesn't make it criminal. Also, Am I taking a crap on the bus or behind a closed door in a private space... such as say a bathroom.
Through her window she is in a private place. This is just taking a picture of what someone is wearing in public.
The ethical difference? The woman is choosing to wear the skirt knowing full well that people can see up them, not every moment but certainly many many times through the course of a day. So she's choosing to make what is under the skirt visible in public. Anything someone wears, displays, or does in public is fair game for photographing or making a video of under the law.
Not as long as police can freely invade your privacy and record you and photograph you when you are in public. It has been well established, by police, that you do not have an expectation of privacy in public.
These clothes are chosen because they are sexy. They are sexy BECAUSE in certain moments and with certain movements you can see down the blouse and up the skirt and everyone knows it so choosing to wear these clothes is choosing to let random strangers catch a glimpse. People are allowed to photograph you in public, wearing whatever you've chosen to wear and doing whatever you've chosen to do in public.
If you don't want someone to see down your blouse, don't wear a blouse people can see down. If you don't want someone to see up your skirt, wear a long skirt or don't wear a skirt. Granted people seeing this in person is something you can change tomorrow by not wearing these things and the photos you can't change your mind on. But we shouldn't be passing laws for no other purpose than to allow people to have fewer consequences when they make immodest wardrobe choices.
A law that blanket prevented photographing and recording people in public without explicit consent. That would be something I could get behind. Copyright being jointly shared on all images and video between the person making the photo/video and the people in them. That would be something I could get behind. Another law trying to define when you are and aren't entitled to privacy, spelling out certain circumstances and conditions. No thanks. The laws protecting individuals and preserving their personal rights should be broad, strongly worded, and strongly protected in our courts. It's the exceptions that should be narrow and specific.
A thick layer of ordinary charcoal and sand followed by a boil works just fine for purifying water even if it's not space efficient. It's a survival 101 tactic.
But it works all the same. Which begs the question, are places that already have trees really in need of clean water and if so is the problem that there isn't already existing tech (such as charcoal+sand) vs the population knowing about existing tech.
This won't do any good where there is little rainfall and therefore no trees and it doesn't seem to be needed where there are trees and the ability to make charcoal if the population knew how to do that.
I am happy to add "use a living branch" to my bag of water purification tricks but I have to admit I see it as having limited utility since if I have living branches I can just make charcoal.
Does this remain true when said trees no longer have leaves and photosynthesis happening? As far as I know beyond a brief river transport to a mill harvested trees generally are not constantly in water. Living trees are not USUALLY in constant contact with water. And dead trees that are in constant contact with water... well the ones I've seen are rotted.
In any case. I wonder how this compares to the same wood, rendered to charcoal, and used as a filter. I thought the problem with areas with water shortage is they lack trees not that some charcoal and sand was unobtanium where trees are in fact already present.
Slashdot Mirror
Public schools in virginia receive public funding, public grants, and staff performing research get public funding for it. And yes, the public pays the tuition for most students at most universities in the form of student loans.
True enough.
The reason it all exists the way it does it to maximize the appeal of these arms on paper when it comes time to drum up valuation for them or sell them off. Additionally, the way they have it structured likely makes it look like they should owe little to no taxes when that time of year comes.
Maybe the summary was misleading and I didn't read beyond that so I'm not about to argue the details. Either way, the cost of a single live account subscription for Microsoft is essentially nothing regardless of duration. A lifetime access account is great PR spin... just one year makes them seem cheap.
Actually with the way they changed the subscription models regarding families they already look pretty greedy, might as well make it cheap and greedy.
The bypass would work for any xbox live account. He could write down random id's from rankings and the internet and bypass their login credentials to use their live accounts. He could just shift from account to account if any subscriptions expired.
So yes, this exploit at the very least allows for what is effectively permanent play... or least until the bug was fixed.
This might have been a simple to find bug but that's exactly why it would have been so damaging. They could at least give the kid a permanent XBox Live subscription. He would have effectively had one if he hadn't disclosed the bug.
How does that mitigate it... the other cars will be clogging up the roads. There is pretty much no large scale zombie apocalypse type scenario where cars will actually be useful.
Oh yes, you've made a very compelling argument to support your assertion that I've suggested a dichotomy... oh wait, nvm. You simply made the unsupported assertion.
Bitcoin is not subject to, artificially limited by, nor of value due to copyright. You are not stealing bitcoin, you are stealing the value that bitcoin represents. That value is not some abstract hypothetical potential profit loss but a fairly easy (within a reasonable margin for exchange variation) to quantify amount of spending power in any currency in the world.
If I steal your credit card number (and bitcoin is ultimately nothing more than a secret number that allows you to unlock a persons money and spend it) and then buy something with it I've stolen pretty much the same thing. A number that allows me buy goods using a system that operates entirely on streams of bits.
If I hack your bank account and transfer the money out, that money also is a stream of bits. The same of your paypal account.
These things are unique and set up in such a way that the value, just like an individual tangible CD, can only be possessed by one person.
Software does not actually belong to the guy who holds a copyright in the case of copyright violation the software actually belongs to the guy sharing it and violating the copyright. You can steal a copyright, you can't steal the software. If you copy the software, you both now have copies and nothing is lost from the source. Software that is shared becomes no less functional no matter how much it is shared, software can be possessed by every person and they will all have the same thing with the same intrinsic value.
3/14 is Steak and Blowjob day.
Bitcoin is not software but of course there is theft. But that has nothing to do with copyright infringement being theft. If I steal your office cd it's theft. That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that torrenting your copy of office is NOT theft.
And you'd pay the same amount less in either CC or cash without it. Since the average person never or nearly never is able to use the chargeback mechanism on a CC and most who do are lying and claiming unauthorized use (since you do NOT qualify for a Chargeback if you are unhappy with a purchase) we are almost universally worse off for it existing.
No, you are focusing on irrelevant mechanics. What you stole is the VALUE. This is no different than if you stole my paypal balance and there are a number of other laws which apply beyond simple theft because of the unauthorized use of my computer.
Just because a black market enables the trade of things which should be illegal doesn't mean it doesn't enable the trade of things which should not be.
There could be nothing like Wikileaks without a black market.
Last I checked ripping someone's bitcoin wallet off is just as illegal as taking their physical on filled with fiat.
A black market is a pretty essential thing if you are opposed to tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority.
"Hmm. I suppose the question is where to draw the line. I think we would agree that if I were to touch someone else's clothes and *create* their wardrobe malfunction, it would clearly be *over* the line. I guess I'm focusing on that line between "action taken by viewer" and "accident occurring to viewed". I see placing a camera in a non-normal viewing position below the skirt to be as much a personal attack as picking up that person's skirt to look (and by the way, if I were to like on the floor staring upwards I would expect skirt wearers to give me a wide berth), and I understand you to be drawing the line at contact - if it might be seen from below on a stairwell or ledge, then creating a viewpoint from below may be tacky but not illegal."
I agree. And in the woman in red moment you mention reactions would range all over the place. Some would feel shy and/or embarrassed in a strip club even though those women are intentionally giving the views for money. I was in a situation where a woman intentionally wore cut jean shorts and no panties and spread her legs to give a peek through to the guy sitting next to me. She was going for the pretend it was an accident aspect and looking circumspectly for his reaction. She noticed my more open smile and peek and gave me a dirty look.
Being perverted and horny might be something that is fair game to judge you and leave you single but it isn't criminal. Actually violating someone's space physically, is where I see a line being crossed. If the man had lifted the skirt with a stick I'd see a slap as a fair game response. A criminal record... not so much.
Cheerleaders wear short skirts, there is generally less visible under them than if they'd worn a revealing bikini.
"A photograph taken from a camera held, say, below waist-level would have a viewpoint that the subject would not reasonably expect to be public"
That sounds like a very specific line targeted at a very specific piece of clothing. We shouldn't be making laws just to enable people to be protected from angles they didn't consider when choosing clothing that reveals their undergarments. Similar views would be found if walking up stairs or one had fallen down and legs splayed or as Paris Hilton showed us, climbing out of a car.
Really, the women have the option to select what can be seen under the skirt. They could wear nothing or shorts or anything between.
Whether or not someone would be happy about is beside the point. Just because people don't want you to do it doesn't make it criminal. Also, Am I taking a crap on the bus or behind a closed door in a private space... such as say a bathroom.
I see a huge difference as well. But one that speaks to lack of character not criminal conduct.
Relevance?
Through her window she is in a private place. This is just taking a picture of what someone is wearing in public.
The ethical difference? The woman is choosing to wear the skirt knowing full well that people can see up them, not every moment but certainly many many times through the course of a day. So she's choosing to make what is under the skirt visible in public. Anything someone wears, displays, or does in public is fair game for photographing or making a video of under the law.
Not as long as police can freely invade your privacy and record you and photograph you when you are in public. It has been well established, by police, that you do not have an expectation of privacy in public.
These clothes are chosen because they are sexy. They are sexy BECAUSE in certain moments and with certain movements you can see down the blouse and up the skirt and everyone knows it so choosing to wear these clothes is choosing to let random strangers catch a glimpse. People are allowed to photograph you in public, wearing whatever you've chosen to wear and doing whatever you've chosen to do in public.
If you don't want someone to see down your blouse, don't wear a blouse people can see down. If you don't want someone to see up your skirt, wear a long skirt or don't wear a skirt. Granted people seeing this in person is something you can change tomorrow by not wearing these things and the photos you can't change your mind on. But we shouldn't be passing laws for no other purpose than to allow people to have fewer consequences when they make immodest wardrobe choices.
A law that blanket prevented photographing and recording people in public without explicit consent. That would be something I could get behind. Copyright being jointly shared on all images and video between the person making the photo/video and the people in them. That would be something I could get behind. Another law trying to define when you are and aren't entitled to privacy, spelling out certain circumstances and conditions. No thanks. The laws protecting individuals and preserving their personal rights should be broad, strongly worded, and strongly protected in our courts. It's the exceptions that should be narrow and specific.
A thick layer of ordinary charcoal and sand followed by a boil works just fine for purifying water even if it's not space efficient. It's a survival 101 tactic.
But it works all the same. Which begs the question, are places that already have trees really in need of clean water and if so is the problem that there isn't already existing tech (such as charcoal+sand) vs the population knowing about existing tech.
This won't do any good where there is little rainfall and therefore no trees and it doesn't seem to be needed where there are trees and the ability to make charcoal if the population knew how to do that.
I am happy to add "use a living branch" to my bag of water purification tricks but I have to admit I see it as having limited utility since if I have living branches I can just make charcoal.
Does this remain true when said trees no longer have leaves and photosynthesis happening? As far as I know beyond a brief river transport to a mill harvested trees generally are not constantly in water. Living trees are not USUALLY in constant contact with water. And dead trees that are in constant contact with water... well the ones I've seen are rotted.
In any case. I wonder how this compares to the same wood, rendered to charcoal, and used as a filter. I thought the problem with areas with water shortage is they lack trees not that some charcoal and sand was unobtanium where trees are in fact already present.