No it most definitley isn't. His rights as a UK citizen should ensure that he's not sent anywhere where he's subject to abuses like that.
Considering that McKinnon actually committed his crimes in the UK I don't see any reason why he should be extradited to America, charge him and try him here by all means but tell the Yanks to butt out.
The bomb under activating, in order to destroy the venomous serpent the filthy gnezdy it is a break and be salty from the deep-red button and wait 5 seconds. The f which is dies in d Ul,!
I'm working at a fairly small company at the moment ( around 900 employees ) and they have no plans to move to Vista at the moment. Those who've used it do like it but any new kit is being bought with XP simply because from a support point of view it's easier if everyone is on the same standardised platform and there's nothing Vista can do which we can't also do on XP ( from the point of view of our business apps ).
I imagine at some stage they may switch but in the meantime it's simply an uncessary expense and the time and money can be spent more effectively by IT improving the business apps. I would think this is a fairly typical scenario.
First of all you have get to the cinema, nowadays they're mostly in horrible out of town locations in little parks with McDonalds, Pizza Huts and a few truly dreadful pubs which you can't have a drink in anyway since you've had to drive to get there.
Next you'll probably have to queue up for a while to get a ticket.
If you want anything to drink or eat you'll find all the prices in the Cinema and the little park are hugely inflated so it'll cost you.
To get a decent seat you need to get into the theatre as soon as possible which means a good 30mins of annoying adverts and warnings about piracy, this all really pisses me off.
OK they have a big screen and loud sound but for me good films are good films regardless of how big they are or how loud they sound.
You have to put up with everyone around you talking, giggling or wandering around in front of the screen on their way to the toilet or where ever. The seats are usually not that comfortable to sit in for anything over an hour and there's never enough leg room.
You can't smoke in cinemas and you can't pause the film to go to the loo or get something to eat.
All in all I think they're a waste of money and would much rather see the film on TV or DVD.
Why not, a lot of cinemas are in towns and it's not uncommon for people to go and do some shopping and then go to the cinema, this may well mean you have a lot of bags with you.
I might be carrying things in my bag which I don't want people to see because I need to have them in my bag and I don't want anyone to go poking around and see them !
I can understand being searched on the way into nightclubs or concerts since this stops people bringing knives or guns in which would ruin my enjoyment of the evening were they to use them. I can't see any benefit at all in searching peoples bags on the way into the cinema, I wouldn't be happy to have my bags searched and I think I ought to have the right to go to the cinema without being forced to undergo pointless, invasive searchs.
I live in Birmingham too, I and several people I know take photos in town fairly often. One of them was once told he needed to ask permission to take photos in the actual Bull Ring building - he did and they let him carry on but other than that, outside, I've never been stopped by the police or heard of anyone who ever has been.
In fact if you go onto the balcony overlooking St Martins at pretty much anytime of day you can count at least 15 people with cameras photographing the Church.
If people are actually rioting then no you can't but if they're simply protesting then engaging in a dialouge or just leaving them too it is better than attempting to control them like cattle.
I like the fact that it can be used for subduing crowds without having to talk to them, everythings much simpler when you don't have to engage in any dialouge with enemy.
Not living near any beaches, especially not any Australian ones I don't think I pay anything for them via my taxes.
I expect people who live next to them pay for them with their taxes but then they also benefit from a) living near a nice beach and b) from the trade brought in by people visiting the beach.
I wondered what that thing in her hand was ( I missed the beginning of her interview ). She was crazed but unfortunately she's not alone. There was a family on some program a few months ago who sleep under a sort of metal mosquito net because they are so convinced a nearby phone mast is making them ill.
I've been to beaches in the England, beaches in Australia, beaches in Spain, beaches in France and beaches in Scotland and haven't had to pay for any of them. All of them, the Australian ones in particular have been prisine, despite the large number of people using them, and with good facilities.
I certainly wouldn't want to have to pay to go to the beach, I mean what next, would you have to pay to go the park, or to a national park or walk by a lake or a mountain ? Madness.
One of these sufferers was on the news last night. She wears a copper veil because without it she can immediately sense radiation sources and, as well as the headaches and nausea, the vision in her left eye will become blurred and tired at the end of the day.
I think a lot of people claim this sort of immediate sensitivity and this is what the study was investigating.
7 KM/h is just over 4 mph. Most peoples walking pace is around 3 and a half mph so I wouldn't say 7KM/h is exactly running, more a slow jog. Maybe you meant mph though ?
So, you honestly believe that the ox cart would still be state of the art transportation if that was the fact? I don't think so.
I don't think so either but the world was a different place back in the time of the ox cart. The key difference being that there wasn't the rapid international trade and communication we have nowadays so the inventor of the ox cart would quite comfortably make a living for himself selling, or trading ox carts amongst the nearest couple of towns. Someone setting up another ox-cart company in the neighbouring county wouldn't deprive the initial inventor of his livelihood.
Obviously today the situation is rather different. As soon as an 'ox cart' was invented and sold by someone with no patent protection company large manufacturing companies would immediately buy one and take it apart so they could then manufacture it far more cheaply than the original inventor who would then be deprived of any income from his 'ox cart'.
You're assuming that the current system has no positive benefits at all which I believe is not the case. I agree the patent system is open to abuse, particulary in the area of software but I also think a lot of people have used the patent system in the way it was intended and reaped benefits from it.
If you scrap the whole thing you're left with only the negative effects and none of the positive ones which people are currently enjoying.
So your point is that the current patent system provides insufficient protection to inventors and that the solution is to scrap it altogether and provide no protection at all ?
I don't think GM stuff is mandatory but it certainly seems like it can be a useful technology and is an important advance in the evolution of farming. We need to keep developing it now because if we don't then it will never evolve into anything which might be useful to end world hunger and feed the poor. Current farming practices are certainly doing nothing much in this regard either.
If GM crops aren't going to end world poverty then organic farms aren't going to either since both are equally plagued by corruption and inefficient planning and organisation.
It's a mistake to think that if people weren't developing GM crops they'd be dealing with the water problem, they most likely wouldn't and it would be left to the same people who are dealing with that problem now.
GM crops could possibly be grown in areas where other crops do not thrive thus allowing people to grow their food locally, this would immediately cut out whole layers of corruption and is one way they could help people more than the current alternatives.
"How is this work less fun than working the line in the factory?"
Because it's physically very hard work involving long hours and with your rewards - profit, food whatever at the mercy of the elements. It's no surprise the sector with the most work related injury and death is the farming sector. Working in a factory however is physically easier, you can stay out of the weather, your income is far more secure and there are more possibilities to improve your position since shorter hours leave more time for training and education.
The people in Africa need radios just as much as we do, they also need televisions, cars and holidays just as much as we do. I'd class these as some of the benefits of modern society and I'd day their benefits outweighed the problems by an overwhelming amount. The number of people still living in these conditions rather than moving to Africa is a pretty good indicator this is a general opinion.
I don't especially agree with the way Monsanto is behaving but that's a different issue entirely to the benefits GM crops can bring by liberating people from the land and allowing them to exploit the resources of their country to build a modern society.
Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places).
I think the goal is that people don't have to live as cheap labourers working the land all day, this sort of work is not actually much fun and uses up people who could be working in factories and industry modernising the country and bringing all the benefits of cheap power, mass industrialisation, improved communications and travel.
I can't think of any product which has Y and would really benefit from X but doesn't have it. In any case in that scenario the maker of product Y would license the patent for X so that they could use it in their product and the consumer would get what they want. This is why you can have MP3 players in one unit rather than companies selling the battery, the headphones, the decoder chip, the circuit boards all seperately.
In a market without patents any new innovations or products would immediately be ripped off by the biggest company with the most money and manufacturing power and the original inventor would be screwed. Pretty soon people wouldn't share their inventions any more if they could actually keep the workings secret and if they couldn't they have trouble making any money from them so in the end no one would really bother.
Slashdot Mirror
No it most definitley isn't. His rights as a UK citizen should ensure that he's not sent anywhere where he's subject to abuses like that.
Considering that McKinnon actually committed his crimes in the UK I don't see any reason why he should be extradited to America, charge him and try him here by all means but tell the Yanks to butt out.
Well it seems to me he lived his life like a candle in the wind but I think his candle burned out long before his ego did.
What could possibly go wrong ?
The bomb under activating, in order to destroy the venomous serpent the filthy gnezdy it is a break and be salty from the deep-red button and wait 5 seconds. The f which is dies in d Ul,!
I thought Iraq was the main terrorist training camp, now that they can use 2nd life instead I'd expect things to calm down there a lot.
I'm working at a fairly small company at the moment ( around 900 employees ) and they have no plans to move to Vista at the moment. Those who've used it do like it but any new kit is being bought with XP simply because from a support point of view it's easier if everyone is on the same standardised platform and there's nothing Vista can do which we can't also do on XP ( from the point of view of our business apps ).
I imagine at some stage they may switch but in the meantime it's simply an uncessary expense and the time and money can be spent more effectively by IT improving the business apps. I would think this is a fairly typical scenario.
Not too much added value in my opinion.
First of all you have get to the cinema, nowadays they're mostly in horrible out of town locations in little parks with McDonalds, Pizza Huts and a few truly dreadful pubs which you can't have a drink in anyway since you've had to drive to get there.
Next you'll probably have to queue up for a while to get a ticket.
If you want anything to drink or eat you'll find all the prices in the Cinema and the little park are hugely inflated so it'll cost you.
To get a decent seat you need to get into the theatre as soon as possible which means a good 30mins of annoying adverts and warnings about piracy, this all really pisses me off.
OK they have a big screen and loud sound but for me good films are good films regardless of how big they are or how loud they sound.
You have to put up with everyone around you talking, giggling or wandering around in front of the screen on their way to the toilet or where ever. The seats are usually not that comfortable to sit in for anything over an hour and there's never enough leg room.
You can't smoke in cinemas and you can't pause the film to go to the loo or get something to eat.
All in all I think they're a waste of money and would much rather see the film on TV or DVD.
Why not, a lot of cinemas are in towns and it's not uncommon for people to go and do some shopping and then go to the cinema, this may well mean you have a lot of bags with you.
I might be carrying things in my bag which I don't want people to see because I need to have them in my bag and I don't want anyone to go poking around and see them !
I can understand being searched on the way into nightclubs or concerts since this stops people bringing knives or guns in which would ruin my enjoyment of the evening were they to use them. I can't see any benefit at all in searching peoples bags on the way into the cinema, I wouldn't be happy to have my bags searched and I think I ought to have the right to go to the cinema without being forced to undergo pointless, invasive searchs.
I live in Birmingham too, I and several people I know take photos in town fairly often. One of them was once told he needed to ask permission to take photos in the actual Bull Ring building - he did and they let him carry on but other than that, outside, I've never been stopped by the police or heard of anyone who ever has been.
In fact if you go onto the balcony overlooking St Martins at pretty much anytime of day you can count at least 15 people with cameras photographing the Church.
He probably means the United States and Germany.
Yes you can, and no it isn't.
If people are actually rioting then no you can't but if they're simply protesting then engaging in a dialouge or just leaving them too it is better than attempting to control them like cattle.
I like the fact that it can be used for subduing crowds without having to talk to them, everythings much simpler when you don't have to engage in any dialouge with enemy.
Not living near any beaches, especially not any Australian ones I don't think I pay anything for them via my taxes.
I expect people who live next to them pay for them with their taxes but then they also benefit from a) living near a nice beach and b) from the trade brought in by people visiting the beach.
I wondered what that thing in her hand was ( I missed the beginning of her interview ). She was crazed but unfortunately she's not alone. There was a family on some program a few months ago who sleep under a sort of metal mosquito net because they are so convinced a nearby phone mast is making them ill.
No alcohol on the beach, you're kidding ?
Some of the best things about Spanish beaches are the beach parties, plenty of booze, music, drunk people. Excellent.
I've been to beaches in the England, beaches in Australia, beaches in Spain, beaches in France and beaches in Scotland and haven't had to pay for any of them. All of them, the Australian ones in particular have been prisine, despite the large number of people using them, and with good facilities.
I certainly wouldn't want to have to pay to go to the beach, I mean what next, would you have to pay to go the park, or to a national park or walk by a lake or a mountain ? Madness.
One of these sufferers was on the news last night. She wears a copper veil because without it she can immediately sense radiation sources and, as well as the headaches and nausea, the vision in her left eye will become blurred and tired at the end of the day.
I think a lot of people claim this sort of immediate sensitivity and this is what the study was investigating.
7 KM/h is just over 4 mph. Most peoples walking pace is around 3 and a half mph so I wouldn't say 7KM/h is exactly running, more a slow jog. Maybe you meant mph though ?
Yeah well, if you really are that stupid you probably deserve everything you get.
I don't think so either but the world was a different place back in the time of the ox cart. The key difference being that there wasn't the rapid international trade and communication we have nowadays so the inventor of the ox cart would quite comfortably make a living for himself selling, or trading ox carts amongst the nearest couple of towns. Someone setting up another ox-cart company in the neighbouring county wouldn't deprive the initial inventor of his livelihood.
Obviously today the situation is rather different. As soon as an 'ox cart' was invented and sold by someone with no patent protection company large manufacturing companies would immediately buy one and take it apart so they could then manufacture it far more cheaply than the original inventor who would then be deprived of any income from his 'ox cart'.
You're assuming that the current system has no positive benefits at all which I believe is not the case. I agree the patent system is open to abuse, particulary in the area of software but I also think a lot of people have used the patent system in the way it was intended and reaped benefits from it.
If you scrap the whole thing you're left with only the negative effects and none of the positive ones which people are currently enjoying.
So your point is that the current patent system provides insufficient protection to inventors and that the solution is to scrap it altogether and provide no protection at all ?
I don't think GM stuff is mandatory but it certainly seems like it can be a useful technology and is an important advance in the evolution of farming. We need to keep developing it now because if we don't then it will never evolve into anything which might be useful to end world hunger and feed the poor. Current farming practices are certainly doing nothing much in this regard either.
If GM crops aren't going to end world poverty then organic farms aren't going to either since both are equally plagued by corruption and inefficient planning and organisation.
It's a mistake to think that if people weren't developing GM crops they'd be dealing with the water problem, they most likely wouldn't and it would be left to the same people who are dealing with that problem now.
GM crops could possibly be grown in areas where other crops do not thrive thus allowing people to grow their food locally, this would immediately cut out whole layers of corruption and is one way they could help people more than the current alternatives.
"How is this work less fun than working the line in the factory?"
Because it's physically very hard work involving long hours and with your rewards - profit, food whatever at the mercy of the elements. It's no surprise the sector with the most work related injury and death is the farming sector. Working in a factory however is physically easier, you can stay out of the weather, your income is far more secure and there are more possibilities to improve your position since shorter hours leave more time for training and education.
The people in Africa need radios just as much as we do, they also need televisions, cars and holidays just as much as we do. I'd class these as some of the benefits of modern society and I'd day their benefits outweighed the problems by an overwhelming amount. The number of people still living in these conditions rather than moving to Africa is a pretty good indicator this is a general opinion.
I don't especially agree with the way Monsanto is behaving but that's a different issue entirely to the benefits GM crops can bring by liberating people from the land and allowing them to exploit the resources of their country to build a modern society.
I think the goal is that people don't have to live as cheap labourers working the land all day, this sort of work is not actually much fun and uses up people who could be working in factories and industry modernising the country and bringing all the benefits of cheap power, mass industrialisation, improved communications and travel.
I can't think of any product which has Y and would really benefit from X but doesn't have it. In any case in that scenario the maker of product Y would license the patent for X so that they could use it in their product and the consumer would get what they want. This is why you can have MP3 players in one unit rather than companies selling the battery, the headphones, the decoder chip, the circuit boards all seperately.
In a market without patents any new innovations or products would immediately be ripped off by the biggest company with the most money and manufacturing power and the original inventor would be screwed. Pretty soon people wouldn't share their inventions any more if they could actually keep the workings secret and if they couldn't they have trouble making any money from them so in the end no one would really bother.