this is inevitable: it's just not possible for legislation to consider every circumstance. The general standard for negligence, for example, is that of the reasonable man. How could legislation give a precise test for every situation in which someone could be negligent?
You're assuming Greece's constitution works like the US, and courts can strike out laws that are unconstitutional. This is most unlikely to be the case.
in case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of people doing this in the US already.
Most countries have a rule that if you start a law suit and lose, you are responsible for some or all of the other side's legal costs. If you had a rule like this is the States, you might not have an out of control legal system.
any lawyer will tell you that there's always a risk that a case goes against you, no matter how strong your case.
I work for a large law firm in the UK - we typically advise clients there's a base 10% chance of losing a cast-iron case. Would be surprised if the position is very different in the States (and presumably jury trials are significantly more uncertain).
It's not a musical, it's a horrible characterless corporate behemoth, just like most of the other musicals cluttering up London's West End as well as Broadway.
in the medium to long term, flooding the market with dirt cheap gold would be pretty beneficial for the world economy. Gold would find all kinds of industrial uses that are currently impracticable, as it's an excellent conductor, highly malleable and broadly non-toxic.
In the short term, if it happened with no warning then it would instantly eliminate the reserves of the US and those other countries who keep their reserves in gold. Clearly this is going to cause serious instability but very hard to say what the other macroeconomic effects would be, as those countries (e.g. the UK) who don't have substantial gold reserves anymore hold other countries' currencies in their reserves - i.e. even they'd be indirectly exposed.
Currencies based on the gold standard would indeed be in trouble, so it's just as well there aren't any.
Of course all the commodity traders would lose fortunes, but it's hard to give a fuck.
I second that. The technology isn't particularly stunning (no camera, no bluetooth, not very fast, Windows Mobile faintly buggy) but the form factor is great. And it's really shiny.
I thought they just did it for the "brand value" of his name. Looking at his client list and his success rate, he's better at getting publicity than getting results (see Bush v Gore, Napster, Andrew Fastow, Conrad Black). Think Johnny Cochran for white guys.
In many jurisdiction, if your code is very similar to my code *and* you had the opportunity to copy it then there is a legal presumption that you did in fact copy it. So your defence has to prove you didn't copy it, which is often rather difficult. If you can show you operated robust clean rooms/chinese walls/etc then you can avoid this.
You're right - in normal conditions most people can spot counterfeit notes almost without thinking about it. That's why most counterfeits are passed in busy poorly-lit bars and suchlike.
seems to me they're acting perfectly ethically and responsibly. Counterfeit currency is a significant cost for many businesses (particularly small cash-based businesses) and the cost ends up being passed on to consumers. Good for HP if they try to prevent their technology being used to facilitate counterfeiting.
It takes a serious disconnect from the real world to see something threatening about this.
you misunderstand: it's not generally possible for an organisation to *make* a libel claim. It's perfectly possible, and indeed common, for an organisation to *be* sued for libel.
I'm pretty sure Private Eye has never sued anyone for libel, but if they ever do I'm sure it will be fun to watch.
Since this hasn't happened with any of the other innovative materials that have been developed (PTFE/Teflon, rare earth magnets, composite ceramics etc), why do you think it would happen to this?
The nuclear payloads to date have been radioisotope power systems, i.e. where a relatively rapidly decaying isotope (e.g. plutonium-238) radiates plenty of heat which a thermoelectric junction coverts to electricity. These generate small amounts of power over a long period and without any moving parts, so are ideal for satellites but hopeless for any propulsion system.
Great point: but the surface of Mars isn't just fine dry powders; it's fine dry powders in relatively low gravity. The behaviour of this isn't something we're familiar with and it may be that which is spooking the unnamed scientist.
Is the reason it "can't be mud" that it would have shown up as such in previous spectroscopic analyses from orbit?
Beagle was British: we (or at least most of us) aren't obsessed by competition with the US. It might be different if England and Scotland had sent separate probes...
do we really know enough to assume that sentient life is only possible in conditions similar to earth? Can we rule out life developing in silicon compounds, plasmas, or even (as Cairns-Smith believes could have happened on Earth) clay?
Slashdot Mirror
this is inevitable: it's just not possible for legislation to consider every circumstance. The general standard for negligence, for example, is that of the reasonable man. How could legislation give a precise test for every situation in which someone could be negligent?
You're assuming Greece's constitution works like the US, and courts can strike out laws that are unconstitutional. This is most unlikely to be the case.
in case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of people doing this in the US already.
Most countries have a rule that if you start a law suit and lose, you are responsible for some or all of the other side's legal costs. If you had a rule like this is the States, you might not have an out of control legal system.
"law is necessarily a precise science"?
are you out of your mind?
any lawyer will tell you that there's always a risk that a case goes against you, no matter how strong your case.
I work for a large law firm in the UK - we typically advise clients there's a base 10% chance of losing a cast-iron case. Would be surprised if the position is very different in the States (and presumably jury trials are significantly more uncertain).
What is the point of writing an open letter, particularly one as snarky as this? Does anybody think McNealy will see it, much less care?
has anybody ever actually got moderated down after starting a post with "here goes the karma"?
It's not a musical, it's a horrible characterless corporate behemoth, just like most of the other musicals cluttering up London's West End as well as Broadway.
in the medium to long term, flooding the market with dirt cheap gold would be pretty beneficial for the world economy. Gold would find all kinds of industrial uses that are currently impracticable, as it's an excellent conductor, highly malleable and broadly non-toxic.
In the short term, if it happened with no warning then it would instantly eliminate the reserves of the US and those other countries who keep their reserves in gold. Clearly this is going to cause serious instability but very hard to say what the other macroeconomic effects would be, as those countries (e.g. the UK) who don't have substantial gold reserves anymore hold other countries' currencies in their reserves - i.e. even they'd be indirectly exposed.
Currencies based on the gold standard would indeed be in trouble, so it's just as well there aren't any.
Of course all the commodity traders would lose fortunes, but it's hard to give a fuck.
IAAL, and that's complete nonsense
10 says you're wrong and it is just the concept.
Hard to believe the US patent system is that stupid, but it is.
I second that. The technology isn't particularly stunning (no camera, no bluetooth, not very fast, Windows Mobile faintly buggy) but the form factor is great. And it's really shiny.
I thought they just did it for the "brand value" of his name. Looking at his client list and his success rate, he's better at getting publicity than getting results (see Bush v Gore, Napster, Andrew Fastow, Conrad Black). Think Johnny Cochran for white guys.
it's an evidential thing.
In many jurisdiction, if your code is very similar to my code *and* you had the opportunity to copy it then there is a legal presumption that you did in fact copy it. So your defence has to prove you didn't copy it, which is often rather difficult. If you can show you operated robust clean rooms/chinese walls/etc then you can avoid this.
You're right - in normal conditions most people can spot counterfeit notes almost without thinking about it. That's why most counterfeits are passed in busy poorly-lit bars and suchlike.
seems to me they're acting perfectly ethically and responsibly. Counterfeit currency is a significant cost for many businesses (particularly small cash-based businesses) and the cost ends up being passed on to consumers. Good for HP if they try to prevent their technology being used to facilitate counterfeiting.
It takes a serious disconnect from the real world to see something threatening about this.
are you sure that couldn't have been a dictionary attack?
you're not answering his point that oil and gas installations simply weren't run electronically at the time. This seems to clinch it.
you misunderstand: it's not generally possible for an organisation to *make* a libel claim. It's perfectly possible, and indeed common, for an organisation to *be* sued for libel.
I'm pretty sure Private Eye has never sued anyone for libel, but if they ever do I'm sure it will be fun to watch.
I shouldn't worry: libel generally only applies to individuals and not organisations; it's most unlikely it's possible to libel the BBC.
Since this hasn't happened with any of the other innovative materials that have been developed (PTFE/Teflon, rare earth magnets, composite ceramics etc), why do you think it would happen to this?
no, this is ignorant twaddle.
The nuclear payloads to date have been radioisotope power systems, i.e. where a relatively rapidly decaying isotope (e.g. plutonium-238) radiates plenty of heat which a thermoelectric junction coverts to electricity. These generate small amounts of power over a long period and without any moving parts, so are ideal for satellites but hopeless for any propulsion system.
Great point: but the surface of Mars isn't just fine dry powders; it's fine dry powders in relatively low gravity. The behaviour of this isn't something we're familiar with and it may be that which is spooking the unnamed scientist.
Is the reason it "can't be mud" that it would have shown up as such in previous spectroscopic analyses from orbit?
Beagle was British: we (or at least most of us) aren't obsessed by competition with the US. It might be different if England and Scotland had sent separate probes...
do we really know enough to assume that sentient life is only possible in conditions similar to earth? Can we rule out life developing in silicon compounds, plasmas, or even (as Cairns-Smith believes could have happened on Earth) clay?