It doesn't even make sense - if your phone is off it isn't even on the network so there's nowhere for it to route.. the have no idea what country you're in.
Of course it makes sense. Otherwise I would not have written it.
The phone will be "registered" to the network it was last connected to. So all calls go to that network, also when it is switched off.
I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling. Is this just FUD or should I just turn the thing off until I need it?
I have no idea how it works in Canada/USA. But I can tell you that in Europe, you have to very careful if you have an answering service in your cell phone plan.
If you travel to a foreign country and then switches off the phone, all incoming calls from your home country will still be routed to the foreign country. Since the phone is switched off, the call will then be routed back to the answering service in your home country. And you have to pay foreign calls per minute for this (one or both ways, I don't remember).
I doubt the routing of the call works this way in reality, but on the phone bill it does.
I thought that Kaspersky, like most virus detection programs, ran as a process on the user's machine and only connected to a server for definitions updates. if so, I can't see how that classifies as an "interactive computer service" under the act.
You don't have to be an interactive computer service to get protection. Creators of utilities for this type of blocking are protected too. The utilities don't even have to be intended for use in an interactive computer service. See this part of the law text (copied from elsewhere in this discussion):
"or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [such] material"
So what you are saying is that OOXML has such poor support that people who use it feel compelled to save it in a more universal forma, while ODF is sufficiently universal that people feel comfortable posting it as is.
I dare to ask: So what?
OOXML does not have to actually be used to serve its purpose for MS. It just has to be accepted as an (pseudo)open, possible alternative to the existing old formats. This will probably be enough to stop critical questions from buyers who want support for open standards.
What happened to A and B? Did they elope together and disappear into the mountains - and now C is their lovechild?
Clearly, MS are very fond of the letter C.
DirectX 9.0c came out years ago. Since then, DirectX has been updated almost every month - and it is still named 9.0c (except on Vista).
So when people are comparing DirectX versions to identify a game problem, they are not using version numbers. They are asking "Did you install the April 2007 patch for DirectX?"
To anyone but the Danes. Since I'm not Danish, I certainly can say "No loss -> no compensation".
Please go and take a logic course or something. The above statement only holds water if Denmark is the only place in the world where you don't need a loss before you demand compensation.
Unless both the defendant and plaintiff are Danish. Otherwise it will be heard in another jurisdiction.
It was relevant as an example of how the law is in some jurisdictions. And it was clearly stated that it was such an example.
The point is that you can't just say "No loss -> no compensation" as the GP did. You will have to check if the law in that jurisdiction requires a loss.
It would be quite the uphill battle to demonstrate damages from violating the GPL. Someone like Trolltech or MySQL might be able to do so (because they offer commercial licenses as well), but pretty much anyone else is SOL.
I don't know about US law, but in some other jurisdictions you do not need to demonstrate a loss in cases of copyright infringement. The court can simply order the infringer to pay for the use, sometimes even more than the market price for similar material.
Example, Danish law: You put a photo on your website with no intention of selling the photo to anyone. A newspaper uses the photo and thus infringes your copyright. Even though you cannot demonstrate a loss, you are entitled to payment for the photo. I have been told that the courts in this type of cases typically accept the normal market price for a press photo + 100% on top for not asking first.
However, they are innocent until proven guilty (I'm just assuming that's true in Sweden as well)
If this blocking works as it originally did in Denmark (which I think was the first country to take such a list into use), the "until proven guilty" part is NOT true. In Denmark, sites would be added to the list as an administrative act without any requirement of a court ruling, and there was no formal way for a site to protest.
(I believe it has now been changed so it is possible for a site to protest, but a court ruling is still not necessary.)
While I know you're being funny (successfully), for anyone who doesn't know, pacemakers provide the signal, not the power for heart beats.
But the catch22 is still quite apparent, especially when considering that pacemakers often have a built in jump start function which give a really strong pulse if the heart stops beating.
You're not alone. Apparently this story came out last week and Akers' claims already rejected by those searching for the ship.
While I agree that this story sounds like nonsense, you have probably found the most unreliable source for a rejection: A competitor who is receiving public funds to achieve the same goal.
In fact, a company named GreenFuel Technologies has demonstrated you can "grow" oil-laden algae by feeding it the exhaust gases from a fossil-fuel powerplant.
The benefits are obvious:
1) You cut NOx and CO2 emissions way below even Kyoto Protocol mandates for the powerplant, since the algae absorbs most of the NOx and CO2 gases.
This advantage is not real. You reduce CO2 emissions for the powerplant, but you are losing the CO2 neutrality of the resulting biofuel.
So eventually, the overall CO2 absorbtion/emission is exactly the same as if you had "grown" the biofuel using more conventional methods where you feed the process with CO2 from the surrounding air.
Many consider Star Wars to be fantasy instead of science fiction because while Star Wars has space ships and technology that perhaps might exist, very little of the story cared about how humans interact with this new technology. Contrast this with something like the Matrix, Blade Runner, or 2001 where the authors are obviously preoccupied with fleshing out the problems of some new technology (even if it wasn't made by humans). Star Wars was more about the battles of wizards in space.
I agree. In my very own definition of scifi, the science has to be a part of the plot. In Star Wars, the science is only part of the setting.
I have always said that it would be possible to move the plot from SW IV to a medieval setting without losing anything. And now someone has done it with the movie Eragon: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449010/. This movie is filled with dragons, kings, wizards and everything else a medieval adventure needs. But the plot is ripped from SW IV.
The network part is very much Old News; it's called Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) [wikipedia.org].
Please Read The Fine Subject. "Peer to Peer Networking...".
You are referring to a network solution where vehicles talk to stationary network gear. Yes, that is old news. When I was a child 30 years ago, such systems were predicted.
However, the article seems to consider a peer-to-peer network where nearby vehicles communicate with each other and relay information to other vehicles which are outside network range of the source. That may be old news to you, but it is not old news to me, and it is not covered by your Wikipedia reference.
But you are right in the AI part being interesting. I think it is interesting even on the network level. How do you decide how far from the source a piece of information needs to travel? Should it travel longer in some directions than other directions? Is it relevant to vehicles travelling in the other direction?
However, because there's no loss on the contary there is a lot of loss (and a lot of added bloat as well) going from raw CCD data to a RGB bitmap (which tiff then losslessly encodes) that is the whole point of having raw formats in the first place.
I think you misunderstood the GP's words. Both of you probably agree very much on this topic.
Since you stripped the end of the sentence, I will repeat it in full:
However, because there's no loss, converting the RAW to a TIFF is trivial, and there's no real reason not to shoot raw unless you don't plan on doing any post-processing.
So, the GP was not stating that there is no loss in the conversion. He was merely stating that there is no loss, and it is pretty obvious that he means "no loss in the raw data". The rest of the sentence translates into: Since there is no loss in the raw data, you can make the raw-to-TIFF conversion afterwards without adding more loss than the camera would have done if saving directly to TIFF.
Last year while visiting my parents in law in Paraguay, I touched their desktop PC chassis, and got a nice shock. I had a test light in my laptop bag, and sure enough, enough current going from the case to ground to light it up.
They told me this is quite common there.
It is quite common, also in the western world, and there is a perfectly good explanation:
Many countries require by law that an ungrounded metal chassis has a "fake ground" which is made by connecting the chassis to both phase and null through capacitors. This way you will get an electric potential of the chassis which is half the phase voltage.
What they hell is wrong with touch screen machines with a spit-out paper trail? Yeesh.
Are you saying that the machines in questions actually makes such a paper trail?
The article says the opposite (Given the last sentence in the quote below, I assume that "card" means some kind of electronic data card): "In a touch screen system, a voter receives a card and inserts it into an ATM-like machine and touches the screen to record choices. The card is sent to the supervisor of elections, where the choices are downloaded and counted.
why notify a user of updates that said user won't be able to install anyway? (for lack of admin rights)
1: Because there is not necessarily a 1:1 relationship between persons and user accounts, even though a lot of people seem to think this. One person can have a limited account for everyday purposes and an administrator account for administrative purposes.
2: Because the user will then be able to call someone who has the necessary rights.
Slashdot Mirror
How fast does she go now? Have the chipping increased her emissions?
Of course it makes sense. Otherwise I would not have written it.
The phone will be "registered" to the network it was last connected to. So all calls go to that network, also when it is switched off.
I have no idea how it works in Canada/USA. But I can tell you that in Europe, you have to very careful if you have an answering service in your cell phone plan.
If you travel to a foreign country and then switches off the phone, all incoming calls from your home country will still be routed to the foreign country. Since the phone is switched off, the call will then be routed back to the answering service in your home country. And you have to pay foreign calls per minute for this (one or both ways, I don't remember).
I doubt the routing of the call works this way in reality, but on the phone bill it does.
You don't have to be an interactive computer service to get protection. Creators of utilities for this type of blocking are protected too. The utilities don't even have to be intended for use in an interactive computer service. See this part of the law text (copied from elsewhere in this discussion):
"or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [such] material"
I dare to ask: So what?
OOXML does not have to actually be used to serve its purpose for MS. It just has to be accepted as an (pseudo)open, possible alternative to the existing old formats. This will probably be enough to stop critical questions from buyers who want support for open standards.
Clearly, MS are very fond of the letter C.
DirectX 9.0c came out years ago. Since then, DirectX has been updated almost every month - and it is still named 9.0c (except on Vista).
So when people are comparing DirectX versions to identify a game problem, they are not using version numbers. They are asking "Did you install the April 2007 patch for DirectX?"
Please go and take a logic course or something. The above statement only holds water if Denmark is the only place in the world where you don't need a loss before you demand compensation.
It is actually an logarithmic average (within about 0.4%).
So obviously, some nerd is responsible for writing "25".
It was relevant as an example of how the law is in some jurisdictions. And it was clearly stated that it was such an example.
The point is that you can't just say "No loss -> no compensation" as the GP did. You will have to check if the law in that jurisdiction requires a loss.
I don't know about US law, but in some other jurisdictions you do not need to demonstrate a loss in cases of copyright infringement. The court can simply order the infringer to pay for the use, sometimes even more than the market price for similar material.
Example, Danish law:
You put a photo on your website with no intention of selling the photo to anyone. A newspaper uses the photo and thus infringes your copyright. Even though you cannot demonstrate a loss, you are entitled to payment for the photo. I have been told that the courts in this type of cases typically accept the normal market price for a press photo + 100% on top for not asking first.
Just something I think I read somewhere. I may be wrong. Sorry.
If this blocking works as it originally did in Denmark (which I think was the first country to take such a list into use), the "until proven guilty" part is NOT true. In Denmark, sites would be added to the list as an administrative act without any requirement of a court ruling, and there was no formal way for a site to protest.
(I believe it has now been changed so it is possible for a site to protest, but a court ruling is still not necessary.)
But the catch22 is still quite apparent, especially when considering that pacemakers often have a built in jump start function which give a really strong pulse if the heart stops beating.
While I agree that this story sounds like nonsense, you have probably found the most unreliable source for a rejection: A competitor who is receiving public funds to achieve the same goal.
I wanted to comment that, but I am out of words.
This advantage is not real. You reduce CO2 emissions for the powerplant, but you are losing the CO2 neutrality of the resulting biofuel.
So eventually, the overall CO2 absorbtion/emission is exactly the same as if you had "grown" the biofuel using more conventional methods where you feed the process with CO2 from the surrounding air.
I agree. In my very own definition of scifi, the science has to be a part of the plot. In Star Wars, the science is only part of the setting.
I have always said that it would be possible to move the plot from SW IV to a medieval setting without losing anything. And now someone has done it with the movie Eragon: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449010/. This movie is filled with dragons, kings, wizards and everything else a medieval adventure needs. But the plot is ripped from SW IV.
Did any such group do that?
Did you intend those two scenarios to be mutally exclusive?
Rating a bug low does not necessarily mean that it is fixed slower.
Please Read The Fine Subject. "Peer to Peer Networking...".
You are referring to a network solution where vehicles talk to stationary network gear. Yes, that is old news. When I was a child 30 years ago, such systems were predicted.
However, the article seems to consider a peer-to-peer network where nearby vehicles communicate with each other and relay information to other vehicles which are outside network range of the source. That may be old news to you, but it is not old news to me, and it is not covered by your Wikipedia reference.
But you are right in the AI part being interesting. I think it is interesting even on the network level. How do you decide how far from the source a piece of information needs to travel? Should it travel longer in some directions than other directions? Is it relevant to vehicles travelling in the other direction?
I think you misunderstood the GP's words. Both of you probably agree very much on this topic.
Since you stripped the end of the sentence, I will repeat it in full:
So, the GP was not stating that there is no loss in the conversion. He was merely stating that there is no loss, and it is pretty obvious that he means "no loss in the raw data". The rest of the sentence translates into: Since there is no loss in the raw data, you can make the raw-to-TIFF conversion afterwards without adding more loss than the camera would have done if saving directly to TIFF.
Many countries require by law that an ungrounded metal chassis has a "fake ground" which is made by connecting the chassis to both phase and null through capacitors. This way you will get an electric potential of the chassis which is half the phase voltage.
The article says the opposite (Given the last sentence in the quote below, I assume that "card" means some kind of electronic data card):
"In a touch screen system, a voter receives a card and inserts it into an ATM-like machine and touches the screen to record choices. The card is sent to the supervisor of elections, where the choices are downloaded and counted.
No tangible record exists."
1:
Because there is not necessarily a 1:1 relationship between persons and user accounts, even though a lot of people seem to think this. One person can have a limited account for everyday purposes and an administrator account for administrative purposes.
2:
Because the user will then be able to call someone who has the necessary rights.