They didn't clear the area, and there's no reason to believe they brought in a robot, given that they shot it in earshot of the rest of the travellers. If they did think it was a bomb, they were obviously keen to do as much damage with it as possible.
plugging holes in anything being carried across the border that I thought could even possibly contain a bomb if I had even the slightest thought that something wasn't right.
Congratuations! If you actually do shoot a bomb, you'll probably kill yourself and do a significant amount of damage to your surroundings. If you shoot a chemical or biological or radiation agent, you've just dispersed it.
Probably most of the visitors to Israel carry directions to their public transport and the place they're staying. She cooperated fully with their questioning, to the extent that they were happy to leave her sitting out on the balcony enjoying views of the Red Sea while they dealt with her belongings. What makes her a terrorist suspect is the material she had on her, entirely consistent with her being a journalist travelling from a Middle Eastern country documenting the hate against Israel. Apparently living in one of Israel's neighbours, and showing an interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict, is reason enough to think you're a bomber. That's scary.
It didn't get "blown up", it got taken out back and shot a few times by regulars then given back. That's a staggeringly stupid approach to dealing with a possible bomb.
I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape. If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us, I guess.
Half of those are covered by her living in Egypt, half of them by her being a journalist. Either of those in isolation or combination strike you as a bomb threat?
Perhaps they shot up the laptop because they didn't like her views and wanted to punish her, in which case they're assholes. Or they thought that the laptop was a bomb, and decided that lugging it out back by themselves and shooting it was the correct make-safe procedure, in which case they're morons. Their pick.
In some parts of the world, consumer protection laws would ensure you get a bad device repaired regardless, on either the store or the manufacturer's dime. This includes several parts of the US that have enacted "lemon laws". Lemme put it another way, why would you buy a product that's so unreliable that the shop's desperate to get you to buy a warranty on it? Find someone reliable and buy their product instead. If you're willing to put up with shoddy products as a matter of course, then they're just going to keep putting out self-destructing garbage.
The "days of battery life" are for electronic paper use and the occasional book download. I imagine if you were surfing the web on it, you'd get a far shorter battery life, even if you hacked the ability to bump pages on to the epaper screen and switch off the touchscreen for reading.
Creative Labs have been working on a reference design for a media player that runs Android. It's still at the prototype stage, which is risky given that it's meant to use their Zii media decoding hardware which isn't getting any younger.
Exactly the issue: does one's right to access extend to forcing them to run an unprofitable line, or having it subsidised by the taxpayer? I just wanted this to be made clear.
"Right of access" is the issue here. There were communities who would've paid for electricity if the power company had been willing to run a line to them, much like there were people who would've paid for sewerage or clean water if the infrastructure had been provided, and much like there are people who would pay for internet access if the lines were laid out. They still have to pay for the service.
The CO2's a side-effect of energy production, which is a consequence of our energy consumption. Remove electricity, and you impose a bottleneck on our ability to consume, and as with other energy-rationing measures, you reduce CO2 output at the cost of giving up your way of life. Choose wisely!
Mitchell's Puzzloop strikes me as a counterexample - it simply can't compete with the derivitive Zuma's mindshare, which certainly doesn't benefit Mitchell, and leaves Popcap with little incentive to improve their title further. I'm sure we can all agree that a straight copy which outcompetes the original by luck or marketing alone is tragic for the originator.
I'm all for reducing the scope of IP protection in law, but when you start reducing one's right to stand up and take credit - simple, moral credit - for one's own ideas, then that's bullshit. I'm a scientist, the only payback I get for my work is credit for having had the idea. I don't get a patent or copyright or a trademark to defend.
Actually, if there had been trademark infringement (you don't "violate" a trademark as you would a trademark attorney) it would be less of an ethical issue, as a player would automatically assume that it was from the same developer as the original "flow". Misattribution would have been diminished.
work (wûrk) n. 5. a. Something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing
other (r) n. 2. a. A different person or thing
Ergo, something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of an individual other than individual claiming credit for its production or accomplishment.
Once upon a time, it would've been credit for having come up with a great idea, but desperate one-upmanship in the "I hate IP" game has clearly devalued that notion. Even if you have an idea, it's not your idea - it's everybody's. According to our friend up there.
He didn't just copy the concept, he copied the artwork, audio, and everything else he could get his hands on. It's hardly a different medium, either: it's not rendered in interpretive dance. It's an improperly attributed port of the title, basically, down at the low end of the "creative influence" spectrum.
That's an awful comparison. An API exists to be implemented by multiple outside projects to achieve a particular function on a particular system. The rules of Tetris weren't an "entertainment API" released by the creators of the human brain to allow multiple games developers to impliment entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't clear the area, and there's no reason to believe they brought in a robot, given that they shot it in earshot of the rest of the travellers. If they did think it was a bomb, they were obviously keen to do as much damage with it as possible.
plugging holes in anything being carried across the border that I thought could even possibly contain a bomb if I had even the slightest thought that something wasn't right.
Congratuations! If you actually do shoot a bomb, you'll probably kill yourself and do a significant amount of damage to your surroundings. If you shoot a chemical or biological or radiation agent, you've just dispersed it.
Probably most of the visitors to Israel carry directions to their public transport and the place they're staying. She cooperated fully with their questioning, to the extent that they were happy to leave her sitting out on the balcony enjoying views of the Red Sea while they dealt with her belongings. What makes her a terrorist suspect is the material she had on her, entirely consistent with her being a journalist travelling from a Middle Eastern country documenting the hate against Israel. Apparently living in one of Israel's neighbours, and showing an interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict, is reason enough to think you're a bomber. That's scary.
It didn't get "blown up", it got taken out back and shot a few times by regulars then given back. That's a staggeringly stupid approach to dealing with a possible bomb.
I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape. If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us, I guess.
Half of those are covered by her living in Egypt, half of them by her being a journalist. Either of those in isolation or combination strike you as a bomb threat?
Perhaps they shot up the laptop because they didn't like her views and wanted to punish her, in which case they're assholes. Or they thought that the laptop was a bomb, and decided that lugging it out back by themselves and shooting it was the correct make-safe procedure, in which case they're morons. Their pick.
Physics has spoiled me for day-to-day life. I parsed "arbitrarily large battery" as "ludicrously large, but not finite".
Ones like TinyURL, that let you specify a not-yet-used address, can be handy for making memorable links: http://tinyurl.com/whytinyurl
Indeed, there are exceptions where it's worthwhile, like home appliances. Given that this is a tech site, those didn't occur to me. ;)
In some parts of the world, consumer protection laws would ensure you get a bad device repaired regardless, on either the store or the manufacturer's dime. This includes several parts of the US that have enacted "lemon laws". Lemme put it another way, why would you buy a product that's so unreliable that the shop's desperate to get you to buy a warranty on it? Find someone reliable and buy their product instead. If you're willing to put up with shoddy products as a matter of course, then they're just going to keep putting out self-destructing garbage.
It takes a SIM card, so really there's no excuse for using B&N's internet. Get an appropriate SIM and use your own.
It's a quote from the fine article.
The "days of battery life" are for electronic paper use and the occasional book download. I imagine if you were surfing the web on it, you'd get a far shorter battery life, even if you hacked the ability to bump pages on to the epaper screen and switch off the touchscreen for reading.
Creative Labs have been working on a reference design for a media player that runs Android. It's still at the prototype stage, which is risky given that it's meant to use their Zii media decoding hardware which isn't getting any younger.
Exactly the issue: does one's right to access extend to forcing them to run an unprofitable line, or having it subsidised by the taxpayer? I just wanted this to be made clear.
"Right of access" is the issue here. There were communities who would've paid for electricity if the power company had been willing to run a line to them, much like there were people who would've paid for sewerage or clean water if the infrastructure had been provided, and much like there are people who would pay for internet access if the lines were laid out. They still have to pay for the service.
The CO2's a side-effect of energy production, which is a consequence of our energy consumption. Remove electricity, and you impose a bottleneck on our ability to consume, and as with other energy-rationing measures, you reduce CO2 output at the cost of giving up your way of life. Choose wisely!
Mitchell's Puzzloop strikes me as a counterexample - it simply can't compete with the derivitive Zuma's mindshare, which certainly doesn't benefit Mitchell, and leaves Popcap with little incentive to improve their title further. I'm sure we can all agree that a straight copy which outcompetes the original by luck or marketing alone is tragic for the originator.
That's copyright infringement, not plagiarism. They are two seperate issues: one moral, one legal.
I'm all for reducing the scope of IP protection in law, but when you start reducing one's right to stand up and take credit - simple, moral credit - for one's own ideas, then that's bullshit. I'm a scientist, the only payback I get for my work is credit for having had the idea. I don't get a patent or copyright or a trademark to defend.
Actually, if there had been trademark infringement (you don't "violate" a trademark as you would a trademark attorney) it would be less of an ethical issue, as a player would automatically assume that it was from the same developer as the original "flow". Misattribution would have been diminished.
As for your other question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
work (wûrk)
n.
5.
a. Something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing
other (r)
n.
2.
a. A different person or thing
Ergo, something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of an individual other than individual claiming credit for its production or accomplishment.
Once upon a time, it would've been credit for having come up with a great idea, but desperate one-upmanship in the "I hate IP" game has clearly devalued that notion. Even if you have an idea, it's not your idea - it's everybody's. According to our friend up there.
He didn't just copy the concept, he copied the artwork, audio, and everything else he could get his hands on. It's hardly a different medium, either: it's not rendered in interpretive dance. It's an improperly attributed port of the title, basically, down at the low end of the "creative influence" spectrum.
That's an awful comparison. An API exists to be implemented by multiple outside projects to achieve a particular function on a particular system. The rules of Tetris weren't an "entertainment API" released by the creators of the human brain to allow multiple games developers to impliment entertainment.