What about eBay scammers? Extortionists? Kidnappers? Somebody who just won't stop sending you a picture of their wang? In some cases communcations evidence can be very significant indeed.
Section 11 was the contentious section. Now it's been pruned drastically in the Chrome licence. Compare it to Section 11 of the Google Docs licence for example.
Y'know, I think that the UK would be a much happier place if everyone knew what "This Does Not Affect Your Statutory Rights" meant. It's everywhere in consumerland, at the bottom of every product guarantee for example. What it means in that context is that the guarantee is only in addition to your existing rights under the Sale of Goods Act, and doesn't affect those rights in the least. Lots of store managers and customers don't realise what massive power they have if they're sold a lemon. That's just one example. Some basic consumer rights should be taught at high school.
Chromium is the open-source project. Google Chrome is a Google product derived from that project, basically by slapping an additional licence or two on top.
The Google EULA states that you grant them a non-exclusive right to store and reproduce your stuffs where necessary for the use of Google's services, which is a necessity because otherwise they'd be infringing on your IP rights by storing your files and serving them up to you. You retain copyright, ownership, blah de blah, as stated at the top of that part of the EULA. For Chrome, it's already been revised to only include the "you retain your rights" clause.
You could argue that the time with family for someone that close to death, is more valuable than for a younger person, and therefore the appropriate punishment differs. It's like fining someone $1000, flat-rate, for speeding. Someone who rakes in $1M a year won't see that as much of a punishment, someone scraping past will see it as excessive.
If you can scam people and make, say, $12,000,000, then spend 5 years emptying bedpans 9-5 weekdays, then it's as though bedpan-emptying pays $1000 per hour. That's not exactly a deterrent to scamming.
You can argue that there's excessive governmental interference in media and communications in the UK and/or US, but it's beyond hyperbole to suggest that "all companies involved in communication (phone, parcels/mail, tv, radio) are controlled completely by their governments", especially when the BBC of all things has explicitly stated protections from government interference in its activities.
In fact, I think one of the goals for this mission is to fix a docking apparatus so a robotic mission can de-orbit Hubble. It's a shame, really, I'd seen a model in London and hoped to get up close to the real thing some day.
Are they giving them psychological training to overcome "fuck it, 54 screws will hold it together okay" syndrome? I know I'd be ready to bash Hubble with a sledgehammer by that stage, even without the fiddly space suit.
To be fair, we don't have as many cows. And my fiancee is convinced that the ones we actually eat are very small, because she can't get a "real" steak. The ones in the fields are just for display.
Product placement is absolutely and unequivocally banned from TV productions in the UK. And you're not exactly sailing in the ocean of facts by suggesting that the Beeb is a government tool, as even a cursory examination of their recent history would tell you. Stop bullshitting yourself.
Oh, sure, there's an issue with people just plain accepting things because they're told "it's what science says", and I'm sure a majority of people who roll their eyes at creationism do so out of assuption rather than an informed assement of its claims. However my point is that none of those people dismiss creationism out of any dislike of religion, they do it because the whole affair reeks of cargo-cult science.
It's probably the timing, like the Sixaxis which came across as me-too-man-ship. In this metaphor Clinton is the Wii and Palin is the Sixaxis. Although I don't recall there being a raging nerd lust for Clinton. And the Wii hasn't been discontinued in favour of the DS. And Palin's not going to be upgraded to rumble hold on, I'll come back in with a car metaphor.
Palin is like the SMART car, y'see, and Clinton is a Hybrid...
I'd say that it's a question of distrusting religious apologism, of which creationism is an example, rather than distrusting religious people. There's no ab initio reasoning to say "religious apologism is inevitably false science" but it's a good rule of thumb. Which, like you say, leads to people not actually having a solid argument against things like creationism (although such an argument is available).
He also has a huge chip on his shoulder about Vista and a strange tick of exclusively referring to it as "Windows MeII", as in "Windows Millenium 2". Except in their font it is indistinguishable from "Windows Mell", as in Windows M[e]llenium. He also refers to Windows 7 as "Windows Mell SP1a", from his insider knowledge that "WINDOWS 7, AKA Me II SP1a, is [...] simply a warmed over Vista", furthering confusion as he discusses the inevitable failure of the first service pack of an operating system from almost a decade ago.
Put it this way, I don't think he has the reader in mind when he writes articles.
Slashdot Mirror
What about eBay scammers? Extortionists? Kidnappers? Somebody who just won't stop sending you a picture of their wang? In some cases communcations evidence can be very significant indeed.
NB, not literally everywhere, figuratively.
That's Section 11, by the way.
Section 11 was the contentious section. Now it's been pruned drastically in the Chrome licence. Compare it to Section 11 of the Google Docs licence for example.
Y'know, I think that the UK would be a much happier place if everyone knew what "This Does Not Affect Your Statutory Rights" meant. It's everywhere in consumerland, at the bottom of every product guarantee for example. What it means in that context is that the guarantee is only in addition to your existing rights under the Sale of Goods Act, and doesn't affect those rights in the least. Lots of store managers and customers don't realise what massive power they have if they're sold a lemon. That's just one example. Some basic consumer rights should be taught at high school.
Fun, but not in any way supported by what the EULA says.
Chromium is the open-source project. Google Chrome is a Google product derived from that project, basically by slapping an additional licence or two on top.
Ah, now I get it. That's much less maddening. I could undo 111 screws, totally.
They already have done.
The Google EULA states that you grant them a non-exclusive right to store and reproduce your stuffs where necessary for the use of Google's services, which is a necessity because otherwise they'd be infringing on your IP rights by storing your files and serving them up to you. You retain copyright, ownership, blah de blah, as stated at the top of that part of the EULA. For Chrome, it's already been revised to only include the "you retain your rights" clause.
Can't put it on a portable media player, either. What's the point of digital media you can't take on the go?
You could argue that the time with family for someone that close to death, is more valuable than for a younger person, and therefore the appropriate punishment differs. It's like fining someone $1000, flat-rate, for speeding. Someone who rakes in $1M a year won't see that as much of a punishment, someone scraping past will see it as excessive.
If you can scam people and make, say, $12,000,000, then spend 5 years emptying bedpans 9-5 weekdays, then it's as though bedpan-emptying pays $1000 per hour. That's not exactly a deterrent to scamming.
You can argue that there's excessive governmental interference in media and communications in the UK and/or US, but it's beyond hyperbole to suggest that "all companies involved in communication (phone, parcels/mail, tv, radio) are controlled completely by their governments", especially when the BBC of all things has explicitly stated protections from government interference in its activities.
If by "babelfish" you mean "five-dollar word".
In fact, I think one of the goals for this mission is to fix a docking apparatus so a robotic mission can de-orbit Hubble. It's a shame, really, I'd seen a model in London and hoped to get up close to the real thing some day.
Are they giving them psychological training to overcome "fuck it, 54 screws will hold it together okay" syndrome? I know I'd be ready to bash Hubble with a sledgehammer by that stage, even without the fiddly space suit.
To be fair, we don't have as many cows. And my fiancee is convinced that the ones we actually eat are very small, because she can't get a "real" steak. The ones in the fields are just for display.
Product placement is absolutely and unequivocally banned from TV productions in the UK. And you're not exactly sailing in the ocean of facts by suggesting that the Beeb is a government tool, as even a cursory examination of their recent history would tell you. Stop bullshitting yourself.
Oh, sure, there's an issue with people just plain accepting things because they're told "it's what science says", and I'm sure a majority of people who roll their eyes at creationism do so out of assuption rather than an informed assement of its claims. However my point is that none of those people dismiss creationism out of any dislike of religion, they do it because the whole affair reeks of cargo-cult science.
You can bet your ass Clive Sinclair tried though.
It's probably the timing, like the Sixaxis which came across as me-too-man-ship. In this metaphor Clinton is the Wii and Palin is the Sixaxis. Although I don't recall there being a raging nerd lust for Clinton. And the Wii hasn't been discontinued in favour of the DS. And Palin's not going to be upgraded to rumble hold on, I'll come back in with a car metaphor.
Palin is like the SMART car, y'see, and Clinton is a Hybrid...
I'd say that it's a question of distrusting religious apologism, of which creationism is an example, rather than distrusting religious people. There's no ab initio reasoning to say "religious apologism is inevitably false science" but it's a good rule of thumb. Which, like you say, leads to people not actually having a solid argument against things like creationism (although such an argument is available).
He also has a huge chip on his shoulder about Vista and a strange tick of exclusively referring to it as "Windows MeII", as in "Windows Millenium 2". Except in their font it is indistinguishable from "Windows Mell", as in Windows M[e]llenium. He also refers to Windows 7 as "Windows Mell SP1a", from his insider knowledge that "WINDOWS 7, AKA Me II SP1a, is [...] simply a warmed over Vista", furthering confusion as he discusses the inevitable failure of the first service pack of an operating system from almost a decade ago.
Put it this way, I don't think he has the reader in mind when he writes articles.
This is the kind of story that can only end with somebody being fired for making pizza in the silicon fab oven.