There's a difference between an act resulting in an increase of crime and an act in support of crime. I don't think lawmakers are trying to give crime a boost by making, say, murder and theft illegal.
Classifying new things as crime will result in the crime statistics increasing, but that's not the same as backing it.
Call it "liberation" all you want, you are still violating intellectual property. Are IP laws perfect? No. But they do have a legitimate reason to exist.
Everybody in the world is not obligated to distribute their work for free to anyone who wants it. Sorry.
And as for people who sell pirated work - perhaps a clearer situation to some Slashdotters will be people who take source from a GPL project and fail to release the product as GPL, instead charging massive amounts of money from the general populace and making a fortune from their GPL-derived work.
What's required in this case is limiting what a web site can do with the UI. There has to be something that only the browser can do which is still obvious to the user; there has to be some part of the browser chrome that cannot be duplicated, and it has to be something that's close to the point of attention.
Unfortunately, the trend has been to allow the server to do ANYTHING to the user's browser. Pop-ups are the oldest and most ubiquitous I can think of(especially vile on-window-close pop-ups), though others with more experience can probably think of something older.
Now, these things do generally have SOME legitimate use(a banking website may want to ask users who just close the window if they want to properly sign off, for instance), so I can see why it's hard for the developers to just say "No, you can't do this" - but to make this "trusted window" approach work, exactly that needs to be done.
How much effort do you really think it would take for the recording industry giants to extend public perception of "file sharing" to include HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, etc?
While you do have a valid point, I question whether any laws resulting from a push by the RIAA would be so reasonable as to be inclusive only of known "problem" mechanisms. No, they'd probably use some blanket statement that could choke otherwise legitimate protocols only because they HAVE been infringed. (At least within their jurisdiction, i.e. the US.)
Belated thought about this: When minimising the temperature problem, a biochemical problem is incurred instead(nutrients, dissolved gas levels, etc). In practise some of this is looking like a questionable idea at best.
Conventional wisdom is that exposure to cold water causes arthritis, not cures it!
Conventional wisdom is an oxymoron. It also tells us that, e.g., tomato juice gets rid of skunk oil. (It doesn't; it just overloads the nose so you can't smell it.)
Having worked one summer in a fish packing plant, I can attest that people do in fact hurt very much after spending 8 hours working with cold water...
Well, yes. Prolonged exposure to cold water isn't good for the body. That still doesn't mean chilling is never good.
With regards to the rest, though, I do agree and question whether this would be a real "free energy" situation, or if he just plans to be dead by the time the maintenance issues have really added up. There may be some ways to limit the effects of corrosion(different materials that aren't as strongly affected by salt, e.g. plastics instead of metal wherever feasible), but it's still going to take its toll; and even a siphon would probably need some help to keep going on this scale.
The nutrient problem, however, is very large. Not just the matter of keeping the intake clear, but that dumping that sort of water at the surface is going to cause complications; the chemistry is entirely different.
It does depend on the relative warmth to where it's being put. Ideally, you'd draw from deep and put it back up high; if you get the flow rate right, the difference in temperature between the outlet and where it's letting would be minimal.
Obviously, this isn't going to be perfect in application, because the flow rate isn't something that can be arbitrarily adjusted; it will depend on demand. But picking a suitable depth for both intake and outlet will minimise such problems as this incident demonstrated.
He did not say "solve" it tomorrow, he said "fix" it tomorrow.
What this could easily imply is: "If you get a Mac, you WON'T need to fix it [again] tomorrow." (But if you really want to keep fixing it, get something else.)
Or the "something else" could refer to "something other than Wintel" - but with the meaning that buying that something else WOULD fix the problem in a day.
The statement actually winds up being more like neutrality - which is, true, not the glowing endorsement that the/. headline claims it is.
The tunnel, the dead batteries, those are likely to be covered by the existing dropped call system. However, to get credit for a dropped call, you CANNOT end the call yourself(and trying to power off the phone would almost certainly do that), the other party can't hang up, and you have to call back within a minute, so it's far from a perfect system.
Space exploration might not be presently viable, but low-orbit travel just might be. Need to be elsewhere in a real hurry? Well, a low-orbit flight would probably spend more time preparing in the terminal, and launching/landing, than it would in flight...
Better: A carrier-supported whitelist so that even when your phone is off, the messages won't fill your inbox and crowd out the ones you DO want to receive. (Ideal for GSM users with multiple devices, too; only one list to maintain.)
Cell phones might not themselves cause a gas explosion. However, pumping gasoline is not a task without risk. Doing it while distracted is asking for trouble.
Thus: Turn off your damn phone. It can't distract you if it doesn't ring, unless you're so distracted by shiny objects that you have no business handling cutlery, much less driving.
Though I am not a shortwave radio user myself, I do know that a skilled shortwave operator could bounce signals between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface until reaching the right place. A less skilled one with a higher-powered antenna could use a powerful omnidirectional pulse.
It suffers from the same problems as other radio signals, and I'm not sure how good the signal quality would be at that point so too specific a detonation signal might get garbled beyond recognition, but it does have a long range compared to conventional radio, which is basically line-of-sight(though it allows for some penetration).
But yes, the sheer range of cellular is its biggest logistical advantage. Still, since you need to be able to plant the charge(the longer it's left unattended, e.g. on an incoming shipment of stuff rather than placed right on site, the more likely it is to be discovered), that might be a moot point.
AT&T Wireless, I know, did not add the fee onto the services of customers under contract unless they did a rate plan change, at which time reps had a statement that needed to be read about it. Customers out of contract got a notice on their bill prior to it being added(previous invoice or something).
Other carriers, I don't know.
As for the grandparent's claim that these fees don't appear until you're locked into contract, I still call BS, at least where AWS is concerned. The RPF is mentioned in calling plan brochures and is listed online(in the footnotes along with other T&Cs, but there). Also, wireless carriers are obligated to give some sort of trial period before the contract is locked in. AWS, for instance, gives you thirty days. Stores that aren't owned by AWS, mind, can have truly draconian return policies for their equipment, but that's another issue altogether.
If you don't read the contract or the literature until after the fact, it's your own fault. Complain all you want, but there's no recourse for legal action - they did tell you so, you just didn't pay attention.
Didn't quite get my Bio degree, but I think part of the problem comes from the fact that HIV is itself an immune system disease. Immune response isn't instant even when the body "knows" how to make antibodies; it's just much faster. Thus, in the time it takes for the immune system to start producing antibodies for the reintroduced(and now live, not just protein-coat) HIV antigen, it's already infected the immune system to some degree. Unless the response is very strong and very fast, you're screwed anyway - the immune system is infected before it can properly react.
Slashdot Mirror
Make that a remote control vehicle with substantial transmission delay, at that.
There's a difference between an act resulting in an increase of crime and an act in support of crime. I don't think lawmakers are trying to give crime a boost by making, say, murder and theft illegal.
Classifying new things as crime will result in the crime statistics increasing, but that's not the same as backing it.
How about they legalise the use of GPL source in proprietary software? After all, if EVERYBODY could do that, it wouldn't be just the Bad People.
Oh! How about making it legal for people to kill anyone whose fashion sense they don't agree with?
Because slippery-slope arguments make just as much sense as circular reasoning...
By this demented sort of reasoning, laws against murder, theft, arson, etc also support terrorism.
Making something illegal is NOT an act in support of those who do it anyway.
I suggest you check again.
Call it "liberation" all you want, you are still violating intellectual property. Are IP laws perfect? No. But they do have a legitimate reason to exist.
Everybody in the world is not obligated to distribute their work for free to anyone who wants it. Sorry.
And as for people who sell pirated work - perhaps a clearer situation to some Slashdotters will be people who take source from a GPL project and fail to release the product as GPL, instead charging massive amounts of money from the general populace and making a fortune from their GPL-derived work.
Not all places have broadband available.
The fact that dial-up is cheaper elsewhere is another point entirely.
"Usually" is a very important word.
One of the biggest rules of statistics: There's always an exception.
What's required in this case is limiting what a web site can do with the UI. There has to be something that only the browser can do which is still obvious to the user; there has to be some part of the browser chrome that cannot be duplicated, and it has to be something that's close to the point of attention.
Unfortunately, the trend has been to allow the server to do ANYTHING to the user's browser. Pop-ups are the oldest and most ubiquitous I can think of(especially vile on-window-close pop-ups), though others with more experience can probably think of something older.
Now, these things do generally have SOME legitimate use(a banking website may want to ask users who just close the window if they want to properly sign off, for instance), so I can see why it's hard for the developers to just say "No, you can't do this" - but to make this "trusted window" approach work, exactly that needs to be done.
How much effort do you really think it would take for the recording industry giants to extend public perception of "file sharing" to include HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, etc?
While you do have a valid point, I question whether any laws resulting from a push by the RIAA would be so reasonable as to be inclusive only of known "problem" mechanisms. No, they'd probably use some blanket statement that could choke otherwise legitimate protocols only because they HAVE been infringed. (At least within their jurisdiction, i.e. the US.)
Belated thought about this: When minimising the temperature problem, a biochemical problem is incurred instead(nutrients, dissolved gas levels, etc). In practise some of this is looking like a questionable idea at best.
Conventional wisdom is that exposure to cold water causes arthritis, not cures it!
Conventional wisdom is an oxymoron. It also tells us that, e.g., tomato juice gets rid of skunk oil. (It doesn't; it just overloads the nose so you can't smell it.)
Having worked one summer in a fish packing plant, I can attest that people do in fact hurt very much after spending 8 hours working with cold water...
Well, yes. Prolonged exposure to cold water isn't good for the body. That still doesn't mean chilling is never good.
With regards to the rest, though, I do agree and question whether this would be a real "free energy" situation, or if he just plans to be dead by the time the maintenance issues have really added up. There may be some ways to limit the effects of corrosion(different materials that aren't as strongly affected by salt, e.g. plastics instead of metal wherever feasible), but it's still going to take its toll; and even a siphon would probably need some help to keep going on this scale.
The nutrient problem, however, is very large. Not just the matter of keeping the intake clear, but that dumping that sort of water at the surface is going to cause complications; the chemistry is entirely different.
It does depend on the relative warmth to where it's being put. Ideally, you'd draw from deep and put it back up high; if you get the flow rate right, the difference in temperature between the outlet and where it's letting would be minimal.
Obviously, this isn't going to be perfect in application, because the flow rate isn't something that can be arbitrarily adjusted; it will depend on demand. But picking a suitable depth for both intake and outlet will minimise such problems as this incident demonstrated.
Not quite.
/. headline claims it is.
He did not say "solve" it tomorrow, he said "fix" it tomorrow.
What this could easily imply is: "If you get a Mac, you WON'T need to fix it [again] tomorrow." (But if you really want to keep fixing it, get something else.)
Or the "something else" could refer to "something other than Wintel" - but with the meaning that buying that something else WOULD fix the problem in a day.
The statement actually winds up being more like neutrality - which is, true, not the glowing endorsement that the
The tunnel, the dead batteries, those are likely to be covered by the existing dropped call system. However, to get credit for a dropped call, you CANNOT end the call yourself(and trying to power off the phone would almost certainly do that), the other party can't hang up, and you have to call back within a minute, so it's far from a perfect system.
And on the local plan, you're still not charged roaming in your home coverage area.
Now, the national coverage only applies to GSM. TDMA phones don't get it, and neither do GAIT.
Space exploration might not be presently viable, but low-orbit travel just might be. Need to be elsewhere in a real hurry? Well, a low-orbit flight would probably spend more time preparing in the terminal, and launching/landing, than it would in flight...
Better: A carrier-supported whitelist so that even when your phone is off, the messages won't fill your inbox and crowd out the ones you DO want to receive. (Ideal for GSM users with multiple devices, too; only one list to maintain.)
Cell phones might not themselves cause a gas explosion. However, pumping gasoline is not a task without risk. Doing it while distracted is asking for trouble.
Thus: Turn off your damn phone. It can't distract you if it doesn't ring, unless you're so distracted by shiny objects that you have no business handling cutlery, much less driving.
Though I am not a shortwave radio user myself, I do know that a skilled shortwave operator could bounce signals between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface until reaching the right place. A less skilled one with a higher-powered antenna could use a powerful omnidirectional pulse.
It suffers from the same problems as other radio signals, and I'm not sure how good the signal quality would be at that point so too specific a detonation signal might get garbled beyond recognition, but it does have a long range compared to conventional radio, which is basically line-of-sight(though it allows for some penetration).
But yes, the sheer range of cellular is its biggest logistical advantage. Still, since you need to be able to plant the charge(the longer it's left unattended, e.g. on an incoming shipment of stuff rather than placed right on site, the more likely it is to be discovered), that might be a moot point.
AT&T Wireless, I know, did not add the fee onto the services of customers under contract unless they did a rate plan change, at which time reps had a statement that needed to be read about it. Customers out of contract got a notice on their bill prior to it being added(previous invoice or something).
Other carriers, I don't know.
As for the grandparent's claim that these fees don't appear until you're locked into contract, I still call BS, at least where AWS is concerned. The RPF is mentioned in calling plan brochures and is listed online(in the footnotes along with other T&Cs, but there). Also, wireless carriers are obligated to give some sort of trial period before the contract is locked in. AWS, for instance, gives you thirty days. Stores that aren't owned by AWS, mind, can have truly draconian return policies for their equipment, but that's another issue altogether.
If you don't read the contract or the literature until after the fact, it's your own fault. Complain all you want, but there's no recourse for legal action - they did tell you so, you just didn't pay attention.
Telemarketers need better jobs. The people who pay them to telemarket need painful executions.
Didn't quite get my Bio degree, but I think part of the problem comes from the fact that HIV is itself an immune system disease. Immune response isn't instant even when the body "knows" how to make antibodies; it's just much faster. Thus, in the time it takes for the immune system to start producing antibodies for the reintroduced(and now live, not just protein-coat) HIV antigen, it's already infected the immune system to some degree. Unless the response is very strong and very fast, you're screwed anyway - the immune system is infected before it can properly react.
I learned this stuff in one year of Latin. I have since forgotten most of it, but even I knew that virus -> virii is nothing short of insane.
Radius -> radii, yes. But note the i that's already there.
And cactus pluralises to cacti, so an earlier post is wrong on that count, too.
American voters may want it fair, but the people being voted for might not.
The fun part is that some of those users unable to install SP2 will probably be legit users whose keys got hit by a keygen.