I don't know what the US terminology is but here in the UK you are allowed to use "reasonable force." That's exactly how it should be in my book - that's why Tony Martin was locked up for shooting intruders - because it's unreasonable to just kill someone who's robbing you - unless you took reasonable force, and he ended up dead by accident.
The chap said he "beat the shit" out of this guy. That sounds manifestly unreasonable to me.
Hardly surprising; diamond is used to cut the stuff into slices, so a diamond ring will scratch it. If it wasn't a ring with some hard gemstone in it, then it would be puzzling.
The point is that if they actually wanted to test its destroyability (as opposed to the likelihood of it being damaged in your office - a more a useful, but less fun test) then they should have used a more powerful crossbow and some kind of firearm; a crossbow you can just pull back like that isn't going to be a good test of destroyability although its enough to show that it's one tough screen.
I understand what you mean. I have a minor Tcl-aversion, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps its the eval[]s you have to put everywhere, or the masses of square brackets, or the unfamiliar syntax in general. One particular quibble I remember is the use of upvar, which, to me at least, seems somewhat clumsy.
Here if your kid id in a comatose state with 40+C you will be asked to take it to the GP during the opening hours and will wait there for 2 hours until your appointment or until your kid needs to be ferried to AE in an ambulance. And the doctor visitng anybody besides pensioners at their home? Forget it.
There's hyperbole and there's just... wrong. If your kid is comatose, why don't you ring 999?
Rape sometimes psychologically destroys the victim for the rest of his/her life. Perhaps they can never had a meaningful relationship anymore...
Corrected for truth, at least until you offer some sources or statistics. By your logic, by the way, we should just euthanase anyone who is going to be suffering for the rest (or perhaps a large portion of the rest) of their life. Grrrreat.
I can't imagine a way for them to stop it really. They ban compressed files? Strip some of the header data off, or store it somewhere else. They hook onto that? Encrypt it too - a well encrypted file just looks like random bits, the same as the data of a compressed file. The only thing I can think of then is to ban any file that doesn't look like allowed files, but you could still put a JPEG header and structure on the file or whatever.
That's something they can't get around - how do you tell the difference between a photograph of noise and a hidden movie?
No, you fail at logic. Let P be the proposition, "Company X treats frequent customers better." This is logically equivalent to "Company X treats infrequent customers worse" So saying a company does one but not the other is contradictory.
They *will* at this point have to include a GNU FDL with the book, *even if they remove the offending pages from future copies*, since the entire book is now contaminated.
How does a license affect a work which does not use the license, or anything licensed under the same?
That's not such a bad idea. Have the downloaded file pretend to wipe their hard disk and then tell them they're stupid. Repeat periodically to remind them.
To be precise the best bet is something like 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. Very few people choose consecutive numbers, since instinct says it's unlikely for them to come out. Of course there's the same likelihood (unless the article is correct, perhaps) but you get a better chance of having an unsplit prize.
You can always put up your own website and host exactly the same content - it is, after all, released under a license that specifically allows you to do that. Of course, you might find that you have server bills to pay, and thus need advertising of your own.
Surely not, since they would be directly profiting from a derivative work. If Universal made a video in which, by coincidence, there was a snippet of the video playing in the background, that would probably qualify as fair use. Although you might have to bear in mind child protection and such. IANAL, of course.
Regardless of whether governments are using so-called anti-terrorist measures to control the population or not, they do not seem to be effective measures - designed to make people shut up and stop complaining that "something must be done!" rather than actually to do something.
Many moons ago (well, three, four years or so) you had to compile the wacom driver yourself. Now you use ubuntu or something and it just gets installed automatically, and everything works. In terms of usability, I can attest to the fact that Linux in general (although not really GIMP) has come on no end. Still, GIMP is still a bit of a bitch - but it's all I've got because I don't want to pirate PS, nor do I want to run it through wine.
Slashdot Mirror
The chap said he "beat the shit" out of this guy. That sounds manifestly unreasonable to me.
Hardly surprising; diamond is used to cut the stuff into slices, so a diamond ring will scratch it. If it wasn't a ring with some hard gemstone in it, then it would be puzzling.
The point is that if they actually wanted to test its destroyability (as opposed to the likelihood of it being damaged in your office - a more a useful, but less fun test) then they should have used a more powerful crossbow and some kind of firearm; a crossbow you can just pull back like that isn't going to be a good test of destroyability although its enough to show that it's one tough screen.
I understand what you mean. I have a minor Tcl-aversion, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps its the eval[]s you have to put everywhere, or the masses of square brackets, or the unfamiliar syntax in general. One particular quibble I remember is the use of upvar, which, to me at least, seems somewhat clumsy.
Still not heard of the preview button, then?
There's hyperbole and there's just... wrong. If your kid is comatose, why don't you ring 999?
I guess it would if you came upon one of these signs!
Corrected for truth, at least until you offer some sources or statistics. By your logic, by the way, we should just euthanase anyone who is going to be suffering for the rest (or perhaps a large portion of the rest) of their life. Grrrreat.
I can't imagine a way for them to stop it really. They ban compressed files? Strip some of the header data off, or store it somewhere else. They hook onto that? Encrypt it too - a well encrypted file just looks like random bits, the same as the data of a compressed file. The only thing I can think of then is to ban any file that doesn't look like allowed files, but you could still put a JPEG header and structure on the file or whatever.
That's something they can't get around - how do you tell the difference between a photograph of noise and a hidden movie?
That's what he's saying - if you obtain "Open Source" code you don't know whether you're going to catch the virus or not.
No, you fail at logic. Let P be the proposition, "Company X treats frequent customers better." This is logically equivalent to "Company X treats infrequent customers worse" So saying a company does one but not the other is contradictory.
To do what? Shoot the phone? Yourself?
How does a license affect a work which does not use the license, or anything licensed under the same?
That's not such a bad idea. Have the downloaded file pretend to wipe their hard disk and then tell them they're stupid. Repeat periodically to remind them.
2,7,18,28,1,8
To be precise the best bet is something like 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. Very few people choose consecutive numbers, since instinct says it's unlikely for them to come out. Of course there's the same likelihood (unless the article is correct, perhaps) but you get a better chance of having an unsplit prize.
On the other hand it doesn't need it. It's permanently in Sleep mode.
You can always put up your own website and host exactly the same content - it is, after all, released under a license that specifically allows you to do that. Of course, you might find that you have server bills to pay, and thus need advertising of your own.
Surely not, since they would be directly profiting from a derivative work. If Universal made a video in which, by coincidence, there was a snippet of the video playing in the background, that would probably qualify as fair use. Although you might have to bear in mind child protection and such. IANAL, of course.
Or rather... you can't.
Sounds cool!
Regardless of whether governments are using so-called anti-terrorist measures to control the population or not, they do not seem to be effective measures - designed to make people shut up and stop complaining that "something must be done!" rather than actually to do something.
Many moons ago (well, three, four years or so) you had to compile the wacom driver yourself. Now you use ubuntu or something and it just gets installed automatically, and everything works. In terms of usability, I can attest to the fact that Linux in general (although not really GIMP) has come on no end. Still, GIMP is still a bit of a bitch - but it's all I've got because I don't want to pirate PS, nor do I want to run it through wine.
Uh, pepper? Or do we have to think of a different word for the fruit of the plant 'citrus sinensis'?
I took an exam opposite someone who used a laptop due to a medical condition (not dyslexia) and managed fine in that.