and $3 billion for Apple at 30cents out of every dollar. Quite a tidy sum for the gatekeeper, is it any wonder that Microsoft would like to wall their own garden?
If you were served 500ml of beer when you asked for a pint in the UK you'd be feeling short changed. A pint is 568 ml there... 500mL is only a bonus in the US where you use a smaller pint/gallon. In Australia, where the UK imperial pint was in use for milk it was typically rounded up to 600ml when metric was introduced during the 1970s. On the other hand, beer sold in glasses comes in all sorts of odd sizes corresponding roughly to old fluid ounce measures: typically 570ml for a pint (except in South Australia).
Why do we consider the monitor vertical to be the only way to position a monitor?
Better do some serious work to make them waterproof and resistant to having large/sharp objects placed/dropped on them before you seriously try to market this.
I am not a US Constitution expert but it seems that the presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial is well establish in amendments 5, 6 and 14 to that document. With that in mind I have corrected the most egregious problem with the summary:
"Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for accusing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, allegedly leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was allegedly risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.
Whether or not the allegations are true is a matter for the (seemingly absent) speedy trial to decide... not the public rationalisations of the accuser or the court of public opinion.
Did anyone else read "Intel To Debut Limited-Run Ivy Bridge Processor" and ponder why anyone would want a processor that was guaranteed to run only a limited number of times? Perhaps this is the new monetization (I hate that word) strategy, where you are forced to buy desktop processor hours on subscription. Or perhaps the limited-runs could be along the lines of "5 runs with DVD/Bluray player or non-Microsoft OS running" to give the MPAA/Microsoft something else to prop up profits with?
One light year is approx. 63241 AU. Voyager 1 is about 120 AU distant receding at about 3.2 AU/year. That's about 19760 years to cover one light year (ignoring any speed changes)... 240000 and some change to go 12. It's currently only 0.0019 light-years distant.
Fire and shelving melt/collapse, no substantial water involved. Once the fire fighters left fighting the fire coming up the mountain they did not come back until at least a day later... we were busy fighting fires in the 500+ homes that burnt down that same day (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Canberra_bushfires and http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/mso). The point was not that it flooded, but that the collection was lost to an unforeseen event. Put it in a basement and it can be lost to flood, fire, earthquake... put it above ground and you can still lose it.
The swishy, dumbed down, phone-esque UI emphasis is a little tiresome, but the widgets still exist and Qt 5 even includes a complete new cross-platform amalgam style called Fusion. You are welcome to give the widgets some love if you wish.
Yes "Outrage" of exactly the same type this place reserves for RIAA, MPAA, et al when they sue Grandma Jones for 2 bajillion dollars after her compromised PC shared a Justin Bieber MP3. All perfectly normal and legal, of course, but legal and morally/socially right are different beasts. This "outrage" is against the corporate treatment of the latter, with many of the opinion that wresting back control of the former can be used to redress the problem. Some, like myself, are old enough to realise it's a lost cause.
In the case of software patents I see the open publication of the "patentable" software on GitHub as a monumental pile of prior art/patent invalidations just waiting to be mined. While publishing your code does not relieve you of your rights under copyright law, it should relieve you and anyone else of the ability to patent any embodied "invention" if it is published for long enough (1 year before the patent application in the US). I doubt you will find any patent-hugging companies deliberately using GitHub for precisely this reason.
Nice words. Now, how many of the "genuine" articles for which "counterfeit" item sellers were shut down are actually made in the USA? I venture it is so close to zero as makes no difference. Certainly not protecting US manufacturing worker's job then. How many people who spent $30 for a knock-off "counterfeit" item would have actually spent $300 in a US "genuine" retailer for the same item? Not too many, so I doubt luxury item retail worker numbers will be substantially increased by this enforcement action. The only winners here are the holders of the so-called "intellectual property" intangible who are getting their trademark/copyright/patent work done on taxpayer dollars while pocketing the obscene markups on goods made by the lowest Chinese bidder.
Regardless of which side of the death penalty argument you fall on there is something that we can all agree on... If you haven't already watched this David R. Dow: Lessons from death row inmates do yourself a 20 minute favour.
The most that can really be said is the 600 euro fine (and the non-disclosure agreement) is absurd for what the alleged crime is.
I agree it is absurd, but not because of the amount involved. It's not a 600 Euro fine levied by a court after due process, but an extortion payment to a private enterprise. The NDA is designed to ensure that similar extortion targets cannot challenge assertions on the part of the extorter such as, "Everyone settles for 600 Euros," or "Fifty-thousand people thought it better to settle than fight." The NDA also serves as part of the threat: dare to go public about our extortion racket and we will sue you into the stone age for breach of contract. Suing for breach of contract is a much easier target. The sooner we start treating the extortive threat of legal action as a crime the better.
I don't know, something dark ages like Windows 7 perhaps. The Google Chrome download for Windows is a 755k stub installer that obscures the actual size of the whole product it downloads in the background.
No, in Australia if the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true then that is a complete defence.
Justification: It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true.Substantial truth means that provided the justification meets the substance of the imputation, minor inaccuracy will not exclude the defence. The publisher’s motive is irrelevant, if the publisher can show that the imputation is true then it does not matter that he/she was motivated by malice.
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html
I don't see how publishing an unfaked photograph of two people together can be defamatory: every police or court official caught in a photo with a criminal would have a defamation case. However, I can see it is as defamatory of the caption you associate with the published picture says, "Bloggs is bosom buddies with a gangland boss." if that statement is not true. I could also see a technical argument for defamation in returning that image as a search result for "best friends of gangland figures" but I recognise the boundary of stupidity when it comes to the real world. This litigation seems misdirected... but it was launched at the biggest cash cow not the sanest target.
... but only if the link to Apple at the bottom of the page had accompanying ECMAScript to ensure it started off life just outside the user's visible page area.
Slashdot Mirror
Generates $7 Billion For Developers
and $3 billion for Apple at 30cents out of every dollar. Quite a tidy sum for the gatekeeper, is it any wonder that Microsoft would like to wall their own garden?
Only South Australia has a different 'pint' of 425ml IIRC. Everywhere else uses 570ml, which is almost exactly the same as an imperial pint (568ml).
If you were served 500ml of beer when you asked for a pint in the UK you'd be feeling short changed. A pint is 568 ml there... 500mL is only a bonus in the US where you use a smaller pint/gallon. In Australia, where the UK imperial pint was in use for milk it was typically rounded up to 600ml when metric was introduced during the 1970s. On the other hand, beer sold in glasses comes in all sorts of odd sizes corresponding roughly to old fluid ounce measures: typically 570ml for a pint (except in South Australia).
Why do we consider the monitor vertical to be the only way to position a monitor?
Better do some serious work to make them waterproof and resistant to having large/sharp objects placed/dropped on them before you seriously try to market this.
I am not a US Constitution expert but it seems that the presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial is well establish in amendments 5, 6 and 14 to that document. With that in mind I have corrected the most egregious problem with the summary:
"Whether you agree with his rationale for doing so or not, Adrian Lamo has come forward to discuss his reasoning for accusing Bradley Manning. Manning, now in federal custody, allegedly leaked thousands of U.S. intelligence files and documents. Lamo's side of the story shows that he was concerned for Manning's mental health and stability, and for the lives Manning was allegedly risking by releasing classified material — Afghan informants, for instance. Either way, this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.
Whether or not the allegations are true is a matter for the (seemingly absent) speedy trial to decide... not the public rationalisations of the accuser or the court of public opinion.
Did anyone else read "Intel To Debut Limited-Run Ivy Bridge Processor" and ponder why anyone would want a processor that was guaranteed to run only a limited number of times? Perhaps this is the new monetization (I hate that word) strategy, where you are forced to buy desktop processor hours on subscription. Or perhaps the limited-runs could be along the lines of "5 runs with DVD/Bluray player or non-Microsoft OS running" to give the MPAA/Microsoft something else to prop up profits with?
+1 for the sig... best chuckle I've had all morning :)
One light year is approx. 63241 AU. Voyager 1 is about 120 AU distant receding at about 3.2 AU/year. That's about 19760 years to cover one light year (ignoring any speed changes)... 240000 and some change to go 12. It's currently only 0.0019 light-years distant.
1k less the memory used to hold the characters currently on the display. But you try and tell the people of today...
How long do you think the X-37B would stay in close proximity to the satellite if it did this?
Fire and shelving melt/collapse, no substantial water involved. Once the fire fighters left fighting the fire coming up the mountain they did not come back until at least a day later... we were busy fighting fires in the 500+ homes that burnt down that same day (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Canberra_bushfires and http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/mso). The point was not that it flooded, but that the collection was lost to an unforeseen event. Put it in a basement and it can be lost to flood, fire, earthquake... put it above ground and you can still lose it.
Yeah, 'cause it unheard of that an above-ground library on top of a mountain could be lost: ANU Astronomy 2003 http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/mso/library_interior2.large.jpg Disasters happen.
The swishy, dumbed down, phone-esque UI emphasis is a little tiresome, but the widgets still exist and Qt 5 even includes a complete new cross-platform amalgam style called Fusion. You are welcome to give the widgets some love if you wish.
Yes "Outrage" of exactly the same type this place reserves for RIAA, MPAA, et al when they sue Grandma Jones for 2 bajillion dollars after her compromised PC shared a Justin Bieber MP3. All perfectly normal and legal, of course, but legal and morally/socially right are different beasts. This "outrage" is against the corporate treatment of the latter, with many of the opinion that wresting back control of the former can be used to redress the problem. Some, like myself, are old enough to realise it's a lost cause.
In the case of software patents I see the open publication of the "patentable" software on GitHub as a monumental pile of prior art/patent invalidations just waiting to be mined. While publishing your code does not relieve you of your rights under copyright law, it should relieve you and anyone else of the ability to patent any embodied "invention" if it is published for long enough (1 year before the patent application in the US). I doubt you will find any patent-hugging companies deliberately using GitHub for precisely this reason.
Guess it will be eBay next.... sounds the same, must be pirates
Nice words. Now, how many of the "genuine" articles for which "counterfeit" item sellers were shut down are actually made in the USA? I venture it is so close to zero as makes no difference. Certainly not protecting US manufacturing worker's job then. How many people who spent $30 for a knock-off "counterfeit" item would have actually spent $300 in a US "genuine" retailer for the same item? Not too many, so I doubt luxury item retail worker numbers will be substantially increased by this enforcement action. The only winners here are the holders of the so-called "intellectual property" intangible who are getting their trademark/copyright/patent work done on taxpayer dollars while pocketing the obscene markups on goods made by the lowest Chinese bidder.
Regardless of which side of the death penalty argument you fall on there is something that we can all agree on... If you haven't already watched this David R. Dow: Lessons from death row inmates do yourself a 20 minute favour.
The most that can really be said is the 600 euro fine (and the non-disclosure agreement) is absurd for what the alleged crime is.
I agree it is absurd, but not because of the amount involved. It's not a 600 Euro fine levied by a court after due process, but an extortion payment to a private enterprise. The NDA is designed to ensure that similar extortion targets cannot challenge assertions on the part of the extorter such as, "Everyone settles for 600 Euros," or "Fifty-thousand people thought it better to settle than fight." The NDA also serves as part of the threat: dare to go public about our extortion racket and we will sue you into the stone age for breach of contract. Suing for breach of contract is a much easier target. The sooner we start treating the extortive threat of legal action as a crime the better.
If you need a fresh dictator then Mohamed Morsi is shaping up quite nicely in Egypt.
I don't see the problem.
Certainly not in reference the god-awful eponymous movie
The only one I have seen and used belongs to ICAO. Specifically aircraft type lookup (CORAL cached: the site is flakey enough already)
I don't know, something dark ages like Windows 7 perhaps. The Google Chrome download for Windows is a 755k stub installer that obscures the actual size of the whole product it downloads in the background.
No, in Australia if the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true then that is a complete defence.
Justification: It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true.Substantial truth means that provided the justification meets the substance of the imputation, minor inaccuracy will not exclude the defence. The publisher’s motive is irrelevant, if the publisher can show that the imputation is true then it does not matter that he/she was motivated by malice. http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html
I don't see how publishing an unfaked photograph of two people together can be defamatory: every police or court official caught in a photo with a criminal would have a defamation case. However, I can see it is as defamatory of the caption you associate with the published picture says, "Bloggs is bosom buddies with a gangland boss." if that statement is not true. I could also see a technical argument for defamation in returning that image as a search result for "best friends of gangland figures" but I recognise the boundary of stupidity when it comes to the real world. This litigation seems misdirected... but it was launched at the biggest cash cow not the sanest target.
That probably would be perfect indeed.
... but only if the link to Apple at the bottom of the page had accompanying ECMAScript to ensure it started off life just outside the user's visible page area.