Now, assume the bullet hits the ceiling and almost immediately the aircraft will start de-pressurizing (venting oxygen too) which is a very bad thing (read Hypoxia). In general, commercial aircraft are pressurized at a maximum cabin altitude equivalent to about 8,000 feet, where it is possible to breathe normally without an oxygen mask. This is when the oxygen masks come in handy as you are venting oxygen into the atmosphere. An aircraft fuselage is not a completely sealed tank, pressurization happens by either drawing air from one or more of the engines or a separate compressor. Putting more holes in it will not suddenly stop the plane from bleeding air into the cabin.
The real problem with public education is that it has become the dumping ground for kids whose parents don't care and can't take the time to be engaged in their children's lives. You say that like private education doesn't suffer from the same problems. Many private schools set up an environment where parents can drop off their children 8 or so months of the year and the only contact the have is via telephone and visits during holidays. The only difference is that public is where many poor people send their kids they don't care about and the latter is the place where rich people send their kids they don't care about.
Parents that care, do whatever they can to send their children to a private school or home school them. Parents that care take the few hours it requires and weigh the options for the best education. There are negatives with any education form, just dumping the child somewhere without looking at the options is foolish and is simply throwing money at the problem. There are thousands of extremely highly rated public schools within this country ignoring those just because you are afraid of poor people is stupid.
Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody.
Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will.
It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony.
Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.
Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody.
Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will.
It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony.
Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.
Lets just assume for one second that the patent is valid and rock solid. It seems quite silly to me that they are claiming irreparable harm. The design on the processor is pushing 6 years now and it's been in production over 2 years and it wasn't as if it was quietly dropped onto the market. These people have a responsibility to mitigate their damages.
How the heck is being utterly unreasonable supposed to help their case? It's one thing to start kicking and screaming 2 years after a product has been released saying it will somehow cause so much harm to your company it takes you 2 years to actually try to stop it. It's another thing entirely to within the tyrant demand the impossible. Pissing people off makes people more, not less likely to fight.
Unfortunately, the bold portion is the kicker... while oral death threats could probably still be prosecuted, the part of the law you quoted pertains only to written death threats sent through the mail (at least in my interpretation).
Read the whole thing:
..Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
I have heard of people getting visits from the Secret Service for postings on forums for a post that were less of a direct threat to the members of government then those on the show. They take stuff like that very seriously.
Planeshift has a very restrictive license on it's artwork, to the point that it is unusable by other projects. This on the other hand will cover the whole shabang.
If not, isn't there a SourceForge project building a server that can interop with its network?
There may be but not one that I can find doing a search of "SecondLife". Linden labs sells collocated servers that you can lease though but that is hardly the same thing as having the code and artwork.
The market has spoken, this game was not worthy. I get that the cause is noble and all. But just because it becomes open source, etc, doesn't mean that this is a good game.
I don't know, raising what works out to $144,000 (not including the FSF money) is a pretty good sign that people like what they see and are not wanting it to go away. That is a heck of a lot of money for a game to be completely crap, particularity one that wasn't marketed a lot. Besides there are a heck of a lot more ways then simply having a bad product to run a company into the ground.
And so on, and so forth. Once the infrastructure is in place, it costs NOTHING to expand the list of blocked sites - and it is always easy enough to come up with some sort of reasonable arguement why certain sites should be blocked. Once this system is in place and works well, every political party will be screaming to have something they don't like banned - and without any real Libertarian minority in Canada, the only arguement will be over what things should be banned.
This infrastructure has always been available and could have been used to block 'bad' things. That hasn't happen and it's probably not going to happen. The only reason this works is because that the cybertip site is generally trusted in the community and they are offering a feature that many customers want. The second this starts effecting what people want to see people complain and the program stops or they bleed customers. This would happen far before step 2.
What have you accomplished by blocking accidental exposure?
Unfortunately the law has very little leeway for accidental exposure, in may places (including Canada) even having these images in your browser's cache could land you in jail for a long time or at least make your life a living hell. Couple with it the fact there are a hell of a lot of people whom child pornography disgusts. We are after-all talking about one of the most extreme abuses of a child, that is enough to turn many people's stomach. I think a lot is accomplished, particularity when it's easy to get around (a simple page warning the user with an option to continue onto the site would be better IMHO though).
I don't think this actually goes beyond the behaviour of a tumour after it has formed (starts at 1000 cells) not if cancer will form in a specific cell or which people will form tumors.
This is untrue. The chances of the police responding in time to do anything is very slim. The main purpose is to alert the owner and other people nearby, thus increasing the risk of this particular robbery or crime. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, but they have neither the manpower or the will to prevent crime.
You are right alarm systems are largely useless. However my point is that the deterring factor of an alarm system is the risk of getting caught. It may be rare that police respond however, that small chance adds to the risk.
Relative to the general populace or to the criminal populace, this just isn't true. Locks are easy to pick, alarm systems can be bypassed, but very few criminals take the time to do either when there are easier targets.
Just because something is "easy" (picking quality locks is not easy), or can be done doesn't mean people have the skill to do it. Most criminals don't have those skills and if they did they would have legal career opportunities open to them. While there are exceptions to this most criminals are unskilled and unable to support themselves by other means.
Threat of punishment is a motivational factor, but surprisingly, not a very significant one. Studies have shown people in general believe they can get away with crimes without being caught.
I would really love to see a reference for that study. What I have seen, however is studies that people are far more willing to do crimes when they believe they will not get caught, which is quite different then what you are saying.
The main motivation for not committing them is actually a moral one. People do not feel justified in robbery. One of the strongest correlations with robbery and violent crime worldwide is wealth disparity.
Absolutely, and another correlations is education level. However I have never heard of a correlation between crime/education/wealth and morality. Could it be that when a person is desperate they will risk imprisonment because they have to eat where someone who has a skill wouldn't risk imprisonment? Laws, just as much as morality are at play here.
The State will write laws to defend against hacking, but the reality is that the free market will provide better defense. There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk. Hackers make a profit only means that anti-hackers have a new business opportunity -- and if you're good with security, you should make a windfall NOW before the law interferes with YOUR ability to secure your clients. Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."
What complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. First of all the novelty of an alarm system is notification of the police, who job it is to *gasp* uphold the law. There are plenty of processionals that can or profession demands the ability to pick locks, bypass alarm systems and assault a building in a manner that would make a gun have very little effect. Despite this you see professionals in all of these trades work in legitimate trades despite the fact that illegal ones would be far more profitable. Perhaps the knowledge that maybe losing a chunk of your life to jail may put some second thoughts into these people.
Many of you have mentioned that it takes a couple minutes, and in one instance "15 minutes" to recover from being shocked by the TASER - these are miss-leading and incorrect statements. As part of a thesis I wrote in college - I personally was shocked by the X26 TASER (the same device that was used on the young man in this video).
Part of that can be blamed on the warning material that ships with these guns that note (paraphrase) that disorientation, vertigo, muscle spasms and weakness can result from being shocked with the gun which typically subside over in within a few minutes.
My guess is that a lot of this will be abstracted by the video driver so developers will not have to (largely) worry about it. Though it's not unheard of for developers to use special features of CPUs such as MMX, 3DNow! etc I don't see this as much different from the developer standpoint.
I guess it falls down to what you consider portable. Laptops, definitely high performance ones. However PDAs I really doubt. The X86 architecture has very little bang for the buck in terms of power dissipation to performance and are very rarely used for PDA applications. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Noise.
The real problem with public education is that it has become the dumping ground for kids whose parents don't care and can't take the time to be engaged in their children's lives.
You say that like private education doesn't suffer from the same problems. Many private schools set up an environment where parents can drop off their children 8 or so months of the year and the only contact the have is via telephone and visits during holidays. The only difference is that public is where many poor people send their kids they don't care about and the latter is the place where rich people send their kids they don't care about.
Parents that care, do whatever they can to send their children to a private school or home school them.
Parents that care take the few hours it requires and weigh the options for the best education. There are negatives with any education form, just dumping the child somewhere without looking at the options is foolish and is simply throwing money at the problem. There are thousands of extremely highly rated public schools within this country ignoring those just because you are afraid of poor people is stupid.
Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody.
Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will.
It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony.
Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.
Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody. Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will. It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony. Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.
Lets just assume for one second that the patent is valid and rock solid. It seems quite silly to me that they are claiming irreparable harm. The design on the processor is pushing 6 years now and it's been in production over 2 years and it wasn't as if it was quietly dropped onto the market. These people have a responsibility to mitigate their damages.
How the heck is being utterly unreasonable supposed to help their case? It's one thing to start kicking and screaming 2 years after a product has been released saying it will somehow cause so much harm to your company it takes you 2 years to actually try to stop it. It's another thing entirely to within the tyrant demand the impossible. Pissing people off makes people more, not less likely to fight.
Uh... Yeah. I don't know about where you live but I had to put down a deposit and sign a contract to get power anywhere I have lived.
Planeshift has a very restrictive license on it's artwork, to the point that it is unusable by other projects. This on the other hand will cover the whole shabang.
There may be but not one that I can find doing a search of "SecondLife". Linden labs sells collocated servers that you can lease though but that is hardly the same thing as having the code and artwork.
IIRC the artwork in Daimon is not under GPL but only the code. This seems to be the case for a lot of so called GPLed MMORPGs.
Hey it worked for Haliburton.
I don't think this actually goes beyond the behaviour of a tumour after it has formed (starts at 1000 cells) not if cancer will form in a specific cell or which people will form tumors.
I have been interested in that craft. How much has it cost you and how difficult has the construction been on that model? Any other weirdness?
Just because something is "easy" (picking quality locks is not easy), or can be done doesn't mean people have the skill to do it. Most criminals don't have those skills and if they did they would have legal career opportunities open to them. While there are exceptions to this most criminals are unskilled and unable to support themselves by other means.
I would really love to see a reference for that study. What I have seen, however is studies that people are far more willing to do crimes when they believe they will not get caught, which is quite different then what you are saying.
Absolutely, and another correlations is education level. However I have never heard of a correlation between crime/education/wealth and morality. Could it be that when a person is desperate they will risk imprisonment because they have to eat where someone who has a skill wouldn't risk imprisonment? Laws, just as much as morality are at play here.
Bah You haven't seen the new ISA EXTREME!
My guess is that a lot of this will be abstracted by the video driver so developers will not have to (largely) worry about it. Though it's not unheard of for developers to use special features of CPUs such as MMX, 3DNow! etc I don't see this as much different from the developer standpoint.
I guess it falls down to what you consider portable. Laptops, definitely high performance ones. However PDAs I really doubt. The X86 architecture has very little bang for the buck in terms of power dissipation to performance and are very rarely used for PDA applications. I don't see that changing any time soon.
That philosophy pretty much went out the window when we started seeing consumer 3D video accelerators hitting the market.