Yep - my surname has 5 letters in it, but in my signature you'll see 6 distinct squiggles.
In some ways you don't WANT your signature to be legible - legibility makes it easier to forge.
On the other hand, you want the rest of your cheque to be very legible, to guard against stuff like this - a lawyer set up a bank account in the name Ian Revue, so that he could cash his client's badly-scrawled cheques made out to the Inland Revenue.
None of the letters look any different because you're joining them up - printed letters should look exactly the same, with the appropriate connection points in situ, but not connected. The funny curly-3 thing, and the inverted-c thing that people write for z & a respectively are simply wrong.
Nonsense, pending the removal of the bad law, it'a the job of the police and courts to not enforce it. Or do we do wrong simply because there's a law saying that we should?
yes, but in terms of what M$ sells as it's windows-for-ordinary-desktop-PCs, it was those six products in that order that lead up to Windows 7 - how they've chosen to construct them doesn't really matter. The point that I was making was that Windows 2000 wasn't sold to (for instance) the home user (much). Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME, so it's out of place, even if it should be in the list (which it shouldn't). Windows 7 is the 7th product to be sold to the 'home\office desktop' market. 2000 wasn't aimed at that market. My mentioning the technology that it was based on was a bit of a red herring.
Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong. It should be: Windows 1.0 Windows 2.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 95\98\ME Windows XP Windows Vista Windows 7
There was a seperate branch of: Windows NT4 Windows 2000 Windows XP
XP, of course, being the point where desktop windows & workstation\server windows got joined into one product line (based on NT). Didn't everyone know this already?
ok, I don't know what avenue is used for the prosecution of child porn stuff in the US - in the UK 'accessing' isn't specifically a crime, it's the making of the copy (even a temporary one) on the viewer's own computer which constitutes an offence.
The UK court has power to try the defendant for no reason other than because they say that they do. As a physical example - say that he had a PO box in LA, and he used the physical mail to send the material to himself - would that be distribution? Now say that he had a magic PO box which could copy what he posted to it, and send it back out. Now, I agree that the magic box would be incapable of independent action, and so he would still be liable to prosecution for whatever he instructed it to do, but it's only sensible that he should be liable in the country where the box was at the time that it was doing the stuff that he told it to do.
no, see in the past freedom of speech, habeus corpus, and all that jazz was just seen as the unshakeable way that things were and ought to be, so nobody bothered to codify them into law. They didn't bank on the recent gaggle of dangerous morons occupying westminster, and it's coming back to bite us in the behind. OTOH, they did bring the Convention into domestic law, so there is a recent codification of the protection of free speech - its effect just hasn't pervaded into law making yet.
Extradition treaties normally have a "well that's not illegal here, so we're not going to help your prosecute them for it there" get-out clause in them. Though, frankly, your subscription to the waving a piece of paper around saying "we must, it says so here" viewpoint is somewhat scary.
These guys had no such protections, and they knew it.
I wouldn't say that they knew it - it's been pretty widely held (for about the last 10 years - since these for of question started cropping up), at least amongst the technological community, that the only practical way of determining jurisdiction on the internet was to go by the location of the server. What Mr Justice McMoron has done here is actually strike a blow against the rule of law. In this case the servers were located in the US - the accused lived in the UK so that's apparently enough for jurisdiction, but that leaves us only one step away from the chaotic nightmare of courts deciding that they have jurisidction on the sole basis that the material is accessible from their country. At that point, the proverbial will hit the fan - there will be so little material which isn't illegal somewhere that one will be able to put nothing on line.
Justice McMoron has simply made a mindless and irrational power-grab, and taken a pretty big step towards wrecking the internet in the process.
being on the board when the corporate charter gets revoked gets you barred from being on the board of any other company for 10 years. That's largely how it works in the UK (except that it's 5 years, and is the regulation for a limited company going bankrupt rather than being hypothetically shut down).
Myers was stunned by the reaction, since he obeyed the game's rules.
That's meaningless, the programmed rules of the game are analagous to the laws of physics. Just because you can punch someone on the nose doesn't mean that you should, or that they should just shrug their shoulders and go "well, physics allows it, so I'm ok with it"
The car analogy isn't so good - in that situation a person obeying the twenty-over convention is, strictly, breaking the actual law and would be fair game for getting a ticket for it. This is about obeying the convention when there is no cost for doing so.
another example: Bodyline in cricket. This is particularly relevant because the players ruining the game soon found that it could have consequences outside the game, when a full-scale diplomatic spat was started over the practice.
But he hasn't done much research on other people. most of the research he's done is on himself - given a virtual world where it's possible to be a complete asshat, even if it annoys everyone else, he will 'because it's in the rules'. The only research that he's done on other people is confirm that when you wreck of people's fun, they'll let you know what they think about it.
despite warnings from his University's Export Control Officer
The Export Control Officer could well have been applying the Rhodesia Solution. What was the nature of his warning? An email that Prof. Roth didn't get until he returned? A quick "make sure not to take ITAR stuff with you to China"?
Virtually all higher-level science sounds like it might come unter ITAR control, and the only way that you can really know is when you get back and are told that that information was controlled.
only if the defence go "hang on, that's incorrect, we'd better get an expert witness in to refute that" (which they won't do, because they're not experts themselves), and even then, the defendant now has to rely on the jury (if they even have one) deciding that the defence expert witness is more reliable than the prosecution one.
it pisses off PETA no end, which is a practical application, even if they're right this time (subjecting defencesless insects to a horrible death for the hell of it is just twisted)
or, apply for the job, and refuse on the drug test. They can either drop the test, or drop you from the application process after expending hundreds, or even thousands of dollars of effort on moving you through it. If you get through to the final interview, and they say "congratulations, you've got the job, now go pee in this cup" and you refuse, they can scrap all the stuff they did to get you there, or give up trying to test you. Having to let the best candidate slip through their fingers repeatedly might also wake them up to how boneheaded the policy is - they won't figure that out if you just sit at home.
no, that's not entirely true. The actual story is far more releveant though.
A local doctor, who fancied himself an amateur mathematician 'invented' some proof regarding circles which also dropped out the value of pi as exactly 3.25. He they passed this to a friend in the state legislature and got it written into a bill, such that Indiana would have free use of his proof in school textbooks, etc., in exchange for protecting his 'invention' against other people ripping it off. The lower house pushed it around a few committees (who pushed it to other committees, wondering why it had come to them) before passing the lower house fairly overwhelmingly - many members commenting how they didn't understand it, but that if he was willing to let them use it for free, they were all for it. In the upper house, it passed its first reading and got packed off to some more committees. At that point, a professor of mathematics, who happened to be visiting to lobby for university funding, got wind of this bill; looked at it, picked his jaw back up from the floor, and promptly briefed a bunch of the state senators on what they needed to know about it. The bill was torn apart on its second reading in the upper house, then quietly forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - my surname has 5 letters in it, but in my signature you'll see 6 distinct squiggles.
In some ways you don't WANT your signature to be legible - legibility makes it easier to forge.
On the other hand, you want the rest of your cheque to be very legible, to guard against stuff like this - a lawyer set up a bank account in the name Ian Revue, so that he could cash his client's badly-scrawled cheques made out to the Inland Revenue.
Like that. Carry on.
uh, it looks like this: Z
None of the letters look any different because you're joining them up - printed letters should look exactly the same, with the appropriate connection points in situ, but not connected.
The funny curly-3 thing, and the inverted-c thing that people write for z & a respectively are simply wrong.
Nonsense, pending the removal of the bad law, it'a the job of the police and courts to not enforce it.
Or do we do wrong simply because there's a law saying that we should?
They're not really SMGs - they're modified to remove the burst and full-auto firing modes and are little more than light self-loading carbines.
Yeah, those are article 5 & 8 rights instead. The fact that we don't have your constitution doesn't mean that we don't have broadly the same rights.
yes, but in terms of what M$ sells as it's windows-for-ordinary-desktop-PCs, it was those six products in that order that lead up to Windows 7 - how they've chosen to construct them doesn't really matter.
The point that I was making was that Windows 2000 wasn't sold to (for instance) the home user (much). Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME, so it's out of place, even if it should be in the list (which it shouldn't).
Windows 7 is the 7th product to be sold to the 'home\office desktop' market. 2000 wasn't aimed at that market.
My mentioning the technology that it was based on was a bit of a red herring.
Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong. It should be:
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 95\98\ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
There was a seperate branch of:
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
XP, of course, being the point where desktop windows & workstation\server windows got joined into one product line (based on NT). Didn't everyone know this already?
ok, I don't know what avenue is used for the prosecution of child porn stuff in the US - in the UK 'accessing' isn't specifically a crime, it's the making of the copy (even a temporary one) on the viewer's own computer which constitutes an offence.
The UK court has power to try the defendant for no reason other than because they say that they do. As a physical example - say that he had a PO box in LA, and he used the physical mail to send the material to himself - would that be distribution? Now say that he had a magic PO box which could copy what he posted to it, and send it back out. Now, I agree that the magic box would be incapable of independent action, and so he would still be liable to prosecution for whatever he instructed it to do, but it's only sensible that he should be liable in the country where the box was at the time that it was doing the stuff that he told it to do.
no, see in the past freedom of speech, habeus corpus, and all that jazz was just seen as the unshakeable way that things were and ought to be, so nobody bothered to codify them into law. They didn't bank on the recent gaggle of dangerous morons occupying westminster, and it's coming back to bite us in the behind.
OTOH, they did bring the Convention into domestic law, so there is a recent codification of the protection of free speech - its effect just hasn't pervaded into law making yet.
Extradition treaties normally have a "well that's not illegal here, so we're not going to help your prosecute them for it there" get-out clause in them. Though, frankly, your subscription to the waving a piece of paper around saying "we must, it says so here" viewpoint is somewhat scary.
I wouldn't say that they knew it - it's been pretty widely held (for about the last 10 years - since these for of question started cropping up), at least amongst the technological community, that the only practical way of determining jurisdiction on the internet was to go by the location of the server.
What Mr Justice McMoron has done here is actually strike a blow against the rule of law. In this case the servers were located in the US - the accused lived in the UK so that's apparently enough for jurisdiction, but that leaves us only one step away from the chaotic nightmare of courts deciding that they have jurisidction on the sole basis that the material is accessible from their country. At that point, the proverbial will hit the fan - there will be so little material which isn't illegal somewhere that one will be able to put nothing on line.
Justice McMoron has simply made a mindless and irrational power-grab, and taken a pretty big step towards wrecking the internet in the process.
being on the board when the corporate charter gets revoked gets you barred from being on the board of any other company for 10 years. That's largely how it works in the UK (except that it's 5 years, and is the regulation for a limited company going bankrupt rather than being hypothetically shut down).
That's meaningless, the programmed rules of the game are analagous to the laws of physics. Just because you can punch someone on the nose doesn't mean that you should, or that they should just shrug their shoulders and go "well, physics allows it, so I'm ok with it"
The car analogy isn't so good - in that situation a person obeying the twenty-over convention is, strictly, breaking the actual law and would be fair game for getting a ticket for it. This is about obeying the convention when there is no cost for doing so.
another example: Bodyline in cricket. This is particularly relevant because the players ruining the game soon found that it could have consequences outside the game, when a full-scale diplomatic spat was started over the practice.
depends - does the guy who wants to play baseball starting pitching the ball at the sunbathers?
But he hasn't done much research on other people. most of the research he's done is on himself - given a virtual world where it's possible to be a complete asshat, even if it annoys everyone else, he will 'because it's in the rules'. The only research that he's done on other people is confirm that when you wreck of people's fun, they'll let you know what they think about it.
The Export Control Officer could well have been applying the Rhodesia Solution. What was the nature of his warning? An email that Prof. Roth didn't get until he returned? A quick "make sure not to take ITAR stuff with you to China"?
Virtually all higher-level science sounds like it might come unter ITAR control, and the only way that you can really know is when you get back and are told that that information was controlled.
I'm not - if he were a judge, he'd be disqualified from being a juror.
only if the defence go "hang on, that's incorrect, we'd better get an expert witness in to refute that" (which they won't do, because they're not experts themselves), and even then, the defendant now has to rely on the jury (if they even have one) deciding that the defence expert witness is more reliable than the prosecution one.
it pisses off PETA no end, which is a practical application, even if they're right this time (subjecting defencesless insects to a horrible death for the hell of it is just twisted)
so they delivered injustice, not as a result of ignorance (as is usually the case), but as some sort of personal vendetta?
or, apply for the job, and refuse on the drug test. They can either drop the test, or drop you from the application process after expending hundreds, or even thousands of dollars of effort on moving you through it. If you get through to the final interview, and they say "congratulations, you've got the job, now go pee in this cup" and you refuse, they can scrap all the stuff they did to get you there, or give up trying to test you. Having to let the best candidate slip through their fingers repeatedly might also wake them up to how boneheaded the policy is - they won't figure that out if you just sit at home.
no, that's not entirely true. The actual story is far more releveant though.
A local doctor, who fancied himself an amateur mathematician 'invented' some proof regarding circles which also dropped out the value of pi as exactly 3.25. He they passed this to a friend in the state legislature and got it written into a bill, such that Indiana would have free use of his proof in school textbooks, etc., in exchange for protecting his 'invention' against other people ripping it off. The lower house pushed it around a few committees (who pushed it to other committees, wondering why it had come to them) before passing the lower house fairly overwhelmingly - many members commenting how they didn't understand it, but that if he was willing to let them use it for free, they were all for it. In the upper house, it passed its first reading and got packed off to some more committees. At that point, a professor of mathematics, who happened to be visiting to lobby for university funding, got wind of this bill; looked at it, picked his jaw back up from the floor, and promptly briefed a bunch of the state senators on what they needed to know about it. The bill was torn apart on its second reading in the upper house, then quietly forgotten.