"It is not legal (in WI anyhow) to profit or operate a business using public assets (the PC he was given to use.)"
Yes! No more taxies! The road is a public asset, afterall.
no, they should increase the cost of the license by a factor of about 1000. If the big corp declines it doesn't look so bad on the little guy. If the big corp accepts, they start paying for both sides of the lawsuit.
Right up until your ISP sees packets coming in from a competitors IPTV service and 'shapes' the connection by randomly delaying all those packets by between 1 and 5 seconds leaving them horribly lagged and completely out of order. You go back to using your ISP's homebred IPTV service because it works flawlessly.
Or if M$ pays your ISP a jawdropping sum of money to delay all your communication with google, yahoo and ask.com by 10 seconds each way and randomly drop 25% of all the packets, driving you to MSNsearch.
Some QoS packet shaping is necessary, what needs to be done is to ensure that deciding what filtering rules to apply is determined solely by sane rules (like, these packets need priority because this technology won't work without them having priority) and most definitely not 'who pays the most money'. Likewise all packets that are equal from a technical standpoint (HTTP packets from M$, google, slashdot and anicecupofteaandasitdown.com, say) need to be treated equally - there's no technical reason not to treat them equally. Making sure that they are not, therefore, treated differently is what this legislation should be aiming for. How you define 'good technical reason' and what you do to ensure compliance, on the other hand, should keep m'learned friends busy for hours.
replace the Jury with a/. poll, it's so obvious: 1) Evil patent-troll plaintiff with a patent on obvious technology wins 2) Poor defenceless defendant wins 3) Shoot all the lawyers, we all win 4) Cowboyneal wins
The stone is a unit of weight and mass. It is part of the Imperial system of weights and measures used in the British Isles, and formerly used in most Commonwealth countries. It is equal to 14 pounds avoirdupois, or 6.35029318 kilograms.
see the look of inconsolable sadness on my face::-)
Too bad my university won't have migrated away to a proper email system (by which I mean one where I can access my email from outside uni by using something other than squirrelmail) by the time I leave.
I've just installed 10.2. It's pretty, stable and works. ATi graphics are still a pain (have to follow a 14-step instruction list and compile yourself in a terminal, which is daunting) but it can be done. Zenworks is broken (or at least, mine is and tells me this everytime my computer boots) but I don't use Zenworks, so I don't care (I should uninstall it to get rid of the errors, but it's low on the priority list).
These things are a pain for a newbie (I'm not a complete newbie, but I've had to call in some help to get a few things working).
The real thing that annoys me about opensuse is that certain parts come deliberately crippled (like getting a xine engine that won't play mp3's) and no visible instructions on how to un-cripple. It takes some cajoling to get yast to install xine from packman instead and it would be a whole lot easier if, since they can't provide a non-crippled version, they didn't provide one at all. (so you know any version that you do get will work). Ditto for having to go get libdecss source and compiling it yourself.
I did have some difficult persuading it to partition my HD the way I wanted (in the end, the install got it's way) and that could be VERY hard for a newbie to get their head around if they want anything other than the default settings (like making sure to leave/dev/hda1 for windows because it won't work anywhere else).
Suse's installer needs work, like;
being able to change your installation source without starting again
going back and fixing errors without starting again
defaulting to looking up an installation source rather than having people type in ip addresses and folder trees (which should be a last resort)
Yeah, but whoever operates their merchant account will have records of the source of all incoming payments. Personally, I'd have thought they'd have done better to try and argue that transferring the funds for 'illegal' copyright infringement is itself illegal and subpoenaed Visa and Mastercard to trawl their payment records to find everyone who ever transferred cash to AoMP3, but then the banks probably don't want the bad PR of selling their customers out and have deep pockets to fight it with.
Incorrect attribution. It was General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett looking at the wrong side of the map. Also the quote is wrong; "God, it's a barren, featureless desert out there!"
Nice job on getting Lt. George's complete name right though.
sadly, these are civil cases where (thanks to statutory damages) far more draconian punishments can be meted out (like utter financial ruin that can't be cleared by declaring bankrupcy) on flimsier evidence.
I love (meaning deplore) it when common knowledge is an 'offical secret'. Example, the BT Tower, a 175m tall structure in London was an offical secret until 1994, so it didn't actually exist (Reference)... This is, of course, extremely stupid because it gives an opening for people to be prosecuted over the taking a photo of it if the government of the time happens to have a grudge against that person.
sample question from the driving theory test in the UK (paraphrased):
"You are travelling at the spped limit. A car comes up behind you and flashes their lights at you requesting to overtake. Do you:
a) Speed up
b) Slow down
c) Maintain your speed
d) Sound your horn"
The correct answer is c. Frankly, when you go about trying to blind the person infront of you by flashing full beams into their rear-view mirror (particularly at night) for doing nothing more than following Driving Standards Agency advice, you deserve everything you get. Up to and including a stinger missile.
In most police forces, the only officers who carry tasers are those who are designated members of armed response units (who only get called in if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed with something that trumps a knight stick or CS spray). So, to the question of 'would the officer pulling her over have done that?' I'd have to answer; no. Getting someone out of their car is not an urgent action and therefore does not need extreme use of force.
report it to your telephone company / credit card company and get those numbers changed. Then be a bit more careful with them?
Stop reading those particular fora (they can say bad things about you all they like - if you don't read it it won't affect you) and sign up for at new fora with a different screen name. On the internet you have anonymity too - use it to disappear.
then whoever made that regulation is a ignorant fool. So long as the information is true, the source is valid. The idea is, that any statement of fact that you make, you back up witha specific reference. If that reference is wikipedia then whoever is reading it can take the information with as large a pinch of salt as they want, and, if they know better can point out that the statement is wrong and find the source of it (because it's specifically referenced as being from wikipedia).
Writing at the end 'information used in this report gathered from wikipedia, britannica & the journal of quantum physics' (or something) would be bad because whoever is reading it doesn't know which bits of information came from where or wether the author has assumed information that has turned out to be wrong, but that's a question of referencing ability, not the validity of one particular source. If the reader has reason to question an assertion, they can go and look up the reference, if it's wikipedia they can go and read the article, if they don't believe that they can go and follow its references. If it doesn't have any, they can just assume that the original statement in question cannot be substantiated and not rely on it for anything.
since law enforcement agencies should be able to figure out if there's a possibility that someone has committed a crime and 'aprehend' them, there's no real need for some pompus, self-important, know-nothing congressman to call for their arrest. To ward off the possibility that the law enforcement agencies might look like congress' lackeys, anyone who's arrest is 'called for' by a congressperson should be placed on a 'do not arrest' list. We do not live in a society where people get arrested because an individual member of the legislature publically calls for it to happen - let's not get ourselves into that situation.
and you think that by imposing a totally gratiuitous and unjust punishment on one person all of a sudden everyone one else will start to think "I will get caught" and will stop.
The problem with the view that 'imprisoning people will make others think that they won't get away with it' is that to make people really believe that they will get caught you need a certain level of saturation of offenders being imprisoned. For a 'crime' which a large portion of society commits regularly you have to start imprisoning a large part of your population. Then your economy collapses. Either, you have to legalise it, or you have to accept that the prison sentences handed out are doing nothing for society and only making society look injust, or you have to collapse your economy by imprisoning most of your population.
clearly, you need to start leaving an EULA on your trash:
"By reading this, you agree to an exclusive binding legal contract with [name] as to the nature of all dealing with this trash. This trash is not discarded property. This trash remains the property of [name] until such time as those individuals designated for its collection for immediate disposal remove it. At such time, ownership of this trash will transfer to the designated collecters (or their employing agency) for the explicit purpose of immediate disposal. Those found tampering with this trash will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This contract shall be construed as being formed under the law of the State of California unless otherwise prohibited by local law of competent juristiction."
That should stop the snoopers!
it certainly sounds to me (keeping the naval anaolgy) like the message is: "You launch that battleship and we'll torpedo it immediately because it could be used against us in the future". You want other countries to limit their military? fine, negotiate a treaty, just be ready to limit your own military in return. When you limit another country's military by arbitrailly destroying any assets they have that you consider a particular threat you are committing an act of war.
Now, examples of this have been about in fairly recent history (Israel bombing the Osirak reactor springs to mind) the calculation is that although you're committing an act of war, now that the other side hasn't got this capability, they won't retaliate. The problem in this situation is that the only countries that are likely to be in a position to have their satallites shot down are the same ones who have the capability to react substatially, swiftly and effectively.
The final thought is this: You have no right to deny military capability to another nation with threat of force during peacetime.
it shouldn't be 'discussed in the justice system' it should be legislated upon (in favour of the consumer) so the current brand of EULA-related FUD can be throw out and so that whether an EULA really stands up can be decided before some poor schmuck gets lumbered with a debt they can never hope to pay off in their lifetime and that they can't clear by declaring bankrupcy.
Slashdot Mirror
silence you! I have a foolproof plan for ridding us of taxies, don't try to derail it now!
"It is not legal (in WI anyhow) to profit or operate a business using public assets (the PC he was given to use.)"
Yes! No more taxies! The road is a public asset, afterall.
no, they should increase the cost of the license by a factor of about 1000. If the big corp declines it doesn't look so bad on the little guy. If the big corp accepts, they start paying for both sides of the lawsuit.
Right up until your ISP sees packets coming in from a competitors IPTV service and 'shapes' the connection by randomly delaying all those packets by between 1 and 5 seconds leaving them horribly lagged and completely out of order. You go back to using your ISP's homebred IPTV service because it works flawlessly.
Or if M$ pays your ISP a jawdropping sum of money to delay all your communication with google, yahoo and ask.com by 10 seconds each way and randomly drop 25% of all the packets, driving you to MSNsearch.
Some QoS packet shaping is necessary, what needs to be done is to ensure that deciding what filtering rules to apply is determined solely by sane rules (like, these packets need priority because this technology won't work without them having priority) and most definitely not 'who pays the most money'. Likewise all packets that are equal from a technical standpoint (HTTP packets from M$, google, slashdot and anicecupofteaandasitdown.com, say) need to be treated equally - there's no technical reason not to treat them equally. Making sure that they are not, therefore, treated differently is what this legislation should be aiming for. How you define 'good technical reason' and what you do to ensure compliance, on the other hand, should keep m'learned friends busy for hours.
replace the Jury with a /. poll, it's so obvious:
1) Evil patent-troll plaintiff with a patent on obvious technology wins
2) Poor defenceless defendant wins
3) Shoot all the lawyers, we all win
4) Cowboyneal wins
14 pounds
see the look of inconsolable sadness on my face: :-)
Too bad my university won't have migrated away to a proper email system (by which I mean one where I can access my email from outside uni by using something other than squirrelmail) by the time I leave.
These things are a pain for a newbie (I'm not a complete newbie, but I've had to call in some help to get a few things working).
The real thing that annoys me about opensuse is that certain parts come deliberately crippled (like getting a xine engine that won't play mp3's) and no visible instructions on how to un-cripple. It takes some cajoling to get yast to install xine from packman instead and it would be a whole lot easier if, since they can't provide a non-crippled version, they didn't provide one at all. (so you know any version that you do get will work). Ditto for having to go get libdecss source and compiling it yourself.
I did have some difficult persuading it to partition my HD the way I wanted (in the end, the install got it's way) and that could be VERY hard for a newbie to get their head around if they want anything other than the default settings (like making sure to leave
Suse's installer needs work, like;
- being able to change your installation source without starting again
- going back and fixing errors without starting again
- defaulting to looking up an installation source rather than having people type in ip addresses and folder trees (which should be a last resort)
Still, it works now, so I'm happy.Yeah, but whoever operates their merchant account will have records of the source of all incoming payments. Personally, I'd have thought they'd have done better to try and argue that transferring the funds for 'illegal' copyright infringement is itself illegal and subpoenaed Visa and Mastercard to trawl their payment records to find everyone who ever transferred cash to AoMP3, but then the banks probably don't want the bad PR of selling their customers out and have deep pockets to fight it with.
Incorrect attribution. It was General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett looking at the wrong side of the map. Also the quote is wrong; "God, it's a barren, featureless desert out there!"
Nice job on getting Lt. George's complete name right though.
sadly, these are civil cases where (thanks to statutory damages) far more draconian punishments can be meted out (like utter financial ruin that can't be cleared by declaring bankrupcy) on flimsier evidence.
I love (meaning deplore) it when common knowledge is an 'offical secret'. Example, the BT Tower, a 175m tall structure in London was an offical secret until 1994, so it didn't actually exist (Reference)... This is, of course, extremely stupid because it gives an opening for people to be prosecuted over the taking a photo of it if the government of the time happens to have a grudge against that person.
the original stealth research on which the F-117 was based was done by a Russian. I'd say they have a fairly good idea of how it works.
sample question from the driving theory test in the UK (paraphrased):
"You are travelling at the spped limit. A car comes up behind you and flashes their lights at you requesting to overtake. Do you:
a) Speed up
b) Slow down
c) Maintain your speed
d) Sound your horn"
The correct answer is c. Frankly, when you go about trying to blind the person infront of you by flashing full beams into their rear-view mirror (particularly at night) for doing nothing more than following Driving Standards Agency advice, you deserve everything you get. Up to and including a stinger missile.
"You are superior to us in only one regard" "What is that?" "You are better than us at dy-ing" Daleks trash-talking... gotta love it
In most police forces, the only officers who carry tasers are those who are designated members of armed response units (who only get called in if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed with something that trumps a knight stick or CS spray). So, to the question of 'would the officer pulling her over have done that?' I'd have to answer; no. Getting someone out of their car is not an urgent action and therefore does not need extreme use of force.
report it to your telephone company / credit card company and get those numbers changed. Then be a bit more careful with them?
Stop reading those particular fora (they can say bad things about you all they like - if you don't read it it won't affect you) and sign up for at new fora with a different screen name. On the internet you have anonymity too - use it to disappear.
then whoever made that regulation is a ignorant fool. So long as the information is true, the source is valid. The idea is, that any statement of fact that you make, you back up witha specific reference. If that reference is wikipedia then whoever is reading it can take the information with as large a pinch of salt as they want, and, if they know better can point out that the statement is wrong and find the source of it (because it's specifically referenced as being from wikipedia). Writing at the end 'information used in this report gathered from wikipedia, britannica & the journal of quantum physics' (or something) would be bad because whoever is reading it doesn't know which bits of information came from where or wether the author has assumed information that has turned out to be wrong, but that's a question of referencing ability, not the validity of one particular source. If the reader has reason to question an assertion, they can go and look up the reference, if it's wikipedia they can go and read the article, if they don't believe that they can go and follow its references. If it doesn't have any, they can just assume that the original statement in question cannot be substantiated and not rely on it for anything.
since law enforcement agencies should be able to figure out if there's a possibility that someone has committed a crime and 'aprehend' them, there's no real need for some pompus, self-important, know-nothing congressman to call for their arrest. To ward off the possibility that the law enforcement agencies might look like congress' lackeys, anyone who's arrest is 'called for' by a congressperson should be placed on a 'do not arrest' list. We do not live in a society where people get arrested because an individual member of the legislature publically calls for it to happen - let's not get ourselves into that situation.
and you think that by imposing a totally gratiuitous and unjust punishment on one person all of a sudden everyone one else will start to think "I will get caught" and will stop.
The problem with the view that 'imprisoning people will make others think that they won't get away with it' is that to make people really believe that they will get caught you need a certain level of saturation of offenders being imprisoned. For a 'crime' which a large portion of society commits regularly you have to start imprisoning a large part of your population. Then your economy collapses.
Either, you have to legalise it, or you have to accept that the prison sentences handed out are doing nothing for society and only making society look injust, or you have to collapse your economy by imprisoning most of your population.
Starcraft: Ghost was quietly canned about six months back. You'll be waiting a long time.
clearly, you need to start leaving an EULA on your trash: "By reading this, you agree to an exclusive binding legal contract with [name] as to the nature of all dealing with this trash. This trash is not discarded property. This trash remains the property of [name] until such time as those individuals designated for its collection for immediate disposal remove it. At such time, ownership of this trash will transfer to the designated collecters (or their employing agency) for the explicit purpose of immediate disposal. Those found tampering with this trash will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This contract shall be construed as being formed under the law of the State of California unless otherwise prohibited by local law of competent juristiction."
That should stop the snoopers!
it certainly sounds to me (keeping the naval anaolgy) like the message is: "You launch that battleship and we'll torpedo it immediately because it could be used against us in the future". You want other countries to limit their military? fine, negotiate a treaty, just be ready to limit your own military in return. When you limit another country's military by arbitrailly destroying any assets they have that you consider a particular threat you are committing an act of war.
Now, examples of this have been about in fairly recent history (Israel bombing the Osirak reactor springs to mind) the calculation is that although you're committing an act of war, now that the other side hasn't got this capability, they won't retaliate. The problem in this situation is that the only countries that are likely to be in a position to have their satallites shot down are the same ones who have the capability to react substatially, swiftly and effectively.
The final thought is this: You have no right to deny military capability to another nation with threat of force during peacetime.
it shouldn't be 'discussed in the justice system' it should be legislated upon (in favour of the consumer) so the current brand of EULA-related FUD can be throw out and so that whether an EULA really stands up can be decided before some poor schmuck gets lumbered with a debt they can never hope to pay off in their lifetime and that they can't clear by declaring bankrupcy.