That's not true. The US Constitution has a clause treating treaties as part of the supreme law of the land. The amendment to prevent treaties from being used to circumvent constitutional law never passed (I wonder why).
Also, I'm usually in favor of honesty in all things, but trying to get on a jury is one of those instances where I wouldn't mind if you fudged things a little. Not too much, but enough to say, "I don't know what jury nullification is," or, "I think I could apply the death penalty if it was warranted."
Well it aint New Zealand. We have Official Information Act requests denied for the same reason.
Who said the third party was a country, anyway?
(Also, the next person to say "China" gets hit with a stick. The parties in this treaty are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and United States. No China).
Because it isn't supposed to be about copyright. It is supposed to be about counterfeiting. The issues dealing with counterfeiting of monetary instruments ARE a national security concern.
Bzzzt. Wrong. This treaty was always about counterfeit TRADE. I.e. it was about counterfeit products (such as fake iPods and Gucci sunglasses) and was always intended to protect only mega-corporates. Somehow though the copyright lobby managed to jump on the back of the trademark and patent lobby.
level 2 prohibited material means:
(a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
(b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.
10.102:
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area. Penalty: 100 penalty units.
There are actually only three levels to consider. Banned and Refused Classification are the SAME THING.
Also there's no real 'ban' here. You can still import the game or order it online, no problems. You just can't stock it on retail shelves in Australia because it hasn't been officially rated. The lack of a R18 rating meant the game couldn't be fit into any of the rating categories the classification board had available to it. Not much they can do about it.
Wrong. It is illegal to possess anything refused classification. At all. Go read the act.
level 2 prohibited material means:
(a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
(b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.
10.102:
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area. Penalty: 100 penalty units.
Our Parallel import laws are another thing, this way we can get around these stupid RC classifications as we can order games from the US, UK or Asia (Hong Kong being quite popular) so for PC gamers this isn't so much of an issue, for console gamers you still have to contend with the region locks.
Wrong. It is illegal to possess a game classified RC - same as in NZ. You can actually get yourself arrested by importing it from overseas.
Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...
To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?
On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers? At least with Wikipedia, it's often quickly reverted (and in most cases they wouldn't even know if it wasn't possible to go trawling through the history), yet newspapers often never retract their bullshit.
Wikimedia's legal team can - and do - revert entries and leave no history entry. They can (and do) also perma-delete some entries.
Think of Program Files as/bin. You wouldn't let your apps put stuff in/bin would you? Programs should store per-machine data in ProgramData (or All Users\Application Data for lower than Vista), which is more equivalent to/etc.
This statement is false. It's vaguely truthful in the sense that these the things mentioned exist, but attempting to use the OS it all falls apart.
Their file browser does not work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
False. Windows Explorer and even old Windows File Manager work perfectly fine with LUA (Limited User Accounts)
Can't schedule a task in anything less than Administrator mode.
True, but not as much of a big deal - it's infrequent for a limited user to need to schedule something
Windows update doesn't work at all in less than Administrator mode. Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
False. In Vista and higher, Update works fine in LUA scenarios. For XP and lower, you can elevate privileges with a single right click and a password entry.
The is just the top of my list. I know this because I admin windows 2000 on-up servers as less than admin and run into stupid issues like this *every* *single* *day.*
Apparently you don't admin Windows Server 2008 machines, and do a very poor job of adminning Windows NT4 and higher servers (runas has existed since, what NT 3.51?)
If BugMeNot doesn't have a valid username, I tend to make one with random details and then drop that into BMN's database.
Until suddenly, one day, you try to submit a username to receive the message "This site has been barred from the bugmenot system".
Even BugMeNot realises that they are intentionally going against the way someone wants to run their site and that there are legitimate reasons to require logins.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. The US Constitution has a clause treating treaties as part of the supreme law of the land. The amendment to prevent treaties from being used to circumvent constitutional law never passed (I wonder why).
Also, I'm usually in favor of honesty in all things, but trying to get on a jury is one of those instances where I wouldn't mind if you fudged things a little. Not too much, but enough to say, "I don't know what jury nullification is," or, "I think I could apply the death penalty if it was warranted."
Since when have juries decided the sentence?
China's not part of the negotiations anyway.
Well it aint New Zealand. We have Official Information Act requests denied for the same reason.
Who said the third party was a country, anyway?
(Also, the next person to say "China" gets hit with a stick. The parties in this treaty are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and United States. No China).
Because it isn't supposed to be about copyright. It is supposed to be about counterfeiting. The issues dealing with counterfeiting of monetary instruments ARE a national security concern.
Bzzzt. Wrong. This treaty was always about counterfeit TRADE. I.e. it was about counterfeit products (such as fake iPods and Gucci sunglasses) and was always intended to protect only mega-corporates. Somehow though the copyright lobby managed to jump on the back of the trademark and patent lobby.
That second link is this but Slashdot fucked it up as usual.
Google reckons you're wrong. And Wiktionary reckons it has the diaeresis, or at least is not wrong to have it (not like we trust anything from Wikimedia, of course).
I'd check Oxford too (I trust them more than Webster) but apparently they charge for access to it.
If you install Outlook, iTunes will sync calendar and contacts by the way.
And the Windows version has COM interops (so, VBScript support).
Does either version have a graphic equaliser?
I think we'd rather Apple did. At least Apple realises there is a "rest of the world".
And of course it will be changed to only be usable within the iTunes interface, and use Quicktime to stream the music. Yuck.
Wrong and Citation needed.
And you're still wrong.
From the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
10.99:
level 2 prohibited material means:
(a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
(b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.
10.102:
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
There are actually only three levels to consider. Banned and Refused Classification are the SAME THING.
Also there's no real 'ban' here. You can still import the game or order it online, no problems. You just can't stock it on retail shelves in Australia because it hasn't been officially rated. The lack of a R18 rating meant the game couldn't be fit into any of the rating categories the classification board had available to it. Not much they can do about it.
Wrong. It is illegal to possess anything refused classification. At all. Go read the act.
And here's a citation:
From the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
10.99:
level 2 prohibited material means:
(a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
(b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.
10.102:
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
I dunno about your experiences but to me the thing that made the kids most violent was that stupid TV show with "power rangers".
Hell, New Zealand BANNED it!
Our Parallel import laws are another thing, this way we can get around these stupid RC classifications as we can order games from the US, UK or Asia (Hong Kong being quite popular) so for PC gamers this isn't so much of an issue, for console gamers you still have to contend with the region locks.
Wrong. It is illegal to possess a game classified RC - same as in NZ. You can actually get yourself arrested by importing it from overseas.
No, Refused Classification makes it illegal to possess at all. In fact, just like in New Zealand, it is illegal to possess anything that would probably be refused classification if it were to be submitted!
So if Microsoft won, they'd own the government under this scheme?
Oh wait...
I don't know... SharePoint has a function called "object AbandonAllHope();"
(Found in assembly Microsoft.Office.InfoPath.Server, in class Microsoft.Office.InfoPath.Server.Serialization.EnhancedBinaryReader)
Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...
To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?
On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers? At least with Wikipedia, it's often quickly reverted (and in most cases they wouldn't even know if it wasn't possible to go trawling through the history), yet newspapers often never retract their bullshit.
Wikimedia's legal team can - and do - revert entries and leave no history entry. They can (and do) also perma-delete some entries.
Ditto for me.
What was the GP saying again?
Think of Program Files as /bin. You wouldn't let your apps put stuff in /bin would you? Programs should store per-machine data in ProgramData (or All Users\Application Data for lower than Vista), which is more equivalent to /etc.
This statement is false. It's vaguely truthful in the sense that these the things mentioned exist, but attempting to use the OS it all falls apart.
Their file browser does not work correctly in less than Administrator mode.
False. Windows Explorer and even old Windows File Manager work perfectly fine with LUA (Limited User Accounts)
Can't schedule a task in anything less than Administrator mode.
True, but not as much of a big deal - it's infrequent for a limited user to need to schedule something
Windows update doesn't work at all in less than Administrator mode. Errors out, with no way to elevate privileges.
False. In Vista and higher, Update works fine in LUA scenarios. For XP and lower, you can elevate privileges with a single right click and a password entry.
The is just the top of my list. I know this because I admin windows 2000 on-up servers as less than admin and run into stupid issues like this *every* *single* *day.*
Apparently you don't admin Windows Server 2008 machines, and do a very poor job of adminning Windows NT4 and higher servers (runas has existed since, what NT 3.51?)
So, Windows 7 security model then?
But really, why shouldn't he? If he's the only user on the system, why should he have to use sudoers?
If BugMeNot doesn't have a valid username, I tend to make one with random details and then drop that into BMN's database.
Until suddenly, one day, you try to submit a username to receive the message "This site has been barred from the bugmenot system".
Even BugMeNot realises that they are intentionally going against the way someone wants to run their site and that there are legitimate reasons to require logins.