Shorely proven and alledged. It would be a comedy legal system in which the plaintiff must withdraw his allegations whenever a defendant is found guilty. That would bring the law into disrepute relatively quickly, IMO.
But a proton is a hydrogen ion, and elements pass through ionised states in reactions all the time. You haven't really made an element when all you've done is involved it in a reaction during which an electron gets stripped off or added for a short time.
However, Hydrogen gas has chemical formula H2, and this is neither the same as, nor part of H20 or polycrystalline Na. So the claim to have created hydrogen gas is valid.
I picked your pocket yesterday and nicked 200 dollars (approx. the license fee) out of your wallet.
Because I HAVE ALREADY had away your cash, there's no moral problem with me spending it on a romantic night out with your wife/husband, because it's a "sunk cost". If you think I'm being parasitical, go tell your government representitive instead of using your right of free speech to rant about it on Slashdot.
Note to pedantic moderators: I didn't really nick any of Kadin's money and strongly suspect he/she doesn't even have a wife/husband/whatever.
The problem is the BBC isn't any old public domain provider. They are a big media operation funded by several billion pounds of direct taxation plus multiple profit streams from side-enterprises.
These aren't a few whiz-kids at a PC inventing some cool program to show off their l33t skillz, or an underfunded local council reluctantly fulfilling their legal requirement to provide a minimally functional tourist info booth.
No, there is money and power at the BBC, and a desire to expand both of those things as far as possible. The BBC is just as capable of killing off competition by dumping value into the public domain as, say, MS.
Here's another example. When the UK gubmint introduced a national lottery a few years ago, they put it in the hands of a private firm and required them to redistribute a proportion of the revinue to "good-ish" causes: causes that didn't quite warrent direct government funding. The BBC then competed with independent (commercial) television for the broadcast rights to the lottery programme, and won. The BBC pay a vast sum each week to the lottery company for these rights.
But the BBC are funded by direct taxation (wheras playing the lottery is optional, the BBC license fee is not). This money is going to the lottery company and lottery-funded causes contrary to the principles on which the lottery was set up. ITV could and would have made an equally good lottery programme. The only possible reason for the BBC to do this is to up their viewing figures by using tax money to grab viewers away from commercial television.
Except that they are not encouraging vendor lock-in. Nothing that the BBC is doing is going to force people to use their service.
The license fee is compulsory for anyone who uses TV receiving equipment - virtually everyone. So people are forced to pay for it.
The BBC symphonies don't include special features that speaker manufacturers will use that will prevent me from listening to other symphonies on them.
The analogy isn't about the allegations of crippleware; merely the monopolistic business practice evident in both situations.
In short, I am completely free to buy the Herbert von Karajan recordings of the symphonies (get a Mac?) without any interference from the BBC and without suffering any ill effects.
You're free to either pay for the BBCs recordings or both the BBCs recordings and one or more commercial recording. State enforcement of the license fee makes these the only two options available to you.
- Consumers are being forced to pay for the BBC to produce those recordings via the BBC's license fee, which is a compulsory tax for those with a TV set. This means that to buy the commercial version you must pay for both: hardly fair competition.
- Due to the huge size of the BBC it can empoloy monopolistic tactics such as using a loss leader to kill off competition. It can also afford to buy any technology it needs even if that technology was developed at risk by smaller commercial organisations.
- In the absence of commecial competition, how likely is the BBC to continue providing this content at the same quality and price. The BBC is mandated to provide free TV, radio and website, but all other aspects of the business are revinue-generating.
Basically, the BBC should avoid doing what can be adequately be provided by the commercial sector. Thing like classical recordings made by the BBC are not free; they will be paid for by us one way or another.
Why are we still having buffer overflows? There's a compile option in Visual C++ that allows automatic buffer overflow protection. Does GCC have this switch? If so, why not?
Developers who GPL their software are encouraged to assign the copyright to the FSF. This means FSF are building up control over an impressive collection of software: certainly enough to cause big probs to the Linux distributors if the licencing conditions were to change. I expect the sum value of these copyrights runs to 100s of millions or billions of dollars.
I heard that it takes 45 minutes to write a new license for some code. But that claim is unsubstantiated.
There's no way a company would admit to rejecting a job applicant for that reason. It may be the reason but no empolyer in their right mind would admit it.
It would be begging for (a) a stroppy reply from condidate, (b) bad press and (c) possible legal action ("...but my religion demands I am honest in all matters...").
I think the parent must be an urban myth.
Grow your own iPod
on
Real Wood iPod
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Of course, a genetically modified tree could grow iPods in place of branches.
TFA states that he was fired for his opinion, then it states that he was fired for failing do disclose that he was involved in civil proceedings.
We need to see a statement by the employer in order to know which is true. The Guardian openly admits to being a little left of centre and may be biased against the employer in this story.
Also, I cannot believe the company would have employed him if they had known his position and involvement in anti-copyright activism. This is why employers apply probation (and UK law permits this): so that if you find out right after employing someone that they're not right for the job you can still get rid of them fairly easily (though many companies don't bother due to the astronomical cost of recruitment).
Re:I've noticed this at work...
on
Got Game
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like typical CEO behavior when compensation is primarily stock options with short holding periods
CEO's are gamers, and your job is their virtual world!
Most people with 0 edits in the last 30 seconds appear to have dropped in rank by a number of places approximately equal to 10% of their current rank, pretty much thoughout the list.
In other words, if you don't post for 30 days, your editing rank drops by 10%.
Or, to put it another way, for any given number of edits Np, the number of contributors who have done more edits than that goes up by 10% every 30 days or about 0.33% per day.
Fascinating.
Slashdot Mirror
Shorely proven and alledged. It would be a comedy legal system in which the plaintiff must withdraw his allegations whenever a defendant is found guilty. That would bring the law into disrepute relatively quickly, IMO.
I tried to produce that but all I got was hydroxic acid. Then I invented internet explorer.
However, Hydrogen gas has chemical formula H2, and this is neither the same as, nor part of H20 or polycrystalline Na. So the claim to have created hydrogen gas is valid.
This sig is interesting because it accuses some straw-man of abusing the term "terrorism" by, er, abusing the word "terrorism".
Shame really, because I heartly agree with the rest of the article.
...sit closer to your monitor!
Because I HAVE ALREADY had away your cash, there's no moral problem with me spending it on a romantic night out with your wife/husband, because it's a "sunk cost". If you think I'm being parasitical, go tell your government representitive instead of using your right of free speech to rant about it on Slashdot.
Note to pedantic moderators: I didn't really nick any of Kadin's money and strongly suspect he/she doesn't even have a wife/husband/whatever.
These aren't a few whiz-kids at a PC inventing some cool program to show off their l33t skillz, or an underfunded local council reluctantly fulfilling their legal requirement to provide a minimally functional tourist info booth.
No, there is money and power at the BBC, and a desire to expand both of those things as far as possible. The BBC is just as capable of killing off competition by dumping value into the public domain as, say, MS.
Here's another example. When the UK gubmint introduced a national lottery a few years ago, they put it in the hands of a private firm and required them to redistribute a proportion of the revinue to "good-ish" causes: causes that didn't quite warrent direct government funding. The BBC then competed with independent (commercial) television for the broadcast rights to the lottery programme, and won. The BBC pay a vast sum each week to the lottery company for these rights.
But the BBC are funded by direct taxation (wheras playing the lottery is optional, the BBC license fee is not). This money is going to the lottery company and lottery-funded causes contrary to the principles on which the lottery was set up. ITV could and would have made an equally good lottery programme. The only possible reason for the BBC to do this is to up their viewing figures by using tax money to grab viewers away from commercial television.
The license fee is compulsory for anyone who uses TV receiving equipment - virtually everyone. So people are forced to pay for it.
The BBC symphonies don't include special features that speaker manufacturers will use that will prevent me from listening to other symphonies on them.
The analogy isn't about the allegations of crippleware; merely the monopolistic business practice evident in both situations.
In short, I am completely free to buy the Herbert von Karajan recordings of the symphonies (get a Mac?) without any interference from the BBC and without suffering any ill effects.
You're free to either pay for the BBCs recordings or both the BBCs recordings and one or more commercial recording. State enforcement of the license fee makes these the only two options available to you.
- Consumers are being forced to pay for the BBC to produce those recordings via the BBC's license fee, which is a compulsory tax for those with a TV set. This means that to buy the commercial version you must pay for both: hardly fair competition.
- Due to the huge size of the BBC it can empoloy monopolistic tactics such as using a loss leader to kill off competition. It can also afford to buy any technology it needs even if that technology was developed at risk by smaller commercial organisations.
- In the absence of commecial competition, how likely is the BBC to continue providing this content at the same quality and price. The BBC is mandated to provide free TV, radio and website, but all other aspects of the business are revinue-generating.
Basically, the BBC should avoid doing what can be adequately be provided by the commercial sector. Thing like classical recordings made by the BBC are not free; they will be paid for by us one way or another.
"None!"
If so why not? - and if not, why so?
Why why not but not if not? Why not not?
I heard that it takes 45 minutes to write a new license for some code. But that claim is unsubstantiated.
It would be begging for (a) a stroppy reply from condidate, (b) bad press and (c) possible legal action ("...but my religion demands I am honest in all matters...").
I think the parent must be an urban myth.
Of course, a genetically modified tree could grow iPods in place of branches.
We need to see a statement by the employer in order to know which is true. The Guardian openly admits to being a little left of centre and may be biased against the employer in this story.
Also, I cannot believe the company would have employed him if they had known his position and involvement in anti-copyright activism. This is why employers apply probation (and UK law permits this): so that if you find out right after employing someone that they're not right for the job you can still get rid of them fairly easily (though many companies don't bother due to the astronomical cost of recruitment).
CEO's are gamers, and your job is their virtual world!
He who denied it supplied it
Most people with 0 edits in the last 30 seconds appear to have dropped in rank by a number of places approximately equal to 10% of their current rank, pretty much thoughout the list. In other words, if you don't post for 30 days, your editing rank drops by 10%. Or, to put it another way, for any given number of edits Np, the number of contributors who have done more edits than that goes up by 10% every 30 days or about 0.33% per day. Fascinating.
process:9 Statement not executed