This has nothing to do whatsoever with left wing. The Tories in Britain are not exactly left wing. Anyway, since when has it been left wing propaganda to be against alcohol or any other drugs?
These three didn't die in 2016 but in 1942. These three men entered a sinking German U-Boat to recover the code books on board. They recovered materials, entered the U-boat again, recovered more materials, entered the U-Boat again, and it sank. They fully knew that once the U-Boat was going down, there was no way to escape.
Two of them received the second highest award possible - not the highest award, because they were not under enemy fire.
Talk about naive. A seven year old absolutely needs to be supervised when using a mobile or any internet connected device. The most maddening part of this is that he seems to be expecting Apple to babysit his kid.
Absolutely not. Only if the parents need to be supervised when using a mobile device as well. Apple allows you the following settings: 1. Password for every purchase. 2. Password for every purchase, but no further password for 15 minutes. 3. No password for free purchases. 4. No in-app purchases whatsoever. 5. Have no credit or debit card registered but use giftcards which cannot be overdrawn. 6. Have a family account where junior can buy what they like on their device, but the purchase only goes through if dad says "yes" on dad's device.
The real solution is to give them a $10 gift card, and let them loose. If the money is gone in five minutes and isn't replaced by dad for a week, that should improve critical thinking and maths abilities far more than $10 worth.
Free to play games are based on attracting "whales." The vast majority of players pay nothing and just use whatever free stuff they get. The "whales" on the other hand spend thousands of dollars on the game. It's not unexpected for someone to spend that much money on virtual dinosaurs. In fact, it's what Apple EXPECTS.
I don't know what Apple expects, and neither do you. I personally think they expect to make billions from selling hardware, and everything else is small change.
On one website (notalwaysright.com) they published the story of a woman going to her bank to check out if some payments had been correct. Everything she checked looked fine, then the bank employee asked about the SEVEN HUNDRED payments of $0.99 each - turned out she played Candy Crush and was too impatient to wait for new lifes. (More frugal gamers have three or four games, and by the time one runs out of lives the next one has full lives available).
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all. Yes they are entertainment products but they should have limits on their abusive nature. I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
I don't quite see the problem. Either the purchaser is a legally competent adult, or he/she isn't. In this case the purchaser was a child, not a competent adult. So no legal contract was entered and the money should be refunded. I'd say the competent adult (the father) should be responsible for any actual damages caused by him not taking car - but that would be for example credit card fees, so a few dollars at most.
On the other hand, if you, assuming that you are a legally competent adult, make $5000 worth of in app purchases, then that's your own fault. It's the same as handing out $5,000 worth of dollars to strangers on the street. Maybe it would be a reason to have you declared incompetent.
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
How about if we ask how often that situation has happened at all? How many drivers have ever been in the situation where their car was definitely going to kill someone, but the driver could decide whether the car would kill someone else or the driver? Now subtract the cases where the situation was created by something stupid that the driver did. Then subtract the cases where the driver has a choice, but no chance to react fast enough to make a conscious choice. I think we will come up with a big fat zero number.
What, are we supposed to see this guy as some sort of hero or something? Forget it..
He found a dangerous criminal without doing anything even borderline illegal, so we should all very much appreciate what he was doing. If you think that he didn't get himself into the line of fire but acted from the safety of his desk, well, we don't want heroes, we want results.
True. But it IS enough to trigger statutory damages; which do not require any actual damages to be established, nor indeed to even hypothetically exist.
Maybe that is why he copies only one song again and again, because statutory damages are _per work_. This limits his risk.
And just why might German law have more privacy support than any other European nation? Trying to cover up some wrongs that are still going on, just might be the reason. A few billion dollars might be turned up, that need to be restored to those whose wealth was stolen, would be a great reason for strict privacy laws.
Every year thousands of children are born with bad birth defects in Vietnam because American bastards sprayed the country with chemicals that cause damages forty years later. A few billion dollars in damages would be just be a start. And now imagine all these Native Americans wanted the land back that was stolen from them.
She waived her right to privacy when she agreed to the production of the pictures/videos. He however would be out of line and infringing on her privacy were he to share the media outside the two of them, which he apparently did.
Some rights cannot be waived. And it should be obvious that the only permission that is given in that situation is for the private use as long as both sides agree.
It would be different if she had given permission to a random person, but it's obvious that permission was given based on having a relationship to the photographer, and once that relationship is gone, the permission is gone.
Just yesterday I gave permission to my garage to drive my car (to find some problem with the car). It's obvious that this permission is time limited for as long as it takes them to find the fault. And not longer.
But that's the point. Consent was granted. You can't retroactively revoke it. It's polite to do so, yes, but a stunning overreach of state power to make this a law. You consent to me taking your photo, that photo is mine, and that state will have to pry it from my cold dead hand. Zero tolerance for government censorship.
Consent was granted to take the picture. Fine. Consent was granted to own the picture up to some point in time. Fine. Consent was _not_ granted by a woman for someone to posess nude pictures of her after that date. Obviously the German court values the privacy of a woman higher than her ex-boyfriends right to a piece of paper and to being a wanker.
Find me anyone who hasn't broken any laws in a given day, week, or month! As many respectable sources point out, you break the law every day without even knowing it: e.g. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Nonsense. And debunked. The cases presented are extremely rare; situations that happen to very, very few people every year. "You" (most people) never break any of these laws without knowing, not once in your life. "You break the law every day without knowing it" is absolute nonsense.
So, what's happening that makes tailgaters hit the driverless cars more often than driven cars?
Are the google cars suddenly slamming on the brakes in a way that humans don't generally do?
There is one youtube video around with the actual visualised computer data of a google car in a crash. Loads of traffic going to a crossing. Something going on which causes a slowdown, and the car in front of the google car stops before the crossing, and the google car does as well, at a green traffic light. There is a _huge_ gap behind them. And a third car drives through all of that gap, not particularly fast, without _any_ effort to brake, and slams right into the google car. There was plenty of space to stop 10 or 15 meters behind the google car, but the driver just didn't.
The problem is that the programmers coded the "official" rules of the road. They forgot to code the unofficial rule. I call it rule zero, because it's the most important one. Avoid crashing at all cost.
I don't know why you call this an unofficial rule and rule zero. In German traffic law, for example, it is absolutely official and rule #1: "1. Participation in road traffic requires care and consideration at all times. 2. Anyone participating in road traffic has to behave in such a way that nobody is damaged in any way, put into danger, or inconvenienced more than necessary under the circumstances. "
The law abiding nature of them reminds me of another dilemma I've wondered about. If the car is about to crash and has become sophisticated enough to know that X maneuver would result in 5 pedestrian deaths but Y maneuver only kills the driver.
That nonsense again. 1. It doesn't happen. Ever. 2. Should it happen to a normal driver, then that driver has made some very, very seriously bad driving just before that accident. Which is why 3. It doesn't happen to a self-driving car.
So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?
Sure, possible. However, if an "innocent person" (in other words, just any regular customer) ends up on that list, it costs the shops money. So it's in their own best interest to not put anyone on the list you doesn't belong there.
True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.
Any shop is private property. Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises. If or when they do that, trying to enter the store is trespassing. No need to put you "on the list".
Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.
Anything that keeps shoplifters away, including professionals who steal on order, keeps prices down for everyone. Maybe you can explain what your problem is.
"Many" different people? It's not altogether clear, but from the article it looks like something in the range of 2-3 different people saying stupid things. Now I know that that seems like a lot for a town with only 800 people,
In my estimate, about 0.5% of any group of people are utter and total idiots. 2-3 out of 800 means this town is a good deal better than average:-)
Just thinking about another article... Takes 200 other politicians to compensate for Donald Trump...
What's a bit confusing is that the article is about Seymour Cray, the creator of super computers, but not about Cray computers. What is described is actually the Control Data computers, starting with the 6600 (I had the joy to learn with a 175).
Yes, the PPs are _not_ "parallel processors", they are "peripheral processors". The 175 had 12 "peripheral processors" with quite limited capabilities and running at 12 MHz instead of the 40 of the main computer, and exclusively responsible ofr handling I/O.
The "cache" on this machine was a 12 word times 60 bit instruction cache. You _had_ to design loops to fit into that cache, so they would run 2-3 times faster. No time wasted reading instructions from main memory.
You are missing the point. When faced with a broken device and a very high Apple repair bill (have you see how much they charge for things like new keyboards, screens and batteries?) many people will just throw the device away and buy a new one.
Only if they are stupid. Instead of throwing the device away and buying a new one, they can return the broken device to Apple for an "out of warranty repair", which means Apple takes the old device and hands over a "refurbished" device, which in practice often is brand new. The price is usually about half the price of a brand new device.
When companies can claim copyright on screws, and use the DMCA to claim you can't refill your ink cartridges... you're damned right the legal system needs fixing.
Lexmark tried that stunt with ink cartridges, and they got their legal ass handed to them. Because they didn't actually bother reading the DMCA. DMCA is supposed to prevent illegal copying of copyrighted software, and no such thing happens when you refill your ink cartridge. No copying, no DMCA.
Apparently the idiots that write these programs thought, hey, we don't need to use a reasonable Factor of Safety. They calculated they needed 93.1 units of thrust, but failed only 88.4. That means their Safety Factor was less than 1.12
They didn't actually fail. The tail touched the ground. Someone noticed the noise, some sensor went off, but otherwise the airplane was absolutely fine.
Slashdot Mirror
This has nothing to do whatsoever with left wing. The Tories in Britain are not exactly left wing. Anyway, since when has it been left wing propaganda to be against alcohol or any other drugs?
These three didn't die in 2016 but in 1942. These three men entered a sinking German U-Boat to recover the code books on board. They recovered materials, entered the U-boat again, recovered more materials, entered the U-Boat again, and it sank. They fully knew that once the U-Boat was going down, there was no way to escape.
Two of them received the second highest award possible - not the highest award, because they were not under enemy fire.
Talk about naive. A seven year old absolutely needs to be supervised when using a mobile or any internet connected device. The most maddening part of this is that he seems to be expecting Apple to babysit his kid.
Absolutely not. Only if the parents need to be supervised when using a mobile device as well. Apple allows you the following settings: 1. Password for every purchase. 2. Password for every purchase, but no further password for 15 minutes. 3. No password for free purchases. 4. No in-app purchases whatsoever. 5. Have no credit or debit card registered but use giftcards which cannot be overdrawn. 6. Have a family account where junior can buy what they like on their device, but the purchase only goes through if dad says "yes" on dad's device.
The real solution is to give them a $10 gift card, and let them loose. If the money is gone in five minutes and isn't replaced by dad for a week, that should improve critical thinking and maths abilities far more than $10 worth.
Free to play games are based on attracting "whales." The vast majority of players pay nothing and just use whatever free stuff they get. The "whales" on the other hand spend thousands of dollars on the game. It's not unexpected for someone to spend that much money on virtual dinosaurs. In fact, it's what Apple EXPECTS.
I don't know what Apple expects, and neither do you. I personally think they expect to make billions from selling hardware, and everything else is small change.
On one website (notalwaysright.com) they published the story of a woman going to her bank to check out if some payments had been correct. Everything she checked looked fine, then the bank employee asked about the SEVEN HUNDRED payments of $0.99 each - turned out she played Candy Crush and was too impatient to wait for new lifes. (More frugal gamers have three or four games, and by the time one runs out of lives the next one has full lives available).
The elephant in the room is that we, as a society, are allowing these games to exist at all. Yes they are entertainment products but they should have limits on their abusive nature. I mean if you can fleece someone for $500 on a game that no one would pay $60 for - good for you you've scammed someone but $5000+ is criminal (or rather should be).
I don't quite see the problem. Either the purchaser is a legally competent adult, or he/she isn't. In this case the purchaser was a child, not a competent adult. So no legal contract was entered and the money should be refunded. I'd say the competent adult (the father) should be responsible for any actual damages caused by him not taking car - but that would be for example credit card fees, so a few dollars at most.
On the other hand, if you, assuming that you are a legally competent adult, make $5000 worth of in app purchases, then that's your own fault. It's the same as handing out $5,000 worth of dollars to strangers on the street. Maybe it would be a reason to have you declared incompetent.
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
How about if we ask how often that situation has happened at all? How many drivers have ever been in the situation where their car was definitely going to kill someone, but the driver could decide whether the car would kill someone else or the driver? Now subtract the cases where the situation was created by something stupid that the driver did. Then subtract the cases where the driver has a choice, but no chance to react fast enough to make a conscious choice. I think we will come up with a big fat zero number.
What, are we supposed to see this guy as some sort of hero or something? Forget it..
He found a dangerous criminal without doing anything even borderline illegal, so we should all very much appreciate what he was doing. If you think that he didn't get himself into the line of fire but acted from the safety of his desk, well, we don't want heroes, we want results.
True. But it IS enough to trigger statutory damages; which do not require any actual damages to be established, nor indeed to even hypothetically exist.
Maybe that is why he copies only one song again and again, because statutory damages are _per work_. This limits his risk.
And just why might German law have more privacy support than any other European nation? Trying to cover up some wrongs that are still going on, just might be the reason. A few billion dollars might be turned up, that need to be restored to those whose wealth was stolen, would be a great reason for strict privacy laws.
Every year thousands of children are born with bad birth defects in Vietnam because American bastards sprayed the country with chemicals that cause damages forty years later. A few billion dollars in damages would be just be a start. And now imagine all these Native Americans wanted the land back that was stolen from them.
This same German court decided that it's not if you are Jewish. I have as much respect for this ruling as for that one.
Fuck you, bastard. I invite you to come to Germany and tell people to their faces.
She waived her right to privacy when she agreed to the production of the pictures/videos. He however would be out of line and infringing on her privacy were he to share the media outside the two of them, which he apparently did.
Some rights cannot be waived. And it should be obvious that the only permission that is given in that situation is for the private use as long as both sides agree.
It would be different if she had given permission to a random person, but it's obvious that permission was given based on having a relationship to the photographer, and once that relationship is gone, the permission is gone.
Just yesterday I gave permission to my garage to drive my car (to find some problem with the car). It's obvious that this permission is time limited for as long as it takes them to find the fault. And not longer.
But that's the point. Consent was granted. You can't retroactively revoke it. It's polite to do so, yes, but a stunning overreach of state power to make this a law. You consent to me taking your photo, that photo is mine, and that state will have to pry it from my cold dead hand. Zero tolerance for government censorship.
Consent was granted to take the picture. Fine. Consent was granted to own the picture up to some point in time. Fine. Consent was _not_ granted by a woman for someone to posess nude pictures of her after that date. Obviously the German court values the privacy of a woman higher than her ex-boyfriends right to a piece of paper and to being a wanker.
Find me anyone who hasn't broken any laws in a given day, week, or month! As many respectable sources point out, you break the law every day without even knowing it: e.g. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Nonsense. And debunked. The cases presented are extremely rare; situations that happen to very, very few people every year. "You" (most people) never break any of these laws without knowing, not once in your life. "You break the law every day without knowing it" is absolute nonsense.
So, what's happening that makes tailgaters hit the driverless cars more often than driven cars? Are the google cars suddenly slamming on the brakes in a way that humans don't generally do?
There is one youtube video around with the actual visualised computer data of a google car in a crash. Loads of traffic going to a crossing. Something going on which causes a slowdown, and the car in front of the google car stops before the crossing, and the google car does as well, at a green traffic light. There is a _huge_ gap behind them. And a third car drives through all of that gap, not particularly fast, without _any_ effort to brake, and slams right into the google car. There was plenty of space to stop 10 or 15 meters behind the google car, but the driver just didn't.
The problem is that the programmers coded the "official" rules of the road. They forgot to code the unofficial rule. I call it rule zero, because it's the most important one. Avoid crashing at all cost.
I don't know why you call this an unofficial rule and rule zero. In German traffic law, for example, it is absolutely official and rule #1: "1. Participation in road traffic requires care and consideration at all times. 2. Anyone participating in road traffic has to behave in such a way that nobody is damaged in any way, put into danger, or inconvenienced more than necessary under the circumstances. "
The law abiding nature of them reminds me of another dilemma I've wondered about. If the car is about to crash and has become sophisticated enough to know that X maneuver would result in 5 pedestrian deaths but Y maneuver only kills the driver.
That nonsense again. 1. It doesn't happen. Ever. 2. Should it happen to a normal driver, then that driver has made some very, very seriously bad driving just before that accident. Which is why 3. It doesn't happen to a self-driving car.
So you don't think it's possible for an innocent person to be put on the list (or any list) either through accident, incompetence or malice?
Sure, possible. However, if an "innocent person" (in other words, just any regular customer) ends up on that list, it costs the shops money. So it's in their own best interest to not put anyone on the list you doesn't belong there.
True. However, the problem can come from a retailer deciding that you were too much of a pain in the ass when you were doing a return, or you wanted to use a coupon that they didn't want to honor or maybe you got a little loud when they promised to hold something for you and you got down there to find out it was sold anyway. So to get back at you, they put you on "the list" and now your life is a raging sea when you try to go shopping for anything around town.
Any shop is private property. Any shop can refuse to do business with you, and ban you from their premises. If or when they do that, trying to enter the store is trespassing. No need to put you "on the list".
Its creepy as hell and needs to be made illegal yesterday.
Anything that keeps shoplifters away, including professionals who steal on order, keeps prices down for everyone. Maybe you can explain what your problem is.
"Many" different people? It's not altogether clear, but from the article it looks like something in the range of 2-3 different people saying stupid things. Now I know that that seems like a lot for a town with only 800 people,
In my estimate, about 0.5% of any group of people are utter and total idiots. 2-3 out of 800 means this town is a good deal better than average :-)
Just thinking about another article... Takes 200 other politicians to compensate for Donald Trump...
What's a bit confusing is that the article is about Seymour Cray, the creator of super computers, but not about Cray computers. What is described is actually the Control Data computers, starting with the 6600 (I had the joy to learn with a 175).
Yes, the PPs are _not_ "parallel processors", they are "peripheral processors". The 175 had 12 "peripheral processors" with quite limited capabilities and running at 12 MHz instead of the 40 of the main computer, and exclusively responsible ofr handling I/O.
The "cache" on this machine was a 12 word times 60 bit instruction cache. You _had_ to design loops to fit into that cache, so they would run 2-3 times faster. No time wasted reading instructions from main memory.
You are missing the point. When faced with a broken device and a very high Apple repair bill (have you see how much they charge for things like new keyboards, screens and batteries?) many people will just throw the device away and buy a new one.
Only if they are stupid. Instead of throwing the device away and buying a new one, they can return the broken device to Apple for an "out of warranty repair", which means Apple takes the old device and hands over a "refurbished" device, which in practice often is brand new. The price is usually about half the price of a brand new device.
When companies can claim copyright on screws, and use the DMCA to claim you can't refill your ink cartridges ... you're damned right the legal system needs fixing.
Lexmark tried that stunt with ink cartridges, and they got their legal ass handed to them. Because they didn't actually bother reading the DMCA. DMCA is supposed to prevent illegal copying of copyrighted software, and no such thing happens when you refill your ink cartridge. No copying, no DMCA.
Apparently the idiots that write these programs thought, hey, we don't need to use a reasonable Factor of Safety. They calculated they needed 93.1 units of thrust, but failed only 88.4. That means their Safety Factor was less than 1.12
They didn't actually fail. The tail touched the ground. Someone noticed the noise, some sensor went off, but otherwise the airplane was absolutely fine.