These news sites are taking the point of view that not all publicity is good publicity. If they don't want their content to be aggregated into a section of another (and very popular) web site that they feel is encroaching on their business, then who are we to say that they shouldn't try to take action? If google decide to put ads up on Google News, then they'd be making money from others' content, why shouldn't they want and get a piece of that pie?
ITV (note all capitals) is the name of the major terrestrial TV channel in the UK, so Apple will probably have to change it to avoid confusion/trademarks. Otherwise, "I'm going to use my iTV to record ITV".
No matter how much I dislike PayPal, I'm forced to use it if I want to buy something from eBay. Until GoogleCheckout tries to break PayPal's monopoly at eBay (it surely can't be legal) I can't see the demise of PayPal happening. This isn't the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.
No, they set themselves up for a war with Germany because Germany challenged their failing hegemony. They refused to recognize the fucking writing on the wall, that the British Empire was shit decaying in the summer sun...until the point was driven home to them via tank, plane and sub.
The UK declared war because an ally (Poland)was invaded. And since when did Germany use tanks to attack the UK? Only once Germany was on the back foot and the Allies had ivaded France did tanks comes into play.
Churchill himself said that they would've surrendered had the Americans not entered the war when they did...and would've done so much earlier if the Americans hadn't been supplying them with weapons, munitions, food, tools, spare parts, and so on since the start of the war.
The Battle of Britain was fucking over 6 months before Pearl Harbor was attacked. I've never heard a quote where Churchill claimed the UK was about to surrender. On the contrary I remember the quote "We shall never surrender". And as for the lend-lease programme, that only began 3 months before the end of the Battle of Britain. So when would the UK have surrendered? Perhaps an armistice but certainly not surrender.
"Each 64-bit Cyclops64 chip (processor) will run at 500 megahertz and contain 80 cores."
While it may have two threads per core, that is not what you claimed. You stated "...that's working to put over a million cores into a system (160 into a single chip)". 160 threads per chip, yes, but not 160 cores.
So you think that because an open source project has received some US government funding that the high profile members of such projects should voluntarily gag themselves in order to please their sugardaddy?
If de Raadt's anti-war comments were indeed the reason that the funding was pulled, shouldn't you look to blame DARPA for being amateurish/childish and not de Raadt for simple speaking his mind?
The article just used the vague term "sexually exploited children" when referencing some of the "child porn" images that were found. It's obvious that for him to test his filter he would need some photos of some children in a state of undress (although photos where the child is being physically molested would surely not be needed) and if it was for these "state of undress" photos that he was convicted, then do the NZ authorities not realise that they are effectively barring the development of filters designed to protect children? It seems counter-productive to me.
How will this bot be able to distinguish between images that show women how to examine their breats for possibly cancerous lumps and images that show boob? I can't see how this bot could ever be used on library/public computers if such valuable (and potentially life-saving) content is censored.
British banks generally require proof of residence (council tax or utility bills) to open a UK bank account so as to make life harder for money launderers, so this method won't be as easy as you think it is. Perhaps other countries (tax havens perhaps) have more lax banking laws which would make offshore gambling accounts feasable for the masses.
Also, members of the public are not normally eligible for an account with the Bank of England as it is more of a national financial institution (like the Federal Reserve in the USA) controlling national interest rates etc rather than a normal bank.
Why would the producers travel all the way over to the UK to make this? If you watch the video it is just the Sky One trailer for the simpsons and when they sit down on the sofa the "real" simpsons introduction begins.
This is just Sky One advertising their biggest programme.
This introduction was made by the UK satelite TV channel Sky, although Rupert Murdoch owns both Sky and Fox. If this fil was really made by the makers of the simpsons would the cars drive on the left-hand side of the road as they do in this film?
Slashdot Mirror
These news sites are taking the point of view that not all publicity is good publicity. If they don't want their content to be aggregated into a section of another (and very popular) web site that they feel is encroaching on their business, then who are we to say that they shouldn't try to take action? If google decide to put ads up on Google News, then they'd be making money from others' content, why shouldn't they want and get a piece of that pie?
ITV (note all capitals) is the name of the major terrestrial TV channel in the UK, so Apple will probably have to change it to avoid confusion/trademarks. Otherwise, "I'm going to use my iTV to record ITV".
No matter how much I dislike PayPal, I'm forced to use it if I want to buy something from eBay. Until GoogleCheckout tries to break PayPal's monopoly at eBay (it surely can't be legal) I can't see the demise of PayPal happening. This isn't the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.
No, they set themselves up for a war with Germany because Germany challenged their failing hegemony. They refused to recognize the fucking writing on the wall, that the British Empire was shit decaying in the summer sun...until the point was driven home to them via tank, plane and sub. The UK declared war because an ally (Poland)was invaded. And since when did Germany use tanks to attack the UK? Only once Germany was on the back foot and the Allies had ivaded France did tanks comes into play. Churchill himself said that they would've surrendered had the Americans not entered the war when they did...and would've done so much earlier if the Americans hadn't been supplying them with weapons, munitions, food, tools, spare parts, and so on since the start of the war. The Battle of Britain was fucking over 6 months before Pearl Harbor was attacked. I've never heard a quote where Churchill claimed the UK was about to surrender. On the contrary I remember the quote "We shall never surrender". And as for the lend-lease programme, that only began 3 months before the end of the Battle of Britain. So when would the UK have surrendered? Perhaps an armistice but certainly not surrender.
"Each 64-bit Cyclops64 chip (processor) will run at 500 megahertz and contain 80 cores." While it may have two threads per core, that is not what you claimed. You stated "...that's working to put over a million cores into a system (160 into a single chip)". 160 threads per chip, yes, but not 160 cores.
The wikipedia link itself says 80 cores per chip not 160.
So you think that because an open source project has received some US government funding that the high profile members of such projects should voluntarily gag themselves in order to please their sugardaddy?
If de Raadt's anti-war comments were indeed the reason that the funding was pulled, shouldn't you look to blame DARPA for being amateurish/childish and not de Raadt for simple speaking his mind?
I wonder if anyone who "opts-out" of the ISP filter will be more likely to have their internet usage monitored and their home raided?
The article just used the vague term "sexually exploited children" when referencing some of the "child porn" images that were found. It's obvious that for him to test his filter he would need some photos of some children in a state of undress (although photos where the child is being physically molested would surely not be needed) and if it was for these "state of undress" photos that he was convicted, then do the NZ authorities not realise that they are effectively barring the development of filters designed to protect children? It seems counter-productive to me.
How will this bot be able to distinguish between images that show women how to examine their breats for possibly cancerous lumps and images that show boob? I can't see how this bot could ever be used on library/public computers if such valuable (and potentially life-saving) content is censored.
British banks generally require proof of residence (council tax or utility bills) to open a UK bank account so as to make life harder for money launderers, so this method won't be as easy as you think it is. Perhaps other countries (tax havens perhaps) have more lax banking laws which would make offshore gambling accounts feasable for the masses.
Also, members of the public are not normally eligible for an account with the Bank of England as it is more of a national financial institution (like the Federal Reserve in the USA) controlling national interest rates etc rather than a normal bank.
Like the article says "Great, Now your biometric house of the future can lock you out cause you're scared of the psycho killer chasing you."
Why would the producers travel all the way over to the UK to make this? If you watch the video it is just the Sky One trailer for the simpsons and when they sit down on the sofa the "real" simpsons introduction begins. This is just Sky One advertising their biggest programme.
This introduction was made by the UK satelite TV channel Sky, although Rupert Murdoch owns both Sky and Fox. If this fil was really made by the makers of the simpsons would the cars drive on the left-hand side of the road as they do in this film?
ssdsadsa