Right. Because Apple, which had less than 10% market share, has had 0 effect on the computing market, and other related markets, in the last decade, because of a
It's displayed wrong because the law is written wrong. That's not a fault of the method of currency, unlike the seemingly obvious problem of cost differential with something like Ripple.
I still have no idea how Ripple works (unequal trades seem to be a problem, as I see it), and I also don't understand how BitCoin would do anything other than make the people with the fastest computers richer faster than other people.
People, at the least, need to know how it works in everyday life, and I'm not seeing it in either of the examples mentioned in this thread.
Yes and no - your average person doesn't need to figure any of this stuff out. The price is marked in advance, and they pay X for Y good or service. Simple.
"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information -"
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence
from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
same to have been obtained by such processes -
The/. editors can hardly spell or even read over the summaries for blatant redundancy or shitty sentence structures; I don't expect them to read the article at this point.
Modded troll? As if any company you deal with has ever given you less than 10 pages of 6 point font with terms and conditions, one of which is always "we reserve the right to terminate service at any time".
The credit card companies have agreements that say they can terminate the contract at their discretion. It doesn't even really matter if he's breaking US law or not, he's finding out that the terms of use at these companies say that they can do whatever the hell they want, when they want, regardless as to their reasoning. Read the fine print.
Just because you break US law while residing in a foreign country, doesn't mean you won't be arrested the moment you step on US soil or when an ally of the US decides they're going to extradite you.
No, they're breaking the law, and haven't been tried yet. Just because you haven't been found guilty of a crime doesn't mean you're not breaking the law; it just means you haven't been convicted by the government.
As an example, I run a payment processor. I give a credit card machine to a drug dealer. I find out that he's a drug dealer, I revoke his rights to use the machine based on the terms I have them sign. There's nothing in the US legal system that prevents me from doing so.
No, it shouldn't. All of these companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard) have explicit terms regarding what types of organizations they'll provide services for, and all of them explicitly state that they will not give service to any organization that is intent on breaking US law. Wikileaks IS breaking US law by publishing classified documents. Whistleblower status isn't automatically granted, either; the courts have to validate that defense against charges that are brought.
Let's be clear though, Confucius also advocated that the leaders of said hierarchy were thinking of everyone in the tree when doing anything. Not that I think it's right either way, but that's the way he thought. There was an obligation for the bottom to respect the top, and also for the top to respect the bottom.
I don't know what version this key was for, but Avast free has far fewer features than any of the paid versions. That makes your argument somewhat moot.
"Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work. The later work must take enough protected expression (it does not matter how much unprotected material is taken, for the latter is open to the public) for the later work to be "substantially similar" to the earlier work." -Wikipedia.
That shit is blatantly infringing on the PacMan character, which is absolutely copyrightable. There's also the need for sufficient originality in a work, which this game does not have any of.
Which is still much less than the Volt, which goes up to 35 miles (according to recent reports) at a top speed of 100mph without turning on the ICE, and has 10 times the total charge potential of the Prius. That's not going to be "hybrid grade batteries".
Man, I was talking about it having some economy of scale, not ZERO economies of scale. This isn't a Lamborghini with a run of ~200 per year, where you can't expect any sort of discount. Especially since the batteries aren't exactly 100% made for this specific car.
I doubt the Volt is using "hybrid-grade" batteries. A Prius is about $4,000 to change for the end consumer. Plus, the Volt isn't a parallel hybrid like everything else on the road today - it's full electric until it drains the batteries completely, and only then does it turn on the gas engine. That means it needs much more battery capacity than a Prius, which currently can't drive over 20 mph without turning on the gas engine, and whose upcoming plug-in incarnation is going to only be able to go 12 miles on electric only, vs the Volt's 35 miles. Further, that's proven by the kWh ratings of the cars. The Volt is 16 kWh and 10.4 usable, while the Prius is 1.3 kWh.
If, on the other hand, it costs $60k to build that product and you sell it for $50k, then your gross margin is $-10k, and your balance after the sale is $1,000,010,000. You have lost $10k on the sale. Every product you sell is actually costing you more money, not making you money. Unless costs are cut or prices raised, you can never pay back the expenses, because every sale simply costs you more money.
They could also produce it as an introduction of all-electric cars for the mass audience, with the intent of pretty much using it as a gigantic ad campaign for GM's long term future, and to get people to associate electric cars with GM rather than let someone else take that spot (as they did with quite a few other labels in the past 20 years, like "reliable" and "hybrid").
Him coming back doesn't give them a pretense, if the law there is anything like the US. They have to have a legit reason to arrest, not "Oh, you're arrested solely because you came in for questioning."
If you lie to the police during an investigation (in the US), it's obstruction of justice, false reporting, false information during investigation, or perjury depending on the exact situation, another charge that they'll tack on if and when it goes to trial.
You can go ahead and say nothing during questioning here in the US. But they can detain you for questioning, and possibly arrest you as a material witness, again depending on the situation. Assange couldn't be arrested as a witness as he's the one being investigated, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Because Apple, which had less than 10% market share, has had 0 effect on the computing market, and other related markets, in the last decade, because of a
It's displayed wrong because the law is written wrong. That's not a fault of the method of currency, unlike the seemingly obvious problem of cost differential with something like Ripple.
I still have no idea how Ripple works (unequal trades seem to be a problem, as I see it), and I also don't understand how BitCoin would do anything other than make the people with the fastest computers richer faster than other people.
People, at the least, need to know how it works in everyday life, and I'm not seeing it in either of the examples mentioned in this thread.
Yes and no - your average person doesn't need to figure any of this stuff out. The price is marked in advance, and they pay X for Y good or service. Simple.
USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37, section 798
"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -"
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes -
So, yes, he broke a US law.
The /. editors can hardly spell or even read over the summaries for blatant redundancy or shitty sentence structures; I don't expect them to read the article at this point.
Modded troll? As if any company you deal with has ever given you less than 10 pages of 6 point font with terms and conditions, one of which is always "we reserve the right to terminate service at any time".
The credit card companies have agreements that say they can terminate the contract at their discretion. It doesn't even really matter if he's breaking US law or not, he's finding out that the terms of use at these companies say that they can do whatever the hell they want, when they want, regardless as to their reasoning. Read the fine print.
Just because you break US law while residing in a foreign country, doesn't mean you won't be arrested the moment you step on US soil or when an ally of the US decides they're going to extradite you.
No, they're breaking the law, and haven't been tried yet. Just because you haven't been found guilty of a crime doesn't mean you're not breaking the law; it just means you haven't been convicted by the government.
As an example, I run a payment processor. I give a credit card machine to a drug dealer. I find out that he's a drug dealer, I revoke his rights to use the machine based on the terms I have them sign. There's nothing in the US legal system that prevents me from doing so.
No, it shouldn't. All of these companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard) have explicit terms regarding what types of organizations they'll provide services for, and all of them explicitly state that they will not give service to any organization that is intent on breaking US law. Wikileaks IS breaking US law by publishing classified documents. Whistleblower status isn't automatically granted, either; the courts have to validate that defense against charges that are brought.
The whole discussion wasn't about practice, it was about theory, since it was about Confucius, not the political reality in China.
Let's be clear though, Confucius also advocated that the leaders of said hierarchy were thinking of everyone in the tree when doing anything. Not that I think it's right either way, but that's the way he thought. There was an obligation for the bottom to respect the top, and also for the top to respect the bottom.
I don't know what version this key was for, but Avast free has far fewer features than any of the paid versions. That makes your argument somewhat moot.
"Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work. The later work must take enough protected expression (it does not matter how much unprotected material is taken, for the latter is open to the public) for the later work to be "substantially similar" to the earlier work." -Wikipedia.
That shit is blatantly infringing on the PacMan character, which is absolutely copyrightable. There's also the need for sufficient originality in a work, which this game does not have any of.
Which is still much less than the Volt, which goes up to 35 miles (according to recent reports) at a top speed of 100mph without turning on the ICE, and has 10 times the total charge potential of the Prius. That's not going to be "hybrid grade batteries".
Man, I was talking about it having some economy of scale, not ZERO economies of scale. This isn't a Lamborghini with a run of ~200 per year, where you can't expect any sort of discount. Especially since the batteries aren't exactly 100% made for this specific car.
I doubt the Volt is using "hybrid-grade" batteries. A Prius is about $4,000 to change for the end consumer. Plus, the Volt isn't a parallel hybrid like everything else on the road today - it's full electric until it drains the batteries completely, and only then does it turn on the gas engine. That means it needs much more battery capacity than a Prius, which currently can't drive over 20 mph without turning on the gas engine, and whose upcoming plug-in incarnation is going to only be able to go 12 miles on electric only, vs the Volt's 35 miles. Further, that's proven by the kWh ratings of the cars. The Volt is 16 kWh and 10.4 usable, while the Prius is 1.3 kWh.
If, on the other hand, it costs $60k to build that product and you sell it for $50k, then your gross margin is $-10k, and your balance after the sale is $1,000,010,000. You have lost $10k on the sale. Every product you sell is actually costing you more money, not making you money. Unless costs are cut or prices raised, you can never pay back the expenses, because every sale simply costs you more money.
They could also produce it as an introduction of all-electric cars for the mass audience, with the intent of pretty much using it as a gigantic ad campaign for GM's long term future, and to get people to associate electric cars with GM rather than let someone else take that spot (as they did with quite a few other labels in the past 20 years, like "reliable" and "hybrid").
Buying batteries for 10,000 cars seems very likely to have no issues with "too small of a scale".
Very much so. This would be taking "death by cop" to a whole new level.
So, you would hold and release light without conversion how, exactly?
Him coming back doesn't give them a pretense, if the law there is anything like the US. They have to have a legit reason to arrest, not "Oh, you're arrested solely because you came in for questioning."
Not really. They have no jurisdiction over my township-run channel.
If you lie to the police during an investigation (in the US), it's obstruction of justice, false reporting, false information during investigation, or perjury depending on the exact situation, another charge that they'll tack on if and when it goes to trial.
You can go ahead and say nothing during questioning here in the US. But they can detain you for questioning, and possibly arrest you as a material witness, again depending on the situation. Assange couldn't be arrested as a witness as he's the one being investigated, though.