Anonymous in this context is a proper noun ending with S. To end with es would be to change their name, to end in s's would look silly.
Too many people get worked up over apostrophes anyhow. When you get to complex situations all the rules start contradicting themselves and it all falls apart. Here's a grammatical puzzle.
You have a load of copies of Stephen King's It. Using just the title (plus the appropriate apostrophe suffix) what is the possessive case of all of these books as a collective (for example if you wanted to refer to all of their pages)?
The protection this tool offered was designed around the fact that so many people were using it, it'd be impossible to arrest them all. This kinda falls down when there may be 500 Americans on it but just 10 Brits and you're one of the 10.
Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.
What's the cost of organising a team of 5-10 officers for the same amount of time? How much less likely is the team without an agent to get a successful prosecution? Budgeting is rarely so black and white.
As much as a burglary is a big deal to victims, their property and contents are probably insured and there's no risk to life. The Stop Huntingdon animal Cruelty group, sent families death threats, sent fake bombs, handed around leaflets saying their victims were pedophiles, invaded their workplaces.
The trouble is, that adds additional complexity to the situation.
What if, after Bob threw the stone, a man chucked a petrol bomb at an officer who was severely injured. He had the petrol bomb prepared, although he got caught up in the situation he still made the choice to use a potentially deadly weapon in the situation.
Getting caught up in the moment should only affect sentencing rather than if a crime was actually committed (these are the kinds of things suspended sentences are designed for after all. That said, I'm not saying that entrapment isn't an acceptable defence for a lot of cases. There's a difference between a "he's angry, I'm going to get angry too!" and "I don't really want to do this but Bob is telling me to do it and I'm scared of Bob"
You'd probably find those conditions would make absolutely no difference.
Entrapment laws are incredibly strong in the UK and police are trained extensively not to fall foul of them. They may throw that stone, but they'll make sure, if they throw it, they'll be the last person who does. He may be part of an angry mob at a protest but he won't be someone at the front clashing with the police, he'll be standing back amongst a crowd of people.
Undercover operations are time consuming, expensive and embarrassing when they go wrong. The officers are trained heavily to ensure they're always 'going with the flow' rather than pushing it.
It wouldn't be part of the VP8 implementation but it's not your implementation that matters.
All Google would have to do is put in some VP8 code (not unthinkable they'd integrate an encoder into a media server setup) in their own implementation and suddenly, everything is covered by the VP8 licence.
Free or paid, it doesn't matter, I'm still royally screwed if they shut off my power.
Here's a more relevant example of why that clause is such an awful thing:
Lets say I create a company that does video streaming. I find I have issues with load balancing between the servers, people would sometimes find themselves on full, slow servers and their videos would struggle to load (as happens sometimes on youtube).
I come up with a server structure and software than ensures good performance on every server streaming videos and decide to spend money improving it and creating a version that can be rolled out to any setup.
I recoup the costs of the research by licencing this. Google however decide just to steal the design and they add VP8 code to it so it better handles that specific format.
If I try to sue them, I lose the ability to use VP8 and have to spend a lot of money re-encoding everything, probably more money than I'd make from suing them.
Thus Google profit off of my research without paying a dime and I'm screwed.
Blackmail threats discouraging you from taking action when they're doing something illegal? Could you imagine if your local electricity company threatening to cut you off if you take action over their overbilling (especially if they're the only supplier in your area) ?
Studio audiences get a lot of stick but Red Dwarf is proof that it can improve series. The mini series just felt a bit soul-less without the studio and the interplay between characters didn't work. Of course the fact it was an overly mawkish not-as-funny-as-it-should be Blade Runner parody didn't help either.
I intensely disliked Last Human. The Red Dwarf characters felt shoehorned in (Cat is the prime example, he disappears for large sections of the book and isn't involved in any part of the story) and was just a bland scifi story. Don't quite understand Naylor's need to put Kochanski in everything.
Infinity welcomes careful drivers, Better than life and Backwards are all great books though, well worth reading. I'd rank them close to H2G2, a bit more lowbrow but still funny.
How dare they fulfil their public service obligations by showing a culturally diverse range of programming rather than endless reality shows and soaps!
Had a read of the paper and there seem to be two big flaws that are not addressed and would've prevented a paper passing 'regular' peer review.
1: They never address the possibility the bees are just smelling the sugared water. They clean the 'stems' to ensure the bees don't attract other bees through smells (although that itself is also questionable, presumably the smell a bee releases would be released all over) but don't do anything about the sugar/salt water itself.
2: There's no evidence the bees can see colours (assuming point 1 is moot). Namely because of the choice of patterns. They use bright colours alongside dark ones. The bees could just be seeing light and dark. There's only one low contrast pattern (the green and blue one) which would've been great for testing this but they chose to put it alongside one with mixed bright and dark colours. Also, without an even spread of light and dark areas, the bees may not even be recognising patterns, they may just be going "this area is darker than the other one, the other one has the sugar water".
Spoilsport I know but they shouldn't pretend this is anything other than a cute bit of PR.
Juror's should only be able to convict or free someone based on information presented in the court room. If you have concerns about facts or presented evidence, you raise them with the judge who will ask the prosecutors or lawyers for further information relating to that.
We are not lawyers, we are not judges, we are not forensic experts, we are not expert witnesses.
I may be able to read online that it is incredibly unlikely that a blood splatter from a head wound would look like that and feel a defendent is innocent because of that. An experienced forensic expert however could know that 'unlikely' bloodsplatters could still happen and that his experience in similar cases tells him the splatter was unusual but consistant with head wounds.
Let me put it this way: if you allow Jury's to investigate, there's a chance you could be found innocent by a Jessica Fletcher type. However it's also likely you could be found guilty because a juror read a website that said "someone whose eyes are too close together is more likely to be a murderer".
It's far safer to make sure everything that a conviction is secured on is from a source that is well qualified or/and can be cross examined in the court room.
1: how could you stop malware developers flooding the network and pointing every request to an exploit filled page?
2: would this be a router's worst nightmare?
Gotcha, you think police should never be able to ask anyone anything without a warrant or court order. I hope you realise how utterly unhelpful and useless that would make police officers.
"oh sorry, we couldn't catch the guy we saw steal your wallet because he ran around a corner and we couldn't ask anyone which way he went without a court order"
"Sorry, you got beaten up by your neighbour, we knew he was incredibly annoyed by your loud music but we couldn't ask if you would keep the noise level down until we'd filed the paperwork and got a senior officer to ok it"
I am more inclined to help a police officer. But that's my choice. Plenty of people also chose not to help the police. Either way, you don't have to do what the police ask unless they've been granted the power by the courts.
If you don't know your rights that's your problem. If you're running and ISP and you don't have a basic idea about what your legal rights are, frankly you shouldn't be running an ISP.
There's nothing wrong with the police asking. It's the host's fault for caving in without a court order.
It's just like there's nothing wrong with police asking if they can look inside your house without a warrant. you just say no and they have to go get a warrant if they have good reason to need to search your house (unless of course there's evidence of a crime in progress)
This exploit still requires the code to be run (ie for the system to already be compromised). UAC is just an extra hurdle malware has to clear, it's not meant to be the be all and end all to stop malware.
The IE exploit mention is meaningless (other than for flamebaiting). You can quite easily catch a virus using a fully patched version of Firefox with up to date plugins through regular browsing (noscript is not regular browsing).
Slashdot Mirror
It's ironic too. Trying to enforce free speech through the restriction of it.
Anonymous in this context is a proper noun ending with S. To end with es would be to change their name, to end in s's would look silly.
Too many people get worked up over apostrophes anyhow. When you get to complex situations all the rules start contradicting themselves and it all falls apart. Here's a grammatical puzzle.
You have a load of copies of Stephen King's It. Using just the title (plus the appropriate apostrophe suffix) what is the possessive case of all of these books as a collective (for example if you wanted to refer to all of their pages)?
Using a tool designed to silence people you disagree with or dislike cannot be described as doing something 'in the name of free speech'.
The protection this tool offered was designed around the fact that so many people were using it, it'd be impossible to arrest them all. This kinda falls down when there may be 500 Americans on it but just 10 Brits and you're one of the 10.
Also kinda ironic attacking people's freedom to do business with who they want in the name of protecting free speech.
There's no risk the next day when the police come around to visit you about the burglary.
What's the cost of organising a team of 5-10 officers for the same amount of time? How much less likely is the team without an agent to get a successful prosecution? Budgeting is rarely so black and white.
As much as a burglary is a big deal to victims, their property and contents are probably insured and there's no risk to life. The Stop Huntingdon animal Cruelty group, sent families death threats, sent fake bombs, handed around leaflets saying their victims were pedophiles, invaded their workplaces.
The trouble is, that adds additional complexity to the situation.
What if, after Bob threw the stone, a man chucked a petrol bomb at an officer who was severely injured. He had the petrol bomb prepared, although he got caught up in the situation he still made the choice to use a potentially deadly weapon in the situation.
Getting caught up in the moment should only affect sentencing rather than if a crime was actually committed (these are the kinds of things suspended sentences are designed for after all. That said, I'm not saying that entrapment isn't an acceptable defence for a lot of cases. There's a difference between a "he's angry, I'm going to get angry too!" and "I don't really want to do this but Bob is telling me to do it and I'm scared of Bob"
You'd probably find those conditions would make absolutely no difference.
Entrapment laws are incredibly strong in the UK and police are trained extensively not to fall foul of them. They may throw that stone, but they'll make sure, if they throw it, they'll be the last person who does. He may be part of an angry mob at a protest but he won't be someone at the front clashing with the police, he'll be standing back amongst a crowd of people.
Undercover operations are time consuming, expensive and embarrassing when they go wrong. The officers are trained heavily to ensure they're always 'going with the flow' rather than pushing it.
It wouldn't be part of the VP8 implementation but it's not your implementation that matters.
All Google would have to do is put in some VP8 code (not unthinkable they'd integrate an encoder into a media server setup) in their own implementation and suddenly, everything is covered by the VP8 licence.
Free or paid, it doesn't matter, I'm still royally screwed if they shut off my power.
Here's a more relevant example of why that clause is such an awful thing:
Lets say I create a company that does video streaming. I find I have issues with load balancing between the servers, people would sometimes find themselves on full, slow servers and their videos would struggle to load (as happens sometimes on youtube).
I come up with a server structure and software than ensures good performance on every server streaming videos and decide to spend money improving it and creating a version that can be rolled out to any setup.
I recoup the costs of the research by licencing this. Google however decide just to steal the design and they add VP8 code to it so it better handles that specific format.
If I try to sue them, I lose the ability to use VP8 and have to spend a lot of money re-encoding everything, probably more money than I'd make from suing them.
Thus Google profit off of my research without paying a dime and I'm screwed.
That sounds pretty horrendous actually.
Blackmail threats discouraging you from taking action when they're doing something illegal? Could you imagine if your local electricity company threatening to cut you off if you take action over their overbilling (especially if they're the only supplier in your area) ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZyZrGEx2wQ
The Rimmer Experience single handedly justifies the existence of Series 7
Studio audiences get a lot of stick but Red Dwarf is proof that it can improve series. The mini series just felt a bit soul-less without the studio and the interplay between characters didn't work. Of course the fact it was an overly mawkish not-as-funny-as-it-should be Blade Runner parody didn't help either.
I intensely disliked Last Human. The Red Dwarf characters felt shoehorned in (Cat is the prime example, he disappears for large sections of the book and isn't involved in any part of the story) and was just a bland scifi story. Don't quite understand Naylor's need to put Kochanski in everything.
Infinity welcomes careful drivers, Better than life and Backwards are all great books though, well worth reading. I'd rank them close to H2G2, a bit more lowbrow but still funny.
They care about creating their own streaming standard so that people have to buy media boxes with intel chips or intel licences.
As long as it's only used with content that would be DRM'ed anyway it's not something that strikes me as incredibly controversial.
How dare they fulfil their public service obligations by showing a culturally diverse range of programming rather than endless reality shows and soaps!
Had a read of the paper and there seem to be two big flaws that are not addressed and would've prevented a paper passing 'regular' peer review.
1: They never address the possibility the bees are just smelling the sugared water. They clean the 'stems' to ensure the bees don't attract other bees through smells (although that itself is also questionable, presumably the smell a bee releases would be released all over) but don't do anything about the sugar/salt water itself.
2: There's no evidence the bees can see colours (assuming point 1 is moot). Namely because of the choice of patterns. They use bright colours alongside dark ones. The bees could just be seeing light and dark. There's only one low contrast pattern (the green and blue one) which would've been great for testing this but they chose to put it alongside one with mixed bright and dark colours. Also, without an even spread of light and dark areas, the bees may not even be recognising patterns, they may just be going "this area is darker than the other one, the other one has the sugar water". Spoilsport I know but they shouldn't pretend this is anything other than a cute bit of PR.
Expense, hassle, trying to remember to keep them on you (or your kids).
Most importantly though, the device just wouldn't work. Imagine if you're walking next to a busy road with one of these things.
No.
Juror's should only be able to convict or free someone based on information presented in the court room. If you have concerns about facts or presented evidence, you raise them with the judge who will ask the prosecutors or lawyers for further information relating to that.
We are not lawyers, we are not judges, we are not forensic experts, we are not expert witnesses.
I may be able to read online that it is incredibly unlikely that a blood splatter from a head wound would look like that and feel a defendent is innocent because of that. An experienced forensic expert however could know that 'unlikely' bloodsplatters could still happen and that his experience in similar cases tells him the splatter was unusual but consistant with head wounds.
Let me put it this way: if you allow Jury's to investigate, there's a chance you could be found innocent by a Jessica Fletcher type. However it's also likely you could be found guilty because a juror read a website that said "someone whose eyes are too close together is more likely to be a murderer".
It's far safer to make sure everything that a conviction is secured on is from a source that is well qualified or/and can be cross examined in the court room.
Feel free to take three for free, it'll free up space.
1: how could you stop malware developers flooding the network and pointing every request to an exploit filled page?
2: would this be a router's worst nightmare?
Gotcha, you think police should never be able to ask anyone anything without a warrant or court order. I hope you realise how utterly unhelpful and useless that would make police officers.
"oh sorry, we couldn't catch the guy we saw steal your wallet because he ran around a corner and we couldn't ask anyone which way he went without a court order"
"Sorry, you got beaten up by your neighbour, we knew he was incredibly annoyed by your loud music but we couldn't ask if you would keep the noise level down until we'd filed the paperwork and got a senior officer to ok it"
I am more inclined to help a police officer. But that's my choice. Plenty of people also chose not to help the police. Either way, you don't have to do what the police ask unless they've been granted the power by the courts.
If you don't know your rights that's your problem. If you're running and ISP and you don't have a basic idea about what your legal rights are, frankly you shouldn't be running an ISP.
There's nothing wrong with the police asking. It's the host's fault for caving in without a court order.
It's just like there's nothing wrong with police asking if they can look inside your house without a warrant. you just say no and they have to go get a warrant if they have good reason to need to search your house (unless of course there's evidence of a crime in progress)
This exploit still requires the code to be run (ie for the system to already be compromised). UAC is just an extra hurdle malware has to clear, it's not meant to be the be all and end all to stop malware.
The IE exploit mention is meaningless (other than for flamebaiting). You can quite easily catch a virus using a fully patched version of Firefox with up to date plugins through regular browsing (noscript is not regular browsing).