Hosts are under no obligation to actively investigate their content. In this case the hosts were informed about illegal content and took no action against it. This wasn't a case of them not spotting 1 website out of 1000 doing illegal activity, it was a case of them knowing about the activity but not caring.
They would have to prove you knew (which for convincing fakes would be incredibly hard to do).
However if, Cisco informed you that you were selling fakes and you continued selling what you knew to be fakes, are you seriously suggesting you shouldn't then be liable for selling counterfeit goods?
Ignorance is still a valid defence, however if you RTFA you will see the web hosts were informed they were hosting websites selling illegal goods and did nothing to remedy this. The sellers made money selling dodgy goods, the web hosts made money directly from the illegal activity and enabled it to continue.
It's always weird but they're very careful to report on news regarding the BBC as they would another channel.
A big example was when the BBC basically went up against Tony Blair over the 'death' of David Kelly, a weapons expert who provided information that basically said the Iraq war dossier was full of lies and half truths.
He then 'committed suicide' whilst on a walk in a secluded woodlands. The government blamed the BBC and a government inquiry agreed.
Throughout the story, the BBC reported on all the critisisms levelled at them, had talk shows where attacks on the institution were given as much time as the defence. It was really odd watching BBC News 24 and having them report headlines that say how bad they were.
All the talk of ganking really put me off this game. PVP is fine but being constantly oneshotted by people you stand no chance against isn't. Yes you can ask high levels to help go around and kill gankers but they'll take a while to arrive and they're not always available.
I was really looking forward to this until I read impressions from people playing on Korean servers that say ganking is almost out of control and the recent penalties have done little to stop it.
Read Carmack's thoughts on OpenGL and why he's switched to DirectX. What you think is a strength is actually a huge weakness for developers.
Say you've a feature that isn't part of the OpenGL spec and has been introduced into nVidia and ATI's latest cards. Both the companies will want an implementation of this feature optimised for their cards so as a coder, if you want to put this feature in your game, you're going to have to code it in twice and it's probably going to produce slightly different visuals for each manufacturer. It's a lot of extra coding and testing work.
Then, when it comes up to drawing a new spec for the latest version, you'll have two of your most important contributors arguing over which implementation to use and the spec gets delayed.
With D3D they talk to all the manufacturers and say "this is how the feature will work, design your card to use it". If they want their card to be DX18 or whatever, they've got to implement it that way. It can mean you have to wait between revisions for new features but it prevents the kind of divergence than a graphics API is supposed to prevent in the first place.
There was a good article here (or possibly some other social news type site) about the inherent flaw in DNA databases and the weight given to DNA evidence.
The theory goes like this: the chances of getting a false positive on a part sample are something like 1/50million. You have 50 million people on the database. This means You'd expect a false positive on every search. If you're unlucky enough to live close enough to a crime to have committed it, you could easily find yourself in court.
You'll then have to defend yourself based on a 1 in 50 million probability to a jury who won't understand the statistics. If you haven't got a solid alibi, it would be a tough thing to do.
There's probably a good Terry Pratchett quote about 1 in a million chances to be used here.
Incredibly vague wording there that means his quote can be interpreted either way. Windows machines outsell Linux ones so if they're experiencing the same number of returns, it indicates people are less happy with the Windows one. Did he really mean same percentage or same number?
Also, given that this was a Dell rep at an Open Source show, he wasn't exactly going to go "yeah, Linux hasn't really been working for us, it sucks, we'll be switching to Windows".
I do have to wonder sometimes if judges sit back and look at their rulings and think, "wait... this is a bit stupid isn't it?". They're clearly being forced to make a massive loss on something priced like that.
Laptops are an incredibly competitive market. May be better for them to take a handful of lost sales on the chin than risk a few thousand people asking for this kind of refund.
It's also possible that not installing the OS messes around with their production line but I suppose it depends on if Lenevo laptops are built to order or not.
I know the EULA states you can get a refund if you don't agree to the terms however, that still doesn't mean Lenevo have to give you the laptop sans windows at a cheaper rate. They can simply say "you don't won't to pay for windows? Fine, send us the laptop and we'll refund what you paid for it".
He wrote a book titled "The god delusion" and you're saying he doesn't ridicule? You don't even have to open the book to get a quote proving he goes beyond criticism.
Religion and evolution are not incompatible and it is stupid to argue that except if you're setting it up as a straw man. Even the pope recognises evolution. What is so wrong with argueing that god could have created the mechanics for evolution and designed life so it would evolve?
Tell me, can you do the proof to E=MC^2? Can you even understand the maths and science behind someone else's proof? I'd doubt it. Yet you probably think it is correct. You're going on faith that other people are correct. The evidence may be there but only a select number of people understand this evidence and you're trusting they're correct and no misleading.
I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins. I'm an Atheist and yes, Evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity on Earth but that doesn't mean I think people should be ridiculed for their beliefs.
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole. He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it. Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct). Yes science changes over time but so does religion. There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
Lots of people use the "personal responsiblity" defence for these kinds of pranks. Unfortunately, your brain is hard wired practically from birth to listen to authority.
Want to know the best way to mug someone? Just ask for their wallet. Con artists have relied on the fact that all it takes to rip off most people is the confidence to pull off the scams.
Property is insured, damage to mental health isn't so easy to undo. You're not talking whoopie cushions here, this kind of very public humiliation can stick for a long long time.
If they did try to implement parts of it early before the spec was drawn up and the final spec was different, they'd be accused of undermining standards. The fact that every browser is implementing HTML 5 slightly differently at the moment (look at the video tag) would be ignored.
randomise the class of the image (or don't give it a class at all), randomly insert html elements that have zero impact on the page but mess up detection algorithms.
It's possible those kinds of things could be detect with clever coding but it would mean that every page would require a bit of hdd thrashing and heavy CPU usage to detect the ads.
There is only 1 page there where all the words aren't in the title (even allowing for the skewing of results this story has caused, there are plenty not relating to it that contain all the words). By your reasoning, the Microsoft results are perfectly fine. So yeah, that kinda makes your point worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Hosts are under no obligation to actively investigate their content. In this case the hosts were informed about illegal content and took no action against it. This wasn't a case of them not spotting 1 website out of 1000 doing illegal activity, it was a case of them knowing about the activity but not caring.
They would have to prove you knew (which for convincing fakes would be incredibly hard to do).
However if, Cisco informed you that you were selling fakes and you continued selling what you knew to be fakes, are you seriously suggesting you shouldn't then be liable for selling counterfeit goods?
Ignorance is still a valid defence, however if you RTFA you will see the web hosts were informed they were hosting websites selling illegal goods and did nothing to remedy this. The sellers made money selling dodgy goods, the web hosts made money directly from the illegal activity and enabled it to continue.
If the landlord knew his property was being used to make drugs and did nothing about it, potentially yes, he would be at risk from prosecution.
But Diana was an angel who never did anything wrong and was a victim! The resemblance of prince Harry to a certain guardsman is entirely coincidental.
It's always weird but they're very careful to report on news regarding the BBC as they would another channel.
A big example was when the BBC basically went up against Tony Blair over the 'death' of David Kelly, a weapons expert who provided information that basically said the Iraq war dossier was full of lies and half truths.
He then 'committed suicide' whilst on a walk in a secluded woodlands. The government blamed the BBC and a government inquiry agreed.
Throughout the story, the BBC reported on all the critisisms levelled at them, had talk shows where attacks on the institution were given as much time as the defence. It was really odd watching BBC News 24 and having them report headlines that say how bad they were.
The Queen is the Australian head of state.
Most things have negative meanings in a language somewhere. Would you like some bite the wax tadpole?
All the talk of ganking really put me off this game. PVP is fine but being constantly oneshotted by people you stand no chance against isn't. Yes you can ask high levels to help go around and kill gankers but they'll take a while to arrive and they're not always available.
I was really looking forward to this until I read impressions from people playing on Korean servers that say ganking is almost out of control and the recent penalties have done little to stop it.
Read Carmack's thoughts on OpenGL and why he's switched to DirectX. What you think is a strength is actually a huge weakness for developers.
Say you've a feature that isn't part of the OpenGL spec and has been introduced into nVidia and ATI's latest cards. Both the companies will want an implementation of this feature optimised for their cards so as a coder, if you want to put this feature in your game, you're going to have to code it in twice and it's probably going to produce slightly different visuals for each manufacturer. It's a lot of extra coding and testing work.
Then, when it comes up to drawing a new spec for the latest version, you'll have two of your most important contributors arguing over which implementation to use and the spec gets delayed.
With D3D they talk to all the manufacturers and say "this is how the feature will work, design your card to use it". If they want their card to be DX18 or whatever, they've got to implement it that way. It can mean you have to wait between revisions for new features but it prevents the kind of divergence than a graphics API is supposed to prevent in the first place.
There was a good article here (or possibly some other social news type site) about the inherent flaw in DNA databases and the weight given to DNA evidence.
The theory goes like this: the chances of getting a false positive on a part sample are something like 1/50million. You have 50 million people on the database. This means You'd expect a false positive on every search. If you're unlucky enough to live close enough to a crime to have committed it, you could easily find yourself in court.
You'll then have to defend yourself based on a 1 in 50 million probability to a jury who won't understand the statistics. If you haven't got a solid alibi, it would be a tough thing to do.
There's probably a good Terry Pratchett quote about 1 in a million chances to be used here.
Incredibly vague wording there that means his quote can be interpreted either way. Windows machines outsell Linux ones so if they're experiencing the same number of returns, it indicates people are less happy with the Windows one. Did he really mean same percentage or same number?
Also, given that this was a Dell rep at an Open Source show, he wasn't exactly going to go "yeah, Linux hasn't really been working for us, it sucks, we'll be switching to Windows".
I do have to wonder sometimes if judges sit back and look at their rulings and think, "wait... this is a bit stupid isn't it?". They're clearly being forced to make a massive loss on something priced like that.
Laptops are an incredibly competitive market. May be better for them to take a handful of lost sales on the chin than risk a few thousand people asking for this kind of refund.
It's also possible that not installing the OS messes around with their production line but I suppose it depends on if Lenevo laptops are built to order or not.
I know the EULA states you can get a refund if you don't agree to the terms however, that still doesn't mean Lenevo have to give you the laptop sans windows at a cheaper rate. They can simply say "you don't won't to pay for windows? Fine, send us the laptop and we'll refund what you paid for it".
He wrote a book titled "The god delusion" and you're saying he doesn't ridicule? You don't even have to open the book to get a quote proving he goes beyond criticism.
Religion and evolution are not incompatible and it is stupid to argue that except if you're setting it up as a straw man. Even the pope recognises evolution. What is so wrong with argueing that god could have created the mechanics for evolution and designed life so it would evolve?
Tell me, can you do the proof to E=MC^2? Can you even understand the maths and science behind someone else's proof? I'd doubt it. Yet you probably think it is correct. You're going on faith that other people are correct. The evidence may be there but only a select number of people understand this evidence and you're trusting they're correct and no misleading.
I meant actual legal laws.
Can I just say, "Masters of Divinity" is an awesome thing to have to your name.
There are people on both sides that believe they're incompatible. Richard Dawkins is one of them.
I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins. I'm an Atheist and yes, Evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity on Earth but that doesn't mean I think people should be ridiculed for their beliefs.
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole. He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it. Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct). Yes science changes over time but so does religion. There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
Lots of people use the "personal responsiblity" defence for these kinds of pranks. Unfortunately, your brain is hard wired practically from birth to listen to authority.
Want to know the best way to mug someone? Just ask for their wallet. Con artists have relied on the fact that all it takes to rip off most people is the confidence to pull off the scams.
Property is insured, damage to mental health isn't so easy to undo. You're not talking whoopie cushions here, this kind of very public humiliation can stick for a long long time.
If they did try to implement parts of it early before the spec was drawn up and the final spec was different, they'd be accused of undermining standards. The fact that every browser is implementing HTML 5 slightly differently at the moment (look at the video tag) would be ignored.
randomise the class of the image (or don't give it a class at all), randomly insert html elements that have zero impact on the page but mess up detection algorithms.
It's possible those kinds of things could be detect with clever coding but it would mean that every page would require a bit of hdd thrashing and heavy CPU usage to detect the ads.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n
There is only 1 page there where all the words aren't in the title (even allowing for the skewing of results this story has caused, there are plenty not relating to it that contain all the words). By your reasoning, the Microsoft results are perfectly fine. So yeah, that kinda makes your point worthless.
Google puts the overwhelmingly positive article saying how awesome Google Wave is at the top, in Bing it's the last result on the page
If I google: why is google so bad
The first page it returns is "Google Wave: Why it's so good and enterprise software is so bad".
Where's the article on this? This is just inane Microsoft bashing that comes off as incredibly petty.