I drive a truck in the UK - they're all limited to 56mph. So when you overtake another truck doing 1mph less than you...
I would just like to say I seriously hate you for doing this. You're saving a tiny, tiny fraction of your journey time in return for delaying hundreds of other cars by a large margin and creating traffic jams. Not to mention you make it incredibly difficult for people who need to pull in for their exit.
You say you don't need to leave stopping distance because it's hard for the lorry in front to slow fast? Your brakes are just as bad! If he brakes hard, you'll stand no chance of reacting fast enough, you'll hit his trailer, causing him to lose control, jackknife and take out a couple of lanes.
You can leave the 2 seconds, if someone's stupid enough to squeeze between two lorries, you can ease off the accelerator and give him 2 seconds. If it's possible for me the leave 2 seconds on the M25 every day getting to work, it's possible anywhere.
Expensive
Dangerous - encourages people to stare more intensely at the traffic lights rather than the road itself. People may speed up if they notice the traffic light has 5 seconds from a distance left.
Not possible for a lot of lights. Lots of signals have their timing controlled by external factors like cars waiting or prioritised busses.
I've a Lumia and the only problem I've had with it was caused by a hardware issue that needed an RMA. Browser has crashed out a couple of times but the phone itself is very stable.
Just wish they'd let you set the ring/alarm and application volumes seperately
How long has it been and people are still posting BS about the hack? The passwords were hashed, the CC info wasn't compromised and the server was up to date at the time of the hack (there's a google cache somewhere proving the version numbers). The personal details weren't encrypted but that's the same with most sites (besides which, if your server is compromised, so is the decryption key)
I repeat, there are no rules about if you pronounce a " s' " as it's own syllable or treat it as silent. It's all about what people think sounds right (and their accent).
An example is "Los Angeles' citizens". Lots of people would pronounce that as "Los angelezis". Generally it's better to say it as it could confuse the listener as to whether or not the word is being used as an adjective or a noun with a possesive.
I'd wager most people would get them wrong or at least have to think fairly hard. In the case of " Chrises' " it's complicated enough for there to be no set rule about how it's pronounced (although most people would say 'Chrises' because 'Chriseses' sounds silly).
I had an OCZ drive fail on me. Was working perfectly fine, the day before. Turned on my PC, and the BIOS couldn't find the drive so it wouldn't boot. Booted up the old windows installation I still had on another HDD, nothing I could do could get any OS or the BIOS to even recognise I'd connected the SSD. All the data, completely unrecoverable with no advanced warning (after just 6 months of usage). Just to rub it in, I had to pay £20 to return the £160 drive to OCZ (and trust that they'd responsibly dispose of any data on the drive).
I'm extremely reluctant to buy another SSD after that and will never buy another OCZ product.
OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?
The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. There are a bunch of rules, often contradictory where you have to learn which takes priority and it's compounded by vague "if it could confuse the reader" rules.
They presented a confusing and misleading interpretation of the the judge's findings give an overall message of "the judge said our product was cool and much better, he also stated that we were wrong to say they copied from us but he was wrong and these other courts agree with us".
That's hardly a simple statement making it clear Samsung didn't copy from them, which is what was ordered. Apple even misled with regards to the other court cases (one wasn't even a court case, the other is soon to be thrown out).
Basically saying the UK judge's verdict was wrong is also in itself contempt of court, both legally and literally.
I'm saying the Judge gets to determine what the spirit of the ruling is, the same judge that drew up the ruling and the same judge they are deliberately trying to undermine and question.
The reason Apple were made to do this apology in the first place was because they put out PR material that misled consumers over the court proceedings. To then, in the apology use selective quotes that distort the nature of the ruling again... You can be sure the judge won't look kindly at it.
A judges ruling is not a cast iron contract where following it to the letter is all that matter, the "spirit" of the ruling is key and Apple are willfully going against it.
Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.
The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.
If you organised your data properly, the only "nuisance" would be that you'd have to put an order through to a printer to print whatever documents they'd want.
"You want that data, ok, it'll take the part time staff your requests are paying for 20 seconds to filter out the date range and types of data you want, after that it'll just cost you $54 to cover the cost of printing 953 A4 pages and shipping it to you."
I'm pretty sure studios can and do issue takedown notices when they don't want a trailer to be shown. Also, movie studios have complete control over what they show in the trailers. Google doesn't care, Google just spoils the ending.
The question isn't so much as if their business model is good. The question is if their business model is legal or ethical. After all, robbing someone's house is a great business model in terms of making money.
News outlets may often rely on news feeds for stories but they still largely write their own analysis of it, often adding additional information (quotes, explanations, history of a story etc.). Just because it may be written referring to a feed or a story another paper broke doesn't stop it being original content, just like an essay written about a book is still original content or a scientific study based on public data (for example a population study based on census data) is original content.
Google shows a summary of the article, as well as images used by the article. This could in theory be enough to to get the gist of a story and to prevent the user from visiting the page.
When you're doing wholesale site rips, displaying content from each page for your own users, it becomes less clearcut that it's fair use or moral.
If you wrote a book that no one read because it used a no-name publisher and then Amazon stole the contents, put it on the front of their kindle store, made $1mill from the sales (that you don't see 1c of) and now everyone knows about the book, does that make it right? What if, say, it meant your paperback version sold an extra 1000 copies? 50,000 copies? 1mill copies? Would that still make it right that Amazon made so much money using your work without permission?
Now what if Amazon said, "if you don't let us profit off of your content, we will refuse to list your paperback, the only way people will find your book is if you let us profit from your content"?
I've lived my life with a condition that very few have even heard of and those that do tend to know it vaguely offensive monikers ("mild retardation", "clumsy child syndrome") that made my childhood pretty difficult and schools refused to even get me tested until late into my school life. But regardless, I hate people who use "my brother died that way..." points to win arguments. It's unfair and pointlessly turns them emotional.
For such a debilitating condition, he'd managed to live for 35 or so years with it with no diagnosis and had a stable job as a systems administrator. He only got the diagnosis after it became apparent it would be helpful for his appeal. Not only that, the people who diagnosed him were high profile and very media savvy doctors who would gain a lot promoting Aspergers, especially if they appeared in all the media as "the leading expert".
I think he should be tried on British soil but it's because he committed the crime on British soil, not because of his diagnosis.
No, it's Assange's fault that what should've been an old expired password was capable of completely compromising the data.
It was a piss poor security policy for data that was so sensitive.
When a website is hacked and plaintext passwords for all their users get leaked, few here would say "I don't blame the website, it's all on the hackers!". People would be angry that the website has poor security measures that allowed it to be compromised and they'd be even angrier that the data required minimal effort to decipher.
More directly, if you, and everyone else at a bank had their bank details in a zip file that everyone knew about and was downloadable by everyone. Would you feel safe and secure in the knowledge that it had a password on it?
Sorry, the blame ultimately goes on Assange's piss poor security procedures. He was put in charge of the data, the data (ironically) got leaked
His "brilliant" idea of making the encrypted files public (purely as a selfish insurance policy) meant that a 7 month old password getting made public fucked everything over and there was nothing he could do. He presumably sent passwords to journalists across the world, it was only a matter of time before a working password became known.
He was arrogant about security, had he kept his ego in check, he could have ensured that this kind of thing wouldn't have been possible.
Just because someone's paid by taxes, that should not mean they forsake any rights to privacy nor should it be a case that a Government should never have secrets.
Should military tactics be made public? Should the secrets about how to make advanced weaponry be public? Should I be able to to hear or read every phone call and email from Obama? Even if it's to his family about family matters?
Should a $16,000 a year government paid cleaner have the same lack of privacy? Should I be able to see who has received what operations that were paid for by tax dollars? Should I be able to read every letter sent to every member of government or government organisation by the public?
If you answered no to any of those questions, you agree that there are secrets the government need to protect and should protect.
Slashdot Mirror
I drive a truck in the UK - they're all limited to 56mph. So when you overtake another truck doing 1mph less than you...
I would just like to say I seriously hate you for doing this. You're saving a tiny, tiny fraction of your journey time in return for delaying hundreds of other cars by a large margin and creating traffic jams. Not to mention you make it incredibly difficult for people who need to pull in for their exit.
You say you don't need to leave stopping distance because it's hard for the lorry in front to slow fast? Your brakes are just as bad! If he brakes hard, you'll stand no chance of reacting fast enough, you'll hit his trailer, causing him to lose control, jackknife and take out a couple of lanes.
You can leave the 2 seconds, if someone's stupid enough to squeeze between two lorries, you can ease off the accelerator and give him 2 seconds. If it's possible for me the leave 2 seconds on the M25 every day getting to work, it's possible anywhere.
Three issues:
Expensive
Dangerous - encourages people to stare more intensely at the traffic lights rather than the road itself. People may speed up if they notice the traffic light has 5 seconds from a distance left.
Not possible for a lot of lights. Lots of signals have their timing controlled by external factors like cars waiting or prioritised busses.
Which is why the busier roundabouts are signal controlled.
I've a Lumia and the only problem I've had with it was caused by a hardware issue that needed an RMA. Browser has crashed out a couple of times but the phone itself is very stable.
Just wish they'd let you set the ring/alarm and application volumes seperately
How long has it been and people are still posting BS about the hack? The passwords were hashed, the CC info wasn't compromised and the server was up to date at the time of the hack (there's a google cache somewhere proving the version numbers). The personal details weren't encrypted but that's the same with most sites (besides which, if your server is compromised, so is the decryption key)
I repeat, there are no rules about if you pronounce a " s' " as it's own syllable or treat it as silent. It's all about what people think sounds right (and their accent). An example is "Los Angeles' citizens". Lots of people would pronounce that as "Los angelezis". Generally it's better to say it as it could confuse the listener as to whether or not the word is being used as an adjective or a noun with a possesive.
I'd wager most people would get them wrong or at least have to think fairly hard. In the case of " Chrises' " it's complicated enough for there to be no set rule about how it's pronounced (although most people would say 'Chrises' because 'Chriseses' sounds silly).
The second is definitely wrong (Ms. != Miss)
I had an OCZ drive fail on me. Was working perfectly fine, the day before. Turned on my PC, and the BIOS couldn't find the drive so it wouldn't boot. Booted up the old windows installation I still had on another HDD, nothing I could do could get any OS or the BIOS to even recognise I'd connected the SSD. All the data, completely unrecoverable with no advanced warning (after just 6 months of usage). Just to rub it in, I had to pay £20 to return the £160 drive to OCZ (and trust that they'd responsibly dispose of any data on the drive).
I'm extremely reluctant to buy another SSD after that and will never buy another OCZ product.
OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?
The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. There are a bunch of rules, often contradictory where you have to learn which takes priority and it's compounded by vague "if it could confuse the reader" rules.
They presented a confusing and misleading interpretation of the the judge's findings give an overall message of "the judge said our product was cool and much better, he also stated that we were wrong to say they copied from us but he was wrong and these other courts agree with us".
That's hardly a simple statement making it clear Samsung didn't copy from them, which is what was ordered. Apple even misled with regards to the other court cases (one wasn't even a court case, the other is soon to be thrown out).
Basically saying the UK judge's verdict was wrong is also in itself contempt of court, both legally and literally.
I'm saying the Judge gets to determine what the spirit of the ruling is, the same judge that drew up the ruling and the same judge they are deliberately trying to undermine and question.
Yes.
The reason Apple were made to do this apology in the first place was because they put out PR material that misled consumers over the court proceedings. To then, in the apology use selective quotes that distort the nature of the ruling again... You can be sure the judge won't look kindly at it.
A judges ruling is not a cast iron contract where following it to the letter is all that matter, the "spirit" of the ruling is key and Apple are willfully going against it.
Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.
The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.
You pay someone to do it for you. You are allowed to charge the costs for FOIA requests.
If you organised your data properly, the only "nuisance" would be that you'd have to put an order through to a printer to print whatever documents they'd want.
"You want that data, ok, it'll take the part time staff your requests are paying for 20 seconds to filter out the date range and types of data you want, after that it'll just cost you $54 to cover the cost of printing 953 A4 pages and shipping it to you."
I'm pretty sure studios can and do issue takedown notices when they don't want a trailer to be shown. Also, movie studios have complete control over what they show in the trailers. Google doesn't care, Google just spoils the ending.
The question isn't so much as if their business model is good. The question is if their business model is legal or ethical. After all, robbing someone's house is a great business model in terms of making money.
News outlets may often rely on news feeds for stories but they still largely write their own analysis of it, often adding additional information (quotes, explanations, history of a story etc.). Just because it may be written referring to a feed or a story another paper broke doesn't stop it being original content, just like an essay written about a book is still original content or a scientific study based on public data (for example a population study based on census data) is original content.
Google shows a summary of the article, as well as images used by the article. This could in theory be enough to to get the gist of a story and to prevent the user from visiting the page.
When you're doing wholesale site rips, displaying content from each page for your own users, it becomes less clearcut that it's fair use or moral.
If you wrote a book that no one read because it used a no-name publisher and then Amazon stole the contents, put it on the front of their kindle store, made $1mill from the sales (that you don't see 1c of) and now everyone knows about the book, does that make it right? What if, say, it meant your paperback version sold an extra 1000 copies? 50,000 copies? 1mill copies? Would that still make it right that Amazon made so much money using your work without permission?
Now what if Amazon said, "if you don't let us profit off of your content, we will refuse to list your paperback, the only way people will find your book is if you let us profit from your content"?
I've lived my life with a condition that very few have even heard of and those that do tend to know it vaguely offensive monikers ("mild retardation", "clumsy child syndrome") that made my childhood pretty difficult and schools refused to even get me tested until late into my school life. But regardless, I hate people who use "my brother died that way..." points to win arguments. It's unfair and pointlessly turns them emotional.
For such a debilitating condition, he'd managed to live for 35 or so years with it with no diagnosis and had a stable job as a systems administrator. He only got the diagnosis after it became apparent it would be helpful for his appeal. Not only that, the people who diagnosed him were high profile and very media savvy doctors who would gain a lot promoting Aspergers, especially if they appeared in all the media as "the leading expert".
I think he should be tried on British soil but it's because he committed the crime on British soil, not because of his diagnosis.
No, it's Assange's fault that what should've been an old expired password was capable of completely compromising the data.
It was a piss poor security policy for data that was so sensitive.
When a website is hacked and plaintext passwords for all their users get leaked, few here would say "I don't blame the website, it's all on the hackers!". People would be angry that the website has poor security measures that allowed it to be compromised and they'd be even angrier that the data required minimal effort to decipher.
More directly, if you, and everyone else at a bank had their bank details in a zip file that everyone knew about and was downloadable by everyone. Would you feel safe and secure in the knowledge that it had a password on it?
Sorry, the blame ultimately goes on Assange's piss poor security procedures. He was put in charge of the data, the data (ironically) got leaked
His "brilliant" idea of making the encrypted files public (purely as a selfish insurance policy) meant that a 7 month old password getting made public fucked everything over and there was nothing he could do. He presumably sent passwords to journalists across the world, it was only a matter of time before a working password became known.
He was arrogant about security, had he kept his ego in check, he could have ensured that this kind of thing wouldn't have been possible.
The data was not public, it was rightfully classified and 99% of it was not in the public interest, it was little more than diplomatic tittle tattle.
Just because someone's paid by taxes, that should not mean they forsake any rights to privacy nor should it be a case that a Government should never have secrets.
Should military tactics be made public? Should the secrets about how to make advanced weaponry be public? Should I be able to to hear or read every phone call and email from Obama? Even if it's to his family about family matters?
Should a $16,000 a year government paid cleaner have the same lack of privacy? Should I be able to see who has received what operations that were paid for by tax dollars? Should I be able to read every letter sent to every member of government or government organisation by the public?
If you answered no to any of those questions, you agree that there are secrets the government need to protect and should protect.