It's not Netflix's fault, that's solely the fault of the content providers that insist on having their content only time limited. So, I've found that I want to watch a movie and then when I get to it a couple days later it's no longer available. I'm sure that Netflix would love to have content stay permanently.
It's basically just more evidence that content providers don't really care about piracy.
Not really, everybody knows that you can create great products using the right commercial tool, but in order for OSS to get any sort of credibility it's going to take people going public with their support. Particularly when one is in a position to create a professional product using just OSS.
The more examples there are, the more likely it is that there's going to be funding to develop them further.
It's typical of the GOP, remember around 2004 when they were worried about same sex marriage and abortion to the exclusion of actual serious issues like the budget, the two wars we were in and the various other problems we were dealing with at that point?
I'm not using that argument, but I think it requires a good faith effort to stop as soon as possible. Which usually will be pretty immediate. Not several minutes later. But, you do have a point, in that absolutely immediately isn't necessarily realistic in all cases.
You might want to re-read my post. She consented at the time, and changed her mind after the fact. This new story about her withdrawing consent mid coitus is a new story, and it really begs the question as to why the story has now changed to that degree. I don't know which version is correct.
At this point, I doubt either woman has sufficient credibility to be a witness without some substantiating evidence that anything illegal happened. And them hanging out afterwards is not likely to lend credibility to any case that the prosecutor can put forth at trial.
What gets me is that the treasury has super strong protections in pretty much all areas of their account management, but then uses secret questions in order to remove locks and all that. Which kind of ruins the security features that they've been using.
On top of that, it's very possible to get locked out of your account permanently due to them being unwilling to shoulder any responsibility when it comes to unlocking the account. So, if you don't have a statement on hand to show your financial institution, the institution won't issue the signature guarantee, and if you don't get the signature guarantee, the treasury won't remove the hard lock. Whereas, they could just shoulder some responsibility and accept a notarized form and spare folks the possibility of being locked out completely.
Hotmail used to be a serious problem because of the amount of spam coming from there, it was too big of a domain for most folks to block, but there was a significant amount of spam originating there. That seems to have changed in recent years though.
You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal. Sure it was stupid to sleep with a radical feminist, but nothing that could reasonably be foreseen as criminal.
No, it wouldn't count as rape then. Rape is purely about consent. Consent was given and provided that he wasn't knowingly spreading the disease there's nothing that can or should be done about it.
While we're at it, what about all the women that trick men into getting them pregnant by claiming to be on the pill? Following your logic that's rape as well, which is just absurd. If you have sex without a condom, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.
I don't see any problems with that. The parents would have to actually parent. It's not like the internet is a safe place to park young children anyways.
If that happens then you're probably not driving defensively. Ultimately, whether or not the crash would be your fault, you're still supposed to be keeping an eye out for things that might lead to a crash.
Yes, it's free speech, but just because it's free doesn't make it a wise idea. Which is what this is all about, if OSS projects want more involvement by women, then these sorts of slips are pretty unforgivable. This isn't really the sort of thing which anybody in their right mind could pretend wasn't an obvious source of offense. Nor is this a case of somebody with thin skin getting offended. Package names are not really an appropriate place to push the limits of expression, if one is also wanting to have a diverse group of individuals working on it.
No, it's not, it's a reference to looking up skirts, which is hardly the same thing as rape.
As for the whole deal of oppression that really depends where you are in the world. It's patently untrue that women in America are oppressed, in most areas they come out ahead of men and receive a significant amount of protection not presently provided to men. From what I gather, same goes for the UK and Sweden.
That being said, it's still not a good idea to go about offending people over something this fundamentally stupid. I can't imagine one what basis naming the software these sorts of things is a good idea.
They can, but the reality is that they can open the thing with or without the cooperation of the individual, it's just less time consuming to do so. However, in the case of an encrypted file, they likely wouldn't be able to get at the contents while it's still relevant to the case.
If they need into the safe they can usually find a locksmith that can open it, probably damaging it in the process, but they would ultimately be able to open it without the person's cooperation. However with a properly encrypted file, they might not be able to decrypt it until the statute of limitations is up without the help of the suspect.
That's a completely different situation to be in, the fifth amendment is there to protect a suspect in cases where the prosecution can't turn up any witnesses or evidence other than the suspect's own testimony.
It's more complicated in some respects. We can't crackdown too much on licensing like they do in parts of Europe because our mass transit systems are typically wholly inadequate for the needs of the people. I say that as an avid bus rider, but there's times when I've had to choose between a job and taking the bus. The bus will typically add an additional half hour each way to my commute, assuming that I don't need to transfer. And good luck making a quick stop to pick up groceries on the way home.
It's not so much a right as a necessity. Around here the bus system sucks. It's hard to go anywhere via mass transit that isn't going to take at least an hour. And rather than fix the problem, the mayor has decided that it's more important to clog up traffic with excessive bike lanes.
I take the bus or walk most places, but I had to find a new job when I wasn't able to get downtown on time for work because buses don't operate anywhere that early on a Sunday. Not to mention how much time it takes to go by bus if you're trip doesn't naturally go through downtown.
A lot of that isn't preventable though the way that cell phone usage is. People who exhibit the sorts of behaviors you're pointing to are most likely just not from around there. You probably have a point about roundabouts, but the rest of it is largely a function of familiarity with the region. And really, that's why people should be given defensive driving lessons as a condition of getting a license. I've never been in an accident while driving about the streets because I was taught to look out for erratic drivers and because in times that I myself have lapsed the other parties were engaged in defensive driving.
Around here what we really need is better parking enforcement. There's just way too many places where one has to pull out blind because some jackass was parked too close to the corner with a line of sight blocking vehicle.
Police officers being exempted doesn't bother me too much as there's that camera there if they're driving stupidly and get in an accident. What does bother me is that they aren't the only group exempted from the requirement. And given that the rules around here allow you to use the phone with a headset, I'm not really sure why commercial drivers should be given an exemption.
Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing. Which is why most instructors have stopped using the term "accident." You might not be able to control what the person behind you is doing, but whenever there's an accident somebody could have done something about it.
The types of accidents where nobody is at fault are pretty rare. Usually it pretty much takes a gaping hole to open directly under the car for that to happen.
Crichton wrote a bit about that in "The Great Train Robbery" where the burglar is planning to walk on top of a train that's going freeway speeds. Believing that he'll deal with suction down onto the top and wholly misunderstanding the consequences of falling of the train. Not to mention failure to bring a change of clothes for the ones that got all sooty.
You do realize that it's a lot easier to do that if you control the platform, right? I realize that it's popular to badmouth Firefox around here, but you can't just do something like that in a software product that spans at least a half dozen different OSes and has 20%+ market share. It just isn't that simple, you have to get it right on all the various OS machine combinations or you get all sorts of bad press for being buggy. And if you don't you get a lot of idiots complaining about how you're not moving quickly enough. It's ultimately a no win situation for them.
They always have their various nicknames for new releases, the only actual name changes were die to name conflicts, hence the change from Phoenix to Firebird to Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not Netflix's fault, that's solely the fault of the content providers that insist on having their content only time limited. So, I've found that I want to watch a movie and then when I get to it a couple days later it's no longer available. I'm sure that Netflix would love to have content stay permanently.
It's basically just more evidence that content providers don't really care about piracy.
Not really, everybody knows that you can create great products using the right commercial tool, but in order for OSS to get any sort of credibility it's going to take people going public with their support. Particularly when one is in a position to create a professional product using just OSS.
The more examples there are, the more likely it is that there's going to be funding to develop them further.
It's typical of the GOP, remember around 2004 when they were worried about same sex marriage and abortion to the exclusion of actual serious issues like the budget, the two wars we were in and the various other problems we were dealing with at that point?
I'm not using that argument, but I think it requires a good faith effort to stop as soon as possible. Which usually will be pretty immediate. Not several minutes later. But, you do have a point, in that absolutely immediately isn't necessarily realistic in all cases.
You might want to re-read my post. She consented at the time, and changed her mind after the fact. This new story about her withdrawing consent mid coitus is a new story, and it really begs the question as to why the story has now changed to that degree. I don't know which version is correct.
At this point, I doubt either woman has sufficient credibility to be a witness without some substantiating evidence that anything illegal happened. And them hanging out afterwards is not likely to lend credibility to any case that the prosecutor can put forth at trial.
What gets me is that the treasury has super strong protections in pretty much all areas of their account management, but then uses secret questions in order to remove locks and all that. Which kind of ruins the security features that they've been using.
On top of that, it's very possible to get locked out of your account permanently due to them being unwilling to shoulder any responsibility when it comes to unlocking the account. So, if you don't have a statement on hand to show your financial institution, the institution won't issue the signature guarantee, and if you don't get the signature guarantee, the treasury won't remove the hard lock. Whereas, they could just shoulder some responsibility and accept a notarized form and spare folks the possibility of being locked out completely.
Hotmail used to be a serious problem because of the amount of spam coming from there, it was too big of a domain for most folks to block, but there was a significant amount of spam originating there. That seems to have changed in recent years though.
You can withdraw consent at any point during sex, but you can't withdraw consent afterwards. Which is really the crux of the matter, the women didn't consider it to be rape until after consulting with police, which makes it really fishy that there was anything that Assange did that was criminal. Sure it was stupid to sleep with a radical feminist, but nothing that could reasonably be foreseen as criminal.
No, it wouldn't count as rape then. Rape is purely about consent. Consent was given and provided that he wasn't knowingly spreading the disease there's nothing that can or should be done about it.
While we're at it, what about all the women that trick men into getting them pregnant by claiming to be on the pill? Following your logic that's rape as well, which is just absurd. If you have sex without a condom, STIs and pregnancy are real risks. Claiming that it's different if the risk turns out to be high isn't really legitimate.
I don't see any problems with that. The parents would have to actually parent. It's not like the internet is a safe place to park young children anyways.
If that happens then you're probably not driving defensively. Ultimately, whether or not the crash would be your fault, you're still supposed to be keeping an eye out for things that might lead to a crash.
Yes, it's free speech, but just because it's free doesn't make it a wise idea. Which is what this is all about, if OSS projects want more involvement by women, then these sorts of slips are pretty unforgivable. This isn't really the sort of thing which anybody in their right mind could pretend wasn't an obvious source of offense. Nor is this a case of somebody with thin skin getting offended. Package names are not really an appropriate place to push the limits of expression, if one is also wanting to have a diverse group of individuals working on it.
No, it's not, it's a reference to looking up skirts, which is hardly the same thing as rape.
As for the whole deal of oppression that really depends where you are in the world. It's patently untrue that women in America are oppressed, in most areas they come out ahead of men and receive a significant amount of protection not presently provided to men. From what I gather, same goes for the UK and Sweden.
That being said, it's still not a good idea to go about offending people over something this fundamentally stupid. I can't imagine one what basis naming the software these sorts of things is a good idea.
That's not true, my Thinkpad x120e has a HDMI port to go along the VGA port. And I only got it last month.
They can, but the reality is that they can open the thing with or without the cooperation of the individual, it's just less time consuming to do so. However, in the case of an encrypted file, they likely wouldn't be able to get at the contents while it's still relevant to the case.
If they need into the safe they can usually find a locksmith that can open it, probably damaging it in the process, but they would ultimately be able to open it without the person's cooperation. However with a properly encrypted file, they might not be able to decrypt it until the statute of limitations is up without the help of the suspect.
That's a completely different situation to be in, the fifth amendment is there to protect a suspect in cases where the prosecution can't turn up any witnesses or evidence other than the suspect's own testimony.
It's more complicated in some respects. We can't crackdown too much on licensing like they do in parts of Europe because our mass transit systems are typically wholly inadequate for the needs of the people. I say that as an avid bus rider, but there's times when I've had to choose between a job and taking the bus. The bus will typically add an additional half hour each way to my commute, assuming that I don't need to transfer. And good luck making a quick stop to pick up groceries on the way home.
It's not so much a right as a necessity. Around here the bus system sucks. It's hard to go anywhere via mass transit that isn't going to take at least an hour. And rather than fix the problem, the mayor has decided that it's more important to clog up traffic with excessive bike lanes.
I take the bus or walk most places, but I had to find a new job when I wasn't able to get downtown on time for work because buses don't operate anywhere that early on a Sunday. Not to mention how much time it takes to go by bus if you're trip doesn't naturally go through downtown.
A lot of that isn't preventable though the way that cell phone usage is. People who exhibit the sorts of behaviors you're pointing to are most likely just not from around there. You probably have a point about roundabouts, but the rest of it is largely a function of familiarity with the region. And really, that's why people should be given defensive driving lessons as a condition of getting a license. I've never been in an accident while driving about the streets because I was taught to look out for erratic drivers and because in times that I myself have lapsed the other parties were engaged in defensive driving.
Around here what we really need is better parking enforcement. There's just way too many places where one has to pull out blind because some jackass was parked too close to the corner with a line of sight blocking vehicle.
Police officers being exempted doesn't bother me too much as there's that camera there if they're driving stupidly and get in an accident. What does bother me is that they aren't the only group exempted from the requirement. And given that the rules around here allow you to use the phone with a headset, I'm not really sure why commercial drivers should be given an exemption.
Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing. Which is why most instructors have stopped using the term "accident." You might not be able to control what the person behind you is doing, but whenever there's an accident somebody could have done something about it.
The types of accidents where nobody is at fault are pretty rare. Usually it pretty much takes a gaping hole to open directly under the car for that to happen.
To be fair, most of those people aren't particularly evolved.
Crichton wrote a bit about that in "The Great Train Robbery" where the burglar is planning to walk on top of a train that's going freeway speeds. Believing that he'll deal with suction down onto the top and wholly misunderstanding the consequences of falling of the train. Not to mention failure to bring a change of clothes for the ones that got all sooty.
You do realize that it's a lot easier to do that if you control the platform, right? I realize that it's popular to badmouth Firefox around here, but you can't just do something like that in a software product that spans at least a half dozen different OSes and has 20%+ market share. It just isn't that simple, you have to get it right on all the various OS machine combinations or you get all sorts of bad press for being buggy. And if you don't you get a lot of idiots complaining about how you're not moving quickly enough. It's ultimately a no win situation for them.
They always have their various nicknames for new releases, the only actual name changes were die to name conflicts, hence the change from Phoenix to Firebird to Firefox.