Harrassment is illegal. Get him to formally complain to the police, his MP and the local council, demand action and if necessary ask a court for an ASBO.
UK police are... special... at times. But they're not stupid. They wouldn't make a move against a website unless that website was actually doing something illegal.
Next you'll be telling me they'd never shoot an innocent Brazilian in the head 9 times on the tube.
If you suggest they wouldn't make a move against a website without a court order I'd still laugh at you. If you suggest they wouldn't seize a server without a court order I'd tend to agree - but I'd also point out that a court order is not an indication of guilt.
I've never been to that site and I don't know the content it used to host. I do think the SOCA statement is inflammatory, full of shit and based on music industry lies, and that means I also suspect the police acting on this case are also inflammatory, full of shit and perpetuating music industry lies.
That makes them stupid and/or corrupt, and libel laws prevent me claiming that they're corrupt.
No, I'm just pissed off with the inanity of the patents companies apply for, are granted, then use to sue other companies. I had a phone with voice search on it before Apple even started developing the first iPhone, and yeah, I mean built into the phone itself.
Let alone the obviousness of "talk to your phone". No shit. Damn, didn't see that one coming.
Lets face it, Apple's acting like a bunch of cunts, doing their best to fuck over a competitive market by acting very anticompetitively and all because their excessive profit margins are under threat from other competitors offering superior products.
You may call that viewpoint moronic, but you lack any credibility so it doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately they also patent a ton of shit and sue people based on that. Yes, rounded fucking corners. Yes, voice search. Shit, voice search on a phone has been around since I first owned a phone - haven't you fucking heard of "Directory Enquiries" ?
Children are a lifestyle choice these days. Dont have them if you cant afford them - I subsidise them (through education, child benefit and health) far too much already.
Anyway, why the big fat assumption only married people have children? How about cohabiting couples, what about happy threesomes, why not a single person that chooses to have a family? Dont impose your worldview and its constraints on the rest of us.
I have an issue with rewarding marriage of any form with official benefits (tax or otherwise). Cut out all of the benefits and there's no need to officially recognise gay marriage - or indeed, to refuse to recognise it.
Someone in government attempting to legislate discrimination against people engaging in a natural, consensual and loving act is not "expressing a personal opnion".
The best people like myself can hope for is that you and your preferred political representatives never get power.
You can squeeze out of your hinged door, but you want to open the kids' doors wide so that you can unstrap them from their safety seat and pick them up without contorting in a painful manner.
Or if you don't have kids, it's something to show off to your passengers without stopping you parking in your garage.
Most likely, it's design for the sake of it, to give the car a more distinctive look and get people talking about it - they're not going to sell many of these anyway, because the range isn't sufficient and the price is too high.
Nobody I've ever known has had a vehicle rollover situation.
If they did, I'm sure they could kick out the windows and exit via those. Or what, you think a hinged door's going to work it's buckled and twisted by accident damage?
The biggest problem with Gullwing doors is opening the fuckers anywhere there's a roof above you. Vehicle rollover is an utter non-issue.
You do realise that Clarkson has stated on Top Gear that fuel cell powered cars are the future?
He doesn't have an issue with electric cars, he has an issue with cars that can't be driven because they need several hours recharging.
I suppose some people have to bury a family member because some idiot in a street racer or a super car concluded that public roads are his own personal Nurnberg ring before you understand the logic behind speed limits and traffic laws.
Nice hyperbole. It's possible to believe in a tyranny of speed limits without demanding that people die in race carnage.
Trust me, the fuckwits driving at 30mph in a 60 limit are a fuck of a lot more dangerous to me than the people doing 70.
Misplaced rant, who said they werent buying CD quality audio online?
Anyway, the music is there to be danced to. There are dance teachers that will play the music for a class from their iPod. Sure, that's not audiophile quality but it's perfextly adequate for dancing and we enjoy ourselves.
More complicated is that the satnav doesn't know how well you're driving.
If I'm breaking sharply, that may be because I'm driving aggressively because the road is utterly empty for half a mile in each direction.
If I'm cornering aggressively, that may be because I bought a car that can go round fucking corners.
If I'm driving at 30mph, that may mean I'm causing accidents by being too slow and causing a hazard to others, but the insurance company will give me a discount.
Simple sequence of events: - the insurance product offers a cheaper rate due to monitoring - to protect the insurance company, monitoring is agreed to as part of the insurance contract - disabling the monitoring thus breaks the contract - you are now no longer insured
So you don't even need a crash, you just need the police to check.
It's "potential value". It's worth $23bn until he tries to sell it, at which point it's probably worth somewhat less if he dumps it all at once.
Assume he does sell it for $23bn though. That money has to come from somewhere. Maybe someone else has the cash in the bank (e.g. Apple), maybe someone would need a big loan, maybe everybody on the planet would stump up $4 each. Where the money comes from isn't actually important, except that it's the answer to your question: That $23bn is doing whatever the hell it's doing right now, in Apple's bank account, in an investment portfolio, in some Chinese farmer's earnings at the market. Until/unless he tries to sell, it just doesn't exist as a pile of cash in the economy.
Technically the $23bn represents a (large) percentage of the value of Facebook, which is itself predicated on Facebook contributing significantly to the world economy. So interpret the $23bn as an enumeration of the contribution already being made rather than an elimination of $23bn from elsewhere.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
An option has NO value at it's time of issue
What utter bullshit. There are entire financial markets built around the creation and trading of options - none of which would happen (or be possible) if they had no value.
Why would people issue or accept options if they had no value.
Hint: Anticipated future income has current value. It's a discounted value, but it very much exists (and it's also very easily taxed as a result). It's not "nearly worthless", but I concur that it's not the full value of the stock it permits you to buy.
Interesting question, but is the danger of being prosecuted for fencing/receiving stolen goods/conspiracy to pirate/etc higher than the danger of being fined for downloading illicit copies of someone else's IP?
I guess there's a "But I thought it was legal" defence, where you pay for the MP3 and accept that you have to delete it if someone informs you that it's not a legal copy - much as you have to return an accidentally purchased stolen car.
3 of those minutes were spent rebooting the piece of shit BT supplied router my landlord insists on using, 4 minutes were spent trying to find the capacity of the Lenovo battery and 2 minutes were spent validating that the Xenon comes with the screen resolution you need, equivalent processor/etc to the Lenovo, the same battery capacity as the Lenovo and a "No OS Installed" option.
Do I expect precise exact guaranteed answers? Obviously not.
Do I expect you to use engineering discipline, estimating expertise and historical bases to give me a pretty reasonable idea within a few weeks of when you might deliver something, and within a couple of hundred k of the cost? Actually, yes.
I know too many people that can work within those tolerances to put up with fucking idiots that go "Oh, but you can't predict that."
Yes, you can predict that. It's pretty fucking easy. Getting it exactly right every time is extremely hard, but fortunately that's also not necessary. Your estimates only have to be 'good enough', just like your software only has to be 'good enough'.
I can use manual processes to cover for the gaps in the software. I need the software and there's no way in hell I'm going to allocate budget to an open-ended uncosted development.
Slashdot Mirror
You've heard wrong information.
Of course, Enforcing the castledom of your home isn't going to help much in the face of the police anyway.
Yep, that sounds like religion to me.
Harrassment is illegal. Get him to formally complain to the police, his MP and the local council, demand action and if necessary ask a court for an ASBO.
Use the system against itself.
UK police are... special... at times. But they're not stupid. They wouldn't make a move against a website unless that website was actually doing something illegal.
Next you'll be telling me they'd never shoot an innocent Brazilian in the head 9 times on the tube.
If you suggest they wouldn't make a move against a website without a court order I'd still laugh at you. If you suggest they wouldn't seize a server without a court order I'd tend to agree - but I'd also point out that a court order is not an indication of guilt.
I've never been to that site and I don't know the content it used to host. I do think the SOCA statement is inflammatory, full of shit and based on music industry lies, and that means I also suspect the police acting on this case are also inflammatory, full of shit and perpetuating music industry lies.
That makes them stupid and/or corrupt, and libel laws prevent me claiming that they're corrupt.
No, I'm just pissed off with the inanity of the patents companies apply for, are granted, then use to sue other companies. I had a phone with voice search on it before Apple even started developing the first iPhone, and yeah, I mean built into the phone itself.
Let alone the obviousness of "talk to your phone". No shit. Damn, didn't see that one coming.
Lets face it, Apple's acting like a bunch of cunts, doing their best to fuck over a competitive market by acting very anticompetitively and all because their excessive profit margins are under threat from other competitors offering superior products.
You may call that viewpoint moronic, but you lack any credibility so it doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately they also patent a ton of shit and sue people based on that. Yes, rounded fucking corners. Yes, voice search. Shit, voice search on a phone has been around since I first owned a phone - haven't you fucking heard of "Directory Enquiries" ?
Hmm. Maybe it'll need a tactile response to let the user know it's been successful. Perhaps a small vibration?
I'm sensing a market opportunity here.
But what upsets me about Android and Samsung is that the phones and the platform just suck
That'll be why the iPhone 4 owners in my office want to upgrade to a Samsung Galaxy Nexus after having a play with mine.
(..and _that_ will be why Apple are running scared and suing Samsung)
Children are a lifestyle choice these days. Dont have them if you cant afford them - I subsidise them (through education, child benefit and health) far too much already.
Anyway, why the big fat assumption only married people have children? How about cohabiting couples, what about happy threesomes, why not a single person that chooses to have a family? Dont impose your worldview and its constraints on the rest of us.
Especially dont expect us to pay for it.
I don't have an issue with opposing gay marriage.
I have an issue with rewarding marriage of any form with official benefits (tax or otherwise). Cut out all of the benefits and there's no need to officially recognise gay marriage - or indeed, to refuse to recognise it.
Someone in government attempting to legislate discrimination against people engaging in a natural, consensual and loving act is not "expressing a personal opnion".
The best people like myself can hope for is that you and your preferred political representatives never get power.
You can squeeze out of your hinged door, but you want to open the kids' doors wide so that you can unstrap them from their safety seat and pick them up without contorting in a painful manner.
Or if you don't have kids, it's something to show off to your passengers without stopping you parking in your garage.
Most likely, it's design for the sake of it, to give the car a more distinctive look and get people talking about it - they're not going to sell many of these anyway, because the range isn't sufficient and the price is too high.
Nobody I've ever known has had a vehicle rollover situation.
If they did, I'm sure they could kick out the windows and exit via those. Or what, you think a hinged door's going to work it's buckled and twisted by accident damage?
The biggest problem with Gullwing doors is opening the fuckers anywhere there's a roof above you. Vehicle rollover is an utter non-issue.
You do realise that Clarkson has stated on Top Gear that fuel cell powered cars are the future?
He doesn't have an issue with electric cars, he has an issue with cars that can't be driven because they need several hours recharging.
I suppose some people have to bury a family member because some idiot in a street racer or a super car concluded that public roads are his own personal Nurnberg ring before you understand the logic behind speed limits and traffic laws.
Nice hyperbole. It's possible to believe in a tyranny of speed limits without demanding that people die in race carnage.
Trust me, the fuckwits driving at 30mph in a 60 limit are a fuck of a lot more dangerous to me than the people doing 70.
Misplaced rant, who said they werent buying CD quality audio online?
Anyway, the music is there to be danced to. There are dance teachers that will play the music for a class from their iPod. Sure, that's not audiophile quality but it's perfextly adequate for dancing and we enjoy ourselves.
More complicated is that the satnav doesn't know how well you're driving.
If I'm breaking sharply, that may be because I'm driving aggressively because the road is utterly empty for half a mile in each direction.
If I'm cornering aggressively, that may be because I bought a car that can go round fucking corners.
If I'm driving at 30mph, that may mean I'm causing accidents by being too slow and causing a hazard to others, but the insurance company will give me a discount.
In all, it's a shitty deal for me personally.
Mandatory insurance isn't for your benefit. It's to ensure that you can pay the poor sod your stupid driving caused a loss to.
Actually, in the UK, he's spot on.
Simple sequence of events:
- the insurance product offers a cheaper rate due to monitoring
- to protect the insurance company, monitoring is agreed to as part of the insurance contract
- disabling the monitoring thus breaks the contract
- you are now no longer insured
So you don't even need a crash, you just need the police to check.
It's "potential value". It's worth $23bn until he tries to sell it, at which point it's probably worth somewhat less if he dumps it all at once.
Assume he does sell it for $23bn though. That money has to come from somewhere. Maybe someone else has the cash in the bank (e.g. Apple), maybe someone would need a big loan, maybe everybody on the planet would stump up $4 each. Where the money comes from isn't actually important, except that it's the answer to your question: That $23bn is doing whatever the hell it's doing right now, in Apple's bank account, in an investment portfolio, in some Chinese farmer's earnings at the market. Until/unless he tries to sell, it just doesn't exist as a pile of cash in the economy.
Technically the $23bn represents a (large) percentage of the value of Facebook, which is itself predicated on Facebook contributing significantly to the world economy. So interpret the $23bn as an enumeration of the contribution already being made rather than an elimination of $23bn from elsewhere.
An option has NO value at it's time of issue
What utter bullshit. There are entire financial markets built around the creation and trading of options - none of which would happen (or be possible) if they had no value.
Why would people issue or accept options if they had no value.
Hint: Anticipated future income has current value. It's a discounted value, but it very much exists (and it's also very easily taxed as a result). It's not "nearly worthless", but I concur that it's not the full value of the stock it permits you to buy.
So DJs I know (in the UK) that buy their music online get the inlays how exactly?
(Personally I'd sack everyone that works for the PRS and let people play music for free, but that's a separate discussion)
Interesting question, but is the danger of being prosecuted for fencing/receiving stolen goods/conspiracy to pirate/etc higher than the danger of being fined for downloading illicit copies of someone else's IP?
I guess there's a "But I thought it was legal" defence, where you pay for the MP3 and accept that you have to delete it if someone informs you that it's not a legal copy - much as you have to return an accidentally purchased stolen car.
Took me 9 minutes to confirm:
http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/notebooks/xenon/
3 of those minutes were spent rebooting the piece of shit BT supplied router my landlord insists on using, 4 minutes were spent trying to find the capacity of the Lenovo battery and 2 minutes were spent validating that the Xenon comes with the screen resolution you need, equivalent processor/etc to the Lenovo, the same battery capacity as the Lenovo and a "No OS Installed" option.
But hey, I didn't really try very hard.
What the fuck is with you fucking amateurs.
Do I expect precise exact guaranteed answers? Obviously not.
Do I expect you to use engineering discipline, estimating expertise and historical bases to give me a pretty reasonable idea within a few weeks of when you might deliver something, and within a couple of hundred k of the cost? Actually, yes.
I know too many people that can work within those tolerances to put up with fucking idiots that go "Oh, but you can't predict that."
Yes, you can predict that. It's pretty fucking easy. Getting it exactly right every time is extremely hard, but fortunately that's also not necessary. Your estimates only have to be 'good enough', just like your software only has to be 'good enough'.
I can use manual processes to cover for the gaps in the software. I need the software and there's no way in hell I'm going to allocate budget to an open-ended uncosted development.
In short, you're a cunt, and see my other posts regarding atheism for the details.