Perhaps i'm being a pedant but it is not "once more legal" to own a ipod fm transmitter and the devices were never "banned". As with any FM transmitter they were simply always illegal to operate with out a license. The law made no distiction between high and low power transmitters.
Yes in the UK under the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949 the use of all FM transmitters in certain frequencies requires a license. Buying and selling the things however has always been legal, just using them without a license that was illegal.
According to the linked wikipedia article current ultracapacitors have an energy to weight ratio of about 3-5w.h/kg. That means to store 1 kw/h of electricity the cap would way 200kg. Using the $0.10 per kw/h then $9 = 90kw/h, so using current technology the capacitor would way 18000kg or 18 tonnes. These capacitors must be some kind of quantumn leap forward in order to store that kind of energy and not weigh as much as two fully loaded busses and be the size of a house. Either that or they are just more vaporware
Everyday we all use computers to do stuff and to get them to perform actions etc we click on stuff with a mouse but in a movie when anyone ever sits at a computer they get it to do stuff by typing at the keyboard. When was the last time you even say someone use a mouse on TV or in a movie. Even when it clearly shows a GUI on the screen they always issue command by typing stuff in.
I think it is probably becuase there is no Windows version of Evolution, if open office is trying to be a viable replacement for MS Office on the desktop then it has to continue to fully support Windows.
Really? That's a bit draconian, what if you live close enough to commute and decide to stay with your parents to save money, what if you are a mature student and/or have a family and do not wish to move out of your current residence? what if you simply do not like the accomodation and wish to live else where? What right do they even have to tell you where you can live?
Absolutely everything the big content companies are doping to "fight piracy" is actually about controlling the market or more imortantly controlling the distribution. Otherwise they would just license companies like AllOfMP3.com rather than trying to get them shut down.
"I go to a small school and we have no option but to live on campus in dorms." Why not, what's to stop a group of you simply renting somewhere instead?
You talk like what i sugest is some theoretical untried idea. It is not, it is an actual law that has been in place for many years in the UK and throught the EU. It works, companies do adhere to it. Company directors can go to prison if the company is found to be willfully breaking the data protection laws and there is a government dept. called the data protection commisioner that enforces the law. It is a proven solution.
That said, to think that you can completely prevent data leaks by any means is simply unreasonable. If data can be accessed by human beings for legitimate purposes then it can be leaked. All that you can expect is that companies take neccesary and reasonable steps to prevent access to your data, such as not giving it out over the phone with only a request for the last 4 digits of your social security number as proof of your identity. I live in the UK and if i want to do something such as find out how much i owe on my phone bill over the phone then i have to give a pre-determind password that only i know and answer two randomenly selected security questions such as, what is my mothers maiden name, how did i pay my last bill etc.
It is actually illegal for a company in the UK to pass personal info to their head office in the US, simply because you do not have any data protection laws.
It's proven and it is efective and it is not overly burdensome, simply put it in place.
It works in the UK, ensuring your company complies with the Data Protection Act is taken very seriously in the UK. The kind of "pretexting" used in the current HP board members phone record scandal is simply not possible in the UK because there is a law in place and companies respect it and adhere to it.
The fact that there is a law gives the companies that hold your data the motivation that is otherwise lacking, to make sure it is safe. Companies don't make decisions like "why bother complying with the law we'll never get caught", they make decisions like "why risk getting caught, we really should take steps to make sure we don't breach the regulations". Anyway it's not about who leaked what data, it's about what measures are in place to prevent your data being leaked. Companies can be prosecuted if it can be shown that there not sufficient safeguards in place to secure your data, irrespective of whether any leak took place. Conversely if data is leaked, despite stringent security measures (e.g. a member of staff breaches clear guidelines or is fraudulent), then the company is not liable for prosecution.
With the Data Protection Act here in the UK and similar laws throughout the EU, companies are legally obliged to keep personally identifiable information confidential and if they do not they can be prosecuted. Implement that in the US, there's your answer.
That's a definition for assure, assure and ensure can be used fairly interchangeably but to insure something is to take out an insurance policy, as i said. The only reference to insure on that page is about the fact that in the UK when you take out a life insurance policy it tends to be called a life assurance policy.
To insure something is take out an insurance policy on it against theft or damage or liability or whatever, if you want to make sure something happens you ensure it. The two are not interchangeable
No it's more like what music publishers and songwriters do through PRS/MCPS/ASCAP/BMI etc. Record labels don't really license their content much through collection agencies, you have to do a deal with each individual record label. Although the exception to this is people like PPL and SoundExchange but this is solely for public performace and broadcasting type stuff. I don't really see the problem with this, it would just make it easier to license textual information if you wanted to use someone elses stuff on your website. If the person owning the copyright is happy for the info to be public domain anyway, then they are not going to license it through AC.
I think "revealed" is a little strong for the grainy, blured, black and white photo of the UI. I think that "Microsoft Zune MP3 Player Interface Largely Obscured" would be a much better headline for this article;-)
Maybe things are different in the US but in the UK getting a Masters degree when you already have a bathelors degree is a one year full time course and makes little or no difference to your job prospects. It basically says i did 4 years at degree level and not three. Are things different over there?
Forgive my ignorance if what i am saying is complete rubbish, but wouldn't a bone marrow transplant have a good chance of restoring the victims immune systems?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps i'm being a pedant but it is not "once more legal" to own a ipod fm transmitter and the devices were never "banned". As with any FM transmitter they were simply always illegal to operate with out a license. The law made no distiction between high and low power transmitters.
Yes in the UK under the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949 the use of all FM transmitters in certain frequencies requires a license. Buying and selling the things however has always been legal, just using them without a license that was illegal.
Well they did.
It was only the first series that was shown first in the UK, series 2 and 3 are US firsts.
According to the linked wikipedia article current ultracapacitors have an energy to weight ratio of about 3-5w.h/kg. That means to store 1 kw/h of electricity the cap would way 200kg. Using the $0.10 per kw/h then $9 = 90kw/h, so using current technology the capacitor would way 18000kg or 18 tonnes. These capacitors must be some kind of quantumn leap forward in order to store that kind of energy and not weigh as much as two fully loaded busses and be the size of a house. Either that or they are just more vaporware
Everyday we all use computers to do stuff and to get them to perform actions etc we click on stuff with a mouse but in a movie when anyone ever sits at a computer they get it to do stuff by typing at the keyboard. When was the last time you even say someone use a mouse on TV or in a movie. Even when it clearly shows a GUI on the screen they always issue command by typing stuff in.
I think it is probably becuase there is no Windows version of Evolution, if open office is trying to be a viable replacement for MS Office on the desktop then it has to continue to fully support Windows.
Hmm that was a typo, but yeah it seems to fit ;-)
Really? That's a bit draconian, what if you live close enough to commute and decide to stay with your parents to save money, what if you are a mature student and/or have a family and do not wish to move out of your current residence? what if you simply do not like the accomodation and wish to live else where? What right do they even have to tell you where you can live?
Absolutely everything the big content companies are doping to "fight piracy" is actually about controlling the market or more imortantly controlling the distribution. Otherwise they would just license companies like AllOfMP3.com rather than trying to get them shut down.
And what exactly has this to do with RID chips in DVDs?
"I go to a small school and we have no option but to live on campus in dorms." Why not, what's to stop a group of you simply renting somewhere instead?
You talk like what i sugest is some theoretical untried idea. It is not, it is an actual law that has been in place for many years in the UK and throught the EU. It works, companies do adhere to it. Company directors can go to prison if the company is found to be willfully breaking the data protection laws and there is a government dept. called the data protection commisioner that enforces the law. It is a proven solution. That said, to think that you can completely prevent data leaks by any means is simply unreasonable. If data can be accessed by human beings for legitimate purposes then it can be leaked. All that you can expect is that companies take neccesary and reasonable steps to prevent access to your data, such as not giving it out over the phone with only a request for the last 4 digits of your social security number as proof of your identity. I live in the UK and if i want to do something such as find out how much i owe on my phone bill over the phone then i have to give a pre-determind password that only i know and answer two randomenly selected security questions such as, what is my mothers maiden name, how did i pay my last bill etc. It is actually illegal for a company in the UK to pass personal info to their head office in the US, simply because you do not have any data protection laws. It's proven and it is efective and it is not overly burdensome, simply put it in place.
It works in the UK, ensuring your company complies with the Data Protection Act is taken very seriously in the UK. The kind of "pretexting" used in the current HP board members phone record scandal is simply not possible in the UK because there is a law in place and companies respect it and adhere to it. The fact that there is a law gives the companies that hold your data the motivation that is otherwise lacking, to make sure it is safe. Companies don't make decisions like "why bother complying with the law we'll never get caught", they make decisions like "why risk getting caught, we really should take steps to make sure we don't breach the regulations". Anyway it's not about who leaked what data, it's about what measures are in place to prevent your data being leaked. Companies can be prosecuted if it can be shown that there not sufficient safeguards in place to secure your data, irrespective of whether any leak took place. Conversely if data is leaked, despite stringent security measures (e.g. a member of staff breaches clear guidelines or is fraudulent), then the company is not liable for prosecution.
With the Data Protection Act here in the UK and similar laws throughout the EU, companies are legally obliged to keep personally identifiable information confidential and if they do not they can be prosecuted. Implement that in the US, there's your answer.
That's a definition for assure, assure and ensure can be used fairly interchangeably but to insure something is to take out an insurance policy, as i said. The only reference to insure on that page is about the fact that in the UK when you take out a life insurance policy it tends to be called a life assurance policy.
To insure something is take out an insurance policy on it against theft or damage or liability or whatever, if you want to make sure something happens you ensure it. The two are not interchangeable
No it's more like what music publishers and songwriters do through PRS/MCPS/ASCAP/BMI etc. Record labels don't really license their content much through collection agencies, you have to do a deal with each individual record label. Although the exception to this is people like PPL and SoundExchange but this is solely for public performace and broadcasting type stuff. I don't really see the problem with this, it would just make it easier to license textual information if you wanted to use someone elses stuff on your website. If the person owning the copyright is happy for the info to be public domain anyway, then they are not going to license it through AC.
Have these peoploe not heard of youtube
I think "revealed" is a little strong for the grainy, blured, black and white photo of the UI. I think that "Microsoft Zune MP3 Player Interface Largely Obscured" would be a much better headline for this article ;-)
Maybe things are different in the US but in the UK getting a Masters degree when you already have a bathelors degree is a one year full time course and makes little or no difference to your job prospects. It basically says i did 4 years at degree level and not three. Are things different over there?
Forgive my ignorance if what i am saying is complete rubbish, but wouldn't a bone marrow transplant have a good chance of restoring the victims immune systems?