Posts by PatientOne 412 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Nov 2010
"For example, one could say that a disabled person has the _right_ to ease of access to a public building."
I believe it is more that public buildings have a duty to provide access to disabled people as a right of access would imply the building could never be closed.
It's also more in keeping with the JFK quote, too :p
@AC 14:19
Incorrect: In the UK, we do have *some* rights. These are set out in the law and have existed for quite a long time, now.
An example is the right of access. As a land owner, I have the right, as defined and protected by the law, to access my land. It I rent that land out, I confer that right to the person renting the land. When that rental agreement expires, the right resorts back to me.
Example: We have the right of way along defined routes crossing otherwise private land. The land owner has a duty not to obstruct our use of that route, although we also have a duty not to stray off that route.
The problem is so many people claim they have rights where they do not. They believe that, when the law does not forbid something, then they have the right to do it, and of cause they do not. Sometimes they believe they have rights even when the law states they do not. This is what belittles what rights we do have.
Of cause, enforcing those rights is also a pain. Often people ignore a real right for their imaginary one. This causes arguments. These can be sorted through arbitration by a neutral party, or referred to court for arbitration by an appointed judge. This is considered a civil matter rather than a criminal one, and often results in fines, behavior orders and the odd slapped wrist. Rarely does it cause the guilty party to change their mind as to what their 'rights' are, however.
"Historically Islam was a faith of teaching, it led the world in learning, architecture maths and the written word."
Not wishing to belittle Islam, but this is wrong.
The Arabic nations encouraged learning, and involved both Islamic and non-Islamic scholars in gathering the teachings from many older cultures and translating them into Arabic. The origins for much of their knowledge were the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and Persians, who between them had the greatest philosophers, engineers and mathematicians.
We may have lost much knowledge without the help of Islamic scholars, but they were not working alone, and I have found nothing to say they advanced any of those fields significantly, save to simplify trigonometry, and while they developed a form of calligraphy, other cultures have been doing so separately for much longer.
"Provided it's the same colour, make and model of vehicle, you get the hassle and he gets off scot-free."
The criminals generally don't bother. They'll use any old plate (swap them with another car, or clone them) and put the plates on what ever car they're using/stealing. It's why the police are getting kit in their cars to scan plates and return the make/model of the car they're registered to, as well as road tax/insurance checks.
The problem with a system like this is it makes the operators lazy. They won't bother checking to see if you did actually park, or who was driving, or if the car matches the plates: They'll get the VIN and your address and post the fine or the bill and it's up to you to prove you are innocent.
@Da Weezil
The ICO think that making examples of public sector offenders will show they're doing their job. And that private sector offenders will take note and behave. Bit naive, really.
As to prolonged waiting lists - no. Hospitals get paid *after* the treatment, so they need to do more treatments to get the money in to pay the fine. Finances being tight are due to cutbacks in tariffs or disputes over what treatment was delivered, or the new favorite: Re-admissions (hospitals don't get paid for treatments if you're re-admitted within so many days from discharge, even if it turns out there's nothing wrong with you). Delays are generally down to bed blocking or wards closing due to infection.
@Wowfood
"They have crappy security because they hire the cheapest option."
Nope: Cheapest != crappy when the required standard is higher than private sector might consider. Take encryption: All NHS laptops have to be encrypted. Not to some noddy standard, but to military standard. Special licenses were required, and the cost was anything but 'cheap', even for the 'cheapest'.
"Cut back funding for wages because it costs too much to hire doctors"
Then find the doctors you can get are juniors as they move to private practice the moment they've enough experience. Or they move abroad. This really is the reason why we don't have enough Doctors and Nurses, by the way: They qualify, get the experience, then head out of country because they're being offered serious money to work elsewhere. Or they go private as they can earn a hell of a lot more there than in the NHS. Even the bad doctors/consultants can do this...
The reason why so many doctors are hired in under contract is we can't retain enough of them to cover for when we have sickness and holidays (and training and jollies to some conference... or they're called up to work in a field hospital or they're retiring early due to ill health or they've just left and the trust is searching for a replacement...)
The biggest bull in the story, by the way, is that hospitals don't have money in a pot to spend on patient care. Sorry, that simply doesn't exist and hasn't for a long time. The reality is the hospital treats the patient *At Loss* then bills the relevant GP for the money. This is why a GP can refuse to refer you to the hospital: It's money out of their pot that's spent to treat you. So in reality, hospitals need to do MORE work to draw in the money to pay the fines AND/OR they need to work more efficiently. The only reasons why wards/departments are reduced or shut down is because a) they are inefficient and so waste money or b) because the government requires the closure or c) because the PCT's/GP's aren't paying for that work any more.
@AndrueC
Terms like 'Thank God' are so common now that people don't think about their use, they just use it. I am sure you use the same term without thinking or even realising, just as you inevitably use 'Jesus' as an indication of surprise. It is not a belief in God (of any flavour) or Jesus or any religion, but rather a use of an expression you have been exposed to since childhood and so associate with expressing emotion.
I suspect you similarly use Fuck, Cunt, Shit, Hell and many other swear words if you're not consciously trying to avoid them. You might even feel embarrassed when you realise you have. You might try to train yourself not to use such terms, but you are constantly exposed to them and so will revert on occasion. A lot of people don't even hear the words, they just accept the sentiment. Indeed, some people DO hear the words even if they were not actually spoken, because they are expecting them and associate them with an emotive outburst. This is how people get accused of racist comments when actually no such comment was made: A person simply said 'You idiot' while annoyed and the listener adjusted the comment to fit what they expected. It's quite fascinating to watch it happen here in the office: And it happens quite frequently...
Yes, the pilot should be praised, but the reporter just expressed their relief that the plane was landed safely and no one was killed. Thank God/the Maker/The stars/Heavens/the fates/what ever expressive term you prefer to show relief, indeed.
Arm the drones so that, if a crime is identified and there is no ground unit available to intercede/make the arrest, the drone can engage and stop the crime.
Separately, make all voting electronic. Candidates hold debates via CCTV links to limit risk from terror attacks, and all public announcements are made via CCTV, too, so the president/prime-minister is never exposed to unnecessary risk...
Sorry, was watching a film where this was the premise...
In the UK, Intent is a key part of the law.
Offending someone is easily done, and there are people who will take deliberate offense. However, it is only illegal if the person intends to cause offense.
This allows people to have debates, heated discussions, and disagreements without it involving the courts. However, targeting someone with vitriol will get you into trouble.
So shit happens: People disagree, and yes, we should just accept it as a fact of life. In fact, it is good when people do not agree: It gives us reason to examine our beliefs to see if they are sound. However, intentionally offending someone is not disagreement: It is harassment, and that is not acceptable.
Oh, and an old adage brought up to date: Sticks and stones may break bones, but it is words that can hurt forever.
@Ian Michael Gumby
At a cost: The UK have had to pay for the help the US supplied. Not unreasonably, I'd add, but the aid wasn't freely given.
The US were not alone in supporting the UK is fighting the Germans, either. However, it's not a war we fought for personal gain: We fought it to defend our allies (surprisingly, the French!). And since then we've accepted the role of 'speed bump' should the Russians invade (along with the West German army). We'd slow them down so the US can sort itself out and send troops. Why? Because the US has the numbers. However, can you please tell your military to stop shooting our troops? It's bad form, all this blue-on-blue action! And if there is blue-on-blue, don't reward the idiots who shot the British troops, especially when it's proven the shooting was totally uncalled for (known patrol on approved route with correct colours and who call in with correct call signs to request the idiots in the A10's stop shooting at them)...
Oh, and please, don't send those 'celebrities' back. Can't you just... well... send them to Gitmo, please? Call it a celebrity reality show or something! Just... not back here. It took us ages to get rid of them!
@Scorchio!!
You're talking about legal extradition. You're missing the option of illegal extradition.
Sure, that drops Sweden into deep shit, but what does that mean for Assange. Do you think the US, having gotten him illegally (according to EU law) will hand him back? I don't.
This isn't to say the US give a rats arse about Assange. It doesn't mean the US will risk that much outcry and backlash. It would be taking an insane risk to even try it and I really don't see how Assange is worth the fallout the US will likely endure. But paranoia works off what *could* happen rather than why it would not.
"What happens when JA walks out of the embassy in possession of an Ecuadorian diplomatic passport?"
He gets arrested. He's broken the terms of his bail, and there is an existing, outstanding warrant for his arrest. A diplomatic passport does not give him immunity to arrest as the warrant and the breach of bail terms occurred when he was not on official Ecuadorian business.
The UK are legally bound to enforce that warrant, which is why they warned the embassy of what options were open to them. They are trying to come to an arrangement with the Ecuadorians as to how this can be resolved without resort to more extreme measures.
In the mean time, there's a fair chance Mr A has finished reading Friday and is now trying to emulate her (fictional) techniques to cross borders...
... this will mean you call C(r)aptia to report a fire. They will reply a week later with a request for clarification of the type of fire as they simply cannot process the call until they have this additional, vital bit of information...
Personally, I'm investing in marshmallows as I can see them being popular during the impending Great Fire of London pt2...
"alleged association with the Head Hunters gang" <> "a probable gang member"
"photos of Dotcom with guns" <> "the guy has guns"
Please don't exaggerate. All you have is someone who might be associated with a gang and that Dotcom had his picture taken with some guns. In separate reports there is a claim that some of his security had licensed firearms, and that there was a shotgun (belonging to one of the security guards as I recall) in the panic room (red room) but nothing about Dotcom owning or keeping firearms.
And yes, even with all that, I'd expect a friendly knock on the door by a policeman with a warrant. The only exception is if they had evidence I had evidence of criminal activity that I might destroy given time, and in this case, the accusation was for a civil offense, not a criminal one. Or do you think the police should go in mob handed to every private home and business where there is a claim of a civil offense taking place just to prevent possible evidence being deleted?
@AC
1) The police suspected one of the security group had connections to a gang, not that they were a member of said gang. Connections could mean anything from a family member being in the gang to him dating the sister of the girlfriend of a brother to a member of the gang: It's not specified as to what the suspected connection was.
2) The police did a risk assessment and decided body armour was not needed. That indicates they didn't expect to be shot at, which indicates limited, non-violent resistance was the worst they were expecting.
So the only reason for the raid was to prevent any potential evidence present from being destroyed. Guns were deployed as a threat, which simply put civilians at risk of accidental shooting - which does happen, and is what DotCom claimed he was scared would happen. If it wasn't for that, the police should have turned up with an arrest warrant: No raid, no guns, just the warrant. Nothing else would have been needed.
@IMG: Thought you'd try that claim.
Not spent time in ICU? erm, yes I have. More so than you, most likely, and more than most people ever want to.
There is no irony in what happens in ICU. Without that ICU treatment, the patient dies. Period. No maybe about it: That patient is dead. What Manning was put through? Well, he might tried to commit suicide, he might not have, and he may or not have succeeded if he tried. The question is: Was what he was put through justified, and was it necessary? Sure the military claim so, and his lawyers disagree, but that's what the courts are for, and that's where I leave that can of worms.
What your father-in-law went through is unfortunate, and it is very stressful for the family, I know. However, you admit that it was his wishes that they do whatever they could to keep him alive, and that's what they did. If you feel that your father-in-law was made to suffer, or was poorly treated, then you, too, can take your claim to the courts and see what they have to say. But do not say he was tortured: That is insulting to all ICU staff.
@IMG
You had a point until you went on about ICU.
ICU = Intensive Care Unit. You go in a gnats breath from being dead and hopefully come out in a better condition. Torture, or any semblance of torture, doesn't come into it whatsoever. In fact, care is taken to alleviate any suffering including that caused by the environment, the machines that are keeping you alive, and the constant attention required to provide the care you *need*. You most certainly do not go into ICU a fit and healthy person and come out a broken shell.
"It probably pales in comparison to what will happen when the Earth next hits any sort of ice-age cycle"
We're due a change to a Temperate age... about.... well, now. Actually, it's overdue by a few thousand years, but that's nothing, really, and we* are working from estimates based on fossils. So we can expect global warming along with some interesting climate changes and weather patterns, but it'll all sort itself out eventually.
It's why I'm keeping an eye on the cats: This is when you get Sabre Toothed cats appear, you see...
*We being mankind. There are some quite informative text books around covering this cycle.
@AC 13:42
I believe they used core samples from trees to determine rate of growth where rapid growth = favorable conditions which interpreted as warmer climate.
As such, they believe they have a natural barometer (the tree) to work from. Of cause, few trees last 1000 years, so they used stuff from felled trees with carbon dating to get the age. It's not exact, of cause, but it gives a rough guide to work from.
"My responses of "if they don't bloody know they shouldn't be on the server," "send your staff on a ****ing training course" and "google is your friend" didn't go down too well."
You do realise you've lost, don't you? You were in a hostile situation, being treated as the enemy, and they've thrown enough crap your way that you've resorted to stupid statements.
Next time, do remember that you're an outsider and that there may be something going on that you're not aware of, such as the department you're reviewing being considered for outsourcing and your report/recommendations are just going towards the excuse to get rid of their jobs.
@ThomH
There is a huge difference between obscurity and secret security.
Security by Obscurity is relying on people not knowing of a thing to keep it safe. For example, I have an Admin screen that can be accessed via a web browser. I don't tell anyone it exists (obscurity) but if they found out, then they could use it with impunity.
Keeping secret what security I have in place isn't the same. For example, my Admin screen has a security check on it that looks at who access it, logs the access and hides functions dependent on the permissions granted to that user. The User doesn't know any security has been applied, or how it has been applied: It's secret (and being server side, very difficult to detect).
Having a hidden ID on a chip that is used as part of a security check is still security. Someone may try to fake the ID and fool systems (much as they do with MAC addresses), but it still remains a method of security. Had they put a remote access mechanism in, and hoped that not telling anyone about it would keep it secure: That's what we're warned against as it simply doesn't work.
"Try telling that to farmers in africa looking at baked fields and destroyed crops."
Isn't this more to do with the political situation in the African nations? You know, the various fighting, the lack of people farming, lack of suitable crops, lack of funds for irrigation, stuff like that? It's not as simple as you imply. Equally, the Elderly that are freezing isn't down to CO2, but down to lack of adequate heating as their benefits are cut and they can't afford to keep warm. Again, it's social and political more than climate.
"Oh , and wasn't it a little bit warm in the USA this year?"
And it's been very cold and wet here in the UK. Something to do with the Jet stream...
"If there was no CO2 the average temperature of the earth would be about -30C"
I'm not certain this is correct. There is a geological ground temperature that I believe is closer to +6C about sea level (this increases as you go deeper into the ground), then there is surface temperature that varies depending on things like wind chill, plus there is the heating effect from the sun. CO2 reflects IR, according to another post, and this is how it holds heat in. Yet the sun also emits IR light, so isn't CO2 reflecting that and so keeping us cooler than if there is no CO2? I don't know the numbers, but it would be interesting to see how much heat CO2 retains per KG, against how much it's reflecting away. It might (hypothetically - I've no evidence at all either way) be that CO2 turns out to be neutral in this regard - that it reflects as much heat in the form of IR from the sun as it retains. Just a thought - be nice if someone's checking this.
@David W.
Love the post.
In respect to possession of stolen goods: Ongoing harm is occurring as you are continuing to deny the true owner of said goods use of said goods. Please note that, once insurance has been paid, the insurance company can claim it now owns the stolen goods and you are now costing them money as they cannot sell said goods to recoup their costs...
On the other hand, Piracy proves there is a demand, but you are discouraging supply. After all, why make movies if you are making a loss? No more movies = no more piracy. Instead, take away the demand and the industry collapses. Stop watching MGM movies, don't buy them and certainly don't pirate them. Then MGM will go out of business. Same for kiddy porn: Take away the demand and the industry collapses.
To take away the demand, you need to tackle the cause. The problem is that there are quite a few causes, and tackling them all will be a nightmare. There is an alternative, but that involves changing what people see as 'sexy'. Promoting a fuller female figure or an older male figure: Not asexual images or the terror of the size 0 model.
@James Micallef
Going to call you on something: "Part of this warming (probably more than half) is down to human-induced CO2 increases"
It is *theorized* that this is the case: It is not proven.
There is another theory that doesn't get a lot of air time: That the Clean Air Act is partly responsible. (the following is a rough - and simplified - gist of the theory):
For 200+ years, we had heavy pollution over many major areas of Europe which caused artificial cooling at ground level. This has been studied and reported by French scientists a few years back. Now, we have something called the Gulf stream that helps warm us, too (we should share the same climate as Hudson Bay as we're at the same latitude, apparently, but we don't). Only if we're artificially cooling the land, that gulf stream is going to loose more heat on the way past than it should do. This would result in less ice melt at the pole, and a colder return stream (lower volume of water returned = slower flow of return = water is in a colder climate for longer = more heat loss before return). This results in a cooler planet (cold return = cooling of the equator).
Take away the pollution and the area around Northern Europe starts to warm. Ground level temperatures rise, the Gulf Stream isn't cooled as much, the polar ice starts to melt faster and the equator warms up, too.
Now we don't know how long it will take for everything to regain balance. We don't know exactly how much heating/cooling was taking place other than some ground temperature measurements from before and after the clean air act. We don't know how other factors come into the changes we see. What we do know is that we've had an impact on the environment, and on the climate, and we continue to have an impact. But that does not mean that CO2 is the biggie: It's quite possible it is insignificant compared to other things we've done. Like deforestation, land clearances, forced crop production, irrigation, canal systems and artificial lakes. Each and every one of these things has an impact. We just don't know how much. Tally it all up and yes, we've changed the climate, but by what degree we don't know.
Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.
That's the proper 'green' motto.
Reduce means to avoid waste. You could argue that reducing size reduces waste materials, but that is not always true, especially when you realize that that reduction then limits the reuse of the goods: You can not extend their usable life by replacing or upgrading components. And recycling has become harder in the process, too. This is all down to the 'throw away society' we have been forced into: Corporations make money by selling new their latest product, so they do not want you to hang on to that perfectly serviceable older model you have, and so they will find ways to limit the usable life of their products.
As to cars: Sorry, but you've got that back to front. Cars have been improving because people campaigned. Modern cars (other than electric) are 85%+ recyclable, and they are designed with recycling in mind. This means they're using materials that can be recycled, rather than those that have to go to land fill. They have also been finding ways to recycle more materials, all to improve the 'green' qualification of the motor car. Plus, the manufacture and disposal (cradle to grave) of a car's life is included, and that's been cleaned up a lot over the years.
1) Very true. The sooner medical aid arrives, the better the prognosis for the casualty.
2) Erm, the proposed system will not provide any benefit to evidence gathering. A car camera would, and the engine management system would as would the application of mk 1 eyeball and something that is proving very rare: Common sense. The problem is most investigators are just too lazy or disinterested to do a proper job. If they were not, then they would catch a lot more fraudulent claims rather than leave it to others to challenge the claim and prove it false.
Voland's Right hand: I think you are sadly mistaken.
They require a new style of rugged (crash proof) phone to be wired into sensors that will trigger it in the event of an accident to connect to a network and transmit the details to the waiting system that will then notify the emergency service. It will not be a phone wired into the car that will call 999 on an impact, or a re-purposed stereo system or GPS system, none of which needs to be rugged.
There will be no subsidy and no competition for this device: Each car manufacturer will be fitting the system of their choice, not yours, so will charge you what they want, not what you would prefer to pay. The cost of the supporting network also needs taking into account for that will also not be cheap. In all, €100 is an underestimation of the actual cost, especially if you consider the cost of adding side impact sensors to a car that otherwise does not have them, or any other sensor they deem is required to reliably trigger the system.
So, I recon the MINIMUM cost will be €100 (please note it was '€' in the article, not '£').
Air bag systems don't detect side impact (unless you have SIPS) so you need a more extensive system to monitor for side impacts (which are more dangerous than front or rear impacts, especially as human necks are more vulnerable to that kind of force).
So, if you're putting in side impact detection, you might as well put in SIPS, too, adding a bit more to the expense.
This is not a bad thing, of cause, but it will also increase the weight of the car, and the power drain to run the system, and so will affect economy... which is the bane of the modern car: More safety systems =greater drain on the power plant (engine) = more fuel burned and less drive power = worse economy from a supposedly improved engine.
I thought we were supposed to be pushing for improved economy to save the planet or something... and that reducing the population would help achieve this...
Ah, well...
To use the old meanings for the terms:
Sacking (to give the person a sack containing their tools for their trade and sent on their way) is possibly not the right punishment.
Firing (to take said sack of tools and burn them to ash so the person is unable to work at their trade) might be more suitable.
@Fred Mbogo
I am well aware of the various forms of shotgun, and in the array of strange and unusual weapons being produced each year along with normal firearm development.
However, here in the UK, we have some rather strict gun laws. A shotgun license allows a shotgun with a maximum of three rounds (single barreled, one round loaded, two in a magazine, pump or semi-automatic only, not automatic loading), but most common shotguns sport two barrels, each individually loaded. Ownership of shotgun cartridges also requires a shotgun license - you can't just buy ammunition if you feel like it.
Yes, it is possible to obtain a shotgun that holds more rounds, but this requires a firearms license instead, and is much harder to obtain.
So, in practical terms, in the UK we're limited to the twin barreled shotgun, hence we are limited to two shots. I hope that clears things up for you.
@Dan
Some of us Brits are well aware of the way of armaments, be it firearms, archaic weaponry or improvised weapons.
You talk of using a shotgun. Here, that's a maximum of two shots before you have to reload, so you'd best hope you are not facing a hoard of Zombies. Me, I'd opt for... combination harvester, road roller, JCB or some other form of large, heavy, mobile plant (no, not a triffid, I'm talking construction vehicles, agricultural vehicles, military vehicles or other rugged transport. Heck a bus is just as good so long as you don't stop to let the zombies on!). Good for alien invaders, good for Zombies. Only limitation is fuel, which should last longer than ammo supplies, plus you gain the benefit of being able to escape the scene for a breather.
On the other hand, I do like that people are buying the ammunition just because of the packaging and not because they have a gun: It explains where you'll get more ammo while you're fighting your way through office blocks to face the end of level mega-zombie! (See, even an IT reference :p )
'the point was that Manning could not have assessed any of the material that he allowed to fall into unauthorised hands'
erm... not really convinced of that.
He may have assessed *some* of the material and taken on trust the rest was equally as condemning. He may have assessed a precis and so took the source data. Either way, he had to know what data he was taking else he could have leaked... oh, the past ten years worth of sock orders, or hypothetical scenarios for East Germany invading West Germany... or Cuba invading the USA.
Probably best to say he couldn't have assessed *all* of the data, yes?
@Whitespace
The CIA answer to the president. The military answer to the president. That kind of means he tells them what to do, not the other way around. So no, the CIA can't admit some super-secret-assassination-program exists, but the President can.
So the difference between Manning disclosing sensitive information and the President doing so is the President has the authority to do so and Manning did not. Indeed, Manning had a duty not to disclose the information.
Doesn't excuse how he's been treated, though. Doesn't excuse the US for their actions, either. All it means is the President should have disclosed the information and not Manning.
Just to note, the OP did say 'a lot of towns'. They didn't say where, but in some Cities in America it's often been commented on. However, it's quite likely what's been quoted is the night time temperatures, not the daytime. If so, it is possible there is a 15C difference for quite a lot of reasons, not least of which is the 'thermal blanket' created and enjoyed by towns and cities.
Wind farms have been around for some time. Much longer than 10 years. I was down Cambridge and there was a cluster of turbines running there - small farm powering the site. Can't recall what it was called, but I passed it most days while I was down there.
America and Japan have also been investing in Wind farms for some time, back to the 80's as I recall.
As to the physics: Wind farms are known to have a localised effect on temperature and weather certainly back into the 90's. Operators have noted the difference although it was not 'studied' scientifically. A lot of knowledge isn't accepted until the scientists have been at it to quantify and qualify and explain it all away. But that's just science for you.
Now, wind turbines do cause turbulence in the air flow. Basic physics - wind is hitting the blade forces the blade to turn but also deflects the wind which then collides with other air flow, causing the turbulence. It settles down again, yes, but the turbulence extends several meters past the blades and out further from the blades than the diameter of the turbine. If you want to see how it works, you can stick a propeller blade into flowing water and watch the turbulence form behind the propeller. It's the same principal, just a different medium.
That the turbines are also warmer than the surrounding air (friction from turning and the flexing of the blades) means you'll get warming in the area. Again, this gets balanced out eventually, but locally you have a 'warm' spot form. People who have been running turbines have known about this for years. Scientists have only just gone and taken a look.
So yes, the physics does hold up. What's more, the only thing 'new' is that scientists have started taking a look and reported it's happening.
is where the service sells itself by simply being the best.
so, rather than spend millions on marketing they could have spent that on infrastructure and service improvements so that their customers extolled the products and so provided a free, personal, direct advertisement to their friends and families, and so attract more customers.
Much more cost effective and better for their customers, too!
The loss of permanent icecaps is significant: It signals the end of the current Ice age and the return to a temperate age.
Nothing wrong with that, on a planetary scale. Possibly disastrous for us as a species, if we don't adapt quickly enough, but probability is we'll have a chance to adapt and evolve (and so prove evolution is real). This is nature, after all, and nature likes change.
Thing is: We don't know for sure what will happen or what to expect at the end of an Ice age as there's very little evidence (other than fossils and soil layers, and we're guessing at what most of those actually mean). As an environmentalist friend said: When looking at the planet's history, we've the equivalent of a can of Coke, a crisp packet and some peanuts to go by, and we're guessing that's what we've got as we can't read the writing.
Why build a robot to drive a car? Why not build the robot *as* the car, or better yet, a tractor unit that can attach to different modules to transport, deliver and perhaps even operate them? Or that could act as a hub from which smaller, more dedicated robots can operate?
Why limit a design to something that may not be the most practical or useful for a given situation?
The earth's orbit is somewhat chaotic. There are a lot of forces involved, such as gravity from other orbiting bodies, meteor impacts and passing comets. Individually the effects are negligible but these effects are in conjunction with each other and are varying in strengths so overall it keeps the earth from finding a sable orbit.
As Craigness says, this results in an imperfect orbit, and a wobbly axial rotation. Add in variations in the sun's diameter, and how active or dormant it is (sunspots, heat output etc) you have for some interesting times.
"So to summarize: Aerolab developed something for Force India for which the latter failed to pay. Because Force India failed to pay up Aerolab sold the "goods" to somebody else. Seems to me Aerolab acted perfectly reasonably."
Not quite. Force India commissioned Aerolab to do some design work, then didn't pay. Aerolab was then commissioned by the other team to do some design work and used some of the templates they'd developed for Force India as a 'short cut'. Those templates were the IP of Force India, according to the Judge, despite non-payment because of the contract and the information supplied in order to produce the templates was confidential. Not that unreasonable if the information was things like telemetry readings from their cars - that is certainly confidential information.
Nothing in this story indicates why the other team should be considered guilty of anything, however - they didn't ask for the Force India data, did they?
In your example, it would be like taking a custom engine into a garage and asking for a part to be made for it. If you don't pay, the engine is still yours - the garage can't take that away, only the part they crafted. However, the garage can't then use your engine as a template for making parts for other customers: That's where the IP infringement comes in.
Well, that's how I read it anyhow.
(I'm not a lawyer, but...)
You always have the right to take a complaint to arbitration, which includes the civil courts, and to challenge a decision to a higher court if you feel that the decision was unfair, biased or corrupted.
It's in the laws covering arbitration.
You can also challenge a contract in court if you find it is being abused. That's in contract law.
In both cases, the findings of the previous court can and most likely will be taken into account. In this case, I'd expect the Judge saw the arbitration was carried out fairly and the claim being made to overturn it wasn't substantial enough to warrant the time and effort to do so.
Either way, the judgement was for this case only - it does not (and/or should not) preclude someone else challenging the results of an arbitration/complaints procedure, be it from Nominet or anyone else, so long as they have reasonable grounds for said challenge.
Tom: If copyright expires in 14 years, or even 28 years, then film companies will be very, very happy. They can take a book, produce the film, then release it the day after copyright expires and never pay a penny to the author. Those film rights are a potential boon to authors, as is the potential income from licensed derivative works.
To give you an example of this: There's an Author. Nice bloke, but a bit ill these days. He's written possibly the most popular series of books of modern times. He's still publishing now: His next book is due in a few months. However, his first book in this series was written in 1983, 29 years ago. Right now, according to you, film makers could be in there, using that original book to base films on, authors could be in there writing their own books based on the world he created, and artists could be drawing the world he envisaged and he wouldn't have a say in any of it. All he might do is argue that some aspect of the work that has been copied didn't appear until a later book, which would arguably still be in copyright. It would be chaos, and it would break many people's hearts to see it happen. Jackals to a carcass, you might think, for the greedy will always seek to benefit from the works of others.
His name, of cause, is Sir Terry Pratchett, author of the Discworld books.
So, the problem is how do you handle series or sequels. Does the copyright run from the first book, giving the author only 14 (or 28) years to complete them all before the jackals appear, eager to rip off the original work and spoil things for the original author, or from the last book, which would just result in authors writing short story sequels to extend their copyright. Or do you let the author keep their rights until their death and then pass the rights on to their estate for a short time after? Surely that is the simplest, fairest and most balanced approach for all?
And that is pretty much what we have (other than the time the estate holds the rights seems to be extending, or the rights are going to a third party that wants to extend them even further...)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
