Comment "99 cents ... was below the sub-$1" (Score 0) 184
Close. 98c would be "below sub-$1"; 99c is the first sum in the sub-$1 region.
Close. 98c would be "below sub-$1"; 99c is the first sum in the sub-$1 region.
Great links — thank you!
once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?
If all other identifying data has been stripped away, it is really "your" data any longer?
I'm not sure that the situation you describe here would protect the data under the existing rules either:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
I think there is a difference between the situation which you describe (which seems to be anonymous data) and pseudonymous data, though, in that pseudonymous data does not have all identifying data stripped out, but rather replaced by a less obvious identifier.
The phone number 07700 900771 might become a2t6#g1, but, if, in a stream / sequence of data, that number always becomes that alternative descriptor, anyone in control of the algorithm / key could convert obtain the original number again with relative easy — just run all possible permutations of the phone number (which is of standard form, with specified structure) through the algorithm and pattern match.
To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.
The AWE plant at Aldermaston is well signed from the road, and its website seems at least reasonably open about what it does:
Our role at AWE is to manufacture and sustain the warheads for the Trident system
He can opt to pack all his employees and leave, without risking their lives.
Absolutely. Indeed, as he is quoted in the article:
Firstly, we have to protect our 2,000 employees in this region
The article goes on to ask whether Orange has a corporate responsibility to keep communications running in situations such as this, and Rennard replies:
“In the end, I decided to send just three members of staff back, because if the network goes down, the public will ask, where were you when we needed you? But if I send these three guys back, and one of them is killed, that is on my conscience and I have to live with that. It’s not an easy decision to make, but this is my job.”
It's a long read, but most of the important points are made in the first page. The rest (sadly) qualifies for TL;DR - it simply rehashes and expands on the same ideas from different angles and in more depth.
It sounds like your neat summary of the article might also describe the difference between "social" games and "regular" games.
some executive just had a seizure on that guy's keyboard
One of those wipe-clean seizures, one might suspect.
Bring it over to the UK — add in passing off and an unregistered design right
Warner attorney J. Andrew Coombs argues in legal papers that the Batmobile incorporates trademarks with distinctive secondary meaning
but
Towle's attorney Larry Zerner, argues that automobiles aren't copyrightable.
Since something need not be capable of protection by copyright to be capable of protection by a trade mark (a single word, for example) and since something need not be a trade mark to be eligible for copyright protection (this eliminate pretty much everything which is protectable by copyright today), Zerner's statement may be true as a matter of law, but it does not address the Warner's claim.
trying to do four in one of the harder patterns, and then claiming that four is harder than five, is simply perverse.
Fair point
Juggle four by doing two in each hand, in a vertical plane parallel to your shoulders, the throws happening asynchronously.
If just for the sake of juggling four, or as the basis for tricks with five, then sure — as a means of progressing to a five ball cascade, I'm not sure that would help at all? For me, that was great for co-ordination training for three in each hand, but not as something on its own. But I guess everyone juggles for their own reasons!
If spectrum licensing is predicated on the basis of a need to prevent / minimise interference, if such a technology is developed, the requirement to license spectrum (and for governments to print money carrying out such licensing) would seem to fall away.
Yochai Benkler has already made a persuasive case (I don't know if this was officially published) around this and, if it was possible to deploy widely technology that worked irrespective of interference, we'd seem to be one step closer.
The cynic in me thinks it might fail as a result, since I doubt many governments would want to lose the money, or incumbent operators a means of excluding others from the market.
Then don't do that!
Fair advice
If you do not have access already, get hold of a copy of Charlie Dancey's Compendium of Club Juggling — you've obviously got siteswap mastered anyway, but, as a collation of some fantastic (and some simply fun) moves for club juggling and passing, it takes some beating.
Friction is a drag.
