Why are you so afraid to call a spade a spade?

Because they believe they're free.

I want to emphasize the fact that there some countries that truly are, and others that are deceiving their people.

But there's only a 25% chance of that.

And that's just the average probability, with the actual probability for a given sample in terms of percentage points having a standard deviation of + / - 25 percentage points.

Under the definition you suggest, any WTO member recognizing the legal theory of aiding and abetting infringement

If by that you mean posting just a link to someone else's content might be illegal if the material at your link contains something infringing in the content, then you bet that's "partly free" and non-free in a particularly troublesome way.

3) This is an intentionally bad design to generate revenue. Maybe GM should do this with car keys? "Oops, lost the keys to the corvette. Better buy a new one."

Ever hear of an iCloud backup? Also... note what the article states about how the prosthetic will be replaced:

The money will come from the government, but a new hand is worth $75,000, authorities said.

If such tragedy happened to you or me, govenrment would not pay, and insurance would probably find a way to not pay.

I support the troops strongly and all, however, I have to question if gov't paying for $75,000 iPhone-dependant prosthetics is appropriate at all. They should use their economic clout to force more reasonable pricing and not accept bullshit reasons to require a replacement.

Grayed out just means the study didn't include them. Your internet is probably fine.

This isn't very cool. They're supposedly making a map that is supposed to convince us that internet censorship is widespread, then they gray out most of the countries and don't include them in the study.

I think they just chose a pool of countries to study that are known to have highly censored internet access.

I agree... there should be a color for this. In between "Free" and "Partly free"; there should be a "Technically Free but de-facto censored" category

For countries where corporations can use legal techniques such as DMCA to intimidate web site operators into removing speech.

ex/vi had ':x' (and ':x!') since its very beginning, which has the advantage of not 'touching' the file gratuitously when no changes were made.

You poor soul. I exit with :q if I haven't made any changes. I prefer to be explicit about it, rather than leave it uncertain, whether or not the file will be touched.

Because of the fact that it is more explicit, :wq is simply superior to :x, and the latter should always be avoided.

If I do grep something /some/file/somewhere and and to edit my search string, I have to move the cursor further than in the cat|grep version.

Next he's going to complain that I use the up arrow or Control+P and edit what I am grepping for, instead of doing
^oldthing^newthing^

So...what "battle" are we talking about? (Or did this post just fall forward five years from the past?)

A highly coordinated sneak attack, where the victim was essentially asleep, until 3 or 4 months after the major release, they tried upgrading to it and suddenly found... WTF? All my shit be broke, and everything's suddenly changed across all my major systems.

Systemd + Grub2 + FirewallD = Triple Whammy

(go ahead and change the pgsql listen port - and see how long it takes you...)

vi /var/lib/pgsql/data/9.3/postgresql.conf

^] :%s/^#port = 5432/port = 1234/
:wq
semanage port -a -t postgresql_port_t -p tcp 1234
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 1234 -j ACCEPT
/usr/libexec/iptables.init save
systemctl restart postgresql

Was that so hard?

So sorry that even with iptables-save installed and the new systemctl firewalld turned off... "service iptables save" command has disabled so suddenly, even though it's been used in Redhat for over 15 years.
Yeah... you now have to deal with 'iptables-save > /etc/sysconfig/iptables' or manually finding where the service script's been moved to be able to invoke the save verb which used to be a short 3-word one liner command, But this is "progress".

To the best of my knowledge, no major credit card companies allow the use of copied credit cards.

I think Coin will have to have a partnership with them, otherwise, Coin will be doomed from the get go, because, you see the Coin screen displays the various Logos of credit card companies on the front when being used, along with the last 4 digits of the credit card number.

If they don't have a partnership; Mastercard, Visa, Discover, Amex, etc, will have to either license Coin's usage of their logo on the cards, or enforce the trademark rights and sue Coin or send cease and decist displaying their logo and disseminating confidential magnetic track data in an unauthorized manner.....

CO2 emissions are a measure of cost (to the environment), not efficiency.

It is true that CO2 emissions are a cost to the environment, they also are the efficiency, because in both cases, it is a breaking of a carbon hydrogen bond that releases energy.

The more total number of carbon-hydrogen bonds that have to be broken during the combustion end-to-end per BTU of heat applied to the water, the less efficient the method of heating ---- more carbon is being emitted per unit is just another way of saying that you are burning fuel and less of the thermal energy released from burning it is being harnessed as useful energy; when you burn coal to produce electricity, much of it is lost as heat and since the fuel doesn't burn cleanly much energy is lost in a useless form, on the other hand, if you burn a clean-burning fuel such as natgas within proximity to the water, almost all the heat released, can essentially be harnessed.

Not only are the coal-fired power plants less efficient at this conversion, but there are also huge transmission losses across the electrical grid (compared to smaller loss for natural gas in the form of an energy requirement to actually pump the fuel), and you should include a share of the energy required to install and maintain the electrical grid itself as part of the energy cost, so in terms of efficiency, using Electricity just to heat something is really not that great ---- it is much better to have a cleanly burning fuel at the point of use, where 99% or more of the fuel burned will be harnessed as energy.

The employee would also be liable for any injuries to other employees which occur as a result of his intervention, correct?

It is unlikely, however possible, particularly if the employee was taking actions they did not believe were within their required job duties where a reasonable person in the employee's place would be expected to foresee the danger to others, and the employee had a duty to avoid creating the danger, but it would be for the courts and attorneys to sort out depending on local state law.

The other employee would be on the job, so this would most likely be a claim within the workman's comp system.

In general, in the absence of an agreement, conspiracy, or intent to encourage, an individual is not liable for another 3rd party individual's decision to harm or cause damage to a 2nd party.

Also, if the 2nd party acts with clear intent to injure another employee, and they succeed, then they may have committed the felony of aggravated assault, which will likely eliminate the shoplifter's ability to sue.

In fact, I'm almost surprised he wasn't fired. You're not just not paid enough to run. It's potentially dangerous, and the damage from the shoplifting is smaller than the potential harm to you: it's unlikely but expensive when it does happen.

It's true that it is dangerous, and potentially very harmful to the employee. The store itself will also not have any liability for any harm that happened to the employee as a result, because any injury would fall under worker comp. process, and the Employee won't be granted payments for injuries from a fight started by the employee.

However, if the shoplifter is injured running from the employee, they can file a lawsuit against both the establishment and the employee, and the store may have significant liability.

A lot of retail workers won't care, but some will. Especially the ones who are smart enough to be aware of credit card fraud but not so knowledgeable they know about Coin.

In my opinion, they will learn pretty darn fast, or they will get fired. As long as Coin is legal, and the credit card companies decide to allow it.

The thing is.... the cardmember agreement says your Credit Card is The credit card company's property The physical card does not belong to you, the consumer, and you have no right to make a copy of it, So Coin DOES have to be authorized by Mastercard, Visa, Etc, and I would expect the retail employees to be trained to accept it.

If they refuse, I will be asking to speak to a manager and make a complaint about the employee, which I will follow up in writing to the retail establishment and to some officials at their corporate HQ.