Sure, the fundumental human needs would be the same, but your ideas about the best way to go about satisfying them would be very different. All cultures are disfunctional in some way. We are blind to the disfunctions and absurdities of our own culture or see them as things which cannot be changed. Anyone from the 21st century sent back even to the 19th century would spend a lot of time in in frustrating and ultimately futile arguments.

You would find that you could not even make persuasive arguments for ideas commonly accepted in the 21st century. Your new friends would say things like: "Why shouldn't children drink beer? How are you going to send girls to cooed universities? You do know what the boys would do to them, don't you? So you are saying that we should keep the enlightenment of our culture to ourselves? Stop embarassing the servants by pretending they are your equals. And stop making those tastless jokes about how your house in the 21st century is mortgaged and your parents are divorced. It's not funny! Of course it's stuffy in here and I am about to faint, but if we open the window we'll all get sick and die. Shortening the hours of factory workers and paying a living wage is just idealist clap-trap. You know perfectly well that they would use the extra time and money to drink. Why would I give my children meat and vegetables? Everyone knows such food is too rich for children. They should eat toast and jam."

Sure, your new friends would be the same as people everywhere in that they would want to be loved, respected, successful, and live in confort. But their ideas on how to achieve these goals and what constituted success would likely be very different.

If we would read about real people from 500 years in the future, many of their decisions and behaviors would be puzzling. They would be well ahead of us in many ways, but they would also consider some societal ideas which we see as advanced and liberated to be backward and misguided.

I think you are misunderstanding what happened here. The plan was to verify the claim before releasing the document.

If furthur research found even one place where Comcast and Time Warner were offering service to the same households, they planned to tone-down the statement before release. So instead of saying "not one customer will lose competition" they would say something like "fewer than 0.01% of customers will lose competition". They are trying to forstall hair spliters who would label a statement which is true for all practical purposes a lie.

This hair splitting distracts attention from the real problem: that there is almost no overlap between the service areas of cable companies in the USA. That is why they are able to charge $50/month for 6Mbps service.

This is a goof, but it doesn't reveal anything interesting. The note says that they have to make sure that the number of places where they compete with Time Warner for the same customers really is zero and not just very low.

What is more revealing is the statement which stayed in: that the market is not competitive.

Easy. If you rented it out, there will be a contract. You put the servers behind a locked door with the name of the cloud company on it. Now that room is legally not part of the premises being searched. A policeman with a warrant for the host company's office can no more go in there than he can go into an office down the hall from the one being searched.

It would be different if they just put their servers in a rack in the host company's server room. They would quite likely would get swept up in a general seizer of the host company's servers.

Here "fair value" means the price that a company which had no way to persuade you other than to offer you money would have to pay.

That is the way it should be. This discussion is about why it takes an hour or two and then it throws away everything you have entered.

I think you are assuming that the online application looks something like the one-page paper applications we went around filling out when we got out of high school. It is more like doing your taxes online with a state return or two thrown in. Oh, and you will be logged out a few times and sometimes the Next button will not work and the only way to get past it is to throw away some of your work and try again or try a different web browser. It could easily stretch to 50 pages and take several hours to fill out. No, I am not kidding.

I suppose if they were applying for IT jobs that might make sense. Then they could pick from those who found workarounds for the problems on the website which stopped other applicants in their tracks. But putting applicants for the position of cashier though a few hours of techno-torture before you will accept their applications doesn't make any sense.

I'll second that. I once helped someone who was struggling to fill out a large retailer's online job application forms. With all of the hangs, weird errors, incompatibilty with modern web browsers, tedious prodedure for resuming after a disconnect, and the dozens of pages of redundant questions interspersed with nag screens demanding that the application afirmatively acknowledge assurances as to the fairness of the hiring process, it took about four hours. Then they tell you they will keep it for six months at which time if you are still interested you have to do it all again from scratch.

I wondered at times if it might not be some kind of test, but the signs of simple programmer incompetence aggrevated by managers who kept pouring more stuff into the application were too obvious to miss.

The problem here is that when used in POS this code looks like a secure code, walks like a secure code, and quacks like a secure code, but isn't a secure code.

In other words, the way it works is completely counter-intuitive. Any reasonable person observing the process would assume that the bank was contacted both times. Even if you train employees to use differnet procedures, the strong (though false) reassurance provided by the part of the process which they can observe will cause them to get lax.

I don't know what data you think they could fake or block. Mysidia is proposing that the web browser measure the speed at which the content is delivered. If they block that data, the page won't open. And they can't fake delivering the page more quickly, can they?

The real problem with this proposal is that such measurements would show that there is a bottleneck but would not show where it was. People would blame their ISPs even if another ISP were at fault or the server's Internet connection wasn't fast enough. The ISPs would indeed tell their customers to ignore these numbers, tand they would be right.

To preserve its safe harbor protection an ISP must take material down whenever it receives a DMCA notice. They DMCA notice also relieves the ISP from potential liability to the owner of the site taken down.

But what should the ISP do if it receives a piece of paper with the words "DMCA Notice" at the top but it does not contain all of the legally required information? Take the site down anyway? Then they could be liable to the site owner. What if some of the answers are not just hard to believe, but actually nonsensical? What if it is signed "Mickey Mouse"? Or what about this requirement:

''(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site."

What if the complainant wrote "The copyright protected work is my name, John Jones." That is a nonsense answer. It is not much different than writing "Not telling!" or "Get lost!" in the space. I would say that the ISP should send the request back with a note that it is not a legally valid DMCA notice. The ISP is not expected to verify that the information provided is true, but they should verify that all of the required information is present.

No, it is not like that at all. If he told them where the body was he would be admitting that he was somehow connected with the crime. This is more like: We suspect that you murdered and buried the body. Tell us the address of that summer cottage in Vermont you were telling us about so that we can go search there.