Yes really. It has been stated by both the insurance industry and government in Australia that Uber drivers are NOT insured here unless they have a commercial license and corresponding commercial insurance as it is illegal to offer for hire services without a public transport license and insurance is invalid when you are operating outside the law
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.
depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.
perhaps overcoming the law of thermodynamics is unlikely. BUT, utilising the waste heat efficiently and effectively so that any such signature would be all but undetectable from this range I think would be distinctly possible, if not likely.
I have plenty where I work where the source code has been lost or has been poorly maintained so that the binary version is significantly different to our only source code copy.
That is a religious argument. personally I would prefer my government to stay out of religion. Software is a tool, governments concerns should be using the best tool for the job with the least cost. Hopefully that is free software, if not then that is fine too.
That is BS. publicly funded Government departments Priorities should be first and foremost to ensure they are getting best value for money, if that is OSS/Free software then great, license fees are a tiny part of the cost of most software and while they are an important consideration the overall cost and effectiveness is far more important. Also plenty of OSS sucks (just like plenty of Closed source software does), and NO open source doesn't prevent kickbacks as it still needs to be supported and inevitably this comes down to commercial companies.
a large percentage of attacks are performed by automated tools searching for targets. They don't give a shit if the site is of huge interest or your Granny's blog talking about how cute her poodle is. check your logs, even your home computers will be receiving regular port scans, and knocks on various ports/protocols to see if there is anything to attack.
It is completely and utterly different from how leap motion works, they are not even vaguely similar. this is about using a single 2D camera not multiple cameras and LED's
did you not even read the summary let alone the article? we don't need LIVE small pox virus anymore to produce vaccines or perform research. Should someone use it as a weapon then obviously we would have an abundant supply of the live virus anyway.
hate to say it, but correlation does not equal causation. didn't east Germany also have significantly lower economic prosperity and hence people grew up with the need to take every advantage they could get. Even then it is still just correlation but I would be willing to bet economic conditions have more to do with it than political system/philosophy.
Ipad or not, you still have to pay for the text books in electronic form. Prices are dictated by the publisher, only a fraction of the price is related to the media they are delivered on.
Actually I don't watch fox news at all, but so many idiots post information published from it that it is hard to avoid it. News sites stopped doing proper investigative journalism years ago, the majority of articles even on the relatively good places are poorly researched and/or republished crap. Even on the current MH17 it amazes me some of the fake/phony stuff that has been put on news here in Australia as fact, they don't even bother to do basic research anymore.
I don't think Russian state media should be editing Wikipedia entries especially not on matters of current affairs.
But still, interpreted literally the new statement is far more factually correct and unbiased than what it replaced. Whoever shot down the plane, they were "soldiers" or fighters of some variety and almost certainly can be described as Ukrainian, given that everyone seems to agree that the fighters are actually eastern Ukrainians and at most Russia is supplying weapons to them.
The original text, on the other hand, more or less exactly sums up western/west Ukrainian line despite the obvious abuse of the word terrorist to mean "rebel fighter" and the [citation needed] assertion about who did it and the source of the weapons.
I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a political tool fullstop. posting accusations that Russia was involved is for news sites not for supposedly unbiased material. If it proves to be a fact then it can be put there. The original text is more like a fox news story than an encyclopaedia reference.
nowadays anyone from a home blogger to grandma's shop owns a domain name, it doesn't require any technical know how. Most of these people have no technical knowledge at all and barely understand what a domain name even is, all they know is they were told they needed one to put their web page up.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
