Seriously, who the fuck screens these?
I don't like direct bit manipulation at gate level, I prefer polarised quantum entanglement.
I had a close encounter a few weeks ago while trying to catch a stream of a Grand Prix (yeah I'm a feckin' cheapskate. No I'm not, I just don't see the point of forking out for a sports package when all I'll watch is the F1), the codec package that the website wanted me to install (with its super duper programme manager) reset my homepage, fucked up my cache (had to empty it completely), inserted itself into the registry, insinuated itself into Media Centre and basically cost me a day ripping the rest of the fucking mess out. Jenson Button got a fuckin' earful off of me, it was him suggested the particular channel. Yes, I missed the race as well.
...unless you count friction burns to the ventral surface of the right manus.
You're absolutely right - they're called coercive contracts and are as valid as a forced confession or the assumption that silence=consent.
in R (G) v Nottingham City Council  EWHC 400 (Admin), Munby J at:
51. But quite apart from that there seemed to me to be a much more fundamental objection to the case which the local authority was seeking to advance. The argument that K had been lawfully accommodated by the local authority with the consent of the mother was in reality founded on nothing more than the assertion that the mother knew and understood the details of the birth plan (in both its original and its amended form) and that she did not "raise objection" to it, just as it was likewise asserted that, following the birth, she had not "raised objection" to the removal of her new-born baby.
52. No authority of any kind was produced in support of these surprising propositions, that a mother could be said to have given her consent to the removal of her baby merely because, knowing of the local authority's plan, she did not object to it and because, when the moment of separation arrived, she did not actively resist. I am not surprised. They are, with respect to those propounding them, as divorced from legal substance as they are remote from the emotional – and dare a man be permitted to say it – the hormonal realities of the human condition. Our law has long recognised that women in the aftermath of birth may not be as able to act wisely as at other times. It is, after all, compassionate regard for those realities which underlies statutory provisions as disparate as section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 and section 52(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
53. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that consent to the accommodation of a child in accordance with section 20 is required by law to be in writing – though, that said, a prudent local authority would surely always wish to ensure that an alleged parental consent in such a case is properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parent's signature. Nor am I disputing that there may be cases where a child has in fact, and without parental objection, been accommodated by a local authority for such a period as might entitle a court to infer that the parent had in fact consented.
54. But the local authority here seemed to be going far beyond this. It seemed to be conflating absence of objection with actual consent – a doctrine which at least in this context is, in my judgment, entirely contrary to principle and which, moreover, contains within it the potential for the most pernicious consequences, not least because there are probably many mothers who believe, quite erroneously, that a local authority has power, without any court order, to do what the local authority did in this case.
55. To equate helpless acquiescence with consent when a parent is confronted in circumstances such as this with the misuse (or perhaps on another occasion the misrepresentation) of non-existent authority by an agent of the State is, in my judgment, both unprincipled and, indeed, fraught with potential danger.
56. What the local authority and the NHS Trust did to G and K was unlawful absent consent by G. Let it be assumed that G did not object (though her account of these events would, I was told, be very different). As I observed during the hearing, the fact that she did not object does not mean that she consented. Even on the local authority's own case the fact is that G did not consent.
(yes, I quoted a huge block because it's ALL relevant in context)
hands up those who didn't see this coming?
omg, it's "faggot", "their"... oh fuckin' forget it. EAT A FUCKING DICTIONARY!
the implication here is that defamation involves falsehoods.
I have three Compaq terminals, no idea where they came from or how I came into possession of them, but I know they're not cheap.
No, I didn't pay for 'em. I'd've remembered that.
could this be part of the reason that mainframe contracts have clauses which prohibit publishing of benchmarks?
Not that that makes much difference to me, if I'm buying a mainframe I'm not so much buying the hardware as the support that goes with it, that five-nines uptime that I don't have to be responsible for, that *I* can swing the axe if shit goes south instead of having to duck.
wait, verbal defamation is acceptable and protected under the First Amendment? First I've heard about it...
I don't know of *any* jurisdiction where Truth isn't an absolute defence against libel. Including Britain.
However the application of the Law may vary, the Truth of that statement is absolute.
the latest version I use is from about 1992 (version 18.21), the latest bugfix release (20.something) is from 2012, a patch on the major release from 2008(?)
...who is invariably NOT THE AUTHOR.
FractINT, for one. It's a fractal engine.