I've heard that rubber, being organic, wouldn't be allowed as a raw material for the wheels - it might interfere with the tests to find organic materials on Mars. But maybe degradation is also a factor.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
First world problems strike again.
Guess what - people who live in the "First World" often discuss "First World Problems".
There are plenty of sites that only discuss third world problems. You're free to join one, and take your smugness with you.
Yeah, but just watch their productivity once they learn about unions.
Since your question is general, not specific to this case - it depends on the Contract Law in whatever jurisdiction the employee works.
In most countries, the replacement will now be an employee. If the country provides protection to employees against termination, (s)he has it. The employer may have to suck up the additional costs of employing an extra employee. This is why dismissals should be undertaken with great care.
In reality, many countries allow a probationary period for new employees. If the employer isn't happy with the new employee by the end of the period (or even earlier), the employee can be et go with minimal fuss. So the replacement may be let go for any reason.
Link to Original Source
Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
Except that in Ireland, the Judiciary is entirely independent of the government. One cannot interfere with the other. Erm, unless they happen to meet at one of those Bunga Bunga parties.
They're pretty much all CSRF vulnerabilities. Don't save your password to your router or don't use a common router IP address like 192.168.1.1
I'm scratching my head here - why would an address like 192.168.1.1 be a problem? It's only an internal IP address. An attack from the outside would come through the external IP address. Once they've breached the router, surely it'd be simple to find internal addresses anyway?
(Really hoping I don't have to re-address my stuff!)
So what added protections does Steam grant to a European that aren't granted to an American?
Interesting. From the same document:
There's just a few simple rules here:
(1) don't call people d*ckheads (at least not in public)
(2) learn how to apologize when you forgot rule (1)
Perhaps those at the top should lead by example?
You might think forced free tethering is awesome.
Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.
Or maybe this will happen instead...
Users will be able to use the data they're paying for, regardless of what device is consuming it. People who don't use much data will opt for cheaper capped plans that only offer as much data as they need.
Are you suggesting is that it's more expensive for my carrier if I consume 1MB of data on a tethered laptop than if I consume the same on a phone-based browser? Or that people who don't use all the data they're paying for should be subsidising those who do?
Actually, this could be good.
If I fail exams and have to repeat a year or two, I don't have to pay extra for those years?
I bet that occurs far more often than people finishing early.
Note: I don't support government intervention often, but the overall good of everybody is tied into our technological devices today in the same way that it once was in a fair market for automobiles.
I would have thought that the concept of patents and copyright are instances of government intervention. The government creates the legislation that grants temporary(!) monopolies to holders of these patents.
Lack of government intervention would mean that no such monopolies could be enforced.
Ah, but you're using logic. That's not how the law works.
It still wasn't an automatic install. You could uncheck the box and it wouldn't install. By definition, an automatic install is an install that happens no matter what you do.
That's a strange interpretation of "automatic". There's nothing in the definition of the word "automatic" that says you can't do something in advance to prevent the event from happening.
How does this effect servers?
I don't believe that it causes any servers to come into existence.
I know you're having a laugh, but that sums up my experience of help from the Linux community - technically correct, but obviously doesn't help the poor guy.