As far as I understand the law here in the UK, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner will probably be having a word with Yahoo shortly...
The onus would be on the vendor to prove without access to the device that it was one of theirs. Once the statement the gp points out is made I can't see how the vendor could compel surrender of the device for inspection or anything other reason.
I cannot see any court in the land going along with such a request as it would be harassment. Not only that but once it is proven that the device is not the device the vendor states it is then the consignee could sue them, and also probably take the case up with the criminal justice system under regulations previously mentioned. Savvi is on very thin ice here.
Parent and GP, you are aware that this is a case in the UK, not Americaland that we're talking about?
yes, but you can only buy one DSLR! for that? You need 48 for a bullet time rig!? so that 48*6000 = $28000!
Maybe a slight math(s) fail there?
This is not the point, currency having 'this is legit' stamped on it by a government doesn't mean much. Cite sources? Sure!
A currency having a fiat guaranteeing it's value does not help when nobody wants that scrip.
What, exactly makes you think that the top generals surrounding Spud Junior aren't already in China's pocket?
THe answer is yes, yes it is
When there's no way to exchange real money for BitCoins (inherent in that statement is my feeling about BitCoin
Just as a mental game, what makes you so sure other 'real' currencies are any more real outside of people's perception of their value?
EA is stupid and self-destructive but we should really spend time thinking "why?". The answer, sadly, is simple. EA has a management that is both educationally sub-normal, and yet unaccountable. We've all met vicious moronic people who are convinced their ideas are the best ever, regardless of their academic background and lack of any track-record. Oft-times, these types worm their way into upper management, especially in companies that have previously had periods of success independent of management activity.
The games industry is notorious for having the worst possible management- and easily the most corrupt and criminal. Managers have been caught over and over attempting to 'emulate' 'Hollywood accounting' by ensuring games never seem to turn a profit, because the money made goes in outrageous management salaries, bonuses, and none returnable loans. EA and Activision are easily the two biggest offenders.
Criminal type managers are notorious for having a vicious and vindictive attitude toward their own customers. But simply, they think their customers are 'scum' - 'scum' to be exploited in any way that is still likely to keep the managers out of jail.
An ordinary person might naively think that EA would be thankful for a person handing over $60 for SimCity, and wish to have that customer leave happy. Nothing could be further from the truth. That initial transaction is like when an old person makes a first payment to criminal builders who go door-to-door looking for vulnerable suckers. That first payment tell the criminal builders that they now have a chance to bleed dry the bank account of the old person.
You go "but why, oh why would EA choose to behave like this?". I'm sorry, you're not facing reality. The reason is simple. EA has employed the worst kind of nasty scum to manage its company. These people have no business or industry skills. These people got the job PRECISELY because they are sharks with no conscience. EA owners became famously bewitched by the success of Zynga, a company owned and run by an admitted criminal whose business model is stealing other people's games, and paying court fines when necessary. EA had no success themselves with Zynga's business model, but while trying to emulate Zynga, they hired managers they thought were most sympathetic with the concept.
EA is damaging itself massively with this behaviour. It recently bombed in its attempt to take on the COD franchise with its MOH franchise. Battlefield 4 is due to suffer the same fate as MOH and SimCity, as EA refuses to release the product customers want to use. EA's ownership of DICE will destroy DICE (it's pretty much finished already).
Sorry not trying to defend EA per se but can you cite some kind of source for these allegations?
For sheer numbers of people in questionable quality boots, that may be true, but I'd bet the iraqi army at the time had more actually usable mechanised hard than dprk does right now.
I'm not sure that the anti-personnel mines would be all that functional when the whole terrain's been slagged by atomic weapons. Not that you'd need them for squishies trying to actually live in the terrain to be incapacitated. . .
. Outside the U.S. ulimited data is very rare and in the UK especially it's bad.
Want to cite some sources for this? Coz i'm in the UK, and this is utter horse shit
Comparing Fukishima to Chernobyl is ridiculous. Chernobyl basically had no safety systems,
Incorrect. They had safety systems, sadly they were all disabled for the purpose of running the test that led directly to the disaster. The big design flaw at Chernobyl was the large positive void coefficient. Bad idea, made even worse by not explaining this to the technicians running the plant, nor (from what i understand) what a void coefficient was.
My understanding of this issue is that the liquid hydrogen fuel will be used to carry away the excess heat, on it's way to the engine to be burnt (obviously they're not going to be wanting to suddenly start pouring heat into a tank of superchilled liquid hydrogen).
This craft will certainly NOT fly from normal aviation facilities due to the fack that having tens of tons of cryogenic hydrogen about could turn out to be rather dangerous in a busy airport...
Someone has never, ever taken an AI class. Or even an algorithm class dealing with risk. Here's how the calculation actually works (and by the way, that approach is about 20-30 years old).
Every situation is assessed an impact value: driving into oncoming traffic, 0 (very bad); driving into the right ditch, 10; swerving into a legal lane, 50; etc. Every situation is given a set of possible actions, with each action having a probability of being completed successfully. The algorithm multiplies the outcome with the odds of achieving that outcome, and picks the highest value. You can set it up in different ways, but the idea is the same: multiply outcome severity with odds of achieving outcome, pick lowest combined risk/outcome. In your situation, driving off the cliff (which is assumed to be very bad, since the car can see a very steep drop-off with no bottom) is going to have a much worse outcome than hitting the car in front of it. Hitting the car in front of it is guaranteed, but so is driving off the cliff. As a result, the algorithm will make the automated car hit the car in front of it, rather than drive off the cliff.
Not to mention that cars don't sleep, always behave optimally (according to the algorithms in place), and have no blind spots.
Oddly, one thing that seems to not have been considered is that an AI car would have a much much better ability to handle the car well under heavy braking than a human. Surely the 'drive into the oncoming car' outcome would be somewhat offset by the fact that the computer would pretty much instantly apply the maximum braking force it thinks the ABS equipped car can manage whilst performing a manouvre, at the same time as performing it, thus massively reducing the energy of any impact?