If you think that he's wrong maybe you should look at how any modern X system works. Both X developers and Wayland developers have discussed in detail that there is nothing network transparent about any modern release of X which does any kind of direct rendering or hardware acceleration, something that was introduced around the mid 90s, so the parent's comment is actually right on the mark.
You are really calling the people who have been using X for years "noobs"?
Using X does not mean understanding X. Additionally using X does not mean understanding how things have changed under the hood when there's been no visible change in the usability of the system.
Frankly a lot of X veterans who maybe once used X in a truly network transparent way think that just because their ability to send a window to another X system means it's still network transparent, which is utter rubbish. There's no modern distro which actually implements remote X in any other way than Wayland is proposing to do it, pixels scraping and sending it over the network.
Yet for some reason some people are still hung up on a feature which they think they use because frankly they don't understand anything, and the most vocal bunch seems to be the ones with the longest beards.
False. Maximum safe touch potential is 50V for AC at 60hz and 90V for DC
+/- 10V for both depending on which country standard you follow.
This does not make the vendor any more liable than handing your son your credit card and telling him to go buy some ice cream and complaining when he comes back with a shopping trolly of candy. You authorized the payment and handed over the ability to change that payment to a third party. Telling the credit card company that you at this point didn't authorize, especially when in control of the device is committing fraud.
I've actually seen this scenario played out in real terms. When the card was handed over and subsequently the other person over spent, and when the card owner then complained to the credit card company guess who was standing in court trying to justify why they they wouldn't be liable for a card which was used with the correct pin and at no point reported stolen or missing.
Google have an exact record of you authorizing all payments for 30min. Didn't read the terms of service? Not their problem. Don't like the terms of service? Take them to court. But to say you didn't do something when there's a clear record you did odd a felony.
Given that Google will likely have a very clear record that you did indeed authorize the payment this action could very quickly land you in hot water.
Erm no a container is just another part of the chain that needs to be supported. If you don't know how to read the container how is that in any way the fault of the encoded media?
Yet even in that sentence there's scope to move, i.e. you do not need nuclear-tipped ICBMs to have a well regulated militia, and not having access to them does not infringe your right to keep and bear arms especially in the USA where you can get access to pretty much everything else anyway.
Now I suppose you say that we need to only read half the sentence in the law? Well if not then I ask you to define what a well regulated militia is.
Certainly my interpretation of this sentence is not that every mouthbreathing red-neck should own an ICBM.
They are just listening to customers who complained at the recent trend in the media industry of adding "The" to movie titles and then leaving the number off. From the Microsoft "we listen to customers who wanted the start button back" playbook they opted to remove the number and ensure they don't get negative response by not adding "The" to the title, ala "The Final Destination".
Clearly this is the best of both worlds. No number to confuse people, and no additional bits in the title to mess with people who sort things alphabetically without ignoring determiners.
The law is as is written. That's the problem with the English language. It's also a problem with a system which has one person write the law and another interpret it. It works better in other languages. It works better when each word is clearly defined.
In my opinion it also works better when the people interpreting those laws aren't elected officials. But in any case it's a system we need as there needs to be a final say on how laws are interpreted. Whether you agree with the interpretation or not is irrelevant, the way around it is to re-write the law that is being misconstrued.
There's a few simple steps to follow to prevent phone theft in the first place:
Step 1: Wear gloves at all times
Step 2: Put a non-conductive silicon case on your phone
Step 3: Slip phone into pocket
Step 4: Charge up a 400V 10uF capacitor and slip it into your pocket, leads up (now you see the need for gloves).
Then you play a simple game.
1 point for a loud scream on public transit.
10 points for a loud scream followed by self injury while attempting to run away.
100 points if the thief had a pre-existing heart condition.
1000 points for a girl in the vicinity mistaking the agony with simple surprise of your well equipped package and offering to "take you now" right there on the train.
Yeah I understand the reasons behind all that (I'm in the industry) but what I don't understand is that the article is implying that they are putting the gas in with the crude discretely as a way to increase the volume of the crude for the same price.
Why wouldn't this be reflected in the differential? Everywhere else in the world it is. A few Malaysian crudes are notorious for being off spec when they arrive to the point where some of them have been black listed by some Australian refineries. Sorry I won't narrow this down any further, my point is that if the product were somehow off spec when it arrived it should either be reflected in the international trading price (if bought through a broker) or the company supplying it would get fined (if bought directly under a contract which permitted it), i.e. there should be no profit motive to mixing propane in the tank car, at least not the way the article is describing it.
They way you are describing a desire not to flare and instead send it off for separation and refining would be more like saying tank cars explode because the crude has more volatiles in it, and not tank cars explode because some greedy bastard is trying to scum more money.
You're right. Elementary school understanding of language would see one interpretation. The better your grasp of the English language the more you would realise that laws would be better written in pretty much any other language. Much of English is ambiguous, this is one of the reasons why 1/4 of the Australian standards for electrical wiring is definitions of terms, because different terms mean different things to different people.
You say that your example is not an interpretation, yet you say it ought to be legal. I notice you didn't use the word "is" in that sentence.
You want to clarify, then go through and define all the words I pointed out. A person can not invent ambiguity but things can be written in ways that are ambiguous, including the use of basic nouns where even different dictionaries have different interpretations of the words, not to mention that the definitions of words change over time as we don't have a centralised body controlling our language (most other languages do). In fact I think you just created a new sentence to replace the typical slashdot sign-off of IANAL.
I don't understand why the problem hasn't corrected itself already. Oil is sold based on it's properties and in relation to a market price on the world market. I.e. this product may be lighter than West Texas Intermediate and therefore be priced as WTI + $x. But when it hits the refineries and is found full of propane then the value drops considerably the original well is fined for the difference in quality and future trading prices drop. Oil is after all fungible.
There must be some very strange fixed contracts lacking any kind of penalties for this to even be a partially viable option.
I'm not sure how things happen in North America, but there would be no profit motive in the rest of the world. We buy crude based on a marker price + premium. If your crude is like WTI then its priced like WTI. If your crude is like WTI but with more worthless gas then it's priced like WTI - a certain fixed penalty.
More importantly if your crude is sold and then doesn't meet the specs (it is analysed on the way into refineries) then most sane contracts are written to punish the seller.
I don't understand why there's a profit motive here unless the suppliers already have a monopoly and can write contracts that are strangely one sided.
Bill Gates? Is that really you?
Only a few weeks ago you were having no end of problems with Windows 8.