If they were sent out of the blue you have no obligation to return them. If they were sent by mistake as part of a remedy of for example a faulty TV, and you decide to use them, the sender is entitled to ask you to pay for them. The correct course of action is to inform the sender, who then has 14 days (according to what I read) to collect them at their own expense.
As long as you don't use them the sender has no right to redress, only to ask for them back.
Be interesting to reverse the scenario - what happens when a man enters an all female arena and threatens the hierarchy? In my experience women are just as capable of banding together to ostracise an outsider.
Just checked UK law. If you receive an extra item as part of a replacement for a broken item or similar and use it the sender has the right to demand payment for the extra item. The correct course of action is to contact the sender who can then choose to collect at their own expense.
I was surprised by this - I thought it would constitute unsolicited goods but it does not due to the extra item having been sent as remedy for a broken item. If someone sends you something out of the blue and then demands payment it is unsolicited goods and you have the right to keep it.
Oh yeah? Don't know about the US, but certainly here in Europe criticism of Islam is verging on thought crime these days. If you want to know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
I don't see why we couldn't directly provide pure pharmaceutical grade narcotics to addicts for them to consume in safety, as part of a compulsory programme to attempt to cure the addiction. Eventually I hope we will come up with a drug to reset the brain, but in the meantime I wish we could have an outbreak of maturity and recognise and treat the addiction in a sensible way, rather than contiuining with the obviously failed war on drugs and all the bad things that flow from it. Imagine if we destroyed a massive part of global organised crime's income at stroke.
Me included - which is why I would provide the bare minimum, and would provide it directly as services rather than dish out benefits for people to spend in the economy. One of the most depressing things on TV here in the UK is a genre of poor people documentary porn which show benefits recipients who commonly have a Sky TV subscription, massive flat screens TVs, latest consoles and phones, plenty of money for ciggies and booze etc, and that appear deeply averse to work but are not so averse to intellectual effort that they aren't able to understand the intricate details of the benefits system necessary to keep their benefits flowing in. Unfortunately I think the only way to discourage this dependency culture is to make working aspirational - and how do we do that? Attitude change yes, but I would argue also making life on benefits less attractive, whilst still remaining humane.
Perhaps a little inland from the coast, but I was in Palm Springs 10 years ago, and then again this year and was struck by what seemed like a general deterioration in the town, as well as the number of homeless people - I don't remember seeing a single homeless person on my first trip. Very sad to see. These intertwined economic/social problems seem to be the most difficult to solve, or is it just lack of willingness to do something about it by elites or society as a whole?
An idea that has crossed my mind before is: how expensive would it be to provide the homeless the very bare minimum of survival i.e. food, shelter, most basic healthcare, even free alcohol? Why don't we just accept that some people are going to fall through the cracks and save ourselves the delusion that we are going to be able to get them off drugs/reintroduce them to employment etc., and take care of their needs in the simplest and cheapest way possible?
The current economy is pretty good at casting aside those it deems economically worthless. Is it really so tricky to just accept this and pay to look after them?
This concurs with my reading on the subject - the changes required to genuinely make a difference are drastic. Most people don't want to hear this. Personally I think geoengineering offers our best hope.
It seems like a series of unfortunate or possibly rash choices on her part: the first flipping off, the second when she caught up with the motorcade again, deciding to use the picture as her profile pic, and then going to HR to forewarn them. I'd like to think that even if tempted to do the first of these actions I would have stopped there and kept quiet until it had all blown over, not kept upping the ante.
You can get this now if you are military or have plenty of spare cash lying around. The problem is that to get this level of resolution your sensor needs to be nearer the earth, and thus your platform has a shorter lifespan because it will be subject to greater atmospheric drag, and thus its per-picture cost will be comparatively very high. This might prompt the question, why not put it farther away with a bigger lens? Well, there is an upper limit on the size/weight of the lens that you can lob up to any given orbit, and thus it's less feasible to get this level of resolution from a higher orbit. You also have the issue of swath width to think about - generally the higher your resolution the smaller your imaging area, which might limit the usefulness and thus the price you can charge for your imagery.
I think drone aerial imagery holds more promise than satellite imagery. Who knows though, perhaps with fancy new image processing algorithms and sensors we will get the level of resolution you are talking about from satellite imagery at reasonable cost over time.
Plenty of scepticism about this online. Personally I am all for advances in space travel regardless of nationalistic feelings (I don't have much choice really being a Brit, a previous government having given up on space a long time ago and given our technology to the French!).
But so many personal websites are just self promotion of one kind or another, and that's fine, we all have to make a living, but I'd far rather read something where someone just wants to share what they know/love. And everything looks like the same set of off the shelf web design templates. I liked the weirdness of the old web. Kind of like games on the Amiga, every site was different, and that was part of the charm.
But perhaps you are right. Any tips on how to find the new gems?
People don't seem to build personal websites in the same way anymore - back then they weren't doing it to generate clicks, page views, passive income, build their profile etc, and everything wasn't all slickly styled and presented on a modern blogging platform. As a result websites were more amateurish, idiosyncratic, original, and sometimes charming, and I think the essence of the creator's motivation or interests often came across more strongly. The web doesn't have the same magic it used to for me. My god though some things were crap about it back in the day. If only we could have have kept the old web preserved alongside the new.
Geo as a whole in my observation. There are decades of research effort that have got us to where we are now, well developed study programmes worldwide, advanced proprietary and open software and data available, and geo is effectively mainstream in google maps and sat nav. Yet for some reason this contextual background is missed by many, and so I see commenters making statements about what a leap forward this or that is, when in fact it's just part of an evolving history. I'm not criticising people for not knowing what they don't know - my question is - why does it seem like geo as a whole has trouble communicating this context? I wonder whether there are any other areas of tech that suffer from this lack of awareness?
Presumably you are talking about the vector dataset? I think most of the raster imagery comes from commercial aerial imagery sources (certainly they have no monopoly whatsoever on that). I think there are other global vector datasets that are broadly comparable, no? Streetview excepted.
Maybe also worth pointing out that Google's record in geo isn't without its failures.
Global OSM is 40Gb or so - there are various libraries to translate it but as you can imagine, the sheer size of the dataset causes challenges. You also have to make choices about how you translate the attributes - for example, if you want to pull certain tags from the key:value field into separate columns in a table. Yet another issue involves source and target geometries - there can be inconsistencies in how features of the same type are recorded in OSM in terms of geometry, and so getting disparate input types translated into a single output type involves choices. Yes you can easily (after a wait!) get global OSM translated into something else, but making that something else exactly what you need can take effort.
We already force companies and people to take actions that may not be compatible with their beliefs - for example here in the UK it's illegal to refuse to rent to a homosexual couple on the basis of their sexuality a room in a bed and breakfast, despite the fact that some proprietors feel this infringes on their religious beliefs.
Not so sure about that - at least in Europe legislators are taking a pretty good look at the concentration of power in the tech giants. I think it's easy to be relaxed about this when the corporations are apparently aligned with your political interests, but would you still be arguing for a light touch if the opposite were true?