Slashdot Mirror

FERPA does not automatically protect a student's "Directory Information" such as e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. FERPA only applies to the privacy of a student's academic records. There have been several FERPA cases tested in court with regard to what is, or isn't, a protected student record.

You can, as a student, request that your own "directory" information not be published by the school. I would say its probably easier to be safe than sorry, in this particular case. It would not be feasible for faculty to cross-reference every students directory "privacy flag" when sending a mass e-mail to many CC recipients.

There is a better way to send mass-recipient newsletter type announcements and retain privacy for recipients' e-mail addresses. For example, using a Mailing List Manager (Sympa, Mailman, Majordomo) intended for that purpose. If its just a one-time message, then BCC would beat having to set up and manage a mailing list.

http://counsel.cua.edu/res/docs/ada/reed-college.pdf

I guarantee every college and university has at least one lawyer who is familiar with this and the similar settlements the DoJ concluded last year. Charging an extra cost to access text-to-speech would fail the "must not be provided different or separate accomodations" test and contrary to the current case with non-etext books would not fall under the exception for "unless doing so is ncessary to ensure access to goods and services that is equally as effective as that provided to others". (28 C.F.R. 36.202(c))

The inability to stop charging an extra cost to visually disabled folks is a dis-incentive for textbook makers.

Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept rooted in criminal law.

We can know exactly when the maxim formally entered American law: through a Supreme Court decision of 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A lower court had refused to instruct the jury that "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty".

  Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim

In American civil law, there is no such thing as a verdict of guilt or innocence. There is only a finding a fact for the plaintiff or defendant.

You can, in all innocence, infringe on rights in real or intangible property.

That doesn't mean the infringement can continue or you won't have to compensate the owner.

The "prsumption of innocence" doesn't take you very far when it comes to the cold hard reality of a trial.

There, the admissibility of evidence is what matters.

The burden of proof.

Not sure why you insist so much about the presumption of innocence being established by the US as "...we know it today". It seems it goes really far far back in time at least to the Roman Empire. http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm

Well...

1) No, it's not the Septaguint, because the Septaguint is the old testament (aka Jewish Torah), whereas the main interest in the Codex Sinaiticus is that it is (maybe - in contention with the Codex Vaticanus) the oldest new testament, although it does also contain part of the old testament. Other copies of the old testament (e.g. dead sea scrolls) are much older.

2) The new testament canon was not decided upon at the (1st) Council of Nicea - it was provably already established before then, and the "procedings" of the Council still survive (as do writings about it by participant Eusebius). There are many persistent and untrue internet myths about the Council of Nicea.

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/Nicea/CouncilNicea.html

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

3) It may in fact be exactly the same version of the new testament as existed in the time of roman emperor Constantine I (who convened the Council of Nicea) - given that it may well date to his time (although **precise** dating unknown), it may be one of the 50 copies of the bible that Constantine is recorded (by Eusebius) to have had produced.

...the courts will soon say "If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits."

Right - because we live in a world where everyone is considered guilty> until proven innocent, and everyone knows that it's easy to prove a negative.

Here on Htrae, Us know how to do legal stuff wrong!

1. Pay teachers very well so they are in say the top 5% of all wage earners. This will attract the highly skilled and educated back into teaching.

2. Send teachers to school during school holidays to further their own knowledge. Pay them for this. This ensures teachers are constantly updating their knowledge instead of driving taxi's during the school breaks.

3. Don't let your local community decide what should be taught in schools. Curriculum should be decided by a national panel made up of leaders in each field of study. Education should be a national issue, not one decided based on local beliefs no matter how "intelligent" those beliefs are.

4. Provide options for traineeships in traditional trades (e.g. electrical, plumbing etc) for the non-academic students. This will help remove disruptive elements from classes allowing those who want to study or have the aptitude to study to do so in peace. (not that you don't need to study to become a plumber and such, but I'm sure you all know what I mean)

5. Properly fund the schools and get rid of the Coke/Chip machines. I know the sugary drinks and food taste great, but they don't help you sit still and concentrate. (A new slogan perhaps? :)

6. Ban the teaching of religion on any and all school grounds. AND ENFORCE IT!!! Religion has it's place in society, but not in schools!

The Vitreous State Lab at The Catholic University of America has been doing this for 30 years. Read a recent article here.

First I am a Christian.

I am not sure what scientific evidence exists that the Koran has _not_ been changed since the prophet Mohamed. There is scientific evidence that the Christian bible has been changed.

However, there is scientific evidence that the language in which the Koran was originaly written has changed over the past 1500 years.

Basically, the Arabic of today is in some ways different in meaning than the Arabic of 1500 years ago. This is true of almost every language. So even if the Koran stayed the same, people's ability to understand what its contents actually mean has changed.

Also, Jewish, Christian, and Mulsim fundamentalists seem to break one of the commandments: do not worship idols. I used to have a friend who was a fundamentalist Christian, and he came to the point where he no longer worshipped God and good things. He worshipped a book that we call the bible. A book is not a god. It is a collection of pieces of paper.

The same goes for fundamentalists Muslims. Do they worship God or do they worship a physical object: a book?

If this object told them to hate, while God told them to love... which would they choose? Fundamentalists seem to choose hate more often than love. This implies to me that they choose their idol over their god.

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (PDF 128k). Title I, Section A specifies that a signature on a legal document cannot be denied (effect or validity) solely because it is in electronic form.

Someone mod this guy up and the other guy down.
According to the Supreme Court, telephone directories are *NOT* copyrightable.

thanks for the correction

did a quick search on synergy+heylin+fuller which turned up this extract of the oed online which supports your advice

yes. because someone who went to an ivy league school is dumb. granted his dad got him there but still. what school did you graduate from?

Just like "graduating from an Ivy League college" is a far cry from a guarantee of intelligence.

Since a large portion of the President's job involves public speaking, and since -- presumably -- he knows he isn't good at it, a smart man would see that he should find some good speech writers to compensate. I don't know that the President is an idiot. He's just failed to offer me any evidence to the contrary.

According to the aforementioned bio, she got both her undergraduate and law degrees from Catholic University in Washington DC and also teaches at Georgetown. By all appearances she's about as much a Washington insider as a jurist can get. Now, I don't know much about her personally, but I don't think CUA's law school is particularly conservative (I was an undergrad there.) Long story made short, she'll be a competent judge, and probably lean toward the government side. I'm cautiously optimistic about her.