Slashdot Mirror

but that doesn't mean he has to be tortured What torture? What he is experiencing doesn't even register on the scale of torture. Solitary confinement is a human rights violation. No, it's not. It serves two purposes. 1) to prevent people like him from harming others as they have already done and 2) prevent others from harming him because of what they have done.

Experts disagree. Solitary confinement isn't punishment. It's torture [...] The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has specifically condemned Woodfox’s treatment as torture and called on the United States to eliminate the use of prolonged isolation. As discussed, solitary confinement inflicts psychological injury on inmates subjected to it for more than a brief period of time.156 Though such suffering may be mental rather than physical, the punishment is still likely to be found "severe" under international laws prohibiting torture. [...] Solitary confinement use in the United States contravenes international law because it fulfills all four elements of torture.

But as always, it's easy to be generous with other people's money.

The Norwegian tax payers overall seem to be very happy with the system. Maybe because it works. Or maybe because they are understand international human rights standards.

Nope, those diplomats are busily engaged in consular services, having a limited amount of time, they can't do all jobs at once, like it or not. And whatever was done in the past, is not the way things are done now, for a variety of reasons, including simply not needing to do things that way due to changing circumstances related to technology and even economic development.

Besides, it's still just supposition on your part, and while you keep insisting on implementing some pattern of behavior that not only can you not implement, you cannot prove would result in improved results, and yet are fervently declaring it to be better. You've even denied it being supposition on your part. But that is what you are offering, which is reasonably fine, you can conjecture if you wish, but it doesn't cost you anything to be upfront about it. Instead, you are insisting that your way is the method that works best, even asserting that it is the way supported by past practice. A poor claim of authority there, when you don't even offer specific observed facts to validate it.

Which is further compounded by your ignorance towards standardization of contracts, a pattern which actually has been developing, because contrary to your expectation, customization of deals does not necessarily lead to maximization of profits. It would be another matter if you recognized it as a discussion where there are many considerations being weighed, but your response is a declarative one, with your own position being presented as the only acceptable one. It's one thing to have an opinion upon a subject, it's another when your presentation is done through overweening arrogance yourself while lacking the basic acknowledgement towards the current state of affairs.

Then there's your lack of recognition of the quite common practices towards collaboration in trade policy. I mean really, if you wanted to discuss individual efforts, why not go for a historical example at least?

I've been willing to let your conjectures stand with only the barest of disagreement, but if you're going to complain, then perhaps you should look in thine own eye?

Anyway you can argue whatever you want about the inevitability of the TPP or not, but the fact is, the TPSEPA already existed as a collaboration so absent methods to change the past, you would have to live with conditions as they had developed, which as I mentioned in the case of the TPP was that other countries were already collaborating, and as such, your preferred state of affairs would require effort to achieve through altering an existing state of affairs.

Still, whether or not you can do so, it being rather obvious that you consider the TPP bad, you wanting better goes in hand with it.

So examining what actuality you think is better, in a manner that identifies your goals in some achievable form is useful. Unfortunately, what you've offered has been a change of approach, which while a possible point of alteration, remains conjecture, one that as interesting as it may be, is simple one you wish to achieve, yet lacks in any ability for you to effect, and still does not establish your desired end result of achievement. You keep trying to evade a response to that by saying

Rick Joyce and Gopal Gupta - Identity Authentication Based on Keystroke Latencies, 1990

F Monrose, A Rubin - Authentication via Keystroke Dynamics, 1997

Arkady G. Zilberman - US Patent 6442692: Security method and apparatus employing authentication by keystroke dynamics, 1998 (I think some of the claims in this patent could be invalidated because of previous disclosure in the 1990 and 1997 papers)

As seen here,
http://www.csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/ppoop.html

This whole issue could have been avoided if the developers didn't use the "Hacker Solution", but instead... well, read the paper.

Whoa! Citation please!

Fair enough request. here you go.

One quote in particular stands out to me... "Participation in the Olympic Games is voluntary. Thus, nations and individuals who participate in the Olympic Games submit themselves to the rules and regulations established by the IOC, and to subsequent sanctions for violating these rules. The IOC alone cannot compel governmental compliance, however, the Olympic Charter exemplifies current international practice and has the effect of customary international law. Therefore, the authoritative force of the rules and regulations of the Olympic Charter are recognized by state and international law.

Interestingly, I can't find substantiation of my claim that they have an international trademark by treaty, as with the IRC. So I'll have to take my spankings on that point, though I consider the above somewhat more scary.


but it really is only theory unless the Supreme Court has tried to overturn part of a treaty, and was denied.

As I said, IANAL. However, the best I can find on this subject comes from De Geofroy vs Riggs, 1890, which says "The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government" - Which I take to mean that unless they blatantly violate the constitution, treaties win.

Well, I know, I discussed this before, and I now have some more links on the flaws of "shareholder value":
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/599009962631/m/750009712041
http://www.aom.pace.edu/amle/AMLEVolume4Issue1pp75-91.pdf
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~christ/vfecon_asee2008.pdf

LXLabs' customers chose the product to begin with! If the product is indeed this insecure, the customers are certainly not innocent, as they have failed to thoroughly evaluate the product.

Really? Blame the customers?

I'm not sure what country you're from, but the Westernized world has generally moved away from caveat emptor and decided that it is in society's best interest for merchants to be responsible for the fitness of the product they are selling. The UN even passed a convention on it in 1980 (Articles 35 & 36 speak directly to buyer and seller responsibility)

'Teenage' can cover a wide range, but we've had fun with Lego Mindstorms http://shop.lego.com/ByTheme/Product.aspx?p=8527&cn=17&d=70

I used to work as a TA in some intro classes that used Karel and Karel++ http://pclc.pace.edu/~bergin/karel.html Kinda like Lego Mindstorms on your screen. It's really pretty cool what you can do with it (make a binary calculator out of robots, for instance). The classes would start with a few weeks of Karel, then move on to other languages.

For me anyway, it's about learning to think and express your ideas via programming, the language is really secondary (i.e. most learn more than one, if they go on in the field).

Stuff like this was fun (for most people) and laid a decent foundation for later.

Judge Metcalfe's view of the appellate process suggests either naivete or arrogance:

Our highest state appellate court - the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin - affirmed the case 9-0. And then it was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, 8-1. When the Appellate Court reverses a case, they are never saying the trial judge was right or wrong. They are saying they disagree with the judge. You can't, for instance, in the Adams appeals say the appellate courts were saying I was right or I was wrong. Af

The freshmen level OOP class that I took taught us by using BlueJ and Karel. I loved it, thought it was fun and easy to use, and really helped teach solid OO concepts. I recommend it highly.

In highschool I have yet to meet a computer teacher that is a trained programmer, other than self taught. Most are business/science teachers that get the job to try to teach kids to program while most kids goof off.

As a current computer science high school teacher, I'd have to agree. Secondary ed computer science endorsements are ridiculously easy to obtain. In most states, you only need about 25 college hours of "computer classes". That could mean anything from a class in "HTML" to a class in "Microsoft Office". In fact, I have never heard of an official computer science exam that teachers have to pass.

I attended an AP Computer Science summer workshop for teachers in 2005. I was appalled at the number of CS teachers who could not write a for loop. Most of the teachers there were business or math teachers who were forced to provide a class in programming.

At one interview I had for a high school, the principal asked me "does anyone program computers anymore?". She was refering to the fact that todays computers do not boot with a copy of QBASIC in ROM. (i.e. Apple IIe, C64, TRS-80)

Another reason that students aren't taking programming courses is that there are so many other computer classes being offered now. And they are easier to pass! Our school offers Photoshop, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, Video, Computer Repair (A+ cert), Networking.

Finally, programming just isn't that sexy to your typical high school student. Students see that making a game in Flash (without Actionscript) is so much easier than all of the crap you have to do in Java or C++. Many of the high school CS teachers teach the entire course using System.out.println.

Encourage your local schools to look at adopting software that encourges programming:

• Alice
• Jeroo
• Karel The Robot

Did any of their officers graduate from Stanford or Harvard Business School?

You joke, but Israel's business schools look more and more like American business schools every day. And that is a problem. Why? I invite you all to read the famous article by the late Sumantra Ghoshal: "Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices".

I have to make a major plug for Karel the Robot, which is the software package I use to teach logical thinking and basic OO design to my intro students. Karel is highly graphical, object oriented and (more or less...mostly less) language agnostic. I'm not sure what language you'd use, but there is a VERY easy to learn Java Karel library here.

In fact, I have an idea for your presentation. As part of my unit on looping and recursion, I've written a set of classes that generates a maze that Karel has to traverse. You could use that, write a little program to have Karel find his way through the maze. You can them show them graphically how the maze is generated and how the robot works its way through the maze, finally showing them the code. If you're is interested in doing something like this, reply here and I'll post the code to my website.

-Troy

Karel is an introduction to c++. Basically, the object is a robot and you move him around and make him do stuff with beepers. Very simple programming.

The most complex thing I ever did was make a calculator. Since Karel doesn't have any arithmetic or variables (per se), it was a challenge.

Here are some fundamentals that describe the world a bit more.

This may be true but to breach a contract/terms a resonable person in a similar situation would have to forsee this breach, which must result in some damage to the previous party, correct? or in other words

"A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result."

So my question would be would most resonable people except such restrictive terms when buying the rights to music? I personally would not consider iTunes terms resonable.

for more information: Contract Breach

From what I've read, if you do nothing about an infringment for an extended period of time, then it proves to the court that you haven't suffered irreparable harm.

When a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of copyright infringement, irreparable harm is presumed. ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., No. 95-7887 at 8091 (2d Cir. September 19, 1996). The presumption may be rebutted, if the defendant is able to demonstrate that the plaintiff delayed in bringing an action requesting preliminary injunctive relief. Bourne Co., 976 F.2d at 101; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273, 276 (2d Cir. 1985). An unreasonable delay suggests that the plaintiff may have acquiesced in the infringing activity, or that any harm suffered by the plaintiff is not so severe as to be ?irreparable.? Although delay for purposes of preliminary-injunction analysis may be similar to the equitable consideration of laches in shaping appropriate final relief, our refusal to approve the issuance of a preliminary injunction should not prevent a lower court from considering the full panoply of available remedies when it fashions permanent relief. See Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Products, 60 F.3d 964, 968 (2d Cir. 1995) (making the same point in reference to a Lanham Act case).

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong, however. But, to this day, SCO has yet to bring about a copyright infringement action against anyone.

There is no copyright in numbering pages.

there is nothing illegal about "stealing cable."

That is a potentially dangerous piece of misinformation. You may believe what you like about the Communications Act, but the courts do not agree with you.

We used Karel J. Robot to teach the basics. It's a robot simulator with a good graphical display. The robots only a few basic instructions like move(), pickBeeper(), putBeeper(), turnLeft() and turnOff(). Robots can also sense beepers, walls, and other robots, as well as know their compass direction. The robots can also communicate with one-another. They roam the streets and avenues of the Robot World. It's all Java, and it was fun. Take a look if you're interested, the whole curriculum is online there at the previous link.
Some of the kids had a hard time; but isn't that the point of introductory level CS classes, to weed out those who would rather chat on AOL or read their email in class?

Considering most of the people there, such as myself, were already well versed in at least one other programming language, we were needless to say bored out of our minds. By the end of the semester, we spoke our mind at The Fence (you people familiar with CMU will enjoy this..)

Python would be a good choice as it is geared towards teaching. Java and C/C++ might as well, though there are pros and cons to each. C has the advantage that the correlation between C and assembly is reasonably close and therefore understandable (unless you have optimizations turned on :-).

1. self-taught BASIC programming on TRS-80, Commodore PET, and Apple ][+
2. self-taught 6502 assembly on Apple ][+
3. some Pascal at a computer camp (yeah, a geek at an early age)
4. the teacher's course for AP Computer Science (including Karel the robot, and more Pascal)
5. BASIC programming course in high school on TI-99/4 computers. I already knew more than the instructor, so I helped teach the course and learned more assembly language instead.
6. CS major at UC Berkeley
   • CS-50, the "weeder" course (Pascal)
   • machine language and low level hardware
   • data structures and algorithms
   • operating systems (Panda, and Unix with C)
   • compilers and programming languages
   • computer graphics
   • computer hardware (plus a lab)
   • computer theory
   • graph theory and combinatorics
   • introductory EE lab

an engineering co-op

full time work for 13 years or so, including self-taught C++ and lots of other things... I guess my points are that (a) there isn't a single "right" answer (b) some OOP is OK, but needs to be balanced with some understanding of the underlying systems (i.e., I agree with you), and (c) that all needs to be balanced with some fun!

Those MSCE's can be pretty thick. I'd recommend Beowulf for Dummies but they'd probably just end up at Beowulf for Dummies

Steven

And no, I don't believe you're legally allowed to copy the AOL to a friend if AOL doesn't give you permission to.

See Infinity Broadcast v. Kirkwood. Kirkwood set up a service that allowed people to call in over a phone and listen to radio stations in the Kirkwood's area. Kirkwood got sued and lost (read the judge's opinion, it's weird). If you will, the radio broadcasts are unsolicited bulk distribution. Granted, the listener can choose to not listen to those transmissions (throw them away). The listener isn't allowed to record the broadcasts and retransmit them.
--

Here's a few lines from the comments he made on May 4th (full text here)

• Defendant argues, however, that such copying is protected by the affirmative defense of "fair use." See
• 17 U.S.C. 107. In analyzing such a defense, the Copyright Act specifies four factors that must be considered...

  Regarding the first factor -- "the purpose and character of the use" -- ... involves inquiring into whether the new use essentially repeats the old or whether, instead, it "transforms" it by infusing it with new meaning, new understandings, or the like.

  • See, e.g.,
  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994); Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 142; see also Pierre N. Leval, "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (1990). Here, although defendant recites that My.MP3.com provides a transformative "space shift" by which subscribers can enjoy the sound recordings contained on their CDs without lugging around the physical discs themselves, this is simply another way of saying that the unauthorized copies are being retransmitted in another medium -- an insufficient basis for any legitimate claim of transformation. See, e.g., Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998) (rejecting the fair use defense by operator of a service that retransmitted copyrighted radio broadcasts over telephone lines); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l Ltd.. 149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting the fair use defense where television news agencies copied copyrighted news footage and retransmitted it to news organizations), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999); see also American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 923 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 516 U.S. 1005 (1995); Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1530-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); see generally Leval, supra, at 1111 (repetition of copyrighted material that "merely repackages or republishes the original" is unlikely to be deemed a fair use).

  Regarding the fourth factor -- "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" -- defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction. See 17 U.S.C. 106. ... [The] defendant argues, its activities can only enhance plaintiffs' sales, since subscribers cannot gain access to particular recordings made available by MP3.com unless they have already "purchased" (actually or purportedly), or agreed to purchase, their own CD copies of those recordings.

  Such arguments ... are unpersuasive. Any allegedly positive impact of defendant's activities on plaintiffs' prior market in no way frees defendant to usurp a further market that directly derives from reproduction of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. See Infinity Broadcast, 150 F.3d at 111. This would be so even if the copyrightholder had not yet entered the new market in issue, for a copyrightholder's "exclusive" rights, derived from the Constitution and the Copyright Act, include the right, within broad limits, to curb the development of such a derivative market by refusing to license a copyrighted work or by doing so only on terms the copyright owner finds acceptable.

Here's a few lines from the comments he made on May 4th (full text here)

• Defendant argues, however, that such copying is protected by the affirmative defense of "fair use." See
• 17 U.S.C. 107. In analyzing such a defense, the Copyright Act specifies four factors that must be considered...

  Regarding the first factor -- "the purpose and character of the use" -- ... involves inquiring into whether the new use essentially repeats the old or whether, instead, it "transforms" it by infusing it with new meaning, new understandings, or the like.

  • See, e.g.,
  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994); Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 142; see also Pierre N. Leval, "Toward a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (1990). Here, although defendant recites that My.MP3.com provides a transformative "space shift" by which subscribers can enjoy the sound recordings contained on their CDs without lugging around the physical discs themselves, this is simply another way of saying that the unauthorized copies are being retransmitted in another medium -- an insufficient basis for any legitimate claim of transformation. See, e.g., Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998) (rejecting the fair use defense by operator of a service that retransmitted copyrighted radio broadcasts over telephone lines); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l Ltd.. 149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting the fair use defense where television news agencies copied copyrighted news footage and retransmitted it to news organizations), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999); see also American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 923 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 516 U.S. 1005 (1995); Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1530-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); see generally Leval, supra, at 1111 (repetition of copyrighted material that "merely repackages or republishes the original" is unlikely to be deemed a fair use).

  Regarding the fourth factor -- "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" -- defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction. See 17 U.S.C. 106. ... [The] defendant argues, its activities can only enhance plaintiffs' sales, since subscribers cannot gain access to particular recordings made available by MP3.com unless they have already "purchased" (actually or purportedly), or agreed to purchase, their own CD copies of those recordings.

  Such arguments ... are unpersuasive. Any allegedly positive impact of defendant's activities on plaintiffs' prior market in no way frees defendant to usurp a further market that directly derives from reproduction of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. See Infinity Broadcast, 150 F.3d at 111. This would be so even if the copyrightholder had not yet entered the new market in issue, for a copyrightholder's "exclusive" rights, derived from the Constitution and the Copyright Act, include the right, within broad limits, to curb the development of such a derivative market by refusing to license a copyrighted work or by doing so only on terms the copyright owner finds acceptable.

Here are some other related links:

The Economics and Management of Technological
MIT: Technology Strategy/Scott Stern
Advances in Global High Technology
Technological Innovation and International Competitiveness
IMD Discovery Events
Related Misc.Books and Articles

Here are some other related links:

The Economics and Management of Technological
MIT: Technology Strategy/Scott Stern
Advances in Global High Technology
Technological Innovation and International Competitiveness
IMD Discovery Events
Related Misc.Books and Articles

Here are some other related links:

The Economics and Management of Technological
MIT: Technology Strategy/Scott Stern
Advances in Global High Technology
Technological Innovation and International Competitiveness
IMD Discovery Events
Related Misc.Books and Articles