Contracting for a large U.S. manufacturing corporation, the emphasis put on "diversity" is sickening, and reminds me that it's somehow still necessary to point out that people are different, even when gender, race and background aren't reflected in any way in the work performed. It's modern, corporate feel-good idiocy that does nothing but foster division where none exists.
Actually, never mind. Being able to throw "supercomputer" and "cloud" in the same sentence is definitely worthy of a full article at CIO Update. How are junk submissions like these accepted?
That's what's really amusing about this article. It talks about supposedly irrelevant Google search results, but how does "natural language search," whatever that's supposed to be, challenge Google in a way that Google couldn't easily adapt to? Search algorithms aren't magically better because you vocalise your search terms, and phrased searching certainly isn't a concept unfamiliar to Google.
Slashdot in 2012 is largely technical support people and Windows administrators who hold their MCSAs more dear than their first born. This is how it has to be explained.
Lol, I never said it did. I said the movie + cut list equals a derivative work.
Why are you contradicting yourself? If a cut list isn't a derivative work by itself, then nor is it a derivative work in combination with a movie. Like I just told you in the previous post, a work has to contain significant elements of another work to be considered derivative. Running it atop another work does not magically make it derivative, and since we've already established that a cut list does not alter the content of the media, but merely establishes which parts the user does not wish to see, it is not a derivative work from a copyright law perspective. Not even Hollywood lawyers would go to court to argue that it is.
I never used the word interaction nor did I imply it through the use of a related other term. I used the words "rote" and "creative" which are orthogonal to the concept of human interaction.
You need to read your own posts. You said specifically that
The cut-list is a creative work in and of itself as it requires a human to make a determination as to what does and what does not qualify for censorship.
, suggesting that any human interaction makes a work creative according to copyright law definitions. I can tell that you're probably using Wikipedia as your main source for this material, because you're citing the "creative" and "rote" differentiation that determines whether or not the author of a derivative work can claim copyright on their derived work. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In any way.
You've gone from arguing against yourself to arguing against ghosts. I don't think many rational people will find either approach persuasive.
Rather, I've been arguing against the points you've raised under the misconception that you understand what it is that you're talking about. I think most rational people who understand the subject matter will recognise this.
I see where you think I'm arguing counter to my own point if you don't understand what a derivative work is in copyright law. A derivative work is a creation that contains significant elements of an original work. A cut-list does not contain any element at all of the original work, and is as much derivative of a movie as a frame is of a painting.
As far as interaction goes, it requires a human to determine where to cut a movie, and it requires a human to determine where an advertisement is to be inserted into a page. A censoring DVD player censors automatically based on human instructions, just like an injection device inserts advertisements automatically based on human instructions. That's all irrelevant, however, as there's absolutely no stipulation in copyright law that requires human interaction or intervention to make a work derivative.
Censoring hardware and software block content. You can block whatever you want to block, and blocking specific parts of a movie is no more "derivative" than skipping ahead five minutes with your remote. When you alter a work according to copyright law definitions of alteration, you manipulate it or add to it. If you do that for fun, it's usually a civil matter, but if you do it for profit, it's always a criminal matter. Adding profit-generating ads to an existing work without authorisation most certainly passes the test for criminal copyright infringement.
He agrees in principle, but does not agree that those rules need to be established only by authorities. Description of actual usage is also acceptable, and this is generally how those rules originated in the first place.
I think this is the essential part of the argument. As a linguist, he has to agree, as structure is the only thing separating established languages from descriptive sounds. I agree with the idea that rules can be established by non-authoritative sources, and I'd argue that there's no such thing as an authoritative source for the English language. This case, however, is one of a conflation of two separate words that violates long-established rules of the language, and I'd say it's very difficult to make a case for that being proper and acceptable in any way.
No, I understand how languages work. I understand that 'ir' is a negator in the English language. Irrespective, irreconcilable, irrefutable, irresistible. Not respective, not reconcilable, not refutable, not resistible. "Irregardless" would then be "not regardless," but it is being used in the same manner as "regardless."
As I said, new words are fine. Breaking the basic grammatical rules of a language to accommodate common misspellings is not.
So you're asking him to learn how language works because he objects to people who make up contradictory words as a consequence of apparently not understanding how the language that they're using works. I don't generally have a problem with new words to explain new concepts, or even new words to explain existing concepts, but making up a new word consisting of an existing word with the same definition, preceded by a prefix that typically serves to negate the following word, that's just.. well.. dense.
Wouldn't it be easier if people just used the right words?
They can deny permission in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the airline would be violating that regulation in the same way that a U.S. airline representative would be violating regulations by allowing a person who has been denied boarding to board a flight in the U.S. anyway. This is a legal barrier with legal definitions, not a physical barrier with physical ramifications. The argument seems sort of semantic.
Every part of your equation depends on scale and location. If the campus is in a major metropolitan area in the U.S., they can typically get an Ethernet handoff and a full table (or a default route, if they'd like,) for $1/Mbps/month. The installation costs *may* be higher than ancient telco stuff, but if the capital is available, any additional cost will be made up for in savings in less than a year.
1) It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. has no issue condemning violations, so one must assume that they recognise their obligation to uphold it in their capacity as signatories.
2) There's a border guard associated with every possible point of departure, yes. They may not physically be present where you depart from at the time that you depart, but if you cannot arrange to have USCBP officials process your departure on location, they have local offices where you're obligated to go to for processing. That's how international travel by sea has always worked.
Sorry to give you what seems like a terse reply, but what you're saying is mostly wrong. To answer your questions:
1) The U.S. is a signatory to the UDHR, and its status as part of an international law obligates the U.S. to adhere to it. 2) No, it is not possible to leave the United States legally without a passport. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative legally obligates you to provide a passport to a border agent upon leaving the country by any means.
There aren't all that many articles of the UDHR. It's covered in article 13, but you would've found that in two seconds if you were at all interested in knowing what you're talking about. After the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative came into effect, you're legally required as a U.S. citizen to present a U.S. passport whenever you depart the U.S.
If the freedom of movement is guaranteed by the UDHR, and a passport is required for movement, then either a passport is a right, or the U.S. is in violation of article 13. Take your pick; it doesn't change the outcome.
The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR. These rights may not be respected, but that doesn't change their nature as rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Contracting for a large U.S. manufacturing corporation, the emphasis put on "diversity" is sickening, and reminds me that it's somehow still necessary to point out that people are different, even when gender, race and background aren't reflected in any way in the work performed. It's modern, corporate feel-good idiocy that does nothing but foster division where none exists.
"..mission-critical fields such as aerospace or military."
What? A mission-critical *field*? Critical to which mission?
Actually, never mind. Being able to throw "supercomputer" and "cloud" in the same sentence is definitely worthy of a full article at CIO Update. How are junk submissions like these accepted?
That's what's really amusing about this article. It talks about supposedly irrelevant Google search results, but how does "natural language search," whatever that's supposed to be, challenge Google in a way that Google couldn't easily adapt to? Search algorithms aren't magically better because you vocalise your search terms, and phrased searching certainly isn't a concept unfamiliar to Google.
I was around long before they started handing out 7-digit UIDs. It isn't arrogance; it's an accurate observation.
Everything you do deals with a bus somewhere. They're still hugely relevant, particularly in very dense, very fast electronics.
Slashdot in 2012 is largely technical support people and Windows administrators who hold their MCSAs more dear than their first born. This is how it has to be explained.
Why are you contradicting yourself? If a cut list isn't a derivative work by itself, then nor is it a derivative work in combination with a movie. Like I just told you in the previous post, a work has to contain significant elements of another work to be considered derivative. Running it atop another work does not magically make it derivative, and since we've already established that a cut list does not alter the content of the media, but merely establishes which parts the user does not wish to see, it is not a derivative work from a copyright law perspective. Not even Hollywood lawyers would go to court to argue that it is.
You need to read your own posts. You said specifically that
, suggesting that any human interaction makes a work creative according to copyright law definitions. I can tell that you're probably using Wikipedia as your main source for this material, because you're citing the "creative" and "rote" differentiation that determines whether or not the author of a derivative work can claim copyright on their derived work. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In any way.
Rather, I've been arguing against the points you've raised under the misconception that you understand what it is that you're talking about. I think most rational people who understand the subject matter will recognise this.
I see where you think I'm arguing counter to my own point if you don't understand what a derivative work is in copyright law. A derivative work is a creation that contains significant elements of an original work. A cut-list does not contain any element at all of the original work, and is as much derivative of a movie as a frame is of a painting.
As far as interaction goes, it requires a human to determine where to cut a movie, and it requires a human to determine where an advertisement is to be inserted into a page. A censoring DVD player censors automatically based on human instructions, just like an injection device inserts advertisements automatically based on human instructions. That's all irrelevant, however, as there's absolutely no stipulation in copyright law that requires human interaction or intervention to make a work derivative.
Censoring hardware and software block content. You can block whatever you want to block, and blocking specific parts of a movie is no more "derivative" than skipping ahead five minutes with your remote. When you alter a work according to copyright law definitions of alteration, you manipulate it or add to it. If you do that for fun, it's usually a civil matter, but if you do it for profit, it's always a criminal matter. Adding profit-generating ads to an existing work without authorisation most certainly passes the test for criminal copyright infringement.
I think this is the essential part of the argument. As a linguist, he has to agree, as structure is the only thing separating established languages from descriptive sounds. I agree with the idea that rules can be established by non-authoritative sources, and I'd argue that there's no such thing as an authoritative source for the English language. This case, however, is one of a conflation of two separate words that violates long-established rules of the language, and I'd say it's very difficult to make a case for that being proper and acceptable in any way.
No, I understand how languages work. I understand that 'ir' is a negator in the English language. Irrespective, irreconcilable, irrefutable, irresistible. Not respective, not reconcilable, not refutable, not resistible. "Irregardless" would then be "not regardless," but it is being used in the same manner as "regardless."
As I said, new words are fine. Breaking the basic grammatical rules of a language to accommodate common misspellings is not.
No. Am you haveng truble anderstending dese werds? Probably not. Should those words go in the dictionary and be acceptable use? Probably not.
So you're asking him to learn how language works because he objects to people who make up contradictory words as a consequence of apparently not understanding how the language that they're using works. I don't generally have a problem with new words to explain new concepts, or even new words to explain existing concepts, but making up a new word consisting of an existing word with the same definition, preceded by a prefix that typically serves to negate the following word, that's just.. well.. dense.
Wouldn't it be easier if people just used the right words?
I moved here a few years ago, and I'm looking to leave again. Wanting to bring ones wife along makes that a much more complicated process.
They can deny permission in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the airline would be violating that regulation in the same way that a U.S. airline representative would be violating regulations by allowing a person who has been denied boarding to board a flight in the U.S. anyway. This is a legal barrier with legal definitions, not a physical barrier with physical ramifications. The argument seems sort of semantic.
Enforcement would consist of the airlines in question not being allowed to fly into the U.S.
Every part of your equation depends on scale and location. If the campus is in a major metropolitan area in the U.S., they can typically get an Ethernet handoff and a full table (or a default route, if they'd like,) for $1/Mbps/month. The installation costs *may* be higher than ancient telco stuff, but if the capital is available, any additional cost will be made up for in savings in less than a year.
Both of your examples are completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is about blocking what is available, not about making available what is not.
1) It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. has no issue condemning violations, so one must assume that they recognise their obligation to uphold it in their capacity as signatories.
2) There's a border guard associated with every possible point of departure, yes. They may not physically be present where you depart from at the time that you depart, but if you cannot arrange to have USCBP officials process your departure on location, they have local offices where you're obligated to go to for processing. That's how international travel by sea has always worked.
A non-U.S. passport is still a passport.
Sorry to give you what seems like a terse reply, but what you're saying is mostly wrong. To answer your questions:
1) The U.S. is a signatory to the UDHR, and its status as part of an international law obligates the U.S. to adhere to it.
2) No, it is not possible to leave the United States legally without a passport. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative legally obligates you to provide a passport to a border agent upon leaving the country by any means.
As a U.S. citizen, you're legally obligated to present your passport when you leave the country.
There aren't all that many articles of the UDHR. It's covered in article 13, but you would've found that in two seconds if you were at all interested in knowing what you're talking about. After the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative came into effect, you're legally required as a U.S. citizen to present a U.S. passport whenever you depart the U.S.
If the freedom of movement is guaranteed by the UDHR, and a passport is required for movement, then either a passport is a right, or the U.S. is in violation of article 13. Take your pick; it doesn't change the outcome.
It is most certainly not a privilege.
The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR. These rights may not be respected, but that doesn't change their nature as rights.