What? Product liability laws are not designed to protect you from other people misusing a product. If someone strangles me with a telephone cord, are the telephone manufacturers liable?
Absolutely correct, he should be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
As should anyone who's ever sold a paedophile a car, a bottle of water, a loaf of bread, or a digital camera, because they've all been aiding and abetting paedophiles.
There's a very good argument that polygraph tests are there for no reason other than to unduly stress suspects into giving a confession. Think along the lines of "oh, well, you can admit it now, and we'll go easy on you, or you can take the polygraph test and then we've got no incentive to be generous". Despite the fact "we'll go easy on you" means literally nothing, and has been documented as meaning nothing over and over again.
I can't remember the name of it, but there's a statistical analysis that shows that the number of terrorists found during TSA searches is statistically insignificant compared to the number of false positives. I'd be willing to bet the same principle applies here.
They called the head of the Orthodox Church a "suka" [http://www.russiaslam.com/glossary#ÑÑfÐÐ] (no Cyrillic on/. so if link doesn't work, try www.russiaslam.com/glossary and scroll down to the word that looks like "cyka")... that's pretty much definitely religious hatred.
Russians take religion pretty seriously, although I agree, a lot of the trial was for show.
While I don't support the incarceration of Pussy Riot, can you imagine what would happen if Anal Cunt barged into a service at, for example, St. Paul's Cathedral in London, and started singing and swearing and blaspheming? Don't forget, the Sex Pistols were arrested for performing God Save The Queen. One of the women who was convicted also took part in an orgy in a museum, and is part of a group that (amongst other illegal acts of shock-protest) shoplifted a raw chicken by inserting it into a woman's vagina.
I think three years is extremely harsh, but to dismiss the charges as "chanting an anti-Putin slogan" is massively oversimplifying the issue. Were it to have happened in the UK, I would not be surprised if there were a (short) custodial sentence.
I don't disagree with your main point though, corruption is rife, and despite attempts to rid the country of it, it almost certainly goes right the way to the top. Russian people have next to no faith in their legal system.
As I see it, either a) Assange did rape one or both of the women who have complained, in which case he will be found guilty, and rightly, serve a sentence for his crime. Or b) he didn't do it, and he was set up. If he was in fact set up, then it stands to reason that he was set up by somebody with the wherewithal to ensure that the case is solid enough to lead to a conviction. Either way, if he was to face potential charges in Sweden, I can't see a case in which he would be found not guilty.
Of course, this is all moot, because the US would have him trussed up and Gitmo-bound within 5 minutes of landing on Swedish soil.
No, that doesn't mean that at all. That means that if a work is used for nonprofit educational purposes that should be CONSIDERED as a FACTOR in trying to determine whether or not it is an infringement of copyright. If I downloaded (in full) a recent Hollywood release and showed it to a class in art history (because there was a scene shot in an art gallery) without charging for it, I could fairly say that it was a nonprofit educational use of the film. However, it would fall down on the other three factors - the nature of the copyrighted work is not substantially in line with the purpose for which it was used, there was no need to show the whole work, and it is relatively likely that nobody in that class will go out and purchase the film having already seen it. "Educational purposes" is not the catch-all that some people seem to think it is.
Although I would agree that his original post wasn't racist, his follow-up comments calling people wogs and telling them to go and pick some cotton are fairly unambiguously so.
Ignore that - my misreading. The correct complaints/appeals would go through here:
http://www.lgo.org.uk/ if it had not been adequately resolved by the authority themselves.
TFA actually states that social services made a decision based on evidence available to them. We do not know if that information is also available to us. While I, of course, believe in being innocent until proven guilty, there is an additional factor in that if this bloke has been convicted of a sex crime in the past, social services may have access to that information, but they are not allowed to pass it on.
Also, if he IS a paedophile, and suspected the police were closing in on him, then he can now turn around and say "yes, of course that kiddie porn is there; I told you it was". In short, I'm reserving judgement on either party for this one. If he's not guilty, then he deserves to be able to have that decided in a court, rather than have people making up their minds based on a news article. On the other hand, there may well be a very good reason that access has been removed. If there is, then let the courts rule that the decision made by social services is fair.
It's right that he is allowed to challenge, but it's also right that social services are allowed to make a decision based on what they believe at the time to be in the best interests of the child.
In the UK, it is being implemented in banks. There are places where to enter, you have to walk through (or drive through) a fine spray of this. They've started distributing it in areas with a high incidence of burglaries (round me), and the statistics the policeman who came round to instruct us in its use were fascinating (although I haven't verified them). He said that in the area they were first deployed, they were averaging 200 burglaries a week. By the end of the pilot, that was down to 2 a MONTH. Admittedly, this was as part of an anti-burglary drive, and so cause and effect, etc. The policeman also told me that although you could wash off earlier versions with solvents, this needed to be physically sanded off. How much that's just FUD, I don't know, but still...
The UV light is only intended to indicate that SmartWater is present, it's not supposed to be anything other than a quick, easy-to-check, sign that property has been tagged.
No, you've misunderstood. Although what you've said is true, the "high dynamic range" that the technique is named for is the range in real life, not the representation. In other words, HDR is a technique which can better represent a scene with a high dynamic range.
Naimina is a weird word - if I asked somebody to transcribe the Russian, " ", I would expect something like this. It translates to "at exactly". The problem is that then that doesn't tie in to the names, which seems to confirm - but the only reference I can find to that that doesn't relate to this story is this photo album: http://picasaweb.google.com/smallbird92 which seems to be the Picasa album of some rich Russian teenager.
As I understand it (usual disclaimer, IANAL etc.), the law under which he is being prosecuted is a law designed to protect people from wiretapping. Most states have a one party rule, which basically means that a third party can't record a private conversation between two people, but either of the participants in the conversation can (the "one-party" bit referring to how many parties to the conversation have to be aware of the recording before it is legal). Maryland, on the other hand, has a two party rule, which means that nobody is allowed to record any private conversation unless all participants are aware that the conversation is being recorded. So, the motorcyclist was supposed to turn off the camera as soon as a private conversation began. The problem here is that the guy who recorded the conversation either a) did not know about this law, or b) did not believe it applied in this instance [in the interests of even-handedness, I should probably add "or c) knew about the law, knew it applied, and violated it anyway"]. The real issue is that the guy, and most of the commenters here, by the looks of things, do not believe a traffic stop in a public place constitutes a private conversation between the individual and the police officer.
This is where things get a little tricky, because (at least in the UK), if you are stopped by the police, you are legally required to give your name and address, which is private information. So we have a situation where two individuals are in a situation where one party is unable to legally refuse to give private information in a public forum - so why is this conversation not afforded any sort of privacy rights? On the other hand, it's quite clear that, as others have said, if, for example, you are filming a school play by your child, and the couple next to you have a private conversation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
My personal opinion is that technically, legally, Maryland probably have the slight upper hand, however, any jury that finds for them should be shot. I also believe though, that this is a use of the law outside of the spirit in which it was written, so there is a case for the defendant there. I shall be following this with interest.
I know of at least three ways of expressing sarcasm through the internet already.
One of them, we all do anyway, more or less, using smiley faces. The second is used in closed captioning and is an exclamation mark in parentheses, although is somewhat ambiguous as it can be used to indicate surprise as well. The third, and the one most likely to appeal to slashdotters in my opinion is the use of one pipe symbol to get it across (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_bar#Language for why).
Oh God, I've turned into a grammar nazi... but I can't leave that "whom" there. In "people [who] crashed their Toyota...", the [who] is functioning as the subject of the sentence, and so is "who", not "whom". Basically, any oblique case requires whom.
But, as William Safire so aptly put it, "[t]he best rule for dealing with who vs. whom is this: Whenever whom is required, recast the sentence. This keeps a huge section of the hard disk of your mind available for baseball averages."
Sorry... I hate myself, and feel unclean for doing that.
Certainly in the UK, that's not true. A shop does not have to sell you an item for the price they advertise it at - they are allowed to correct their mistakes. You would, however, I would speculate, get it for that price if you were able to complete the transaction before a shop assistant questioned you - if you were prepared to fight. The reason I think this is that although a shop does not have to sell you an item for the price they advertise it as, once you have completed the transaction, they already HAVE sold it at that price. They would probably challenge you, call security, probably the police, might even take it to court, but I think the court would find that the shop have essentially authorised the machine to complete transactions on behalf of the shop, and that it's the shop's responsibility to ensure that it does not make mistakes, or to absorb the cost of any mistakes it does make.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Product liability laws are not designed to protect you from other people misusing a product. If someone strangles me with a telephone cord, are the telephone manufacturers liable?
Absolutely correct, he should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. As should anyone who's ever sold a paedophile a car, a bottle of water, a loaf of bread, or a digital camera, because they've all been aiding and abetting paedophiles.
There's a very good argument that polygraph tests are there for no reason other than to unduly stress suspects into giving a confession. Think along the lines of "oh, well, you can admit it now, and we'll go easy on you, or you can take the polygraph test and then we've got no incentive to be generous". Despite the fact "we'll go easy on you" means literally nothing, and has been documented as meaning nothing over and over again.
I can't remember the name of it, but there's a statistical analysis that shows that the number of terrorists found during TSA searches is statistically insignificant compared to the number of false positives. I'd be willing to bet the same principle applies here.
The SECOND sentence in your link refutes your point.
Fair enough. I would disagree, especially as the use of mat in Russia is a public order offence in itself, but that's my opinion.
They called the head of the Orthodox Church a "suka" [http://www.russiaslam.com/glossary#ÑÑfÐÐ] (no Cyrillic on /. so if link doesn't work, try www.russiaslam.com/glossary and scroll down to the word that looks like "cyka")... that's pretty much definitely religious hatred.
Russians take religion pretty seriously, although I agree, a lot of the trial was for show.
While I don't support the incarceration of Pussy Riot, can you imagine what would happen if Anal Cunt barged into a service at, for example, St. Paul's Cathedral in London, and started singing and swearing and blaspheming? Don't forget, the Sex Pistols were arrested for performing God Save The Queen. One of the women who was convicted also took part in an orgy in a museum, and is part of a group that (amongst other illegal acts of shock-protest) shoplifted a raw chicken by inserting it into a woman's vagina.
I think three years is extremely harsh, but to dismiss the charges as "chanting an anti-Putin slogan" is massively oversimplifying the issue. Were it to have happened in the UK, I would not be surprised if there were a (short) custodial sentence.
I don't disagree with your main point though, corruption is rife, and despite attempts to rid the country of it, it almost certainly goes right the way to the top. Russian people have next to no faith in their legal system.
Only on fucking Slashdot would this be +5 insightful, not +5 funny.
As I see it, either a) Assange did rape one or both of the women who have complained, in which case he will be found guilty, and rightly, serve a sentence for his crime. Or b) he didn't do it, and he was set up. If he was in fact set up, then it stands to reason that he was set up by somebody with the wherewithal to ensure that the case is solid enough to lead to a conviction. Either way, if he was to face potential charges in Sweden, I can't see a case in which he would be found not guilty.
Of course, this is all moot, because the US would have him trussed up and Gitmo-bound within 5 minutes of landing on Swedish soil.
No, that doesn't mean that at all. That means that if a work is used for nonprofit educational purposes that should be CONSIDERED as a FACTOR in trying to determine whether or not it is an infringement of copyright. If I downloaded (in full) a recent Hollywood release and showed it to a class in art history (because there was a scene shot in an art gallery) without charging for it, I could fairly say that it was a nonprofit educational use of the film. However, it would fall down on the other three factors - the nature of the copyrighted work is not substantially in line with the purpose for which it was used, there was no need to show the whole work, and it is relatively likely that nobody in that class will go out and purchase the film having already seen it. "Educational purposes" is not the catch-all that some people seem to think it is.
Government disappoint electorate. More at ten.
Although I would agree that his original post wasn't racist, his follow-up comments calling people wogs and telling them to go and pick some cotton are fairly unambiguously so.
No, you're 100% freer.
Ignore that - my misreading. The correct complaints/appeals would go through here: http://www.lgo.org.uk/ if it had not been adequately resolved by the authority themselves.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/sscs/
TFA actually states that social services made a decision based on evidence available to them. We do not know if that information is also available to us. While I, of course, believe in being innocent until proven guilty, there is an additional factor in that if this bloke has been convicted of a sex crime in the past, social services may have access to that information, but they are not allowed to pass it on.
Also, if he IS a paedophile, and suspected the police were closing in on him, then he can now turn around and say "yes, of course that kiddie porn is there; I told you it was". In short, I'm reserving judgement on either party for this one. If he's not guilty, then he deserves to be able to have that decided in a court, rather than have people making up their minds based on a news article. On the other hand, there may well be a very good reason that access has been removed. If there is, then let the courts rule that the decision made by social services is fair.
It's right that he is allowed to challenge, but it's also right that social services are allowed to make a decision based on what they believe at the time to be in the best interests of the child.
You needed to be a UK resident to provide a surety in the UK? I don't think Mr. Moore is a UK resident, but don't know. Anyone got any insight?
In the UK, it is being implemented in banks. There are places where to enter, you have to walk through (or drive through) a fine spray of this. They've started distributing it in areas with a high incidence of burglaries (round me), and the statistics the policeman who came round to instruct us in its use were fascinating (although I haven't verified them). He said that in the area they were first deployed, they were averaging 200 burglaries a week. By the end of the pilot, that was down to 2 a MONTH. Admittedly, this was as part of an anti-burglary drive, and so cause and effect, etc. The policeman also told me that although you could wash off earlier versions with solvents, this needed to be physically sanded off. How much that's just FUD, I don't know, but still...
The UV light is only intended to indicate that SmartWater is present, it's not supposed to be anything other than a quick, easy-to-check, sign that property has been tagged.
No, you've misunderstood. Although what you've said is true, the "high dynamic range" that the technique is named for is the range in real life, not the representation. In other words, HDR is a technique which can better represent a scene with a high dynamic range.
Naimina is a weird word - if I asked somebody to transcribe the Russian, " ", I would expect something like this. It translates to "at exactly". The problem is that then that doesn't tie in to the names, which seems to confirm - but the only reference I can find to that that doesn't relate to this story is this photo album: http://picasaweb.google.com/smallbird92 which seems to be the Picasa album of some rich Russian teenager.
As I understand it (usual disclaimer, IANAL etc.), the law under which he is being prosecuted is a law designed to protect people from wiretapping. Most states have a one party rule, which basically means that a third party can't record a private conversation between two people, but either of the participants in the conversation can (the "one-party" bit referring to how many parties to the conversation have to be aware of the recording before it is legal). Maryland, on the other hand, has a two party rule, which means that nobody is allowed to record any private conversation unless all participants are aware that the conversation is being recorded. So, the motorcyclist was supposed to turn off the camera as soon as a private conversation began. The problem here is that the guy who recorded the conversation either a) did not know about this law, or b) did not believe it applied in this instance [in the interests of even-handedness, I should probably add "or c) knew about the law, knew it applied, and violated it anyway"]. The real issue is that the guy, and most of the commenters here, by the looks of things, do not believe a traffic stop in a public place constitutes a private conversation between the individual and the police officer.
This is where things get a little tricky, because (at least in the UK), if you are stopped by the police, you are legally required to give your name and address, which is private information. So we have a situation where two individuals are in a situation where one party is unable to legally refuse to give private information in a public forum - so why is this conversation not afforded any sort of privacy rights? On the other hand, it's quite clear that, as others have said, if, for example, you are filming a school play by your child, and the couple next to you have a private conversation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
My personal opinion is that technically, legally, Maryland probably have the slight upper hand, however, any jury that finds for them should be shot. I also believe though, that this is a use of the law outside of the spirit in which it was written, so there is a case for the defendant there. I shall be following this with interest.
I know of at least three ways of expressing sarcasm through the internet already.
One of them, we all do anyway, more or less, using smiley faces. The second is used in closed captioning and is an exclamation mark in parentheses, although is somewhat ambiguous as it can be used to indicate surprise as well. The third, and the one most likely to appeal to slashdotters in my opinion is the use of one pipe symbol to get it across (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_bar#Language for why).
Actually, there are loads here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation
Hello?
Hello.
Follow me?
Okay.
Oh God, I've turned into a grammar nazi... but I can't leave that "whom" there. In "people [who] crashed their Toyota...", the [who] is functioning as the subject of the sentence, and so is "who", not "whom". Basically, any oblique case requires whom.
But, as William Safire so aptly put it, "[t]he best rule for dealing with who vs. whom is this: Whenever whom is required, recast the sentence. This keeps a huge section of the hard disk of your mind available for baseball averages."
Sorry... I hate myself, and feel unclean for doing that.
Certainly in the UK, that's not true. A shop does not have to sell you an item for the price they advertise it at - they are allowed to correct their mistakes. You would, however, I would speculate, get it for that price if you were able to complete the transaction before a shop assistant questioned you - if you were prepared to fight. The reason I think this is that although a shop does not have to sell you an item for the price they advertise it as, once you have completed the transaction, they already HAVE sold it at that price. They would probably challenge you, call security, probably the police, might even take it to court, but I think the court would find that the shop have essentially authorised the machine to complete transactions on behalf of the shop, and that it's the shop's responsibility to ensure that it does not make mistakes, or to absorb the cost of any mistakes it does make.