the situation is basically a gigantic clusterfuck with no easily discernible good or bad guys.
Oh, I think it is pretty easy to identify bad guys. It seems pretty clear to me that in this case the government is among the bad guys. The only question is whether or not Grupo Clarin is also among the bad guys. Additionally from the various comments by other Argentinians, it seems obvious that there are no good guys in this case, the best Grupo Clarin can hope to be is "not one of the bad guys" in this particular case.
Hold it a second, you have to have a license to provide Internet access to people? And you are OK with that? You are OK with the government deciding who can and cannot be an ISP?
Golly gosh it is so awful when the owners of a corporation have to actually keep their contractual promises to their employees. Boodeehoodeehooo. I'm crying so many tears for those owners that ran the company into the ground.
Except I now where in my post referred to the owners of the auto companies (that would be stockholders). I referred to bond holders, that would be people who loaned the car companies money. The company had made contractual promises to the bondholders as well. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, when there isn't enough money to go around, the various people who have been promised money by the company get paid in a strict order and the money gets divided up evenly among those at each level of priority. That isn't what happened here. Obama told one group of creditors (who legally were a high priority group), that they would have to take pennies on the dollar of what they were owed in order that a group of creditors that were lower on the legal priority list could get paid dollar for dollar what they were owed.
I have a good friend who is an Apple fanboi. He wants to buy an Ipad. He has not yet been able to come up with a reason that he would use it. For him this is the deal killer because he likes to pretend that he isn't and Apple fanboi. If he could come up with one use for it that was significantly better than his current combination of hackintoshed netbook and Iphone, he would get it. His frustration over this is almost visible every time the Ipad comes up in conversation.
The problems is that the school district has been sitting on this data for several years. This data has a lot of information that could be used to improve the education that students receive. What you are proposing is what the union is fighting. The LA Times published this information, without including any information identifying individual teachers, in order to generate public pressure to do almost exactly what you propose. In one of the articles in this series, they proposed that if the school district would evaluate the data they have already collected, they could identify who the best teachers are and what makes them better. Then they could train at least some of the other teachers to emulate the best teachers. The teachers' union has rejected that approach.
The difference is that these evaluations were sitting in the files of the school district, not being used to get subpar teachers to improve their performance.
You do realize that Obama made the bond holders and other high priority creditors (according to current bankruptcy law) accept less money than a bankruptcy court would have awarded them, while the unions got basically all that they were "owed" (when in bankruptcy court they would have gotten next to nothing)? That Obama threatened said bond holders with IRS audits and investigations by other branches of government if they failed to agree? Such audits and investigations would have been very expensive for the bond holders even if they had not broken any laws or regulations. Bush made some government loans to GM and Chrysler, but the major bailout was by Obama. Bush wanted to use TARP funds, but Congress would not change the wording to allow that. Obama used those funds anyway.
Basically, the genome can avail itself of the complexity of cells and molecules in it's construction of a brain.
The problem is that we do not yet understand how much of the information necessary to construct the brain comes from the genome and how much from other structures in the cell. When I got my degree the understanding of the genome was that a particular set of DNA base pairs coded for a particular protein and if you changed one of those base pairs you got a slightly different protein. That is till somewhat correct, but what they have discovered is that if you put the exact same set of base pairs that code for a particular protein in one species into a cell from a different species (one that is fairly widely separated from the original species), you may get a completely different protein.
What this means is that the genome does not represent all of the information that determines the structure of the brain. Kurzweil was arguing that since the genome is only x number of bytes of information, then the information necessary to simulate the brain is something less than x. We do not know how much of the information in the genome is necessary to provide for the structure of the brain, but we do know that not all of the information necessary to build the brain is contained in the genome.
Even if a reasonable simulation of the brain is created within 10 years, Kurzweil is wrong. Just as someone in the early 1970s who had predicted that the Soviet Union would fall by the end of the 1980s because of the rise of Brazil would have been wrong.
First, you might possibly be correct about physical addiction, but psychological addiction is a choice. Take responsibility for your own life and let other people do the same. The only people who have any right to interfere with my behaviors are those who are directly affected by them (such as my wife). That certainly does not include a company that I give money to to be entertained. If a company were to tell me, "We think you might be spending too much time playing our game," I would immediately stop playing their game and start giving my entertainment dollars to someone else.
IT is absolutely possible to create an addictive video game. In fact, you can make a game thats not even very entertaining and still get people to play when they don't really want to.
Only because people have been trained to not take responsibility for their actions. The only way I would consider this lawsuit justified was if they had a wire connected to the pleasure center in your brain.
The problem here is simply that you have a person playing for 11 hours a day for five years and the company knows it and doesn't care, thats not responsible behavior, thats what I would call negligence.
And if that is how I choose to live, why is that any of your business (or some company's, or the government's)? and why should it be?
You are right. It will need to be addressed. The correct way to address it is this.
It is your life. You are the one who will need to live with the consequences of your actions. If you allow someone to manipulate you into doing something that will cause you (or someone else) harm, they aren't the one's who will have to live with the consequences, you are. Make your decisions accordingly. In other words, grow up.
It is even more basic than that. What a particular peice of the genome codes for depends on what structures are in the cell it is in, this starts with the very first cell of the organism. Addtionally, what a particular peice of genome codes for also depends on what cells are surrounding the cell it is in.
You point out what I thought was the failure of Kurzweil's defense against Myers' argument. Kurzweil repeats the claim that Myers said was a wrong assumption on Kurzweil's part: that the genome contains all of the information necessary to create the brain. Myers argument with Kurzweil boils down to this: the genome does not contain all of the information necessary to reconstruct the brain. There is an awful lot of information about building a living creature contained in various ways in the structure of each cell. For example, if you were to take the nucleus of a fertilized monkey ovum and place it in a fertilized shark ovum (after removing the nucleus of the shark ovum), you would not end up with a monkey, although it would be closer than if you just swapped the genome between the two. There is a lot of information about how to interpret the genome in the cell structure. The same sequence of DNA has been shown to code for significantly different proteins in different creatures.
I am familiar with the CA law because I worked for someone who claimed to have recorded phone conversations with someone he called in CA on business. The worst part is that he was calling from a "two party consent" state. However, the CA law is written that they can levy a $5000 fine and sentence you to up to a 2 year prison sentence. If you do not appear in court for the case, the judge can issue a summary judgement against you. The law was written with the idea in mind that some people who violated it would be in other states and they wanted to simplify penalizing those that did so. This type of law is why so many businesses that do a lot of business with end consumers start the phone call with a recording that says something along the lines of "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes." Courts in various states have ruled that continuing the conversation after such a notification constitutes consent to be recorded.
If you called California from TN and recorded the conversation without the consent of the other party, you could be charged under CA law. If you were convicted, CA could request that TN extradite you to CA. I do not know of any case where one state has refused another state's extradition request.
In the particular case your link references, I think the courts were correct to hold the officer exempt from suit. The officer sought the advice of the district attorney before proceeding. However, the court should not have relieved the town of Carlisle, since it is the responsibility of the town to make sure that its police officers are properly trained and that its District Attorney is giving them sound legal advice in this type of situation.
As others have said, the symptoms you described sound like a perfectly normal 5 year old to me, although it is distinctly possible that comes from you not being able to post a comprehensive list of the symptoms. I do not know you or your children, so I will not pass judgement on your decision.
However, I have known numerous children that were diagnosed as ADD and ADHD. They fell into three groups, children being raised by a single mother, children where the father had a job that lead him to be away for a large percentage of the time, children where the father declined to play any role in raising the children. You may notice a pattern here. What is most interesting about this observation is that shortly after I first noticed this pattern, an acquaintance of mine started referring to ADD and ADHD as "Daddy Deficit Disorder". I had never discussed my observations with him before I overheard him make this comment in a conversation with someone else.
This does not mean that ADD and ADHD are not real medical conditions, just that the overwhelming majority of cases that exhibit the symptoms considered typical of ADD and ADHD are a result of the parenting the children receive not a physical condition.
This is not something that should be decided under federal law. This is a matter that rightfully should be a state (and/or local) law issue. There is a distinct possibility that this was a violation of PA wiretapping law.
First of all this article is about federal law, the wiretapping law cases you are referencing are about state laws. Additionally, you are wrong, Pennsylvania judges have consistently ruled that recording the police in the performance of their duty is not a violation of Pennsylvania's wiretapping law (which is an all parties consent law), since the police do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are on duty (one of the deciding factors in whether or not you need someone's consent to record them under PA law).
We have yet to see what decision will be made by the various state prosecutors on this case. If this case was in Maryland on the other hand there is reason to believe you would be correct.
Just because this is not explicitly illegal according to federal law does not mean that it is not explicitly illegal (I'm not sure whether it is or not). This is the sort of thing that should not be a violation of federal law, this should be a violation of state law. If there is not currently a law that makes this case a crime, there should be (although there are just enough mitigating issues surrounding this case that there is a chance that this case would not quite violate a properly written law).
Even if this should be a criminal prosecution, it shouldn't be a federal prosecution. This is not the sort of thing that federal law should address (at least as a criminal matter). As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure a case could be made that this violates Pennsylvania's wiretap law.
Slashdot Mirror
the situation is basically a gigantic clusterfuck with no easily discernible good or bad guys.
Oh, I think it is pretty easy to identify bad guys. It seems pretty clear to me that in this case the government is among the bad guys. The only question is whether or not Grupo Clarin is also among the bad guys. Additionally from the various comments by other Argentinians, it seems obvious that there are no good guys in this case, the best Grupo Clarin can hope to be is "not one of the bad guys" in this particular case.
Hold it a second, you have to have a license to provide Internet access to people? And you are OK with that? You are OK with the government deciding who can and cannot be an ISP?
It just sat in my hands, and i pointed at what i wanted.
I know I am going to regret asking this but if it is sitting in your hands, what are you pointing with?
Golly gosh it is so awful when the owners of a corporation have to actually keep their contractual promises to their employees. Boodeehoodeehooo. I'm crying so many tears for those owners that ran the company into the ground.
Except I now where in my post referred to the owners of the auto companies (that would be stockholders). I referred to bond holders, that would be people who loaned the car companies money. The company had made contractual promises to the bondholders as well. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, when there isn't enough money to go around, the various people who have been promised money by the company get paid in a strict order and the money gets divided up evenly among those at each level of priority. That isn't what happened here. Obama told one group of creditors (who legally were a high priority group), that they would have to take pennies on the dollar of what they were owed in order that a group of creditors that were lower on the legal priority list could get paid dollar for dollar what they were owed.
I have a good friend who is an Apple fanboi. He wants to buy an Ipad. He has not yet been able to come up with a reason that he would use it. For him this is the deal killer because he likes to pretend that he isn't and Apple fanboi. If he could come up with one use for it that was significantly better than his current combination of hackintoshed netbook and Iphone, he would get it. His frustration over this is almost visible every time the Ipad comes up in conversation.
The problems is that the school district has been sitting on this data for several years. This data has a lot of information that could be used to improve the education that students receive. What you are proposing is what the union is fighting. The LA Times published this information, without including any information identifying individual teachers, in order to generate public pressure to do almost exactly what you propose. In one of the articles in this series, they proposed that if the school district would evaluate the data they have already collected, they could identify who the best teachers are and what makes them better. Then they could train at least some of the other teachers to emulate the best teachers. The teachers' union has rejected that approach.
The difference is that these evaluations were sitting in the files of the school district, not being used to get subpar teachers to improve their performance.
You do realize that Obama made the bond holders and other high priority creditors (according to current bankruptcy law) accept less money than a bankruptcy court would have awarded them, while the unions got basically all that they were "owed" (when in bankruptcy court they would have gotten next to nothing)? That Obama threatened said bond holders with IRS audits and investigations by other branches of government if they failed to agree? Such audits and investigations would have been very expensive for the bond holders even if they had not broken any laws or regulations. Bush made some government loans to GM and Chrysler, but the major bailout was by Obama. Bush wanted to use TARP funds, but Congress would not change the wording to allow that. Obama used those funds anyway.
Basically, the genome can avail itself of the complexity of cells and molecules in it's construction of a brain.
The problem is that we do not yet understand how much of the information necessary to construct the brain comes from the genome and how much from other structures in the cell. When I got my degree the understanding of the genome was that a particular set of DNA base pairs coded for a particular protein and if you changed one of those base pairs you got a slightly different protein. That is till somewhat correct, but what they have discovered is that if you put the exact same set of base pairs that code for a particular protein in one species into a cell from a different species (one that is fairly widely separated from the original species), you may get a completely different protein.
What this means is that the genome does not represent all of the information that determines the structure of the brain. Kurzweil was arguing that since the genome is only x number of bytes of information, then the information necessary to simulate the brain is something less than x. We do not know how much of the information in the genome is necessary to provide for the structure of the brain, but we do know that not all of the information necessary to build the brain is contained in the genome.
Even if a reasonable simulation of the brain is created within 10 years, Kurzweil is wrong. Just as someone in the early 1970s who had predicted that the Soviet Union would fall by the end of the 1980s because of the rise of Brazil would have been wrong.
First, you might possibly be correct about physical addiction, but psychological addiction is a choice. Take responsibility for your own life and let other people do the same. The only people who have any right to interfere with my behaviors are those who are directly affected by them (such as my wife). That certainly does not include a company that I give money to to be entertained. If a company were to tell me, "We think you might be spending too much time playing our game," I would immediately stop playing their game and start giving my entertainment dollars to someone else.
I'm not asking why I should be responsible for your behavior. I'm asking by what right do you interfere with my behavior?
IT is absolutely possible to create an addictive video game. In fact, you can make a game thats not even very entertaining and still get people to play when they don't really want to.
Only because people have been trained to not take responsibility for their actions. The only way I would consider this lawsuit justified was if they had a wire connected to the pleasure center in your brain.
The problem here is simply that you have a person playing for 11 hours a day for five years and the company knows it and doesn't care, thats not responsible behavior, thats what I would call negligence.
And if that is how I choose to live, why is that any of your business (or some company's, or the government's)? and why should it be?
You are right. It will need to be addressed. The correct way to address it is this.
It is your life. You are the one who will need to live with the consequences of your actions. If you allow someone to manipulate you into doing something that will cause you (or someone else) harm, they aren't the one's who will have to live with the consequences, you are. Make your decisions accordingly. In other words, grow up.
It is even more basic than that. What a particular peice of the genome codes for depends on what structures are in the cell it is in, this starts with the very first cell of the organism. Addtionally, what a particular peice of genome codes for also depends on what cells are surrounding the cell it is in.
You point out what I thought was the failure of Kurzweil's defense against Myers' argument. Kurzweil repeats the claim that Myers said was a wrong assumption on Kurzweil's part: that the genome contains all of the information necessary to create the brain. Myers argument with Kurzweil boils down to this: the genome does not contain all of the information necessary to reconstruct the brain. There is an awful lot of information about building a living creature contained in various ways in the structure of each cell. For example, if you were to take the nucleus of a fertilized monkey ovum and place it in a fertilized shark ovum (after removing the nucleus of the shark ovum), you would not end up with a monkey, although it would be closer than if you just swapped the genome between the two. There is a lot of information about how to interpret the genome in the cell structure. The same sequence of DNA has been shown to code for significantly different proteins in different creatures.
I am familiar with the CA law because I worked for someone who claimed to have recorded phone conversations with someone he called in CA on business. The worst part is that he was calling from a "two party consent" state. However, the CA law is written that they can levy a $5000 fine and sentence you to up to a 2 year prison sentence. If you do not appear in court for the case, the judge can issue a summary judgement against you. The law was written with the idea in mind that some people who violated it would be in other states and they wanted to simplify penalizing those that did so. This type of law is why so many businesses that do a lot of business with end consumers start the phone call with a recording that says something along the lines of "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes." Courts in various states have ruled that continuing the conversation after such a notification constitutes consent to be recorded.
If you called California from TN and recorded the conversation without the consent of the other party, you could be charged under CA law. If you were convicted, CA could request that TN extradite you to CA. I do not know of any case where one state has refused another state's extradition request.
Is it better to be told, "You may have HIV, we need to do more tests," when you don't, or told "You don't have HIV" when you actually do?
In the particular case your link references, I think the courts were correct to hold the officer exempt from suit. The officer sought the advice of the district attorney before proceeding. However, the court should not have relieved the town of Carlisle, since it is the responsibility of the town to make sure that its police officers are properly trained and that its District Attorney is giving them sound legal advice in this type of situation.
As others have said, the symptoms you described sound like a perfectly normal 5 year old to me, although it is distinctly possible that comes from you not being able to post a comprehensive list of the symptoms. I do not know you or your children, so I will not pass judgement on your decision.
However, I have known numerous children that were diagnosed as ADD and ADHD. They fell into three groups, children being raised by a single mother, children where the father had a job that lead him to be away for a large percentage of the time, children where the father declined to play any role in raising the children. You may notice a pattern here. What is most interesting about this observation is that shortly after I first noticed this pattern, an acquaintance of mine started referring to ADD and ADHD as "Daddy Deficit Disorder". I had never discussed my observations with him before I overheard him make this comment in a conversation with someone else.
This does not mean that ADD and ADHD are not real medical conditions, just that the overwhelming majority of cases that exhibit the symptoms considered typical of ADD and ADHD are a result of the parenting the children receive not a physical condition.
This is not something that should be decided under federal law. This is a matter that rightfully should be a state (and/or local) law issue. There is a distinct possibility that this was a violation of PA wiretapping law.
First of all this article is about federal law, the wiretapping law cases you are referencing are about state laws. Additionally, you are wrong, Pennsylvania judges have consistently ruled that recording the police in the performance of their duty is not a violation of Pennsylvania's wiretapping law (which is an all parties consent law), since the police do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are on duty (one of the deciding factors in whether or not you need someone's consent to record them under PA law).
We have yet to see what decision will be made by the various state prosecutors on this case. If this case was in Maryland on the other hand there is reason to believe you would be correct.
Just because this is not explicitly illegal according to federal law does not mean that it is not explicitly illegal (I'm not sure whether it is or not). This is the sort of thing that should not be a violation of federal law, this should be a violation of state law. If there is not currently a law that makes this case a crime, there should be (although there are just enough mitigating issues surrounding this case that there is a chance that this case would not quite violate a properly written law).
Even if this should be a criminal prosecution, it shouldn't be a federal prosecution. This is not the sort of thing that federal law should address (at least as a criminal matter). As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure a case could be made that this violates Pennsylvania's wiretap law.