I get that, but I honestly don't know the answer to the following:
How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?
Does it matter? I had presumed that it does matter because that's generally how society and law operate, i.e., we hold people accountable for their intentions and preserve "strict liability" treatment for a very small and carefully defined class of actions.
If the intentions of the "asker" do not matter or if they're even simply less important than the perceptions or sometimes decades-old recollections of the "askee", then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.
I did a clean install of 9.10 on a new HTPC that I had recently built and have thus far had absolutely zero problems. No HDMI video or sound kinks (or at least none that weren't present in Jaunty, all of which were easily remedied); networking is fine; the IR remote works; Boxee runs when installed via the Jaunty repo; etc.
I will say that I've been burned in the past by awkward upgrades from one release to the next with Ubuntu and the fact that others have had issues this time around is no surprise to me.
Nonetheless, on the basis of my own personal experience and, I suspect, the experience of others, I think it'd be better to mention that all (or substantially all) of users' frustrations relate to upgrades to 9.10 rather than fresh installs thereof.
It's not nearly that simple.
Putting aside the issue of self-control, there are also many instances in which a President would want to deny ever having *received* a certain message, which is much harder to do when you check your email yourself on your Barackberry.
Look at how easy it was for Bush and his senior staff to deny having received credible intelligence about a potential attack on 9/11. Had that intelligence been sent to him via email, and had he received that message on a blackberry, his administration would have been dead and buried years ago.
I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 on my wife's old Fujitsu Lifebook P-Series with 1Ghz Pentium M & 512M. The battery has crapped-out after ~4yrs but it still gets ~1hr with wifi et al on full. The form-factor and build quality can't be beat.
The SEC is aware of the problem and has given indications that it may reconsider its position heretofore that canceling a planned trade made under the "safe harbor" (under (10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3)) does not constitute insider trading, even if the person was aware of the inside information when canceling the trade.
This safe-harbor provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he contract, instruction, or plan... [must] not permit the person to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales; provided, in addition, that any other person who, pursuant to the contract, instruction, or plan, did exercise such influence must not have been aware of the material nonpublic information when doing so."
There are THREE important things to keep in mind about this:
(1) the "loophole" is created by the SEC's interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself;
(2) either the rule or the SEC's interpretation may be changed at nearly any time with relative ease; and
(3) given the right facts, a court may yet find persons using these directed-selling plans guilty of insider trading, in spite of the SEC's interpretation of the rule, if that person violated the substance and spirit of the separate Rule 10b-5 (which is the rule prohibiting insider trading).
This article provides readers with a good introduction to the subject.
The OLPC, as marketed to poor children in developing countries, has always been and will for years to come be a solution in want of a problem.
The OLPC, marketed to poor children in developed countries, or to middle-class children in transition economies, is a *perfect* fit.
It's about Negroponte has realized this. Hopefully it's not too late.
Of course--on the cynical side--it's never as sexy a photo-op for the white, male, American intellectual to be seen standing alongside underprivileged children in a run-down Appalachian or inner-city Philly classroom, as it is for this same white, male, American intellectual to be seen standing alongside "exotic" children in mud-brick buildings in places like the Ganges Basin or the outskirts of Lagos. The media has always known this and so too has Negroponte (and Sally Struthers). The OLPC would not have received but a fraction of the publicity that it has in the past several years had the machine been marketed to Americans or to the comparatively privileged in under-developed nations.
I am not trolling, but I realize that this narrative strongly contradicts the narrative favored by slashdot readers. Mod me down, if you must. Reality is harsh for both us.
The OLPC is a solution in desperate need of a problem.
Here's a a problem for Negroponte: IP infringement.
Heaven forbid that businesses in the developing world be allowed to develop on their own merits. Much better to force them into a dependency relationship with the West by selling back to them their own stolen innovations.
There's only one Shaolin temple, even though the Songshan region is home to numerous martial arts training schools which use the name of "Shaolin." The Shaolin temple has recently taken legal action against such schools in order to preserve the integrity of its name and heritage.
See: http://www.usatoday.com/money/2002-09-25-kung-fu-t rademark_x.htm
moreover, in characteristic Jobs fashion, the man refuses to allow apple to be judged by established metrics or other evaluative conventions. bottom line: apple is an exception to ALL the rules.
of course, just look at its ads. or look at the way the company dismisses the substance of the issues raised:
on the environment - no need announce environmental goals as other computer manufacturers are doing because iJobs himself thinks that doing so accomplishes nothing.
on the backdating of options - no need to worry because (1) the reports are incomplete, and (2) it's all very complicated, anyway.
on R&D - no need to spend ANY more in order to develop new products because spending more does not guarantee the development of new projects [great logic btw].
on.mac - improvements are needed. improvements are coming. no need to explain the improvements because iJobs says improvements are coming.
on the offering of products to the developing world -......... [apparently iJobs hadn't thought of snarky dismissal for thought questions, though one may guess that he was thinking "3rd world? can they afford $500 iphones there?"]
why is it that tech blogs et al never provide even rudimentary citations to the cases they cite? failing to do so certainly makes it difficult to assess the validity of the oft-times sensational legal claims made therein.
The power to tax is expansive. Thus, from the federal government's perspective, the question is not whether "virtual income" CAN or even SHOULD be taxed, but rather why virtual income should be excluded from taxation.
I'm no fan of the corporation either, but oversimplifications of history accomplish nothing.
The function of the corporations in early American society was a matter of heated dispute. As of 1780 there were only 7 chartered business corporations in the United States. That number increased dramatically after the turn of the 19th century once the courts and legislatures recognized the legitimacy of private, for-private corporate entities. Ambivalence about the role of the corporation in early American law resulted from tension between those who insisted that corporations serve the public interest and those who believed that the public interest was inherently served by the chartering of private corporations and the creation of wealth that would presumably result therefrom.
On the one side of the debate were anti-mercantilists, Jeffersonian Republicans and artisans who believed variously that corporations were monopolistic in nature; that they the accumulation of vast quantities of capital in private hands characteristic of the corporate form was inconsistent with the civic virtues of a democratic republic exemplified in the American Revolution and would undermine democratic republicanism; and that corporations could be used to dominate markets, driving down the cost of production and thereby reducing demand for artisinal goods. On the other side were those who believed that corporations were a matter of necessity in order to promote the aggregation and investment of capital. In a society of relatively equal wealth distribution, as in the early years of the republic, capital must be drawn from large numbers of small investor/share-holders rather than from individual financiers or aristocrats as could be done in Europe. The structure of the corporation and its ability to centralize management and control represented the most efficient means of operating investments and therefore of developing the American economy, proponents argued.
While demands that corporate charters be granted only in the public interest, and that liability extend to shareholders were common in the early law of corporations, these rules which seemed rooted in longstanding English mistrust of the anti-social corporate form yielded to the demands of the market and of laissez-faire capitalists. These historical developments represent another unfortunate triumph of utilitarianism over tradition in American law.
listening to tech geeks talk about law is nearly as informative as listening to law geeks talk about tech.;-)
criminal liability in court generally requires a showing of the existence of both a mens rea (criminal intent / guilty mind) and an actus reus (an illegal act proscribed by law). certain crimes which are considered especially injurious to our social fabric, such as statutory rape, or which constitute "simple" administrative violations, such as speeding, are subject to "strict liability", which means the act itself regardless of the intent is sufficient to establish the accused's guilt and to subject him/her to criminal liability. these crimes are--and need be under western principles of criminality--generally well-defined, however. don't worry: leeching a decoy mpaa torrent is not likely to be one of them.
a common concern expressed in the numerous posts above suggests a shared belief here at slashdot that the downloading of a non-existent copyrighted file cannot constitute a "crime" because no copyrighted file was downloaded. readers may be surprised to learn that while certain jurisdictions allow "legal impossibility" (eg. shooting, with the intent to kill, a dead person; pickpocketing an undercover cop, etc.) as a defense to liability for criminal attempt, others do not. (see http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines /html/crim/crim20.htm for a primer.)
civil liability is another matter entirely: the standard of proof is less favorable to the "accused" in civil court than in criminal court.........there is not likely to be a jury.........OJ was found liable in a civil court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson#Civil_t rial).........etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I get that, but I honestly don't know the answer to the following:
How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?
Does it matter? I had presumed that it does matter because that's generally how society and law operate, i.e., we hold people accountable for their intentions and preserve "strict liability" treatment for a very small and carefully defined class of actions.
If the intentions of the "asker" do not matter or if they're even simply less important than the perceptions or sometimes decades-old recollections of the "askee", then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.
The longer recording is available at:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1578001794?bctid=96943642001
I did a clean install of 9.10 on a new HTPC that I had recently built and have thus far had absolutely zero problems. No HDMI video or sound kinks (or at least none that weren't present in Jaunty, all of which were easily remedied); networking is fine; the IR remote works; Boxee runs when installed via the Jaunty repo; etc.
I will say that I've been burned in the past by awkward upgrades from one release to the next with Ubuntu and the fact that others have had issues this time around is no surprise to me.
Nonetheless, on the basis of my own personal experience and, I suspect, the experience of others, I think it'd be better to mention that all (or substantially all) of users' frustrations relate to upgrades to 9.10 rather than fresh installs thereof.
It's not nearly that simple. Putting aside the issue of self-control, there are also many instances in which a President would want to deny ever having *received* a certain message, which is much harder to do when you check your email yourself on your Barackberry. Look at how easy it was for Bush and his senior staff to deny having received credible intelligence about a potential attack on 9/11. Had that intelligence been sent to him via email, and had he received that message on a blackberry, his administration would have been dead and buried years ago.
The severing of your electronic tethers is a luxury not to be taken lightly, my friend. Relax and enjoy the ocean breeze and various ports of call.
How overweight does one have to be to *not* notice the BlackBerry vibrating when it's tucked against one's person?
For my money, nothing beats the Hipster PDA.
I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 on my wife's old Fujitsu Lifebook P-Series with 1Ghz Pentium M & 512M. The battery has crapped-out after ~4yrs but it still gets ~1hr with wifi et al on full. The form-factor and build quality can't be beat.
The SEC is aware of the problem and has given indications that it may reconsider its position heretofore that canceling a planned trade made under the "safe harbor" (under (10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3)) does not constitute insider trading, even if the person was aware of the inside information when canceling the trade.
This safe-harbor provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he contract, instruction, or plan ... [must] not permit the person to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales; provided, in addition, that any other person who, pursuant to the contract, instruction, or plan, did exercise such influence must not have been aware of the material nonpublic information when doing so."
There are THREE important things to keep in mind about this:
(1) the "loophole" is created by the SEC's interpretation of the rule, not the rule itself;
(2) either the rule or the SEC's interpretation may be changed at nearly any time with relative ease; and
(3) given the right facts, a court may yet find persons using these directed-selling plans guilty of insider trading, in spite of the SEC's interpretation of the rule, if that person violated the substance and spirit of the separate Rule 10b-5 (which is the rule prohibiting insider trading). This article provides readers with a good introduction to the subject.
The OLPC, as marketed to poor children in developing countries, has always been and will for years to come be a solution in want of a problem.
The OLPC, marketed to poor children in developed countries, or to middle-class children in transition economies, is a *perfect* fit.
It's about Negroponte has realized this. Hopefully it's not too late.
Of course--on the cynical side--it's never as sexy a photo-op for the white, male, American intellectual to be seen standing alongside underprivileged children in a run-down Appalachian or inner-city Philly classroom, as it is for this same white, male, American intellectual to be seen standing alongside "exotic" children in mud-brick buildings in places like the Ganges Basin or the outskirts of Lagos. The media has always known this and so too has Negroponte (and Sally Struthers). The OLPC would not have received but a fraction of the publicity that it has in the past several years had the machine been marketed to Americans or to the comparatively privileged in under-developed nations.
I am not trolling, but I realize that this narrative strongly contradicts the narrative favored by slashdot readers. Mod me down, if you must. Reality is harsh for both us.
The OLPC is a solution in desperate need of a problem. Here's a a problem for Negroponte: IP infringement. Heaven forbid that businesses in the developing world be allowed to develop on their own merits. Much better to force them into a dependency relationship with the West by selling back to them their own stolen innovations.
The managers of each of these projects are rolling in the dough. How sick is that?
The chatbot emulates easily laid Russian women? Something about that sentence sounds redundant.
There's only one Shaolin temple, even though the Songshan region is home to numerous martial arts training schools which use the name of "Shaolin." The Shaolin temple has recently taken legal action against such schools in order to preserve the integrity of its name and heritage. See: http://www.usatoday.com/money/2002-09-25-kung-fu-t rademark_x.htm
pictures ARE worth a thousand words. and we all know how little china likes THOSE.
agreed.
.mac - improvements are needed. improvements are coming. no need to explain the improvements because iJobs says improvements are coming.
... ... ... [apparently iJobs hadn't thought of snarky dismissal for thought questions, though one may guess that he was thinking "3rd world? can they afford $500 iphones there?"]
moreover, in characteristic Jobs fashion, the man refuses to allow apple to be judged by established metrics or other evaluative conventions. bottom line: apple is an exception to ALL the rules.
of course, just look at its ads. or look at the way the company dismisses the substance of the issues raised:
on the environment - no need announce environmental goals as other computer manufacturers are doing because iJobs himself thinks that doing so accomplishes nothing.
on the backdating of options - no need to worry because (1) the reports are incomplete, and (2) it's all very complicated, anyway.
on R&D - no need to spend ANY more in order to develop new products because spending more does not guarantee the development of new projects [great logic btw].
on
on the offering of products to the developing world -
why is it that tech blogs et al never provide even rudimentary citations to the cases they cite? failing to do so certainly makes it difficult to assess the validity of the oft-times sensational legal claims made therein.
Exactly.
"Gross income" is taxable, as provided for by Section 62 of the Federal Tax Code (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-63. html).
Section 61 of the Code (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61. html) defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived," unless that source is specifically excluded.
The power to tax is expansive. Thus, from the federal government's perspective, the question is not whether "virtual income" CAN or even SHOULD be taxed, but rather why virtual income should be excluded from taxation.
slide #7 features a young girl with semi-blond hair, and #10 is a close-up of an older man with green-hazel eyes.
I'm no fan of the corporation either, but oversimplifications of history accomplish nothing.
The function of the corporations in early American society was a matter of heated dispute. As of 1780 there were only 7 chartered business corporations in the United States. That number increased dramatically after the turn of the 19th century once the courts and legislatures recognized the legitimacy of private, for-private corporate entities. Ambivalence about the role of the corporation in early American law resulted from tension between those who insisted that corporations serve the public interest and those who believed that the public interest was inherently served by the chartering of private corporations and the creation of wealth that would presumably result therefrom.
On the one side of the debate were anti-mercantilists, Jeffersonian Republicans and artisans who believed variously that corporations were monopolistic in nature; that they the accumulation of vast quantities of capital in private hands characteristic of the corporate form was inconsistent with the civic virtues of a democratic republic exemplified in the American Revolution and would undermine democratic republicanism; and that corporations could be used to dominate markets, driving down the cost of production and thereby reducing demand for artisinal goods. On the other side were those who believed that corporations were a matter of necessity in order to promote the aggregation and investment of capital. In a society of relatively equal wealth distribution, as in the early years of the republic, capital must be drawn from large numbers of small investor/share-holders rather than from individual financiers or aristocrats as could be done in Europe. The structure of the corporation and its ability to centralize management and control represented the most efficient means of operating investments and therefore of developing the American economy, proponents argued.
While demands that corporate charters be granted only in the public interest, and that liability extend to shareholders were common in the early law of corporations, these rules which seemed rooted in longstanding English mistrust of the anti-social corporate form yielded to the demands of the market and of laissez-faire capitalists. These historical developments represent another unfortunate triumph of utilitarianism over tradition in American law.
the greater inconsistency lay in the fact that google uses the term "label" in its bookmarks service while using the term "tag" in google reader.
to all the above:
;-)
s /html/crim/crim20.htm for a primer.)
... ...there is not likely to be a jury... ... ...OJ was found liable in a civil court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson#Civil_t rial)... ... ...etc.
listening to tech geeks talk about law is nearly as informative as listening to law geeks talk about tech.
criminal liability in court generally requires a showing of the existence of both a mens rea (criminal intent / guilty mind) and an actus reus (an illegal act proscribed by law). certain crimes which are considered especially injurious to our social fabric, such as statutory rape, or which constitute "simple" administrative violations, such as speeding, are subject to "strict liability", which means the act itself regardless of the intent is sufficient to establish the accused's guilt and to subject him/her to criminal liability. these crimes are--and need be under western principles of criminality--generally well-defined, however. don't worry: leeching a decoy mpaa torrent is not likely to be one of them.
a common concern expressed in the numerous posts above suggests a shared belief here at slashdot that the downloading of a non-existent copyrighted file cannot constitute a "crime" because no copyrighted file was downloaded. readers may be surprised to learn that while certain jurisdictions allow "legal impossibility" (eg. shooting, with the intent to kill, a dead person; pickpocketing an undercover cop, etc.) as a defense to liability for criminal attempt, others do not. (see http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outline
civil liability is another matter entirely: the standard of proof is less favorable to the "accused" in civil court than in criminal court...
ianal.
1 The Longhouse Tales Episode 101
2 Ninja Academy
3 People from Space
4 Urban Street Bike Warriors
5 Maslin Beach
6 Roy Orbison: Greatest Hits
7 Dancing for Dollars
8 Fallen Arches
9 Dope Game 2
10 Flynn
score (this round):
intellectual property protection = 1, artistic integrity = 0