See Klocek v. Gateway. Shrinkwrap licenses are not very well established, through clickwrap (i.e. those which require the user to view the document and indicate acceptance before they use the product) have met with more success.
And even when countries did switch sides, that said little about the bravery of their soldiers. Look at Finland, which was forced to sign an unfavorable armistice and later to fight with the Soviet Union, despite the amazing fight they put up.
Yep, there's a big difference between disagreeing with the First Amendment, and believing certain clothes shouldn't be allowed in public schools attended by minors. If you want to wear an offensive t-shirt, you can do it all you want at home, or walking on public streets or public parks etc. Public schools aren't free-speech zones. The attendees are minors, and don't have the same rights and privileges as adults. They can't decide not to go to class, or to sit outside class with signs and protest. If they don't have the right to even decide if they want to go or not, they certainly don't have any inherent rights to wear offensive t-shirts, or say offensive things (such as in the middle of class when the teacher is talking). Even public university students don't have that right. I think we must be working with different definitions of "offensive." I was thinking of T-shirts with offensive political slogans - are you familiar with Tinker v. Des Moines?
Don't forget the undeniable racism inherent to the religion. Basically if you have dark skin you were punished by God. Yet another thing they laughably try to excise from their "religion" like polygamy. Apparently God changes his mind, you know. They wouldn't be the only religion to change their mind. The Curse of Ham as justification for oppression of Africans was widespread throughout the 18th and 19th century, but to claim it's inherent in their religion is quite frankly idiotic - it is clearly a cultural bias that has looked to a questionable interpretation of a single passage of the Old Testament and to sympathetic church leaders for support.
I am not a Mormon, but I get fed up with religious prejudice.
In a similar vein, 70% of American think the first amendment (right to free speech and worship) should be scrapped.
Do you mind sourcing that? The closest I'm able to find is that "74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others." Source I've no doubt that many people have very different views than me on what the first amendment guarantees, but I honestly doubt your figure, particularly considering the other data on the same site.
On the subject of the article, I must say that I'm rather skeptical. It's possible that Chinese citizens really do appreciate censorship by such an overwhelming majority, but I am reminded of this article, particularly the line "Having lived in a society where millions were arrested for speaking inadvertently to informers, many older people are extremely wary of talking to researchers wielding microphones (devices associated with the KGB)." This was last December, mind you, more than a decade after the fall of the USSR.
Posting again to retract the above comment. Later in TFA, it mentions that they must also have no more than 1GB RAM and a single core processor with maximum speed of 1GHz, which should still be more than enough for XP. I'm currently running XP SP2 with 384MiB Ram and a 1.07GHz Celeron cpu - it doesn't take crapware well, but otherwise performs acceptably.
Microsoft is only insisting that screen dimensions be limited, that the hard-drive be restricted to 80GB, and that the screens may not be touch-screens. TFA does not mention any restrictions on RAM or processor speed.
In addition to lacking auto-driving tech, we in the US have a woefully inadequate licensing program. If you had to pass a test similar to a pilot's license test in order to drive a car, I bet accident rates would plummet to match that of airplanes. Probably not. South Africa is known for it's draconian driving tests, yet it has horrible road safety statistics, and many people simply ignore licensing requirements.
The author's conclusions are questionable, as he uses a keyboard (the Logitec) which he is familiar with as his control, thus giving it an advantage over the others.
TFA:
In the critically acclaimed open-world game, players have the choice of patronizing a bar and then attempting to drive drunk. While virtually under the influence, the screen becomes blurred and the controls are more difficult to use. Players also have the option of hailing a taxi or walking. The intoxication effects wear off after a few minutes in the game.
When I was younger, the science center here in Atlanta had a DUI driving simulator. I'm not sure if it's still there. Regardless, you would drink/smoke/inject various substances and attempt to drive down a street as your car wobbled all over the road. IT EXISTED TO PERSUADE KIDS THAT DRINKING AND DRIVING WAS A BAD COMBINATION BY SHOWING THEM HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO CONTROL A CAR WHILE INTOXICATED. GTA 4 does exactly the same thing. It's not like Rockstar portrays drugs as giving you superhuman powers. *cough* NARC *cough*.
SHUT THE FUCK UP. Honestly, that is the advice you need. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Don't talk. Don't answer questions. If you must talk, please state the following: 1) "Am I under arrest?" If YES, then say, "I want a lawyer." If NO, get up and leave. If you co-operate and help them out and do them a favor, whatever--they will talk you into taking the blame. They'll have you convinced you did it even if you didn't. PLEASE, SHUT UP. Here in GA, we are required to give Name and Date of Birth if asked by a police officer (or is it just arrested?) IANAL, but the parent is basically correct.
I can't believe hard drive manufacturers aren't aware that the devices they built their businesses on are headed for the museum right next to buggy whips and engine cranks. So when are we going to see that big move to solid state storage? Less weight, less heat, less power, no moving parts...what's not to like? Wear-leveling makes it difficult to securely erase files.
Installing OS X on arbitrary hardware may be fair use, just as reverse engineering for interoperability is fair use, regardless of a product's EULA.
IANAL.
No. "Cow" is specific to females. "Bull" is specific to males. The word you are looking for is "ox." You're an idiot. On reflection, as the plural forms are relevant to this discussion, it seems that yes, I am. "Cattle" would have been the correct word.
You know that bulls are cows, right? No. "Cow" is specific to females. "Bull" is specific to males. The word you are looking for is "ox."
OED:
Ox: 1. a. A large cloven-hoofed, often horned ruminant mammal, Bos taurus (family Bovidae), derived from the extinct Eurasian aurochs and long domesticated for its milk, meat, and hide; a cow, a bull; (in pl.) cattle. Freq. spec.: a castrated adult male of this animal, esp. as used as a draught animal; a bullock.
I'd like to back the parent up, but add some details. From the article
"Professor Moulton used an overhead projector in class and would write out the high points of the lecture and that's what Einstein's Notes' note-taker would write down," says Sullivan. If, as this seems to suggest, Einstein Notes prints the high points as they were written by Moulton, it would seem to be copyright infringement. Furthermore,
A less exotic copyright claim in the lawsuit alleges that Einstein's Notes also copied and reprinted hundreds of test prep questions included in the professor's text book and in his course software. I don't know if a test prep question can be copyrighted, but the presentation of hundreds together almost certainly can be.
Furthermore, to Moulton's credit, his attorney says "[Personal notes are] absolutely fair use."
On the other hand, I'm not sure how his lectures are not Work for Hire. I don't think Moulton can claim to be the copyright holder, although UF probably could.
IANAL. Personally, I don't believe in copyright as it exists (primarily due to its persistence and the danger inherent in any Fair Use), but this does seem like a fairly straightforward case that even I can support. The publishers are infringing his (or the school's) copyright by reprinting elements of his lectures verbatim. I do not like the implication that lecture notes are derivative works though. The factual information and the opinions expressed by the lecturer are not subject to copyright.
The only problem with this is that the data may still be recoverable even if it was overwritten before being powered down, e.g. 2t minutes of 0 followed by t minutes of 1 could potentially be detected as a 0 by careful analysis. A better solution is to flip the bits of important data every minute or so, so that no one value predominates.
Source: Data Remanence in Semiconductor Devices, Peter Gutmann. http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/usenix01.pdf
But patents are not property. The patent holders have no natural law right to their patents as they have to their land, their personal effects, their machines, etc. A patent is a limited monopoly granted by the state for the public good. In this sense, there literally is no such thing as intellectual property.
If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire. But where does that leave those of us who encrypt our files and wipe our old drives? Is that evidence of an intent to conspire? </devils advocate>
Slashdot Mirror
See Klocek v. Gateway. Shrinkwrap licenses are not very well established, through clickwrap (i.e. those which require the user to view the document and indicate acceptance before they use the product) have met with more success.
And even when countries did switch sides, that said little about the bravery of their soldiers. Look at Finland, which was forced to sign an unfavorable armistice and later to fight with the Soviet Union, despite the amazing fight they put up.
Do you mind sourcing that? The closest I'm able to find is that "74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others." Source I've no doubt that many people have very different views than me on what the first amendment guarantees, but I honestly doubt your figure, particularly considering the other data on the same site.
On the subject of the article, I must say that I'm rather skeptical. It's possible that Chinese citizens really do appreciate censorship by such an overwhelming majority, but I am reminded of this article, particularly the line "Having lived in a society where millions were arrested for speaking inadvertently to informers, many older people are extremely wary of talking to researchers wielding microphones (devices associated with the KGB)." This was last December, mind you, more than a decade after the fall of the USSR.
Posting again to retract the above comment. Later in TFA, it mentions that they must also have no more than 1GB RAM and a single core processor with maximum speed of 1GHz, which should still be more than enough for XP. I'm currently running XP SP2 with 384MiB Ram and a 1.07GHz Celeron cpu - it doesn't take crapware well, but otherwise performs acceptably.
Microsoft is only insisting that screen dimensions be limited, that the hard-drive be restricted to 80GB, and that the screens may not be touch-screens. TFA does not mention any restrictions on RAM or processor speed.
The author's conclusions are questionable, as he uses a keyboard (the Logitec) which he is familiar with as his control, thus giving it an advantage over the others.
When I was younger, the science center here in Atlanta had a DUI driving simulator. I'm not sure if it's still there. Regardless, you would drink/smoke/inject various substances and attempt to drive down a street as your car wobbled all over the road. IT EXISTED TO PERSUADE KIDS THAT DRINKING AND DRIVING WAS A BAD COMBINATION BY SHOWING THEM HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO CONTROL A CAR WHILE INTOXICATED. GTA 4 does exactly the same thing. It's not like Rockstar portrays drugs as giving you superhuman powers. *cough* NARC *cough*.
Clearly, there is some flash on the site, but I can still view all the comics without it.
Installing OS X on arbitrary hardware may be fair use, just as reverse engineering for interoperability is fair use, regardless of a product's EULA. IANAL.
Black on light gray works well for me.
First thing I thought upon reading this was "Great, now they're going to want all of us on anti-paranoia drugs."
Something is written here in garish colors. You read: "Ea| at Jce's".
Furthermore, to Moulton's credit, his attorney says "[Personal notes are] absolutely fair use."
On the other hand, I'm not sure how his lectures are not Work for Hire. I don't think Moulton can claim to be the copyright holder, although UF probably could.
IANAL. Personally, I don't believe in copyright as it exists (primarily due to its persistence and the danger inherent in any Fair Use), but this does seem like a fairly straightforward case that even I can support. The publishers are infringing his (or the school's) copyright by reprinting elements of his lectures verbatim. I do not like the implication that lecture notes are derivative works though. The factual information and the opinions expressed by the lecturer are not subject to copyright.
Why should the government be the one to decide who I cannot permit to scan my brain?
The only problem with this is that the data may still be recoverable even if it was overwritten before being powered down, e.g. 2t minutes of 0 followed by t minutes of 1 could potentially be detected as a 0 by careful analysis. A better solution is to flip the bits of important data every minute or so, so that no one value predominates. Source: Data Remanence in Semiconductor Devices, Peter Gutmann. http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/usenix01.pdf
But patents are not property. The patent holders have no natural law right to their patents as they have to their land, their personal effects, their machines, etc. A patent is a limited monopoly granted by the state for the public good. In this sense, there literally is no such thing as intellectual property.