Or perhaps somebody else (1 in what, 36 billion chance)
It's only 1 in 36 billion if DNA is randomly distributed. In reality, your DNA is passed down from your parents. The odds of a match go up if the perpetrator has your ethnicity. They go up even more if the perpetrator is in your family. They go up yet again if the perpetrator is a sibling.
Yes, losing a post-it note during an arrest. Insiduous.
I think the grandparent's concern was that the police took the notes he was writing about them. That the police failed to include it in their inventory of seized goods just goes to show they weren't seizing evidence against the suspect. Instead, they were covering up their own actions.
it was just too damn hard for large companies to compete in an open market
Competition is the grand savior of capitalism. In an unregulated market large companies band together and form monopolies, eliminating competition altogether.
Capitalism also makes the assumption that the consumer knows everything and consequently they can buy from companies that are good for the environment, treat their employees well, use non-toxic materials, etc. In reality, private companies are constantly covering up the shenanigans they pull.
Also note competition pushes companies to drive down costs (good) but in the process they harm the environment, treat their employees like slaves, cut corners on product safety, etc. (all bad). These competing interests need to be balanced but due to the consumers' limited knowledge the market constantly shifts toward the most salient point--cost. The government needs to step in and establish standards to keep things balanced.
Yes, the Obama administration's stance is intolerable. But the problem, I believe, is not the administration -- it is the law. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Pass a law requiring stricter oversight of government surveillance.
The executive branch is blatantly violating the fourth amendment to the constitution. It doesn't matter what the law says when the constitution overrules it.
If you have already sent a counter-notice to the more recent request and Pearson went ahead and filed off a DMCA notice to your upstream provider afterwards, that would certainly be an interesting thing to note. I still think you would lose a copyright suit, however.
It's also worth noting that Pearson, the copyright holder of the MMPI-2, filed a takedown notice for the very same post in 2007. We promptly filed a counter-notice, Pearson took no further action,
I would suggest you do some research on this. I recall someone suing after being presented with multiple take-down notices. I believe the law requires the copyright holder to actually file suit rather than send multiple DMCA requests (after all they could just send a request every ten days and force your ISP to take the material down for ten days). Of course with two years between takedown notices the court probably won't care too much. Also, to even have a chance of winning the fair-use argument you're going to need an awful lot of insightful discussion on each of the 75 questions.
Hint: Bush did not give them the money, Congress did.
And Congress is and was controlled by... Democrats.
The way I remember it there were two bailouts. The first one occurred with Bush, the second with Obama. The first one went through congress with enormous support from Republicans and mild support from Democrats (only because Obama urged them to support it). The second one went through congress with enormous support from Democrats and strong opposition from Republicans.
The fact is Democrats and Republicans are both hypocrites and they have both earned plenty of scorn.
rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict
A verdict so spectacular that 11 other people came to the same conclusion without using twitter?
The defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict from twelve impartial jurors, not eleven. Even if you let that requirement slide there is still the possibility that the twelfth juror unduly influenced his colleagues so he would be able to publish some spectacular posts.
How does a person get their money out of these numbered accounts? What recourse does a person have if the bank refuses to hand over their money? Depositors certainly aren't going to go to the police if they're hiding money from the government. Is it really wise to hide your money someplace you'll never see it again?
The only way this works is if TomTom pays the full $250,000, and gets unlimited licensing for them and all recipients of the software from them.
It goes further than "the software". For this to work all recipients of the software must have all the rights granted under the GPL, which means they must be able to modify and redistribute the code, even as a completely different product. If a recipient of the code wanted to use it in a blender that stores data in memory in FAT format, the recipient must have the right to do so royalty-free in order for the GPL to remain intact.
Basically, the $250,000 cap would have to effectively grant unlimited use of the patent in all GPL'd software in order to distribute any software that uses the patent under the GPL. I seriously doubt Microsoft's licensing allows for that.
The court's ruling is available on the web [1]. The court did not care that the contract was written in blood.
The contract was invalid because there was no consideration. The issue came about because the plantiff invested in Mr. Son's company. The company failed so Mr. Kim was out $170,000. The two went to a sushi bar where they "consumed a great deal of alcohol". Feeling sorry for Mr. Kim, Son pricked his finger and wrote the "promissory note".
Mr. Kim claims the consideration was that he graciously held off on suing for a year. The court ruled that was not consideration because Mr. Kim did not have valid grounds to sue in the first place. He invested in a business. The business failed. That's his tough luck.
[1] for the time being anyway. It says "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS".
The answer to this is simple: "Gee I forgot the password". Done. Next issue...
There is no protection from self-incrimination in civil cases. When this comes up in civil cases the judge simply instructs the jury that they can infer from the defendant's poor memory that they are hiding incriminating evidence.
Species have been going extinct for as long as life has existed on Earth. That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest. Species that are not fit disappear while other species takes their place.
Copyright was a reaction to the reduction in cost of making copies engendered by printing press technologies. Prior to this copyright was not needed because the cost of copying was not scalable and there was no economic gain from making your own copy.
This is correct up until you mention economic gain. Copyright started as a form of censorship. In 1557, after failing to stop the spread of the printing press, Queen Mary Tudor granted copyrights exclusively to the Stationers' Company. The Stationers' Company only printed books approved by the Crown and they did not pay royalties to authors. That act was repeatedly renewed until resentment over abuse of the monopoly privilege eventually lead to the act expiring in 1694.
With the loss of their monopoly privileges the Stationers' Company pushed for a new law. A balance was eventually struck with the Statue of Anne which forms the basis of modern copyright. That was in 1710 (or 1709 depending on your calendar). That's 271 years after Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1439.
Interestingly, despite the balance struck in the Statute of Anne, publishers managed to convince the courts they must abide by common law established under the previous copyrights. That lasted until 1774 when the House of Lords overturned that reasoning.
Don't try to solve multiple problems. If electric distribution can be solved, great. But idiots saying "If we can't solve every problem and have a green wonderland NOW then screw it." are just holding back progress. Solving power generation is a totally seperate problem and should be tackled by a different effort.
Agreed. There's no point in building a huge network of wind farms without demand. An electric car network will provide demand in small increments at which time the power grid can slowly expand to fill it.
Specifically, wind and tidal energy are NEVER going to be close to cost effective.
Wind energy is already cost effective and in use in many places. Denmark, for example, uses wind energy extensively. In my own home state a new wind farm seems to pop up every year.
Suspension of habeas corpus during wartime; isn't that one of the things we've criticized Bush for?
No. We've criticized Bush for suspension of habeas corpus during peace time. Congress has not declared war since 1941. The constitution specifically states:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
During Lincoln's time there was an official, declared war. The nation was routinely being invaded by confederate soldiers. Some may say the entire confederacy was a rebellion.
Also, the war had a clear enemy and ending point (as opposed to a 'war' on a concept) and the suspension was lifted after the war ended.
Fuel Cells are not heat engines, thus the Carnot Cycle does not limit their efficiency. The fuel cells in the space shuttle achieve over 70% efficiency.
I'll admit I did not factor in hybrid cars and regenerative braking. Fuel cells cars can use those technologies as well.
By the way, the first fuel cell was invented in 1838. Early fuel cells were extremely inefficient so they fell by the wayside until NASA reignited interest in them during the Gemini program.
Also, fuel cells have no moving parts so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they are 'clunky'. They have achieved long-term reliabilities of nearly 100%. They have been used on nearly every manned space flight NASA has launched as well as power plants and backup generators. Fuel cells may have their weak points but 'clunky' and 'untried' are not it.
Kendall, a chemist who previously spent almost a decade working for ExxonMobil, highlights how the energy losses in the fuel chain - from electrolysis to compression of the hydrogen for use to inefficiencies in the fuel cell itself mean that only 24 per cent of the energy used to make the fuel does any useful work on the road.
That's an important point but how come these issues are never brought up in discussions about the inefficiencies of conventional fuel? It takes energy to pump oil out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, distill it into gasoline, and transport the fuel to a gas station. With conventional internal combustion engines you get about 25% efficiency from the time you fill up at the gas station. Fuel cells get over twice that.
"look and feel" copyright claims have also been upheld in many courts, so you might want to avoid doing too close of a copy.
The only "look and feel" copyright case I know of was Apple v Microsoft where the copyright argument was struck down.
Copyright only applies to expression. There are three other areas of intellectual rights law: trademark, trade secret, and patent. Trademark is easy to avoid as you can simply come up with your own. One would think the submitter would be aware of any patents the company has filed related to the topic. That leaves trade secret which would most likely form the basis of any suit.
I think you're correct that the company would sue regardless of whether their suit had merit or not.
I once heard a story about a band of elephants, some white, some black, and some gray. The black and white elephants got into a war and killed each other leaving nothing but gray elephants. When it was all done one of the gray elephants asked of another, "have you ever noticed some of us have bigger ears than others?".
Racism isn't going to suddenly disappear because we're all the same. People will find some other differences and stereotype based on those.
Among the 2,508 respondents, 164 say they have been elected to a government office at least once.
These people may have marked themselves as elected officials out of pure carelessness. If they're making mistakes on that they are likely to have made mistakes elsewhere as well. That's probably why these people scored lower than average.
When I was in school they taught us there were two theories of evolution: Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, and some nutcase's theory that creatures adapt to their environment and pass those changes down to their children. For example, giraffes stretched their necks to reach food and because they stretched their necks that characteristic was passed down to their children. Sure, the school was just trying to discredit Darwin, but now you're telling me that nutcase's theory has merit?
Slashdot Mirror
It's only 1 in 36 billion if DNA is randomly distributed. In reality, your DNA is passed down from your parents. The odds of a match go up if the perpetrator has your ethnicity. They go up even more if the perpetrator is in your family. They go up yet again if the perpetrator is a sibling.
The most interesting point here, and one I haven't seen posted elsewhere, is that Jack is protected by the same laws that have hindered his crusade.
I think the grandparent's concern was that the police took the notes he was writing about them. That the police failed to include it in their inventory of seized goods just goes to show they weren't seizing evidence against the suspect. Instead, they were covering up their own actions.
Competition is the grand savior of capitalism. In an unregulated market large companies band together and form monopolies, eliminating competition altogether.
Capitalism also makes the assumption that the consumer knows everything and consequently they can buy from companies that are good for the environment, treat their employees well, use non-toxic materials, etc. In reality, private companies are constantly covering up the shenanigans they pull.
Also note competition pushes companies to drive down costs (good) but in the process they harm the environment, treat their employees like slaves, cut corners on product safety, etc. (all bad). These competing interests need to be balanced but due to the consumers' limited knowledge the market constantly shifts toward the most salient point--cost. The government needs to step in and establish standards to keep things balanced.
The executive branch is blatantly violating the fourth amendment to the constitution. It doesn't matter what the law says when the constitution overrules it.
If you have already sent a counter-notice to the more recent request and Pearson went ahead and filed off a DMCA notice to your upstream provider afterwards, that would certainly be an interesting thing to note. I still think you would lose a copyright suit, however.
I would suggest you do some research on this. I recall someone suing after being presented with multiple take-down notices. I believe the law requires the copyright holder to actually file suit rather than send multiple DMCA requests (after all they could just send a request every ten days and force your ISP to take the material down for ten days). Of course with two years between takedown notices the court probably won't care too much. Also, to even have a chance of winning the fair-use argument you're going to need an awful lot of insightful discussion on each of the 75 questions.
The way I remember it there were two bailouts. The first one occurred with Bush, the second with Obama. The first one went through congress with enormous support from Republicans and mild support from Democrats (only because Obama urged them to support it). The second one went through congress with enormous support from Democrats and strong opposition from Republicans.
The fact is Democrats and Republicans are both hypocrites and they have both earned plenty of scorn.
The defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict from twelve impartial jurors, not eleven. Even if you let that requirement slide there is still the possibility that the twelfth juror unduly influenced his colleagues so he would be able to publish some spectacular posts.
How does a person get their money out of these numbered accounts? What recourse does a person have if the bank refuses to hand over their money? Depositors certainly aren't going to go to the police if they're hiding money from the government. Is it really wise to hide your money someplace you'll never see it again?
It goes further than "the software". For this to work all recipients of the software must have all the rights granted under the GPL, which means they must be able to modify and redistribute the code, even as a completely different product. If a recipient of the code wanted to use it in a blender that stores data in memory in FAT format, the recipient must have the right to do so royalty-free in order for the GPL to remain intact.
Basically, the $250,000 cap would have to effectively grant unlimited use of the patent in all GPL'd software in order to distribute any software that uses the patent under the GPL. I seriously doubt Microsoft's licensing allows for that.
The court's ruling is available on the web [1]. The court did not care that the contract was written in blood.
The contract was invalid because there was no consideration. The issue came about because the plantiff invested in Mr. Son's company. The company failed so Mr. Kim was out $170,000. The two went to a sushi bar where they "consumed a great deal of alcohol". Feeling sorry for Mr. Kim, Son pricked his finger and wrote the "promissory note".
Mr. Kim claims the consideration was that he graciously held off on suing for a year. The court ruled that was not consideration because Mr. Kim did not have valid grounds to sue in the first place. He invested in a business. The business failed. That's his tough luck.
[1] for the time being anyway. It says "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS".
There is no protection from self-incrimination in civil cases. When this comes up in civil cases the judge simply instructs the jury that they can infer from the defendant's poor memory that they are hiding incriminating evidence.
Species have been going extinct for as long as life has existed on Earth. That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest. Species that are not fit disappear while other species takes their place.
This is correct up until you mention economic gain. Copyright started as a form of censorship. In 1557, after failing to stop the spread of the printing press, Queen Mary Tudor granted copyrights exclusively to the Stationers' Company. The Stationers' Company only printed books approved by the Crown and they did not pay royalties to authors. That act was repeatedly renewed until resentment over abuse of the monopoly privilege eventually lead to the act expiring in 1694.
With the loss of their monopoly privileges the Stationers' Company pushed for a new law. A balance was eventually struck with the Statue of Anne which forms the basis of modern copyright. That was in 1710 (or 1709 depending on your calendar). That's 271 years after Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1439.
Interestingly, despite the balance struck in the Statute of Anne, publishers managed to convince the courts they must abide by common law established under the previous copyrights. That lasted until 1774 when the House of Lords overturned that reasoning.
Agreed. There's no point in building a huge network of wind farms without demand. An electric car network will provide demand in small increments at which time the power grid can slowly expand to fill it.
Wind energy is already cost effective and in use in many places. Denmark, for example, uses wind energy extensively. In my own home state a new wind farm seems to pop up every year.
No. We've criticized Bush for suspension of habeas corpus during peace time. Congress has not declared war since 1941. The constitution specifically states:
During Lincoln's time there was an official, declared war. The nation was routinely being invaded by confederate soldiers. Some may say the entire confederacy was a rebellion.
Also, the war had a clear enemy and ending point (as opposed to a 'war' on a concept) and the suspension was lifted after the war ended.
Internal combustion engines are heat engines bound by the Carnot Cycle. We've made them about as efficient as we can. They are not going to improve much.
Fuel Cells are not heat engines, thus the Carnot Cycle does not limit their efficiency. The fuel cells in the space shuttle achieve over 70% efficiency.
I'll admit I did not factor in hybrid cars and regenerative braking. Fuel cells cars can use those technologies as well.
By the way, the first fuel cell was invented in 1838. Early fuel cells were extremely inefficient so they fell by the wayside until NASA reignited interest in them during the Gemini program.
Also, fuel cells have no moving parts so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they are 'clunky'. They have achieved long-term reliabilities of nearly 100%. They have been used on nearly every manned space flight NASA has launched as well as power plants and backup generators. Fuel cells may have their weak points but 'clunky' and 'untried' are not it.
That's an important point but how come these issues are never brought up in discussions about the inefficiencies of conventional fuel? It takes energy to pump oil out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, distill it into gasoline, and transport the fuel to a gas station. With conventional internal combustion engines you get about 25% efficiency from the time you fill up at the gas station. Fuel cells get over twice that.
The only "look and feel" copyright case I know of was Apple v Microsoft where the copyright argument was struck down.
Copyright only applies to expression. There are three other areas of intellectual rights law: trademark, trade secret, and patent. Trademark is easy to avoid as you can simply come up with your own. One would think the submitter would be aware of any patents the company has filed related to the topic. That leaves trade secret which would most likely form the basis of any suit.
I think you're correct that the company would sue regardless of whether their suit had merit or not.
Racism isn't going to suddenly disappear because we're all the same. People will find some other differences and stereotype based on those.
If someone were to clone a neanderthal it would likely be for the sole purpose of studying the child. Is that ethical?
For all the people that were confused like me, Lershac is presumably referring to the comments posted below the video.
These people may have marked themselves as elected officials out of pure carelessness. If they're making mistakes on that they are likely to have made mistakes elsewhere as well. That's probably why these people scored lower than average.
When I was in school they taught us there were two theories of evolution: Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, and some nutcase's theory that creatures adapt to their environment and pass those changes down to their children. For example, giraffes stretched their necks to reach food and because they stretched their necks that characteristic was passed down to their children. Sure, the school was just trying to discredit Darwin, but now you're telling me that nutcase's theory has merit?