> "The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions."
Is that the copyright for the official translations, or for the original German version?
I know that there were a bunch of unauthorized translations in the USA, which didn't whitewash what was written, while the official traslations made him seem just a concerned German patriot (ignoring that he was Austrian at the time that he wrote it; he certainly did).
Nah, the trick would be to have it last beyond the first retirements of the enlightened technocrats. Or to guarantee that the next group are not only enlightened but capable technocrats.
Rome was able to manage something similar with a set of emperors who adopted smart and ethical successors, until Marcus Aurelius screwed up by not having his son displaced or dispatched soon enough, and within a few years the Praetorian Guard was auctioning off the empire to the highest bidder.
> I know plenty of people who are aware that OJ
skipping > got a "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict, > but still think he murdered his wife,
Including another jury, in the civil case (based on Wrongful Death, I think), who found him guilty by the Preponderance Of The Evidence.
> Which courts have an "innocent" verdict?
Ones with Hamilton Burger as Prosecutor, and Perry Mason as Defense Attorney.
Replacing all your old hardware, that still works, with new stuff (which might not work quite right, for all anyone knows). More precisely, having to convince your bosses (or your checkbook, for individuals) that it is worth the expense. This is worse if you control a leaf node, as it is something of a waste of money until your connections support IPv6, too.
If you are buying new routers, anyway, it won't matter much. It will just be a checkoff item. If you were not planning to, however, it could be like an uninsured fire.
> I would have to say that _retroactive_ copyright extension should be seen as unconstitutional.
I checked once, and I think that nothing went PD, then back under copyright, by virtue of any of the extensions.
If you think that it is unconstitutional to extend the copyright on something under copyright, then violate it, and become the Scopes of this law. I would suggest avoiding a super-rich copyright holder or something important to them (ie, avoid Disney, esp. avoid "Steamboat Willie"), just to have a chance.
Sonny Bono gave us unconstitutionally long copyright terms.
Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.
With all due respect to the Supreme Court, if copyright outlives both the author and his peers, that effectively is an eternal period for anyone who was alive at its creation and would care enough to want to copy it, let alone ephemeral works which may cease to exist in any material form in under a year.
I think the point is that just because something is constitutional doesn't make it wise, or even just merely stupid. You may disagree with the usefulness of eternal copyrights, but that is different from its unprovable non-usefulness making it obviously unconstitutional. Of course if you ARE the majority of Supreme Court Justices, sharing an account, that is different.
You misunderstand my argument: I'm not saying that Russia SHOULD attack Poland in the method described in the original scenario; I'm saying no one should be surprised if it happens. I'm also not making any comments about real politik concerns the Russians may or not have regarding expansion of hostilities.
Ah. I was responding to "within its rights" from your OP, While I have NOT read all the pertinent Conventions, Treaties, and Admiralty case law relating to the rights of neutrals, I DO know enough history to guess that attacking an enemy in a neutral country is questionable, even if the country doesn't mind, unofficially (see USA vs. NVA on the Laotian portion of the Ho Chi Minh Trail) and attacking the country itself for harboring interned enemies entirely beyond "its rights".
And I think it's a mistake to look at the past actions of Britain and assume that Russia would play from the same book.
Given that the usual problem that the Russians have is treating a problem that needs a rapier to solve by clubbing it to death (in 1972, my HS History teacher had a joke: What is the only country completely surrounded by hostile Communist states? The USSR.)(yes, I know that Finland and Turkey make it false, but it was close), I doubt that too. My point was to use those to illustrate the Rights Of Neutrals, and their obligations. Having an Atlanta ISP host websites for the government of the nation of Georgia, in time of war, might come close to violating the US's Neutrality Acts. I do not believe that we have a declared war, yet, to deal with, though, just a real one, an not much of one, either.
> The same way we would consider it an act of war if > Russia invaded Turkey
Good enough, right there. Turkey is a member of NATO, and an attack on one member is an attack on all, by the treaties.
> and just happened to destroy our military base(s) in Turkey.
Don't need to. The attack on NATO was enough.
If you want a good (as in ambiguous) case, try an attack on one of the -Stans that the USA has become "friendly" with, thanks to the GWOT. Or Russian pilots flying North Korean or Vietnamese planes in those two actions.
if a Russian flagged vessel were to dock in a neutral country, like the Ukraine, George would be within its rights to attack that port and destroy it.
Probably false, and certainly stupid.
Real Life Examples:
When a German vessel docked in a neutral port, Buenos Aires, the British could/did demand that Argentina either (1) expel the Graf Spee within 24 hours after immediate danger (from damage received) to the crew had passed, or (2) intern the ship and its crew for the duration. They did NOT attack Argentina, though.
Only if the neutral port was being used for German military purposes (as they did with Goa) could the port be attacked as a belligerent, and even then the British tried to have plausible deniability and to damage only the German ships, since the Portuguese may not have realized that they were passing signals to local U-boat packs (or wanted to claim that), and you do not want to force them onto the enemy's side.
Back To Theory:
In your case, attacking the Ukraine for letting a Russian (especially civilian) ship dock to take on needed supplies, medical assistance, etc., is an Act Of War against Ukraine. Only if Ukraine is obviously letting the Russian military use their ports freely and blocking you is it grounds for war.
Same thing here. If Poland wants to allow Georgia to use their servers, they shouldn't be surprised if Russia "hacks" those servers with a 2,000 lb bomb.
Is Poland a full member of NATO, yet? Maybe Russians don't want to invite the Wehrmacht (Bundeswehr, same thing) to attack them, especially for non-military servers, given the damages left the last time. Especially, since this time, the Germans will NOT be classing the other Eastern Europeans as subhuman trash to be reduced to slavery, thus driving them into the Bear's arms. We will leave aside the USA forces, as they will have been busy before the tragic Russian mistake. Afterwards, target priorities may change.
A DDoS attack against the relocated Georgian servers, OTOH, is just a good idea, especially for the Foreign Ministry one. Killing the Polish sysadms, however, is a bit too extreme for politeness.
> Baseball juiced up the ball itself, but thankfully drew the line on allowing metal bats.
Unless you mean the transition to the live ball, from the dead ball, back before 1920, you are, unfortunately, wrong. It was clearly the players being juiced.
Wrong. They changed the rules since 1984, and now they are all older than the age of consent, at least in my state. They just LOOK like they were jailbait, since there are no normally sized or normal weight gymnasts.
> She should get the Nobel Prize in Peace for introducing male > CS students to so many women. I wish I studied at Carnegie Mellon.
I did. You might meet them, as in be introduced, but that was as far as it would get, unless you were in a frat. That 7-1 ratio (in the whole school) still gets you.
> Personally, I have always felt that the most > stupid event at the Olympics is the 100m sprint.
Oddly, it was the ONLY event in the first Olympics, back in 776 BC. OK, since they didn't have meters, technically, it was a dash of about that length. The 100 yards/100 meters event has the advantage of showing performance without pacing, whereas longer races include the problem of not running so hard that you exhaust yourself before the end.
> I mean, it says right there that higgs mass is > one of the testable predictions of string theory.
It is only testable if we find it; if they (do/can) redefine the theory to explain why it isn't found, if it isn't found, then it is effectively no more testable than Free Will, or that YHWH designed the Universe to appear that it was old to test our faith in a Young Creation, or any other religious statement about the Universe that you might despise.
This is what the AC post is complaining about. Not really unreasonable, since there was a recent paper suggesting that the Higgs mass was just beyond where the LHC could possibly find it.
More than I do. I transferred out in my third year, as I realized that I wanted a job instead of, not after, a PhD.
If this particle gives the property of mass then shouldn't it have a mass less than that of the lightest particles?
The reported mass of the Higgs is the rest mass of a real Higgs particle. Mass, according to the theory, comes from interaction with a field of virtual Higgs particles, not a real Higgs merging with a real particle. Thus, if anything, it would make more sense (in quantum mechanics? Boy, have I not been paying attention) for it to out-mass any other particle, then light things like massy neutrinos can barely interact, normal quarks and such interact more, and real Higgs particles, obviously, a lot.
As it turns out, the Higgs is almost the heaviest particle. I do not know how an intermediate vector baseball (which was the nickname for the meson which mediates proton-to-positron decay, at least back when I was in school) gets its much larger mass, though. Interact with a lot of virtuals at a time, obviously.
Someone has been using Microsoft products for too long.
The Mac has called directories "folders" since 1986, when System 3 on the Macintosh Plus came with Hierarchical File System.
I remember them being called "folders" on Macs even BEFORE the HFS, when they were just an illusion of the desktop, and every file on a disk was actually in the same filename-space ("directory" in Unix-speak). That would take it back to 1984, or even earlier. Any ex-LISA users care to comment?
I believe that General Allenby, who DID liberate the Holy Land and Jerusalem from the Turk, after crossing the Jordan River after it parted as it had for Joshua, had many members of the Masons among his army. Since the Masons claim to be descended from Templar survivors, I believe that meets your criteria. So, where are those Genoese arbalesters that you promised?
BTW, the Jordan stops fairly frequently, when an earthquake and dislodged rubble blocks the flow for a few hours. God's Will or Random Chance and Coincidence is your interpretation.
> Or, maybe they could just sue the USA for making them > look silly - I mean, those native headdresses don't > look silly to people who are native - just everyone else.
As opposed to the wigs that English lawyers wear, which grant them such immense dignity?
And, speaking as a one-time small boy, I always thought they looked cool. Especially with the scalps of Europeans who were caught while touring the West, looking at the quaint natives, hanging from their lodge poles.
Try having well written, very clear policies that that kind of action is forbiden. Of course, a piece of paper means crap to most employees, but the first time you fire someone for violating that policy, the grapevine and water cooler will provide more training than a dozen hour long meetings could convey..
Try firing your CEO or Chairman of the Board, when THAT person screws up, though.
At a previous company, we had clear rules for handling email attachments to avoid virus problems (no penalty except company-wide ridicule, though), and the only person who regularly got and spread viruses was the company president, after he went on calls to major customers. He wasn't stupid, or trying to test us, or deliberately breaking the rules; he was just a bit more careless than other people about connecting to other networks and reconnecting to ours. I imagine that he would have the same problem with personal data, but the demo version of the database had none (well, except for Herman Munster, and a few other fake characters).
As Lew Allen proved, with his famous tests with steel spheres just a few feet from ground-zero of a nuclear test survive just fine, and they are accelerated quite briskly. This was one basis of Project Orion later on.
So he built the equivalent of a nuclear pipe bomb?
No, the nuclear equivalent of a claymore mine, or else the world's most powerful shotgun.
So he wanted to just make really, really sure that anyone standing next to the bomb did in fact die?
Don't be silly. He wanted to know how NOT to injure our robot overlords.
> Wow. Someone piss in your cheerios much today, guy?
I thought that they had in yours, actually. I probably should have put a smiley after "Idiot" to lower the Perceived Invective Rating, as I look at it, again.
Slashdot Mirror
> "The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions."
Is that the copyright for the official translations, or for the original German version?
I know that there were a bunch of unauthorized translations in the USA, which didn't whitewash what was written, while the official traslations made him seem just a concerned German patriot (ignoring that he was Austrian at the time that he wrote it; he certainly did).
BTW, has this Godwined the thread?
Rome was able to manage something similar with a set of emperors who adopted smart and ethical successors, until Marcus Aurelius screwed up by not having his son displaced or dispatched soon enough, and within a few years the Praetorian Guard was auctioning off the empire to the highest bidder.
Or to Oath of Fealty, which is about a realistic attempt at describing what an arcology would be like.
> I know plenty of people who are aware that OJ
skipping
> got a "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict,
> but still think he murdered his wife,
Including another jury, in the civil case (based on Wrongful Death, I think), who found him guilty by the Preponderance Of The Evidence.
> Which courts have an "innocent" verdict?
Ones with Hamilton Burger as Prosecutor, and Perry Mason as Defense Attorney.
> What's the downside to being ready?
Replacing all your old hardware, that still works, with new stuff (which might not work quite right, for all anyone knows). More precisely, having to convince your bosses (or your checkbook, for individuals) that it is worth the expense. This is worse if you control a leaf node, as it is something of a waste of money until your connections support IPv6, too.
If you are buying new routers, anyway, it won't matter much. It will just be a checkoff item. If you were not planning to, however, it could be like an uninsured fire.
> I would have to say that _retroactive_ copyright extension should be seen as unconstitutional.
I checked once, and I think that nothing went PD, then back under copyright, by virtue of any of the extensions.
If you think that it is unconstitutional to extend the copyright on something under copyright, then violate it, and become the Scopes of this law. I would suggest avoiding a super-rich copyright holder or something important to them (ie, avoid Disney, esp. avoid "Steamboat Willie"), just to have a chance.
Good luck with that.
I think the point is that just because something is constitutional doesn't make it wise, or even just merely stupid. You may disagree with the usefulness of eternal copyrights, but that is different from its unprovable non-usefulness making it obviously unconstitutional. Of course if you ARE the majority of Supreme Court Justices, sharing an account, that is different.
Ah. I was responding to "within its rights" from your OP, While I have NOT read all the pertinent Conventions, Treaties, and Admiralty case law relating to the rights of neutrals, I DO know enough history to guess that attacking an enemy in a neutral country is questionable, even if the country doesn't mind, unofficially (see USA vs. NVA on the Laotian portion of the Ho Chi Minh Trail) and attacking the country itself for harboring interned enemies entirely beyond "its rights".
Given that the usual problem that the Russians have is treating a problem that needs a rapier to solve by clubbing it to death (in 1972, my HS History teacher had a joke: What is the only country completely surrounded by hostile Communist states? The USSR.)(yes, I know that Finland and Turkey make it false, but it was close), I doubt that too. My point was to use those to illustrate the Rights Of Neutrals, and their obligations. Having an Atlanta ISP host websites for the government of the nation of Georgia, in time of war, might come close to violating the US's Neutrality Acts. I do not believe that we have a declared war, yet, to deal with, though, just a real one, an not much of one, either.
> Of course on the other hand, they are the ones declared war to Russia while having only 12 jets.
Shades of Grand Fenwick!
> The same way we would consider it an act of war if
> Russia invaded Turkey
Good enough, right there. Turkey is a member of NATO, and an attack on one member is an attack on all, by the treaties.
> and just happened to destroy our military base(s) in Turkey.
Don't need to. The attack on NATO was enough.
If you want a good (as in ambiguous) case, try an attack on one of the -Stans that the USA has become "friendly" with, thanks to the GWOT. Or Russian pilots flying North Korean or Vietnamese planes in those two actions.
Probably false, and certainly stupid.
Real Life Examples:
When a German vessel docked in a neutral port, Buenos Aires, the British could/did demand that Argentina either (1) expel the Graf Spee within 24 hours after immediate danger (from damage received) to the crew had passed, or (2) intern the ship and its crew for the duration. They did NOT attack Argentina, though.
Only if the neutral port was being used for German military purposes (as they did with Goa) could the port be attacked as a belligerent, and even then the British tried to have plausible deniability and to damage only the German ships, since the Portuguese may not have realized that they were passing signals to local U-boat packs (or wanted to claim that), and you do not want to force them onto the enemy's side.
Back To Theory:
In your case, attacking the Ukraine for letting a Russian (especially civilian) ship dock to take on needed supplies, medical assistance, etc., is an Act Of War against Ukraine. Only if Ukraine is obviously letting the Russian military use their ports freely and blocking you is it grounds for war.
Is Poland a full member of NATO, yet? Maybe Russians don't want to invite the Wehrmacht (Bundeswehr, same thing) to attack them, especially for non-military servers, given the damages left the last time. Especially, since this time, the Germans will NOT be classing the other Eastern Europeans as subhuman trash to be reduced to slavery, thus driving them into the Bear's arms. We will leave aside the USA forces, as they will have been busy before the tragic Russian mistake. Afterwards, target priorities may change.
A DDoS attack against the relocated Georgian servers, OTOH, is just a good idea, especially for the Foreign Ministry one. Killing the Polish sysadms, however, is a bit too extreme for politeness.
> For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
Which is unnecessary, as they were postulates.
"We hold the these truths to be self-evident:"
Actually, as an AC pointed out before my post, made before I lowered my threshold, the original was about 192 meters.
So you win.
> Baseball juiced up the ball itself, but thankfully drew the line on allowing metal bats.
Unless you mean the transition to the live ball, from the dead ball, back before 1920, you are, unfortunately, wrong. It was clearly the players being juiced.
> Every single one of them is jailbait.
Wrong. They changed the rules since 1984, and now they are all older than the age of consent, at least in my state. They just LOOK like they were jailbait, since there are no normally sized or normal weight gymnasts.
> She should get the Nobel Prize in Peace for introducing male
> CS students to so many women. I wish I studied at Carnegie Mellon.
I did. You might meet them, as in be introduced, but that was as far as it would get, unless you were in a frat. That 7-1 ratio (in the whole school) still gets you.
> Personally, I have always felt that the most
> stupid event at the Olympics is the 100m sprint.
Oddly, it was the ONLY event in the first Olympics, back in 776 BC. OK, since they didn't have meters, technically, it was a dash of about that length. The 100 yards/100 meters event has the advantage of showing performance without pacing, whereas longer races include the problem of not running so hard that you exhaust yourself before the end.
> I mean, it says right there that higgs mass is
> one of the testable predictions of string theory.
It is only testable if we find it; if they (do/can) redefine the theory to explain why it isn't found, if it isn't found, then it is effectively no more testable than Free Will, or that YHWH designed the Universe to appear that it was old to test our faith in a Young Creation, or any other religious statement about the Universe that you might despise.
This is what the AC post is complaining about. Not really unreasonable, since there was a recent paper suggesting that the Higgs mass was just beyond where the LHC could possibly find it.
More than I do. I transferred out in my third year, as I realized that I wanted a job instead of, not after, a PhD.
The reported mass of the Higgs is the rest mass of a real Higgs particle. Mass, according to the theory, comes from interaction with a field of virtual Higgs particles, not a real Higgs merging with a real particle. Thus, if anything, it would make more sense (in quantum mechanics? Boy, have I not been paying attention) for it to out-mass any other particle, then light things like massy neutrinos can barely interact, normal quarks and such interact more, and real Higgs particles, obviously, a lot.
As it turns out, the Higgs is almost the heaviest particle. I do not know how an intermediate vector baseball (which was the nickname for the meson which mediates proton-to-positron decay, at least back when I was in school) gets its much larger mass, though. Interact with a lot of virtuals at a time, obviously.
I remember them being called "folders" on Macs even BEFORE the HFS, when they were just an illusion of the desktop, and every file on a disk was actually in the same filename-space ("directory" in Unix-speak). That would take it back to 1984, or even earlier. Any ex-LISA users care to comment?
BTW, the Jordan stops fairly frequently, when an earthquake and dislodged rubble blocks the flow for a few hours. God's Will or Random Chance and Coincidence is your interpretation.
> Or, maybe they could just sue the USA for making them
> look silly - I mean, those native headdresses don't
> look silly to people who are native - just everyone else.
As opposed to the wigs that English lawyers wear, which grant them such immense dignity?
And, speaking as a one-time small boy, I always thought they looked cool. Especially with the scalps of Europeans who were caught while touring the West, looking at the quaint natives, hanging from their lodge poles.
Try firing your CEO or Chairman of the Board, when THAT person screws up, though.
At a previous company, we had clear rules for handling email attachments to avoid virus problems (no penalty except company-wide ridicule, though), and the only person who regularly got and spread viruses was the company president, after he went on calls to major customers. He wasn't stupid, or trying to test us, or deliberately breaking the rules; he was just a bit more careless than other people about connecting to other networks and reconnecting to ours. I imagine that he would have the same problem with personal data, but the demo version of the database had none (well, except for Herman Munster, and a few other fake characters).
No, the nuclear equivalent of a claymore mine, or else the world's most powerful shotgun.
Don't be silly. He wanted to know how NOT to injure our robot overlords.
> Wow. Someone piss in your cheerios much today, guy?
I thought that they had in yours, actually. I probably should have put a smiley after "Idiot" to lower the Perceived Invective Rating, as I look at it, again.