Speaking of German beer, I'm a fan of the resealable Grolsch bottles. Which I thought was a German beer but Wikipedia tells me it's Dutch. At any rate, the bottles are perfect for homebrewing, and I imagine it makes it that much easier to reuse.
All around, I think beer is a pretty environmentally friendly product to consume, especially if you buy local. I feel guitly about buying a lot of things, but thankfully, beer is not one of them!
I was just using Corona as an example because they have a semi-unique way of printing relatively permanent labels on their bottles. One disadvantage to using traditional labels is that for every recycle, you have to relabel the bottles. Corona just rewashes, refills and reseals.
Plenty of fine beers use that system. I like Sleeman's myself.
There is one microbrew pub in Vancouver that sells re-sealable big glass bottles of their stuff (i.e. >1L) and you can bring your bottles back and get them refilled at a nice discount.
It produces a liquid people consume? Why does that matter? Pepsi basically produces unfermented sugar water. Throw in some brewer's yeast and you would have a horribly tasting alcoholic beverage. (You can make a fine cider with ale or champagne yeast and fruit juice from concentrate. And by "fine" I mean it tastes reasonably well given the 30 cent per bottle cost.)
Again nothing wrong with their approach, just saying: glass, it seems, is a fine option as well, and it requires a heck of a lot less in the way of R&D.
Glass works for beer...it's best when you use local breweries and bottling facilities, then you don't need to transport that far. Companies like Corona have laser printed labels on their glass, and they buy the return of their bottles. They wash and reuse. It's probably creates less polution than manufacturing from scratch each and every time (even if the final product is biodegradable).
I laud their efforts. I suspect glass is still a good choice as well.
This ruling is unlikely to survive a single appeal. Can you imagine the impact on journalism? Report the news, get slammed with a [successful] defamation suit?
I have to wonder what sort of judge feels that this ruling follows case law and current legislation.
crap like this makes "gay" marriage the LEAST of our moral problems with marriage.
As if there is a moral problem with gay marriages. The only moral problem surrounding gay marriages is that others grant themselves the authority to butt in and tell consenting adults what types of relationships they may engage in.
But point taken: hetero-marriages are far from perfect. The people who argue so fervently against homo-marriages don't give a crap about the f*cked up world of heteros.
Why would this ever be an issue? Why would you ever need to get permission to IDENTIFY a person in a picture?
As far as the supposed need to ask permission to take and publish the photos in the first place: the judge said there is nothing within the law to suggest permission is necessary. It will be hard to reconcile that with these "rights to be forgotten" or Google Street View etc. In those cases, the argument is that you can't simply take pictures of things/people in public places and publish them...
How about do away with campaign contributions from companies/unions etc?
Let's say that up and coming parties can collect donations, but any party that achieved more than a 20% popular vote in the previous election is disqualified from accepting any outside contributions. All parties over the 20% mark are granted a tax-paid stipend for campaigning, and they can make do with that as they see fit.
I think this approach would solve a lot more problems than it would produce. How could this approach be worse than the reality today?...namely, big corporate America buying legislation in their favour at the expense of the common folk.
Even from the free summary of the above article it doesn't look like he "tunneled" at all. He broke through a wall from an adjacent and empty shop. The press just chose the word "tunnel."
"Even if you have an unlocked door, it's still illegal to break into a person's house."
I don't know about the states, but in Canada the above statement is incorrect. It's only a break and enter if you bypass a lock or if you remove something from the house. Entering an unlocked door, in and of itself, is not a crime. This makes sense, for example, if you are seeing if something is wrong after a friend doesn't answer their door etc. If that's a problem, then lock the door.
It's always boggled my mind that while other, supposedly 'easier' profession like being a pilot, driving a truck etc. have restrictions on excessive work hours and wakefulness, medicine, by and large, does not. In many medical schools, extreme sleep deprivation is expected (to prepare students for real life no doubt). As a profession, how can medicine claim to be a career hard enough to require a decade worth of training but easy enough that one need not be awake/alert to practice?
Certainly the fault lies partly with those who organize working schedules and budgets...but I also imagine there are many doctors who want to play superman (and expect that of their students/residents). The physicians, too, need to speak up for change; silence condones this unsafe environment.
Are you suggesting that defending Wikileaks is defending the status quo? I don't know if you understand the concept of status quo.
Wikileaks isn't the one reporting, or even leaking to the public, the vast majority of what we have read. They have personally leaked very little information. Most of it came through other publications. Some publications are trying to distance themselves from Wikileaks to try to avoid the backlash from the US government, mainly by downplaying the significance of the leaks while highlighting the supposed danger of the leaks. At that, Wikileaks and the main news organizations they have worked with have worked hard to redact dangerous information. So as far as throwing the baby out with the bathwater...it doesn't seem like they are ignoring the costs like you say.
Re: Tinfoil hat syndrome
So the first story I cited isn't significant or illegal? The pimping of Afghan children? Are you really going to trivialize that in a sad attempt to insult me?
I cited a peer reviewed meta-analysis by NYU on a decade worth of research. Perhaps you can cite some research on the so-called tinfoil hat syndrome.
All in all, your response (or lack thereof) is very telling. Your 'arguments' have no basis in fact or evidence. Essentially, you are covering your ears, stamping your feet and screaming, "No!! Stop exposing the weaknesses of my arguments! No!" You can respond if you want, but I have no interest in arguing against such willful ignorance.
"So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity."
You only think that because apparently you are relying on most of the mainstream media reporting of the diplomatic cables, who have downplayed the significance of the leaks. Consider the following:
And then there is the very fact that much of the 'secrets' that were classified were done so illegally.
If you don't realize it by now, then you have made up your mind regardless of evidence. Do your own research if you are interested, but I doubt you are.
For the others who wonder how there are people like parent who apparently blindly defend wrongdoing (such as government abuses, racism etc), there is actually a growing body of research into this phenomenon. It's called system justification theory, and essentially it describes the conscious and unconscious tendencies to protect and bolster the status quo, even to one's own disadvantage (i.e. the black and/or gay Republican who can't see that his comrades implicitly or explicitly hate him). Basically, people like parent feel so comforted by the status quo, and they implicitly fear change even for the better, that they defend the status quo when it otherwise appears to make no sense.
"While all countries have watched the unregulated global nature of the internet erode traditional cultural values and the integrity of national languages..."
There is no such thing as integrity of language. Any linguist (especially the cunning sort) will tell you that language is constantly evolving and changing, and always has been. The "proper" way to speak/write a language merely refers to the dialect of the dominant class.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of German beer, I'm a fan of the resealable Grolsch bottles. Which I thought was a German beer but Wikipedia tells me it's Dutch. At any rate, the bottles are perfect for homebrewing, and I imagine it makes it that much easier to reuse.
All around, I think beer is a pretty environmentally friendly product to consume, especially if you buy local. I feel guitly about buying a lot of things, but thankfully, beer is not one of them!
I was just using Corona as an example because they have a semi-unique way of printing relatively permanent labels on their bottles. One disadvantage to using traditional labels is that for every recycle, you have to relabel the bottles. Corona just rewashes, refills and reseals.
Plenty of fine beers use that system. I like Sleeman's myself.
There is one microbrew pub in Vancouver that sells re-sealable big glass bottles of their stuff (i.e. >1L) and you can bring your bottles back and get them refilled at a nice discount.
It produces a liquid people consume? Why does that matter? Pepsi basically produces unfermented sugar water. Throw in some brewer's yeast and you would have a horribly tasting alcoholic beverage. (You can make a fine cider with ale or champagne yeast and fruit juice from concentrate. And by "fine" I mean it tastes reasonably well given the 30 cent per bottle cost.)
Again nothing wrong with their approach, just saying: glass, it seems, is a fine option as well, and it requires a heck of a lot less in the way of R&D.
Can we get some protection from warrantlesss wiretaps? Holding people without charge? Torture?
Unreasonable search and seizure? Naked body scans and invasive patdowns?
Glass works for beer...it's best when you use local breweries and bottling facilities, then you don't need to transport that far. Companies like Corona have laser printed labels on their glass, and they buy the return of their bottles. They wash and reuse. It's probably creates less polution than manufacturing from scratch each and every time (even if the final product is biodegradable).
I laud their efforts. I suspect glass is still a good choice as well.
This ruling is unlikely to survive a single appeal. Can you imagine the impact on journalism? Report the news, get slammed with a [successful] defamation suit?
I have to wonder what sort of judge feels that this ruling follows case law and current legislation.
crap like this makes "gay" marriage the LEAST of our moral problems with marriage.
As if there is a moral problem with gay marriages. The only moral problem surrounding gay marriages is that others grant themselves the authority to butt in and tell consenting adults what types of relationships they may engage in.
But point taken: hetero-marriages are far from perfect. The people who argue so fervently against homo-marriages don't give a crap about the f*cked up world of heteros.
What about CCTV? Privacy rights seem to have a lot more to do with who is doing the recording.
CCTV shots are shown online or on TV all the time. Pretty sure they don't check for permission.
Why would this ever be an issue? Why would you ever need to get permission to IDENTIFY a person in a picture?
As far as the supposed need to ask permission to take and publish the photos in the first place: the judge said there is nothing within the law to suggest permission is necessary. It will be hard to reconcile that with these "rights to be forgotten" or Google Street View etc. In those cases, the argument is that you can't simply take pictures of things/people in public places and publish them...
How about do away with campaign contributions from companies/unions etc?
Let's say that up and coming parties can collect donations, but any party that achieved more than a 20% popular vote in the previous election is disqualified from accepting any outside contributions. All parties over the 20% mark are granted a tax-paid stipend for campaigning, and they can make do with that as they see fit.
I think this approach would solve a lot more problems than it would produce. How could this approach be worse than the reality today?...namely, big corporate America buying legislation in their favour at the expense of the common folk.
#firstworldproblems
Landmark?
If for a 'landmark' they mean a 'lamp post' then yea it's a 'landmark' ruling.
The thing I'm kind of wondering:
If somebody puts something on your car (i.e. a pamphlet) it becomes your property, no? Who could successfully ask for the return of a pamphlet?
I know practically it wouldn't work, but I want to say selling it should be an option. "I thought you were giving me a gift! oops!"
Very eloquent.
I believe the term is "hanged" when referring to a person, and "hung" when referring to an object.
It's no worse than using evidence collected by torture...
Doesn't a monopoly require a significant barrier to entry? What's stopping everyone from migrating to Bing other than that they don't want to?
"New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution."
How does any legislation target one person?
"The penalty for being Julian Assange is 20-30 years in prison and a minimum $250,000 fine."
Obligatory:
http://xkcd.com/538/
Even from the free summary of the above article it doesn't look like he "tunneled" at all. He broke through a wall from an adjacent and empty shop. The press just chose the word "tunnel."
Much less impressive.
"Even if you have an unlocked door, it's still illegal to break into a person's house."
I don't know about the states, but in Canada the above statement is incorrect. It's only a break and enter if you bypass a lock or if you remove something from the house. Entering an unlocked door, in and of itself, is not a crime. This makes sense, for example, if you are seeing if something is wrong after a friend doesn't answer their door etc. If that's a problem, then lock the door.
Not relevant to this article maybe. Meh.
It's always boggled my mind that while other, supposedly 'easier' profession like being a pilot, driving a truck etc. have restrictions on excessive work hours and wakefulness, medicine, by and large, does not. In many medical schools, extreme sleep deprivation is expected (to prepare students for real life no doubt). As a profession, how can medicine claim to be a career hard enough to require a decade worth of training but easy enough that one need not be awake/alert to practice?
Certainly the fault lies partly with those who organize working schedules and budgets...but I also imagine there are many doctors who want to play superman (and expect that of their students/residents). The physicians, too, need to speak up for change; silence condones this unsafe environment.
"Same to you, buddy, same to you."
Are you suggesting that defending Wikileaks is defending the status quo? I don't know if you understand the concept of status quo.
Wikileaks isn't the one reporting, or even leaking to the public, the vast majority of what we have read. They have personally leaked very little information. Most of it came through other publications. Some publications are trying to distance themselves from Wikileaks to try to avoid the backlash from the US government, mainly by downplaying the significance of the leaks while highlighting the supposed danger of the leaks. At that, Wikileaks and the main news organizations they have worked with have worked hard to redact dangerous information. So as far as throwing the baby out with the bathwater...it doesn't seem like they are ignoring the costs like you say.
Re: Tinfoil hat syndrome
So the first story I cited isn't significant or illegal? The pimping of Afghan children? Are you really going to trivialize that in a sad attempt to insult me?
I cited a peer reviewed meta-analysis by NYU on a decade worth of research. Perhaps you can cite some research on the so-called tinfoil hat syndrome.
All in all, your response (or lack thereof) is very telling. Your 'arguments' have no basis in fact or evidence. Essentially, you are covering your ears, stamping your feet and screaming, "No!! Stop exposing the weaknesses of my arguments! No!" You can respond if you want, but I have no interest in arguing against such willful ignorance.
"So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity."
You only think that because apparently you are relying on most of the mainstream media reporting of the diplomatic cables, who have downplayed the significance of the leaks. Consider the following:
Diplomat covering up the pimping of Afghan boys (aged 13ish) for anal sex by a US taxpayer funded company DynCorp.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00221812176/so-wikileaks-is-evil-releasing-documents-dyncorp-gets-pass-pimping-young-boys-to-afghan-cops.shtml
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
As if I need to go on after that. Clinton ordered spying on other UN officials, including obtaining frequent flier number and biometric data. (And Wikileaks is responsible for spying?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
And then there is the very fact that much of the 'secrets' that were classified were done so illegally.
If you don't realize it by now, then you have made up your mind regardless of evidence. Do your own research if you are interested, but I doubt you are.
For the others who wonder how there are people like parent who apparently blindly defend wrongdoing (such as government abuses, racism etc), there is actually a growing body of research into this phenomenon. It's called system justification theory, and essentially it describes the conscious and unconscious tendencies to protect and bolster the status quo, even to one's own disadvantage (i.e. the black and/or gay Republican who can't see that his comrades implicitly or explicitly hate him). Basically, people like parent feel so comforted by the status quo, and they implicitly fear change even for the better, that they defend the status quo when it otherwise appears to make no sense.
Read for yourselves: [pdf]
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost,%20Banaji,%20&%20Nosek%20(2004)%20A%20Decade%20of%20System%20Justificati.pdf
"While all countries have watched the unregulated global nature of the internet erode traditional cultural values and the integrity of national languages..."
There is no such thing as integrity of language. Any linguist (especially the cunning sort) will tell you that language is constantly evolving and changing, and always has been. The "proper" way to speak/write a language merely refers to the dialect of the dominant class.