They're becoming much more popular in America, too. More recipes are being published with weights rather than volume measurements, too, although not nearly enough.
I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at.5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.
Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.
This is flat out not true, for two reasons. First, the constitution requires that there be probable cause (a very low evidentiary standard) that the search will uncover items or information useful as evidence of a crime. There is NO requirement that the person who is being searched (or whose belongings are being searched) be a suspect in that crime.
Second, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment only if the evidence was gathered in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. If a third party's fourth amendment right was violated, the defendant cannot object to the admission of that evidence. The third party has other remedies available to him. Note that this does not apply to evidence obtained via coercion of a third party - a different standard for asserting such objections applies.
Not only is it not exceptional, I don't think it's unique to PayPal. When I set up a merchant account to accept credit card payments, I was required to connect it to a bank account, and the merchant account provider could withdraw money from that account. It was required so that the service provider could take back disputed charges. We had a minimum balance we had to keep in there, based on average daily charges. That was a decade ago, so it could have changed, but PayPal's requirement strikes me as very similar.
First, no court has yet ruled whether the watches are covered by the Copyright Act simply because of the log on them. See the government's amicus brief urging the petition being denied at pp. 20-21 (25-26 in the PDF). Costco's misuse-of-copyright defense has yet to be evaluated - the court may ultimately rule that logos do not place an imported product under the umbrella of the copyright act.
Second, the Ninth Circuit decision specifically calls out several specific factors of this case, including that the firm in question clearly did not set up shop outside the U.S. to gain the protection of the bar on import present in Section 602 of the Copyright Act. The scary hypotheticals people are raising have not been ruled on.
I'd be interested to hear what people think the import ban actually protects against if the first sale doctrine applies to sales outside the U.S. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any protection the ban on imports adds iif it is not a carve-out from the first sale doctrine. Illegally copied works are already covered by other provisions of the act. Infringing in two ways (import and distribution) doesn't increase the damages a plaintiff could protect. On a first blush analysis, a contrary decision seems to render the Section 602 import ban meaningless - something courts are loathe to do when interpreting law. Again, though, I haven't done more than a superficial analysis on this point.
None of this is to say the policy outcome is good, or even that the court made the right decision. I just want to clarify that the decision is not nearly as bad as the summary makes it sound, even without taking into account the fact that this is non-binding precedent except in the Ninth Circuit.
He did us quotes around "desktop" just 3 sentences earlier:
Google also took its time getting even a Chrome beta out the door. Now that Chrome OS is about to be unveiled, we know that it is going to be Google’s “desktop” operating system, while Android is for smart phones and tablets.
how are employment opportunities and benefits in cia, nsa, or whichever agency you work for, these days ?
Wow. You seem to have to assign a position to someone who hasn't taken that position (i.e., opposing the leaks somehow means someone doesn't see a problem with U.S. policies), call someone a moron, tell someone to fuck off, or state with no proof that someone works for a federal agency. Is it all possible for you to argue a position without making shit up about people who disagree with you? I've seen no evidence of that in this topic.
Leaking 70,000 documents is not "exposing it." It's essentially vomiting information, some of which might be related to wrongdoing, the vast majority of which is not.
Why the hell is this modded "insightful"? Where the hell did the parent poster say he didn't see a problem with the war in Iraq? He might see a problem, he might not.
This is not informative, it is in fact wrong. The United States is one of the few countries that imposes a first-to-invent rule. Most other countries with patent system use first-to-file. What being the first to file in the U.S. gets you is what amounts to a rebutable presumption that you were first to invent. The later-to-file person who claims to have invented first has to file interference proceedings.
That there are counterexamples where someone who invented first lost the patent to the first filer does not change what the law is or the way it is typically applied.
The fact that 10 years later, someone else has now patented the ideas in Electric Fence and HeapCheck, and can now sue me and everyone else using it, is what got me mad (hence the "trolls" comment).
Well, then you can stop being mad. Both Electric Fence and HeapCheck were invented before the invention in the patent ( I'm assuming it would be relatively easy for you to prove that the code was written 10 years ago). This is an absolute defense to patent infringement. This is true even if IBM's patent is valid. In fact, their contention that it violates the patent (if they were to make one) would be pretty good proof that HeapCheck is prior art and that, therefore, the patent is invalid. IBM's lawyers know this, I'm sure.
One infringing photo is not enough. The bill (which I've already linked twice, so won't again) is very clear about that.
This kind of advocacy is NOT effective. It's one thing to disagree with a bill by explaining cogently and carefully the negative effects it will have. It's another to make up a cartoon villain twirling a handlebar mustache and disagree with THAT instead. The former is useful. The latter is the opposite of useful - it's detrimental to those who want to stop the bill.
after all, wouldn't it only take 1 shot from a copyrighted movie?
No. It only applies to a site already subject to civil forfeiture (which means a bunch of things have been proven about it already) or that is "primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—" either copyrighted works "in complete or substantially complete form" "without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law [which includes fair use]" or counterfeit goods, and the activity "when taken together" is "central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name."
So no, 1 shot from a copyrighted movie wouldn't do it.
However, many laypeople interpret "due process" as to allow the defendant the opportunity to provide a defense before the punishment is meted out.
Then many laypeople should like this aspect of the bill requiring the AG to:
‘‘(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and
‘‘(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
There are standards well beyond mere belief for granting a preliminary injunction. And for an injunction to be granted, all the facts necessary to support it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Maybe the right question is, even if the RIAA thought "we can win a higher award again if we get a new trial", and even if Thompson thought "maybe this time I'll win or at least get a lower award"... why didn't the court just say "screw you both, this was the ruling, we're moving on down the docket"?
Because the court had no power to do so. The mechanism by which the court reduced damage is called "remittitur." The plaintiff who has his award reduced in this manner has a choice: accept the reduced award or have a new trial.
My backlash stems from two facts:
1.) 3D as currently executed gives me a major headache, even when it's done well.
2.) The theaters near me show only the 3d version - usually for the entire first run. Sometimes they will move to the 2D version if the film is still making money when a new 3D blockbuster comes out. But they're converting more individual theaters to 3D, so even that respite is fading. Several features I wanted to see ran for two months in 3D only.
The U.S. and Canada have a way to register judgments issued in one country to be collected in the other. The person seeking to collect has to prove the judgment form the originating country and prove that it is not contrary to the public policy of the country in which collection is sought. The defendant can also use the collection attempt to launch a "collateral attack" and attempt to disprove the judgment, but doing this usually requires showing that the original court lacked jurisdiction or egregiously violated due process. (I've used the American terms - Canadian law has similar concepts but might use slightly different names.)
especially since both courts seem to be creations of their respective state governments.
"U.S. District Court in San Jose" is very probably a U.S. federal court, and the judges in Quebec Superior Court are appointed by the Canadian federal government.
I know the summary says, "The thing the article doesn't tell you in detail is that the agreement precludes the use of open source software." But what's the source for the assertion that this deal precludes the use of open source software such as Firefox, Chrome, or Inkscape, or that those who use those programs will face punishment from managers?
For that matter, what's the source for the summary's assertion that the deal precludes open source software? Clearly, the deal precludes use of open source mail solutions, but that's because it makes no sense to have more than one kind of mail server in the organization. By that reasoning, the deal also precludes use of Lotus Notes. Did the summary mean anything more than that?
read . the. actual. scientific. paper . on . which . this . is . based.
There's your answer. I did - on ScienceDirect. If you're an alumni of anywhere you can get similar access.
wow . extra . punctuation . makes . you . look . smarter. it . might. even . distract . people . from . the . fact . that . you . dodged . two . of . the . questions.
I can't get to the paper in anything like a reasonable amount of time, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the process described therein doesn't require a pound of flesh (even accounting for your use of hyperbole).
And I'd bet even more that the scientific paper doesn't identify the "the anti-science religious freaks" objecting to this technique.
It's a very long answer. [From a later post by the same person]
Yes, it is a very long answer. Which means your one word on the subject ("better") is oversimplistic. Which was my point.
Citation needed. You really think it will take a pound? Even allowing for hyperbole, it seems unlikely anything more than what's needed to remove a mole would be necessary.
These are not as good as stem cells from embryos.
Citation needed - as well as a definition of "better." There's no simple binary comparision to be made here. Many factors contribute, such as efficacy, cost, and complication rate. I'm sure there are some things embryonic stem cells will be "better" for, but there are likely many things derived stem cells will be better for. They don't have nearly as many issues with tissue rejection, for starters.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
This new technique isn't a workaround. It's an important step to fulfilling the ultimate potential of stem cell therapy. Something like this skin-cell technique will be necessary for the creation of truly effective stem cell treatments. Stem cells formed from the patient's own tissue will prevent a host of rejection-related problems. Stem cells from an embryo have a different genotype and thus can cause more rejection issues.
What's wrong in all cases is enforcing one's own convictions and morals on others. People have a right to live by their own standards, not what well-meaning politicians or trailer trash voters want for them. Let everybody have their own moral standards and prejudices, but don't ever let them enforce them on others.
If this finger-wagging was meant to apply to Google's filter, then your definition of "enforce" is not one with which I am currently familiar.
One of my favorite things about Flash is that it's easy to block and control. There's times when I want the functionality Flash is providing - but most times, I'd rather pretend that I don't have it installed. I was rather rudely reminded of this the other day when I installed Flash on my Android phone. I was all happy until I started browsing around. Until I get NoScript on my Android, Flash has been removed.
In the Android browser settings, you can set it so that plug-ins will only show a placeholder until the plug-in is activated for a particular page. It basically gives you Flashblock functionaility, except activating one flash doc on a page will activate them all.
Slashdot Mirror
They're becoming much more popular in America, too. More recipes are being published with weights rather than volume measurements, too, although not nearly enough.
I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.
Actually, as a military police officer, we have a saying shared by other police agencies, "Fruit of the poisonous tree". if the means in which the evidence is obtained is illegal, then the evidence cannot be used. The 4th Amendment protects every citizen, not just suspects. In fact, only suspects can be searched. Either by a warrant or a good faith search.
This is flat out not true, for two reasons. First, the constitution requires that there be probable cause (a very low evidentiary standard) that the search will uncover items or information useful as evidence of a crime. There is NO requirement that the person who is being searched (or whose belongings are being searched) be a suspect in that crime.
Second, a defendant has standing to object to the admission of evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment only if the evidence was gathered in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. If a third party's fourth amendment right was violated, the defendant cannot object to the admission of that evidence. The third party has other remedies available to him. Note that this does not apply to evidence obtained via coercion of a third party - a different standard for asserting such objections applies.
Not only is it not exceptional, I don't think it's unique to PayPal. When I set up a merchant account to accept credit card payments, I was required to connect it to a bank account, and the merchant account provider could withdraw money from that account. It was required so that the service provider could take back disputed charges. We had a minimum balance we had to keep in there, based on average daily charges. That was a decade ago, so it could have changed, but PayPal's requirement strikes me as very similar.
First, no court has yet ruled whether the watches are covered by the Copyright Act simply because of the log on them. See the government's amicus brief urging the petition being denied at pp. 20-21 (25-26 in the PDF). Costco's misuse-of-copyright defense has yet to be evaluated - the court may ultimately rule that logos do not place an imported product under the umbrella of the copyright act.
Second, the Ninth Circuit decision specifically calls out several specific factors of this case, including that the firm in question clearly did not set up shop outside the U.S. to gain the protection of the bar on import present in Section 602 of the Copyright Act. The scary hypotheticals people are raising have not been ruled on.
I'd be interested to hear what people think the import ban actually protects against if the first sale doctrine applies to sales outside the U.S. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any protection the ban on imports adds iif it is not a carve-out from the first sale doctrine. Illegally copied works are already covered by other provisions of the act. Infringing in two ways (import and distribution) doesn't increase the damages a plaintiff could protect. On a first blush analysis, a contrary decision seems to render the Section 602 import ban meaningless - something courts are loathe to do when interpreting law. Again, though, I haven't done more than a superficial analysis on this point.
None of this is to say the policy outcome is good, or even that the court made the right decision. I just want to clarify that the decision is not nearly as bad as the summary makes it sound, even without taking into account the fact that this is non-binding precedent except in the Ninth Circuit.
He did us quotes around "desktop" just 3 sentences earlier:
Google also took its time getting even a Chrome beta out the door. Now that Chrome OS is about to be unveiled, we know that it is going to be Google’s “desktop” operating system, while Android is for smart phones and tablets.
how are employment opportunities and benefits in cia, nsa, or whichever agency you work for, these days ?
Wow. You seem to have to assign a position to someone who hasn't taken that position (i.e., opposing the leaks somehow means someone doesn't see a problem with U.S. policies), call someone a moron, tell someone to fuck off, or state with no proof that someone works for a federal agency. Is it all possible for you to argue a position without making shit up about people who disagree with you? I've seen no evidence of that in this topic.
Leaking 70,000 documents is not "exposing it." It's essentially vomiting information, some of which might be related to wrongdoing, the vast majority of which is not.
Why the hell is this modded "insightful"? Where the hell did the parent poster say he didn't see a problem with the war in Iraq? He might see a problem, he might not.
This is available the next day. It's not as if they won't refine their estimates once better information becomes available.
This is not informative, it is in fact wrong. The United States is one of the few countries that imposes a first-to-invent rule. Most other countries with patent system use first-to-file. What being the first to file in the U.S. gets you is what amounts to a rebutable presumption that you were first to invent. The later-to-file person who claims to have invented first has to file interference proceedings.
That there are counterexamples where someone who invented first lost the patent to the first filer does not change what the law is or the way it is typically applied.
The fact that 10 years later, someone else has now patented the ideas in Electric Fence and HeapCheck, and can now sue me and everyone else using it, is what got me mad (hence the "trolls" comment).
Well, then you can stop being mad. Both Electric Fence and HeapCheck were invented before the invention in the patent ( I'm assuming it would be relatively easy for you to prove that the code was written 10 years ago). This is an absolute defense to patent infringement. This is true even if IBM's patent is valid. In fact, their contention that it violates the patent (if they were to make one) would be pretty good proof that HeapCheck is prior art and that, therefore, the patent is invalid. IBM's lawyers know this, I'm sure.
Don't worry. "Believed to" is not in the bill. It's just in the inaccurate summary of the bill.
One infringing photo is not enough. The bill (which I've already linked twice, so won't again) is very clear about that.
This kind of advocacy is NOT effective. It's one thing to disagree with a bill by explaining cogently and carefully the negative effects it will have. It's another to make up a cartoon villain twirling a handlebar mustache and disagree with THAT instead. The former is useful. The latter is the opposite of useful - it's detrimental to those who want to stop the bill.
after all, wouldn't it only take 1 shot from a copyrighted movie?
No. It only applies to a site already subject to civil forfeiture (which means a bunch of things have been proven about it already) or that is "primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—" either copyrighted works "in complete or substantially complete form" "without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law [which includes fair use]" or counterfeit goods, and the activity "when taken together" is "central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name."
So no, 1 shot from a copyrighted movie wouldn't do it.
However, many laypeople interpret "due process" as to allow the defendant the opportunity to provide a defense before the punishment is meted out.
Then many laypeople should like this aspect of the bill requiring the AG to:
‘‘(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and ‘‘(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
Moreover, the equitable relief outlined in the bill (temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction) is subject to a number of rules of civil procedure dedicated to giving the defendant an opportunity to respond.
There are standards well beyond mere belief for granting a preliminary injunction. And for an injunction to be granted, all the facts necessary to support it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Maybe the right question is, even if the RIAA thought "we can win a higher award again if we get a new trial", and even if Thompson thought "maybe this time I'll win or at least get a lower award"... why didn't the court just say "screw you both, this was the ruling, we're moving on down the docket"?
Because the court had no power to do so. The mechanism by which the court reduced damage is called "remittitur." The plaintiff who has his award reduced in this manner has a choice: accept the reduced award or have a new trial.
My backlash stems from two facts: 1.) 3D as currently executed gives me a major headache, even when it's done well. 2.) The theaters near me show only the 3d version - usually for the entire first run. Sometimes they will move to the 2D version if the film is still making money when a new 3D blockbuster comes out. But they're converting more individual theaters to 3D, so even that respite is fading. Several features I wanted to see ran for two months in 3D only.
How does that work between countries,
The U.S. and Canada have a way to register judgments issued in one country to be collected in the other. The person seeking to collect has to prove the judgment form the originating country and prove that it is not contrary to the public policy of the country in which collection is sought. The defendant can also use the collection attempt to launch a "collateral attack" and attempt to disprove the judgment, but doing this usually requires showing that the original court lacked jurisdiction or egregiously violated due process. (I've used the American terms - Canadian law has similar concepts but might use slightly different names.)
especially since both courts seem to be creations of their respective state governments.
"U.S. District Court in San Jose" is very probably a U.S. federal court, and the judges in Quebec Superior Court are appointed by the Canadian federal government.
I know the summary says, "The thing the article doesn't tell you in detail is that the agreement precludes the use of open source software." But what's the source for the assertion that this deal precludes the use of open source software such as Firefox, Chrome, or Inkscape, or that those who use those programs will face punishment from managers?
For that matter, what's the source for the summary's assertion that the deal precludes open source software? Clearly, the deal precludes use of open source mail solutions, but that's because it makes no sense to have more than one kind of mail server in the organization. By that reasoning, the deal also precludes use of Lotus Notes. Did the summary mean anything more than that?
Britain isn't that much larger than Rhode Island but has over a quarter of the population of the entire United States.
Nope.
Rhode Island area = 1,214 square miles; Great Britain area = 84,600 square miles - more than 60 times greater.
Great Britain population = ~60 million (mid 2009); United States population = ~310 million (mid 2010) - more than 5 times greater.
read . the. actual. scientific. paper . on . which . this . is . based.
There's your answer. I did - on ScienceDirect. If you're an alumni of anywhere you can get similar access.
wow . extra . punctuation . makes . you . look . smarter. it . might. even . distract . people . from . the . fact . that . you . dodged . two . of . the . questions.
I can't get to the paper in anything like a reasonable amount of time, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the process described therein doesn't require a pound of flesh (even accounting for your use of hyperbole).
And I'd bet even more that the scientific paper doesn't identify the "the anti-science religious freaks" objecting to this technique.
It's a very long answer. [From a later post by the same person]
Yes, it is a very long answer. Which means your one word on the subject ("better") is oversimplistic. Which was my point.
Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out?
Citation needed. You really think it will take a pound? Even allowing for hyperbole, it seems unlikely anything more than what's needed to remove a mole would be necessary.
These are not as good as stem cells from embryos.
Citation needed - as well as a definition of "better." There's no simple binary comparision to be made here. Many factors contribute, such as efficacy, cost, and complication rate. I'm sure there are some things embryonic stem cells will be "better" for, but there are likely many things derived stem cells will be better for. They don't have nearly as many issues with tissue rejection, for starters.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Really? Which ones object to this?
This new technique isn't a workaround. It's an important step to fulfilling the ultimate potential of stem cell therapy. Something like this skin-cell technique will be necessary for the creation of truly effective stem cell treatments. Stem cells formed from the patient's own tissue will prevent a host of rejection-related problems. Stem cells from an embryo have a different genotype and thus can cause more rejection issues.
What's wrong in all cases is enforcing one's own convictions and morals on others. People have a right to live by their own standards, not what well-meaning politicians or trailer trash voters want for them. Let everybody have their own moral standards and prejudices, but don't ever let them enforce them on others.
If this finger-wagging was meant to apply to Google's filter, then your definition of "enforce" is not one with which I am currently familiar.
One of my favorite things about Flash is that it's easy to block and control. There's times when I want the functionality Flash is providing - but most times, I'd rather pretend that I don't have it installed. I was rather rudely reminded of this the other day when I installed Flash on my Android phone. I was all happy until I started browsing around. Until I get NoScript on my Android, Flash has been removed.
In the Android browser settings, you can set it so that plug-ins will only show a placeholder until the plug-in is activated for a particular page. It basically gives you Flashblock functionaility, except activating one flash doc on a page will activate them all.