Yes, but if someone were to look up, say, "GoF design," he (<-gender neutral 1st person pronoun) would be able to rank "Site Has Moved!!" and Amazon lower.
Additionally, the majority of the text on Slashdot is still on topic. I'd imagine that a Turing Test would still be utilized, making it less convenient for bots. Also, a ranking system will only return an unsigned number between 0 and n -- something concrete and definitely useful. All of that considered, it would certainly be possible to obtain valid and useful results from even a rudimentary system.
Wow... with fines like that, most of us NJ drivers would simply skip out. People routinely pay $6 to cross a river to go to work, a $2 fine is a welcome change.
In high school they made us read a book called "Be True to Your School". It was a journal that some famous reporter wrote (or something like that. I didn't care then, and I care less now). It is the single most boring book I've ever experienced. And I enjoy reading technical manuals and in-depth analysis of ancient mythology and its implications to modern language...
Nothing happens in it. It is ordinary and so, uninteresting. There is no suspense, no drama, just some high-school bore who happens to do something later which is notable enough to get the book sold.
At least when I read about the ancient world I can expect to find a war break out...
Unless someone has a VERY good ghost writer or something extraordinary happened to that individual, a biography is necessarily going to be terrible. Why? Because the average life is rather boring (which is why "Reality Television" is generally very highly edited).
Seriously... Murnau could never have made Nosferatu (which would have been a darn shame) by current copyright standards. Handel would have failed, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Verdi... most of the major composers in history would have all been sued. Shakespeare would have been squashed. The world benefits from the freedom of information. It seems ironic... the nation which hung people in effigy for a stamp tax now allows this...
If it is the same character, in the same type of scenario, it is still under copyright. I just wish that the law were more lenient or that copyright law wouldn't extend through the better part of a century.
I'm really surprised that anyone would WANT XP on this. First, MS is poo-pooing its own product. Second, it is a lot harder to get XP customized and paired down enough. Third, (at least for me), one of the big sells of MS OS's is compatibility. With this, however, I'd imagine that most of the work will be with OOo, Mozilla, or equivalent, something which is already cross platform compatible.
I actually managed to get myself a copy of the XO laptop (one of the first "minimized" laptops) and I have to say this one actually looks substantially better (though I have yet to get a copy of the Eee for comparison). The keyboard seems adequate and comparable to the Eee: (and certainly better than the XO's) perhaps it is not glorious, but whatever.
I will say, though, the swivel top of the XO was a nice feature which looks like both commercial models are missing, and I think that all three could use a touchscreen (I know that that is quite a bit more expensive, but if you saw some of the XO's features, you might understand). And it would be nice if they all had longer battery lives, but so it goes...
I once read that a REAL DOCTOR told people not to drink water out of plastic water bottles. I also heard that you need to be careful about a virus named GOOD TIMES. I also forwarded an email which tested Bill Gate's email tracking system. I was going to get a dollar...
In all fairness, these videos are actually interesting. But, just because someone claims he's a lawyer...
Except these are made up words with little or no agreed-upon meaning. That's entirely different from language.
But unless random characters are chosen for an email address, the address will automatically have some form and meaning associated with it -- even if it is simple as "I like the letter y a lot". More often, however, the address is something which has alternate meaning or can be read to be understood in a language.
I would not expect different people to have the same reaction to regular names. Someone whose sister is named Sarah will jump to completely different conclusions about someone else with that name than will a person who has three exes with that name. So why would I expect it of email names?
How many people do you know who have chosen their given name?
it was shown that personality impressions based solely on e-mail addresses were consensually shared by observers.
... So someone paid one hundred observers and who knows how many research administrators to find out that if a group of people look at the same word(s), they will have a similar reaction? Strange, I thought that was the primary purpose of language. Silly me...
Moreover, these impressions contained some degree of validity.
And this says absolutely nothing. At all.
"Some degree of validity" includes such conditions as "My father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate felt that way".
Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Probably a good idea. A lot of us are stubborn as oxes.
HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong.
I will admit. This was a gloss and therefore an over-simplification.
There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.
Yes, but do they refer to one person's privacy from another?
Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.
Neither was Habeus Corpus, but that is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not written by laymen, but by people with an education, so the word "privacy" may very well have been in their vocabulary. (Granted, because of the evolution of concepts, one has absolutely no idea if the concept even resembled the current version).
However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?
Similar? Yes. Same? No. There is a remarkable inconsistency in how the above is applied, and when there are violations of the principle, it is often ignored.
And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment[sic] also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.
Would that only the 9th Amendment were used consistently (or at all)...
Perhaps I am speaking in ignorance, but my experience is that most of the laws have to do with government and (occasionally) economic institutions. There are few (to no) laws governing whether I may use a telescope to peer into my neighbor's living room.
To wit: Apparently, even the right to privacy from the government is suspect (and our Congress is alright with that). I seem to recall agents of the Federal government tapping phone lines of late...
Right to privacy, as a conjectured right, dates back to the 1890s. The Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965) established the idea that a "right to privacy" did exist. But (and this is true for Roe vs. Wade as well) the privacy spoken of there (however you feel about the rulings) has to do with the right of a citizen to have privacy from the government.
The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose."
As to civil suit, well, they have to prove damages. As far as I can tell, that could be solely dependent on what happened with the images. Those who had their computers trespassed upon would be lucky to get even a small amount of compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but if someone were to look up, say, "GoF design," he (<-gender neutral 1st person pronoun) would be able to rank "Site Has Moved!!" and Amazon lower.
Additionally, the majority of the text on Slashdot is still on topic. I'd imagine that a Turing Test would still be utilized, making it less convenient for bots. Also, a ranking system will only return an unsigned number between 0 and n -- something concrete and definitely useful. All of that considered, it would certainly be possible to obtain valid and useful results from even a rudimentary system.
Wow... with fines like that, most of us NJ drivers would simply skip out. People routinely pay $6 to cross a river to go to work, a $2 fine is a welcome change.
And the ThrustSSC went over twice that speed: 1228 km/h (763mph). All things being equal, petroleum makes a faster vehicle.
They've been having turtle races for years. Is this the nationals or something?
In high school they made us read a book called "Be True to Your School". It was a journal that some famous reporter wrote (or something like that. I didn't care then, and I care less now). It is the single most boring book I've ever experienced. And I enjoy reading technical manuals and in-depth analysis of ancient mythology and its implications to modern language... Nothing happens in it. It is ordinary and so, uninteresting. There is no suspense, no drama, just some high-school bore who happens to do something later which is notable enough to get the book sold. At least when I read about the ancient world I can expect to find a war break out...
uuuhhhhgggg.....
Unless someone has a VERY good ghost writer or something extraordinary happened to that individual, a biography is necessarily going to be terrible. Why? Because the average life is rather boring (which is why "Reality Television" is generally very highly edited).
Really? I had no idea. I thought it was similar to the case with the movie "From the Earth to the Moon".
Seriously... Murnau could never have made Nosferatu (which would have been a darn shame) by current copyright standards. Handel would have failed, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Verdi... most of the major composers in history would have all been sued. Shakespeare would have been squashed. The world benefits from the freedom of information. It seems ironic... the nation which hung people in effigy for a stamp tax now allows this...
If it is the same character, in the same type of scenario, it is still under copyright. I just wish that the law were more lenient or that copyright law wouldn't extend through the better part of a century.
Does a mechanic cause $5000 worth of damage when he points out that your axle is broken and needs replacement?
Only if he hurts your axle's feelings.
Of course, there was also some involvement with a different type of R&D, but that was inconsistent.
get myself a copy of the XO laptop
Advanced copy-machine technology.
How do you get your copies to work? Mine always come out flat, flimsy, and don't work.
... Wow...
I'm really surprised that anyone would WANT XP on this. First, MS is poo-pooing its own product. Second, it is a lot harder to get XP customized and paired down enough. Third, (at least for me), one of the big sells of MS OS's is compatibility. With this, however, I'd imagine that most of the work will be with OOo, Mozilla, or equivalent, something which is already cross platform compatible.
I actually managed to get myself a copy of the XO laptop (one of the first "minimized" laptops) and I have to say this one actually looks substantially better (though I have yet to get a copy of the Eee for comparison). The keyboard seems adequate and comparable to the Eee: (and certainly better than the XO's) perhaps it is not glorious, but whatever. I will say, though, the swivel top of the XO was a nice feature which looks like both commercial models are missing, and I think that all three could use a touchscreen (I know that that is quite a bit more expensive, but if you saw some of the XO's features, you might understand). And it would be nice if they all had longer battery lives, but so it goes...
I once read that a REAL DOCTOR told people not to drink water out of plastic water bottles. I also heard that you need to be careful about a virus named GOOD TIMES. I also forwarded an email which tested Bill Gate's email tracking system. I was going to get a dollar... In all fairness, these videos are actually interesting. But, just because someone claims he's a lawyer...
Oh come on, XKCD has a better one.
Except these are made up words with little or no agreed-upon meaning. That's entirely different from language.
But unless random characters are chosen for an email address, the address will automatically have some form and meaning associated with it -- even if it is simple as "I like the letter y a lot". More often, however, the address is something which has alternate meaning or can be read to be understood in a language.
I would not expect different people to have the same reaction to regular names. Someone whose sister is named Sarah will jump to completely different conclusions about someone else with that name than will a person who has three exes with that name. So why would I expect it of email names?
How many people do you know who have chosen their given name?
it was shown that personality impressions based solely on e-mail addresses were consensually shared by observers.
... So someone paid one hundred observers and who knows how many research administrators to find out that if a group of people look at the same word(s), they will have a similar reaction? Strange, I thought that was the primary purpose of language. Silly me...
Moreover, these impressions contained some degree of validity.
And this says absolutely nothing. At all. "Some degree of validity" includes such conditions as "My father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate felt that way".
As it should be.
In that case, wouldn't it be fixing the problem before it happened?
Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Probably a good idea. A lot of us are stubborn as oxes.
HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong.
I will admit. This was a gloss and therefore an over-simplification.
There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.
Yes, but do they refer to one person's privacy from another?
Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.
Neither was Habeus Corpus, but that is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not written by laymen, but by people with an education, so the word "privacy" may very well have been in their vocabulary. (Granted, because of the evolution of concepts, one has absolutely no idea if the concept even resembled the current version).
However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?
Similar? Yes. Same? No. There is a remarkable inconsistency in how the above is applied, and when there are violations of the principle, it is often ignored.
And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment[sic] also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.
Would that only the 9th Amendment were used consistently (or at all)...
Perhaps I am speaking in ignorance, but my experience is that most of the laws have to do with government and (occasionally) economic institutions. There are few (to no) laws governing whether I may use a telescope to peer into my neighbor's living room. To wit: Apparently, even the right to privacy from the government is suspect (and our Congress is alright with that). I seem to recall agents of the Federal government tapping phone lines of late...
But the three women mentioned live in Florida.
Right to privacy, as a conjectured right, dates back to the 1890s. The Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965) established the idea that a "right to privacy" did exist. But (and this is true for Roe vs. Wade as well) the privacy spoken of there (however you feel about the rulings) has to do with the right of a citizen to have privacy from the government. The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." As to civil suit, well, they have to prove damages. As far as I can tell, that could be solely dependent on what happened with the images. Those who had their computers trespassed upon would be lucky to get even a small amount of compensation.