It would come at the hands of the state Bar for the attorney filing the cases. Mileage there may vary, as generally it's going to come down to whether their behaviour was ethical or not--i.e., did they know for fact (in this instance) that the suit had no merit/was improperly brought/joined improperly, and continue anyway, or did they misuse subpoenas, and so on, and carry on with the action anyway? Just being procedurally wrong generally isn't going to do much.
As far as taking them, or the company they attorney represents to court, better luck with the latter than the former. I'm guessing that suing an attorney for doing the job, to the best of their knowledge and ability, that they were hired to do (which s/he would have an obligation to do, generally put) doesn't seem like it'd fly very far. And being that for now, the cases have been dismissed without verdict, I would think recourse against the company would be hard to come by.
Standard disclaimer: IANAL. Particularly on my first points above, I may be off; your mileage may vary. If I am off, please feel free to correct me.
I have been living in various Asian countries for the last 5 years, and without practicing, picked up quite a lot of Chinese characters. In fact, compared to my wife, who is actively studying them, I can probably recognize more of them. I simply have a good mind for pictures. It is not as good as some people I met, but it is an (probably) inherent ability to remember detailed images.
This particular instance demonstrates that you've got a capacity for picking up the characters of the language, but does bear some difference; there's a linguistic aspect to it (as opposed to, say, memorizing a deck of cards); there's a bit more at work than just simple rote memorization or symbols, as those symbols have a meaning that is important. If you were presented these symbols outside of the linguistic context (i.e., if you didn't know the language existed), it might well be more difficult--for both you, and your wife--to recall the structure of those symbols.
The 8th can be added if the guy is convicted, for sure.
About the label that goes along with this, though, that is a good point; even if the charges or dropped, he'll always be the accused pedophile. I'll lay my bottom dollar that, if the prosecutor drops the charges, any statement from their office will probably be along the lines of 'there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial'...after all, the top dog in the prosecutor's office is usually elected (and selects who works under him/her), and saying 'I/We screwed up here' doesn't do much to gather votes come November. And as far as recourse goes? Good luck. States can claim a form of Sovereign immunity, and the people who screwed up here would likely be shielded by Prosecutorial immunity.
And while we're at it, every parent whose child has walked in on them while having sex. I dare say that exposing them to the act is MUCH more damaging to a child than what the video appeared to be, post-edit. Then, let's up the ante; any child who has witnessed one of their parents being abused by the other; after all, being exposed to something is just as bad as being an actual victim of the act.
Back to reality now. This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's assume, for a moment, that he did actually perform this song in front of the children. First off, where were the supervising adults (parents, teachers, SOMEONE of authority) to put a stop to this? I wouldn't just send my children to a musical performance unless they had me, my wife, or other competent adult present; and, realistically, at LEAST one of them would likely have stepped up and put a stop to it. If none of them did, they're accessories, convene the Grand Jury. Second, and I'm not familiar with Michigan law (so, someone with some expertise there might be poised to correct me), what sort of sexual act does singing comprise, anyway? None, that I'm aware of; and you have to consider that, unless we're looking at children who have otherwise already been exposed to descriptions of the act and know what's being talked/sung about, these kids would have no idea what conduct is being described. And, with not having the video in question at hand, I'll assume the absence of such mention of such in the summary at least indicates he didn't have video of it edited in the background as well, to indicate he was showing them what he was singing about. In essence, no crime, no complaining victim, no charge. Last point, assuming the second point were somehow understood by the prosecutor and/or police (obviously, this is not the case), they have essentially arrested a guy, who they think is interested in molesting children, but with no evidence that it has actually ever occurred.
So, let's add it up...we've got problems under the, what, First, Fourth, and possibly Fifth amendments here, right?
The charge would actually be Reckless Homicide (see 720 ILCS 5/93), which actually is worse off than the Vehicular Homicide bill proposed back in '07 (died in the state Senate--Synopsis here, full text is gone now however)--Class 3 (or 2) Felony, versus a Class A Misdemeanor.
That aside, to get the DA's office to pursue the charges as a result of the civil action would be a bit tough. Keep in mind, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, while a criminal action requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Timing is key in this case, and it would have to be proven that the driver was on Facebook (or otherwise using her phone) at the time or immediately prior to the incident; if there's enough doubt as to the accuracy of the timestamps and how they match up against each other, the DA might decline to prosecute, or try and plead it out and pray.
The fact that IBM did not do this indicates that they have something to hide, and makes the whole thing the worst kind of publicity stunt.
What would they have to hide here, being that they didn't make it 'read' the answer? Do you think that because Watson was digitally being fed the data, he'd sneak in a Google search and sometimes bollocks up the answer to keep up appearances? If so, I'd refer you to 47 U.S.C. 509, specifically the part right at the top:
(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome
It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public—
(1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
.
Undoubtedly, Watson would be considered a contestant, and if the IBM folks--i.e., a person or persons--had done something as I described, they would have been doing exactly as in the quoted segment.
There are potential uses for this sort of behaviour; for one, automated technical support for a variety of services, consumer-facing in particular; while additional work would be necessary to make it usable for supporting the general population (which invariably describe things differently, use different colloquial turns of phrase, and have varying skill with spelling and syntax), it certainly gives proof of concept for, at the very least, textual input yielding a viable response.
It sounds like they would be able to conceive, and be able to carry to term, but any girls born would have a significant chance of being born sterile; I think they indicated this of boys born as well (or the adult males becoming sterile, not sure, but either circumstance is not a good situation). Myself, I think the article intends this as somewhat of a best-case (or, a not-worst-case) scenario; there are certainly worse outcomes that could come of such a pregnancy.
Where in any scientific literature is that "fact" ever suggested or derived from? How do you know that the offspring would be sterile?
I'm not saying that such a result is completely impossible, but the available literature says nothing to that effect with the exception of pure speculation about what might happen. That is speculation and not experimental proof. Until somebody or something (hopefully a rat or a mouse to start with) gets pregnant after conceiving in space and their babies are born, then have a 3rd generation, we won't know. If those babies can't have babies of their own, that would certainly be something worth speculating about at that point.
Unfortunately, no such experiment has ever been performed and you can't possibly come to any sort of conclusion of any kind at all. Wild ass speculation about sex belongs in fiction, not as a scientific discussion.
My guess: other than trying to find some way to mitigate against radiation hazards (which are legitimate both here on the Earth as well as in space), there isn't going to be a single difference and kids born in space will be able to come to the Earth and live a normal life if they choose. There may be some issues of decalcification in space (aka some "brittle bones") or some other issues, but the truth is we simply just don't know. The ability to reproduce in space is something that is just a huge question mark because nothing has ever been done to realistically study the issue at all. We simply don't know what will happen if you try to raise a kid in space.
Heck, we don't even know what the physiological effects of spaceflight are on a teenager for that matter as nobody under 20 has ever gone into space. We know a little about old folks as some senior citizens have certainly been in space, but not young kids. There was a study done of a pregnant rat who flew into space on the Shuttle and delivered in space, and the kids came back and were completely healthy. But that wasn't a long-term study and the conception took place on the Earth before the spaceflight, not to mention that two weeks in a Shuttle wasn't long enough to really note other long-term health issues that might come into play.
At no point did I, or the article, indicate any certainty in this; and while no distinct experimentation has been done in this exact situation, known factors such as a) the ability of existing spacecraft to shield against radiation, and b) what radiation is known to exist in space, and likely others, can be figured in to attempt to approximate these conditions whilst on Earth. To wit, from the article:
The DNA which guides the development of all the cells in the body is easily damaged by the kind of radiation that would assail astronauts as they journeyed through space. Studies on non-human primates have shown that exposure to ionising radiation kills egg cells in a female foetus during the second half of pregnancy. "One would have to be very protective of those cells during gestation, during pregnancy, to make sure that the female didn't become sterile so they could continue the colony," Dr Straume said.
To paraphrase, scientists have exposed a similar species to similar radiation types, in the situation in question--in essence using the known quantites--to determine a possible outcome, and likely test a previous theory. This is part of the method; what we have now is a (yet untested) hypothesis, developed based on what we can suppose will happen to the best of our knowledge (based on prior experiementation, which would have itself been built on prior, unproven, hypotheses), and is very much relevant to a scientific discussion.
It sounds like they would be able to conceive, and be able to carry to term, but any girls born would have a significant chance of being born sterile; I think they indicated this of boys born as well (or the adult males becoming sterile, not sure, but either circumstance is not a good situation). Myself, I think the article intends this as somewhat of a best-case (or, a not-worst-case) scenario; there are certainly worse outcomes that could come of such a pregnancy.
In any case, this is something that various space agencies might do well to consider...while I'm sure it's possible to have sex in space, and (for the men) to climax, and thus be able to inseminate a woman, it seems it would be more difficult to a) get to that point, and b) keep the 'guys' in a place where they can do their work. The other area of concern that warrants examination is the interpersonal relationships of any pairs that would exist in space, and any potential fallout if things go wrong. I doubt it would be a good way to go for a space agency to pre-determine mating pairs prior to transit, and even if they did, there would be the potential for those orders to be disregarded in the vicinity of a dark airlock somewhere along the way...and where these things happen, jealousy is sure to rear its ugly head, and threaten the onboard dynamics.
Ever been poked accidentally by a barber? Now, what happens if they draw blood (even a drop is enough) and you're HIV positive? It's a reasonable question to ask.
Unless your scalp happens to be the spurting kind, it ends up on the scissors, which are exposed to air--HIV doesn't like that. Even so, a 30-minute soak in the cylinder of Barbicide will take care of it, as well as Hep-B and Hep-C.
Really, though, if you're a barber/beautician, and not being asked to shave someone completely bald, this should be a non-issue; I would say a fairly high number of adults (the folks who would be most prone to a serious bloodborne infection such as HIV or Hepatitis) are able to maintain control of their heads, and the scissors and clippers should never get to a point where they're close to drawing a client's blood. For those that aren't, either a) having short, controlled, neat hair isn't a primary concern or b) they're found a barber/beautician who can work with their conditon.
I twitch my head toward my left shoulder, as if mentally deficient, and go 'FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! (ad nauseum)' Who needs the force when you can simulate retardedness?
Also, another point of interest is that the Verizon Iphone 4 has a dual mode GSM / CDMA radio, (which Apple never told us about), so it may well be it can become a world phone with just a IOS upgrade.
Except for the lack of a SIM tray. The radio can support GSM all it wants, if there's nowhere to put a SIM the functionality is pretty well useless.
I'm guessing it wouldn't help with suits in progress (since those actions pre-date this tweet); but, I can see it being more difficult (not necessary impossible) to go after other people under the anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA.
Now, if something like this can be subject to copyright (which, I wouldn't think it would be able to, but I can't say for sure--IANAL), there may still be action there to be had.
Does this mean that Sony have now published the key? Its not as though the person running the Twitter account had to retweet. Reply or dm would have been sufficient to get the quip in. A simple Google search would have told what this was, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
It would come at the hands of the state Bar for the attorney filing the cases. Mileage there may vary, as generally it's going to come down to whether their behaviour was ethical or not--i.e., did they know for fact (in this instance) that the suit had no merit/was improperly brought/joined improperly, and continue anyway, or did they misuse subpoenas, and so on, and carry on with the action anyway? Just being procedurally wrong generally isn't going to do much.
As far as taking them, or the company they attorney represents to court, better luck with the latter than the former. I'm guessing that suing an attorney for doing the job, to the best of their knowledge and ability, that they were hired to do (which s/he would have an obligation to do, generally put) doesn't seem like it'd fly very far. And being that for now, the cases have been dismissed without verdict, I would think recourse against the company would be hard to come by.
Standard disclaimer: IANAL. Particularly on my first points above, I may be off; your mileage may vary. If I am off, please feel free to correct me.
Bazinga.
I have been living in various Asian countries for the last 5 years, and without practicing, picked up quite a lot of Chinese characters. In fact, compared to my wife, who is actively studying them, I can probably recognize more of them. I simply have a good mind for pictures. It is not as good as some people I met, but it is an (probably) inherent ability to remember detailed images.
This particular instance demonstrates that you've got a capacity for picking up the characters of the language, but does bear some difference; there's a linguistic aspect to it (as opposed to, say, memorizing a deck of cards); there's a bit more at work than just simple rote memorization or symbols, as those symbols have a meaning that is important. If you were presented these symbols outside of the linguistic context (i.e., if you didn't know the language existed), it might well be more difficult--for both you, and your wife--to recall the structure of those symbols.
The 8th can be added if the guy is convicted, for sure.
About the label that goes along with this, though, that is a good point; even if the charges or dropped, he'll always be the accused pedophile. I'll lay my bottom dollar that, if the prosecutor drops the charges, any statement from their office will probably be along the lines of 'there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial'...after all, the top dog in the prosecutor's office is usually elected (and selects who works under him/her), and saying 'I/We screwed up here' doesn't do much to gather votes come November. And as far as recourse goes? Good luck. States can claim a form of Sovereign immunity, and the people who screwed up here would likely be shielded by Prosecutorial immunity.
And while we're at it, every parent whose child has walked in on them while having sex. I dare say that exposing them to the act is MUCH more damaging to a child than what the video appeared to be, post-edit. Then, let's up the ante; any child who has witnessed one of their parents being abused by the other; after all, being exposed to something is just as bad as being an actual victim of the act.
Back to reality now. This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's assume, for a moment, that he did actually perform this song in front of the children. First off, where were the supervising adults (parents, teachers, SOMEONE of authority) to put a stop to this? I wouldn't just send my children to a musical performance unless they had me, my wife, or other competent adult present; and, realistically, at LEAST one of them would likely have stepped up and put a stop to it. If none of them did, they're accessories, convene the Grand Jury. Second, and I'm not familiar with Michigan law (so, someone with some expertise there might be poised to correct me), what sort of sexual act does singing comprise, anyway? None, that I'm aware of; and you have to consider that, unless we're looking at children who have otherwise already been exposed to descriptions of the act and know what's being talked/sung about, these kids would have no idea what conduct is being described. And, with not having the video in question at hand, I'll assume the absence of such mention of such in the summary at least indicates he didn't have video of it edited in the background as well, to indicate he was showing them what he was singing about. In essence, no crime, no complaining victim, no charge. Last point, assuming the second point were somehow understood by the prosecutor and/or police (obviously, this is not the case), they have essentially arrested a guy, who they think is interested in molesting children, but with no evidence that it has actually ever occurred.
So, let's add it up...we've got problems under the, what, First, Fourth, and possibly Fifth amendments here, right?
The charge would actually be Reckless Homicide (see 720 ILCS 5/93), which actually is worse off than the Vehicular Homicide bill proposed back in '07 (died in the state Senate--Synopsis here, full text is gone now however)--Class 3 (or 2) Felony, versus a Class A Misdemeanor.
That aside, to get the DA's office to pursue the charges as a result of the civil action would be a bit tough. Keep in mind, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, while a criminal action requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Timing is key in this case, and it would have to be proven that the driver was on Facebook (or otherwise using her phone) at the time or immediately prior to the incident; if there's enough doubt as to the accuracy of the timestamps and how they match up against each other, the DA might decline to prosecute, or try and plead it out and pray.
...porch monkey...
Randall is takin' it back...
Epic Facepalm
Writes out cheque for 1,000 cool points, made out to the internet
Dumbledore died in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released theatrically in 2009.
Never happen. She's shagging Snape on the side.
You'd be better off going to him with an answer.
I wonder if anyone ever gave him the answer of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'. Maybe he might know the question...
The fact that IBM did not do this indicates that they have something to hide, and makes the whole thing the worst kind of publicity stunt.
What would they have to hide here, being that they didn't make it 'read' the answer? Do you think that because Watson was digitally being fed the data, he'd sneak in a Google search and sometimes bollocks up the answer to keep up appearances? If so, I'd refer you to 47 U.S.C. 509, specifically the part right at the top:
(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public— (1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined.
. Undoubtedly, Watson would be considered a contestant, and if the IBM folks--i.e., a person or persons--had done something as I described, they would have been doing exactly as in the quoted segment.
There are potential uses for this sort of behaviour; for one, automated technical support for a variety of services, consumer-facing in particular; while additional work would be necessary to make it usable for supporting the general population (which invariably describe things differently, use different colloquial turns of phrase, and have varying skill with spelling and syntax), it certainly gives proof of concept for, at the very least, textual input yielding a viable response.
Thankyou, thankyou. I'll be here all week, make sure to tip your waitress.
She is a cow, and that is a pastime in my part of the country...
Uh, spoiler alert? Some of us haven't seen the movie yet!
It sounds like they would be able to conceive, and be able to carry to term, but any girls born would have a significant chance of being born sterile; I think they indicated this of boys born as well (or the adult males becoming sterile, not sure, but either circumstance is not a good situation). Myself, I think the article intends this as somewhat of a best-case (or, a not-worst-case) scenario; there are certainly worse outcomes that could come of such a pregnancy.
Where in any scientific literature is that "fact" ever suggested or derived from? How do you know that the offspring would be sterile?
I'm not saying that such a result is completely impossible, but the available literature says nothing to that effect with the exception of pure speculation about what might happen. That is speculation and not experimental proof. Until somebody or something (hopefully a rat or a mouse to start with) gets pregnant after conceiving in space and their babies are born, then have a 3rd generation, we won't know. If those babies can't have babies of their own, that would certainly be something worth speculating about at that point.
Unfortunately, no such experiment has ever been performed and you can't possibly come to any sort of conclusion of any kind at all. Wild ass speculation about sex belongs in fiction, not as a scientific discussion.
My guess: other than trying to find some way to mitigate against radiation hazards (which are legitimate both here on the Earth as well as in space), there isn't going to be a single difference and kids born in space will be able to come to the Earth and live a normal life if they choose. There may be some issues of decalcification in space (aka some "brittle bones") or some other issues, but the truth is we simply just don't know. The ability to reproduce in space is something that is just a huge question mark because nothing has ever been done to realistically study the issue at all. We simply don't know what will happen if you try to raise a kid in space.
Heck, we don't even know what the physiological effects of spaceflight are on a teenager for that matter as nobody under 20 has ever gone into space. We know a little about old folks as some senior citizens have certainly been in space, but not young kids. There was a study done of a pregnant rat who flew into space on the Shuttle and delivered in space, and the kids came back and were completely healthy. But that wasn't a long-term study and the conception took place on the Earth before the spaceflight, not to mention that two weeks in a Shuttle wasn't long enough to really note other long-term health issues that might come into play.
At no point did I, or the article, indicate any certainty in this; and while no distinct experimentation has been done in this exact situation, known factors such as a) the ability of existing spacecraft to shield against radiation, and b) what radiation is known to exist in space, and likely others, can be figured in to attempt to approximate these conditions whilst on Earth. To wit, from the article:
The DNA which guides the development of all the cells in the body is easily damaged by the kind of radiation that would assail astronauts as they journeyed through space. Studies on non-human primates have shown that exposure to ionising radiation kills egg cells in a female foetus during the second half of pregnancy. "One would have to be very protective of those cells during gestation, during pregnancy, to make sure that the female didn't become sterile so they could continue the colony," Dr Straume said.
To paraphrase, scientists have exposed a similar species to similar radiation types, in the situation in question--in essence using the known quantites--to determine a possible outcome, and likely test a previous theory. This is part of the method; what we have now is a (yet untested) hypothesis, developed based on what we can suppose will happen to the best of our knowledge (based on prior experiementation, which would have itself been built on prior, unproven, hypotheses), and is very much relevant to a scientific discussion.
I stand corrected, there could be more AWESOME outcomes. Until one goes the path of the villain.
It sounds like they would be able to conceive, and be able to carry to term, but any girls born would have a significant chance of being born sterile; I think they indicated this of boys born as well (or the adult males becoming sterile, not sure, but either circumstance is not a good situation). Myself, I think the article intends this as somewhat of a best-case (or, a not-worst-case) scenario; there are certainly worse outcomes that could come of such a pregnancy.
OmG! Zo PERTY! U liek mE? I'z SHARP as a MARBUL, mi favrit culor iz CLEER! wE gos maek a BAYBIE?!
Just stick your junk out the airlock, and let the sun do its work, ayuh!
Precisely.
In any case, this is something that various space agencies might do well to consider...while I'm sure it's possible to have sex in space, and (for the men) to climax, and thus be able to inseminate a woman, it seems it would be more difficult to a) get to that point, and b) keep the 'guys' in a place where they can do their work. The other area of concern that warrants examination is the interpersonal relationships of any pairs that would exist in space, and any potential fallout if things go wrong. I doubt it would be a good way to go for a space agency to pre-determine mating pairs prior to transit, and even if they did, there would be the potential for those orders to be disregarded in the vicinity of a dark airlock somewhere along the way...and where these things happen, jealousy is sure to rear its ugly head, and threaten the onboard dynamics.
Ever been poked accidentally by a barber? Now, what happens if they draw blood (even a drop is enough) and you're HIV positive? It's a reasonable question to ask.
Unless your scalp happens to be the spurting kind, it ends up on the scissors, which are exposed to air--HIV doesn't like that. Even so, a 30-minute soak in the cylinder of Barbicide will take care of it, as well as Hep-B and Hep-C.
Really, though, if you're a barber/beautician, and not being asked to shave someone completely bald, this should be a non-issue; I would say a fairly high number of adults (the folks who would be most prone to a serious bloodborne infection such as HIV or Hepatitis) are able to maintain control of their heads, and the scissors and clippers should never get to a point where they're close to drawing a client's blood. For those that aren't, either a) having short, controlled, neat hair isn't a primary concern or b) they're found a barber/beautician who can work with their conditon.
I twitch my head toward my left shoulder, as if mentally deficient, and go 'FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! FOUR! (ad nauseum)' Who needs the force when you can simulate retardedness?
Also, another point of interest is that the Verizon Iphone 4 has a dual mode GSM / CDMA radio, (which Apple never told us about), so it may well be it can become a world phone with just a IOS upgrade.
Except for the lack of a SIM tray. The radio can support GSM all it wants, if there's nowhere to put a SIM the functionality is pretty well useless.
I'm guessing it wouldn't help with suits in progress (since those actions pre-date this tweet); but, I can see it being more difficult (not necessary impossible) to go after other people under the anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA.
Now, if something like this can be subject to copyright (which, I wouldn't think it would be able to, but I can't say for sure--IANAL), there may still be action there to be had.
Does this mean that Sony have now published the key? Its not as though the person running the Twitter account had to retweet. Reply or dm would have been sufficient to get the quip in. A simple Google search would have told what this was, after all.