That's similar, but a slightly different issue. What some seem to be suggesting here is that a criminal statute similar to that against obstruction of justice be created for actions that block the progress of a trial, such as a refusal to testify or disrupting the proceedings.
There is no reason the original trial needs to be held up - the trial can move on without the testimony in question.
What if, for example, someone refuses to turn over key evidence, such as documents that would be necessary to show fraud? The first trial can't proceed, and if the punishment for contempt were less serious than that for fraud it would create an incentive to not provide evidence.
Why not? For some reason it is the constitutional right of every citizen in almost every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers before being punished for commiting a crime.
Actually it's not. Relatively few countries, mainly those who follow British legal traditions, have a jury system. You can argue that it's better, fine, but I don't think countries that have different legal traditions are necessarily less civilized (i.e., most of continental Europe).
On the more general issue, again, maybe we should have a different way of dealing with contempt of court, but making it a crime creates another set of problems: the original trial would have to be put on hold until a decision was reached, and presumably the judge and attorneys present could be called as witnesses. That could further bog down the whole legal process.
Certainly there could be a system for appealing contempt of court decisions, but jury trials are not necessarily the answer.
It's not about lying, it's about refusing to comply with an order. For example, what if rather than lying a witness simply refuses to answer questions, or even to show up to testify? Or refuses to turn over evidence? It's not perjury, but the state has a strong interest in compelling people to provide evidence, otherwise the legal system would not work. Maybe the current procedure isn't the best imaginable, but I'm not sure that a jury trial is the solution.
Well a lot of the stuff we worry about is roughly in the same disc as the planets, so it's not a perfect 2D space but it's closer to that than to a random distribution in 3D space.
Slavery was a self-perpetuating free market. It was shut down by laws
Until a couple of generations ago, in much of the US businesses were allowed discriminate, serving only members of certain races. That practice had to be ended through legislation; the free market was not going to solve it.
No, maybe Ford couldn't force you to give the car back, but they might be able to sue you for having an unauthorized car. Specifically, if it was a knockoff car, with a Ford label but not authorized by Ford, you would be violating their trademarks and patents (this actually does happen in China: joint venture factories produce "extras" of products they make--including things like motorcycles--for foreign companies and sell them on the domestic market).
So in this case, what I suspect could theoretically happen if Amazon didn't carry out this recall is that whoever owns the rights to these books could sue everyone who had an illegitimate copy on their Kindle for a copyright violation.
In that case I think what would happen is that the rightful owner of the car could take back his/her vehicle, and you could turn around and sue the dealer who wrongly sold it to you. You'd have a pretty good case, too.
If the property in question were concrete like a lawn mower that I purchased at Home Depot, HD decides they want it back so they pull it from my back yard but credit my account isn't that still theft?
In this case it seems that Amazon didn't actually have the rights they needed to sell it to you in the first place. A better analogy would be if you bought a used car, then the dealership came back to you and said, "it turns out the car we sold you was stolen, and we had no right to sell it to you in the first place. Here's your money back." Yeah, that would suck, but I don't see any alternative (under the current legal regime).
If Amazon sold the product without having had the rights to it in the first place, and they don't recall it in this way, they're liable to be sued by the copyright owners. It's not (apparently) a matter of them arbitrarily deciding that the value had gone up and changing their minds.
In which case it would be harder to collaborate on developing that feature, meaning that such branching work would tend to be individual. Sounds like a problematic model to me.
That assumes that all developers are roughly equivalent. But if, says, the filesystem is basically in feature lock whereas active development is going on in the networking system, the fs developers are likely to be sitting on their hands. Sure they can test networking features, but that's not their expertise and their time might be much better spent working on the next generation fs, which is not going to be in the next release but might be a couple of releases away. A branch/trunk split would allow them to work on those experimental, too-rough-to-release features. That could make for a more efficient allocation of human resources in some respects.
No, but assuming you can operationalize 'intelligence', it's a testable hypothesis. And it's always better to explicitly and not implicitly assume. Otherwise people think you're hiding something, 644bd346996 -- if that is even your real name.
What isn't clear from TFA, and seems to be the crux of whether this is a story or not, is whether this particular flu is affecting obese people disproportionately as compared to similar influenzas. If all strains of flu have the same pattern and are more severe (by whatever measure) in obese people, then there's nothing interesting here. If, on the other hand, the correlation between BMI and severity is much higher for this H1N1, that's a potential clue, one that might tell us something about (a) how this particular virus works, which could be useful in developing treatments for everyone, and/or (b) how obesity affects immune response, which could be helpful in the treatment of other infectious diseases. But, alas, TFA gives only anecdotal evidence so we can't even speculate.
If that's going back lifetimes you're 15 years old. That's not a lifetime for some of us. If you'd said Windows/Office hadn't changed dramatically in the past decade, I'd agree. If you're going to make a point about history, you should be clear about the range you're talking about.
In fact, both those developments did require significant retraining. Unicode changed how multilanguage support and input systems (especially for non-European languages) worked, and multitasking was a completely new paradigm for people who hadn't experienced it before, and took getting used to (one simple example is the clipboard, the idea that you could copy data from one app to another).
Slashdot Mirror
Duh. The nozzles at the gas station are different sizes.
That's similar, but a slightly different issue. What some seem to be suggesting here is that a criminal statute similar to that against obstruction of justice be created for actions that block the progress of a trial, such as a refusal to testify or disrupting the proceedings.
There is no reason the original trial needs to be held up - the trial can move on without the testimony in question.
What if, for example, someone refuses to turn over key evidence, such as documents that would be necessary to show fraud? The first trial can't proceed, and if the punishment for contempt were less serious than that for fraud it would create an incentive to not provide evidence.
Why not? For some reason it is the constitutional right of every citizen in almost every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers before being punished for commiting a crime.
Actually it's not. Relatively few countries, mainly those who follow British legal traditions, have a jury system. You can argue that it's better, fine, but I don't think countries that have different legal traditions are necessarily less civilized (i.e., most of continental Europe).
On the more general issue, again, maybe we should have a different way of dealing with contempt of court, but making it a crime creates another set of problems: the original trial would have to be put on hold until a decision was reached, and presumably the judge and attorneys present could be called as witnesses. That could further bog down the whole legal process.
Certainly there could be a system for appealing contempt of court decisions, but jury trials are not necessarily the answer.
It's not about lying, it's about refusing to comply with an order. For example, what if rather than lying a witness simply refuses to answer questions, or even to show up to testify? Or refuses to turn over evidence? It's not perjury, but the state has a strong interest in compelling people to provide evidence, otherwise the legal system would not work. Maybe the current procedure isn't the best imaginable, but I'm not sure that a jury trial is the solution.
It's not a sentence for a crime, it's imprisonment for contempt, refusal to comply with a judge's order. They're fundamentally different things.
You really, REALLY don't want to know why some places mandate the GIMP as a graphics editor.
Who's there?
Why can't it be both? It wouldn't be that hard to measure the volume of all the buildings making up the LoC.
Well a lot of the stuff we worry about is roughly in the same disc as the planets, so it's not a perfect 2D space but it's closer to that than to a random distribution in 3D space.
The original contract under which the user received the copy may be null and void, if Amazon had no right to sell it in the first place.
Slavery was a self-perpetuating free market. It was shut down by laws
Until a couple of generations ago, in much of the US businesses were allowed discriminate, serving only members of certain races. That practice had to be ended through legislation; the free market was not going to solve it.
IANAL, but it seems straightforward. By ordering a copy from Amazon, the Kindle user made a copy. That copying infringed the copyright.
But the copyright owner could sue you for having the illegitimate copy, even if you purchased it in good faith.
No, maybe Ford couldn't force you to give the car back, but they might be able to sue you for having an unauthorized car. Specifically, if it was a knockoff car, with a Ford label but not authorized by Ford, you would be violating their trademarks and patents (this actually does happen in China: joint venture factories produce "extras" of products they make--including things like motorcycles--for foreign companies and sell them on the domestic market).
So in this case, what I suspect could theoretically happen if Amazon didn't carry out this recall is that whoever owns the rights to these books could sue everyone who had an illegitimate copy on their Kindle for a copyright violation.
You could probably bring a lawsuit, and Amazon could say, okay, here's a paperback copy of 1984, enjoy.
In that case I think what would happen is that the rightful owner of the car could take back his/her vehicle, and you could turn around and sue the dealer who wrongly sold it to you. You'd have a pretty good case, too.
If the property in question were concrete like a lawn mower that I purchased at Home Depot, HD decides they want it back so they pull it from my back yard but credit my account isn't that still theft?
In this case it seems that Amazon didn't actually have the rights they needed to sell it to you in the first place. A better analogy would be if you bought a used car, then the dealership came back to you and said, "it turns out the car we sold you was stolen, and we had no right to sell it to you in the first place. Here's your money back." Yeah, that would suck, but I don't see any alternative (under the current legal regime).
If Amazon sold the product without having had the rights to it in the first place, and they don't recall it in this way, they're liable to be sued by the copyright owners. It's not (apparently) a matter of them arbitrarily deciding that the value had gone up and changing their minds.
In which case it would be harder to collaborate on developing that feature, meaning that such branching work would tend to be individual. Sounds like a problematic model to me.
OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks
**hits anonymous cowardon the head with a bag of rocks
**thinks that was actually pretty useful.
That assumes that all developers are roughly equivalent. But if, says, the filesystem is basically in feature lock whereas active development is going on in the networking system, the fs developers are likely to be sitting on their hands. Sure they can test networking features, but that's not their expertise and their time might be much better spent working on the next generation fs, which is not going to be in the next release but might be a couple of releases away. A branch/trunk split would allow them to work on those experimental, too-rough-to-release features. That could make for a more efficient allocation of human resources in some respects.
No, but assuming you can operationalize 'intelligence', it's a testable hypothesis. And it's always better to explicitly and not implicitly assume. Otherwise people think you're hiding something, 644bd346996 -- if that is even your real name.
You mean that Extra Touch of Class Struggle.
What isn't clear from TFA, and seems to be the crux of whether this is a story or not, is whether this particular flu is affecting obese people disproportionately as compared to similar influenzas. If all strains of flu have the same pattern and are more severe (by whatever measure) in obese people, then there's nothing interesting here. If, on the other hand, the correlation between BMI and severity is much higher for this H1N1, that's a potential clue, one that might tell us something about (a) how this particular virus works, which could be useful in developing treatments for everyone, and/or (b) how obesity affects immune response, which could be helpful in the treatment of other infectious diseases. But, alas, TFA gives only anecdotal evidence so we can't even speculate.
If that's going back lifetimes you're 15 years old. That's not a lifetime for some of us. If you'd said Windows/Office hadn't changed dramatically in the past decade, I'd agree. If you're going to make a point about history, you should be clear about the range you're talking about.
In fact, both those developments did require significant retraining. Unicode changed how multilanguage support and input systems (especially for non-European languages) worked, and multitasking was a completely new paradigm for people who hadn't experienced it before, and took getting used to (one simple example is the clipboard, the idea that you could copy data from one app to another).