It's a government funded institution. Whose freedom is being limited? There's not even been the suggestion that private schools be subject to the same rules.
Currently the students are being extorted to pay unreasonable prices. Where's their freedom to choose a different text with a better price?
Were you anonymous I'd suspect you of being a shill for a textbook company. As it is I think you're just confused. Unless of course, you *do* work for a textbook company...unlikely but possible.
That said, if academic freedom is the consideration, then the decision should clearly be in favor of the professor, not the administrator. When an administrator claims "academic freedom" he's lying through his teeth. Generally he wants to exert unreasonable control, but doesn't want to admit it. Department policy would be a much more honest ground to stand on...and I can see reasons for such a department policy, but academic freedom sure isn't one of them.
The thing is, while it's too weak to act as an active defense, it's strong enough to act as a passive defense. They can't use it to make you do anything, but they can use it to keep you from forbidding them from doing as they will.
You won't find this in a court case for the same reason you don't find court cases against the GPL. Once a lawyer studies the matter he says "Don't.".
FWIW, the GPL *has* been tested in Germany, but I suspect the laws governing EULAs are much more different between countries.
Unfortunately, to understand it you also need to get a lawyer to explain a large number of related court cases. Even then you only get that lawyer's opinion, and a judge may well have a very different opinion.
Still, you are right in that they all link back to that original definition.
While I agree with what you say in the first sentence, the second sentence does not follow. The third sentence is correct.
The thing is, the government ignores the constitution that authorizes it to have any power at all, and gets away with it because of "force majeure", or, if you prefer, "force majeure" (refering back to Norman conquest occupation policies). This is clearly not authorized by the constitution, but it's also pretty plainly present. They hardly even pretend to justify their action by twisted wordplay anymore.
Well, I'm sure that was involved in the original blockade, and may even be the basic reason, but I'm also rather certain that isn't why the blockade was maintained.
Well, it depends. If the proof isn't a constructive proof then it wouldn't weaken current cryptography any more than the possibility of quantum computers does. But it would imply that if you found the right approach it would be a lot weaker, without giving much clue as to what the right approach was. But quantum computers are already being built. (Possibly not useful ones, and perhaps useful ones are impossible, but...)
Sorry, but math *is* hard. Of course, it's also easy. It depends on exactly what problem you're looking at.
Consider Goldbach's Conjecture...something easy to understand, and probably true, but so far unproven. Or the distance between adjacent primes. Given all the primes up to some point, predict the next one. Sometimes you can, but most of the time there's no known way.
But the number of sides on square is easy. So it can be either. And simple statements can be enourmously complex to prove, but you often don't know until after you've tried. Consider the four-color theorum. Even the new simplified proof is still quite complex.
P.S.: I'm only a mathematician in so far as I'm a programmer. Which counts, but it's a specialization that's so useful people generally don't think of programmers as mathematicians.
If what you say is true, and it may be, then not only is it no surprise that the law is held in increasing lack of respect, but it deserves to be held in even less respect.
I deny that he had solid legal grounds. Claiming that Wikipedia even alone, much less in combination with the other parties, was not sufficiently significant in size is sufficient to justify nearly total lack of respect.
Additionally, claiming that when you can't provide evidence for something that the government explicitly hides from you, the case is invalid, while it has precedent, is also grounds for enormous lack of respect.
And this is not the system our founding fathers established. If you think it is you've never read a history book outside of grade school. (Well, it's been awhile since I looked at a high school text, they may have been tortured into agreeing to that notion by now...but they sure didn't use to.)
For that matter, historically there was no way that the government COULD have kept tabs on everyone, so claiming that this is the system set up by our founding fathers is blatantly idiotic.
That said, I do agree that Lincoln set in motion the movement towards the current system with his increasing centralization of federal power. I'm not sure what his alternatives would have been...but I'm rather sure he didn't foresee the NSA.
Nonsense. If you're going to go that route, slightly alter any data you don't need any more, and THEN encrypt it. When you do the alteration, keep in mind that you don't want it to make you look bad. You should also occasionally encrypt/dev/random for a minute or so. (Don't encrypt/dev/urandom, because you don't want to use up your entropy.)
That said (and it's hard to disagree with), that doesn't mean that calling 911 would result in the best and/or quickest medical treatment. In this particular case perhaps the policy is correct. I sort of depends on how they run their internal emergency handling. And if people are suspicious, I don't blame them, even if in this case they might be incorrect.
It's in the news because Amazon was recently quite legally expressive to shut down other bad news about Amazon. Were they justified? Who can tell, they shut down the news. When you do that people get suspicious....because of lots of bad examples.
Well, users of marijuana are generally safer drivers than users of alcohol...but I'm not sure whether that would change if it were legal.
Still, the social effects of drug prohibition are so bad that I'd be in favor of legalizing ALL drug use, if you could just keep people from advertising brands of them.
IIUC, opium poppies are (were?) white. During pioneer days every household grew them, as they were an effective pain medication.
OTOH, L. Frank Baum, in The Wizard of Oz, said they were red, and also said that smelling their perfume would send you to sleep. Perhaps he was right...
That's bad, but understandable. The real problem is that even when there is conclusive evidence of culpable behavior there is either no or minimal punishment...and reward is not unheard of.
So when evidence shows up that said "asshole" has committed crimes under the cloak of authority, why does he keep his job?
Any normal citizen engaging in such behavior would often end up serving a long sentence for assault and battery. (Different instances would suggest different crimes. Occasionally I think attempted murder would be closer, and sometimes just drop the attempted.)
The equivalent has already been done multiple times with the double slit experiment. Those who want to believe differently just don't look at the results. This wouldn't be any different. People still see the word "observation" and imagine it means a person is involved. (That's even happened earlier in this very list.)
Perhaps you need to understand what "observing" means in quantum theory. Hint: You don't need an intelligence to have observation. You don't even need a human.
What isn't clear to me is how illuminating them with photons doesn't count as observation...perhaps they aren't recording any interactions? (If that seems silly, see the double slit experiment variations.)
OK. I *WILL* say the TPP is wrong per se. That some kind of trade treaty would be desirable doesn't make this, or anything closely similar to this, acceptable. I even assert that voting for this treaty should be taken as positive proof of malfeasance. (I'll agree that it doesn't say anything about the reason for the malfeasance.)
Also, please note the distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance. http://dictionary.reference.co... Usually malfeasance is a felony, as opposed to misfeasance or nonfeasance.
It doesn't fit the constitutional definition of treason. Malfeasance, yes. In fact I would suggest that one could find a hundred counts of malfeasance, so that if the sentences were served sequentially those involved would never get out of prison. And I believe this could be done for most members of Congress, as well as for the President. Certainly anyone who votes for this atrocity should be arrested for malfeasance. But no prosecutor would even file charges.
I hope you aren't so foolish as to also assert that lack of government == good.
To an extent I agree with you. Centralized positions of power tend to be attractive to those psychotically attracted to power. And the proper solution, when possible, is to decentralize the power. When that cannot be done, the only reasonable answer is to so design things that striving to attain power does not increase your probability of getting it. It is for this reason that I propose replacing elections by a lottery along the lines of The Draft.
Please note, however, that I'm not so foolish as to presume that all goals can be accomplished without centralized power. Anarchy is an inherently unstable system. At best it is metastable.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought gibbons were among the great apes. They are, however, considerably lighter than chimps, Google says about 5 Kg.
Anyone who didn't consider gibbons among the descendants of proto-ape-kind wasn't doing his homework.
While big pharma does some research, most of the research is government funded. They just get to claim exclusive use of it.
OTOH, I believe the DO pay for the large scale human testing that goes on pre-approval. (And where they hide the results of any failed tests.)
It's a government funded institution. Whose freedom is being limited? There's not even been the suggestion that private schools be subject to the same rules.
Currently the students are being extorted to pay unreasonable prices. Where's their freedom to choose a different text with a better price?
Were you anonymous I'd suspect you of being a shill for a textbook company. As it is I think you're just confused. Unless of course, you *do* work for a textbook company...unlikely but possible.
That said, if academic freedom is the consideration, then the decision should clearly be in favor of the professor, not the administrator. When an administrator claims "academic freedom" he's lying through his teeth. Generally he wants to exert unreasonable control, but doesn't want to admit it. Department policy would be a much more honest ground to stand on...and I can see reasons for such a department policy, but academic freedom sure isn't one of them.
The thing is, while it's too weak to act as an active defense, it's strong enough to act as a passive defense. They can't use it to make you do anything, but they can use it to keep you from forbidding them from doing as they will.
You won't find this in a court case for the same reason you don't find court cases against the GPL. Once a lawyer studies the matter he says "Don't.".
FWIW, the GPL *has* been tested in Germany, but I suspect the laws governing EULAs are much more different between countries.
Unfortunately, to understand it you also need to get a lawyer to explain a large number of related court cases. Even then you only get that lawyer's opinion, and a judge may well have a very different opinion.
Still, you are right in that they all link back to that original definition.
While I agree with what you say in the first sentence, the second sentence does not follow. The third sentence is correct.
The thing is, the government ignores the constitution that authorizes it to have any power at all, and gets away with it because of "force majeure", or, if you prefer, "force majeure" (refering back to Norman conquest occupation policies). This is clearly not authorized by the constitution, but it's also pretty plainly present. They hardly even pretend to justify their action by twisted wordplay anymore.
Well, I'm sure that was involved in the original blockade, and may even be the basic reason, but I'm also rather certain that isn't why the blockade was maintained.
Well, it depends. If the proof isn't a constructive proof then it wouldn't weaken current cryptography any more than the possibility of quantum computers does. But it would imply that if you found the right approach it would be a lot weaker, without giving much clue as to what the right approach was. But quantum computers are already being built. (Possibly not useful ones, and perhaps useful ones are impossible, but...)
Sorry, but math *is* hard. Of course, it's also easy. It depends on exactly what problem you're looking at.
Consider Goldbach's Conjecture...something easy to understand, and probably true, but so far unproven. Or the distance between adjacent primes. Given all the primes up to some point, predict the next one. Sometimes you can, but most of the time there's no known way.
But the number of sides on square is easy. So it can be either. And simple statements can be enourmously complex to prove, but you often don't know until after you've tried. Consider the four-color theorum. Even the new simplified proof is still quite complex.
P.S.: I'm only a mathematician in so far as I'm a programmer. Which counts, but it's a specialization that's so useful people generally don't think of programmers as mathematicians.
Yes, poppies come in many colors. But it's been my understanding that the opium poppy was white, and of a slightly different species.
It is, indeed, criminal. I believe the term is "accessory after the fact". But if you don't understand it, you don't understand people.
If what you say is true, and it may be, then not only is it no surprise that the law is held in increasing lack of respect, but it deserves to be held in even less respect.
I deny that he had solid legal grounds. Claiming that Wikipedia even alone, much less in combination with the other parties, was not sufficiently significant in size is sufficient to justify nearly total lack of respect.
Additionally, claiming that when you can't provide evidence for something that the government explicitly hides from you, the case is invalid, while it has precedent, is also grounds for enormous lack of respect.
And this is not the system our founding fathers established. If you think it is you've never read a history book outside of grade school. (Well, it's been awhile since I looked at a high school text, they may have been tortured into agreeing to that notion by now...but they sure didn't use to.)
For that matter, historically there was no way that the government COULD have kept tabs on everyone, so claiming that this is the system set up by our founding fathers is blatantly idiotic.
That said, I do agree that Lincoln set in motion the movement towards the current system with his increasing centralization of federal power. I'm not sure what his alternatives would have been...but I'm rather sure he didn't foresee the NSA.
Nonsense. If you're going to go that route, slightly alter any data you don't need any more, and THEN encrypt it. When you do the alteration, keep in mind that you don't want it to make you look bad. You should also occasionally encrypt /dev/random for a minute or so. (Don't encrypt /dev/urandom, because you don't want to use up your entropy.)
Well, once you suspect it, it's easy to detect. Just use a font that only displays in ASCII.
That said (and it's hard to disagree with), that doesn't mean that calling 911 would result in the best and/or quickest medical treatment. In this particular case perhaps the policy is correct. I sort of depends on how they run their internal emergency handling. And if people are suspicious, I don't blame them, even if in this case they might be incorrect.
It's in the news because Amazon was recently quite legally expressive to shut down other bad news about Amazon. Were they justified? Who can tell, they shut down the news. When you do that people get suspicious....because of lots of bad examples.
Well, users of marijuana are generally safer drivers than users of alcohol...but I'm not sure whether that would change if it were legal.
Still, the social effects of drug prohibition are so bad that I'd be in favor of legalizing ALL drug use, if you could just keep people from advertising brands of them.
IIUC, opium poppies are (were?) white. During pioneer days every household grew them, as they were an effective pain medication.
OTOH, L. Frank Baum, in The Wizard of Oz, said they were red, and also said that smelling their perfume would send you to sleep. Perhaps he was right...
That's bad, but understandable. The real problem is that even when there is conclusive evidence of culpable behavior there is either no or minimal punishment...and reward is not unheard of.
So when evidence shows up that said "asshole" has committed crimes under the cloak of authority, why does he keep his job?
Any normal citizen engaging in such behavior would often end up serving a long sentence for assault and battery. (Different instances would suggest different crimes. Occasionally I think attempted murder would be closer, and sometimes just drop the attempted.)
The equivalent has already been done multiple times with the double slit experiment. Those who want to believe differently just don't look at the results. This wouldn't be any different. People still see the word "observation" and imagine it means a person is involved. (That's even happened earlier in this very list.)
Perhaps you need to understand what "observing" means in quantum theory. Hint: You don't need an intelligence to have observation. You don't even need a human.
What isn't clear to me is how illuminating them with photons doesn't count as observation...perhaps they aren't recording any interactions? (If that seems silly, see the double slit experiment variations.)
OK. I *WILL* say the TPP is wrong per se. That some kind of trade treaty would be desirable doesn't make this, or anything closely similar to this, acceptable. I even assert that voting for this treaty should be taken as positive proof of malfeasance. (I'll agree that it doesn't say anything about the reason for the malfeasance.)
Also, please note the distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance. http://dictionary.reference.co...
Usually malfeasance is a felony, as opposed to misfeasance or nonfeasance.
It doesn't fit the constitutional definition of treason. Malfeasance, yes. In fact I would suggest that one could find a hundred counts of malfeasance, so that if the sentences were served sequentially those involved would never get out of prison. And I believe this could be done for most members of Congress, as well as for the President. Certainly anyone who votes for this atrocity should be arrested for malfeasance. But no prosecutor would even file charges.
I hope you aren't so foolish as to also assert that lack of government == good.
To an extent I agree with you. Centralized positions of power tend to be attractive to those psychotically attracted to power. And the proper solution, when possible, is to decentralize the power. When that cannot be done, the only reasonable answer is to so design things that striving to attain power does not increase your probability of getting it. It is for this reason that I propose replacing elections by a lottery along the lines of The Draft.
Please note, however, that I'm not so foolish as to presume that all goals can be accomplished without centralized power. Anarchy is an inherently unstable system. At best it is metastable.