The trouble with XHTML5+SVG is that there isn't a good IDE for it, probably because most of the people who care and have the skill to do anything about it like using text-oriented editors, and aren't really interested in making browser games and so on. However, since both Google and Apple would probably quite like to get people to leave flash and silverlight, maybe they should try to get a GSOC (or similar) project going to work on it. There are already FOSS vector-art editors, what is lacking is easily tying in the scripting.
It is a while since I last looked at it, but doesn't the glib/gobject system provide automatic memory management. It is pretty grotesque to use in C, but a Java/C#-like language could be written to target it (there are some pre-processors, but they aren't really ideal). Its one of thsoe projects that would be worth doing if I had the skill to do it, but I don;t really have time to learn how to do right now (as opposed to posting on/., which is of course a wonderfully productive use of my time).
In many places that is the case, except that for convenience you can usually sign the civil marriage papers at the same time. If the particular holy man isn't properly registered to handle the civil part, or the religious ceremony is incompatible with the legal requirements, then you have to do them separately.
Whilst I am in favour of less government involvement in marriage in general, I do think it is worth preserving the WORD "marriage" with its existing meaning, purely on the basis that having more words with different shades of meaning is an inherently good thing. IMNSHO, I'd like to see "marriage" used for the religious and social concept, with something like "long-term domestic partnership" used to mean the legal contract, since the two meanings are largely orthogonal.
I would like to make it clear that I don't support the rest of the GP's arguments.
You can't go out and get insurance with your best friend, or your grandmother, or your favorite teacher.
And that makes sense why? All that matters to the insurance company is the probability that you will die, and how much you are willing to pay. It doesn't make any difference to them where the money goes.
(An OT rant: FFS, people, slashcode has a special quote tag for a reason: please use it.)
There are several aspects of marriage to consider. The first is to promote structures which are deemed good for raising children. Since many heterosexual families don't have children either, it would make sense to limit whatever benefits are used for this to only those with children.
Then there is the urban planning and environmental aspect, which is that single people living alone still usually like to have a reasonable sized lounge, kitchen, dining room and so on, for entertaining, and their house will still need at least one bathroom and utility room, a single garage, and so on. All this takes up space, and so contributes to urban sprawl and in-fill, both of which are detrimental to society as a whole (ISTR that in the 1990s, the number of houses in my city grew much faster than the number of adults living there did, because people were marrying later and divorcing more often, so the number of people in each household got smaller (on average).) It would obviously make sense to encourage people to live together, but who the people are and why they want to be together is irrelevant.
Finally we have the question of things like ones default heir, their next of kin for emergency medical decisions and so on. The obvious solution to that problem would be to make the parent of the same sex as the person the default, then allow people to assign the position of next of kin to any adult once they come of age. For things like hospital visitation, the obvious solution is to put a list of people in each person's shared medical file with their drug intolerances and other information.
Finally, we have things like insurance policies. Since it doesn't make any difference to the insurance company if the beneficiary of your life insurance is your wife, lover, child, or some random person, or even how many people you want paid, or anything but the the likelihood of you dying (as you're basically placing a recurring bet that you will die this year), in a sane world marriage should be irrelevant to getting life insurance.
Medical insurance is just as simple, unless it is employer provided, but the general messiness of that entire system means that his is just a small part of the reasons against such a system.
Whilst what you say is true, it isn't really relevant: whether any form of consensual sex is moral is entirely a matter between the people involved and whatever gods, if any, they believe in. Who some random gamer wants to sleep with is, in general, none of your concern. If you're interested enough in someone to read their profile, surely you'd want to read whatever they wont to tell you. If you're happier not knowing, don't look.
(I'm ignoring entirely the question of whether sexuality is a question of nature, nurture, choice, or some combination of all three, since it isn't relevant.)
ID is dressed as science all the time. One person modified charles darwin's origin of species with ID information and things like 'darwin hated women and was racist' in it. BTW gay sex in the US was illegal until 2003, some states you could get over 15years! So don't think that religion isn't creating all kinds of legal harm.
I'd forgotten how bad those people were in the US, since where I am they are fairly rare, not localised enough to elect lower-house politicians and even mainstream Christians will mock them. I suppose it's easy to forget how lucky we are over here.
Apart from the obvious cries of "Offtopic", I would like to add one thing:
the so-called "holy laws" aren't even in the bible and never were sinful to begin with (homosexuality)!
Lev. 18:22
You do your cause no good by being completely wrong (and I say this as one who is pretty apathetic about religion).
The 5.4GHz==harmful crazies are more of an immediate problem than religious crazies because getting something banned is a lot easier than getting it unbanned, and because these idiots like to dress their nonsense up as science far more than the religious ones, and psuedoscience is potentially very harmful to our society, if it ever gets hold.
He's talking about "moral rights", which don't exist everywhere but generally mean the right to be identified as the author and similar rights. Some can effectively given away, for example, the right to refuse to allow derivative works exists in some plaves, but an employment contract could int heory include a clause to give blanket consent. However, the right to be identified is usually impossible to give up, even if you don't assert it (I think that in the UK moral rights law, even anonymous authors can come forward and claim the right later, and that it exists forever: you can use the work, but you must give due credit).
Whilst I don't like long after-death copyright terms, I do think it would be a good idea to make personal copyrights last at least as long as corporate copyright, even if the author dies, and also to have a short period for unpublished works to be published with a shorter term, to encourage authors' estates to release unpublished works (since most authors today are unlikely to have backups and archives of all their unpublished work, this would be a non-trivial task).
Impact fuses or a short count-down after the engine stops would discourage civilians from shooting at them, at least in populated areas,and could be done for very low cost and weight.
watching what happens in the system, and storing some or all of the events in a DB
generating the messages for some or all of those events
some or all of these messages are to be used to be displayed to users, showing what one or more other users have done
making a list of who is allowed to see the collection of news items (presumably, in an item by item basis, otherwise the design is pretty odd)
displaying items from that list to one or more of the people on the other list
This isn't overly broad, although it is pretty obvious now, it might have been rather less obvious when you consider the subsidiary claims, and anything about the selection, and it may have been less obvious when the patent was applied for.
Can you think of any GPL software from, say, 10 or 15 years ago that would be much use as the basis for a closed-source app today? Probably the most popular software of that age is WinXP, and re-selling that without SP1-3 would be nigh impossible.
Personally, I'd like it if, to receive copyright protection, software had to be either published with all sources, makefiles, etc., or have those placed in escrow until the copyright expired, and likewise the high-res masters of a/v works. This way, the version in the public domain contains all the information needed to make derivative works from it. As it is, books, for example, contain the copyright material in losslessly, for the most part, even if duplicating it would be non-trivial,
Actually, green toggles between sizes, typically one larger than the other (although they may just be different shapes, and AFAICT they could be the same)
That's fine, assuming your photo shows what would have been visible to the naked eye. If you're taking a picture down a telescope, then we are near the top of a slippery slope. Would using an IR camera to see me in the dark be OK? Where do we draw the line? The same with audio. It is fair enough for it to be legal to listen to someone from where you are standing legitimately, but would a sensitive directional microphone be OK? Would a laser microphone? And that is without considering whether the camera/microphone is hidden.
If the girl is on the ground floor, that's her problem. If she's on the 27th and there's no building opposite, then she should expect that someone on the ground might get a glimpse of her breasts, but she probably wouldn't expect he genitals to be seen clearly (neglecting reflections, so assume it is night time but her light is on).
IMHO, the law should allow photographs to show only what an ordinary person (not a giant, etc.) can see with the naked eye from a publicly accessible place where the subject could be assumed to consider it reasonably likely to be, unless the photographer has permission to take them.
Thus, in the Streisand case, IINM, the photos showed nothing that couldn't be seen from a aeroplane flying legally. Likewise, in one house I lived in, you could see clearly into the main bedroom from a passing bus, and since buses passed every few minutes, irregularly, except in the small hours, so I had no good reason to expect anything I did in that part of the room to go unseen, if I had my blinds open, unless it was night time and I had the lights off (since it would be reasonable to expect that no one would shine a torch in my window to get a better view). (In before anyone tells me they got photos of me, I'm only interested if you're at least reasonably young and beautiful:-) (no, that does not include you, CowboyNeal))
OTOH, in another house, you couldn't see into any of the rooms from outside the estate, unless you climbed a (very difficult to climb) tree beside the road (since a large lorry or a single-decker bus wouldn't allow one to see in, and there were no double-decker buses in the area, so i would expect that no stranger would be able to see me when I'm inside, or in many areas outside, unless I should have known they'd be there, and they wouldn't be taking photographs without permission.
Without considering the specific case (hey, this is/., RingTFL is nearly as bad as TFA), if he lived on a minor road where there were no buses (or no buses at that time), and virtually no cherry pickers, large lorries, and so on, it would be reasonable to assume that no-one would see him over his wall.
Not really, since *anything* is a possible future quote. If the "quote" was posted without explanation, then it probably would be, but, for example, it is perfectly possible that he would say "I like eating babies, yum, yum." The GP was perfectly clear that it wasn't a real quote.
5'9" would be better, since one's eyes are at least 2-3 inches below the top of one's head, and many places have 6'/1.8m height restrictions on fences erected without a permit, but a fence that high is obviously meant to prevent casual observers seeing in. This way, you can;t see anything than an ordinary observer would have been able to see, so there would be a lot less problems with people accidentally exposing themselves. Blurring nude people is obviously still a good idea, because there would be problems with porn censorship laws, and blurring faces would probably be cheaper than facing privacy lawsuits, but they would be a lot safer.
No, because with no GPL or copyright, it would be at best analogous to releasing under the BSD licence, if your country has some sort of moral rights law like the British one (so an author always has the right to be identified as such, even after copyright has expired), so derivative works could be closed off. However, all you need to do is refuse to give a copy of the software (or other work) without the recipient agreeing to an NDA-like contract with the same effect as a distribution licence.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble with XHTML5+SVG is that there isn't a good IDE for it, probably because most of the people who care and have the skill to do anything about it like using text-oriented editors, and aren't really interested in making browser games and so on. However, since both Google and Apple would probably quite like to get people to leave flash and silverlight, maybe they should try to get a GSOC (or similar) project going to work on it. There are already FOSS vector-art editors, what is lacking is easily tying in the scripting.
It is a while since I last looked at it, but doesn't the glib/gobject system provide automatic memory management. It is pretty grotesque to use in C, but a Java/C#-like language could be written to target it (there are some pre-processors, but they aren't really ideal). Its one of thsoe projects that would be worth doing if I had the skill to do it, but I don;t really have time to learn how to do right now (as opposed to posting on /., which is of course a wonderfully productive use of my time).
In many places that is the case, except that for convenience you can usually sign the civil marriage papers at the same time. If the particular holy man isn't properly registered to handle the civil part, or the religious ceremony is incompatible with the legal requirements, then you have to do them separately.
Whilst I am in favour of less government involvement in marriage in general, I do think it is worth preserving the WORD "marriage" with its existing meaning, purely on the basis that having more words with different shades of meaning is an inherently good thing. IMNSHO, I'd like to see "marriage" used for the religious and social concept, with something like "long-term domestic partnership" used to mean the legal contract, since the two meanings are largely orthogonal.
I would like to make it clear that I don't support the rest of the GP's arguments.
You can't go out and get insurance with your best friend, or your grandmother, or your favorite teacher.
And that makes sense why?
All that matters to the insurance company is the probability that you will die, and how much you are willing to pay. It doesn't make any difference to them where the money goes.
(An OT rant: FFS, people, slashcode has a special quote tag for a reason: please use it.)
There are several aspects of marriage to consider. The first is to promote structures which are deemed good for raising children. Since many heterosexual families don't have children either, it would make sense to limit whatever benefits are used for this to only those with children.
Then there is the urban planning and environmental aspect, which is that single people living alone still usually like to have a reasonable sized lounge, kitchen, dining room and so on, for entertaining, and their house will still need at least one bathroom and utility room, a single garage, and so on. All this takes up space, and so contributes to urban sprawl and in-fill, both of which are detrimental to society as a whole (ISTR that in the 1990s, the number of houses in my city grew much faster than the number of adults living there did, because people were marrying later and divorcing more often, so the number of people in each household got smaller (on average).) It would obviously make sense to encourage people to live together, but who the people are and why they want to be together is irrelevant.
Finally we have the question of things like ones default heir, their next of kin for emergency medical decisions and so on. The obvious solution to that problem would be to make the parent of the same sex as the person the default, then allow people to assign the position of next of kin to any adult once they come of age. For things like hospital visitation, the obvious solution is to put a list of people in each person's shared medical file with their drug intolerances and other information.
Finally, we have things like insurance policies. Since it doesn't make any difference to the insurance company if the beneficiary of your life insurance is your wife, lover, child, or some random person, or even how many people you want paid, or anything but the the likelihood of you dying (as you're basically placing a recurring bet that you will die this year), in a sane world marriage should be irrelevant to getting life insurance.
Medical insurance is just as simple, unless it is employer provided, but the general messiness of that entire system means that his is just a small part of the reasons against such a system.
Whilst what you say is true, it isn't really relevant: whether any form of consensual sex is moral is entirely a matter between the people involved and whatever gods, if any, they believe in. Who some random gamer wants to sleep with is, in general, none of your concern. If you're interested enough in someone to read their profile, surely you'd want to read whatever they wont to tell you. If you're happier not knowing, don't look.
(I'm ignoring entirely the question of whether sexuality is a question of nature, nurture, choice, or some combination of all three, since it isn't relevant.)
ID is dressed as science all the time. One person modified charles darwin's origin of species with ID information and things like 'darwin hated women and was racist' in it. BTW gay sex in the US was illegal until 2003, some states you could get over 15years! So don't think that religion isn't creating all kinds of legal harm.
I'd forgotten how bad those people were in the US, since where I am they are fairly rare, not localised enough to elect lower-house politicians and even mainstream Christians will mock them. I suppose it's easy to forget how lucky we are over here.
I don't think that's how you're supposed to use them, but whatever floats your boat...
Apart from the obvious cries of "Offtopic", I would like to add one thing:
the so-called "holy laws" aren't even in the bible and never were sinful to begin with (homosexuality)!
Lev. 18:22
You do your cause no good by being completely wrong (and I say this as one who is pretty apathetic about religion).
The 5.4GHz==harmful crazies are more of an immediate problem than religious crazies because getting something banned is a lot easier than getting it unbanned, and because these idiots like to dress their nonsense up as science far more than the religious ones, and psuedoscience is potentially very harmful to our society, if it ever gets hold.
He's talking about "moral rights", which don't exist everywhere but generally mean the right to be identified as the author and similar rights. Some can effectively given away, for example, the right to refuse to allow derivative works exists in some plaves, but an employment contract could int heory include a clause to give blanket consent. However, the right to be identified is usually impossible to give up, even if you don't assert it (I think that in the UK moral rights law, even anonymous authors can come forward and claim the right later, and that it exists forever: you can use the work, but you must give due credit).
Whilst I don't like long after-death copyright terms, I do think it would be a good idea to make personal copyrights last at least as long as corporate copyright, even if the author dies, and also to have a short period for unpublished works to be published with a shorter term, to encourage authors' estates to release unpublished works (since most authors today are unlikely to have backups and archives of all their unpublished work, this would be a non-trivial task).
I peer through my monocle and raise my topper.
I'd like to see you cap that.
No, because you still would need to do the encryption, and without Ubisoft's private key, you'd need to modify the authentication code in the game.
Impact fuses or a short count-down after the engine stops would discourage civilians from shooting at them, at least in populated areas,and could be done for very low cost and weight.
The best I can do is:
This isn't overly broad, although it is pretty obvious now, it might have been rather less obvious when you consider the subsidiary claims, and anything about the selection, and it may have been less obvious when the patent was applied for.
Can you think of any GPL software from, say, 10 or 15 years ago that would be much use as the basis for a closed-source app today? Probably the most popular software of that age is WinXP, and re-selling that without SP1-3 would be nigh impossible.
Personally, I'd like it if, to receive copyright protection, software had to be either published with all sources, makefiles, etc., or have those placed in escrow until the copyright expired, and likewise the high-res masters of a/v works. This way, the version in the public domain contains all the information needed to make derivative works from it. As it is, books, for example, contain the copyright material in losslessly, for the most part, even if duplicating it would be non-trivial,
Actually, green toggles between sizes, typically one larger than the other (although they may just be different shapes, and AFAICT they could be the same)
That's fine, assuming your photo shows what would have been visible to the naked eye. If you're taking a picture down a telescope, then we are near the top of a slippery slope. Would using an IR camera to see me in the dark be OK? Where do we draw the line? The same with audio. It is fair enough for it to be legal to listen to someone from where you are standing legitimately, but would a sensitive directional microphone be OK? Would a laser microphone? And that is without considering whether the camera/microphone is hidden.
If the girl is on the ground floor, that's her problem. If she's on the 27th and there's no building opposite, then she should expect that someone on the ground might get a glimpse of her breasts, but she probably wouldn't expect he genitals to be seen clearly (neglecting reflections, so assume it is night time but her light is on).
IMHO, the law should allow photographs to show only what an ordinary person (not a giant, etc.) can see with the naked eye from a publicly accessible place where the subject could be assumed to consider it reasonably likely to be, unless the photographer has permission to take them.
Thus, in the Streisand case, IINM, the photos showed nothing that couldn't be seen from a aeroplane flying legally. Likewise, in one house I lived in, you could see clearly into the main bedroom from a passing bus, and since buses passed every few minutes, irregularly, except in the small hours, so I had no good reason to expect anything I did in that part of the room to go unseen, if I had my blinds open, unless it was night time and I had the lights off (since it would be reasonable to expect that no one would shine a torch in my window to get a better view). (In before anyone tells me they got photos of me, I'm only interested if you're at least reasonably young and beautiful :-) (no, that does not include you, CowboyNeal))
OTOH, in another house, you couldn't see into any of the rooms from outside the estate, unless you climbed a (very difficult to climb) tree beside the road (since a large lorry or a single-decker bus wouldn't allow one to see in, and there were no double-decker buses in the area, so i would expect that no stranger would be able to see me when I'm inside, or in many areas outside, unless I should have known they'd be there, and they wouldn't be taking photographs without permission.
Without considering the specific case (hey, this is /., RingTFL is nearly as bad as TFA), if he lived on a minor road where there were no buses (or no buses at that time), and virtually no cherry pickers, large lorries, and so on, it would be reasonable to assume that no-one would see him over his wall.
...'future quoting' ... is CLEARLY slander.
Not really, since *anything* is a possible future quote. If the "quote" was posted without explanation, then it probably would be, but, for example, it is perfectly possible that he would say "I like eating babies, yum, yum." The GP was perfectly clear that it wasn't a real quote.
5'9" would be better, since one's eyes are at least 2-3 inches below the top of one's head, and many places have 6'/1.8m height restrictions on fences erected without a permit, but a fence that high is obviously meant to prevent casual observers seeing in. This way, you can;t see anything than an ordinary observer would have been able to see, so there would be a lot less problems with people accidentally exposing themselves. Blurring nude people is obviously still a good idea, because there would be problems with porn censorship laws, and blurring faces would probably be cheaper than facing privacy lawsuits, but they would be a lot safer.
The misspellings are traditional. It's like posts correcting spelling mistakes in previous posts have to include a mistake of their own.
No, because with no GPL or copyright, it would be at best analogous to releasing under the BSD licence, if your country has some sort of moral rights law like the British one (so an author always has the right to be identified as such, even after copyright has expired), so derivative works could be closed off. However, all you need to do is refuse to give a copy of the software (or other work) without the recipient agreeing to an NDA-like contract with the same effect as a distribution licence.