Yes, but the difference has consequences. Capabilities have increased by a factor of a thousand or more in several areas. This has made certain things practical--such as effectively removing these resources as important limiting factors on most programs. In addition, it has made areas previously almost impossible because of these limitations--such as complex digital video editing on a normal microcomputer.
Not to mention playing video of good quality on a normal microcomputer.
What we need is a court system that understands this and a way to apply the First Amendment to the ISPs. If it is spun as censorship rather than as requiring people to know stuff, it stands a much better chance politically.
This runs into problems in that it (1) prevents all positive government actions, such as the EITC or enforcement of a building code or market regulation of those markets where anticompetitive effects exist. You either have to expand the "clearly harmful to a person" so out of shape as to encompass wildly varying activities and support the modern regulatory state or you have utterly unregulated capitalism, which sounds really nice but has all kinds of problems. (2) people don't always communicate what they do or do not want to do effectively. And people who try to respect others do not always make sure they properly understand what others do or do not want to do.
Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.
By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.
Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.
This.
It takes a remarkable human being to trust science over his or her own beliefs when the two are in conflict. It's one thing when we haven't decided what the right answer is--but when we've decided, God help Science if it's not on our side. We are more likely to question methodology, etc... if the result is not one that we like.
This is troubling among people conducting experiments as much as it is among politicians. Clinical trials where someone has made up their mind beforehand and so doesn't even bother to write down a patient symptom that the person conducting the trial believes is easily explained, for example.
Is "don't have sex with anyone without their consent" really so difficult to abide by? It seems pretty damned straightforward to me.
It's perfectly clear when parties actually discuss consent. It's perfectly clear when parties are clear on what constitutes consent. It's pretty clear when parties are honest about consent.
But people are really, really bad at communicating.
I won't do it justice, but you should be able to look around the net for some examples. The absence of explicit communication about consent makes it surprisingly common. A girl protests and a guy thinks its a mock-protest, and then he thinks she is enjoying being kissed so he continues and lies on top of her, which she sees as holding her down, and he was between her and the door before, and she thinks she has protested and he just keeps going, and fumbles around with his pants, and she's afraid to stop him for social reasons (leaving aside the very drunk scenarios) or because she doesn't believe he'll actually do it or because it's not a situation she's used to and her brain just isn't reacting right, because isn't this her friend or her boyfriend's best friend or even her boyfriend?
Basically, the problem is that absent explicit communication about consent, there is room for ambiguity. Add to that the problem that a number of people (I believe it's a substantial minority) deliberately lie about consent for social reasons (feeling that they shouldn't say yes even if they are giving consent). That was part of the reason for the whole "no means no" campaign, to fight back against that.
Not at all. "Boys will be boys" implies that nothing can be done to prevent rape, and also that a person is not responsible for his or her own actions. "Rape occurs in large part because of conflicting rape norms" says that we have a problem in how our society conceives of and addresses rape, and there is something we can do to improve it.
On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.
Expect your little toy to be damaged...and...don't EVEN try to equate it with a piloted commercial aircraft with human lives on board. The attempt just illustrates the weakness of your logic.
That's just plane wrong. (pun intended)
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy from overflying aircraft. Florida v. Riley, IIRC, was the name of the SCOTUS case that established that. YMMV, and consult an attorney for applicable state law. (State constitutions or other law may grant you different rights, although that likely gets tricky in a federally regulated area like aviation.)
Right. And if chicks didn't dress all slutty, they wouldn't get all raped, AMIRITE?
Do you people understand rape IS NOT the woman's fault? How ignorant do you have to be to understand rape is because the rapist is a sick fuck, not because of how the woman is dressed.
Actually, most rapes probably occur because of miscommunication. A guy was never taught that the behavior he is engaged in is rape, and maybe his support network doesn't characterize it as rape, so he doesn't realize it's rape. A girl feels violated by something like what the guy considers to be rape, that she (or her support network) consider to be rape, under the same behavior. Ask a dozen different people what happened based on the same facts, you'll get wildly divergent answers as to whether or not there was rape. The problem is that we have an idea of what "rape" is in society, and it's stranger rape, which isn't what rape really is. The problem is we have conflicting beliefs as to what behavior is okay and what behavior isn't. Labeling a rapist a sick fuck is probably usually wrong. Usually rape occurs because of miscommunication and either unclear or incorrect social norms, not because of any mental deformity. If we made rape education as big a priority as rape punishment--or perhaps bigger--we would see a bigger reduction in the amount of rape than we do from punishment.
" Stranger rape tends to happen to people dumb enough to get so hammered that they pass out, or dress slutty, or go down dark alleys at night thinking they are invincible"
Sounds like it would be a crime NOT to rape them.
Not funny, dude. We don't advocate raping people in order to point out that they made a bad choice, or are screwed up at some point in their life. Similarly, repeat runaway teens are at high risk for being trafficked into slavery--but it is not a civilized response to blame them for it.
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
Email is still governed by the stored communications act (from the 1980s, IIRC). The FCC regulates interstate communications using laws from 1996, and those are the RECENT ones that are relevant. (common carrier laws are still based on common-law history going back to the 1800s).
It's discussing *superfluous* citations, not irrelevant ones. The authors are the ones deciding if they are superfluous. Authors will always think that having to add a citation is superfluous. That doesn't mean that they should be able to ramble on for a forty page paper with less than an absolute minimum of, say, 120 footnotes. Is it possible that the paper is perfectly correct without them? Sure. But if I'm putting a journal's name on them, and I'm responsible for the journal's reputation, I'd like them to be more reliable than a note someone wrote on the back of a napkin.
There will also be some bias in terms of what makes a citation "superfluous." A good editor is concerned about insuring that the submitter's statements are accurate and well-sourced. On good legal journals, editors actually go and look at every cited source (hundreds per article) to see if it contains the proposition it is cited for. When a journal is well-sourced, it is more reliable as a source for practitioners and as a research tool for academics, as well as being a better stepping-off point for further research. Forcing an author to show that his or her statements are actually accurate can be useful. More junior faculty obviously get away with less blustering because their reputations are not already built, and journals have an interest in getting people who are better-known in the field.
The beauty is though in Canada most of the population is in big cities. About half of our population lives in the top 10 cities. Heck nearly a third of the country lives in the bottom half of Ontario.
The bottom half of Ontario, to clarify, is not a city--there are just a few cities there. It is mostly rural--small towns, family farms, or commuter rural. (By commuter rural, I mean not really suburban, but nevertheless commuter). But quite a few of them have DSL.
As I understand it, strict liability means one is found guilty and punished despite having taken due care to prevent something from happening. How many of these strict liability crimes under state law lead to imprisonment, not just a fine? I was under the impression that they were mostly traffic violations and the like.
Close--that is more about the difference between tort standards of negligence v. strict liability. In the criminal context, strict liability would mean more that someone didn't have to prove that you knew you were doing something wrong. For example, I believe that Congress adjusted the anti-money-laundering laws after Ratzlaf so that structuring transactions to avoid the AML reporting laws was a strict liability offense, because the Supreme Court had interpreted the statute so that someone had to be aware that avoiding the reporting requirements was illegal in order for it to be a crime. (The new law overturned the Supreme Court decision.)
It's mostly regulatory, but not always. But it's not something that has ever been held to implicate due process, to my knowledge.
Obviously, if any of this matters for a legal reason, consult an attorney.
Due process is not necessarily implicated merely because the mens rea standard for infringement is lowered, the safe harbor clause of the DMCA is overridden, or web sites are shut down quickly. Lots of states have strict liability crimes, especially regulatory ones. They're not due process violations.
Actually, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, the use of fecal matter for speech would likely be analyzed under an intermediate scrutiny O'Brien standard, applicable to cases of mixed speech and action.
The government restriction on fecal matter would need (1) to be enacted pursuant to governmental authority (constitutional if Congress), (2) to further an important or substantial government interest (3) that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) must prohibit no more than is essential to further that interest.
That's actually easier than it sounds, because almost anything can be a substantial government interest and I think the "essential" language here is actually meant pretty loosely--more loosely than the strict scrutiny "least restrictive means" requirement, for example.
The Supreme Court noted, I believe in Johnson, that a ban on fires would ban the burning of flags, but a ban on flag-burning would fail the O'brien test because it would be aimed at the suppression of free expression. Similarly, a ban on fecal matter for public health reasons would be permissible, whereas a ban on fecal matter because it is offensive would normally be constitutionally invalid.
In addition, the Secondary effects test of Renton could be used to consider the suppression of fecal matter. A restriction might be permissible because it would arguably be aimed at the secondary effects of fecal matter, which would trigger the (Arguably) slightly easier Time, Place, and Manner test for permissible restrictions on speech.
Finally, there is the "Speech and Debate Clause," which adds another wrinkle when trying to restrict Congressional speech. So one would have to be clear about what kind of Santorum was regulated.
*blinks*
Okay. That's it. I'm never taking an internet posting to its logical conclusion again.
So... I wonder if he just doesn't understand the law, or if he understands it and is proposing the passage of an illegal law anyway. Since the First Amendment would not exactly be happy with this kind of tax.
I don't know; it sounds kinda like the modern educational model in some ways. You kinda learn what everything means--or at least a simplified version of it--and then you learn more and more complex models, how what you learned earlier was actually wrong and here's why.
But the earlier framework lets you relate the new stuff to everything else. So when you move on to electron clouds, for example, your earlier model of having an electron just being this tiny negative thing rotating around a nucleus (like Maris in an episode of Frasier) gives you a framework.
Isn't this something our fabulous leaders should of demanded before spending a crap load of money and deploying them all around the nation?
Isn't this something that's better late than never, considering that it's too late to say it should be done beforehand?
This. Politicians are not engineers. And even if they were, when they do something right, it makes more sense to praise them for it than it does to point out how foolish they may have been not to have done it earlier. Attacking them only makes sense if you are trying to defeat them in the next election--which is probably not the right thing to do when they do something right. =)
The problem is that if you limit licenses to 5% of nothing, and make licensing compulsory, then free software is competing unfairly, and you have the problem of commercial software using free software that uses patents. The purpose of the patent system is to incentivize creation, and if you are going to have software patents, then letting free software ignore the patents really defeats that purpose by giving the licensee a major disadvantage over free solutions.
True--a compulsory licensing scheme is one option that could make more sense. IIRC, courts have sometimes awarded compulsory licenses in the past in patent cases, but it is relatively rare. It may have to do with those cases where there is a strong public interest in allowing the infringing party to continue to infringe, but don't quote me on that--I'd have to look it up.
One problem with it is that it leaves courts to figure out after-the-fact what "fair" royalty would have been negotiated between the parties. One thing that would be a problem with it as applied to software patents is how to deal with free software when a company would not have been willing to license its patent for free.
Slashdot Mirror
it's just more of the same.
Yes, but the difference has consequences. Capabilities have increased by a factor of a thousand or more in several areas. This has made certain things practical--such as effectively removing these resources as important limiting factors on most programs. In addition, it has made areas previously almost impossible because of these limitations--such as complex digital video editing on a normal microcomputer.
Not to mention playing video of good quality on a normal microcomputer.
We need a general public that understands this
Good luck.
What we need is a court system that understands this and a way to apply the First Amendment to the ISPs. If it is spun as censorship rather than as requiring people to know stuff, it stands a much better chance politically.
Simple in theory. Highly problematic in fact.
This runs into problems in that it (1) prevents all positive government actions, such as the EITC or enforcement of a building code or market regulation of those markets where anticompetitive effects exist. You either have to expand the "clearly harmful to a person" so out of shape as to encompass wildly varying activities and support the modern regulatory state or you have utterly unregulated capitalism, which sounds really nice but has all kinds of problems. (2) people don't always communicate what they do or do not want to do effectively. And people who try to respect others do not always make sure they properly understand what others do or do not want to do.
Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas. The more ideological the wing of the party, the more busses they find driving by.
By the same token, both parties are willing to embrace the infallibility of science, and the certainty of the consensus, when it validates what they already believe.
Science is in good company though; politicians will do the same with the Supreme Court, the Constitution, Religion, or anything else that they can get their hands on.
This.
It takes a remarkable human being to trust science over his or her own beliefs when the two are in conflict. It's one thing when we haven't decided what the right answer is--but when we've decided, God help Science if it's not on our side. We are more likely to question methodology, etc... if the result is not one that we like.
This is troubling among people conducting experiments as much as it is among politicians. Clinical trials where someone has made up their mind beforehand and so doesn't even bother to write down a patient symptom that the person conducting the trial believes is easily explained, for example.
If we just say "those fuckers," while leaving the antecedent deliberately ambiguous, we're good. Think of it like lazy evaluation of variables.
Is "don't have sex with anyone without their consent" really so difficult to abide by? It seems pretty damned straightforward to me.
It's perfectly clear when parties actually discuss consent. It's perfectly clear when parties are clear on what constitutes consent. It's pretty clear when parties are honest about consent.
But people are really, really bad at communicating.
I won't do it justice, but you should be able to look around the net for some examples. The absence of explicit communication about consent makes it surprisingly common. A girl protests and a guy thinks its a mock-protest, and then he thinks she is enjoying being kissed so he continues and lies on top of her, which she sees as holding her down, and he was between her and the door before, and she thinks she has protested and he just keeps going, and fumbles around with his pants, and she's afraid to stop him for social reasons (leaving aside the very drunk scenarios) or because she doesn't believe he'll actually do it or because it's not a situation she's used to and her brain just isn't reacting right, because isn't this her friend or her boyfriend's best friend or even her boyfriend?
Basically, the problem is that absent explicit communication about consent, there is room for ambiguity. Add to that the problem that a number of people (I believe it's a substantial minority) deliberately lie about consent for social reasons (feeling that they shouldn't say yes even if they are giving consent). That was part of the reason for the whole "no means no" campaign, to fight back against that.
Not at all. "Boys will be boys" implies that nothing can be done to prevent rape, and also that a person is not responsible for his or her own actions. "Rape occurs in large part because of conflicting rape norms" says that we have a problem in how our society conceives of and addresses rape, and there is something we can do to improve it.
On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.
Expect your little toy to be damaged...and...don't EVEN try to equate it with a piloted commercial aircraft with human lives on board. The attempt just illustrates the weakness of your logic.
That's just plane wrong. (pun intended)
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy from overflying aircraft. Florida v. Riley, IIRC, was the name of the SCOTUS case that established that. YMMV, and consult an attorney for applicable state law. (State constitutions or other law may grant you different rights, although that likely gets tricky in a federally regulated area like aviation.)
Right. And if chicks didn't dress all slutty, they wouldn't get all raped, AMIRITE?
Do you people understand rape IS NOT the woman's fault? How ignorant do you have to be to understand rape is because the rapist is a sick fuck, not because of how the woman is dressed.
Actually, most rapes probably occur because of miscommunication. A guy was never taught that the behavior he is engaged in is rape, and maybe his support network doesn't characterize it as rape, so he doesn't realize it's rape. A girl feels violated by something like what the guy considers to be rape, that she (or her support network) consider to be rape, under the same behavior. Ask a dozen different people what happened based on the same facts, you'll get wildly divergent answers as to whether or not there was rape. The problem is that we have an idea of what "rape" is in society, and it's stranger rape, which isn't what rape really is. The problem is we have conflicting beliefs as to what behavior is okay and what behavior isn't. Labeling a rapist a sick fuck is probably usually wrong. Usually rape occurs because of miscommunication and either unclear or incorrect social norms, not because of any mental deformity. If we made rape education as big a priority as rape punishment--or perhaps bigger--we would see a bigger reduction in the amount of rape than we do from punishment.
" Stranger rape tends to happen to people dumb enough to get so hammered that they pass out, or dress slutty, or go down dark alleys at night thinking they are invincible"
Sounds like it would be a crime NOT to rape them.
Not funny, dude. We don't advocate raping people in order to point out that they made a bad choice, or are screwed up at some point in their life. Similarly, repeat runaway teens are at high risk for being trafficked into slavery--but it is not a civilized response to blame them for it.
Making such changes is easy. You just replace a few words here and there in the law and you're done.
Email is still governed by the stored communications act (from the 1980s, IIRC). The FCC regulates interstate communications using laws from 1996, and those are the RECENT ones that are relevant. (common carrier laws are still based on common-law history going back to the 1800s).
It is rarely, if ever, easy to change law.
That's like saying engineers get to put people on the moon. Sure, some engineers do. But lots of 'em don't.
It's discussing *superfluous* citations, not irrelevant ones. The authors are the ones deciding if they are superfluous. Authors will always think that having to add a citation is superfluous. That doesn't mean that they should be able to ramble on for a forty page paper with less than an absolute minimum of, say, 120 footnotes. Is it possible that the paper is perfectly correct without them? Sure. But if I'm putting a journal's name on them, and I'm responsible for the journal's reputation, I'd like them to be more reliable than a note someone wrote on the back of a napkin.
There will also be some bias in terms of what makes a citation "superfluous." A good editor is concerned about insuring that the submitter's statements are accurate and well-sourced. On good legal journals, editors actually go and look at every cited source (hundreds per article) to see if it contains the proposition it is cited for. When a journal is well-sourced, it is more reliable as a source for practitioners and as a research tool for academics, as well as being a better stepping-off point for further research. Forcing an author to show that his or her statements are actually accurate can be useful. More junior faculty obviously get away with less blustering because their reputations are not already built, and journals have an interest in getting people who are better-known in the field.
The beauty is though in Canada most of the population is in big cities. About half of our population lives in the top 10 cities. Heck nearly a third of the country lives in the bottom half of Ontario.
The bottom half of Ontario, to clarify, is not a city--there are just a few cities there. It is mostly rural--small towns, family farms, or commuter rural. (By commuter rural, I mean not really suburban, but nevertheless commuter). But quite a few of them have DSL.
As I understand it, strict liability means one is found guilty and punished despite having taken due care to prevent something from happening. How many of these strict liability crimes under state law lead to imprisonment, not just a fine? I was under the impression that they were mostly traffic violations and the like.
Close--that is more about the difference between tort standards of negligence v. strict liability. In the criminal context, strict liability would mean more that someone didn't have to prove that you knew you were doing something wrong. For example, I believe that Congress adjusted the anti-money-laundering laws after Ratzlaf so that structuring transactions to avoid the AML reporting laws was a strict liability offense, because the Supreme Court had interpreted the statute so that someone had to be aware that avoiding the reporting requirements was illegal in order for it to be a crime. (The new law overturned the Supreme Court decision.)
It's mostly regulatory, but not always. But it's not something that has ever been held to implicate due process, to my knowledge.
Obviously, if any of this matters for a legal reason, consult an attorney.
Due process is not necessarily implicated merely because the mens rea standard for infringement is lowered, the safe harbor clause of the DMCA is overridden, or web sites are shut down quickly. Lots of states have strict liability crimes, especially regulatory ones. They're not due process violations.
Actually, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, the use of fecal matter for speech would likely be analyzed under an intermediate scrutiny O'Brien standard, applicable to cases of mixed speech and action.
The government restriction on fecal matter would need (1) to be enacted pursuant to governmental authority (constitutional if Congress), (2) to further an important or substantial government interest (3) that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) must prohibit no more than is essential to further that interest.
That's actually easier than it sounds, because almost anything can be a substantial government interest and I think the "essential" language here is actually meant pretty loosely--more loosely than the strict scrutiny "least restrictive means" requirement, for example.
The Supreme Court noted, I believe in Johnson, that a ban on fires would ban the burning of flags, but a ban on flag-burning would fail the O'brien test because it would be aimed at the suppression of free expression. Similarly, a ban on fecal matter for public health reasons would be permissible, whereas a ban on fecal matter because it is offensive would normally be constitutionally invalid.
In addition, the Secondary effects test of Renton could be used to consider the suppression of fecal matter. A restriction might be permissible because it would arguably be aimed at the secondary effects of fecal matter, which would trigger the (Arguably) slightly easier Time, Place, and Manner test for permissible restrictions on speech.
Finally, there is the "Speech and Debate Clause," which adds another wrinkle when trying to restrict Congressional speech. So one would have to be clear about what kind of Santorum was regulated.
*blinks*
Okay. That's it. I'm never taking an internet posting to its logical conclusion again.
So... I wonder if he just doesn't understand the law, or if he understands it and is proposing the passage of an illegal law anyway. Since the First Amendment would not exactly be happy with this kind of tax.
I don't know; it sounds kinda like the modern educational model in some ways. You kinda learn what everything means--or at least a simplified version of it--and then you learn more and more complex models, how what you learned earlier was actually wrong and here's why.
But the earlier framework lets you relate the new stuff to everything else. So when you move on to electron clouds, for example, your earlier model of having an electron just being this tiny negative thing rotating around a nucleus (like Maris in an episode of Frasier) gives you a framework.
Isn't this something our fabulous leaders should of demanded before spending a crap load of money and deploying them all around the nation?
Isn't this something that's better late than never, considering that it's too late to say it should be done beforehand?
This. Politicians are not engineers. And even if they were, when they do something right, it makes more sense to praise them for it than it does to point out how foolish they may have been not to have done it earlier. Attacking them only makes sense if you are trying to defeat them in the next election--which is probably not the right thing to do when they do something right. =)
The problem is that if you limit licenses to 5% of nothing, and make licensing compulsory, then free software is competing unfairly, and you have the problem of commercial software using free software that uses patents. The purpose of the patent system is to incentivize creation, and if you are going to have software patents, then letting free software ignore the patents really defeats that purpose by giving the licensee a major disadvantage over free solutions.
I agree that the proliferation is a problem.
True--a compulsory licensing scheme is one option that could make more sense. IIRC, courts have sometimes awarded compulsory licenses in the past in patent cases, but it is relatively rare. It may have to do with those cases where there is a strong public interest in allowing the infringing party to continue to infringe, but don't quote me on that--I'd have to look it up.
One problem with it is that it leaves courts to figure out after-the-fact what "fair" royalty would have been negotiated between the parties. One thing that would be a problem with it as applied to software patents is how to deal with free software when a company would not have been willing to license its patent for free.
He right know what infinitive is, don't this need prove for criticizing grammar prescriptivist.
How sense this criticism make, another matter is.
Yet no proof there is of malapropism.