a MORONIC interpretation of the law was made, saying that 'not stopping after a condom broke is rape'.
What's your agenda, exactly, that you're deliberately mis-representing what's been said/reported?
Unless you know something I don't he's not misrepresenting what's been reported at all.
It's not that not stopping after a condom breaks is rape in Sweden, it's that not stopping after the woman says "stop!" that matters. Nobody invented that on the fly just for fun.
So where's the evidence that "what's been said/reported" is that anyone said "stop!"?? Because if that's not what happened, then "not stopping after the woman says "stop!"" isn't what matters!
PS If you know something I don't about what's been alleged/reported, links are welcome.
Step 3
The principle of proportionality.
Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.
A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.
For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.
Hmm...revenge in a manner involving sex, to get back at someone who cheated on you...ringing any bells?
And yes, it's rape in Sweden if a women withdraws her consent and the man doesn't stop.
I'm pretty sure that's rape just about anywhere. The real question is, did she actually withdraw consent (like saying "stop!" or "the condom broke! we can't do this!") or does Swedish law just assume that consent is withdrawn once a condom breaks? From what's been presented here it could be either. Does anyone have any good links for Swedish rape law, or any place where "Sarah" specifically claims she explicitly withdrew consent?
There *is* a huge difference between the social backgrounds of the people that identify with the two parties, so I often wonder if that's why people think they are different...
I think there actually is a substantial difference on matters of social policy. For example, Republicans tend to support things like banning gays from adopting children (for moral reasons! thinks of the children!!) and from getting hospital visitation rights for their partners (because all gay relationships are based on selfish hedonism!) and anything else that upholds Good Christian Values (TM) (as determined solely by southern evangelicals) whereas Democrats tend to support things like abortion rights, religious and ethnic pluralism, and diversity in general. Oh, and science, which certain large American religious sects seem to see as evil.
On major affairs of state, things like diplomatic policy, military policy, and economic policy, you're right, there is basically no difference between the parties.
Because end-users aren't the only ones with rights and needs online, a point Luis Villa elegantly made years ago. It's not a one-way, free-for-all for end-users. Advertisers, developers and enterprises who employ end-users among others all factor into Mozilla's freedom calculus. Or should.
It seems like Luis Villa elegantly made just about the opposite point: in a world where GPL and other things intended to help end-users are increasingly playing into the hands of intermediate users, we should bring the rights back to the end-users. "I remain interested in the problem, though, since in the end I'm much more interested in the freedoms of users than the freedoms of sysadmins." Nowhere in Villa's article does he even mention the needs of advertisers, developers, or employers of end-users (thought he does mention how user-consumers and user-deployers were previously connected by their employers). Almost seems like Matt Asay knows we won't buy what he's saying unless he puts his words in another's mouth.
He says that pressure from Google convinced FSF to not "close the ASP loophole", but that's not how it was.
Yeah, I have a hard time picturing Stallman's organization bowing to pressure from anyone, especially a major corporation.
Instead, FSF started with GPLv2 and looked at every section where they could get more freedom and more protections for the distributors and the users, while ensuring that it would be used by software projects and that companies would distribute GPLv3 software. That's what it means to be pragmatic.
That sounds more like the FSF I know. I don't often describe them as pragmatic, but given the choice between believing the story that they chose to write a license more devs would use, or believing the story that they bowed to pressure from one big corporation, the former seems about 1000x more plausible.
But consider two cases about ideas: Art Buchwald successfully won a case against Paramount because the concept the movie Coming to America was based on originated with a story treatment (these are very detailed ideas typically 40-80 pages in length, but nowhere near as specific as a script) that Paramount rejected. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Buchwald prevailed and was granted both royalties and story credit. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount).
Funny you should mention that case, it's the second one I've read this term where Eddie Murphy was given sole story credit and somebody sued to get their due credit (the other was about Beverly Hills Cop II, but it was a case about arbitration). In this case, though, it wasn't ruled a matter of copyright, but a breach of contract, because they didn't reject his treatment, they optioned it. The court actually says the movie and the treatment might not have been similar enough to sustain a copyright claim, but because they had a contract saying they would pay and give credit if they made a movie similar to the treatment within 10 years, the similarities were enough to sustain a contract claim.
I don't think many medial mishaps would be corrected by a better understanding of calculus.
See now, it may actually be that a better understanding of calculus would result in more medical mishaps. Here's why:
Although I think getting surgeons to simply count the number of utensils on the bench before and after each operation would help quite a lot.
It may just be a fluke, but I and several of my classmates observed when we got to high school calc that the higher we got in math the more basic arithmetic and counting errors we made. If this phenomenon holds beyond our ridiculously small self-selected sample (which is a BIG if) then the medical profession may be doing us a big favor by keeping their calculus skills dull, thus keeping their counting skills sharp, thus reducing the number of utensils that get left inside patients. Just a hypothesis.
And it becomes really, really scary when you realize that this is the level of calculus applied to life-saving techniques in medical science. It can probably explain a lot of medical failures made every year...
Well, given that they just last year began given widespread adoption to checklists (which seem like such a basic concept!), I'll give them a few more years to get up to the level of appreciating calculus, and in the meantime try my hardest to stay healthy enough that I don't need life-saving medical treatment.
Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were.
Russ Feingold didn't.
In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.
Well, it's way better than the "I'm not an engineer but a building totally couldn't have fallen like that!!!ZOMG!" arguments, I'll give you that much.
It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority.
Which left? Where? Oh, you mean the Democratic party. Yeah, those guys who kept ripping on the "professional left" for being "too far to the left" all this past election cycle. Man, those guys are real leftists, I tell ya.
Nothing spoils the joy of having an original idea more than discovering it's actually a basic concept of another discipline.
I used to feel that way, but now I don't. I've learned to take some comfort from the fact that if it's already a time-tested and useful idea, I can feel confident that I got it right.
Yeah, I had what I thought was a new idea in economics and was dreading the battle to get my idea established in a world full of hostile economists, until I found out my idea was published 10 years ago by a real economist with a PhD and infinitely more credibility than myself. Now I'm totally relieved because instead of fighting to get people to take seriously the economic thinking of a young non-economist, I can just say "You should read Robert Prasch's work on labor supply s-curves".
I also get to feel good about my idea having merit instead of dread that I might be totally wrong.
I believe what makes this impressive even though he could have Googled the topic quite easily...
Questionable...how easy would it have been to invent Google in 1994? Probably tougher than inventing the trapezoid method. He would have had to first invent it in order to use it, back then.
Slashdot Mirror
How can one be in custody in absentia??? *boggle*
a MORONIC interpretation of the law was made, saying that 'not stopping after a condom broke is rape'. What's your agenda, exactly, that you're deliberately mis-representing what's been said/reported?
Unless you know something I don't he's not misrepresenting what's been reported at all.
It's not that not stopping after a condom breaks is rape in Sweden, it's that not stopping after the woman says "stop!" that matters. Nobody invented that on the fly just for fun.
So where's the evidence that "what's been said/reported" is that anyone said "stop!"?? Because if that's not what happened, then "not stopping after the woman says "stop!"" isn't what matters!
PS If you know something I don't about what's been alleged/reported, links are welcome.
Step 3 The principle of proportionality. Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature. A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.
For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.
Hmm...revenge in a manner involving sex, to get back at someone who cheated on you...ringing any bells?
He may have embarrassed organizations who claim to oppose terrorism, but guess what: even in the US, that isn't a crime.
Yet. Congress is probably working on it as we speak.
That said, the Sun probably doesn't claim to cover lots of news - it just focuses on anything to do with football and anything that has big breasts.
That's why you gotta love the Sun. Tabloids should stick to what tabloids do best...
Actually, according to an editorial penned by Assange's lawyer last week...
Would love to read that editorial. Do you have a link?
And yes, it's rape in Sweden if a women withdraws her consent and the man doesn't stop.
I'm pretty sure that's rape just about anywhere. The real question is, did she actually withdraw consent (like saying "stop!" or "the condom broke! we can't do this!") or does Swedish law just assume that consent is withdrawn once a condom breaks? From what's been presented here it could be either. Does anyone have any good links for Swedish rape law, or any place where "Sarah" specifically claims she explicitly withdrew consent?
There *is* a huge difference between the social backgrounds of the people that identify with the two parties, so I often wonder if that's why people think they are different...
I think there actually is a substantial difference on matters of social policy. For example, Republicans tend to support things like banning gays from adopting children (for moral reasons! thinks of the children!!) and from getting hospital visitation rights for their partners (because all gay relationships are based on selfish hedonism!) and anything else that upholds Good Christian Values (TM) (as determined solely by southern evangelicals) whereas Democrats tend to support things like abortion rights, religious and ethnic pluralism, and diversity in general. Oh, and science, which certain large American religious sects seem to see as evil.
On major affairs of state, things like diplomatic policy, military policy, and economic policy, you're right, there is basically no difference between the parties.
As a non-American I often listen on in bewilderment when I hear American's talk about their left-wing and right-wing parties...
Believe me, as an American I have the exact same reaction.
Because end-users aren't the only ones with rights and needs online, a point Luis Villa elegantly made years ago. It's not a one-way, free-for-all for end-users. Advertisers, developers and enterprises who employ end-users among others all factor into Mozilla's freedom calculus. Or should.
It seems like Luis Villa elegantly made just about the opposite point: in a world where GPL and other things intended to help end-users are increasingly playing into the hands of intermediate users, we should bring the rights back to the end-users. "I remain interested in the problem, though, since in the end I'm much more interested in the freedoms of users than the freedoms of sysadmins." Nowhere in Villa's article does he even mention the needs of advertisers, developers, or employers of end-users (thought he does mention how user-consumers and user-deployers were previously connected by their employers). Almost seems like Matt Asay knows we won't buy what he's saying unless he puts his words in another's mouth.
It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes!
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If your model isn't working out for you, try another.
I think your analysis is a good general antidote to Internet misconceptions.
He says that pressure from Google convinced FSF to not "close the ASP loophole", but that's not how it was.
Yeah, I have a hard time picturing Stallman's organization bowing to pressure from anyone, especially a major corporation.
Instead, FSF started with GPLv2 and looked at every section where they could get more freedom and more protections for the distributors and the users, while ensuring that it would be used by software projects and that companies would distribute GPLv3 software. That's what it means to be pragmatic.
That sounds more like the FSF I know. I don't often describe them as pragmatic, but given the choice between believing the story that they chose to write a license more devs would use, or believing the story that they bowed to pressure from one big corporation, the former seems about 1000x more plausible.
Do people who own companies have rights?
Yes. How does that have anything at all to do with companies having rights?
That's like responding to "farm animals don't have rights" by asking, "Do people who own farm animals have rights?"
At least we have other Free Software Browsers that don't have any ties or financial interests in advertisement, like Chrome. Oh ... wait ...
Epiphany?
But consider two cases about ideas: Art Buchwald successfully won a case against Paramount because the concept the movie Coming to America was based on originated with a story treatment (these are very detailed ideas typically 40-80 pages in length, but nowhere near as specific as a script) that Paramount rejected. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Buchwald prevailed and was granted both royalties and story credit. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount).
Funny you should mention that case, it's the second one I've read this term where Eddie Murphy was given sole story credit and somebody sued to get their due credit (the other was about Beverly Hills Cop II, but it was a case about arbitration). In this case, though, it wasn't ruled a matter of copyright, but a breach of contract, because they didn't reject his treatment, they optioned it. The court actually says the movie and the treatment might not have been similar enough to sustain a copyright claim, but because they had a contract saying they would pay and give credit if they made a movie similar to the treatment within 10 years, the similarities were enough to sustain a contract claim.
Given how USPTO works, I wouldn't have been surprised if he had actually been granted one.
In fact, these days, I wouldn't be surprised if he had actually been granted one without applying.
I don't think many medial mishaps would be corrected by a better understanding of calculus.
See now, it may actually be that a better understanding of calculus would result in more medical mishaps. Here's why:
Although I think getting surgeons to simply count the number of utensils on the bench before and after each operation would help quite a lot.
It may just be a fluke, but I and several of my classmates observed when we got to high school calc that the higher we got in math the more basic arithmetic and counting errors we made. If this phenomenon holds beyond our ridiculously small self-selected sample (which is a BIG if) then the medical profession may be doing us a big favor by keeping their calculus skills dull, thus keeping their counting skills sharp, thus reducing the number of utensils that get left inside patients. Just a hypothesis.
And it becomes really, really scary when you realize that this is the level of calculus applied to life-saving techniques in medical science. It can probably explain a lot of medical failures made every year...
Well, given that they just last year began given widespread adoption to checklists (which seem like such a basic concept!), I'll give them a few more years to get up to the level of appreciating calculus, and in the meantime try my hardest to stay healthy enough that I don't need life-saving medical treatment.
Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were.
Russ Feingold didn't.
In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.
Well, it's way better than the "I'm not an engineer but a building totally couldn't have fallen like that!!!ZOMG!" arguments, I'll give you that much.
hai im ur rabbit pls stop rubbinz mai feetz dey is gettinz chappd k thx
Dude, rabbits don't speak lolcat.
It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority.
Which left? Where? Oh, you mean the Democratic party. Yeah, those guys who kept ripping on the "professional left" for being "too far to the left" all this past election cycle. Man, those guys are real leftists, I tell ya.
Nothing spoils the joy of having an original idea more than discovering it's actually a basic concept of another discipline.
I used to feel that way, but now I don't. I've learned to take some comfort from the fact that if it's already a time-tested and useful idea, I can feel confident that I got it right.
Yeah, I had what I thought was a new idea in economics and was dreading the battle to get my idea established in a world full of hostile economists, until I found out my idea was published 10 years ago by a real economist with a PhD and infinitely more credibility than myself. Now I'm totally relieved because instead of fighting to get people to take seriously the economic thinking of a young non-economist, I can just say "You should read Robert Prasch's work on labor supply s-curves".
I also get to feel good about my idea having merit instead of dread that I might be totally wrong.
I believe what makes this impressive even though he could have Googled the topic quite easily...
Questionable...how easy would it have been to invent Google in 1994? Probably tougher than inventing the trapezoid method. He would have had to first invent it in order to use it, back then.
This was apparently published in 1994. I don't think they had lmgtfy back then.
Not only that, they didn't even have the "g" (which by far is the most important element of lmgtfy) back then!
no ignorance would be to blame for his 'discovery'
Maybe he should publish. He can call the "newly discovered" difference between bullets and empty shell casings "the VShael distinction."