The title - while literally true - implies that a court has decided that Kim Dotcom can now be extradited. In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
Lofty language devoid of any substance - and of course people mod it as insightful. So you're saying that if someone brings a gun on an airplane we shouldn't care? What about a grenade? Other explosives? You chose not to live in fear, after all.
A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP. The fact that someone sneaks past security justifies searching them. Similarly, the fact that someone in the terminal has contact with someone outside of the terminal, justifies searching both of those people. In both of those situations, there is a valid reason to perform at least some search. The OP is NOT talking about how much authorityTSA should have in general, who searches should be performed on, or how searches should be performed. In other words, the OP was NOT saying that, as a matter of everyday security, we should patdown four-year old girls. The OP IS saying that the specific circumstances OF THIS CASE justified at least some extra scrutiny. For a community that purports to be news for nerds, it sure does have an abundance of people who are incapable of independent thought/reasoning.
No, her grandma might have been handing off contraband to her (not the other way around). I don't know how much familiarity you have with airport design, but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look. They're typically designed such that the patdown area is the last point of security - that is, after the patdown zone, you basically walk right into the terminal. If someone manages to have contact with a person in the patdown zone, they could easily sneak items past security. This is very poor design and SHOULD be changed. But, from the TSA officer's perspective, that's the design that's there and under these circumstances suspicion seems reasonable. As I said, I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come (and I think that security is too regulated to begin with), but with that said in these circumstances the TSA officer had a valid reason to be suspicious. PLEASE NOTE that I can't say whether or not the patdown went too far (I simply don' t know) - I'm just saying that at least some form of pastdown was justified.
I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. From what I can gather about the facts, first the little girl went through security. Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown, the little girl ran up to her grandmother and hugged her. That seems like it would be a pretty damn good way to pass off contraband. I mean, I understand that this WAS a four-year old girl getting a patdown, but you have to remember that this four-year old girl was traveling with an adult who had control over her. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules. I think that this case is an example where the TSA actually did their job properly - some TSA agent noticed something that to the untrained eye would have been an ordinary hug, but very plausibly could have been a pre-planned ploy to sneak contraband into the airport. Maybe the TSA could have approached the child more reasonably and given her more time to cool off, but overall I think that a patdown was justified.
We have a technology that could potentially lead to self-organizing micro-particles capable of rapidly forming complex shapes, and your first thought is "What if someone uses this technology to create a club and then clobbers someone over the head with it?"
How is this Insightful in any way? It's a conclusory response that turns out to be, at a minimum, a broad simplification, and more likely factually incorrect.
I understand that posters want to mod-up posts that tend to agree with their opinions, but posts that purport to be facts (and incorrect ones at that) are hardly "Insightful." On the contrary, they're flat-out misleading.
I'm not saying whether or not these arbitration clauses should/shouldn't be legal. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to confuse peoples' opinions with actual facts. One way to do this is to mod up posts that actually cite sources, and not ones that are merely conclusory (like here).
[Sorry for re-post. My last post was accidentally made before I logged in]
This case deals in the realm of copyrights, not patents. It's important to note that this is also the rule in the U.S. - neither ideas nor systems/processes/procedures can be copyrighted. The problem, however, is drawing the line between "ideas" (which aren't protected by copyright) and "expression" (which is protected by copyright). As in many areas of law, there is no easy way to determine what exactly is an idea and what exactly is an expression. That's what this case dispute's hinges around.
In conclusion, not allowing copyright protection for ideas is nothing new and is absolutely not newsworthy.
[DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer, and I am NOT offering legal advice.]
Well, I will probably looking at a divorce in a year's time or so, and if I was ordered to turn over my facebook password my very first action would be to delete my profile.
Then you would potentially face penalties for spoilation of evidence in which case you could potentially face imprisonment and a jury would be permitted to "assume the worst." Good job.
(Note: I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice)
You do realize that we're talking about college textbooks here, right? The library isn't going to store 100+ copies of the same book for everyone to use. And a lot of the time, you can't simply check out a coursebook for an entire semester - it's seen as unfair to other students (and people who aren't taking the course but may need to use the book). Amazon seems to have adopted a pretty reasonable solution, as many schools already have textbook rental programs of their own. Now, you can rent the book in digital format, which is going to be very convenient for obvious reasons.
Motorola just posted a $89 million loss for Q1. However, they sold a good bit of Xooms: 250,000 to be precise (recall that some estates predicted they would sell less than 15,000 of the devices).
http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14488
The article says that the researcher's developed a "novel" method. However, I'm pretty sure the Salem Witch Trials used this first. If the majority called "Witch!" off to the fires she went.
Discovering the Higgs Boson would be a huge confirmation of the Standard Model, but it seems like the only reason popular culture cares about it is because of its stupid nickname. Can we just agree to stop calling it "The God Particle?"
By having these drug laws, we provide incentive for criminals to circumvent them. It's no surprise that these drug rings have used more sophisticated methods to smuggle their products into the U.S. The more we ramp up "protecting" our population from drugs, the more drug lords ramp up their methods of importing drugs. Now that these methods exist, there's no reason why terrorists can't use it to piggyback dangerous devices. In summary, add another "+1" to the long list of negatives stemming from our War on Drugs.
...the Judge's decision. I thought only an Appeals Court can do that, not an AGENCY of the Administration.
FTA: "ITC Judge Paul Luckern on Jan. 24 agreed with the companies on both issues." The first judge was a judge on the ITC. Essentially we have a judge reviewing his own court's decision. It's not like the ITC is trying to reverse a federal Court of Appeals or something along those lines.
It seems like it would be difficult to determine whether a Chinese company is using pirated software, unless there is some term in the software's EULA which requires all corporate entities to register their products (which there very well could be). But even with that potential exception, it can't be assumed that the company is using a Microsoft product - there are a ton of various (some free) spreadsheet editors that the foreign company could be using. Furthermore, a Chinese company is outside of the US's jurisdiction and won't be subject to discovery proceedings and we can't subpoena any witnesses from the company itself. While I definitely think this law is a good thing - and that we shouldn't allow foreign companies to unfairly cut costs by stealing software - the practical implications of this law don't seem as massive as initially presumed.
When a school is hiring, it has a duty to hire the teachers most capable of informing students. The teachers aren't necessarily being "discriminated" against because of their views; rather, their capacity to teach modern scientific theory may be in question. There's a difference.
If one teacher focuses all of his research energies towards proving intelligent design, why wouldn't that shed at least some minimal light on whether or not the teacher is capable of teaching current views (especially in conjunction with other factors)? I'm not saying it should be dispositive - the teacher's other qualifications should certainly be examined as well - I just don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a factor.
That's one of the many problems with Slashdot. This guy accurately describes the law, yet people mod down as if he was writing a personal endorsement. It's uninformative because you don't agree with the state of reality he's describing?
The summary says that "the fuel could combust." I'm not a nuclear engineer, but is this statement accurate? The article made it seem as though the fuel would reach very high temperatures, and things AROUND it would catch fire (and then carry the radioactive materials in the smoke). It didn't sound as though the fuel itself was going to combust, just that it would melt.
The words 'democracy' and 'democrat' and nearly identical. On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party. 1/2 1. Argument settled.
I don't agree with your statements, and neither does this chart.
Two questions. 1) Which statements do you dispute? 2) How does the chart you linked dispute those statements?
You basically said, "Of your ten statements, every single one is wrong. Here's a bar graph." Annnnndddd?
Slashdot Mirror
The title - while literally true - implies that a court has decided that Kim Dotcom can now be extradited. In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
Lofty language devoid of any substance - and of course people mod it as insightful. So you're saying that if someone brings a gun on an airplane we shouldn't care? What about a grenade? Other explosives? You chose not to live in fear, after all.
A lot of people are misunderstanding the OP. The fact that someone sneaks past security justifies searching them. Similarly, the fact that someone in the terminal has contact with someone outside of the terminal, justifies searching both of those people. In both of those situations, there is a valid reason to perform at least some search. The OP is NOT talking about how much authorityTSA should have in general, who searches should be performed on, or how searches should be performed. In other words, the OP was NOT saying that, as a matter of everyday security, we should patdown four-year old girls. The OP IS saying that the specific circumstances OF THIS CASE justified at least some extra scrutiny. For a community that purports to be news for nerds, it sure does have an abundance of people who are incapable of independent thought/reasoning.
No, her grandma might have been handing off contraband to her (not the other way around). I don't know how much familiarity you have with airport design, but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look. They're typically designed such that the patdown area is the last point of security - that is, after the patdown zone, you basically walk right into the terminal. If someone manages to have contact with a person in the patdown zone, they could easily sneak items past security. This is very poor design and SHOULD be changed. But, from the TSA officer's perspective, that's the design that's there and under these circumstances suspicion seems reasonable. As I said, I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come (and I think that security is too regulated to begin with), but with that said in these circumstances the TSA officer had a valid reason to be suspicious. PLEASE NOTE that I can't say whether or not the patdown went too far (I simply don' t know) - I'm just saying that at least some form of pastdown was justified.
I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. From what I can gather about the facts, first the little girl went through security. Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown, the little girl ran up to her grandmother and hugged her. That seems like it would be a pretty damn good way to pass off contraband. I mean, I understand that this WAS a four-year old girl getting a patdown, but you have to remember that this four-year old girl was traveling with an adult who had control over her. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules. I think that this case is an example where the TSA actually did their job properly - some TSA agent noticed something that to the untrained eye would have been an ordinary hug, but very plausibly could have been a pre-planned ploy to sneak contraband into the airport. Maybe the TSA could have approached the child more reasonably and given her more time to cool off, but overall I think that a patdown was justified.
We have a technology that could potentially lead to self-organizing micro-particles capable of rapidly forming complex shapes, and your first thought is "What if someone uses this technology to create a club and then clobbers someone over the head with it?"
How is this Insightful in any way? It's a conclusory response that turns out to be, at a minimum, a broad simplification, and more likely factually incorrect. I understand that posters want to mod-up posts that tend to agree with their opinions, but posts that purport to be facts (and incorrect ones at that) are hardly "Insightful." On the contrary, they're flat-out misleading. I'm not saying whether or not these arbitration clauses should/shouldn't be legal. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to confuse peoples' opinions with actual facts. One way to do this is to mod up posts that actually cite sources, and not ones that are merely conclusory (like here). [Sorry for re-post. My last post was accidentally made before I logged in]
This case deals in the realm of copyrights, not patents. It's important to note that this is also the rule in the U.S. - neither ideas nor systems/processes/procedures can be copyrighted. The problem, however, is drawing the line between "ideas" (which aren't protected by copyright) and "expression" (which is protected by copyright). As in many areas of law, there is no easy way to determine what exactly is an idea and what exactly is an expression. That's what this case dispute's hinges around. In conclusion, not allowing copyright protection for ideas is nothing new and is absolutely not newsworthy. [DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer, and I am NOT offering legal advice.]
Well, I will probably looking at a divorce in a year's time or so, and if I was ordered to turn over my facebook password my very first action would be to delete my profile.
Then you would potentially face penalties for spoilation of evidence in which case you could potentially face imprisonment and a jury would be permitted to "assume the worst." Good job. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice)
You do realize that we're talking about college textbooks here, right? The library isn't going to store 100+ copies of the same book for everyone to use. And a lot of the time, you can't simply check out a coursebook for an entire semester - it's seen as unfair to other students (and people who aren't taking the course but may need to use the book). Amazon seems to have adopted a pretty reasonable solution, as many schools already have textbook rental programs of their own. Now, you can rent the book in digital format, which is going to be very convenient for obvious reasons.
Michael Bolton: "You think the pet rock was a really great idea?" Tom Smykowski: "Sure it was. The guy made a million dollars."
Motorola just posted a $89 million loss for Q1. However, they sold a good bit of Xooms: 250,000 to be precise (recall that some estates predicted they would sell less than 15,000 of the devices). http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=14488
The article says that the researcher's developed a "novel" method. However, I'm pretty sure the Salem Witch Trials used this first. If the majority called "Witch!" off to the fires she went.
Discovering the Higgs Boson would be a huge confirmation of the Standard Model, but it seems like the only reason popular culture cares about it is because of its stupid nickname. Can we just agree to stop calling it "The God Particle?"
$7 million FEDERAL dollars to give these kids iPad 2s, while some inner-city schools in Detroit can't even afford teachers. Ridiculous.
By having these drug laws, we provide incentive for criminals to circumvent them. It's no surprise that these drug rings have used more sophisticated methods to smuggle their products into the U.S. The more we ramp up "protecting" our population from drugs, the more drug lords ramp up their methods of importing drugs. Now that these methods exist, there's no reason why terrorists can't use it to piggyback dangerous devices. In summary, add another "+1" to the long list of negatives stemming from our War on Drugs.
...the Judge's decision. I thought only an Appeals Court can do that, not an AGENCY of the Administration.
FTA: "ITC Judge Paul Luckern on Jan. 24 agreed with the companies on both issues." The first judge was a judge on the ITC. Essentially we have a judge reviewing his own court's decision. It's not like the ITC is trying to reverse a federal Court of Appeals or something along those lines.
Honestly I've never even heard of the Slingbox before. But it looks really cool. I might have to pick one up, thanks.
It seems like it would be difficult to determine whether a Chinese company is using pirated software, unless there is some term in the software's EULA which requires all corporate entities to register their products (which there very well could be). But even with that potential exception, it can't be assumed that the company is using a Microsoft product - there are a ton of various (some free) spreadsheet editors that the foreign company could be using. Furthermore, a Chinese company is outside of the US's jurisdiction and won't be subject to discovery proceedings and we can't subpoena any witnesses from the company itself. While I definitely think this law is a good thing - and that we shouldn't allow foreign companies to unfairly cut costs by stealing software - the practical implications of this law don't seem as massive as initially presumed.
When a school is hiring, it has a duty to hire the teachers most capable of informing students. The teachers aren't necessarily being "discriminated" against because of their views; rather, their capacity to teach modern scientific theory may be in question. There's a difference. If one teacher focuses all of his research energies towards proving intelligent design, why wouldn't that shed at least some minimal light on whether or not the teacher is capable of teaching current views (especially in conjunction with other factors)? I'm not saying it should be dispositive - the teacher's other qualifications should certainly be examined as well - I just don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a factor.
That's one of the many problems with Slashdot. This guy accurately describes the law, yet people mod down as if he was writing a personal endorsement. It's uninformative because you don't agree with the state of reality he's describing?
The summary says that "the fuel could combust." I'm not a nuclear engineer, but is this statement accurate? The article made it seem as though the fuel would reach very high temperatures, and things AROUND it would catch fire (and then carry the radioactive materials in the smoke). It didn't sound as though the fuel itself was going to combust, just that it would melt.
The words 'democracy' and 'democrat' and nearly identical. On the other hand, only 1/2 of the words in "Constitutional Republic" are nearly-identical to a political party. 1/2 1. Argument settled.
I don't agree with your statements, and neither does this chart.
Two questions. 1) Which statements do you dispute? 2) How does the chart you linked dispute those statements? You basically said, "Of your ten statements, every single one is wrong. Here's a bar graph." Annnnndddd?
Classic fear mongering. The car always had a driver in it (with override capabilities) while on public roads.