"(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process"
That means we can't subpoena their records, impound their vehicles, or place liens on their property. Their members can still be arrested, tried, and sentenced for criminal activity.
This is why "diplomatic immunity" works on parking tickets: because we have chosen to waive our punishment, impounding the car. If unpaid parking tickets meant jail time, then diplomats would either pay their tickets or go to jail.
Not all phones will recharge this way without extra work. A co-worker and I just had a look at his new Blackberry, which refused to charge from his laptop unless proprietary software was also installed
>Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this!
>Then stop plugging your brand-new Blackberry into a USB v1.1 port.
His agreement with the publisher almost certainly does prohibit distributing the book himself.
While a geek might see "distribution without the right to do so" and "encouraging others to distribute without the right to do so" as entirely different actions, it's unlikely that a judge will see it that way. Judges and geeks tend to lump things in different buckets.
"No, no, no, your honor, I didn't violate that restraining order. I only encouraged other people to harass my ex. And...and...and...one of them wrote an autodialer program to do it, so it wasn't even a person on the phone. What are you going to do, throw the server in jail?"
Do pedestrians really always have the right of way in the US?
There are no national traffic enforcement laws in the US; each individual state sets their own. The national government only provides financial incentives for the states' laws to meet certain criteria.
Pedestrian right-of-way laws vary considerably across the country and are a dissonant mix of historic inertia and regional practicality. In Boston or New Orleans, jaywalking is common and pedestrians routinely cross streets where and when they choose. The local courts will invariably find the driver at fault. In Washington DC or New York, jaywalking laws are actually enforced. In Salt Lake City or San Diego, jaywalking is extremely rare and drivers are given more leniency in the courts.
A few things are fairly universal: -For the most part, pedestrians have the absolute right-of-way, anytime and anywhere. -If you hit somebody near a school, a playground, or a school bus, you will always be at fault, under the assumption that you were driving too fast to stop for a child. -If the pedestrian is actually trying to be hit (i.e. suicide attempt/insurance fraud...not just crossing recklessly), the driver is generally not liable. -Striking a pedestrian on a limited access highway where they are not allowed will usually result in both parties being held responsible.
As a foreigner driving in the US, don't make any assumptions about pedestrian rights-of-way until you are familiar with the local laws.
But at TFS says, it's a 'safety feature', I'd imagine you could 'turn it off' about as easily as the airbags or that thing that beeps when you're in reverse, and that's not without messing with wiring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
These proposals are just as idiotic.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street. Any attempts delegate this responsibility onto pedestrians, wildlife, and falling trees are completely retarded.
Or hold a reality show called "Voted Off The Planet!".
The ancient Greeks did the exact same thing. They occasionally got together and voted somebody out of the city. This was not a judicial procedure. There was no trial. It was just a vote.
While I agree and any help in the fight against "oh my god video games with blood, think of the children!"
Unfortunately they have a giant gaping hole in their testing.
Test 1) Drivers ran over virtual targets Test 2) Drivers ran over virtual people AND blood was splattered on the virtual windshield obscuring the player's vision.
Could the difference in what the drivers looked at and recalled have anything to do with the shit splattered on the screen?
Do you drive at the same level of alertness when your windshield is clear as opposed to when you are driving half-blind? It seems to me that vision degradation would be a bigger source of agitation than video violence.
Perhaps they should redo the first test using virtual barrels of mud to hit instead of "targets"
Technically, that would be a King and a King Consort. Co-sovereignity is typically an anomaly. However, the title of King Consort is also rare; usually the lesser title of Prince Consort is granted.
This means the happy couple would most likely be styled His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince Consort.
I wonder how many decades will have to pass before we see that for real.
I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either.
Can you steal a piece of real estate? You can trespass on it, you can pollute it, you can economically damage rightsowners, but you can't steal it.
Published content is like land. You cannot own published content; you can only own rights to the content. If published content were actually privately owned, Congress would have no ability to expire a copyright. That would be like expiring your rights to own the shirt on your back.
Published content is owned by society, and certain rights are given to authors. We do the same for land: society gives you many rights of ownership over your plot of land, but you never own it. Society retains ownership and can reclaim all the rights of ownership through eminent domain.
Just like you have no right to piss in my front yard, you have no rights to my published content. Copyright infringement is illegal for a good reason. However, when you run around saying "downloading songs is stealing!", you sound like a clueless idiot claiming that somebody stole the lawn from Apple's headquarters. It is nonsensical babble.
If you were talking about unpublished content, then you would be correct to claim theft. Your private data can indeed be stolen, because you have not yet transferred your ownership to society through the act of publication.
We need forums to express ourselves to some people, but not others.
We have those. Twitter is not an appropriate forum for controlled distribution.
Besides, she's probably fine. The purpose of libel law is not to stop people ranting or spouting off-hand thoughts, but rather to prevent false and malicious statements of fact.
Her statement of "Horizon Realty thinks is okay" will be pretty hard to sell as a statement of fact instead of opinion. She cannot know what Horizon Realty actually "thinks", even taken in the context of internal policies, and this is obvious to a typical reader. Since it is not falsifiable, it cannot be a statement of fact.
Horizon will also have a hard time convincing a court that her primary intent was to damage their reputation. If that were the case, she would like have chosen a forum far less ephemeral than Twitter.
Lastly, if she can provide any support to her notion that Horizon did not act quickly and adroitly to address a possible mold issue, her statement becomes a reasonable and justifiable opinion. That's a pretty strong libel defense.
Eh, I have a real problem with prosecuting the people for "making available." Prosecuting people that share their music for having enabled copyright infrigement is essentially like prosecuting people for leaving their doors unlocked and having enabled burglary.
It's more like leaving your workplace unlocked to be robbed with the expectation and understanding that others are doing the same.
Robbery is still a bad analogy, since it involved tangible and clearly monetizable loss. Here is a one that doesn't.
Assume you are the superintendent of an apartment building with a vacancy. It is illegal for you to squat in the vacant apartment, even though the landlords would not be "losing" anything. You get this brilliant idea to "forget" to lock the doors so the superintendent from across the street can squat there. There is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge agreement that your friend will do the same.
Yup, still illegal.
I'll all for erring on the side of the copyright infringer in the RIAA cases, given the inconsequential damages of the occasional infringement. I'm all for letting people off the hook when they claim "my kid did it", "my neighbor was on my wireless", or "I was just goofing around", and I'm okay with those excuses being abused, since the litigants are so grossly imbalanced.
Deliberately operating and maintaining a wide open server full of copyrighted material with full knowledge and expertise regarding your actions and their consequenses?
Our policy is to prevent any user or device from interfering with other users on the network. Anything that does not interfere with use of the network by others is explicitly allowed.
It's pretty simple and very acceptable to everyone I've dealt with at work. However, it does give you an easy catch-all for dealing with asshats. Anybody that monopolizes the time of the IT staff or behaves in a way that incurs technical/legal issues/costs, can be considered to be interfering with the network and reprimanded appropriately.
Instead of furiously wanking while trying to stand out from the crowd by wearing highly visible equipment, these guys should be finding a niche where mobile computing makes sense.
-Anybody working in a factory or a warehouse, where nobody cares how you look. -Field service techs that need access to a ton of reference data. -Anybody that climbs up a telephone pole or down a manhole. -Anybody who needs use of both hands and access to information simultaneously to better do their jobs.
It's not exactly a "niche" market. Designing a wearable eyescreen that doesn't suck will be worth a ton of money.
If that ROE is reasonable, why aren't zillions of commercial solar farms popping up everywhere? Or at least co-located with the wind farms that are being installed?
That 7.8% doesn't factor in the risk. Most of the initial investment is unrecoverable. The 10-12 years for return on the principal is based on many variables, most of which are volatile and unpredictable. The specific technologies are relatively new and bring their own unknowns. He wins big if electricity costs skyrockets and solar/alternate energy tech stagnates. Those are unlikely to both occur. He loses if power gets cheap or solar/alternate energy tech has some rapid advances.
He has essentially exchanged his exposure to energy price fluctuations for host of new risks. The rate of return is pretty decent in today's economy, but not by a huge margin. At 5% or 6%, it wouldn't fly.
At least this means residential solar is nearing viability.
On the other hand, viable residential solar is not good news for the nuclear industry because of the political externalities involved. Large numbers of voters entering the energy generation business will sharply increase the nimby factor.
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary) -If there is no emotion from the artist, it's not art. (a police log may generate emotion in a reader, but it's not art) -If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
In other words, art is anything that passes these three tests: 1) Did the creator intend to convey an emotion? 2) Did the medium capture that emotion? 3) Did the audience receive that emotion?
Some video games pass this test. Some do not.
Asking whether video games are art is like asking whether furniture is art.
Yup a language invented by Dutch guy living in the US, can't get much more British than that can we?
Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for A Belgian beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.
And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign.
I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly driven back to piracy.
iTunes is doing just fine with all of its for-pay content available via piracy. Netflix does fine with its subscription model.
The only thing they need to do is make hulu-for-pay easier/faster/more reliable than piracy. They have, for the most part, already accomplished that. As long as they don't break that simplicity with the fee structure, they are going to do just fine. They will, however, need to not break things like Slingbox if their users are watching hulu through it.
For the American market, that means a flat monthly fee, independent of usage. Americans in general resent being nickeled and dimed, and will typically pay more in flat rates so they don't have to meter their usage.
Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.
Why not? It worked for the newspaper industry for hundreds of years. The newspapers that still produce content instead of reprinting AP articles (like the WSJ, etc) will continue to do this for a long time. Shouting "nuh-uh, one or the other" with no justification is petty whinging.
If they start charging, however, they will need ensure that customers can easily watch shows using a couch, remote, and TV, since that is still a popular way to watch the content. No randomly breaking Slingbox support, etc.
There is typically a reasonable exemption built-in to use-tax laws so you don't have to worry about the small stuff. Making a major purchase (car/boat/luxury items) in a different state will incur a taxes.
Also, most states let you deduct any sales taxes paid in the other state from what you owe. Usually it's a break-even, but if you live in Massachusetts (5%) and buy a car in New Hampshire (0%), the taxman will want to see his cheque.
Slashdot Mirror
That sure sounds pretty cut and dried to me.
Read more:
"(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process"
That means we can't subpoena their records, impound their vehicles, or place liens on their property. Their members can still be arrested, tried, and sentenced for criminal activity.
This is why "diplomatic immunity" works on parking tickets: because we have chosen to waive our punishment, impounding the car. If unpaid parking tickets meant jail time, then diplomats would either pay their tickets or go to jail.
They could just install roundabouts.
Or they could just ignore the bullshit attempt to weasel out of a criminal manslaughter charge.
The guy was driving way too fast in traffic in extreme weather. He killed someone because he was in a hurry.
Not all phones will recharge this way without extra work. A co-worker and I just had a look at his new Blackberry, which refused to charge from his laptop unless proprietary software was also installed
>Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this!
>Then stop plugging your brand-new Blackberry into a USB v1.1 port.
Microsoft is not well known for making things that customers want. They're much better at telling customers what they want.
ROFL: you forgot the old, yet still true:
At Microsoft, Quality is Job 1.1
At Apple, Quality is what we tell you it is, bitch.
His agreement with the publisher almost certainly does prohibit distributing the book himself.
While a geek might see "distribution without the right to do so" and "encouraging others to distribute without the right to do so" as entirely different actions, it's unlikely that a judge will see it that way. Judges and geeks tend to lump things in different buckets.
"No, no, no, your honor, I didn't violate that restraining order. I only encouraged other people to harass my ex. And...and...and...one of them wrote an autodialer program to do it, so it wasn't even a person on the phone. What are you going to do, throw the server in jail?"
Do pedestrians really always have the right of way in the US?
There are no national traffic enforcement laws in the US; each individual state sets their own. The national government only provides financial incentives for the states' laws to meet certain criteria.
Pedestrian right-of-way laws vary considerably across the country and are a dissonant mix of historic inertia and regional practicality. In Boston or New Orleans, jaywalking is common and pedestrians routinely cross streets where and when they choose. The local courts will invariably find the driver at fault. In Washington DC or New York, jaywalking laws are actually enforced. In Salt Lake City or San Diego, jaywalking is extremely rare and drivers are given more leniency in the courts.
A few things are fairly universal:
-For the most part, pedestrians have the absolute right-of-way, anytime and anywhere.
-If you hit somebody near a school, a playground, or a school bus, you will always be at fault, under the assumption that you were driving too fast to stop for a child.
-If the pedestrian is actually trying to be hit (i.e. suicide attempt/insurance fraud...not just crossing recklessly), the driver is generally not liable.
-Striking a pedestrian on a limited access highway where they are not allowed will usually result in both parties being held responsible.
As a foreigner driving in the US, don't make any assumptions about pedestrian rights-of-way until you are familiar with the local laws.
But at TFS says, it's a 'safety feature', I'd imagine you could 'turn it off' about as easily as the airbags or that thing that beeps when you're in reverse, and that's not without messing with wiring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
These proposals are just as idiotic.
It's the drivers' responsibility to maintain control of their vehicles and be cognizant of sudden dangers in the street. Any attempts delegate this responsibility onto pedestrians, wildlife, and falling trees are completely retarded.
I'm sorry, butchery of the english language DOES make someone dumb.
Woe is me.
Or hold a reality show called "Voted Off The Planet!".
The ancient Greeks did the exact same thing. They occasionally got together and voted somebody out of the city. This was not a judicial procedure. There was no trial. It was just a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
While I agree and any help in the fight against "oh my god video games with blood, think of the children!"
Unfortunately they have a giant gaping hole in their testing.
Test 1) Drivers ran over virtual targets
Test 2) Drivers ran over virtual people AND blood was splattered on the virtual windshield obscuring the player's vision.
Could the difference in what the drivers looked at and recalled have anything to do with the shit splattered on the screen?
Do you drive at the same level of alertness when your windshield is clear as opposed to when you are driving half-blind? It seems to me that vision degradation would be a bigger source of agitation than video violence.
Perhaps they should redo the first test using virtual barrels of mud to hit instead of "targets"
When the expert witnesses get cut off in the middle of their explanations, how in the hell are we supposed to educate anyone?
Competent cross-examination?
Mommy, why does Albion have two Kings?
Technically, that would be a King and a King Consort. Co-sovereignity is typically an anomaly. However, the title of King Consort is also rare; usually the lesser title of Prince Consort is granted.
This means the happy couple would most likely be styled His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince Consort.
I wonder how many decades will have to pass before we see that for real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
It wasn't true in biology, but it is certainly true for computer design.
I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either.
Can you steal a piece of real estate? You can trespass on it, you can pollute it, you can economically damage rightsowners, but you can't steal it.
Published content is like land. You cannot own published content; you can only own rights to the content. If published content were actually privately owned, Congress would have no ability to expire a copyright. That would be like expiring your rights to own the shirt on your back.
Published content is owned by society, and certain rights are given to authors. We do the same for land: society gives you many rights of ownership over your plot of land, but you never own it. Society retains ownership and can reclaim all the rights of ownership through eminent domain.
Just like you have no right to piss in my front yard, you have no rights to my published content. Copyright infringement is illegal for a good reason. However, when you run around saying "downloading songs is stealing!", you sound like a clueless idiot claiming that somebody stole the lawn from Apple's headquarters. It is nonsensical babble.
If you were talking about unpublished content, then you would be correct to claim theft. Your private data can indeed be stolen, because you have not yet transferred your ownership to society through the act of publication.
We need forums to express ourselves to some people, but not others.
We have those. Twitter is not an appropriate forum for controlled distribution.
Besides, she's probably fine. The purpose of libel law is not to stop people ranting or spouting off-hand thoughts, but rather to prevent false and malicious statements of fact.
Her statement of "Horizon Realty thinks is okay" will be pretty hard to sell as a statement of fact instead of opinion. She cannot know what Horizon Realty actually "thinks", even taken in the context of internal policies, and this is obvious to a typical reader. Since it is not falsifiable, it cannot be a statement of fact.
Horizon will also have a hard time convincing a court that her primary intent was to damage their reputation. If that were the case, she would like have chosen a forum far less ephemeral than Twitter.
Lastly, if she can provide any support to her notion that Horizon did not act quickly and adroitly to address a possible mold issue, her statement becomes a reasonable and justifiable opinion. That's a pretty strong libel defense.
Eh, I have a real problem with prosecuting the people for "making available." Prosecuting people that share their music for having enabled copyright infrigement is essentially like prosecuting people for leaving their doors unlocked and having enabled burglary.
It's more like leaving your workplace unlocked to be robbed with the expectation and understanding that others are doing the same.
Robbery is still a bad analogy, since it involved tangible and clearly monetizable loss. Here is a one that doesn't.
Assume you are the superintendent of an apartment building with a vacancy. It is illegal for you to squat in the vacant apartment, even though the landlords would not be "losing" anything. You get this brilliant idea to "forget" to lock the doors so the superintendent from across the street can squat there. There is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge agreement that your friend will do the same.
Yup, still illegal.
I'll all for erring on the side of the copyright infringer in the RIAA cases, given the inconsequential damages of the occasional infringement. I'm all for letting people off the hook when they claim "my kid did it", "my neighbor was on my wireless", or "I was just goofing around", and I'm okay with those excuses being abused, since the litigants are so grossly imbalanced.
Deliberately operating and maintaining a wide open server full of copyrighted material with full knowledge and expertise regarding your actions and their consequenses?
Yeah...no sympathy here
There is a pretty simple rule we use here:
Our policy is to prevent any user or device from interfering with other users on the network. Anything that does not interfere with use of the network by others is explicitly allowed.
It's pretty simple and very acceptable to everyone I've dealt with at work. However, it does give you an easy catch-all for dealing with asshats. Anybody that monopolizes the time of the IT staff or behaves in a way that incurs technical/legal issues/costs, can be considered to be interfering with the network and reprimanded appropriately.
Instead of furiously wanking while trying to stand out from the crowd by wearing highly visible equipment, these guys should be finding a niche where mobile computing makes sense.
-Anybody working in a factory or a warehouse, where nobody cares how you look.
-Field service techs that need access to a ton of reference data.
-Anybody that climbs up a telephone pole or down a manhole.
-Anybody who needs use of both hands and access to information simultaneously to better do their jobs.
It's not exactly a "niche" market. Designing a wearable eyescreen that doesn't suck will be worth a ton of money.
For Christ sake?
Turn's water's into ricewine's.
If that ROE is reasonable, why aren't zillions of commercial solar farms popping up everywhere? Or at least co-located with the wind farms that are being installed?
That 7.8% doesn't factor in the risk. Most of the initial investment is unrecoverable. The 10-12 years for return on the principal is based on many variables, most of which are volatile and unpredictable. The specific technologies are relatively new and bring their own unknowns. He wins big if electricity costs skyrockets and solar/alternate energy tech stagnates. Those are unlikely to both occur. He loses if power gets cheap or solar/alternate energy tech has some rapid advances.
He has essentially exchanged his exposure to energy price fluctuations for host of new risks. The rate of return is pretty decent in today's economy, but not by a huge margin. At 5% or 6%, it wouldn't fly.
At least this means residential solar is nearing viability.
On the other hand, viable residential solar is not good news for the nuclear industry because of the political externalities involved. Large numbers of voters entering the energy generation business will sharply increase the nimby factor.
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary)
-If there is no emotion from the artist, it's not art. (a police log may generate emotion in a reader, but it's not art)
-If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
In other words, art is anything that passes these three tests:
1) Did the creator intend to convey an emotion?
2) Did the medium capture that emotion?
3) Did the audience receive that emotion?
Some video games pass this test. Some do not.
Asking whether video games are art is like asking whether furniture is art.
Yup a language invented by Dutch guy living in the US, can't get much more British than that can we?
Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for A Belgian beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.
And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of anything foreign.
I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly driven back to piracy.
iTunes is doing just fine with all of its for-pay content available via piracy. Netflix does fine with its subscription model.
The only thing they need to do is make hulu-for-pay easier/faster/more reliable than piracy. They have, for the most part, already accomplished that. As long as they don't break that simplicity with the fee structure, they are going to do just fine. They will, however, need to not break things like Slingbox if their users are watching hulu through it.
For the American market, that means a flat monthly fee, independent of usage. Americans in general resent being nickeled and dimed, and will typically pay more in flat rates so they don't have to meter their usage.
Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.
Why not? It worked for the newspaper industry for hundreds of years. The newspapers that still produce content instead of reprinting AP articles (like the WSJ, etc) will continue to do this for a long time. Shouting "nuh-uh, one or the other" with no justification is petty whinging.
If they start charging, however, they will need ensure that customers can easily watch shows using a couch, remote, and TV, since that is still a popular way to watch the content. No randomly breaking Slingbox support, etc.
There is typically a reasonable exemption built-in to use-tax laws so you don't have to worry about the small stuff. Making a major purchase (car/boat/luxury items) in a different state will incur a taxes.
Also, most states let you deduct any sales taxes paid in the other state from what you owe. Usually it's a break-even, but if you live in Massachusetts (5%) and buy a car in New Hampshire (0%), the taxman will want to see his cheque.