Hell, I don't see Japan, England, France, China, or anyone else for that matter helping us now other than making a few strong statements to the media which will be forgotten in a month.
Gotta call you on this one. Lots of countries (and not just European ones, I know China offered search and rescue experts but can't remember which News org reported it, have been offering help.)
The problem with e-books for me is permanence. When I read a book I place elements in order relative to each other. Important parts are "right at the start" or "halfway" through or "a few pages ago". I just don't get that feel with an e-book. I've had many discussions with people with some of them concluding it is just because I'm used to a physical book and that children raised with only e-books wouldn't need that permanence. Maybe.
They're great for a portable alternative. I love downloading a newspaper into my palm but I don't expect to refer to a newspaper the next week. When I feel I might want to go back to something only paper will do.
Since when does the first amendment give the right to anonymous speech?
Sigh. Cornell's Supreme Court Collection doesn't seem to want to talk to me so I can't give the exact case but the Court has found that freedom of speech also means that you cannot be compelled to speak. To do so breaks the fundamental spirit of what the amendment tries to protect. As such if you care to express yourself (in a legal manner) without providing your identity you have the freedom to do so.
sub gcp {
join("\0",@_)=~/([^\0]*)(?:[^\0]*\0\1){$#_}/s;$1
}
then you are educated. If, as I have, you keep it in its own file and occasionally refer back to it for that sense of power and beauty-of-form it strikes in you, then you already know that programming languages are expressive. I executed the code to distill it for performance. I keep it alive in my mind by the occasionally re-read because it is beatiful.
Perhaps it is a programmer's thing. I don't expect everyone to understand but that's ok because I do. What isn't ok is people trying to tell me I am wrong about how I feel about a bunch of characters strung together.
Here's another bunch of characters strung together:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...
I would be very interested if someone could point out exactly why one bunch is "better" than the other.
My company has a specific oncall policy along the following lines:
Certain job families are eligible for oncall pay if oncall activities are required. System administration and support staff are one of those job families.
Oncall compensation is provided on a sliding scale. US$100 for just being oncall up to US$750 for 15 hours or more oncall work.
If you are oncall over a listed business holiday you receive an addition US$750 for being oncall that day.
We tend to ask oncall to be handled by exempt employees (i.e., exempt from getting overtime pay.) It is a responsibility which goes along with the (generally) higher pay of being a salaried employee and state and federal law mandate time-and-a-half or double-time pay for hourly workers who work more than 40 or 60 hours respectively in a week.
Note that in cases where we do have to ask hourly workers to take oncall they are compensated by the oncall policy AND as required by state and federal law.
Nope. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that Congress can't use treaties to abridge the Constitution.
My apologies for not remembering exact case reference but I believe I came across that info while going through Cornell's most exellent Supreme Court Collection.
US Constitution, Article 1, section 8:
The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
In return for the exclusive right you have to describe your invention or writing. You can if you wish not seek a patent and keep the knowledge a "Trade Secret" but if it gets out then you don't (or shouldn't) have the law to fall back on (too bad this doesn't seem to be the case).
Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Disallow software patents (you write software, not invent it) not the entire patent process.
q2k said:
> So am I breaking the law if I wear my DeCSS shirt tomorrow?
No. And if you had read the opinion handed down by the judge you would see why. The ruling made relied on past judgements which state clearly that computer code is protected by the First Amendment. However the government (of the people... so if you don't like it go run for office and do something about it) is allowed to regulate the non-content based portions of expression even if that regulation impacts the speech portion of the expression provided certain conditions are met.
The plaintiffs asked that the defendents not be allowed to "traffic" in the DeCSS specifically because it was against a provision of the DMCA. The DMCA is law and the judge rejected the speech based defense on the grounds that the act did not regulate the content of the speech in advance but its ability to contrevene a copyright protection system.
Your T-shirt will not contrevene that copyright protection in and of itself. In fact you are wearing the shirt in a manner which greatly increases the speech portion of the expression (and since the shirt won't play DVDs the functional non-content based portion of the expression is lessened).
Wear the shirt! Excercise your First Amendment rights! But don't compare apples to oranges by implying that providing computer code online is the same thing.
-CZ
PS - My personal view is that the reverse engineering that occured broke the trade secret status of the CSS. The injunction was sought on a different basis so the ruling should not be a surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
This thing will never sell. Take that picture of the hand. I couldn't make out altitude, bearing, OR air speed.
-CZ
World Offers Help to US
Gotta call you on this one. Lots of countries (and not just European ones, I know China offered search and rescue experts but can't remember which News org reported it, have been offering help.)
-CZ
The problem with e-books for me is permanence. When I read a book I place elements in order relative to each other. Important parts are "right at the start" or "halfway" through or "a few pages ago". I just don't get that feel with an e-book. I've had many discussions with people with some of them concluding it is just because I'm used to a physical book and that children raised with only e-books wouldn't need that permanence. Maybe.
They're great for a portable alternative. I love downloading a newspaper into my palm but I don't expect to refer to a newspaper the next week. When I feel I might want to go back to something only paper will do.
-CZ
Scientists say people use only 10% of their brains. Now I'm using that much too. --Bart Simpson
Sigh. Cornell's Supreme Court Collection doesn't seem to want to talk to me so I can't give the exact case but the Court has found that freedom of speech also means that you cannot be compelled to speak. To do so breaks the fundamental spirit of what the amendment tries to protect. As such if you care to express yourself (in a legal manner) without providing your identity you have the freedom to do so.
-CZ
-CZ
sub gcp { join("\0",@_)=~/([^\0]*)(?:[^\0]*\0\1){$#_}/s;$1 }
then you are educated. If, as I have, you keep it in its own file and occasionally refer back to it for that sense of power and beauty-of-form it strikes in you, then you already know that programming languages are expressive. I executed the code to distill it for performance. I keep it alive in my mind by the occasionally re-read because it is beatiful.
Perhaps it is a programmer's thing. I don't expect everyone to understand but that's ok because I do. What isn't ok is people trying to tell me I am wrong about how I feel about a bunch of characters strung together.
Here's another bunch of characters strung together:
I would be very interested if someone could point out exactly why one bunch is "better" than the other.-CZ
We tend to ask oncall to be handled by exempt employees (i.e., exempt from getting overtime pay.) It is a responsibility which goes along with the (generally) higher pay of being a salaried employee and state and federal law mandate time-and-a-half or double-time pay for hourly workers who work more than 40 or 60 hours respectively in a week.
Note that in cases where we do have to ask hourly workers to take oncall they are compensated by the oncall policy AND as required by state and federal law.
Hope that helps, -CZ
My apologies for not remembering exact case reference but I believe I came across that info while going through Cornell's most exellent Supreme Court Collection.
Enjoy. -CZ
Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. Disallow software patents (you write software, not invent it) not the entire patent process.
-CZ
q2k said: > So am I breaking the law if I wear my DeCSS shirt tomorrow? No. And if you had read the opinion handed down by the judge you would see why. The ruling made relied on past judgements which state clearly that computer code is protected by the First Amendment. However the government (of the people... so if you don't like it go run for office and do something about it) is allowed to regulate the non-content based portions of expression even if that regulation impacts the speech portion of the expression provided certain conditions are met. The plaintiffs asked that the defendents not be allowed to "traffic" in the DeCSS specifically because it was against a provision of the DMCA. The DMCA is law and the judge rejected the speech based defense on the grounds that the act did not regulate the content of the speech in advance but its ability to contrevene a copyright protection system. Your T-shirt will not contrevene that copyright protection in and of itself. In fact you are wearing the shirt in a manner which greatly increases the speech portion of the expression (and since the shirt won't play DVDs the functional non-content based portion of the expression is lessened). Wear the shirt! Excercise your First Amendment rights! But don't compare apples to oranges by implying that providing computer code online is the same thing. -CZ PS - My personal view is that the reverse engineering that occured broke the trade secret status of the CSS. The injunction was sought on a different basis so the ruling should not be a surprise.
Heh. With all the work I do with shells and perl when I first read the language name I thought it would be read as "See Comment".