Democrats/= Left, Republicans/= Right. Parties are not constants - they are groups of people and their ideologies shift over time. The Republicans of the 50s and 60s were consumed by the southern democrats, there has been a complete flip in party politics over the last one-hundred years.
Other than the land redistribution that occasionally makes it into their party platform. Radical fringe political groups are radical - stunning.
That said, I'm just going to note here that the bill to strip the NSA of these powers was supported by more democrats that republicans -- but the split was by no means a party-line vote. Here, left-right is not a good identifier. I/would/ use the word libertarian here (except that word has been tainted by corporate flogs) so lets say "people who think government should not be allowed to run a police state, and people who will sacrifice a little freedom for temporary security." That's not a party split - it's not a left-right split (note: these programs and worse originated under a VERY right-wing presidency) - it's a split on a basic understanding of the nature of governmental power - should government be forced to act in the open with clear checks and balances, or in the shadows with only internal brakes on government overreach.
I'm definitely on the side that thinks the NSA program amounts to a general warrant, and is therefore unconstitutional no matter what FISA says about it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The journals in question didn't have the right to the works they were selling access to (the authors were generally funded by university/public money, and thus did not hold the copyright and thus could not transfer the rights to the journal);
This statement has no basis in the law of the United States, it is mere sophistry posing as a postulation of fact. University authors (even publicly funded ones) retain rights to their own work. They're the author. You are confusing by degree restrictions placed on what is patentable for what is copyrightable - they are not the same, restrictions on one don't cross to the other - and there are very VERY few strings attached even to patenting work funded by public monies in the United States.
It is not debatable that he breached the TOS - because he was not a student or faculty (or even invitee) of MIT. Those terms of service posted at MIT's site include that you must be a student/faculty/staff to access JSTOR. JSTOR saw that someone at MIT was systemically downloading every journal in their database -- they asked MIT to look into it. MIT did. MIT took steps to stop whomever was downloading the journals from doing so - Swartz then designed around that limitation - leaving a laptop hidden under a box in a closet. MIT found the laptop and put a camera there -- they saw Swartz enter the closet (taking steps to hide his face while sneaking in to engage in his -- what did you call it "meta study"). When a police officer approached Swartz, he fled (itself a criminal act) and was arrested in the middle of trying to ditch the hard drive full of data.
So, he traveled to MIT from the campus where he was on staff (and had access to JSTOR there), hid a device on campus to downloand the files, hid his face as he came and went, fled from police, and tried to ditch the stolen items when he was accosted. There is a serious question whether or not Swartz knew what he was doing was against the law? Seriously? Not buying it.
While also a fairly liberal guy, I agree that the idea of a government run network is... not good. The problem we have here is that there is so little incentive to build out a bigger network that the minimum needed to keep the customers from leaving. The U.S. is too large to do a japanese style 2 or 3 year rollout of a new technology - only a very few companies (comcast and ATT basically) can compete across the nation - the rest, even verizon, are left to pick their markets. That's BEFORE any local municipalities fall for the concept of a contractual monopoly. Here's an idea -- don't take the cable company's money for a monopoly, just TAX the SERVICE. Boom -- you get your money AND you don't give up your citizen's rights. Crazy idea, I know.
Unrelated -- but there should also be a federal ban on tax incentive plans, which are used to lure corporations from one state to another - it interferes with interstate commerce and is beggaring the states.
I need floodlights to keep the scavengers (as in metal recyclers) from coming into my yard to steal my table and chairs -- ah the joys of urban living.
So A is better than B, but B is still better than A. Makes sense.
No. The summary says:
The cesium fountain is predicted to keep time within one second over 100 million years. While other atomic clocks are better than that, researchers suspect the optical lattice is better still and could one day replace the standard.
Thus: where A = Optical lattice, B= Cesium fountain (the standard), and C = other atomic clocks; A > B; C > B; A > C
It sounds like they were using this as an excuse to buy new equipment, so they destroyed extra equipment hoping that someone would allow them to chalk up the expense to the virus and thus give them shiny new stuff.
That was my first thought as well. Particularly given the picture associated with the article is an old 13 or 14" NEC tube monitor.
The corporate entity as a liability limit is a pretty new thing, actually. We didn't need it until very recently.
When you think about modern many v. 1 liability issues, you probably go straight to "class action" suits, which are commonly flogged as a way lawyers use the small claims of many people to make a lot of money for a small group of lawyers (not entirely false, but useful for putting the lash to a bad actor who cannot be imprisoned because it has no corpus). But actually, the novelty is the product liability action -- before 1916 (less than 100 years ago) if you bought a gas stove from a store, and the stove exploded, you could maybe sue the store (if the store knew the product was defective) but unless you had a contract directly with the manufacturer, the loss was on you. Judge Cordozo, in New York, decided that wasn't fair in 1916 and ruled (in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)) that you could go back after the entity that created the device for the liability stemming from the defective design or manufacture of their product.
See, in a true free market, the government doesn't step in to assign liability, you just lose. Better be more careful what products you buy.
The sugar market is particularly fucked -- it is not that there are import / export tarriffs, its that the U.S. goverment mandates a bottom price for sugar that is a multiple of the commodity price on the world market outside the US - you literally CANNOT legally buy sugar in the US for less than 18c a pound (raw cane) or 22.9c a pound (beet sugar) -- this is true regardless of source.
'm sorry some costs shifted to the employees, but you can always ask for DD anyway and debit cards keep a lot of people away from the pawn shop, liqueur store strip malls, they do some good:/
Which is fine until the costs shifted to the employee shift their income below minimum wage -- then it's a class action lawsuit and some lawyers are about to make a shit ton of money.
Longer Answer: we engage in a dance where rights can be waived in certain circumstances, in limited ways, e.g. waiving the right to a jury trial in a civil action/related to a particular purchase or contract/ but cannot, generally, waive your right to a jury trial in a civil action generally.
I think they did a good job of building the character from someone who is afraid of being hurt (emotionally) to someone who is willing to trust. That's the arc of the character through this origin movie. Superman is physically impervious, but he's still "human" in his emotions -- and they played it up as well -- when he gets in dialogue with the villains and one of them *literally explains* that the difference between them is morality - he has it, they don't. I do believe that this is a movie targeted to the victims of bullying and their desire to be strong, the fantasy that the only reason the other guy survived is because the bullied kid held back. That may be throwing some people who... let's just say... never stood on that side of the line.
I found the symbolism of the movie - particularly the church scene with the image of Christ in Gethsemane in the background, a bit heavy handed. But this is definitely a movie that will yield scene by scene notes from the director - like the lexicorp gas tankers -- there are gems there to notice if you slow down and look at the whole scene.
I'm just worried he's going to decide the local postman is a member of the "leftist" and unleash his no doubt sizable arsenal on some poor god-fearing government worker who just had the bad fortune to live in a society that is filled with rabid crazy righties.
Probably because you cannot spell and espouse a wing-nut conspiracy theory. Or maybe Slashdot is secretly an arm of the NSA. Could be either one honestly.
I refer you back to the point you perfer to ignore: "But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man."
You are either very thick or intentionally misreading this string.
Slashdot Mirror
Democrats /= Left, Republicans /= Right. Parties are not constants - they are groups of people and their ideologies shift over time. The Republicans of the 50s and 60s were consumed by the southern democrats, there has been a complete flip in party politics over the last one-hundred years.
That said, I'm just going to note here that the bill to strip the NSA of these powers was supported by more democrats that republicans -- but the split was by no means a party-line vote. Here, left-right is not a good identifier. I
I'm definitely on the side that thinks the NSA program amounts to a general warrant, and is therefore unconstitutional no matter what FISA says about it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
-GiH
The journals in question didn't have the right to the works they were selling access to (the authors were generally funded by university/public money, and thus did not hold the copyright and thus could not transfer the rights to the journal);
This statement has no basis in the law of the United States, it is mere sophistry posing as a postulation of fact. University authors (even publicly funded ones) retain rights to their own work. They're the author. You are confusing by degree restrictions placed on what is patentable for what is copyrightable - they are not the same, restrictions on one don't cross to the other - and there are very VERY few strings attached even to patenting work funded by public monies in the United States.
It is not debatable that he breached the TOS - because he was not a student or faculty (or even invitee) of MIT. Those terms of service posted at MIT's site include that you must be a student/faculty/staff to access JSTOR. JSTOR saw that someone at MIT was systemically downloading every journal in their database -- they asked MIT to look into it. MIT did. MIT took steps to stop whomever was downloading the journals from doing so - Swartz then designed around that limitation - leaving a laptop hidden under a box in a closet. MIT found the laptop and put a camera there -- they saw Swartz enter the closet (taking steps to hide his face while sneaking in to engage in his -- what did you call it "meta study"). When a police officer approached Swartz, he fled (itself a criminal act) and was arrested in the middle of trying to ditch the hard drive full of data.
So, he traveled to MIT from the campus where he was on staff (and had access to JSTOR there), hid a device on campus to downloand the files, hid his face as he came and went, fled from police, and tried to ditch the stolen items when he was accosted. There is a serious question whether or not Swartz knew what he was doing was against the law? Seriously? Not buying it.
While also a fairly liberal guy, I agree that the idea of a government run network is ... not good. The problem we have here is that there is so little incentive to build out a bigger network that the minimum needed to keep the customers from leaving. The U.S. is too large to do a japanese style 2 or 3 year rollout of a new technology - only a very few companies (comcast and ATT basically) can compete across the nation - the rest, even verizon, are left to pick their markets. That's BEFORE any local municipalities fall for the concept of a contractual monopoly. Here's an idea -- don't take the cable company's money for a monopoly, just TAX the SERVICE. Boom -- you get your money AND you don't give up your citizen's rights. Crazy idea, I know.
Unrelated -- but there should also be a federal ban on tax incentive plans, which are used to lure corporations from one state to another - it interferes with interstate commerce and is beggaring the states.
I need floodlights to keep the scavengers (as in metal recyclers) from coming into my yard to steal my table and chairs -- ah the joys of urban living.
A Tarantino standoff?
TVA?
Spend your money how you want, on what you want. As long as you pay your taxes and follow the law, who gives a shit what you spend YOUR money on.
Works every time.
So A is better than B, but B is still better than A. Makes sense.
No. The summary says:
The cesium fountain is predicted to keep time within one second over 100 million years. While other atomic clocks are better than that, researchers suspect the optical lattice is better still and could one day replace the standard.
Thus: where A = Optical lattice, B= Cesium fountain (the standard), and C = other atomic clocks; A > B; C > B; A > C
BOOM.
(too soon?)
over BMI? penalty.
Somehow you think the penalty was not higher (i.e. NO insurance) before Obamacare? You must have had group insurance.
Control of healthcare? You mean control of health insurance.
It sounds like they were using this as an excuse to buy new equipment, so they destroyed extra equipment hoping that someone would allow them to chalk up the expense to the virus and thus give them shiny new stuff.
That was my first thought as well. Particularly given the picture associated with the article is an old 13 or 14" NEC tube monitor.
LOL, of course, I didn't even imagine it could be read any other way.
The corporate entity as a liability limit is a pretty new thing, actually. We didn't need it until very recently.
When you think about modern many v. 1 liability issues, you probably go straight to "class action" suits, which are commonly flogged as a way lawyers use the small claims of many people to make a lot of money for a small group of lawyers (not entirely false, but useful for putting the lash to a bad actor who cannot be imprisoned because it has no corpus). But actually, the novelty is the product liability action -- before 1916 (less than 100 years ago) if you bought a gas stove from a store, and the stove exploded, you could maybe sue the store (if the store knew the product was defective) but unless you had a contract directly with the manufacturer, the loss was on you. Judge Cordozo, in New York, decided that wasn't fair in 1916 and ruled (in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)) that you could go back after the entity that created the device for the liability stemming from the defective design or manufacture of their product.
See, in a true free market, the government doesn't step in to assign liability, you just lose. Better be more careful what products you buy.
The sugar market is particularly fucked -- it is not that there are import / export tarriffs, its that the U.S. goverment mandates a bottom price for sugar that is a multiple of the commodity price on the world market outside the US - you literally CANNOT legally buy sugar in the US for less than 18c a pound (raw cane) or 22.9c a pound (beet sugar) -- this is true regardless of source.
'm sorry some costs shifted to the employees, but you can always ask for DD anyway and debit cards keep a lot of people away from the pawn shop, liqueur store strip malls, they do some good :/
Which is fine until the costs shifted to the employee shift their income below minimum wage -- then it's a class action lawsuit and some lawyers are about to make a shit ton of money.
Short answer: Nope.
/related to a particular purchase or contract/ but cannot, generally, waive your right to a jury trial in a civil action generally.
Longer Answer: we engage in a dance where rights can be waived in certain circumstances, in limited ways, e.g. waiving the right to a jury trial in a civil action
MILD SPOILER WARNING
... let's just say ... never stood on that side of the line.
I think they did a good job of building the character from someone who is afraid of being hurt (emotionally) to someone who is willing to trust. That's the arc of the character through this origin movie. Superman is physically impervious, but he's still "human" in his emotions -- and they played it up as well -- when he gets in dialogue with the villains and one of them *literally explains* that the difference between them is morality - he has it, they don't. I do believe that this is a movie targeted to the victims of bullying and their desire to be strong, the fantasy that the only reason the other guy survived is because the bullied kid held back. That may be throwing some people who
I found the symbolism of the movie - particularly the church scene with the image of Christ in Gethsemane in the background, a bit heavy handed. But this is definitely a movie that will yield scene by scene notes from the director - like the lexicorp gas tankers -- there are gems there to notice if you slow down and look at the whole scene.
...damn you auto-correct..
You forgot the worship of money. There's a large group their form whom long numbers separated by columns is essentially identical to an angelic choir.
I'm just worried he's going to decide the local postman is a member of the "leftist" and unleash his no doubt sizable arsenal on some poor god-fearing government worker who just had the bad fortune to live in a society that is filled with rabid crazy righties.
Probably because you cannot spell and espouse a wing-nut conspiracy theory. Or maybe Slashdot is secretly an arm of the NSA. Could be either one honestly.
I refer you back to the point you perfer to ignore: "But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man."
You are either very thick or intentionally misreading this string.