Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged
The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from muggers.
A better analogy would be, "Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged: The factors involve walking alone through dark alleys in crime-ridden neighborhoods."
Identifying and addressing factors that increase risk of being mugged doesn't exonerate the mugger, it just makes you less likely to get mugged.
That's all this is. It isn't "blaming the victim" like so many people are shouting. It's simply a matter of identifying factors that increase the risk of becoming a victim and addressing those factors in order to reduce such risks.
I only wish this study had been done 40 years ago. I have Asperger's Syndrome (only recently diagnosed) and was bullied a lot as a kid. If my parents had been armed with the information in this study, maybe I would have been bullied less.
No, you do not see MSNBC listed, unless you have a very vivid imagination.
MSNBC's parent NBC Universal is a hardass about SNL footage (except for Andy Samberg's digital shorts, which they don't own) showing up on YouTube and consistently issues takedowns over such clips. This has nothing to do with MSNBC or your personal political differences with that channel.
Hmmm; guess the anti-fox bias has no basis.
Let me see if I'm following your "logic" correctly.
This EFF web page, which lists a small number (13) of examples of censorship by copyright assertion, includes a single example from NBC (not MSNBC) and no example from Fox News. From that it follows that Fox News does not engage in these tactics, and thence that their reporting is honest, ethical, and responsible.
That kind of argument is worthy of Fox News itself. Keep it up and you might get a job there.
We don't "move through time" at all in our 3+1 spacetime. Our sensation of motion through time is an artifact of a certain property of systems like our brains: at time t0, we have memories of events at times t < t0, and no memories of events at times t > t0.
I don't know whether it's possible for a conscious mind to exist in a spacetime with more than one macroscopic time dimension. If it is possible at all, such a mind certainly would not experience consciousness in the same way we do.
But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US?
Well, they did try to warn the American public that George W. Bush and Colin Powell were full of crap about those supposed Iraqi WMDs. It's not their fault nobody listened.
A common view is that moral consideration is only warranted for moral agents that are capable of engaging in moral reasoning, and thus capable of reciprocating moral consideration.
Is that really a common view?
Dogs, though intelligent and social, do not have any concept of "morality." However, few people maintain that torturing dogs is acceptable behavior.
The intelligence, sociability, and complexity of the behavior of dogs tells us, intuitively, that there is a conscious mind operating in that creature. Unfortunately, the concept of consciousness is so elusive that we cannot even well pose the question "Is X conscious?" let alone have anything approaching a rigorous method for answering it, so we pretty much have to rely on intuition. My intuition tells me that there is a conscious mind operating inside a dog but not inside a lobster. But that's just me.
Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.
Oh, come on. There are robotic systems that can display pain behaviors. Doesn't mean they're actually sentient.
Can I create a bittorrent client with an EULA that allows me to put torrents on your system, hide them from the UI for a certain period of time, and forbid you from looking under the hood to see what's there?
Then if a copyright holder comes after you for sharing their stuff, you can claim that I put it there (they'll have no way of proving whether I did or you did), and there was nothing you could legally do to detect or prevent it. You have now attained carrier status and thus shielded yourself from lawsuits.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing Russia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. (Note: When he speaks of the rule of the Jew, he is referring to Communism.)
(Note #2: When he refers to "The Persian empire in the east," I have elsewhere seen it translated as "The giant empire in the east.")
the Russian government was hghly sympathetic to Nazi aims. Wasn't it a Nazi aim to wipe out Communism? Didn't they see Communism as a giant Jewish conspiracy that posed a great threat to the Aryan race?
It's been established in American law (see DCMA, etc.) that copyright holders can implement technical means that make it physically impossible to exercise your legal rights, and you generally have no legal recourse.
THE DMCA DOES NOT PROHIBIT WRITING OR DISTRIBUTING TOOLS TO BREAK THE DRM ON THINGS THAT HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. OK, so it's as I said before, when you told me I was wrong:
It is legal to produce and distribute tools for circumventing a copy protection technology, so long as there exists somewhere at least one public domain work that is protected by that technology? You said that was wrong. So now I'm confused. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
The legislation changes absolutely nothing, because there is nothing in existing copyright law stating that the owner of said copyright is obliged in any way to provide others with a means of transcribing it when it passes into the public domain. Yes, the legislation does change something: it makes it illegal for third parties to provide the tools to transcribe it. That's pretty significant.
Does the judge explain her ruling anywhere? Not that anybody is reading this anymore but...
No, there is no explanation of the ruling, because it wasn't a ruling on the merits. It was a freaking default judgment. As such, it has zero precedent value. Much ado about nothing...
I purchase a copyrighted work that is protected by some copy protection technology.
A little bit later, the copyright on this work expires. At this point, I technically have a legal right to make a copy, but I still don't have the technical means to do so. Thus the legislation has made it physically impossible for me to exercise a right that it claims that, in some vacuous sense, I have.
What have I misunderstood here?
Re:It wasn't all roses.
on
iMac Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Well, I can only say from my own personal experience that on my Mighty Mouse, right click works just fine, is perfectly comfortable and intuitive, and causes no unnatural strain or discomfort.
Re:It wasn't all roses.
on
iMac Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
How is the Mighty Mouse an "ergonomic nightmare"? I have one and absolutely love it. Best mouse I've ever used.
"It makes it illegal to have, distribute, or even discuss means of circumventing copy protection."
It actually makes it illegal to do these things with works protected by the DMCA, i.e. works that are protected by copyrights. The wording of the act is very specific about this, so there would be nothing illegal about circumventing copy protection mechanisms on works that the copyrights have expired on, or which that have entered the public domain in some other way. Let me get this straight.
It is legal to produce and distribute tools for circumventing a copy protection technology, so long as there exists somewhere at least one public domain work that is protected by that technology?
No, it wasn't Congress that came up with the asinine idea that every infringement is worth $30,000. From 17 U.S.C. Â 504:
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. [Emphasis mine -- capologist] So it's the Court that somehow determined that $30,000 per infringement is just.
That's $10 per copy if an indexed work is downloaded 3000 times. But how many of the indexed works were downloaded so many times? Some of them undoubtedly were downloaded only 5 or 6 times, or even none at all. Yet, in the eyes of the Court, a judgement of $30K for each of these is just.
How can the Court possibly justify a judgment of $30K for each and every indexed work, including those that were downloaded rarely or not at all? Does the judge explain her ruling anywhere?
Well, of course. The MPAA could go after anyone, including your dog. But they'd have to prove a case against the defendants first, just like they did here.
The MPAA can't execute on this judgment against other, non-party defendants (i.e., index sites not sued in this case). Well, duh. Obviously new lawsuits would be involved.
The question, in case I wasn't clear, is, given the language of the law and the relevant case law (including the TorrentSpy case just decided), would they be likely to prevail and collect similar damages against the trackers and seeders?
Suppose BitTorrent site (let's say, MiniNova) hosts a torrent file of a movie and provides tracking for the torrent. A torrent search site (like the late TorrentSpy) indexes it. And 1000 people are seeding it.
Based on the case law just established, the torrent search site would presumably be liable for $30,000. What about MiniNova? Would they also be liable for $30,000? And what about the 1000 seeders, would they be liable for $30,000 each?
It just seems to be that a tracker or a seeder contributes more toward the pirating of that movie than a search site. I mean, they're the ones that are making the piracy possible; the search engine just makes it a little easier to find it.
That'd not be a good idea on their part. isoHunt is hosted in Toronto right now, and Gary's a Canadian citizen that'd battle it out in a Canadian court(possibly while relocating to another country). Gary doesn't choose where to fight it out. If the MPAA wants to file in a U.S. Court, they can do so.
What I'm not so clear on is whether Canada would enforce the judgment of a U.S. Court when it's patently ridiculous.
Congress decides on some arbitrary and completely implausible figure per infringement ($30,000) That certainly seems to violate the spirit of the Eighth Amendment, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
A better analogy would be, "Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged: The factors involve walking alone through dark alleys in crime-ridden neighborhoods." Identifying and addressing factors that increase risk of being mugged doesn't exonerate the mugger, it just makes you less likely to get mugged. That's all this is. It isn't "blaming the victim" like so many people are shouting. It's simply a matter of identifying factors that increase the risk of becoming a victim and addressing those factors in order to reduce such risks. I only wish this study had been done 40 years ago. I have Asperger's Syndrome (only recently diagnosed) and was bullied a lot as a kid. If my parents had been armed with the information in this study, maybe I would have been bullied less.
No, you do not see MSNBC listed, unless you have a very vivid imagination. MSNBC's parent NBC Universal is a hardass about SNL footage (except for Andy Samberg's digital shorts, which they don't own) showing up on YouTube and consistently issues takedowns over such clips. This has nothing to do with MSNBC or your personal political differences with that channel.
Let me see if I'm following your "logic" correctly.
This EFF web page, which lists a small number (13) of examples of censorship by copyright assertion, includes a single example from NBC (not MSNBC) and no example from Fox News. From that it follows that Fox News does not engage in these tactics, and thence that their reporting is honest, ethical, and responsible.
That kind of argument is worthy of Fox News itself. Keep it up and you might get a job there.
We don't "move through time" at all in our 3+1 spacetime. Our sensation of motion through time is an artifact of a certain property of systems like our brains: at time t0, we have memories of events at times t < t0, and no memories of events at times t > t0.
I don't know whether it's possible for a conscious mind to exist in a spacetime with more than one macroscopic time dimension. If it is possible at all, such a mind certainly would not experience consciousness in the same way we do.
Yes, but not flashing the light near food seems like a simple matter of discretion, not deception.
I'm not constantly broadcasting my location on Twitter like some people do. Am I being deceptive?
Well, they did try to warn the American public that George W. Bush and Colin Powell were full of crap about those supposed Iraqi WMDs. It's not their fault nobody listened.
Is that really a common view?
Dogs, though intelligent and social, do not have any concept of "morality." However, few people maintain that torturing dogs is acceptable behavior.
The intelligence, sociability, and complexity of the behavior of dogs tells us, intuitively, that there is a conscious mind operating in that creature. Unfortunately, the concept of consciousness is so elusive that we cannot even well pose the question "Is X conscious?" let alone have anything approaching a rigorous method for answering it, so we pretty much have to rely on intuition. My intuition tells me that there is a conscious mind operating inside a dog but not inside a lobster. But that's just me.
Oh, come on. There are robotic systems that can display pain behaviors. Doesn't mean they're actually sentient.
Can I create a bittorrent client with an EULA that allows me to put torrents on your system, hide them from the UI for a certain period of time, and forbid you from looking under the hood to see what's there?
Then if a copyright holder comes after you for sharing their stuff, you can claim that I put it there (they'll have no way of proving whether I did or you did), and there was nothing you could legally do to detect or prevent it. You have now attained carrier status and thus shielded yourself from lawsuits.
As for me, I'll live in Sweden, just in case.
Sticky notes on the monitor.
The US has more to lose in a cyber-war than our enemies, we're more vulnerable, and we're not even going to try and focus on that battlefield.
Don't worry, John McClaine will save us.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing Russia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. (Note: When he speaks of the rule of the Jew, he is referring to Communism.)
(Note #2: When he refers to "The Persian empire in the east," I have elsewhere seen it translated as "The giant empire in the east.")
Hitler was very open about his attitude toward Communism long before Operation Barbarossa. He wrote about it in Mein Kampf.
It's been established in American law (see DCMA, etc.) that copyright holders can implement technical means that make it physically impossible to exercise your legal rights, and you generally have no legal recourse.
No, there is no explanation of the ruling, because it wasn't a ruling on the merits. It was a freaking default judgment. As such, it has zero precedent value. Much ado about nothing...
OK, tell me what I'm misunderstanding here.
I purchase a copyrighted work that is protected by some copy protection technology.
A little bit later, the copyright on this work expires. At this point, I technically have a legal right to make a copy, but I still don't have the technical means to do so. Thus the legislation has made it physically impossible for me to exercise a right that it claims that, in some vacuous sense, I have.
What have I misunderstood here?
Well, I can only say from my own personal experience that on my Mighty Mouse, right click works just fine, is perfectly comfortable and intuitive, and causes no unnatural strain or discomfort.
How is the Mighty Mouse an "ergonomic nightmare"? I have one and absolutely love it. Best mouse I've ever used.
It actually makes it illegal to do these things with works protected by the DMCA, i.e. works that are protected by copyrights. The wording of the act is very specific about this, so there would be nothing illegal about circumventing copy protection mechanisms on works that the copyrights have expired on, or which that have entered the public domain in some other way. Let me get this straight.
It is legal to produce and distribute tools for circumventing a copy protection technology, so long as there exists somewhere at least one public domain work that is protected by that technology?
No, it wasn't Congress that came up with the asinine idea that every infringement is worth $30,000. From 17 U.S.C. Â 504: (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just . [Emphasis mine -- capologist] So it's the Court that somehow determined that $30,000 per infringement is just.
That's $10 per copy if an indexed work is downloaded 3000 times. But how many of the indexed works were downloaded so many times? Some of them undoubtedly were downloaded only 5 or 6 times, or even none at all. Yet, in the eyes of the Court, a judgement of $30K for each of these is just.
How can the Court possibly justify a judgment of $30K for each and every indexed work, including those that were downloaded rarely or not at all? Does the judge explain her ruling anywhere?
The MPAA can't execute on this judgment against other, non-party defendants (i.e., index sites not sued in this case). Well, duh. Obviously new lawsuits would be involved.
The question, in case I wasn't clear, is, given the language of the law and the relevant case law (including the TorrentSpy case just decided), would they be likely to prevail and collect similar damages against the trackers and seeders?
Suppose BitTorrent site (let's say, MiniNova) hosts a torrent file of a movie and provides tracking for the torrent. A torrent search site (like the late TorrentSpy) indexes it. And 1000 people are seeding it.
Based on the case law just established, the torrent search site would presumably be liable for $30,000. What about MiniNova? Would they also be liable for $30,000? And what about the 1000 seeders, would they be liable for $30,000 each?
It just seems to be that a tracker or a seeder contributes more toward the pirating of that movie than a search site. I mean, they're the ones that are making the piracy possible; the search engine just makes it a little easier to find it.
What I'm not so clear on is whether Canada would enforce the judgment of a U.S. Court when it's patently ridiculous.