What principle says that the number of articles about each candidate for an election should be equal, regardless of the newsworthiness of each candidate and their actions?
What principle says that each candidate should be equally criticized, regardless of the substance of their positions?
What principle says that in any debate, both sides are equally right or wrong?
Bias consists in favoring one side irrespective of the facts. When something is done because the facts require it, that's not bias.
Was there bias in this case? Judge for yourselves. But get your standards straight first.
I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
Forget copyright; if the host has done the site any 'legal wrong', it's not a copyright problem.
The host contracted to provide hosting services. The host (may have) breached that contract. All they could possibly be liable for are the monies paid for the unprovided hosting services and maybe, maybe, some consequential damages to the site's revenues or business goodwill due to the outage, if any such consequences can be proved.
Well, consider this: Is everything that some one arbitrarily determines an act of creativity? How about a train schedule? How about the numbering of the houses on a given street?
Let me suggest that it is possible to make something up without performing creative expression sufficient to merit copyright protection under a moral-rights/promotion-of-useful-arts theory.
Let's just suppose that we're talking about a country that believes in the sweat-of-the-brow theory of copyright protection for factual compilations (since we are).
It's one thing to protect a person who goes out and ascertains facts and compiles them. After all, the second guy can always go out and sweat and compile his own database.
It is quite another thing to allow a person who generates facts to refuse to tell anyone what those facts are except for a fee. Nine Network didn't compile these facts, they made them up. One of the underpinning rationales of the sweat-of-the-brow theory is the option for the second guy to compile an independent database of the facts. That option is absent here, giving Nine Networks a monopoly over these facts. The desire to protect compilers should not justify creating monopolies over facts.
In this corner, we have the challengers -- thousands of lukewarm Google fanboys. And, in that corner, we have the 32-time heavyweight champions of the world -- almost a dozen pry-my-Mac-from-my-cold-dead-fingers Apple fanboys.
I rate this match a toss-up, what about you, Steve and Larry?
Well, the kill switches could be the same. However, the Mob has already concluded that Apple's is bad. Now the Mob is trying to work out whether it can conclude that Google's is good without committing hypocrisy.
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.
How about a Christian suicide fire? In the end, David Koresh and a bunch of people who thought they were Christians burned about 76 people to death. They were his family and followers, but they were his victims nonetheless.
How about one group of people who thought they were Christians bombing the church of another group of Christians, killing four children and injuring 22 others?
It doesn't matter whether the amoral crazies kill in the name of God or Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whether they kill with bombs or guns or machetes, killing innocents instead of your enemy is always wrong. One is rarely justified in making war on one's enemies, but one is never justified in killing anyone else for leverage.
Actually, I am impressed when people tell me that they refuse to own a television. Television, like Facebook and the www, is a seductive time-sink. I always suspect that I would live better if I eschewed them all.
Question: If this ultrasound technology produces good results, why isn't it being marketed to vintners in a mass production system? Why is it being released as a consumer device for use on bottles?
If you aren't prepared to put your name to what you say, then I don't want to hear it.
Then, you will hear only those things that no one is trying to suppress by intimidation or retaliation.
If you don't have time for anonymous speech, that's fine. However, anonymous speech too often conveys vital information for it to be prohibited for those who want to hear it.
Mailservers? It sounds to me like the problem isn't a mailserver at all, but a submission form on a webserver.
Are there really enough monkeys typing in the States to overflow a competent mailserver? In a world where mailservers are surrounded by defenses against spam-generating botnets? I have my doubts.
If you ask me, the rate at which the unethical/criminal behavior of the month is being perpetrated only by "rogue" employees without management's knowledge is somewhat too high to be believed.
A modest proposal: every driver must retake the written test and the road test every third time they renew their license (i.e., about once every 12 years).
Traffic laws change, as do reflexes, eyesight, hearing, and judgment. It would be good for everyone, not to mention weeding out the incompetent.
Slashdot Mirror
They are in league with the grammarians about whom your mother warned you.
Add your naming nominations here (tech or otherwise):
Bias consists in favoring one side irrespective of the facts. When something is done because the facts require it, that's not bias.
Was there bias in this case? Judge for yourselves. But get your standards straight first.
It has taken three to four years, roughly a whole term, to get a judge to dig up this bit of the current administration's {,mis,ab}use of power.
Oddly, the ruling issued exactly one news cycle before election day. Google News has 327 articles and counting.
I would dare to say that there has been no copyright infringement and therefore this ISP has done a legal wrong. Their behavior well may make them liable for a number of possible actionable complaints by the copyright holder.
Forget copyright; if the host has done the site any 'legal wrong', it's not a copyright problem.
The host contracted to provide hosting services. The host (may have) breached that contract. All they could possibly be liable for are the monies paid for the unprovided hosting services and maybe, maybe, some consequential damages to the site's revenues or business goodwill due to the outage, if any such consequences can be proved.
Well, consider this: Is everything that some one arbitrarily determines an act of creativity? How about a train schedule? How about the numbering of the houses on a given street?
Let me suggest that it is possible to make something up without performing creative expression sufficient to merit copyright protection under a moral-rights/promotion-of-useful-arts theory.
Let's just suppose that we're talking about a country that believes in the sweat-of-the-brow theory of copyright protection for factual compilations (since we are).
It's one thing to protect a person who goes out and ascertains facts and compiles them. After all, the second guy can always go out and sweat and compile his own database.
It is quite another thing to allow a person who generates facts to refuse to tell anyone what those facts are except for a fee. Nine Network didn't compile these facts, they made them up. One of the underpinning rationales of the sweat-of-the-brow theory is the option for the second guy to compile an independent database of the facts. That option is absent here, giving Nine Networks a monopoly over these facts. The desire to protect compilers should not justify creating monopolies over facts.
Ooo! Ooo! Fanboy fight! Everybody come watch.
In this corner, we have the challengers -- thousands of lukewarm Google fanboys. And, in that corner, we have the 32-time heavyweight champions of the world -- almost a dozen pry-my-Mac-from-my-cold-dead-fingers Apple fanboys.
I rate this match a toss-up, what about you, Steve and Larry?
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Well, the kill switches could be the same. However, the Mob has already concluded that Apple's is bad. Now the Mob is trying to work out whether it can conclude that Google's is good without committing hypocrisy.
It's hard out there for a Mob.
Except the ones who are dead.
And, except for the ones whose hearts are beating.
(broken ribs, bruising, induced arrhythmias -- no fun at all)
Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.
How about a Christian suicide fire? In the end, David Koresh and a bunch of people who thought they were Christians burned about 76 people to death. They were his family and followers, but they were his victims nonetheless.
How about one group of people who thought they were Christians bombing the church of another group of Christians, killing four children and injuring 22 others?
It doesn't matter whether the amoral crazies kill in the name of God or Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whether they kill with bombs or guns or machetes, killing innocents instead of your enemy is always wrong. One is rarely justified in making war on one's enemies, but one is never justified in killing anyone else for leverage.
To be clear, I meant to be describing people who calmly, in response to a pertinent question, admit that they choose not to have a TV.
(Annoying people who volunteer irrelevant information in an attempt to persuade or impress are, well, annoying.)
Actually, I am impressed when people tell me that they refuse to own a television. Television, like Facebook and the www, is a seductive time-sink. I always suspect that I would live better if I eschewed them all.
If you are itching for a fight, try telling your friends/family/customers that you will not email them unless they use PGP.
There shouldn't be colors involved with every sword and axe swing.
There should be swords and axes that don't have colors involved with every swing. And not just ones that suck.
There. Fixed that for you.
Question: If this ultrasound technology produces good results, why isn't it being marketed to vintners in a mass production system? Why is it being released as a consumer device for use on bottles?
Answer: because consumers are persuadable.
. . . which may enable the state to win on appeal.
What appeal? Think the US Supreme Court is going to take this case? Possible, but unlikely.
If you aren't prepared to put your name to what you say, then I don't want to hear it.
Then, you will hear only those things that no one is trying to suppress by intimidation or retaliation.
If you don't have time for anonymous speech, that's fine. However, anonymous speech too often conveys vital information for it to be prohibited for those who want to hear it.
. . . how come modern democratic states aren't telling them to fuck off and clean up their act?
Mailservers? It sounds to me like the problem isn't a mailserver at all, but a submission form on a webserver.
Are there really enough monkeys typing in the States to overflow a competent mailserver? In a world where mailservers are surrounded by defenses against spam-generating botnets? I have my doubts.
Boy, and they thought house.gov was having traffic problems before. Welcome Slashdot!
How many minutes do you get per $ today? How many did you get 10 years ago?
The only difference between the mobile phone carriers and the broadband carriers is how much competition exists for servicing your house.
If you ask me, the rate at which the unethical/criminal behavior of the month is being perpetrated only by "rogue" employees without management's knowledge is somewhat too high to be believed.
. . . don't see much real benefit from Blu-ray over properly upscaled DVD playback . . . DVD widescreen content is, frankly, plenty good enough. . .
There's the rub.
(1) DVD is good enough
(2) Blu-ray isn't better enough to justify the price
Also, people have $$ sunk into DVD libraries (though that wouldn't necessarily affect their new purchases).
A modest proposal: every driver must retake the written test and the road test every third time they renew their license (i.e., about once every 12 years).
Traffic laws change, as do reflexes, eyesight, hearing, and judgment. It would be good for everyone, not to mention weeding out the incompetent.