There's a difference between copying a small sample of an article into your blog for purposes of making snarky commentary about it (Fair Use) and rewriting the article entirely
Yes, there's a difference. But as rewriting the story entirely falls completely outside of the area of copyright law, I don't see what your point is. They can't copyright the substance of a story. Particularly not a true story. Anyone can rewrite it in their own words.
Libel is in fixed form, at least in the UK. It doesn't have to be visual. Similarly slander doesn't have to be audible. Potentially either could be visual, or audible or even tactile or olfactory.
Honestly, how is talking on a cell phone much more distracting than talking to a passenger in your car?
Because the people in the car with you react to the context you're in. Liking shutting up when you stop paying attention to them rather than saying "are you still there? hello? hello? I can't hear you... hello? are you okay...".
I can multitask fine. I'm often doing 3-4 things at once (playing games while watching TV and talking on IM for example), but this is ridiclous and should NOT be encouraged.
What they seem to ignore is that driving ALREADY means paying attention to multiple things at once. You're looking at the road ahead, and reading the road signs and watching for anything approaching the road from the sides and monitoring the situation behind you in the mirrors and keeping track of your various readouts like the speedometer. This is a lot for anyone to handle.
I balk at the name Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics. Most atheists and agnostics I've talked with are no more open minded than the dogmatic religious ones; not at all.
And that means that the ones who are open minded aren't allowed to have their own society?
Not that I actually know how open minded or otherwise they are but your objection seems absurd. Most Linux users I've spone to aren't Canadian. Does that mean that there can't or shouldn't be a Society of Canadian Linux Users?
How does resigning from a tedious chair position and not your professorship send a message to hate crime thugs?
I think you're the only person who has suggested his resignation is linked to his being beaten up. Most people seem to think his resignation is more due to controversial emails he sent. Why would it 'send a message to hate crime thugs'? Why would not sending such a message cast doubt on his having been assaulted?
It's okay if the guy had previously signed a security agreement saying that it was okay, or there were prominently placed notices that bags brought onto the premises were subject to search.
In either of those cases he's more likely to give consent to a search, it's human nature, but neither of those entitles them to physically detain hum or to forcibly seize his bag etc. Subject to jurisdiction of course, but still...
If he's entered into a contract saying he will allow a search then they'd have to sue if he refuses to permit a search. Otherwise they're commiting an asault. They can refuse anyone entry without a search of course but they can't detain people short of a citizen's arrest.
Getting an implied contract out of having a sign on the wall sounds unlikely to work at all.
The author presumably hasn't formed any belief on whether there are leprechauns because he hasn't finished searching China for them. He also doesn't have a belief either way about the entire pantheon of Greek gods because they might be in the 99% of knowledge he doesn't have and also, hey, they may all be hiding in China. And if asked "do you have a twin sister called Susan Ann Montegue" replies "I don't know, maybe she's been hiding in China all my life!".
Honestly, the depth of intellectual cowardice required to refuse to form a belief is appalling. Everything I believe may be wrong. Even in the cases where I'm absolutely convinced that it's a logical certainty, that may be because I've missed a line of reasoning. That doesn't mean I don't have any beliefs.
Video games are every bit as real as chess sets, skis, shoes, footballs, daffodils, cats and dogs. Of course that doesn't mean in itself that people shouldn't be protected from them; forest fires, napalm and tetanus are all real too.
Are you going to hold Walgreens responcible for phen-phen? Sony didn't by virtue of dsitributing know everything there could possibly be to know about the DRM. All they probably cared about was if it worked as a DRM.
Whether Sony was merely astonishingly negligent in installing on their customers' machines software that they didn't understand or whether they were actively malicious in intending that software to impair the normal functioning of the machine without proper notification and hide itself from the user to prevent removal is something that should become clearer once discovery is in progress. We have a courts to sort out these issues.
It's like they're BEGGING the EFF to add to their complaint "the rootkit was so deeply embedded and so thoroughly concealed that Sony themselves say it would take even them a month or more to create an uninstaller".
Sony have got to be trying to lose. Nobody could be this incompetent by accident.
Thanks. I hate to sound picky, but they don't seem to support your 1 in 600,000 figure. Not that it matters I guess... just curious as to whether that was a mistake or whether it has some basis.
The odds of being killed by a terrorist act is approximately 1 in 600,000. The odds of dying from falling off a ladder are approximately 1 in 10,000.
Neither of those figures sounds very convincing. Do you have cites? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't have accurate figures myself, but I am interested in knowing where you got your numbers from.
2. Does this cause problems for us? (seems that it will)
3. Can we do anything about it? (answer not known for sure)
Whether we're to blame for it is irrelevant. Whetehr it's "natural" is essentially irrelevant. If it turns out that it's caused by something completely unrelated to us but it's going to kill us all then saying "oh well, not our fault, let's all die" would be absurd. If it is caused by us but could be shown to be beneficial for us/the things we care about then saying "oh no, it's our fault, let's stop it" would be absurd.
The only relevance of whether we caused it or not is that if we did (it looks as though our actions were at least a factor) then that gives us some idea of what actions we might take to reverse it.
You don't have to feel guilty, personally or on behalf of our species. You don't have to worry about a natural ideal temperature. If a thing is happening that is bad for us then we want to stop it. That's it. Understand?
(hopefully it's obvious that people on the same latitude but different longitudes will have different times for sunrise and sunset but the same natural noon i.e. time when sun is highest in the sky)
*sigh* switch longitude and latitude. You get my point anyway.
He implied that there are four games that he would like to CONTINUE to play from the Xbox.
Apologies, I misremembered in that he was looking for a box that would include the games - he can't play them at present. I still don't understand why you think that the 3 year age of those games would be relevant.
Both of those games are at least 3 years old. If those truly are the only games you are interested in, it seems to make sense to just buy a used Xbox.
He implied that there are four games that he would like to CONTINUE to play from the Xbox. Why would that imply that he doesn't want to play new games? There seem to be a number of people (possibly including you) who don't care if they can't continue playing ANY of the older games. Can we conclude that they wouldn't want to play new games either?
Not quite. Now you add or subtract a number (you might have to subtract 12 from the result if you want am/pm) and say hey, 3pm, that's not bad... long enough after lunch they'll be awake but early enough they won't be anxious to go home.
Under your system you'd go okay, meeting at 3am... the book says midday is 7pm... now let's see... twelve minus seven is five, then another three is eight, so eight hours after midday... nope, I don't think that's going to work.
The book woud say the exact same number as it does now. I mention midday because 'natural' time zones are relative to noon, not to sunrise or sunset as some people seemed to be implying earlier (hopefully it's obvious that people on the same latitude but different longitudes will have different times for sunrise and sunset but the same natural noon i.e. time when sun is highest in the sky). However, you can disregard reference to midday completely if you find it confusing. If the book/chart you consult now says -12 hours then the book/chart afterwards also says -12 hours. You deduct 12 hours from the time and consider whether that would be an acceptable time for you. It really is an identical process. Why would it be different?
Besides, if it's precisely identical then why change?
Because that isn't the only manner in which times are used. All manner of publications are filled with time references with no time zone information to go on. Adding time zones information would help with that but it still necessitates a look up and calculation when none should be required. If an event or announcement is going to take place at 17:30 then under a single time zone that's all the information we would need. No conversion necessary because that conversion really is unnecessary.
I like how many people have said things like "midnight" meaning 12am in this thread.
Yeah, it's a pity to have to give up on phrases like "midnight" and "noon" but then DST and political time zones have already moved noon away from midday and official midnight away from true midnight already. It's no big loss to go the rest of the way.
The only helpful thing in time zones is the one someone else pointed out, that if you're actually physically visiting another country then the times 'seem right'. That's actually a very good point.
When you schedule a meeting now, you can easily tell what a reasonable time is to have the meeting because you have the notion of when daylight is. You can add/subtract hours to your time, to get their time, and retain that notion. If their daylight time period is suddenly expressed as a different figure, it's much harder to think of when their daylight hours are.
But if we were all using UTC then you could follow the exact same process. At present you look up how many hours they are different and then you adjust the time by that many hours and consider whether the result is reasonable. With everyone using UTC you could use the exact same chart to look up how many hours different their midday is and then you'd adjust the time by that many hours and consider whether the result is reasonable. You'd adjust by the same number of hours as at present. This is neither better nor worse because it is precisely identical.
Intead of saying, it 8:00 here, what time is it in Hong Kong. You would say "We get to work at 1:pm, what time to people in hong kong go to work??" thus still doing the same math.
Exactly, so for purposes of working out whether it's a reasonable time to call someone around the other side of the world, things would be exactly the same. No better and NO WORSE.
But for other purposes we would get major advantages. If I tell you that I plan to call you at 8:00 am tomorrow then you only have to worry about whether that's a convenient time for you, not whether I mean my time, your time or someone else's time. If I post on my web site that a major announcement will be made at 12:00 midnight tonight then everyone would know when it would be - again no need to worry about time zones. If I know the departure time for a flight and the duration of the flight then I would be able to tell the arrival time without worrying about time zones, or if I knew the departure and arrival times then I would know the planned duration.
Time zones make things more complicated with no real advantages.
Since this is a "world" resource, time should no longer be managed by the UK, but by the UN standards body. Surely this will be a much more equitable and fair solution than hogging all of the world's time by one nation.
Also the objection that the sun might end up rising at 4 pm was just silly. At one second of discrepancy every 18 months it would take 5,400 years for the sun rise time to have shifted by one hour - which should be gradual enough for everyone to accept it as normal.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't see how this makes Wikinews any better of a news source
It doesn't. You just changed the subject. We were talking about the AP's copyright notice.
There's a difference between copying a small sample of an article into your blog for purposes of making snarky commentary about it (Fair Use) and rewriting the article entirely
Yes, there's a difference. But as rewriting the story entirely falls completely outside of the area of copyright law, I don't see what your point is. They can't copyright the substance of a story. Particularly not a true story. Anyone can rewrite it in their own words.
Libel is in fixed form, at least in the UK. It doesn't have to be visual. Similarly slander doesn't have to be audible. Potentially either could be visual, or audible or even tactile or olfactory.
Honestly, how is talking on a cell phone much more distracting than talking to a passenger in your car?
Because the people in the car with you react to the context you're in. Liking shutting up when you stop paying attention to them rather than saying "are you still there? hello? hello? I can't hear you... hello? are you okay...".
I can multitask fine. I'm often doing 3-4 things at once (playing games while watching TV and talking on IM for example), but this is ridiclous and should NOT be encouraged.
What they seem to ignore is that driving ALREADY means paying attention to multiple things at once. You're looking at the road ahead, and reading the road signs and watching for anything approaching the road from the sides and monitoring the situation behind you in the mirrors and keeping track of your various readouts like the speedometer. This is a lot for anyone to handle.
I balk at the name Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics. Most atheists and agnostics I've talked with are no more open minded than the dogmatic religious ones; not at all.
And that means that the ones who are open minded aren't allowed to have their own society?
Not that I actually know how open minded or otherwise they are but your objection seems absurd. Most Linux users I've spone to aren't Canadian. Does that mean that there can't or shouldn't be a Society of Canadian Linux Users?
How does resigning from a tedious chair position and not your professorship send a message to hate crime thugs?
I think you're the only person who has suggested his resignation is linked to his being beaten up. Most people seem to think his resignation is more due to controversial emails he sent. Why would it 'send a message to hate crime thugs'? Why would not sending such a message cast doubt on his having been assaulted?
If they decline to slurp up tempting offers of sugar water, scientists take it as a sign of depression.
The depression diet plan? Someone could make a fortune out of the book rights.
It's okay if the guy had previously signed a security agreement saying that it was okay, or there were prominently placed notices that bags brought onto the premises were subject to search.
In either of those cases he's more likely to give consent to a search, it's human nature, but neither of those entitles them to physically detain hum or to forcibly seize his bag etc. Subject to jurisdiction of course, but still...
If he's entered into a contract saying he will allow a search then they'd have to sue if he refuses to permit a search. Otherwise they're commiting an asault. They can refuse anyone entry without a search of course but they can't detain people short of a citizen's arrest.
Getting an implied contract out of having a sign on the wall sounds unlikely to work at all.
The author presumably hasn't formed any belief on whether there are leprechauns because he hasn't finished searching China for them. He also doesn't have a belief either way about the entire pantheon of Greek gods because they might be in the 99% of knowledge he doesn't have and also, hey, they may all be hiding in China. And if asked "do you have a twin sister called Susan Ann Montegue" replies "I don't know, maybe she's been hiding in China all my life!".
Honestly, the depth of intellectual cowardice required to refuse to form a belief is appalling. Everything I believe may be wrong. Even in the cases where I'm absolutely convinced that it's a logical certainty, that may be because I've missed a line of reasoning. That doesn't mean I don't have any beliefs.
Video games are not reality!
Video games are every bit as real as chess sets, skis, shoes, footballs, daffodils, cats and dogs. Of course that doesn't mean in itself that people shouldn't be protected from them; forest fires, napalm and tetanus are all real too.
Are you going to hold Walgreens responcible for phen-phen? Sony didn't by virtue of dsitributing know everything there could possibly be to know about the DRM. All they probably cared about was if it worked as a DRM.
Whether Sony was merely astonishingly negligent in installing on their customers' machines software that they didn't understand or whether they were actively malicious in intending that software to impair the normal functioning of the machine without proper notification and hide itself from the user to prevent removal is something that should become clearer once discovery is in progress. We have a courts to sort out these issues.
It's like they're BEGGING the EFF to add to their complaint "the rootkit was so deeply embedded and so thoroughly concealed that Sony themselves say it would take even them a month or more to create an uninstaller".
Sony have got to be trying to lose. Nobody could be this incompetent by accident.
Thanks. I hate to sound picky, but they don't seem to support your 1 in 600,000 figure. Not that it matters I guess... just curious as to whether that was a mistake or whether it has some basis.
The odds of being killed by a terrorist act is approximately 1 in 600,000. The odds of dying from falling off a ladder are approximately 1 in 10,000.
Neither of those figures sounds very convincing. Do you have cites? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't have accurate figures myself, but I am interested in knowing where you got your numbers from.
The important questions are:
1. Is the Earth warming up? (it is)
2. Does this cause problems for us? (seems that it will)
3. Can we do anything about it? (answer not known for sure)
Whether we're to blame for it is irrelevant. Whetehr it's "natural" is essentially irrelevant. If it turns out that it's caused by something completely unrelated to us but it's going to kill us all then saying "oh well, not our fault, let's all die" would be absurd. If it is caused by us but could be shown to be beneficial for us/the things we care about then saying "oh no, it's our fault, let's stop it" would be absurd.
The only relevance of whether we caused it or not is that if we did (it looks as though our actions were at least a factor) then that gives us some idea of what actions we might take to reverse it.
You don't have to feel guilty, personally or on behalf of our species. You don't have to worry about a natural ideal temperature. If a thing is happening that is bad for us then we want to stop it. That's it. Understand?
(hopefully it's obvious that people on the same latitude but different longitudes will have different times for sunrise and sunset but the same natural noon i.e. time when sun is highest in the sky)
*sigh* switch longitude and latitude. You get my point anyway.
He implied that there are four games that he would like to CONTINUE to play from the Xbox.
Apologies, I misremembered in that he was looking for a box that would include the games - he can't play them at present. I still don't understand why you think that the 3 year age of those games would be relevant.
Both of those games are at least 3 years old. If those truly are the only games you are interested in, it seems to make sense to just buy a used Xbox.
He implied that there are four games that he would like to CONTINUE to play from the Xbox. Why would that imply that he doesn't want to play new games? There seem to be a number of people (possibly including you) who don't care if they can't continue playing ANY of the older games. Can we conclude that they wouldn't want to play new games either?
Not quite. Now you add or subtract a number (you might have to subtract 12 from the result if you want am/pm) and say hey, 3pm, that's not bad... long enough after lunch they'll be awake but early enough they won't be anxious to go home.
Under your system you'd go okay, meeting at 3am... the book says midday is 7pm... now let's see... twelve minus seven is five, then another three is eight, so eight hours after midday... nope, I don't think that's going to work.
The book woud say the exact same number as it does now. I mention midday because 'natural' time zones are relative to noon, not to sunrise or sunset as some people seemed to be implying earlier (hopefully it's obvious that people on the same latitude but different longitudes will have different times for sunrise and sunset but the same natural noon i.e. time when sun is highest in the sky). However, you can disregard reference to midday completely if you find it confusing. If the book/chart you consult now says -12 hours then the book/chart afterwards also says -12 hours. You deduct 12 hours from the time and consider whether that would be an acceptable time for you. It really is an identical process. Why would it be different?
Besides, if it's precisely identical then why change?
Because that isn't the only manner in which times are used. All manner of publications are filled with time references with no time zone information to go on. Adding time zones information would help with that but it still necessitates a look up and calculation when none should be required. If an event or announcement is going to take place at 17:30 then under a single time zone that's all the information we would need. No conversion necessary because that conversion really is unnecessary.
I like how many people have said things like "midnight" meaning 12am in this thread.
Yeah, it's a pity to have to give up on phrases like "midnight" and "noon" but then DST and political time zones have already moved noon away from midday and official midnight away from true midnight already. It's no big loss to go the rest of the way.
The only helpful thing in time zones is the one someone else pointed out, that if you're actually physically visiting another country then the times 'seem right'. That's actually a very good point.
They have the potential to be virtually 100% backwards compatible over time.
Yep. Endless potential. Do you work in real estate marketing?
When you schedule a meeting now, you can easily tell what a reasonable time is to have the meeting because you have the notion of when daylight is. You can add/subtract hours to your time, to get their time, and retain that notion. If their daylight time period is suddenly expressed as a different figure, it's much harder to think of when their daylight hours are.
But if we were all using UTC then you could follow the exact same process. At present you look up how many hours they are different and then you adjust the time by that many hours and consider whether the result is reasonable. With everyone using UTC you could use the exact same chart to look up how many hours different their midday is and then you'd adjust the time by that many hours and consider whether the result is reasonable. You'd adjust by the same number of hours as at present. This is neither better nor worse because it is precisely identical.
Intead of saying, it 8:00 here, what time is it in Hong Kong.
You would say "We get to work at 1:pm, what time to people in hong kong go to work??"
thus still doing the same math.
Exactly, so for purposes of working out whether it's a reasonable time to call someone around the other side of the world, things would be exactly the same. No better and NO WORSE.
But for other purposes we would get major advantages. If I tell you that I plan to call you at 8:00 am tomorrow then you only have to worry about whether that's a convenient time for you, not whether I mean my time, your time or someone else's time. If I post on my web site that a major announcement will be made at 12:00 midnight tonight then everyone would know when it would be - again no need to worry about time zones. If I know the departure time for a flight and the duration of the flight then I would be able to tell the arrival time without worrying about time zones, or if I knew the departure and arrival times then I would know the planned duration.
Time zones make things more complicated with no real advantages.
Since this is a "world" resource, time should no longer be managed by the UK, but by the UN standards body. Surely this will be a much more equitable and fair solution than hogging all of the world's time by one nation.
The Bureau international des poids et mesures is already responsible for measuring UTC as part of the SI system, by international treaty...
Also the objection that the sun might end up rising at 4 pm was just silly. At one second of discrepancy every 18 months it would take 5,400 years for the sun rise time to have shifted by one hour - which should be gradual enough for everyone to accept it as normal.