It's not that the RIAA is committing some horrible slander in accusing his blog of being anti-RIAA.*
It's that the RIAA (a) thinks that somehow this is an impermissible thing, unlike being pro-RIAA biased, (b) is making the argument that the other side's argument should be disregarded due to bias, which is something the American adversarial system actually encourages for each side and only discourages for the fact-finder (aka the judge or jury), and (c) is stupid and audacious enough to think that their little manifesto looks good for their side.
(* Now, this isn't necessarily true about calling the FSF anti-copyright. That might actually be slanderous and a Rule 11 violation.)
I was under the vague impression that GPL was an effort to prevent someone from using part or all of your work that you wanted to remain free to the public and stamping their own copyright on it.
If we lived in a world of entirely interpreted languages, this would be true.
However, most commercial code is compiled into binary format, and the real problem is with people taking your work, modifying it, and then not releasing the changes. Everything being public domain would do absolutely nothing to prevent this. That's the difference between the GPL (must give back the code), the BSD license (must give credit), and public domain (we owe you nothing).
That was my thought, too. Of course, to some people, everybody who doesn't think exactly like they do is evil, and it's fair game to accuse them of anything you can think of regardless of the facts.
To be fair, that accurately describes the way of lot of pro-Israeli people treat anyone who criticizes the treatment of the Palestinians or Israel's settlement policies. The word "anti-Semite" gets tossed at you a lot if you don't think Israel's systems of checkpoints and embargoes or its extremely high rates of "collateral damage" are the very milk of kindness and justice incarnate.
It's a tad off-topic, but maybe the OP should consider that if Hamas vanished, the violence would end; if the IDF vanished, so would Israel.
And that would end the violence too... after a brief period of "adjustment," if we're going to fair.
Hamas is just a symptom of the disease of occupation, poverty, and disillusionment of Palestinians with the corrupt inefficiency of Fatah. Destroy Hamas, and another faction of angry young men replaces them. Saying that getting rid of Hamas would end all the misery in the Middle East typically ignores that the Palestinians have real, legitimate grudges, even though Hamas and its ilk pursue illegitimate means of redress. Until the reasonable issues are dealt with, the unreasonable ones will have popular support.
Personally, I think both sides need to grow the hell up. Playing this whole ridiculous blame game of, "You started it first!" or "Our claim is more legit than yours!" only continues this sad, sick circle-jerk of misery. The Palestinians need to stop acting like throwing a few crappy rockets and sending their kids off to blow themselves up in a market will suddenly make the world a shiny, happy place for them while dreaming that Israel has no right to exist, and Israel needs to stop acting like the Palestinians are just an inconvenient bunch of pests to be bug bombed every now and then to make room for their own fanatical, expansionist settlers while treating 1 Israeli life as worth 100 Palestinians. When both of them get their heads around the idea that the Middle East doesn't belong solely to them by decree of God and that the other side is made up of people too, we'll have some progress. Until then, it's ass-haberdashery all around with each side's supporters accusing the other of genocidal aims while turning a blind eye to their own sins.
It's vice versa. It's what harm BitTorrent does to TOR. I makes TOR suck for everyone else on it because you're multiplying the bandwidth you use to download a file several times over for a high-latency network with limited resources.
"Alaska is big. Really big. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to Alaska. [...] The simple truth is that intra-Alaska distances will not fit into the American imagination."
As long as you get off the ground first so that you aren't stuck here dealing with the the aftereffects, right?
I find it stunning today that there are science-educated people who still think using Orion as a launch vehicle is a great idea. As nuclear propulsion ideas go, it's about the only thing dumber than an open-cycle gas core rocket.
Do not use TOR in that manner. The designers have said that it was never intended to handle P2P traffic, and some exit nodes even go far enough to try to filter the traffic out to prevent this kind of abuse.
Without RTFA, this seems silly to me. Great you can map the brain but what real science will be done? What predictions or deeper understandings will be acquired? Seems like figuring out how a car runs by making a diagram of the engine without know what each part does.
"Real" science?
I think that astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and a great many other students of the observational sciences -- including many field biologists and anatomists -- would take offense at that characterization.
Just the ability to observe intricately how the brain is put together first is valuable enough knowledge without tinkering with the thing blindly.
Given what kind of social pressures are mostly likely to result in some cultures never leaving Earth, I'd say that the phrase "first world citizen" will take on completely the opposite meaning in the future.
I don't think he ever has, if that gives you any idea how utterly rare they are.
The most famous sanction against Thompson, barring him from filing documents to the Florida Supreme Court, was done in state court under state procedures. The mildly hilarious ruling can be found here.
1. Yes, if it's within 21 days after the motion for sanctions is filed.
2. The attorney has to pay fines with a goal of deterrence and not compensation. (If the attorney is poor, they'll be fined less.) The attorney's client can be held joint & severally liable. Your professional reputation as an attorney suffers, and in extreme circumstances, it might serve as pretty bad evidence towards an attorney malpractice suit or a disbarment hearing.
3. Extremely rarely. It's generally reserved for lawyers acting in very bad faith, and the 21 day safe harbor gives attorneys a way to amend the offending action. Courts are generally willing to give attorneys the benefit of the doubt on whether they did something with a good faith belief that it was true or not. Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.
The author made clear that they were only considering core material and not setting-specific material. When the Eberron books come out, I doubt he would consider the Artificer either. His reasons for doing so were fair in my opinion.
Second, it's not unfair to consider them a new race. The background and flavor of the race is sufficiently different. Deva are angels who chose to incarnate as mortals and not reincarnate endlessly. Aasimar were humans with angelic ancestry. Also, Rodney Thompson from WotC R&D explicitly distanced the race from the Aasimar here.
Books are cheap on eBay. Why does anyone feel the need to pay exorbitant amounts of money for, what is in principle, the same game released over 30 years ago.
Boy, do I feel old and cranky.
You sound it too. You're essentially judging "youth culture" without making any effort to investigate it; like old people griping about rap music or the internet. If you'd actually open up and read a 4e book, you'd see how radically different it is from 1e.
You probably wouldn't like it 'cause your tastes have fossilized, but at least you'd be able to voice a semi-intelligent complaint about it at that point.
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
* Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law.
* The plaintiff is complaining about a situation in which they were the ones doing something fundamentally wrong.
* The truth seems to be less important than the ability to use weasel words and slippery logic.
* It encourages bad behaviour e.g. in this case sales people with expense accounts who feel they don't need to keep records, and should suffer no adverse effects if they get caught.
This is what bothers me about legal reporting and public commentary that results.
* The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong. We already have an existing tort in many jurisdictions that covers this: false light. If you publicize something about someone that may be misleading, and you do it with actual malice towards the person you are publicizing the matter about, it doesn't matter if what you said is true as long as it could mislead people in a highly offensive manner. MA phrased their defamation law strangely to basically open the doors to false light claims under libel. What matters is not what terms you use to call the violation, though, but whether the public knows its fundamentally wrong to haul someone up and shame them in terms that may lead people to think much worse about them than they actually deserve.
* The fact that the plaintiff was doing something wrong doesn't mean that the defendant is completely off the hook for doing something wrong themselves. Staples did not usually mention the names of employees when sending out announcements about firings. His claim that the email was sent out with the intent to humiliate him passes the laugh test for me. (But it's up to a jury to determine whether it was sent with "actual malice" and in a highly offensive manner. I think he's going to lose there.)
* Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them, and that you don't have to avoid painting them in a terrible light if it's not merited.
This plaintiff may not be a great guy, but we don't run a legal system that's based on two wrongs make a right.
There's actually in the common law a separate tort for this kind of action -- false light.
Generally speaking for false light, you have to publicize a statement, with actual malice, that portray the plaintiff in a false or misleading way that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. The tort isn't allowed in all jurisdictions because many state courts feel that it's too close to defamation and do not like how it overcomes the truth as defense limitation, but most states do accept it.
All the 1st Circuit has done here is analyze MA defamation law, which clumsily encodes false light under its umbrella, and apply the law as written. No real cause for alarm here. And we do also have separate torts for fully true depictions of people that publicize private matters in an offensive way, so it's not as big of a deal as everyone thinks. It's a decision that protects privacy, and I support it. Newspapers are getting up in arms irrationally -- we already have plenty of case law shielding them from most false light, defamation, and public disclosure claims.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that the RIAA is committing some horrible slander in accusing his blog of being anti-RIAA.*
It's that the RIAA (a) thinks that somehow this is an impermissible thing, unlike being pro-RIAA biased, (b) is making the argument that the other side's argument should be disregarded due to bias, which is something the American adversarial system actually encourages for each side and only discourages for the fact-finder (aka the judge or jury), and (c) is stupid and audacious enough to think that their little manifesto looks good for their side.
(* Now, this isn't necessarily true about calling the FSF anti-copyright. That might actually be slanderous and a Rule 11 violation.)
I was under the vague impression that GPL was an effort to prevent someone from using part or all of your work that you wanted to remain free to the public and stamping their own copyright on it.
If we lived in a world of entirely interpreted languages, this would be true.
However, most commercial code is compiled into binary format, and the real problem is with people taking your work, modifying it, and then not releasing the changes. Everything being public domain would do absolutely nothing to prevent this. That's the difference between the GPL (must give back the code), the BSD license (must give credit), and public domain (we owe you nothing).
Okay, smart guy, give me an exact expression for pi expressed as a sum of powers of two.
You mean like the sum of powers of ten that you're used to?
Okay.
(You didn't forget that .1, .01, .001, and so on are powers of their base, did you?)
Thanks you, Captain Obvious. Would you mind if we presented you with the key to Superfluous City?
Jews are virtually all on the anti-genocide side.
That was my thought, too. Of course, to some people, everybody who doesn't think exactly like they do is evil, and it's fair game to accuse them of anything you can think of regardless of the facts.
To be fair, that accurately describes the way of lot of pro-Israeli people treat anyone who criticizes the treatment of the Palestinians or Israel's settlement policies. The word "anti-Semite" gets tossed at you a lot if you don't think Israel's systems of checkpoints and embargoes or its extremely high rates of "collateral damage" are the very milk of kindness and justice incarnate.
It's a tad off-topic, but maybe the OP should consider that if Hamas vanished, the violence would end; if the IDF vanished, so would Israel.
And that would end the violence too ... after a brief period of "adjustment," if we're going to fair.
Hamas is just a symptom of the disease of occupation, poverty, and disillusionment of Palestinians with the corrupt inefficiency of Fatah. Destroy Hamas, and another faction of angry young men replaces them. Saying that getting rid of Hamas would end all the misery in the Middle East typically ignores that the Palestinians have real, legitimate grudges, even though Hamas and its ilk pursue illegitimate means of redress. Until the reasonable issues are dealt with, the unreasonable ones will have popular support.
Personally, I think both sides need to grow the hell up. Playing this whole ridiculous blame game of, "You started it first!" or "Our claim is more legit than yours!" only continues this sad, sick circle-jerk of misery. The Palestinians need to stop acting like throwing a few crappy rockets and sending their kids off to blow themselves up in a market will suddenly make the world a shiny, happy place for them while dreaming that Israel has no right to exist, and Israel needs to stop acting like the Palestinians are just an inconvenient bunch of pests to be bug bombed every now and then to make room for their own fanatical, expansionist settlers while treating 1 Israeli life as worth 100 Palestinians. When both of them get their heads around the idea that the Middle East doesn't belong solely to them by decree of God and that the other side is made up of people too, we'll have some progress. Until then, it's ass-haberdashery all around with each side's supporters accusing the other of genocidal aims while turning a blind eye to their own sins.
Right. 'Cause two genocidal sides make a war "holy," right?
It's vice versa. It's what harm BitTorrent does to TOR. I makes TOR suck for everyone else on it because you're multiplying the bandwidth you use to download a file several times over for a high-latency network with limited resources.
What do you think TOR is?
So, what you're saying is...
"Alaska is big. Really big. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to Alaska. [...] The simple truth is that intra-Alaska distances will not fit into the American imagination."
As long as you get off the ground first so that you aren't stuck here dealing with the the aftereffects, right?
I find it stunning today that there are science-educated people who still think using Orion as a launch vehicle is a great idea. As nuclear propulsion ideas go, it's about the only thing dumber than an open-cycle gas core rocket.
Here's the environmental impact statement...
I'm pretty sure that whole cockamamie scheme was pre-NEPA.
Do not use TOR in that manner. The designers have said that it was never intended to handle P2P traffic, and some exit nodes even go far enough to try to filter the traffic out to prevent this kind of abuse.
Unfortunately, his teeth only transmit over IPX. Since the end of the Doom era, all the files in his head have been imaginary.
I.. I didn't think of it that way, but now I wonder too.
Probably was just a random domain name squatter, though.
Without RTFA, this seems silly to me. Great you can map the brain but what real science will be done? What predictions or deeper understandings will be acquired?
Seems like figuring out how a car runs by making a diagram of the engine without know what each part does.
"Real" science?
I think that astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and a great many other students of the observational sciences -- including many field biologists and anatomists -- would take offense at that characterization.
Just the ability to observe intricately how the brain is put together first is valuable enough knowledge without tinkering with the thing blindly.
Given what kind of social pressures are mostly likely to result in some cultures never leaving Earth, I'd say that the phrase "first world citizen" will take on completely the opposite meaning in the future.
I don't think he ever has, if that gives you any idea how utterly rare they are.
The most famous sanction against Thompson, barring him from filing documents to the Florida Supreme Court, was done in state court under state procedures. The mildly hilarious ruling can be found here.
1. Yes, if it's within 21 days after the motion for sanctions is filed.
2. The attorney has to pay fines with a goal of deterrence and not compensation. (If the attorney is poor, they'll be fined less.) The attorney's client can be held joint & severally liable. Your professional reputation as an attorney suffers, and in extreme circumstances, it might serve as pretty bad evidence towards an attorney malpractice suit or a disbarment hearing.
3. Extremely rarely. It's generally reserved for lawyers acting in very bad faith, and the 21 day safe harbor gives attorneys a way to amend the offending action. Courts are generally willing to give attorneys the benefit of the doubt on whether they did something with a good faith belief that it was true or not. Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.
GOOD GOD !
What is it good for? Absolutely nothing -- say it again!
(Actually, I kind of thought it was awesome.)
Excellent. I had a feeling it was something like that. Lord, I hate how articles on court cases so frequently miss the damned point.
angels who chose to incarnate as mortals and not reincarnate endlessly
I meant, "and now reincarnate endlessly."
The author made clear that they were only considering core material and not setting-specific material. When the Eberron books come out, I doubt he would consider the Artificer either. His reasons for doing so were fair in my opinion.
Second, it's not unfair to consider them a new race. The background and flavor of the race is sufficiently different. Deva are angels who chose to incarnate as mortals and not reincarnate endlessly. Aasimar were humans with angelic ancestry. Also, Rodney Thompson from WotC R&D explicitly distanced the race from the Aasimar here.
Books are cheap on eBay. Why does anyone feel the need to pay exorbitant amounts of money for, what is in principle, the same game released over 30 years ago.
Boy, do I feel old and cranky.
You sound it too. You're essentially judging "youth culture" without making any effort to investigate it; like old people griping about rap music or the internet. If you'd actually open up and read a 4e book, you'd see how radically different it is from 1e.
You probably wouldn't like it 'cause your tastes have fossilized, but at least you'd be able to voice a semi-intelligent complaint about it at that point.
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
* Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law.
* The plaintiff is complaining about a situation in which they were the ones doing something fundamentally wrong.
* The truth seems to be less important than the ability to use weasel words and slippery logic.
* It encourages bad behaviour e.g. in this case sales people with expense accounts who feel they don't need to keep records, and should suffer no adverse effects if they get caught.
This is what bothers me about legal reporting and public commentary that results.
* The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong. We already have an existing tort in many jurisdictions that covers this: false light. If you publicize something about someone that may be misleading, and you do it with actual malice towards the person you are publicizing the matter about, it doesn't matter if what you said is true as long as it could mislead people in a highly offensive manner. MA phrased their defamation law strangely to basically open the doors to false light claims under libel. What matters is not what terms you use to call the violation, though, but whether the public knows its fundamentally wrong to haul someone up and shame them in terms that may lead people to think much worse about them than they actually deserve.
* The fact that the plaintiff was doing something wrong doesn't mean that the defendant is completely off the hook for doing something wrong themselves. Staples did not usually mention the names of employees when sending out announcements about firings. His claim that the email was sent out with the intent to humiliate him passes the laugh test for me. (But it's up to a jury to determine whether it was sent with "actual malice" and in a highly offensive manner. I think he's going to lose there.)
* Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them, and that you don't have to avoid painting them in a terrible light if it's not merited.
This plaintiff may not be a great guy, but we don't run a legal system that's based on two wrongs make a right.
There's actually in the common law a separate tort for this kind of action -- false light.
Generally speaking for false light, you have to publicize a statement, with actual malice, that portray the plaintiff in a false or misleading way that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. The tort isn't allowed in all jurisdictions because many state courts feel that it's too close to defamation and do not like how it overcomes the truth as defense limitation, but most states do accept it.
All the 1st Circuit has done here is analyze MA defamation law, which clumsily encodes false light under its umbrella, and apply the law as written. No real cause for alarm here. And we do also have separate torts for fully true depictions of people that publicize private matters in an offensive way, so it's not as big of a deal as everyone thinks. It's a decision that protects privacy, and I support it. Newspapers are getting up in arms irrationally -- we already have plenty of case law shielding them from most false light, defamation, and public disclosure claims.
By the time IE8 is EOL'ed, I hope ActiveX will be long gone.
Just like COBOL is.