Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population.
Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.
Americans understand the most recent definition of slavery, which was developed by our own historical practices, and has remained largely unchanged for the last 200 years. Even the Roman definition of slavery changed between the start of the empire and the end. To say Americans don't understand slavery because today's definition is different than the 2000 year old Roman definition is silly. Yes, they are ignorant of ancient Roman slavery, but not slavery in general.
e-mailing that list to someone and going "OMG LOOK AT THIS" was proof that he knew the seriousness of the list he found. It cannot be argued that he did not know what he was doing.
And if a student finds a gun on school grounds and brings it to the attention of a teacher, that is proof that the student knows the seriousness of that situation. But I fail to see how that justifies throwing the book at the student.
Incomplete analogy. To fix it, you would have to include the student picking up the gun and squeezing off a few rounds before telling the local news about it... without ever involving the teachers. Doesn't sound quite so innocent now, does it?
meh. Your story neither supports nor detracts from my point, nor does it affect the statistics in any way. Nor are you a psychologist, so your assessment of the man is lacking credibility. We're not talking about people we know, we're talking about the fallacy of assuming a homeless drunk is in the situation only because of their own fault. A significant percentage of homeless have mental illness. Additionally, alcohol is a well known choice for self-medicating individuals, including or perhaps especially with the mentally ill. I don't recall off-hand any numbers I've read on the medicating side of things, but I remember it too being significantly higher than amongst the "sane" population.
If you wish to let your perception of homeless be based on your encounters with your friend's brother, that is your choice. I think it is a silly choice.
All this discussion... with nobody linking to the actual ruling?
The Judge struck down the ordinance on Ohio Constitution grounds based on
1. It is possible to enter the village and a camera enforced area, without encountering a sign warning of the camera (as required by Revised Code 4511.094)
2. State & Federal Constitution require "due process of law", meaning the ability to contest the fine. However the contest procedure involves only hearsay evidence from the Village (They just read the company's report... no witness). Furthermore, if you claim you're not the driver, you have to prove you're not the driver by coughing up the actual driver. If the driver was your spouse, you're then required to testify against your spouse, in violation of the Spousal Immunity statute 2917.02(d).
I think the real LOL is in the Bond decision. In case the injunction is determined to not be valid, the plaintiffs (you and me) are required to post a bond to cover any damages in the meantime. But since the city has flatly declared the ordinance is not about the money, the Bond to cover the potential millions of dollars of loss is... $1.
I like this judge.
IANAL. This is just my own layman's interpretation of the ruling.
Here in Switzerland when they build highways they actually think about on ramps, and off ramps. Heck they do so in Germany, and France and so on. They realize that if you create a highway with an on ramp and off ramp there will be quite a bit of traffic that will go through the town.
Oh wait, this is the United States, the land of the free, small government and where we can't invest in infrastructure! Seriously, these days when I travel to Canada and the States what I see is how urban sprawl is killing the countries.
Nothing better than a "we do things better over here" comment. Your entire nation is about the size of Tennessee; which is 34th in land area here. You have the population of New York City, but your major metropolitan areas were built 400 years earlier. Pretty amazing what you can do when you only have 8,000,000 people to please, 400 years of planning and no choices when it comes to where to build; compared to 300,000,000 people, years of explosive growth, and seemingly endless land options.
Switzerland and the United States are hardly comparable in this regard. If you want to brag about your awesome transportation infrastructure, be proud. Brag. Tell us how awesome it is. But don't say shit you know nothing about, like how things are planned, or supposedly not planned, here.
How does the Catholic church or any church enter into this?
Same way any other church enters into the discussion: they represent the beliefs of their parishioners; those beliefs are based on religious doctrine that has no basis in science or rational thought; those beliefs are, to the believers, incontestable factual artifacts so important that they are willing to die (or home school their kids) to protect them; and are the single most commonly cited reason for home schooling.
Parents have an intrinsic right to pass their worldview onto THEIR OWN children. You do not have a right to indoctrinate and brainwash MY children with your worldview.
I love the subtlety behind chosen words. Your worldview is "passed on", my worldview is "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Irrelevant as it is, I find it interesting. Well, with some districts "teaching" creationism next to evolution, I'd have to say its not the atheist science crowd that has a problem understanding this point.
This has been true for thousands of years, long before the invention of public education.
Great. Nobody disputed that here. But if your goal is to raise a productive, successful human being in today's world, teaching your child that AIDs is God's punishment for being gay, women should be uneducated and covered from head-to-toe at all times, the world is flat, evolution doesn't happen, or that the world is only 6000 years old only sets up both you and your child for absolute failure.
Whatever the religion based belief, if its shared by 1,000,000 others and called "Catholicism", or only yourself and 200 others and called "Jonestown", is still a fairy tale. Basing a child's entire education on this is a sign of being an unfit parent, and this belief is not ignorant or irrational.
Look at their question about religion.
The biggest single reason people homeschool is that they are religious nutters. I have a friend who's wife quit working to homeschool, every time they bring it up they have to mention they are not religious nutters since that is the most common reason for that arrangement. The wife stays home only because her income was lower than his.
From your link
Q: What are the demographics of the typical homeschooler?
As I explain in the third of my Three Key Points About Homeschooling, describing the "typical homeschooler" is about as difficult as defining the "typical public schooler"--the range of demographics, philosophies, and practices make such a generalization practically impossible.
When offering evidence to support your description of a typical homeschooler, don't submit ones that include statements about how it is impossible to describe a "typical homeschooler".:)
Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Your irrational hatred of religion places you comfortably withing this definition. Your grouping of those who are members of a religion as religious nutters shows that you are ignorant of religion.
Why do you claim it is ignorant or irrational? Does the Catholic Church then have a long history of tolerance, education, and enlightenment? Does commonly practiced Sharia law even allow women to attend school? Does the state of Tennessee teach creationism with evolution in science class because there is equal evidence for both?
There is nothing ignorant or irrational with recognizing religion's long-standing goal of keeping everybody in its dominion ignorant of the world around them.
What part of "stayed externally, physically identical" are you failing to understand?
Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? The current Mac Mini (post 2010) is 196x196x36mm and the AC cord plugs directly into it. The physical first generation (2005-2010) was 170x170x51mm and had an external power brick.
No! This is win-win for TPB. If they win the case they get to publically point out the hypocracy of the anti-piracy lobby, as well as solidly discredit their 'expertise' (as pointed out by engeekner below). If they lose, presumably because of fair use/parody being used as a defense, they have a precedent set that is actually supportive of their larger goals, i.e. that parody and fair use are applicable defences in cases of copyright infringement. The only other ways it could go are, in the worst case the case is thrown out, and TPB get to say "We aren't even given fair access to the justice system anymore", or they lose because the situation isn't considered infringement, i.e. that their claims are false. If this is the case, then there's a precedent that a direct digital copy does not constitute infrigment.
Unless TPB loses because they have a kopimi logo on their site, giving anybody explicit permission to copy any aspect of their site, thus strengthening the entire pro-copyright lobby because "Hey, look, copyright law works!"
I'm really not sure why all the pro-TPB fans on here are completely ignoring that very important legal notice. You can bet CIAPC's lawyers won't. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent that argument from being brought up in court.
This is entirely normal when you take a government that chronically under-staffs on IT and relies on consultants. They go and try to do something big, and they don't have the expertise in house to deal with it.
Really close here. Every successful project I've been on that utilized a high % of contractors had insanely awesome people in house running the show. But Sacramento's top IT positions cap out under $100k... with no stock options.
On the other hand, I've been spammed by people I've bought goods from through Amazon's Marketplace.
Are you in California? Sue them.
Merchants are not allowed to ask for your zip code or any other personally identifiable information except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, using said collected information for any other purpose (such as marketing) is illegal as well.
IANAL, so, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. But now that I know Google shares this stuff you can be sure I'm going to go check my spam box to see if I'll be taking Google to small claims court.
The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny.
The issue here is that most people equate American business interests across the globe to American government. Like it or not, they're two different things with two different aims. One aims to protect profits, one aims to protect itself. I'll let you figure out which one is which.
No, the issue is that people can't tell the difference because protecting profits and itself has become so intertwined. The Department of Homeland Security was all over San Francisco before the Super Bowl arresting people for selling counterfeit NFL gear. The US military is deployed around the world to "protect American interests". Well, what interests would those be? Is the entire planet gearing up to invade us? Or is it actually some business venture that the military is protecting?
No, they do not. Privacy means no accountability, which means absolute trust and absolute power, which is always stupid.
But that is not how most governments, including the United States, are structured. Privacy can mean personal privacy, or it can mean privacy within a select group. The President's authority is only what Congress, the Courts, & the Constitution give him (supposedly). The Constitution structures our government in a way so that even in the case of private matters, there is accountability.
This discussion sounds like it is going to be like math vs. physics though. You think the world is a perfect system where governments can be 100% open and still be successful in some way. Others acknowledge that humans are involved. Greedy, selfish, assholes that will sell their own grandmother just for the sake of knowing they sold their own grandmother.
From a purely practical standpoint it doesn't make very much sense to expect people to author something nontrivial in a language they aren't fluent in. It makes far more sense for the paper to be written in a language in which the author can effectively communicate their ideas. It can then be translated by someone who is good at translating into another language for a broader audience if need be. Just because a smart person doesn't speak English fluently does not mean they don't have ideas worth communicating. That's ridiculous.
He's not trolling, that is just the way things are. While there are more Chinese or Spanish native speakers, there are more English speakers in total. Why? Because when people get to school their first choice of a second language is English.
Just delete "native" from your wiki search and read that article.
http://tinyurl.com/9wpxjg6 Page 11-12
(a) a program that is installed by or on behalf of a person to prevent, detect, investigate, or terminate activities that the person reasonably believes (i) present a risk or threatens the security, privacy, or unauthorized or fraudulent use, of a computer system, telecommunications facility, or network,
Do you believe the RIAA poses a reasonable threat to your privacy from their new rootkits? Well then it seems, under this law, you could install a trojan horse on their computer, read their files, and then crash programs that might end up help the RIAA from violating your privacy...Like Windows
I think I like section (b): (b) a program that is installed, by or on behalf of a person who provides services
related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network or who operates
a network including a telecommunications service provider for the purposes of
network management;
Can google show a link with summary to a news article? Can they just show the entire article?
Can google show a link with summary to an image (i.e. thumbnail)? Can they just show the entire image?
I cannot imagine any reasonable person would differentiate the two situations. The content the Google user is actually looking for is the high-res image itself (my assumption based on my own personal decision process that leads me to visit images.google.com). As soon as you start serving up the full content, you're appropriating it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population. Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.
Americans understand the most recent definition of slavery, which was developed by our own historical practices, and has remained largely unchanged for the last 200 years. Even the Roman definition of slavery changed between the start of the empire and the end. To say Americans don't understand slavery because today's definition is different than the 2000 year old Roman definition is silly. Yes, they are ignorant of ancient Roman slavery, but not slavery in general.
That does not change the definition of the word.
Actually, it does. That is how language evolves. Webster has to print new editions quite often to accommodate the changes. :)
captcha-breaker poc?
Is Kelo v. City of New London recent enough? It does not seem like a correct interpretation of eminent domain ("for public use") to me...
This case seems to make Communism possible without ever changing the Constitution.
e-mailing that list to someone and going "OMG LOOK AT THIS" was proof that he knew the seriousness of the list he found. It cannot be argued that he did not know what he was doing.
And if a student finds a gun on school grounds and brings it to the attention of a teacher, that is proof that the student knows the seriousness of that situation. But I fail to see how that justifies throwing the book at the student.
Incomplete analogy. To fix it, you would have to include the student picking up the gun and squeezing off a few rounds before telling the local news about it... without ever involving the teachers. Doesn't sound quite so innocent now, does it?
meh. Your story neither supports nor detracts from my point, nor does it affect the statistics in any way. Nor are you a psychologist, so your assessment of the man is lacking credibility. We're not talking about people we know, we're talking about the fallacy of assuming a homeless drunk is in the situation only because of their own fault. A significant percentage of homeless have mental illness. Additionally, alcohol is a well known choice for self-medicating individuals, including or perhaps especially with the mentally ill. I don't recall off-hand any numbers I've read on the medicating side of things, but I remember it too being significantly higher than amongst the "sane" population.
If you wish to let your perception of homeless be based on your encounters with your friend's brother, that is your choice. I think it is a silly choice.
He did say "drunk". I think pretty much anybody that is drunk has only themselves to blame.
mental patients self medicate. Alcohol being the drug of choice because of its availability.
The Judge struck down the ordinance on Ohio Constitution grounds based on
1. It is possible to enter the village and a camera enforced area, without encountering a sign warning of the camera (as required by Revised Code 4511.094)
2. State & Federal Constitution require "due process of law", meaning the ability to contest the fine. However the contest procedure involves only hearsay evidence from the Village (They just read the company's report... no witness). Furthermore, if you claim you're not the driver, you have to prove you're not the driver by coughing up the actual driver. If the driver was your spouse, you're then required to testify against your spouse, in violation of the Spousal Immunity statute 2917.02(d).
I think the real LOL is in the Bond decision. In case the injunction is determined to not be valid, the plaintiffs (you and me) are required to post a bond to cover any damages in the meantime. But since the city has flatly declared the ordinance is not about the money, the Bond to cover the potential millions of dollars of loss is... $1.
I like this judge.
IANAL. This is just my own layman's interpretation of the ruling.
Here in Switzerland when they build highways they actually think about on ramps, and off ramps. Heck they do so in Germany, and France and so on. They realize that if you create a highway with an on ramp and off ramp there will be quite a bit of traffic that will go through the town.
Oh wait, this is the United States, the land of the free, small government and where we can't invest in infrastructure! Seriously, these days when I travel to Canada and the States what I see is how urban sprawl is killing the countries.
Nothing better than a "we do things better over here" comment. Your entire nation is about the size of Tennessee; which is 34th in land area here. You have the population of New York City, but your major metropolitan areas were built 400 years earlier. Pretty amazing what you can do when you only have 8,000,000 people to please, 400 years of planning and no choices when it comes to where to build; compared to 300,000,000 people, years of explosive growth, and seemingly endless land options.
Switzerland and the United States are hardly comparable in this regard. If you want to brag about your awesome transportation infrastructure, be proud. Brag. Tell us how awesome it is. But don't say shit you know nothing about, like how things are planned, or supposedly not planned, here.
How does the Catholic church or any church enter into this?
Same way any other church enters into the discussion: they represent the beliefs of their parishioners; those beliefs are based on religious doctrine that has no basis in science or rational thought; those beliefs are, to the believers, incontestable factual artifacts so important that they are willing to die (or home school their kids) to protect them; and are the single most commonly cited reason for home schooling.
Parents have an intrinsic right to pass their worldview onto THEIR OWN children. You do not have a right to indoctrinate and brainwash MY children with your worldview.
I love the subtlety behind chosen words. Your worldview is "passed on", my worldview is "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Irrelevant as it is, I find it interesting. Well, with some districts "teaching" creationism next to evolution, I'd have to say its not the atheist science crowd that has a problem understanding this point.
This has been true for thousands of years, long before the invention of public education.
Great. Nobody disputed that here. But if your goal is to raise a productive, successful human being in today's world, teaching your child that AIDs is God's punishment for being gay, women should be uneducated and covered from head-to-toe at all times, the world is flat, evolution doesn't happen, or that the world is only 6000 years old only sets up both you and your child for absolute failure.
Whatever the religion based belief, if its shared by 1,000,000 others and called "Catholicism", or only yourself and 200 others and called "Jonestown", is still a fairy tale. Basing a child's entire education on this is a sign of being an unfit parent, and this belief is not ignorant or irrational.
There's no law against providing Facebook with false information...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Both may apply.
http://www.indiana.edu/~homeeduc/FAQ.html
Look at their question about religion. The biggest single reason people homeschool is that they are religious nutters. I have a friend who's wife quit working to homeschool, every time they bring it up they have to mention they are not religious nutters since that is the most common reason for that arrangement. The wife stays home only because her income was lower than his.
From your link
Q: What are the demographics of the typical homeschooler? As I explain in the third of my Three Key Points About Homeschooling, describing the "typical homeschooler" is about as difficult as defining the "typical public schooler"--the range of demographics, philosophies, and practices make such a generalization practically impossible.
When offering evidence to support your description of a typical homeschooler, don't submit ones that include statements about how it is impossible to describe a "typical homeschooler". :)
Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Your irrational hatred of religion places you comfortably withing this definition. Your grouping of those who are members of a religion as religious nutters shows that you are ignorant of religion.
Why do you claim it is ignorant or irrational? Does the Catholic Church then have a long history of tolerance, education, and enlightenment? Does commonly practiced Sharia law even allow women to attend school? Does the state of Tennessee teach creationism with evolution in science class because there is equal evidence for both?
There is nothing ignorant or irrational with recognizing religion's long-standing goal of keeping everybody in its dominion ignorant of the world around them.
Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? The current Mac Mini (post 2010) is 196x196x36mm and the AC cord plugs directly into it. The physical first generation (2005-2010) was 170x170x51mm and had an external power brick.
...
That is not "externally, physically identical".
It has been since
The last significant revision was 2010.
... Read the entire comment next time? :)
No! This is win-win for TPB. If they win the case they get to publically point out the hypocracy of the anti-piracy lobby, as well as solidly discredit their 'expertise' (as pointed out by engeekner below). If they lose, presumably because of fair use/parody being used as a defense, they have a precedent set that is actually supportive of their larger goals, i.e. that parody and fair use are applicable defences in cases of copyright infringement. The only other ways it could go are, in the worst case the case is thrown out, and TPB get to say "We aren't even given fair access to the justice system anymore", or they lose because the situation isn't considered infringement, i.e. that their claims are false. If this is the case, then there's a precedent that a direct digital copy does not constitute infrigment.
Unless TPB loses because they have a kopimi logo on their site, giving anybody explicit permission to copy any aspect of their site, thus strengthening the entire pro-copyright lobby because "Hey, look, copyright law works!"
I'm really not sure why all the pro-TPB fans on here are completely ignoring that very important legal notice. You can bet CIAPC's lawyers won't. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent that argument from being brought up in court.
This is entirely normal when you take a government that chronically under-staffs on IT and relies on consultants. They go and try to do something big, and they don't have the expertise in house to deal with it.
Really close here. Every successful project I've been on that utilized a high % of contractors had insanely awesome people in house running the show. But Sacramento's top IT positions cap out under $100k... with no stock options.
Not gonna happen.
Merchants are not allowed to ask for your zip code or any other personally identifiable information except in rare circumstances.
Edit: If you pay by credit card.
On the other hand, I've been spammed by people I've bought goods from through Amazon's Marketplace.
Are you in California? Sue them.
Merchants are not allowed to ask for your zip code or any other personally identifiable information except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, using said collected information for any other purpose (such as marketing) is illegal as well.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/11/business/la-fi-0211-privacy-20110211
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1747-1748.95
IANAL, so, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. But now that I know Google shares this stuff you can be sure I'm going to go check my spam box to see if I'll be taking Google to small claims court.
How sad it would be to ask someone how much two plus two is and they tell you I don't have my computer. I don't know.
Actually I'm envisioning them replying: <clack clack> "3.999999 you dumb troll."
I don't care if you're a democrat or republican, that's extremely poor handling of our money.
Maybe, but what it really shows is that we are not spending enough.
hahahaha. You could not have given a better Democrat party line response. It is just ... awesome.
"The people deciding where to invest our money are corrupt and stupid."
"Well then, spend more money!"
I'm sorry sir, but throwing more money at things doesn't make the people in charge any smarter.
The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny.
The issue here is that most people equate American business interests across the globe to American government. Like it or not, they're two different things with two different aims. One aims to protect profits, one aims to protect itself. I'll let you figure out which one is which.
No, the issue is that people can't tell the difference because protecting profits and itself has become so intertwined. The Department of Homeland Security was all over San Francisco before the Super Bowl arresting people for selling counterfeit NFL gear. The US military is deployed around the world to "protect American interests". Well, what interests would those be? Is the entire planet gearing up to invade us? Or is it actually some business venture that the military is protecting?
No, they do not. Privacy means no accountability, which means absolute trust and absolute power, which is always stupid.
But that is not how most governments, including the United States, are structured. Privacy can mean personal privacy, or it can mean privacy within a select group. The President's authority is only what Congress, the Courts, & the Constitution give him (supposedly). The Constitution structures our government in a way so that even in the case of private matters, there is accountability.
This discussion sounds like it is going to be like math vs. physics though. You think the world is a perfect system where governments can be 100% open and still be successful in some way. Others acknowledge that humans are involved. Greedy, selfish, assholes that will sell their own grandmother just for the sake of knowing they sold their own grandmother.
You're trolling, but I'll bite.
You're selfish.
By your logic, Chinese or even Spanish would be a better choice than English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
From a purely practical standpoint it doesn't make very much sense to expect people to author something nontrivial in a language they aren't fluent in. It makes far more sense for the paper to be written in a language in which the author can effectively communicate their ideas. It can then be translated by someone who is good at translating into another language for a broader audience if need be. Just because a smart person doesn't speak English fluently does not mean they don't have ideas worth communicating. That's ridiculous.
He's not trolling, that is just the way things are. While there are more Chinese or Spanish native speakers, there are more English speakers in total. Why? Because when people get to school their first choice of a second language is English.
Just delete "native" from your wiki search and read that article.
http://tinyurl.com/9wpxjg6 Page 11-12 (a) a program that is installed by or on behalf of a person to prevent, detect, investigate, or terminate activities that the person reasonably believes (i) present a risk or threatens the security, privacy, or unauthorized or fraudulent use, of a computer system, telecommunications facility, or network, Do you believe the RIAA poses a reasonable threat to your privacy from their new rootkits? Well then it seems, under this law, you could install a trojan horse on their computer, read their files, and then crash programs that might end up help the RIAA from violating your privacy...Like Windows
I think I like section (b):
(b) a program that is installed, by or on behalf of a person who provides services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network or who operates a network including a telecommunications service provider for the purposes of network management;
legalizing botnets... awesome.
Can google show a link with summary to a news article? Can they just show the entire article?
Can google show a link with summary to an image (i.e. thumbnail)? Can they just show the entire image?
I cannot imagine any reasonable person would differentiate the two situations. The content the Google user is actually looking for is the high-res image itself (my assumption based on my own personal decision process that leads me to visit images.google.com). As soon as you start serving up the full content, you're appropriating it.