And its analogue has been around since before the english language ever existed. You don't expect the Israelites from 1500 BC to use english terms, do you? It's always been a derogatory term when used by judaeo-christians, no matter what the language.
Psychiatrists are finally starting, in the last two decades, to admit in print that much of their earlier work, and even their conventional work, is contaminated with a cultural bias as to what's normal, defined by (and this is their words) "judaeo-christian values".
Next you'll be trying to claim that Freud was a scientist instead of an intellectual fraud who couldn't find his own rectum with both hands, a flashlight, and a roadmap.
Studies vary between 5% and 10% for LGBT. There's still a huge stigma to coming out, so if 10% are reporting it in high school, despite the possibility of getting the crap beaten out of them, social stigma, etc.... you do the math.
You post one side of some obscure blog's events, and this is front page news?!! Of course there must be more details to this, but we wouldn't get it from this lame submission.
I can't even see how this issue is really relevant to nerds here. There's no tech connection, no connection to anything really.
The "obscure blog" is a gay blog with lots of funding, and major backers.
Also, a recent survey of high school students found that more than 10% identified themselves as one form or another of "transgendered" - not fitting into the conventional binary model. BTW - the incidence is higher in the tech field, so it is definitely "news for nerds".
Banks don't have a right to discriminate because a web site caters to a minority group that is acting completely within the law. What next? Not allow legally-married same-sex couples to get a mortgage? Or freeze anyone's funds because they made a post to a forum while doing some research on gender issues?
Citibank isn't too big to fail - it's already failed. That's why it has to be bailed out.
Homosexual is a term that developed around the mid to late 1800's
It traces its roots back to "sodomite", (remember: English didn't exist then, so we have to use the terms that were in the original language). which has been around longer than most civilizations. Ii is clearly what the writers of the early bible were referring to when they were speaking of "men lying with men as one does with a woman". As such, it carries all the same religious baggage that "sodomite" did in the original hebrew (OT) or the greek (NT)
So the term "homosexual", and its equivalent in other languages, has a LONG pedigree, through various languages, of being used as a 4-letter word.
Though the term "Homosexual" appears in the New International Edition I am pretty sure it's actually a scientific term.
The term "homosexual" is definitely NOT a scientific term. It is currently being replaced with the terms "Gynephilia" and "Androphylia", which make no assumptions about the gender or sex of the person.
Even the shrinks now admit that their choice of terms over the last 50 years has been too heavily influenced by cultural assumptions - more specifically, a judaeo-christian bias.
No, that's not what atheists believe. That's how people who have "religious experiences" think.
If I "see it", I will have to examine why I saw what I thought I saw, rather than suddenly believe. I won't go for uncritical acceptance any more than I would for a UFO.
Example (poll results below): More people feel that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military than homosexuals. Same survey. The only difference between the two questions was the word "homosexual" vs the term "gays and lesbians."
Why do you think that opponents keep saying "homosexual rights" and "homosexual agenda"? It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling.
And let's not forget stupidity. These poll results also show that more than 10% of the population (the ones who think it's okay to deny homosexuals rights but not gays and lesbians) depend on someone else to tell them how to think. (FauxNews, the Church, etc).
* A February 2010 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 59 percent of Americans favor "homosexuals" serving in the military (up from 42 percent in February 1993), but 70 percent favor "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military.
* The same poll found that 44 percent of Americans favor allowing "homosexuals to serve openly" and that 58 percent favor allowing "gay men and lesbians to serve openly."
If you read what you wrote, and what I quoted, you basically said the placebo was equivalent to giving nothing; I pointed out that's not the case. So what's your point? Can't you just admit you're wrong? Maybe if you take this sugar pill....:-)
And it's not the dilution that does it in homeopathy either, since there are no active ingredients in the homeopathic solution. It's a placebo. Also, sugar IS an active ingredient (ask any diabetic),
RTFA. Nobody leaked the URL to reporters. Reporters guessed URL's until they hit on one.
But I guess the moderators are in wishful thinking mode today, so you got an up-mod for a non sequitur.
Also, you should probably learn to do a better job identifying who the enemy is. Jumping down my throat for pointing out unfortunate realities of the current legal landscape isn't helping you.
You are sooo full of crap. Instead of reading the comments and telling me to RTFA, go RTFA yourself, like I did. They didn't have to guess a url. They were given the base url, and that was ALL that anyone needed to get access to every other page, same as http://slashdot.org/ gives you access to this sites contents. Don't you know how the web works yet?
But the placebos have no effect. That's what they're there for - to compare someone taking medicine against someone taking nothing.
The placebo effect is real, and you can compare the placebo against giving nothing. Some problems respond to placebos, since the patient thinks something is actually being done about their problem; this prevents them from trying alternatives that can actually harm them. So the administering of a placebo can be viewed as harm reduction.
You can avoid this by telling your doctor you do not want to be prescribed a placebo under any circumstances.
That's just it. Nobody "owns the exclusive rights" to news.
Almost all print, radio, tv and online media run ads. It's one of the flaws in the system - we really need to get away from both ad-based and subscriber-based models, and if that means also getting rid of 98% of the Internet, I don't see the problem. Google alone hosts millions of ad-spam pages through their domain-parking service that "helps monetize" those sites, but adds nothing to the discussion.
Personally, since all news is local to SOMEONE, I'm looking forward to the day when citizen journalism takes over. Remember - it doesn't take everyone doing it - just the top 1% f the population who have the skills.
I thought Canada had their own DMCA too, if I'm not wrong?
Not yet - the US is trying to force us to adopt one, but trying to do so could end up triggering an election here. Canada does not want to be like the US, which is quickly becoming so corporatist that it's sad. We really need to realize that people like Warren Buffet (largest shareholder of AIG and Moodys, and hence the largest welfare bum in history) are not people to look up to.
I don't think any contemporary pharmaceuticals are "based on" dilution to the point of nonexistence.
Placebos are - and they have proven more effective in some cases than "real" medicine. That's why they're used in tests. If the medicine statistically is no better than a placebo - dump it. If it's WORSE, circle the lawyers.
No password dialog. No secret subdomain. No secret subdirectory. No login required. No user session or password. No.hosts entry. How is that "hacking"?
There was no guesswork involved, so there was zero bits of entropy in this example, unless they were drunk at the time and had to retype it, in which case it's their own entropy pool, not the servers'/dev/urandom, that is being probed.
No, the url was "published" in the legal sense - they were given it by someone.
No hacking involved.
They weren't the only ones to whom the url was "published", since several others also were grabbing the files at the same time. And the way they grabbed the files? Clicked on the menu and followed the links, then "Print".
No secret directories, no login required, no hidden subdomain, no.hosts file to exclude them, nothing. It was supposed to be a public website - it just went "public" a week early.
Sorry, but your argument fails almost immediately.
The url had already been "published" in the legal sense - as soon as someone leaked it to the reporters. There was no guesswork here. The reporters are part of the general public, and the disclosing of the url, without a prior agreement to keep it confidential, meets the legal definition of "to publish", same as a defamation suit only needs the words to be "published" to any 3rd party, not the entire population.
I RTFA, it was the first try. They were tipped off, entered this address: http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ there was no login or any other user verification, so they then clicked on all the links, downloading each page as it was served to them.
In other words, (again I RTFA) the site was supposed to go public a few days later - they just got there early and scooped everyone else, being the evil ink-stained wretches that they are:-)
And it's not open any more - nswtransportblueprint.com.au is now completely off-line.
So they went from Security through Obscurity to Streisand Effect to Slashdot Effect... but now that their server has melted, at least nobody can "hack" it, so I guess they're happy campers.
Oops - forgot to mention the reason why the "disrespectful to the family" claim is also crocodile tears on the part of the IOC - but Letterman said it better. They blamed the guy. Then they changed both the course and the starting position. And they still blamed the guy. Someone should put the course back the way it was and strap these "spokespeople" to a luge and say "if you crash and get killed, is it your fault?"
The non-Canadian competitors were not given the same access to the run as the Canadian competitors. If everyone had had equal access, it's more likely that alarms would have been raised sooner, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The way the whole thing has been handled by the IOC is pretty disgusting. Then again, they're in it for the money.
The DMCA does not apply, but the blogger didn't have the right to republish the material. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but I am assuming that there's a provision similar to that aspect of DMCA...
I'll assume that you haven't had your morning dose of caffeine yet:-)
Don't take my word for it - after all, who am I? Here's the actual text of the appropriate section of the Canadian Copyright Act, taken from the Justice Department website:
Exceptions
Fair Dealing
Research or private study
29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.
R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18.
Criticism or review
29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.
News reporting 29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.
Also, the IOCs "reasons" are bogus: "One is to protect the IOC's exclusive rights and those of the official broadcasters. The other is the IOC feels it's disrespectful to the Kumaritashvili family."
The IOCs rights are protected solely by copyright - and while the copyright protection protects the entertainment value, it cannot be used to censor news, as the copyright law clearly allows the reporting, using 3rd-party copyright material, provided it is credited to the rights-holder. This is a public-interest issue, and the IOC is trying the "jailhouse copyright" that is so popular, and so mis-informed, in the US.
"jailhouse copyright": People (including crooked politicians, pedophiles, etc) think that they can "protect" or hide, their name by claiming copyright to their name and all information connected to it. It doesn't work that way, but it sure sounds good to someone sitting in the pokey looking for ways to keep their name out of the news. They send notices to the news media, and the news media publishes their name anyway, because copyright simply doesn't work that way.
Look to the EUCD, the DMCA equivalent, start again by using real stats instead of pulling those 5% where the sun doesn't shine.
I guess you didn't bother reading the article. The EUCD is European. The site in question is in Prince Edward Island, Canada.. Neither the DMCA nor the EUCD have anything to do with it, for lack of jurisdiction.
... or you could look at the site itself, which quotes the appropriate section of the Canadian Copyright Act.
And since when is the US not only 5% of the worlds' population, as I wrote?
(never thought I'd be pulling the sunshine thing on slashdot lol)
I think you need more practice, sunshine:-) That's what Troll Tuesday is for.
The real estate market in downtown Vancouver was bubbled up by the Olympics, and is now cratering. Just look at the abandoned projects. The bankruptcy of Intrawest just adds to the growing "gee, I guess overpriced real estate CAN go down" trend.
Canadian markets usually lag the US by several years. The housing bubble has already started to burst in Vancouver, as well as parts of other major cities. Case in point - my former landlord (I rented a house from him a few years ago) just got repossessed, and the bank is unable to unload the place despite a 30% mark-down. And I know someone else who just sent their keys to the bank last month.
Whistler "is a going concern." Going, going, GONE!
They probably delayed the auction (of Whistler) to after the games to optimize the value for the creditors (of Intrawest.)
Drink much kool-aid? They are in a much better position to squeeze the organizers for extra ca$h NOW by foreclosing immediately. However, they then also become legally entangled in things that happen on the property, such as athletes who get killed because of a defective track design. Otherwise, they would have already foreclosed.
Everyone knew the books were cooked on the games being profitable. It was not going to happen. It wasn't just security costs. The games are a bad joke. Get rid of them, or have BC expropriate Whistler and run the permanent International Annual Winter Games, and tell the IOC to go piss up a rope. Montreal did it with the International Jazz Fest, the International Comedy Festival, the International Fireworks Festival... why can't Vancouver do it with the International Winter Games?
Really - the IOC is not a charity - they're in it for the bux. So why can't BC, after all the money spent on roads, etc?
Slashdot Mirror
And its analogue has been around since before the english language ever existed. You don't expect the Israelites from 1500 BC to use english terms, do you? It's always been a derogatory term when used by judaeo-christians, no matter what the language.
Psychiatrists are finally starting, in the last two decades, to admit in print that much of their earlier work, and even their conventional work, is contaminated with a cultural bias as to what's normal, defined by (and this is their words) "judaeo-christian values".
Next you'll be trying to claim that Freud was a scientist instead of an intellectual fraud who couldn't find his own rectum with both hands, a flashlight, and a roadmap.
Studies vary between 5% and 10% for LGBT. There's still a huge stigma to coming out, so if 10% are reporting it in high school, despite the possibility of getting the crap beaten out of them, social stigma, etc. ... you do the math.
The "obscure blog" is a gay blog with lots of funding, and major backers.
Also, a recent survey of high school students found that more than 10% identified themselves as one form or another of "transgendered" - not fitting into the conventional binary model. BTW - the incidence is higher in the tech field, so it is definitely "news for nerds".
Banks don't have a right to discriminate because a web site caters to a minority group that is acting completely within the law. What next? Not allow legally-married same-sex couples to get a mortgage? Or freeze anyone's funds because they made a post to a forum while doing some research on gender issues?
Citibank isn't too big to fail - it's already failed. That's why it has to be bailed out.
It traces its roots back to "sodomite", (remember: English didn't exist then, so we have to use the terms that were in the original language). which has been around longer than most civilizations. Ii is clearly what the writers of the early bible were referring to when they were speaking of "men lying with men as one does with a woman". As such, it carries all the same religious baggage that "sodomite" did in the original hebrew (OT) or the greek (NT)
So the term "homosexual", and its equivalent in other languages, has a LONG pedigree, through various languages, of being used as a 4-letter word.
The term "homosexual" is definitely NOT a scientific term. It is currently being replaced with the terms "Gynephilia" and "Androphylia", which make no assumptions about the gender or sex of the person.
Even the shrinks now admit that their choice of terms over the last 50 years has been too heavily influenced by cultural assumptions - more specifically, a judaeo-christian bias.
Hope this helps clarify things a bit.
No, that's not what atheists believe. That's how people who have "religious experiences" think.
If I "see it", I will have to examine why I saw what I thought I saw, rather than suddenly believe. I won't go for uncritical acceptance any more than I would for a UFO.
Depends on who's picking the facts ...
Example (poll results below): More people feel that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military than homosexuals. Same survey. The only difference between the two questions was the word "homosexual" vs the term "gays and lesbians."
Why do you think that opponents keep saying "homosexual rights" and "homosexual agenda"? It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling.
And let's not forget stupidity. These poll results also show that more than 10% of the population (the ones who think it's okay to deny homosexuals rights but not gays and lesbians) depend on someone else to tell them how to think. (FauxNews, the Church, etc).
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/dadt_poll.html/print.html
Doesn't matter - so are those old shellac 12" records, and the technique works for decoding them.
We can scan in the surface pits of the laser disk at high-enough resolution to decrypt the bit patterns - we no longer need the original readers.
If you read what you wrote, and what I quoted, you basically said the placebo was equivalent to giving nothing; I pointed out that's not the case. So what's your point? Can't you just admit you're wrong? Maybe if you take this sugar pill .... :-)
And it's not the dilution that does it in homeopathy either, since there are no active ingredients in the homeopathic solution. It's a placebo. Also, sugar IS an active ingredient (ask any diabetic),
You are sooo full of crap. Instead of reading the comments and telling me to RTFA, go RTFA yourself, like I did. They didn't have to guess a url. They were given the base url, and that was ALL that anyone needed to get access to every other page, same as http://slashdot.org/ gives you access to this sites contents. Don't you know how the web works yet?
The placebo effect is real, and you can compare the placebo against giving nothing. Some problems respond to placebos, since the patient thinks something is actually being done about their problem; this prevents them from trying alternatives that can actually harm them. So the administering of a placebo can be viewed as harm reduction.
You can avoid this by telling your doctor you do not want to be prescribed a placebo under any circumstances.
That's just it. Nobody "owns the exclusive rights" to news.
Almost all print, radio, tv and online media run ads. It's one of the flaws in the system - we really need to get away from both ad-based and subscriber-based models, and if that means also getting rid of 98% of the Internet, I don't see the problem. Google alone hosts millions of ad-spam pages through their domain-parking service that "helps monetize" those sites, but adds nothing to the discussion.
Personally, since all news is local to SOMEONE, I'm looking forward to the day when citizen journalism takes over. Remember - it doesn't take everyone doing it - just the top 1% f the population who have the skills.
Not yet - the US is trying to force us to adopt one, but trying to do so could end up triggering an election here. Canada does not want to be like the US, which is quickly becoming so corporatist that it's sad. We really need to realize that people like Warren Buffet (largest shareholder of AIG and Moodys, and hence the largest welfare bum in history) are not people to look up to.
Placebos are - and they have proven more effective in some cases than "real" medicine. That's why they're used in tests. If the medicine statistically is no better than a placebo - dump it. If it's WORSE, circle the lawyers.
They were given this url http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/
They went there.
They hit Print
They followed the pretty linkies
They hit Print some more
They wrote a story about it.
No password dialog. No secret subdomain. No secret subdirectory. No login required. No user session or password. No .hosts entry. How is that "hacking"?
There was no guesswork involved, so there was zero bits of entropy in this example, unless they were drunk at the time and had to retype it, in which case it's their own entropy pool, not the servers' /dev/urandom, that is being probed.
No, the url was "published" in the legal sense - they were given it by someone.
No hacking involved.
They weren't the only ones to whom the url was "published", since several others also were grabbing the files at the same time. And the way they grabbed the files? Clicked on the menu and followed the links, then "Print".
The url in question? http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/
No secret directories, no login required, no hidden subdomain, no .hosts file to exclude them, nothing. It was supposed to be a public website - it just went "public" a week early.
Sorry, but your argument fails almost immediately.
The url had already been "published" in the legal sense - as soon as someone leaked it to the reporters. There was no guesswork here. The reporters are part of the general public, and the disclosing of the url, without a prior agreement to keep it confidential, meets the legal definition of "to publish", same as a defamation suit only needs the words to be "published" to any 3rd party, not the entire population.
I RTFA, it was the first try. They were tipped off, entered this address: http://nswtransportblueprint.com.au/ there was no login or any other user verification, so they then clicked on all the links, downloading each page as it was served to them.
In other words, (again I RTFA) the site was supposed to go public a few days later - they just got there early and scooped everyone else, being the evil ink-stained wretches that they are :-)
And it's not open any more - nswtransportblueprint.com.au is now completely off-line.
So they went from Security through Obscurity to Streisand Effect to Slashdot Effect ... but now that their server has melted, at least nobody can "hack" it, so I guess they're happy campers.
Oops - forgot to mention the reason why the "disrespectful to the family" claim is also crocodile tears on the part of the IOC - but Letterman said it better. They blamed the guy. Then they changed both the course and the starting position. And they still blamed the guy. Someone should put the course back the way it was and strap these "spokespeople" to a luge and say "if you crash and get killed, is it your fault?"
The non-Canadian competitors were not given the same access to the run as the Canadian competitors. If everyone had had equal access, it's more likely that alarms would have been raised sooner, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The way the whole thing has been handled by the IOC is pretty disgusting. Then again, they're in it for the money.
I'll assume that you haven't had your morning dose of caffeine yet :-)
Don't take my word for it - after all, who am I? Here's the actual text of the appropriate section of the Canadian Copyright Act, taken from the Justice Department website:
I hope this clarifies things.
Articles on the site that deal with this are clearly news: http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=33411, http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=33242,
Also, the IOCs "reasons" are bogus: "One is to protect the IOC's exclusive rights and those of the official broadcasters. The other is the IOC feels it's disrespectful to the Kumaritashvili family."
The IOCs rights are protected solely by copyright - and while the copyright protection protects the entertainment value, it cannot be used to censor news, as the copyright law clearly allows the reporting, using 3rd-party copyright material, provided it is credited to the rights-holder. This is a public-interest issue, and the IOC is trying the "jailhouse copyright" that is so popular, and so mis-informed, in the US.
"jailhouse copyright": People (including crooked politicians, pedophiles, etc) think that they can "protect" or hide, their name by claiming copyright to their name and all information connected to it. It doesn't work that way, but it sure sounds good to someone sitting in the pokey looking for ways to keep their name out of the news. They send notices to the news media, and the news media publishes their name anyway, because copyright simply doesn't work that way.
I guess you didn't bother reading the article. The EUCD is European. The site in question is in Prince Edward Island, Canada.. Neither the DMCA nor the EUCD have anything to do with it, for lack of jurisdiction.
And since when is the US not only 5% of the worlds' population, as I wrote?
I think you need more practice, sunshine :-) That's what Troll Tuesday is for.
Canadian markets usually lag the US by several years. The housing bubble has already started to burst in Vancouver, as well as parts of other major cities. Case in point - my former landlord (I rented a house from him a few years ago) just got repossessed, and the bank is unable to unload the place despite a 30% mark-down. And I know someone else who just sent their keys to the bank last month.
Whistler "is a going concern." Going, going, GONE!
Drink much kool-aid? They are in a much better position to squeeze the organizers for extra ca$h NOW by foreclosing immediately. However, they then also become legally entangled in things that happen on the property, such as athletes who get killed because of a defective track design. Otherwise, they would have already foreclosed.
Everyone knew the books were cooked on the games being profitable. It was not going to happen. It wasn't just security costs. The games are a bad joke. Get rid of them, or have BC expropriate Whistler and run the permanent International Annual Winter Games, and tell the IOC to go piss up a rope. Montreal did it with the International Jazz Fest, the International Comedy Festival, the International Fireworks Festival ... why can't Vancouver do it with the International Winter Games?
Really - the IOC is not a charity - they're in it for the bux. So why can't BC, after all the money spent on roads, etc?