The courts didn't see it the way you claim. Books are product, they aren't "licensed". You're sold a copy of a licensed work, you are free do what you want with that licensed work including resell it or anything else. You are clearly not aware of the history of the library. Publishers sued the first libraries and loaning groups after putting "license" agreements in the books, the courts shot it down, it was later added into law that the book once sold the copyright on that book was exhausted and the author had no more legal claim to it. The owner could resell or do anything to the book they want including loaning it to other people.
This is long settled, I suggest you look into the history of libraries and all the early legal challenges and shennangins that the publishers at the time attempted and the legal ramifications that resulted. To undo this the supreme court would need to undo 200+ year old precedents and invalidate laws just as old. It's not happening, books aren't licensed.
My own local library does something similar. There is and should be nothing wrong with offering books for loan regardless of format at long as the copy is legitimately purchased. Publishers have hated Libraries since they started and they want to use "electronic" as an attempt to license the book instead of buying it.
The courts will shoot this down, there is a long legal history for Library's loaning books being perfectly legal all the way back into english common law, to rules in the writers favor this the supreme court would need to undo 200 years of precedent. They generally don't do that for anything but the most extreme of situations.
Libraries exist, they loan books, whether they are digital or paper and it's all perfectly legal.
The worst I've heard of is Lousianna where there are more than 1000 separate taxing districts and the taxes rates are different for different items, as an example milk may have no tax in one district and 1% in another district. So not only are there separate districts but the rates and even which items have which tax are different, it creates a table with millionths of possibilities for only a single state. On top of that the rates and items generally change every single year.
It's problems like this that make it problematic to support sales tax. The ideal solution is a solution at the national level that defines a base taxation for each state for out of state buyers that ignores all the special districts. Baring that it's still possible to support such convoluted systems if the states are forced to make their data available for free via a defined format that vendors can tap into. Right now many states charge for access to this taxing information.
Though it's referred to as a dormant clause I'd disagree that the constitution doesn't say the states can't regulate interstate commerce. I believe the constitution and the discussion that lead to it were quite clear that they didn't want individual states interfering with commerce between the states. This was one of the "mistakes" of the articles of confederation that the second constitutional convention sought to fix as states had imposed tariffs on other states goods during the confederation creating an interstate trade war that caused no end of problems during the period.
When the founders wrote the current constitution they went out of their way to give the federal government sole jurisdiction over interstate commerce to prevent these actions and even gave the power to the president to nationalize national guard units to prevent states from going to war against each other. Again, this was all documented very heavily in the discussions during the writing of the constitution which is why the courts ruled the way they did. States were never intended to have the ability to tariff other states.
That don't apply anymore? Don't be a fucking idiot. Gorilla is a term as frequently used as any other racial slur. It's used just as often today as all the other terms as it was when it first started to be used.
This has every to do with the head of the FCC being a former manager at Verizon and using the FCC to gain future employment. He had the nerve to argue that the NN regulations hurt small business when in fact they did the exact opposite. He's in this to make his next job a high power executive position at one of the major telecoms. He doesn't care about any small business or any consumer, all he cares about is empowering the large teleco's to wipe out competition and be able to toll the connections of their customers to extort money out of Internet businesses. That's it.
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pumped an extra million gallons into it giving industry direct control over the government. Hell he proposed fuel requirements for power plants as a way to make all rate payer pay more to support coal which is no longer the cheapest source of power (that's wind, and solar is right behind wind with both cheaper than coal by a significant percentage) these days even with all the subsidies coal gets. Rolling back regulations that advantage small businesses would be the next step in corporate control over government and the head of the FCC that Trump put in position is just the man to do it.
Except his second tweet said that he didn't support the privacy exceptions and his concern was the ability of government to "unmask" americans colluding with foreign governments.
Don't fool yourself, Trump fully supports this as do most of the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people on both sides opposing the bill and pushing the privacy protections but if counted by party (which you shouldn't) more Democrats wanted the privacy restrictions than Republicans.
The problem is how the algorithm makes it determination. Most of the programs take a photo and look for shapes and features, for example facial recognition programs use the corners of eyes and mouths and a few other easily identified points on the face. The problem is almost all primates have the same points and symmetry, but they should be able to solve the problem by expanding beyond these points and looking at things like hair patterns, teeth and other features that distinguish the different primate species.
In fact I'd argue if you could create a facial recognition system that could accurate identify different primate species you'll probably have the most accurate human facial recognition system ever developed.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you're an idiot.
Gorilla is offensive for the same reason other terms used derogatorily are. It was frequently used as a term of offense during the slave trade and jim crow. There are references going back to the 1600's when the slave trade started referring to humans with dark skin as gorilla's or apes.
But go ahead and think it's not a big deal because you're an idiot, you'd think differently if someone had used the term to refer to you as sub-human.
The term Gerrymandering comes from a congressman running in Maryland called Gerry whose district was constructed to look like a salamander. This all occured in the early 1800's. But it also existed before him, the egrigiousness of his district it was created the name for it but it existed right back to the republic's founding.
Gerrymandering was something the founders didn't forsee, it's a threat to democracy and it should be banned like florida's law that requires that all districts be as compact as possible. That gives the court easy terms by which to invalidate bad district maps.
There is a very simple solution to state house gerrymandering. Restore the original consitution's house district size of 32,000 people. Let the house vote for bills via the internet, let each states representatives vote on a certain number of people to go to washington to negotiate.
In this day and age with our video, phone and internet capabilities there is no reason at all not to restore the original house district sizes.
Actually, in Utah, the divded the urban area into 3 pieces to neutralize the democratic vote in Utah. Utah is actually a classic example of using gerrymandering to disenfranchise voters.
The national review is a right wing rag. The southern strategy was a long term strategy, it took several decades for all the old racists to switch parties. Some did so immediately, other took years to do.
I simply don't understand this obsession by some people to try to claim the Republican southern strategy never happened. It's yet another attempt to rewrite history. The implication being that the republicans are the party against Jim crow, shown conclusively by all the Neo Nazi's at functions like Unite the right.
Spectre breaks anything that does out of order processing, and it's the first shoe to fall. The techniques discovered in Spectre are just the beginning of a whole new wave of attacks based on the timing attacks Spectre use.
Don't assume you know how my local voting system works, you are incorrect, they validate who I am before I vote.
If you think people are running around voting claiming to be other people you're a fool. For one thing they'd be immediately caught when the real person votes, most voting is done in public building with video surveillance. As the time of the vote is recorded it would be trivial for them to obtain video evidence. The risk far exceeds the reward.
I don't know a single person that would even want to bother voting twice because of the sheer hassle of doing so. You would need to know the persons name, and the location they are registered to vote, you'd need to know they aren't going to vote themselves and understand you are risking nearly 5 years in jail to do so. The idea of this occurring as anything but a once off is absurd.
Just think of all the new processors they will sell when everyone's brand new processor ends up slower than sandy bridge processors that are more than 10 years old.
"Dead people" vote all the time if you count the dead people after the vote. 40 some odd people die every second in the US. Thousands will die after voting before any kind of accounting. Every time a politician has trotted out a list of dead people that voted, when verified it turned out the list was compromised of two things, people who died after voting, and people with the same name as someone that died.
Dead people don't vote, but they certainly die after voting. Thousands will die in the day after a vote, many more will share the names of the people died. Every list of "dead people that voted" is comprised of both. Anyone citing this as some actual thing that happens all the time is just repeating propaganda they hear on TV and doesn't have any idea how it happens.
Nobody can possibly know that, because our laws make it impossible to identify who is actually casting votes.
You apparently know nothing about how the voting system works. When I vote they mark down that I voted, this mark isn't tied to my ballot so they can't tell who I voted for but they absolutely know if I voted. Every single state does this, voter turnout rolls are produced by nearly every state and sold to whomever wants to buy the lists. This is how they check for fraud because if you vote twice in two separate precincts the state will know and will prosecute you.
There is a slight loophole where if you are registered in two states you could possibly vote twice, but in separate elections. The difficulty in doing is should be obvious, not only do you get to drive across state lines but you must maintain registration in both states. Though you might pull it off for a year or two eventually one of the states will catch you and you risk years in jail for what? As the parent poster noted, doing so is so unlikely that it's likely single digit instances in the entire US because the ROI is non-existent.
You might be willing to waste a day and hundreds of dollars is gas but the majority of people can't be bothered to vote once, let alone twice. We could dramatically improve turnout in this country by either making vote day a national holiday that everyone gets off or by moving voting to the weekend instead of Tuesday. The reason we don't do this in the US unlike the rest of the civilized world is more poor people might vote, and the US plutocrats can't have that.
Being a scientist in one field doesn't make you an expert in another. Having an astrophysicist or mechanical engineer criticizing climate science is no better than your local plumber or electrician informing you about the dangers of jet contrails.
The height of hubris is someone far outside their area of expertise telling experts in the field how it is.
Most of the west coast of the US is experiencing similar conditions as Europe. I've lived in Utah my entire life and I'm in my 40's, I cannot remember a halloween that was 70F like it was this year, we've maintained temperatures around 50F for most of winter when it should be around 30F.
This is the exact type of erratic weather than climate models predict when the system is out of balance because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather than normal temperatures some areas are super hot and some are super cold as the energy in the system tries to find equilibrium.
Google has always suffered from NIH syndrome. They will develop and abandon their own kernel rather than use the Linux kernel with billions of development hours because Google engineers didn't write linux.
The kids will be punished very harshly unless their families have the money to afford very good lawyers who can get a regular non-throw the book at them as an example punishment.
Though you are correct they won't punish the cop, the police have already claimed the victim reached for his waistband, the standard cop excuse for shooting unarmed people.
Yes cops are people too, the problem is they aren't punished like people when they make mistakes, particularly mistakes that result in people dying. When you make the cops above the law and allow them to make these mistakes without punishment you create situations where the police shoot first and explain it later.
As in all police shootings the police reported the killed innocent reached for his waist band. Of course no weapon was found and he didn't actually reach for his waist band. Because of this a bad cop will remain on the force, a cop that shot first and killed an innocent father.
Cops need to be held responsible for their actions in the same way a doctor is held responsible when they make mistakes that result in someones death. In fact cops are about the only profession in the country where they can kill people through negligence and aren't punished for it. That's wrong and you should admit it.
Slashdot Mirror
The courts didn't see it the way you claim. Books are product, they aren't "licensed". You're sold a copy of a licensed work, you are free do what you want with that licensed work including resell it or anything else. You are clearly not aware of the history of the library. Publishers sued the first libraries and loaning groups after putting "license" agreements in the books, the courts shot it down, it was later added into law that the book once sold the copyright on that book was exhausted and the author had no more legal claim to it. The owner could resell or do anything to the book they want including loaning it to other people.
This is long settled, I suggest you look into the history of libraries and all the early legal challenges and shennangins that the publishers at the time attempted and the legal ramifications that resulted. To undo this the supreme court would need to undo 200+ year old precedents and invalidate laws just as old. It's not happening, books aren't licensed.
My own local library does something similar. There is and should be nothing wrong with offering books for loan regardless of format at long as the copy is legitimately purchased. Publishers have hated Libraries since they started and they want to use "electronic" as an attempt to license the book instead of buying it.
The courts will shoot this down, there is a long legal history for Library's loaning books being perfectly legal all the way back into english common law, to rules in the writers favor this the supreme court would need to undo 200 years of precedent. They generally don't do that for anything but the most extreme of situations.
Libraries exist, they loan books, whether they are digital or paper and it's all perfectly legal.
The worst I've heard of is Lousianna where there are more than 1000 separate taxing districts and the taxes rates are different for different items, as an example milk may have no tax in one district and 1% in another district. So not only are there separate districts but the rates and even which items have which tax are different, it creates a table with millionths of possibilities for only a single state. On top of that the rates and items generally change every single year.
It's problems like this that make it problematic to support sales tax. The ideal solution is a solution at the national level that defines a base taxation for each state for out of state buyers that ignores all the special districts. Baring that it's still possible to support such convoluted systems if the states are forced to make their data available for free via a defined format that vendors can tap into. Right now many states charge for access to this taxing information.
Though it's referred to as a dormant clause I'd disagree that the constitution doesn't say the states can't regulate interstate commerce. I believe the constitution and the discussion that lead to it were quite clear that they didn't want individual states interfering with commerce between the states. This was one of the "mistakes" of the articles of confederation that the second constitutional convention sought to fix as states had imposed tariffs on other states goods during the confederation creating an interstate trade war that caused no end of problems during the period.
When the founders wrote the current constitution they went out of their way to give the federal government sole jurisdiction over interstate commerce to prevent these actions and even gave the power to the president to nationalize national guard units to prevent states from going to war against each other. Again, this was all documented very heavily in the discussions during the writing of the constitution which is why the courts ruled the way they did. States were never intended to have the ability to tariff other states.
That don't apply anymore? Don't be a fucking idiot. Gorilla is a term as frequently used as any other racial slur. It's used just as often today as all the other terms as it was when it first started to be used.
This has every to do with the head of the FCC being a former manager at Verizon and using the FCC to gain future employment. He had the nerve to argue that the NN regulations hurt small business when in fact they did the exact opposite. He's in this to make his next job a high power executive position at one of the major telecoms. He doesn't care about any small business or any consumer, all he cares about is empowering the large teleco's to wipe out competition and be able to toll the connections of their customers to extort money out of Internet businesses. That's it.
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pumped an extra million gallons into it giving industry direct control over the government. Hell he proposed fuel requirements for power plants as a way to make all rate payer pay more to support coal which is no longer the cheapest source of power (that's wind, and solar is right behind wind with both cheaper than coal by a significant percentage) these days even with all the subsidies coal gets. Rolling back regulations that advantage small businesses would be the next step in corporate control over government and the head of the FCC that Trump put in position is just the man to do it.
Except his second tweet said that he didn't support the privacy exceptions and his concern was the ability of government to "unmask" americans colluding with foreign governments.
Don't fool yourself, Trump fully supports this as do most of the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people on both sides opposing the bill and pushing the privacy protections but if counted by party (which you shouldn't) more Democrats wanted the privacy restrictions than Republicans.
You and me both buddy, fuck the RAM producers right in their ass.
They are colluding on prices again for like the 8th time, where is the government investigation this time around?
The problem is how the algorithm makes it determination. Most of the programs take a photo and look for shapes and features, for example facial recognition programs use the corners of eyes and mouths and a few other easily identified points on the face. The problem is almost all primates have the same points and symmetry, but they should be able to solve the problem by expanding beyond these points and looking at things like hair patterns, teeth and other features that distinguish the different primate species.
In fact I'd argue if you could create a facial recognition system that could accurate identify different primate species you'll probably have the most accurate human facial recognition system ever developed.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you're an idiot.
Gorilla is offensive for the same reason other terms used derogatorily are. It was frequently used as a term of offense during the slave trade and jim crow. There are references going back to the 1600's when the slave trade started referring to humans with dark skin as gorilla's or apes.
But go ahead and think it's not a big deal because you're an idiot, you'd think differently if someone had used the term to refer to you as sub-human.
The term Gerrymandering comes from a congressman running in Maryland called Gerry whose district was constructed to look like a salamander. This all occured in the early 1800's. But it also existed before him, the egrigiousness of his district it was created the name for it but it existed right back to the republic's founding.
Gerrymandering was something the founders didn't forsee, it's a threat to democracy and it should be banned like florida's law that requires that all districts be as compact as possible. That gives the court easy terms by which to invalidate bad district maps.
There is a very simple solution to state house gerrymandering. Restore the original consitution's house district size of 32,000 people. Let the house vote for bills via the internet, let each states representatives vote on a certain number of people to go to washington to negotiate.
In this day and age with our video, phone and internet capabilities there is no reason at all not to restore the original house district sizes.
Actually, in Utah, the divded the urban area into 3 pieces to neutralize the democratic vote in Utah. Utah is actually a classic example of using gerrymandering to disenfranchise voters.
The national review is a right wing rag. The southern strategy was a long term strategy, it took several decades for all the old racists to switch parties. Some did so immediately, other took years to do.
I simply don't understand this obsession by some people to try to claim the Republican southern strategy never happened. It's yet another attempt to rewrite history. The implication being that the republicans are the party against Jim crow, shown conclusively by all the Neo Nazi's at functions like Unite the right.
Spectre breaks anything that does out of order processing, and it's the first shoe to fall. The techniques discovered in Spectre are just the beginning of a whole new wave of attacks based on the timing attacks Spectre use.
Don't assume you know how my local voting system works, you are incorrect, they validate who I am before I vote.
If you think people are running around voting claiming to be other people you're a fool. For one thing they'd be immediately caught when the real person votes, most voting is done in public building with video surveillance. As the time of the vote is recorded it would be trivial for them to obtain video evidence. The risk far exceeds the reward.
I don't know a single person that would even want to bother voting twice because of the sheer hassle of doing so. You would need to know the persons name, and the location they are registered to vote, you'd need to know they aren't going to vote themselves and understand you are risking nearly 5 years in jail to do so. The idea of this occurring as anything but a once off is absurd.
Just think of all the new processors they will sell when everyone's brand new processor ends up slower than sandy bridge processors that are more than 10 years old.
"Dead people" vote all the time if you count the dead people after the vote. 40 some odd people die every second in the US. Thousands will die after voting before any kind of accounting. Every time a politician has trotted out a list of dead people that voted, when verified it turned out the list was compromised of two things, people who died after voting, and people with the same name as someone that died.
Dead people don't vote, but they certainly die after voting. Thousands will die in the day after a vote, many more will share the names of the people died. Every list of "dead people that voted" is comprised of both. Anyone citing this as some actual thing that happens all the time is just repeating propaganda they hear on TV and doesn't have any idea how it happens.
You apparently know nothing about how the voting system works. When I vote they mark down that I voted, this mark isn't tied to my ballot so they can't tell who I voted for but they absolutely know if I voted. Every single state does this, voter turnout rolls are produced by nearly every state and sold to whomever wants to buy the lists. This is how they check for fraud because if you vote twice in two separate precincts the state will know and will prosecute you.
There is a slight loophole where if you are registered in two states you could possibly vote twice, but in separate elections. The difficulty in doing is should be obvious, not only do you get to drive across state lines but you must maintain registration in both states. Though you might pull it off for a year or two eventually one of the states will catch you and you risk years in jail for what? As the parent poster noted, doing so is so unlikely that it's likely single digit instances in the entire US because the ROI is non-existent.
You might be willing to waste a day and hundreds of dollars is gas but the majority of people can't be bothered to vote once, let alone twice. We could dramatically improve turnout in this country by either making vote day a national holiday that everyone gets off or by moving voting to the weekend instead of Tuesday. The reason we don't do this in the US unlike the rest of the civilized world is more poor people might vote, and the US plutocrats can't have that.
Being a scientist in one field doesn't make you an expert in another. Having an astrophysicist or mechanical engineer criticizing climate science is no better than your local plumber or electrician informing you about the dangers of jet contrails.
The height of hubris is someone far outside their area of expertise telling experts in the field how it is.
Most of the west coast of the US is experiencing similar conditions as Europe. I've lived in Utah my entire life and I'm in my 40's, I cannot remember a halloween that was 70F like it was this year, we've maintained temperatures around 50F for most of winter when it should be around 30F.
This is the exact type of erratic weather than climate models predict when the system is out of balance because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather than normal temperatures some areas are super hot and some are super cold as the energy in the system tries to find equilibrium.
Google has always suffered from NIH syndrome. They will develop and abandon their own kernel rather than use the Linux kernel with billions of development hours because Google engineers didn't write linux.
It really is that simple.
The kids will be punished very harshly unless their families have the money to afford very good lawyers who can get a regular non-throw the book at them as an example punishment.
Though you are correct they won't punish the cop, the police have already claimed the victim reached for his waistband, the standard cop excuse for shooting unarmed people.
Yes cops are people too, the problem is they aren't punished like people when they make mistakes, particularly mistakes that result in people dying. When you make the cops above the law and allow them to make these mistakes without punishment you create situations where the police shoot first and explain it later.
As in all police shootings the police reported the killed innocent reached for his waist band. Of course no weapon was found and he didn't actually reach for his waist band. Because of this a bad cop will remain on the force, a cop that shot first and killed an innocent father.
Cops need to be held responsible for their actions in the same way a doctor is held responsible when they make mistakes that result in someones death. In fact cops are about the only profession in the country where they can kill people through negligence and aren't punished for it. That's wrong and you should admit it.
I don't share your opinion, I think most people will blame Amazon.