When did you fall asleep, Rip? It must have been during a period in which the rule of law held sway. You'd better be a fast learner, or you'll be tasting concrete too.
"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."
Biology is largely about structures composed of chemical building blocks. To say that biology is chemistry is like saying that a novel is paper and ink.
The word 'simulation' suggests something not real -- a model of reality. But even if the physics of our universe were shown to be discrete at the lowest level, that would prove not that it is a simulation, but only that it might be a simulation. It could simply be reality, which is more likely.
What is changing here is that rather than a human-readable number, a barcode-only solution will be used for verification purposes to increase the difficulty of an individual vote being traced to a person. If you believe that, you are utterly clueless about barcodes and their use. If anything, barcodes facilitate such tracing.
Linking is reporting a URL, and nothing more. There can be no distinction between two ways of naming the same thing, so your questions cannot be answered.
While I think copyright laws are simply evil and should be abolished, that does not change the fact that you are extraordinarily confused about the current state of the law and lacking in understanding of simple English words like "private". Or are you just an unusually skillful troll?
The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink
That's like saying that because a little hole-in-the-wall greasy spoon has the best gyros in town, and word has not spread far, it is really a private club. If the court thinks that a publicly accessible website is somehow "semiprivate", they are idiots.
>They should as[k] to remove the reference and that'd be all.
You were doing so well until you experienced a brain malfunction and went off the rails while typing the last line. That undermined everything you had said before.
The three-pronged test in Dutch law produces clearly wrong results because it looks at an ill-chosen or incomplete list of characteristics of the actions that it is intended to categorize. The crafters of the test probably had in mind certain implicit criteria (such as the actual distribution of content or actually making it available) that would first have to hold before the three-pronged test would be applied to determine whether such an action constituted "publication" in a legal sense. Yet the court is blindly applying the test to any human activity, even those that clearly could not possibly constitute anything like "publication". In this case, we see where the warnings of critics that even news reporting that mention URLs will end up being prohibited are being borne out. A news story will by design inform the public of the existence of something, make it easier to find if it truthfully reports its location (as in "authorities claim that the building at 1020 N. Main St. is a crack house and therefore a public nuisance"), and of course bring profit to the news organization. An analogy to the application of the three-pronged test by the Dutch court might be this: A guidebook to a certain national park in Africa offers a flowchart for distinguishing the large fauna in the park. Someone on a ranch in North America acquires a copy, and begins to insist that the work horses on the ranch are zebras, because all the tests in the guidebook lead one to that conclusion.
Google's proper role is to allow their object algorithms to work as designed. Their job is to enable us to search the content that is out there; making special exceptions in response to silly complaints defeats that.
Everyone knows the significance of the suggested search phrases. No reasonable person really believes that by displaying them, Google is uttering statements that predicate them of the entered phrase. In other words, no-one, including Bettina Wulff and her lawyers, honestly believes that Google is publicly stating that she is a prostitute. It's good to hear that Google is making an effort to do the right thing this time. They have not always.
Ustream knew full when they put the bot in place that it would occasionally do this kind of thing. Their 'apology' (read "damage control") reveals a significant bit of evidence about their claimed concern for balancing the interests of copright holders and others: you can pay them to be ignored by the bot.
For a human being, you are astonishingly clueless about human psychology. If the cashiers at your favourite store were given new instructions that, upon completion of the transaction with the person before you, they were to stand motionless holding up some inane sign about shoplifting for a full twenty seconds before beginning to assist you, I daresay you would soon find another store to frequent.
When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."'
If Google are actually saying this about your virtual hard drive content, it beggars belief. 'Evil' would not be a strong enough description. 'Insane' might come close. No-one in their right mind would agree to it.
You are so naive. Democracy is merely the latest in a line of mechanisms used to legitimize the state in the eyes of its subjects. If one could actually change the policies of the state by "trying to convince your neighbours to vote for someone", then the ruling elite would have to turn to a new legitimization mechanism. One can hardly be held morally responsible for the acts of others over whom one does not exercise agency or coercive influence.
Slashdot Mirror
When did you fall asleep, Rip? It must have been during a period in which the rule of law held sway. You'd better be a fast learner, or you'll be tasting concrete too.
"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Biology is largely about structures composed of chemical building blocks. To say that biology is chemistry is like saying that a novel is paper and ink.
It certainly remains a possibility that we will discover that physics actually is math.
The word 'simulation' suggests something not real -- a model of reality. But even if the physics of our universe were shown to be discrete at the lowest level, that would prove not that it is a simulation, but only that it might be a simulation. It could simply be reality, which is more likely.
That simply proves that Maryland has dispensed with due process.
What is changing here is that rather than a human-readable number, a barcode-only solution will be used for verification purposes to increase the difficulty of an individual vote being traced to a person.
If you believe that, you are utterly clueless about barcodes and their use. If anything, barcodes facilitate such tracing.
The robot, Baxter, is completely safe
Linking is reporting a URL, and nothing more. There can be no distinction between two ways of naming the same thing, so your questions cannot be answered.
While I think copyright laws are simply evil and should be abolished, that does not change the fact that you are extraordinarily confused about the current state of the law and lacking in understanding of simple English words like "private". Or are you just an unusually skillful troll?
Well said! Mod parent way, way up!
The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink
That's like saying that because a little hole-in-the-wall greasy spoon has the best gyros in town, and word has not spread far, it is really a private club. If the court thinks that a publicly accessible website is somehow "semiprivate", they are idiots.
>They should as[k] to remove the reference and that'd be all.
You were doing so well until you experienced a brain malfunction and went off the rails while typing the last line. That undermined everything you had said before.
The three-pronged test in Dutch law produces clearly wrong results because it looks at an ill-chosen or incomplete list of characteristics of the actions that it is intended to categorize. The crafters of the test probably had in mind certain implicit criteria (such as the actual distribution of content or actually making it available) that would first have to hold before the three-pronged test would be applied to determine whether such an action constituted "publication" in a legal sense. Yet the court is blindly applying the test to any human activity, even those that clearly could not possibly constitute anything like "publication". In this case, we see where the warnings of critics that even news reporting that mention URLs will end up being prohibited are being borne out. A news story will by design inform the public of the existence of something, make it easier to find if it truthfully reports its location (as in "authorities claim that the building at 1020 N. Main St. is a crack house and therefore a public nuisance"), and of course bring profit to the news organization. An analogy to the application of the three-pronged test by the Dutch court might be this: A guidebook to a certain national park in Africa offers a flowchart for distinguishing the large fauna in the park. Someone on a ranch in North America acquires a copy, and begins to insist that the work horses on the ranch are zebras, because all the tests in the guidebook lead one to that conclusion.
There was a time when a number of grown ups out in the world looked at chattel slavery and concluded that it was fundamentally good.
Make that "objective algorithms".
Google's proper role is to allow their object algorithms to work as designed. Their job is to enable us to search the content that is out there; making special exceptions in response to silly complaints defeats that.
Everyone knows the significance of the suggested search phrases. No reasonable person really believes that by displaying them, Google is uttering statements that predicate them of the entered phrase. In other words, no-one, including Bettina Wulff and her lawyers, honestly believes that Google is publicly stating that she is a prostitute. It's good to hear that Google is making an effort to do the right thing this time. They have not always.
Ustream knew full when they put the bot in place that it would occasionally do this kind of thing. Their 'apology' (read "damage control") reveals a significant bit of evidence about their claimed concern for balancing the interests of copright holders and others: you can pay them to be ignored by the bot.
US traffic injuries and fatalities will increase sharply in 2016, and again in 2025.
I 'predict' that the headline writer is not fluent in English.
ATF officials apparently reaching a judgment hardly constitutes legislation.
For a human being, you are astonishingly clueless about human psychology. If the cashiers at your favourite store were given new instructions that, upon completion of the transaction with the person before you, they were to stand motionless holding up some inane sign about shoplifting for a full twenty seconds before beginning to assist you, I daresay you would soon find another store to frequent.
When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."'
If Google are actually saying this about your virtual hard drive content, it beggars belief. 'Evil' would not be a strong enough description. 'Insane' might come close. No-one in their right mind would agree to it.
Touché.
You are so naive. Democracy is merely the latest in a line of mechanisms used to legitimize the state in the eyes of its subjects. If one could actually change the policies of the state by "trying to convince your neighbours to vote for someone", then the ruling elite would have to turn to a new legitimization mechanism. One can hardly be held morally responsible for the acts of others over whom one does not exercise agency or coercive influence.