Recently the police ganged up on and beat up a UMD student who it turned out did nothing wrong at all.
When I was there, that was a regular occurrence. Usually the student ended up getting shafted by university discipline, too, even if he won in real court.
(and to be fair, sometimes the student was doing something wrong -- usually pissing in the bushes, which of course is a perfect justification for a beat-down)
Why do people think it's their God given right to whatever they want, whenever they want to do it?
That's what ownership is about. You sell your product to me, it's now mine and not yours; you don't get to control what I do with it any more and I get to do what I want with it.
So does that essentially mean that no more daycare centers will be sued for having disney characters painted on their walls? Now more totally absurb strain on progress created by the inability to reference other works due to overbearing copyright law? Or not?
Not. It also doesn't affect the legality of devices (including software) meant to do the circumvention; the circumvention is now legal but the tools are not (because the LoC does not have the power to make them so).
This is a meatless bone thrown to a starving dog, nothing more.
This is pretty easy. The problem is making sure other people don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
And having people interpret your (clean, if tacky) Hawaiian shirt as dirty laundry.
Re:Responsibility about who you are
on
The End of Forgetting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Shouldn't we be responsible for the things we say and do?
Sure. But for how long and for how much? A number of long term societal trends mean we're supposed to be responsible for everything we say and do forever and at great consequence. If we drink too much at a party and act like an ass, it's no longer enough to apologize and/or endure some humiliation; instead, if the incident makes it on the internet, we're supposed to give up forever any chance of achieving a position of responsibility, whether that be political office or gainful employment. A statute of limitations really isn't enough, and a "lighten up" law isn't likely to succeed.
No, the real way to fight a war is to kill enough of the enemy that the remainder realizes the fight is not worth it.
If your enemy is sufficiently stubborn, this means killing all of them. If they are sufficiently good at concealing themselves among non-enemies, this means killing a large number of former non-enemies as well.
OK, Dell cuts a secret deal with Intel for exclusivity. As a result, Dell sells computers more cheaply than its competitors, and makes larger profits. Dell reports the larger profits without being frank about where they are coming from. The customers get cheaper computers. Who is harmed? Dell's competitors and AMD... but there's nothing wrong with making a deal which harms one's competitors. As far as I can tell the profits Dell stated were quite real; I don't see why there's all this indignation over possible violation of securities rules.
If we're not supposed to code in Java/C++, and interpreted languages are a no-no, what's left? C, FORTRAN, and assembler? (I actually *love* C, but I don't have any illusions that it is the be-all and end-all of programming languages... IMO Python is capable of filling most of the niches that C does not.)
Start with C. Build something better, with the knowledge that C++ has gone off into the weeds.
Can someone explain why child pornographers can't just limit their porn consumption to those that are 18 or older? It seems to just reek of actually having committed an offense in the past and needing the obvious images of someone underage in order to relive that fantasy.
Seems like a nonsense pop-psych answer. If we consider more societally acceptable imagery, namely killing and murder, lots of people like to watch it but very few have actually done it. As for why they can't stick to 18 and older... I suppose it's like asking why heterosexuals can't limit porn consumption to porn of those of the same sex.
Are there any studies that have unmistakably proven it's a disorder instead of a natural response?
How could you? First you'd have to have a way of distinguishing between a mental disorder and a natural response.
NSA just copied the child porn whenever anyone sent it over the net. The NRO took the pictures themselves, as the original pornographers were setting up the shots. And DARPA set up a contest in which they got teams from the best universities in the country to compete to make child porn meeting their criteria.
This looks like a retarded money grab and nothing more. If the author's are so sure they retain "digital rights," why doesn't one of them post a book the publisher still has the rights to, in its entirety, on a website and see what happened.
Short answer: They've already done so, they got sued, and the publishers lost.
Random House's standard contract specified they had the exclusive right to sell the works in "book form". The authors asserted, and the courts agreed, that "book form" did not include electronic rights.
Neat. Does this also reduce the running costs of the machines, or would that be a negligible benefit compared to not irradiating your patients?
From the point of view of the hospital? It's the other way around; increasing the lifetime of the expensive X-ray tube (which this will indeed do) is the important benefit, and not irradiating your patients as much is just a side effect.
Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.
No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.
That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.
Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.
Well, yeah, to find out all the specific details would require work, and unless Mythbusters or a similar show is going to bankroll me and let me set this stuff up for real (hmm... can I come up with a "myth" that they could stretch into blowing up an SUV with a propane tank? How about the "myth" that leaving a propane tank in your car is dangerous?), I'm not going to do that.
BTW, 14% by weight is slightly off for propane, and it makes more sense to figure it by volume anyway. 5% by volume ought to be well within explosive limits.
There's the maximum under the law, then there's the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines take into account things like the severity of the offense (to a finer degree than the law itself) and any prior offenses by the defendant. The judge can't exceed the maximum under the law, but he can decide the guidelines are too lenient, though doing so usually invites an appeal of the sentence. Sounds like he had good reason this time!
Wind power is inherently unreliable and completely unfeasible as a large-scale power-generation method. I found the following an interesting read:
I'm not a big believer in wind power, but that article makes the opposite point you are trying to make. It's saying wind power can't work on an island grid, where load and supply can't be balanced by transferring power somewhere else. A large scale grid like those in the US doesn't have that particular problem, and the US's relative scarcity of good locations for wind (compared to its total area) means US wind will never produce enough power to overload an entire grid. The Oregon problem here is a very local issue, and solving it by wasting the extreme peaks is feasible though inelegant.
If the idea is to prevent compromise of multiple accounts, this has merit. But if the attackers only need to get one account (and don't care which one), this actually hurts things. By allowing simpler passwords but requiring that not too many users have the same simple password, they increase the number of simple passwords used by the system, thus increasing the chance the attacker has a password on the system in his dictionary.
The image itself is illegal. The series of numbers making up the image file are illegal.
My new compression technique really screws things up. It compresses two child porn images to one bit each -- a 0 is one image, a 1 is the other image. So all your bits are illegal, being compressed representatives of those two child porn images.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was there, that was a regular occurrence. Usually the student ended up getting shafted by university discipline, too, even if he won in real court.
(and to be fair, sometimes the student was doing something wrong -- usually pissing in the bushes, which of course is a perfect justification for a beat-down)
They do behave like robots often enough. Usually ED-209.
The one you're thinking of results in a 50dB drop in signal, so not that one.
That's what ownership is about. You sell your product to me, it's now mine and not yours; you don't get to control what I do with it any more and I get to do what I want with it.
Not. It also doesn't affect the legality of devices (including software) meant to do the circumvention; the circumvention is now legal but the tools are not (because the LoC does not have the power to make them so).
This is a meatless bone thrown to a starving dog, nothing more.
And having people interpret your (clean, if tacky) Hawaiian shirt as dirty laundry.
Sure. But for how long and for how much? A number of long term societal trends mean we're supposed to be responsible for everything we say and do forever and at great consequence. If we drink too much at a party and act like an ass, it's no longer enough to apologize and/or endure some humiliation; instead, if the incident makes it on the internet, we're supposed to give up forever any chance of achieving a position of responsibility, whether that be political office or gainful employment. A statute of limitations really isn't enough, and a "lighten up" law isn't likely to succeed.
If your enemy is sufficiently stubborn, this means killing all of them. If they are sufficiently good at concealing themselves among non-enemies, this means killing a large number of former non-enemies as well.
OK, Dell cuts a secret deal with Intel for exclusivity. As a result, Dell sells computers more cheaply than its competitors, and makes larger profits. Dell reports the larger profits without being frank about where they are coming from. The customers get cheaper computers. Who is harmed? Dell's competitors and AMD... but there's nothing wrong with making a deal which harms one's competitors. As far as I can tell the profits Dell stated were quite real; I don't see why there's all this indignation over possible violation of securities rules.
The real reason the FCC still allows amateur radio is Verizon hasn't decided they want that spectrum yet.
Start with C. Build something better, with the knowledge that C++ has gone off into the weeds.
Seems like a nonsense pop-psych answer. If we consider more societally acceptable imagery, namely killing and murder, lots of people like to watch it but very few have actually done it. As for why they can't stick to 18 and older... I suppose it's like asking why heterosexuals can't limit porn consumption to porn of those of the same sex.
How could you? First you'd have to have a way of distinguishing between a mental disorder and a natural response.
NSA just copied the child porn whenever anyone sent it over the net. The NRO took the pictures themselves, as the original pornographers were setting up the shots. And DARPA set up a contest in which they got teams from the best universities in the country to compete to make child porn meeting their criteria.
Short answer: They've already done so, they got sued, and the publishers lost.
Random House's standard contract specified they had the exclusive right to sell the works in "book form". The authors asserted, and the courts agreed, that "book form" did not include electronic rights.
From the point of view of the hospital? It's the other way around; increasing the lifetime of the expensive X-ray tube (which this will indeed do) is the important benefit, and not irradiating your patients as much is just a side effect.
At least until the Mafia figures out a way to block out the sun.
...Space Invaders as a first person shooter. The original alien swarm.
Too bad she wasn't getting the information that way... then the investigators would have asked the others involved... did shi du yu?
Something always rises. Sometimes it's cream, sometimes it's scum.
No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.
Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.
Well, yeah, to find out all the specific details would require work, and unless Mythbusters or a similar show is going to bankroll me and let me set this stuff up for real (hmm... can I come up with a "myth" that they could stretch into blowing up an SUV with a propane tank? How about the "myth" that leaving a propane tank in your car is dangerous?), I'm not going to do that.
BTW, 14% by weight is slightly off for propane, and it makes more sense to figure it by volume anyway. 5% by volume ought to be well within explosive limits.
There's the maximum under the law, then there's the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines take into account things like the severity of the offense (to a finer degree than the law itself) and any prior offenses by the defendant. The judge can't exceed the maximum under the law, but he can decide the guidelines are too lenient, though doing so usually invites an appeal of the sentence. Sounds like he had good reason this time!
I'm not a big believer in wind power, but that article makes the opposite point you are trying to make. It's saying wind power can't work on an island grid, where load and supply can't be balanced by transferring power somewhere else. A large scale grid like those in the US doesn't have that particular problem, and the US's relative scarcity of good locations for wind (compared to its total area) means US wind will never produce enough power to overload an entire grid. The Oregon problem here is a very local issue, and solving it by wasting the extreme peaks is feasible though inelegant.
If the idea is to prevent compromise of multiple accounts, this has merit. But if the attackers only need to get one account (and don't care which one), this actually hurts things. By allowing simpler passwords but requiring that not too many users have the same simple password, they increase the number of simple passwords used by the system, thus increasing the chance the attacker has a password on the system in his dictionary.
My new compression technique really screws things up. It compresses two child porn images to one bit each -- a 0 is one image, a 1 is the other image. So all your bits are illegal, being compressed representatives of those two child porn images.