Only in philosophy classes will people say that you have a right to help a mentally incompetent person commit suicide.
Your bare assertion does not make it so. Nor was it shown that either of the suicides was "mentally incompetent", unless you circularly declare that anyone desiring suicide is mentally incompetent.
In the real world, people overwhelmingly reject such things, and the law tries to reflect that.
Really? Jack Kevorkian was controversial rather than being overwhelmingly hated, and was only successfully stopped when he crossed the line from "helping" to actually doing the killing. And his version of "helping" was a lot more than giving advice and encouragement over the internet.
Looks like we have a freshman philosophy major here.
I've never been a philosophy major and it's been a long time since I've been a freshman.
Where does this unqualified "right" to kill yourself come from? Certainly not from U.S. law.
No, of course not. It's a natural right, one which the law can protect or infringe but not create. IMO, forcing a person to remain alive against his will is a form of slavery.
Every state has restrictions on the circumstances under which one person can kill another person or himself.
Suicide is currently legal in every state of the union. Homicide, not so much. Conflating the two is pretty silly. These weren't cases of "assisted suicide".
So threatening to kill someone is covered? Wrong. How about slanderous speech? Nope.
You could make that answer to any claim of free speech. But if you accept free speech, the burden is on you to demonstrate that advice on suicide is an exception. If you reject free speech, we have nothing to discuss.
Nor is counseling to kill one's self. From the way you talk I suspect you are one of those phony Christians, or even a legalist. If so, here is something to set you straight:
I'm not a Christian at all, never have and likely never will be (unless they're right about everyone being Christian in Hell).
Summer peak tends not to be the middle of the day, but early evening when many businesses are still open and people are coming home and turning the thermostat down.
An individual choice has to be a rational, informed decision.
No, it doesn't. It merely needs to be uncoerced. Even ignorant and irrational fools have the right to make their own choices.
It's as if you had a curable cancer and he told you, "I'm a nurse. Your cancer is incurable. You're going to die painfully. You'd be better off killing yourself now."
Still shouldn't be an issue unless he was actually the patient's nurse (or represented himself as such).
Regularly, people decide during an illness that they don't want to live, change their mind after they get better, and are glad they didn't die
There's a serious sampling bias there. The ones who aren't glad they didn't die you don't hear from, because they kill themselves.
Depression itself can be a clinical condition.
So say the drug companies and the pshrinks. They still can't objectively diagnose it.
People who are treated with drugs or talk therapy often get better, sometimes dramatically so. If a drug can make such a dramatic difference, that without the drug your individual choice is to die, and with the drug your individual choice is to live, that shows you how unreliable and irrational individual choice is.
That just shows that drugs can affect your mind, which is no great surprise. OK, you can, through the use of drugs and talk, convince someone they don't want to die. You can also convince them to support the Communist party that way; one's brainwashing, why not the other?
I would reluctantly concede that people who don't want to live simply because the burden of life is too much, and who have been treated unsuccessfully for depression, physical pain, or any other cause, have a right to kill themselves.
I assert that people who don't want to live for any reason, even if they have never been diagnosed or treated for anything, or have been diagnosed but refused treatment, have a right to kill themselves. They have no duty to stay alive.
Yeah really, considering how long Canaveral had their Saturn V outside exposed to UV and Florida thunderstorms that's a bit presumptuous, the Saturn V was a MUCH more import vehicle and yet for ~40 years NASA themselves couldn't/wouldn't spend the money to preserve it to last even 100 years.
I don't really care what NASA does with the pieces of the remaining Saturn V. I just wish we'd get a Saturn VI, VII, etc. NASA isn't supposed to be the Space Historical Society.
That's not pedantic, that's basic terminology. MonoTONE would be one TONE. Monophonic would be one "sound" [at a time]. The "monotonic Yankee Doodle" does not even make sense...
I never heard the original Yankee Doodle virus, but the quality of computer sound used to be quite bad, and "Yankee Doodle" played without pitch changes would still be recognizable from the rhythm.
The GPL requires copyright ownership, but work done by the Federal Government can not be copyrighted. I looked at a couple of the modules and they all include GPL v2 license. Shouldn't they be public domain?
The part added by the government can't be copyrighted, but if they are derivative of GPL code, the original copyright holder still has copyright on that.
Oh, and the one that hit the other guy in the face with the foam ball should have been arrested for assault.
Accidentally hitting someone in the face with a foam ball is probably not a crime at all, and it's only going to be a cause for civil action if it actually causes damage.
I don't have any US examples, but look up the case of "Irvin Leroux" in Canada. From my understanding of the case, Revenue Canada (Canuckian equivilent to the IRS) screwed up on his taxes and said he owed a whole bunch of back taxes. The bank backing his property panicked and rescinded his mortgage - which he couldn't pay back on an immediate basis - before it became a possible loss to them, and he lost it all.
That was a business loan, not a real estate loan. He lost the house because he had to sell it to pay off the business loan. Since Leroux doesn't have an airplane, Revenue Canada figured they could screw him over any way they liked, and did so.
I've heard of similar issues with renovations that the banks didn't approve of, and believes to be devaluing the property that they have stake in (though in those cases it's often the owner trying to do something dumb like renovations that don't meet code).
Yes, that is one of the enumerated reasons in a mortgage.
Another fun item on a mortgage is an "interest rate differential."
I hadn't heard of that one; in any case you can get a mortgage in the US without any prepayment penalties. My mortgage doesn't have one.
All real estate loans since forever ago allow the bank to 'call' the entire loan amount at any time for any reason.
False. Nearly all residential real-estate loans can be called only on sale or default. Call-on-demand got a very bad reputation when banks actually used it in the Great Depression. And mine cannot be declared in default because the value of the collateral went down, unless I _caused_ it to go down through action or neglect. Falling real-estate values don't do it.
Basically the EFF said, "Hey Google, you guys are assholes for taking down these completely, obviously non-infringing parodies of this Hitler video." To make their case they gave an example of a work that was most definitely not an original parody of the Hitler video.
They gave an example of a work that was a non-infringing parody of the Hitler video. It was an "original parody" as well, in that Templeton did the parody himself.
And more ironically, their video did not actually get taken down.
Err, yes it did; it's back up because Templeton filed a protest.
I was trying to point out how completely trivial and insignificant the changes that the EFF made to the video actually were, relative to the work that went into producing the original.
Which is simply irrelevant. The amount of the work used is relevant, but the amount of work the parodists put in compared to the authors of the work being parodied is not.
Whether or not this was a case of fair use, they are criticising Google's system for wrongly identifying infringing content, when in fact, any competent software maker would be hard-pressed to design a system in which the example video they gave would not trigger a false positive.
EFFs objection appears to be of any sort of automated takedown system _at all_: "If copyright owners want to block remix creativity, they should have to use a formal DMCA takedown notice (and be subject to legal punishment if they fail to consider fair use), rather than a coarse automated blocking tool. "
There simply isn't such a process in NJ. The only ticket you can get that way is one for speeding _through the toll barriers_ if you have EZPass. And there's a pretty generous margin over the 15mph posted limit.
In the US, several major toll roads (NJ Turnpike, MA Turnpike, Garden State Parkway in the northeast) have been using the time stamp on the toll tickets to determine your average speed on the road in use. If the time it takes to go from one exit to another is one hour doing the speed limit and you do it in thirty minutes, you can expect to be mailed a ticket.
ROTFL. If NJ were to do that on the Turnpike and the Parkway for one day, they'd probably solve the State's budget crisis, temporarily. Average speed on the NJ Turnpike between Exit 6 and Exit 12 is probably in the neighborhood of 75mph (speed limit 65). There's no such enforcement in NJ, at least not for passenger cars.
Comparing speedingtickets to slavery is awfully close to godwin's law...
Slavery is not Hitler or the Nazis, so no Godwinning there.
You're free to question a law, obviously, but you're not free to pick and choose which one to follow. The proper way to protest speedlimits is not through breaking them, but through your duly elected representatives.
Right. Just like the way segregation was abolished, with everyone obeying the law and just writing strongly worded letters to their representatives.
Excuse me if I choose not to let my opponents choose my tactics.
Governments around the world are examining the option to switch to road use/pay as you drive systems because the traditional revenue generator for road maintenance, gasoline taxes, are going down as engine efficiencies are going up. The less often you need to fill up means the less money flowing in from gas tax.
Since it would be much cheaper and simpler to simply raise the gas tax (which remains roughly proportionate to road use), I seriously doubt that's the reason governments are looking at "pay as you drive" systems.
Rather, I suspect what they really want is the Big Brother tracking, and the engine efficiency thing is just an excuse.
Even if it weren't a horrible thing to do, obeying those restrictions just encourages them. If everyone started doing the speed limit today, it'd be dropped 10mph by month's end.
Maybe the Muslim community supports them more than you think.
What I've found talking with moderate Muslims from Muslim-majority countries is that they are all for tolerance in principle, but in specific instances they'll say "Yeah but why do they want to say THAT about Muhammed? What does that contribute to free speech?" and so on.
That's not a disease specific to Islam, though. There are plenty of people -- possibly a majority -- in the US, other Western countries, and on Slashdot who support freedom "X" in principle but are opposed to any specific use of freedom "X". When pressed they either react just like those Muslims, or babble about how liberty is not license, or talk about how rights have to be balanced with responsibilities, or whatever. There are few who actually support freedom in practice.
He's calling himself, so he'd certainly lack any intent to deceive (which is an element of the new caller ID law).
Do most people's cell phones work with caller ID with name? Neither mine (ATT) nor my wife's (Verizon) comes up with a name.
Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.
I'm pretty sure the production qualities of the original are not a factor in determining fair use. There's amount and substantiality of the part of the work used (which is based on the whole movie, not the clip), effect on market for original work (zip or net positive), purpose of use, and nature of the work. Parody is an especially strong fair use; things have been found to be fair use when they used substantially all of the work allegedly infringed. The example video had all four factors in its favor.
It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles
It woulod be more like you taking 10 minutes of Avatar and changing the subtitles in a somewhat cleverer way than that. You should do it; Avatar cries out for it in spots. If I were doing it I'd concentrate on the idea that the Na'vi were somehow totally superior because they were all hooked into the ecosystem, yet it's the humans were the ones who could travel in space, grow new bodies, and teleoperate them. Or, I might patch in the Aldebarran scene from Star Wars and suggest that's what would have happened shortly after the movie ended.
Anything can happen in a jury trial, but it's hard to believe that Child's will lose this thing. The district attorney needs to prove two things (at least):
Nope, he need merely say "evil hacker", blow a lot of smoke, and the jury will convict.
Slashdot Mirror
Your bare assertion does not make it so. Nor was it shown that either of the suicides was "mentally incompetent", unless you circularly declare that anyone desiring suicide is mentally incompetent.
Really? Jack Kevorkian was controversial rather than being overwhelmingly hated, and was only successfully stopped when he crossed the line from "helping" to actually doing the killing. And his version of "helping" was a lot more than giving advice and encouragement over the internet.
I've never been a philosophy major and it's been a long time since I've been a freshman.
No, of course not. It's a natural right, one which the law can protect or infringe but not create. IMO, forcing a person to remain alive against his will is a form of slavery.
Suicide is currently legal in every state of the union. Homicide, not so much. Conflating the two is pretty silly. These weren't cases of "assisted suicide".
You could make that answer to any claim of free speech. But if you accept free speech, the burden is on you to demonstrate that advice on suicide is an exception. If you reject free speech, we have nothing to discuss.
I'm not a Christian at all, never have and likely never will be (unless they're right about everyone being Christian in Hell).
I believe that's covered under "freedom of speech".
Summer peak tends not to be the middle of the day, but early evening when many businesses are still open and people are coming home and turning the thermostat down.
No, it doesn't. It merely needs to be uncoerced. Even ignorant and irrational fools have the right to make their own choices.
Still shouldn't be an issue unless he was actually the patient's nurse (or represented himself as such).
There's a serious sampling bias there. The ones who aren't glad they didn't die you don't hear from, because they kill themselves.
So say the drug companies and the pshrinks. They still can't objectively diagnose it.
That just shows that drugs can affect your mind, which is no great surprise. OK, you can, through the use of drugs and talk, convince someone they don't want to die. You can also convince them to support the Communist party that way; one's brainwashing, why not the other?
I assert that people who don't want to live for any reason, even if they have never been diagnosed or treated for anything, or have been diagnosed but refused treatment, have a right to kill themselves. They have no duty to stay alive.
Your "peak periods" will correspond quite well with when it's 110 degrees in the shade... exactly when you want the AC the most.
I don't really care what NASA does with the pieces of the remaining Saturn V. I just wish we'd get a Saturn VI, VII, etc. NASA isn't supposed to be the Space Historical Society.
I never heard the original Yankee Doodle virus, but the quality of computer sound used to be quite bad, and "Yankee Doodle" played without pitch changes would still be recognizable from the rhythm.
The part added by the government can't be copyrighted, but if they are derivative of GPL code, the original copyright holder still has copyright on that.
Accidentally hitting someone in the face with a foam ball is probably not a crime at all, and it's only going to be a cause for civil action if it actually causes damage.
That was a business loan, not a real estate loan. He lost the house because he had to sell it to pay off the business loan. Since Leroux doesn't have an airplane, Revenue Canada figured they could screw him over any way they liked, and did so.
Yes, that is one of the enumerated reasons in a mortgage.
I hadn't heard of that one; in any case you can get a mortgage in the US without any prepayment penalties. My mortgage doesn't have one.
False. Nearly all residential real-estate loans can be called only on sale or default. Call-on-demand got a very bad reputation when banks actually used it in the Great Depression. And mine cannot be declared in default because the value of the collateral went down, unless I _caused_ it to go down through action or neglect. Falling real-estate values don't do it.
They gave an example of a work that was a non-infringing parody of the Hitler video. It was an "original parody" as well, in that Templeton did the parody himself.
Err, yes it did; it's back up because Templeton filed a protest.
Which is simply irrelevant. The amount of the work used is relevant, but the amount of work the parodists put in compared to the authors of the work being parodied is not.
EFFs objection appears to be of any sort of automated takedown system _at all_: "If copyright owners want to block remix creativity, they should have to use a formal DMCA takedown notice (and be subject to legal punishment if they fail to consider fair use), rather than a coarse automated blocking tool. "
There simply isn't such a process in NJ. The only ticket you can get that way is one for speeding _through the toll barriers_ if you have EZPass. And there's a pretty generous margin over the 15mph posted limit.
ROTFL. If NJ were to do that on the Turnpike and the Parkway for one day, they'd probably solve the State's budget crisis, temporarily. Average speed on the NJ Turnpike between Exit 6 and Exit 12 is probably in the neighborhood of 75mph (speed limit 65). There's no such enforcement in NJ, at least not for passenger cars.
Slavery is not Hitler or the Nazis, so no Godwinning there.
Right. Just like the way segregation was abolished, with everyone obeying the law and just writing strongly worded letters to their representatives.
Excuse me if I choose not to let my opponents choose my tactics.
Since it would be much cheaper and simpler to simply raise the gas tax (which remains roughly proportionate to road use), I seriously doubt that's the reason governments are looking at "pay as you drive" systems.
Rather, I suspect what they really want is the Big Brother tracking, and the engine efficiency thing is just an excuse.
Right. Which is why they won't start doing it until pass-only routes become commonplace, so you can't return to cash.
As Comic Book Guy might say: Worst. Idea. Ever.
Even if it weren't a horrible thing to do, obeying those restrictions just encourages them. If everyone started doing the speed limit today, it'd be dropped 10mph by month's end.
That's not a disease specific to Islam, though. There are plenty of people -- possibly a majority -- in the US, other Western countries, and on Slashdot who support freedom "X" in principle but are opposed to any specific use of freedom "X". When pressed they either react just like those Muslims, or babble about how liberty is not license, or talk about how rights have to be balanced with responsibilities, or whatever. There are few who actually support freedom in practice.
He's calling himself, so he'd certainly lack any intent to deceive (which is an element of the new caller ID law). Do most people's cell phones work with caller ID with name? Neither mine (ATT) nor my wife's (Verizon) comes up with a name.
I'm pretty sure the production qualities of the original are not a factor in determining fair use. There's amount and substantiality of the part of the work used (which is based on the whole movie, not the clip), effect on market for original work (zip or net positive), purpose of use, and nature of the work. Parody is an especially strong fair use; things have been found to be fair use when they used substantially all of the work allegedly infringed. The example video had all four factors in its favor.
It woulod be more like you taking 10 minutes of Avatar and changing the subtitles in a somewhat cleverer way than that. You should do it; Avatar cries out for it in spots. If I were doing it I'd concentrate on the idea that the Na'vi were somehow totally superior because they were all hooked into the ecosystem, yet it's the humans were the ones who could travel in space, grow new bodies, and teleoperate them. Or, I might patch in the Aldebarran scene from Star Wars and suggest that's what would have happened shortly after the movie ended.
Nope, he need merely say "evil hacker", blow a lot of smoke, and the jury will convict.
Does 64-bit elliptic curve cryptography count as strong?