Indeed, and in fact, this is a step forward: currently the only method at the moment is to protect articles, locking anonymous and new editors out completely. With this system, they'll now be allowed to edit again.
And in other news, our glorious leader has raised the chocolate ration to 25 grams, from the already generous 30 grams of last month.
People should be charged when they intentionally and knowingly abuse the system (from filing bogus charges to initiating bogus lawsuits). Yes, I know, sometimes it's hard to tell when it's bogus and when it's just a "change of heart" but, often, an intelligent person can tell the difference.
In fact, there's a cause of action for just this sort of thing. And it's called "abuse of process". According to Wikipedia (sorry, don't have Blacks Law Dictionary handy), "The person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse."
So, suing someone for defamation not for the purpose of obtaining damages or equitable relief, but rather to strip them of anonymity (and thus perhaps ruining their future employment prospects) before the case is decided, might count as "abuse of process". But it still seems she's suing the wrong party. Suing Google for complying with a court order is just not going to get her anywhere.
by having tons of cheap, food that lacks real nutritive value, and that contributes to the growing obesity problem of the country?
I wish you touchy-feely leftist anti-corporate fanatics would learn the meaning of the words you use. You've already stolen "organic", you don't get "nutritive".
if poverty was mitigated, obtaining healthcare wouldn't be a problem for low-income or out of work people. yet, i hear about people with full-time employment who can't afford their health plans.
If employer-paid healthcare plans were eliminated, obtaining healthcare wouldn't be a whole lot cheaper for most people. It's the double separation between payer and patient which has allowed health care costs to spiral out of control.
May I add that as a Brazilian I am deeply disgusted with you, the Americans, having stop exporting jobs for us and had instead sent all of them to China. Actually, not only the jobs, but the technology, the services, the whole fucking thing.
Relax, dude, we're trying to make that up to you by exporting offshore oil production to you.
We never had nukes pointed at you. China had/has.
You never had any pointed at the USSR either, and China did, so it all evens out.
On a practical side you would never get this past any ethics committee. They would laugh you out of the room for proposing to create a new human life to determine gender.
Unless you can choose the composition of the committee. Mine consists of Sir Francis Galton, Josef Mengele, all eight of the Chicago Black Sox, and is chaired by Richard Nixon.
Close, but just let men and women compete equally. head to head, no men's leagues or women's leagues. Then all of this silliness just goes away.
Except that men and women aren't equal, physically. The top men are much better than the top women at most physical activities, and the effect continues well down the ability ladder. So if you get rid of that separation, you will get essentially no women at the top levels of competition.
You can't not be judgmental and trot out that list of maturity levels, because that list of levels assumes that Authority is infallible.
What if an adult believes doing something is not wrong, believes that those telling him not to do it have no legitimate authority to do so, but doesn't do it because those people have the power to harm him if he does? According to your list, that makes the adult "immature".
Marijuana is definitely not funding terrorists, but there's a fair to middling chance that illegally sourced stuff derived from opium poppies (heroin, etc.) came from the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Whether pot funds terrorists depends on whether you think of the Mexican drug cartels as terrorists; they certainly engage in kidnapping and hostage-taking. And the opium-derived stuff could be funding the Taliban, or their opponents. Or Purdue Pharma, an EEEEVIL corporation.
Fair Use is only exists because a legislative body created exceptions to copyright. These are not inalienable "rights" and fair use can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
No. The US concept of Fair Use (I don't know if Ireland even has an equivalent) was created by the US Supreme Court in response to First Amendment concerns. The legislature later enshrined the court ruling into law, basically intact and without additional clarification.
Copyright itself, on the other hand, exists only because it was created by a legislative body, and can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
If you don't understand my question, think about it like this. Let's say I want to construct a circle of radius R. To create a "perfect" circle, it seems like I would need a length of material to build the circle out of that was exactly 2*Pi*R, but since Pi is irrational, it seems that you could never actually get any length which is an exact multiple of Pi?
In an ideal world? Just take a unit of material and roll it into a circle. You'll never be able to measure the radius exactly, but you'll have your circle.
In the real world, no material will be able to have a length which is exactly measurable anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it.
Well, I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that's precisely why there isn't a repetitive pattern in the numerical representation. If there was, that would mean the ratio can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information.
It can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information. And it's not impossible, in general, for a transcendental number to have some sort of pattern in the numerical representation. For instance, the Champernowne constant --.12345678910111213...
Apparently they only conduct raids and investigations against small to midsize companies. Won't even investigate any large companies.
Large companies have legal teams to dwarf the BSAs. Imagine a raid of an IBM office (not going to happen because IBM is a member, but suppose they weren't...)
BSA: A-HA. You have 250 copies of Microsoft Word at this office, and you only have a site license for 225.
IBM Manager: Nice try, but we have these other 30 loose copies from our acquisition of the company which originally ran this office
BSA: You have any invoices for those?
IBM Manager: Nope, they were lost before we got the office. We do have the original boxes discs, documentation, and shiny hologram thingies.
BSA: NOT GOOD ENOUGH, FOOL! YOU MUST HAVE INVOICES, AND THEY MUST SAY IBM! BOW BEFORE ME AND PAY!
IBM Manager: I've had enough of this. THRAKATULUK AGH BURUZUM-ISHI KRIMPATUL!
BSA: Huh?
IBM Lawyers: (appearing in a puff of sulfurous smoke) You called?
IBM Manager: Hey, BSA, why don't you tell THEM what you just told me?
BSA: (Bravely) Mere possession of authorized copies isn't good enough. You must have dated invoices with the actual...
IBM Lawyers: (Interrupting) AN INTERESTING THOUGHT. PERHAPS WE SHOULD DISCUSS THIS FURTHER IN OUR OFFICE.
BSA and IBM Lawyers: (vanish in another puff of sulfurous smoke).
And a Chevy Suburban gets better gas mileage than a Unimog. A Porsche is cheaper than a Ferrari. A daisy cutter is less powerful than a nuke. So what? The BSA is probably only the THIRD most reviled copyright enforcement organization on Slashdot (after the RIAA and MPAA)... that ain't saying much.
If the RIAA/MPAA is so reviled - why is it that "the jury of his peers" hammers the file sharer into the ground when these cases go to trial?
Because the case was already decided in the preliminary motions and the jury selection. Not to mention the RIAA/MPAA purchase of the laws in the first place.
You don't need a contrived example like yours. Prosecutors will make, and juries will believe, arguments based on DNA even when the supposed killer was married to the victim. How many times, on the news or on a show like Dateline (which interviews real prosecutors) have you seen a prosecutor claim, as if it was meaningful, "we found the suspect's DNA at the crime scene" when the crime scene was the house or car that the suspect and victim shared?
Anything that makes DNA look more fallible in the eyes of juries is a good thing.
1. Boiling frogs. There was never an Enabling Act really, more a series of measures which have slowly made us one of the least free people in Europe. Ask any of my fellow Brits, I bet none of them can definitively name a date when the government anti-freedom agenda began.
A patent troll is a company that offers no products, but files lawsuits based on patents they own.
That's a bit too narrow.
Justice Bradley stated, in 1882
It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.
Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.
Those "speculative schemers" are patent trolls. It doesn't matter whether they actually use each "shadow of a shade of an idea" in a product of their own; they're patent trolls even if they make their own product, as long as they try to prevent others from using those non-novel or obvious ideas.
By that definition, i4i is a patent troll, and Microsoft has, in other instances, acted as a patent troll.
Not making a product is neither necessary nor sufficient for patent-trollism. An organization which mainly does research might legitimately obtain a patent without any intent of developing it themselves. And an organization which makes a real product might engage in patent-trolling to put competitors out of business, or to obtain a revenue stream when their own product has failed.
Slashdot Mirror
And in other news, our glorious leader has raised the chocolate ration to 25 grams, from the already generous 30 grams of last month.
...it's done. The control freaks have won, again.
In fact, there's a cause of action for just this sort of thing. And it's called "abuse of process". According to Wikipedia (sorry, don't have Blacks Law Dictionary handy), "The person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse."
So, suing someone for defamation not for the purpose of obtaining damages or equitable relief, but rather to strip them of anonymity (and thus perhaps ruining their future employment prospects) before the case is decided, might count as "abuse of process". But it still seems she's suing the wrong party. Suing Google for complying with a court order is just not going to get her anywhere.
So, they are slowing down all but one port out of 65535 by 1/3rd... are they also going to reduce the price by 2/3 * 65534/65535? Didn't think so.
I wish you touchy-feely leftist anti-corporate fanatics would learn the meaning of the words you use. You've already stolen "organic", you don't get "nutritive".
If employer-paid healthcare plans were eliminated, obtaining healthcare wouldn't be a whole lot cheaper for most people. It's the double separation between payer and patient which has allowed health care costs to spiral out of control.
Relax, dude, we're trying to make that up to you by exporting offshore oil production to you.
You never had any pointed at the USSR either, and China did, so it all evens out.
Unless you can choose the composition of the committee. Mine consists of Sir Francis Galton, Josef Mengele, all eight of the Chicago Black Sox, and is chaired by Richard Nixon.
Except that men and women aren't equal, physically. The top men are much better than the top women at most physical activities, and the effect continues well down the ability ladder. So if you get rid of that separation, you will get essentially no women at the top levels of competition.
You can't not be judgmental and trot out that list of maturity levels, because that list of levels assumes that Authority is infallible.
What if an adult believes doing something is not wrong, believes that those telling him not to do it have no legitimate authority to do so, but doesn't do it because those people have the power to harm him if he does? According to your list, that makes the adult "immature".
Whether pot funds terrorists depends on whether you think of the Mexican drug cartels as terrorists; they certainly engage in kidnapping and hostage-taking. And the opium-derived stuff could be funding the Taliban, or their opponents. Or Purdue Pharma, an EEEEVIL corporation.
No, but they are facts in the same way as phone listings. Which aren't copyrightable.
No. The US concept of Fair Use (I don't know if Ireland even has an equivalent) was created by the US Supreme Court in response to First Amendment concerns. The legislature later enshrined the court ruling into law, basically intact and without additional clarification.
Copyright itself, on the other hand, exists only because it was created by a legislative body, and can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
Pi was shown to be irrational in 1768 and transcendental in 1882, finally putting to rest the ancient problem of "squaring the circle".
In an ideal world? Just take a unit of material and roll it into a circle. You'll never be able to measure the radius exactly, but you'll have your circle.
In the real world, no material will be able to have a length which is exactly measurable anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it.
It can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information. And it's not impossible, in general, for a transcendental number to have some sort of pattern in the numerical representation. For instance, the Champernowne constant -- .12345678910111213...
Dammit, it's "flout", not "flaunt".
Yes. That's how class actions usually work. But it's a pretty serious abuse of process in this case, IMO.
Large companies have legal teams to dwarf the BSAs. Imagine a raid of an IBM office (not going to happen because IBM is a member, but suppose they weren't...)
BSA: A-HA. You have 250 copies of Microsoft Word at this office, and you only have a site license for 225.
IBM Manager: Nice try, but we have these other 30 loose copies from our acquisition of the company which originally ran this office
BSA: You have any invoices for those?
IBM Manager: Nope, they were lost before we got the office. We do have the original boxes discs, documentation, and shiny hologram thingies.
BSA: NOT GOOD ENOUGH, FOOL! YOU MUST HAVE INVOICES, AND THEY MUST SAY IBM! BOW BEFORE ME AND PAY!
IBM Manager: I've had enough of this. THRAKATULUK AGH BURUZUM-ISHI KRIMPATUL!
BSA: Huh?
IBM Lawyers: (appearing in a puff of sulfurous smoke) You called?
IBM Manager: Hey, BSA, why don't you tell THEM what you just told me?
BSA: (Bravely) Mere possession of authorized copies isn't good enough. You must have dated invoices with the actual...
IBM Lawyers: (Interrupting) AN INTERESTING THOUGHT. PERHAPS WE SHOULD DISCUSS THIS FURTHER IN OUR OFFICE.
BSA and IBM Lawyers: (vanish in another puff of sulfurous smoke).
And a Chevy Suburban gets better gas mileage than a Unimog. A Porsche is cheaper than a Ferrari. A daisy cutter is less powerful than a nuke. So what? The BSA is probably only the THIRD most reviled copyright enforcement organization on Slashdot (after the RIAA and MPAA)... that ain't saying much.
Because the case was already decided in the preliminary motions and the jury selection. Not to mention the RIAA/MPAA purchase of the laws in the first place.
Diesel goes down in summer and up in winter, because it's basically similar to another petroleum product: home heating oil.
Why, Mr. Cannata,, I thought it was quite self-explanatory.
You don't need a contrived example like yours. Prosecutors will make, and juries will believe, arguments based on DNA even when the supposed killer was married to the victim. How many times, on the news or on a show like Dateline (which interviews real prosecutors) have you seen a prosecutor claim, as if it was meaningful, "we found the suspect's DNA at the crime scene" when the crime scene was the house or car that the suspect and victim shared?
Anything that makes DNA look more fallible in the eyes of juries is a good thing.
January 6, 1066.
That's a bit too narrow.
Justice Bradley stated, in 1882
Those "speculative schemers" are patent trolls. It doesn't matter whether they actually use each "shadow of a shade of an idea" in a product of their own; they're patent trolls even if they make their own product, as long as they try to prevent others from using those non-novel or obvious ideas.
By that definition, i4i is a patent troll, and Microsoft has, in other instances, acted as a patent troll.
Not making a product is neither necessary nor sufficient for patent-trollism. An organization which mainly does research might legitimately obtain a patent without any intent of developing it themselves. And an organization which makes a real product might engage in patent-trolling to put competitors out of business, or to obtain a revenue stream when their own product has failed.