In every other sector of adult life, public information about an individual is used as part of society's assessment that person.
"Society" does no assessment of anyone. The abstraction doesn't make sense in this context.
Yes, kids, adults are judged based on all their publicly available information.
In fact, this is rarely the case. To present an extreme example the other way: in a court case, adults are judged only on the testimony presented. In a romantic relationship, if one of the parties goes digging too deeply, even into technically public information, the other party is likely to find it creepy, so it's not usually done. When applying for loans, only certain information is considered -- nobody checked my slashdot posts when I got a mortgage (and no, it wasn't a subprime ARM either), nor did they check my driving record. Same when applying for insurance; my auto insurer checks my driving record and my credit but certainly not my "internet record".
No. On parties we drank Cola-Whiskey which you can't see on a photo and instead of rolling giant joints to share like in the sixties (with Herpes and all), each one had his own, looking just like a normal cigarette.
That's backfiring on today's teens. Tobacco is so frowned upon that they have to explain to the college admissions officer that "no, no, that's really a joint, honest", or they get blackballed for smoking.
Not do things that you wouldn't tell your mother / colleges / employers you do?
Why not? I'm a son, I've been a student, and I'm an employee. I'm not a slave. I have different tastes and different values from my mother and my employers, and I hope they don't line up with college admissions officers. There's lots of stuff I do that's none of their business; I may not care if the world knows about it, but I see no reason to bring it to their particular attention.
However, most of the rest of us who can read know that the legal age to drink is 21. All these applicants are breaking the law, and most people, including college admissions, rightly realize that breaking the law is wrong.
Breaking the law is breaking the law; whether it is wrong or not depends on the particular law. Politicians cannot define morality.
Unfortunately, if you've got a bias to one side or another and your "shade of gray" solution is ineffective, the tendency is to keep moving towards the extreme.
If you're serious about blocking phishing sites, you have to accept some collateral damage. Blocking by URL stopped working last year; most attacks have unique URLs now. Many have unique subdomains. So you have to block at the second-level domain level to be effective.
This line of reasoning ends only when the whole net is blocked.
One can make a cogent argument that too much government regulation is bad, and you might even be able to make a fair argument that the current crisis was not caused by too little regulation, but there is no reasonable argument that can conclude that the current crisis has been caused by too much regulation.
Depends on how widely you cast that net "regulation". If you include the existence and implicit (later explicit) backing of the government-created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, then you can. If you don't include that, then there's an argument that it was the same as the old savings&loan crises -- too much government backing with too little oversight.
Consider the value Mendeleev added to the names of the elements when, instead of listing them in alphabetical order, he organized them into the Periodic Table.
Consider the damage that would have been done had Mendeleev obtained exclusive use of that arrangement.
I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.
It's used that way in the US, too. Don't confuse one ignorant poster with a true difference between dialects.
What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?
Idolatry? No, that's not it, or rather it is, but specifically with gods. The psychiatric term "paleological thinking" might cover it, but it's probably too general.
That's simply not true. The gun control debate has gotten a lot quieter in recent years. Democrats don't want to touch it, as it's a political third rail.
That's right; the attacks on gun ownership in the US reached their height with the assault weapons ban, and after Democrats failed to receive the kudos they felt they were due for this (and were rather targeted successfully to be booted out of office), they haven't been too willing to touch it. I'm sure they'll start again soon, though.
It's to the point where a couple of years ago, one Pennsylvania politican said that other legislators should put aside concern for their political future to vote for a particular gun control bill. Needless to say, that bill died a quiet death thereafter.
Have you ever built something big, powerful, and complex? If you have, you'd know that "turning it on" is not a sudden point, it's a gradual process of implementation until it's fully operational, with hundreds or thousands of small, minor issues found and addressed as implementation approaches 100% complete.
When _I_ turn something on, I set it up completely first, leaving only one final connection incomplete. That connection is made by an enormous knife switch, which I throw to the dramatic dimming of lights (managed by my assistant; my invention is of course on another power source entirely), sparks, and the scent of ozone. THAT is how you turn something big on.
If they are representing any people (rather than just computers), it's not computer users. It's Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Google up some old pictures of Steve Jobs, compare to Justin Long. Now find some more current pictures of Bill Gates, add a bit of weight, and compare to John Hodgeman.
Hmmm... Amsterdam 2016? That would be a great place for the first All Drug Olympics
Wouldn't be nearly as good as you'd expect, as the kind of drugs Amsterdam is known for are definitely not performance enhancing. Unless you added a snack-eating contest of some sort.
Only your software argument holds any water. If you tried to market "McSomething" in food service, yes, you'd probably be violating McDonalds' trademark. If you were marketing power tools, you wouldn't. Trademarks can really only be protected within an industry, to protect against confusion between products/companies.
You've forgotten the anti-dilution act (a.k.a. the winner-take-all act) which says that _famous_ marks are protected in all industries. "McDonalds" is a "famous mark".
However, the general pattern of a city plus a year is certainly not a trademark.
Telling how you did it and then defending your patents by taking violators to court is costly and time-consuming. Keeping your mouth shut and forcing your competitors to take apart your product to even begin to comprehend how you did it is much cheaper
But IBM has traditionally taken the former strategy. And given the number of partners they have in this (Mentor Graphics, RPI, Toppan) it seems a lot safer for them to get the patent than to try to maintain a lead with trade secrets.
You are incorrect. Calder V. Bull deals with Article 1 Section 10 which deals with STATES. Article 1 Section 9 deals with CONGRESS of the US.
<sarcasm>I'm sure the founders meant something different in those two sections by the exact same words "ex post facto law".</sarcasm>
If you don't think that giving retroactive immunity to corporations who spied on American citizens wasn't what the framers had in mind when they wrote in Article 1 Section 9, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." you must be smoking something.
I'm pretty sure that the framers were far more worried about activities being made retroactively _illegal_ than retroactively legal.
Isn't it more efficient to do the DC conversion as close to the last second as possible? Once the juice is DC it becomes much less efficient to move it around, no?
No. The reason AC was more convenient to move around is the ability to step it up and down with transformers. But in fact line losses are higher for a given voltage with AC than DC, for various reasons (e.g. peak voltage is higher, some of the power radiates).
Nowadays, converting DC to DC is about as easy (it goes through a high frequency AC step on the way, however). A switching power supply actually converts AC (60Hz) to DC to AC (tens of kilohertz) to DC.
How does that not set the stage for "different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender"? And it plainly alters the legal rules of evidence required to convict.
Because the ex-post-facto thing is one way. If the law made it easier to convict, it would be ex post facto. Since it makes it harder to convict -- that is, you still need all the same evidence that you needed before to convict, PLUS you need the lack of this letter -- it is not covered.
I love to hear about a 12 year old who floors all the latest engineers out there in making solar energy more efficient than anything else. It goes to show you how much of it is pure bureaucratic BS
A bit premature, aren't you? He could go and try to get the thing manufactured, and find out that it doesn't work because of some effect his models don't take into account, or that it cannot be manufactured with currently known techniques. Right now it's just paper, not practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't. They are shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (one of the few sections which was not ruled unconstitutional)
"Society" does no assessment of anyone. The abstraction doesn't make sense in this context.
In fact, this is rarely the case. To present an extreme example the other way: in a court case, adults are judged only on the testimony presented. In a romantic relationship, if one of the parties goes digging too deeply, even into technically public information, the other party is likely to find it creepy, so it's not usually done. When applying for loans, only certain information is considered -- nobody checked my slashdot posts when I got a mortgage (and no, it wasn't a subprime ARM either), nor did they check my driving record. Same when applying for insurance; my auto insurer checks my driving record and my credit but certainly not my "internet record".
That's backfiring on today's teens. Tobacco is so frowned upon that they have to explain to the college admissions officer that "no, no, that's really a joint, honest", or they get blackballed for smoking.
Why not? I'm a son, I've been a student, and I'm an employee. I'm not a slave. I have different tastes and different values from my mother and my employers, and I hope they don't line up with college admissions officers. There's lots of stuff I do that's none of their business; I may not care if the world knows about it, but I see no reason to bring it to their particular attention.
Breaking the law is breaking the law; whether it is wrong or not depends on the particular law. Politicians cannot define morality.
It needs to be deleted, just to ensure that it ends up in Deletionpedia.
Unfortunately, if you've got a bias to one side or another and your "shade of gray" solution is ineffective, the tendency is to keep moving towards the extreme.
This line of reasoning ends only when the whole net is blocked.
Depends on how widely you cast that net "regulation". If you include the existence and implicit (later explicit) backing of the government-created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, then you can. If you don't include that, then there's an argument that it was the same as the old savings&loan crises -- too much government backing with too little oversight.
Or, as an alternative to that low-tech stuff, you could carry a PDA. Then you can even transfer to the computer if you want.
Consider the damage that would have been done had Mendeleev obtained exclusive use of that arrangement.
It's used that way in the US, too. Don't confuse one ignorant poster with a true difference between dialects.
Idolatry? No, that's not it, or rather it is, but specifically with gods. The psychiatric term "paleological thinking" might cover it, but it's probably too general.
That's right; the attacks on gun ownership in the US reached their height with the assault weapons ban, and after Democrats failed to receive the kudos they felt they were due for this (and were rather targeted successfully to be booted out of office), they haven't been too willing to touch it. I'm sure they'll start again soon, though.
It's to the point where a couple of years ago, one Pennsylvania politican said that other legislators should put aside concern for their political future to vote for a particular gun control bill. Needless to say, that bill died a quiet death thereafter.
When _I_ turn something on, I set it up completely first, leaving only one final connection incomplete. That connection is made by an enormous knife switch, which I throw to the dramatic dimming of lights (managed by my assistant; my invention is of course on another power source entirely), sparks, and the scent of ozone. THAT is how you turn something big on.
If they are representing any people (rather than just computers), it's not computer users. It's Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Google up some old pictures of Steve Jobs, compare to Justin Long. Now find some more current pictures of Bill Gates, add a bit of weight, and compare to John Hodgeman.
Wouldn't be nearly as good as you'd expect, as the kind of drugs Amsterdam is known for are definitely not performance enhancing. Unless you added a snack-eating contest of some sort.
You've forgotten the anti-dilution act (a.k.a. the winner-take-all act) which says that _famous_ marks are protected in all industries. "McDonalds" is a "famous mark".
However, the general pattern of a city plus a year is certainly not a trademark.
But IBM has traditionally taken the former strategy. And given the number of partners they have in this (Mentor Graphics, RPI, Toppan) it seems a lot safer for them to get the patent than to try to maintain a lead with trade secrets.
<sarcasm>I'm sure the founders meant something different in those two sections by the exact same words "ex post facto law".</sarcasm>
I'm pretty sure that the framers were far more worried about activities being made retroactively _illegal_ than retroactively legal.
Unfortunately, while humidity tolerance can probably be improved, heat tolerance for electronics is tightly coupled to the laws of physics.
No. The reason AC was more convenient to move around is the ability to step it up and down with transformers. But in fact line losses are higher for a given voltage with AC than DC, for various reasons (e.g. peak voltage is higher, some of the power radiates). Nowadays, converting DC to DC is about as easy (it goes through a high frequency AC step on the way, however). A switching power supply actually converts AC (60Hz) to DC to AC (tens of kilohertz) to DC.
Metaphors are a major part of geek culture; I'd say CS graduates probably understand them better than your average English B.A.
(Or maybe I'm actually thinking of car analogies)
Because the ex-post-facto thing is one way. If the law made it easier to convict, it would be ex post facto. Since it makes it harder to convict -- that is, you still need all the same evidence that you needed before to convict, PLUS you need the lack of this letter -- it is not covered.
A bit premature, aren't you? He could go and try to get the thing manufactured, and find out that it doesn't work because of some effect his models don't take into account, or that it cannot be manufactured with currently known techniques. Right now it's just paper, not practice.