You're right - we actually have pretty extensive protection for free speech in the UK, with far less restriction than in the US. In the UK, I can say "Gordon Brown is a noxious prick" without any legal repercussions. If I was in the US, I couldn't say that about George W Bush without being arrested.
ROTFL. If calling Bush a prick was really an arrestable offense, US prisons wouldn't have room for all the minor drug offenders. The only way you'll get arrested for calling Bush a "noxious prick" is if the arresting officer is pissed off that you used a word (noxious) he didn't understand.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
This is way too broad a definition, IMO. A former prosecutor known for busting prostitution rings getting busted for hiring a prostitute -- that's irony. But me getting wet because I didn't expect it to rain -- not irony.
It's questionable if it's protected speech. I haven't personally seen any of those clips. But I'm not so sure that it's going to pass the Miller test for obscenity or the fighting words doctrine.
The fighting words doctrine is far too narrow to apply to a video posted on the Internet. You'd have to show the video to a real live crowd to have a chance of bringing "fighting words" into the picture.
The Miller test is even further from applicability, unless there's sex in the videos, and no political content. Since it's the political content which is at issue, this seems unlikely.
For instance the 9/11 planes hitting the towers was never questioned as legitimate when accompanied with the news, adding a voice over to join Al Quaeda and commit that sort of atrocity yourself wouldn't be protected.
Might not be, but you'll have to find a loophole other than the ones you've mentioned.
I found some of the articles you were talking about, and they suggested that the FBI (with the carrier's co-operation) could remotely modify the firmware of the phones. That would certainly make it possible for tapping the phone when it was "off".
A cellphone which is turned off cannot be used to listen in on private conversations. The RF section is off (and you can verify this with a simple ammeter; the RF section draws significant power). Unless, of course, the FBI/CIA/NSA/MI5 has switched your cellphone out for a specially modified one which doesn't actually turn off.
Finally, BMI is a shoddy system that I'm sick of seeing. BMI was developed at a time when leeching was an accepted medical practice, and hasn't changed significantly since then.
Leeching is STILL an accepted medical practice. They just use cleaner leeches now. BMI is still BS though.
Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand.
Right, they are caused by an unholy alliance of environmentalists and agricultural products companies, supporting biofuels.
It's kind of like a guy on the street with a DVD burner and a list of movies he has. He can advertise it all he wants without committing copyright infringement. Then someone comes up to him and asks for one of his movies. He puts a blank disk in the burner, burns the requested movie onto it, and then passes the disk to the requester. The guy on the street committed copyright infringement at the point that he burned the movie onto the disk (reproduced) and handed it to the requester (distributed), but at no point did the requester commit copyright infringement. In the same way, the downloader did not commit copyright infringement.
The problem with your analogy is that the guy on the street with a DVD burner is a person. A node on a P2P network is not a person, it is an automated device, and (like the DVD burner) cannot be held responsible for copyright infringement. The person who directed the automated device to make the copy can be. This could be the person who made the work available to be downloaded (even if the actual "making available" isn't infringement), or the, downloader, or both.
I've yet to see any credible argument that intellectual property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties) is any more "imaginary" (or shall we say, any less real) than tangible property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties).
"Intellectual property" is not the body of rights defined in law. Intellectual property is the subject of that body of rights. Just as real estate is the land, not the deed.
It's hard to see how a right to prevent others from repeating that which you have written, or to prevent them from building that which you have invented (even if they do it independently), refers to something real.
It amazes me how far some people are willing to go to smite China for their flaws, by doing something worse.
Whether Taiwan is part of China is a political controversy, but having the "Chinese capital" in Taipei is an outright lie.
Struck a nerve, did I? I thought there was no political controversy on whether Taiwan was part of China; both sides agree that it is, and then act as if it were not. Now, as to which government is the proper and legitimate sovereign of all of China -- that's where there's some controversy.
Basically, they do not want any maps to be available on the Net to their own people (or anyone else, but that is impossible) which contain such counter-revolutionary ideas such as an independent Taiwan(even if only de facto).
No problem. Just show all of China as one country... with the capital in Taipei.
Funny thing is, when we try to hold our government or corporations or even school boards up to the same transparency, they immediately throw hissy fits and start claiming executive privilege and "losing" emails. Why are they complaining if they have nothing to hide?
Because they do have something to hide. That's why they think transparency (for other people) is such a great thing.
Ross Perot, who didn't manage to attain political office, advocating house-to-house seaches was bad, but then again, he wasn't elected.
President Bill Clinton was a heck of a lot more scary advocating the same thing.
. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.
Er, no, it simply means that once I've bought the child porn photo, I'm not doing further business with the seller or manufacturer just by using the photo. Though personally I have no use for child porn photos, please do not send me any.
Zoned systems do work really well as long as they are installed and balanced properly and they save a lot of energy.
I've never worked in an office (with a zoned system) where it isn't often too cold, too hot, or both (in different parts of the building). Tenants resort to fans to blow the air from the cold part to the hot part, attempting to make up for the system's failures.
If you're reading this on a MacBook, for instance, you're engaging in business with China (made in China).
No, I'm not. You're engaging in the same error the IP extremists engage in. Apple engaged in business with China when they had the MacBooks made there. If I buy a MacBook, you might have an argument that I am engaging in business with China indirectly. But simply using something made in China is not engaging in business with China. The business was concluded when the sale was complete.
I am a HVAC consulting engineer and I think you are overestimating the complexity of the control systems. The thermal mass, demand, exposure direction, etc are all used in calculating the system and its size, but none of that is really used in controlling the system. What you would typically use is a VAV system [zones with dampers] with its own thermostat.
That's exactly my point. There exist (at least on paper; maybe they're vaporware) systems which DO use more than that for controlling the system. But they aren't popular. So instead we have the zones with dampers on individually controlled thermostats, which work "good enough" but never really well.
The idea that parents should actively supervise and participate in their children's Internet usage SOUNDS good, but in practice it means two things: I have to spend all of my free time watching what my kids do on the net (leaving me no time for slashdot!), and I have to severely limit their Internet usage.
Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.
How can you have a chatroom or a "space" on the inernet which is not commercial, but which restricts the age limit to 18+? That is the question I'm asking.
You can't. That is the answer I'm giving. And you couldn't even before the popularity of the Internet, with Fidonet and individual dialup bulletin boards.
The law says that 18+ cannot have unrestricted communication with those under 18. The laws are probably extreme, but these are the laws, and the technology has to adapt to the laws to protect their users.
Technology need do no such thing. Commercial, centralized stuff visible in the public eye is vulnerable to legal pressure, but what does that do about IRC? Usenet? Even if Johnny Law manages to shut down all the current IRC servers and Usenet with threats of liability if perkytits16 turns out to be an old man, the software to run chat rooms is out there, and people WILL set them up.
Slashdot Mirror
ROTFL. If calling Bush a prick was really an arrestable offense, US prisons wouldn't have room for all the minor drug offenders. The only way you'll get arrested for calling Bush a "noxious prick" is if the arresting officer is pissed off that you used a word (noxious) he didn't understand.
This is way too broad a definition, IMO. A former prosecutor known for busting prostitution rings getting busted for hiring a prostitute -- that's irony. But me getting wet because I didn't expect it to rain -- not irony.
In today's world? +1, Insightful.
The fighting words doctrine is far too narrow to apply to a video posted on the Internet. You'd have to show the video to a real live crowd to have a chance of bringing "fighting words" into the picture.
The Miller test is even further from applicability, unless there's sex in the videos, and no political content. Since it's the political content which is at issue, this seems unlikely.
Might not be, but you'll have to find a loophole other than the ones you've mentioned.
I found some of the articles you were talking about, and they suggested that the FBI (with the carrier's co-operation) could remotely modify the firmware of the phones. That would certainly make it possible for tapping the phone when it was "off".
A cellphone which is turned off cannot be used to listen in on private conversations. The RF section is off (and you can verify this with a simple ammeter; the RF section draws significant power). Unless, of course, the FBI/CIA/NSA/MI5 has switched your cellphone out for a specially modified one which doesn't actually turn off.
Leeching is STILL an accepted medical practice. They just use cleaner leeches now. BMI is still BS though.
Right, they are caused by an unholy alliance of environmentalists and agricultural products companies, supporting biofuels.
The problem with your analogy is that the guy on the street with a DVD burner is a person. A node on a P2P network is not a person, it is an automated device, and (like the DVD burner) cannot be held responsible for copyright infringement. The person who directed the automated device to make the copy can be. This could be the person who made the work available to be downloaded (even if the actual "making available" isn't infringement), or the, downloader, or both.
"Intellectual property" is not the body of rights defined in law. Intellectual property is the subject of that body of rights. Just as real estate is the land, not the deed.
It's hard to see how a right to prevent others from repeating that which you have written, or to prevent them from building that which you have invented (even if they do it independently), refers to something real.
Struck a nerve, did I? I thought there was no political controversy on whether Taiwan was part of China; both sides agree that it is, and then act as if it were not. Now, as to which government is the proper and legitimate sovereign of all of China -- that's where there's some controversy.
No problem. Just show all of China as one country... with the capital in Taipei.
He probably intended the irony, knowing both his employers and the intended audience would miss it.
Er, no, it simply means that once I've bought the child porn photo, I'm not doing further business with the seller or manufacturer just by using the photo. Though personally I have no use for child porn photos, please do not send me any.
And who would you trust to manage it? And if you weren't one of the managers, would you really want to live in such a system?
You can't. That is the answer I'm giving. And you couldn't even before the popularity of the Internet, with Fidonet and individual dialup bulletin boards.
Technology need do no such thing. Commercial, centralized stuff visible in the public eye is vulnerable to legal pressure, but what does that do about IRC? Usenet? Even if Johnny Law manages to shut down all the current IRC servers and Usenet with threats of liability if perkytits16 turns out to be an old man, the software to run chat rooms is out there, and people WILL set them up.