Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.
Actually, truth is a defense against libel/slander in Canada, but the burden of proof is somewhat different in Canada than in the U.S. In Canada, it is often up to the defendant to proof that what they're saying is true, whereas in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false. In the U.K., sometimes truth isn't even a defense at all!
Exactly. The article points out that the amoeba can survive in choline levels found in drinking water. That is precisely why chlorine levels in swimming pools are much higher than those in drinking water. (If drinking water were chlorinated to the level of swimming pool water, it would taste terrible and burn your throat. Try drinking a glass of pool water if you don't believe me.) Drinking water is meant for drinking; pools are meant for swimming. You can't get a N. fowleri infection from ingesting infected water; you get it from swimming in and inhaling such water. So this is all really a non-issue, unless you dunk your head under water in your bathtub.
Just because a language was built for specialized uses doesn't mean it's obscure. R is very widely known and used. I haven't used Erlang, but I've heard of it, which means it probably isn't too obscure.
Possession of child pornography is illegal in itself.
Given that how would they have the original image to match against?
Almost every child pornography possession statute that I've seen has an exception for law enforcement activities. For example, a jury examining photos in a jury room wouldn't be guilty of possession if those photos are evidence presented at trial.
But as soon as it starts blocking my picture of my dinner as kiddie porn, having Facebook and Twitter block it becomes fairly meaningless.
The question you need to ask yourself is "Why am I uploading pictures of my dinner?" Seriously. People do that all the time, and I have to wonder why. Does anyone really enjoy seeing other people's dinner? What's next? People posting pictures of their poop?
Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.
That's like the old CD and record clubs that sold albums at ridiculously low prices (a few dollars for CDs that would cost $15 or more in stores) but then they'd charge absolutely ridiculous "shipping and handling" fees that would bring prices much closer to retail. The shipping and handling would be many times what it would cost by first class postage, the bulk of it being (presumably) "handling" fees, i.e. their profit. It's the same thing here. They call it "transportation fees", but it's really just so they can sell it without selling it. Who haggles over shipping costs? That's set by UPS.
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
I think the implication of the story is that they are put in there intentionally, at least some of them.
Ooops. Sorry to answer my own question, but after a bit of research (which I should have done before posing the question, I guess) I found the answer. It's at www.youtube.com/html5 I guess it just isn't the default yet.
I care about none of those things. Youtube uses html 5 just fine.
How do you get to the HTML5 version of YouTube? Whenever I play a YouTube video, it uses Flash. I know this cause if I right click on a video a menu pops up and one of the options is "About Adobe Flash Player". Is there a different URL for the HTML5 site, or is there a settings menu somewhere where I can change it?
Don't buy this. It's all part of a GCHQ conspiracy to foist weak encryption on the populace. The Enigma has been cracked. I repeat, the Enigma HAS been cracked! You have been warned.
I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle
If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.
prohibit the private registration of domains which are "associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions
I'm not sure I have a big problem with this. If you do business with a company that can just disappear, that'd be a bummer. That said, you shouldn't do business with a company like that, but people aren't always smart.
I've registered several domains in the past and never been asked if they were for personal or commercial use. Are domain name registrars now going to be in the business of policing how domain names are used? At the present time, I don't think they have any involvement in how a domain is actually used, and many are used for multiple purposes, some commercial and some not. Who exactly is going to be responsible for doing this kind of content policing? If it is the registrars, I imagine the cost of registering a domain will go way up to cover their labor costs in monitoring content.
My personal favorite James Horner soundtrack was that for the first Land Before Time movie. The movie itself was good, not great, but the music was absolutely amazing. The CD is well worth buying. He will be missed.
They would report to the parents, without notification to the student
Gotta call bullshit on this. It's illegal for a university to release that kind of information to anyone other than the student without their consent. Minors attending university have to do special paperwork to address this, but adult students have 100% control over information release to third parties.
That's actually not true. Specific information, such as grades, financial, and medical records are generally protected by laws in most states, and can't be released to parents without the student's consent, but I'm not aware of any such laws which cover other random information such as locations of WiFi access points that students have been using.
For the first few times I saw IMAX it was good. Then IMAX decided to create just a large flat screen and slap IMAX logo to wring cash. The large flat screen is nowhere near the IMAX parabolic dome screen.
I think you're confusing IMAX and OMNIMAX. OMNIMAX has the dome shaped screen.
If the DJ did indeed pay a fee to play said songs, then I don't see why another should be paid by the restaurant owner.
EXACTLY. What if the DJ had played the songs in a park? Would the city have to pay BMI's licensing shakedown fee?
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem.
Moving water to where people live is indeed an engineering problem, but I'd hardly call it "simple". Especially given the quantities that would be involved.
This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.
I think we go down a very slippery slope when we say that the Internet should receive less First Amendment protection than television or print media. Television and print are largely in the control of large media companies with lots of money. The Internet is accessible to anyone; it costs almost nothing to start your own blog. In a sense, the Internet is (or has the potential to be) a great equalizer. As soon as you start placing restrictions on Internet speech that don't apply to "big media" speech, you tip the balance of power back in the direction of the wealthy elite.
Additionally, the line between TV and print on the one hand and the Internet on the other is becoming more and more blurred all the time. Many people watch their television through Internet streaming services. Does that count as TV or Internet? And most print newspapers have an online edition, with many people reading only the online edition. Your rule would mean that some articles appearing in the print edition would not be able to appear on the online edition. And what about e-reader (such as Kindle) editions of newspapers? Do the print or Internet rules apply to those?
U.S. American tech company immigrants are coming, with their educations and disposable incomes.
As a Canadian, I would welcome this. We are also well educated here (the University of Waterloo has a world class computer science program) and any infusion of tech capital would be a good thing. I'd be very happy to work alongside American immigrants in the tech sector. I think there'd be plenty of jobs to go around.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.
Actually, truth is a defense against libel/slander in Canada, but the burden of proof is somewhat different in Canada than in the U.S. In Canada, it is often up to the defendant to proof that what they're saying is true, whereas in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false. In the U.K., sometimes truth isn't even a defense at all!
Exactly. The article points out that the amoeba can survive in choline levels found in drinking water. That is precisely why chlorine levels in swimming pools are much higher than those in drinking water. (If drinking water were chlorinated to the level of swimming pool water, it would taste terrible and burn your throat. Try drinking a glass of pool water if you don't believe me.) Drinking water is meant for drinking; pools are meant for swimming. You can't get a N. fowleri infection from ingesting infected water; you get it from swimming in and inhaling such water. So this is all really a non-issue, unless you dunk your head under water in your bathtub.
H.264 is covered by patents held by MPEG LA.
Just because a language was built for specialized uses doesn't mean it's obscure. R is very widely known and used. I haven't used Erlang, but I've heard of it, which means it probably isn't too obscure.
Possession of child pornography is illegal in itself. Given that how would they have the original image to match against?
Almost every child pornography possession statute that I've seen has an exception for law enforcement activities. For example, a jury examining photos in a jury room wouldn't be guilty of possession if those photos are evidence presented at trial.
But as soon as it starts blocking my picture of my dinner as kiddie porn, having Facebook and Twitter block it becomes fairly meaningless.
The question you need to ask yourself is "Why am I uploading pictures of my dinner?" Seriously. People do that all the time, and I have to wonder why. Does anyone really enjoy seeing other people's dinner? What's next? People posting pictures of their poop?
Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.
That's like the old CD and record clubs that sold albums at ridiculously low prices (a few dollars for CDs that would cost $15 or more in stores) but then they'd charge absolutely ridiculous "shipping and handling" fees that would bring prices much closer to retail. The shipping and handling would be many times what it would cost by first class postage, the bulk of it being (presumably) "handling" fees, i.e. their profit. It's the same thing here. They call it "transportation fees", but it's really just so they can sell it without selling it. Who haggles over shipping costs? That's set by UPS.
Zero-days are not "back doors".
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
I think the implication of the story is that they are put in there intentionally, at least some of them.
Then I'll copy and paste the text to another Windows and foward it.
I would assume the copy and paste functions would be disabled, otherwise this would be pointless.
Ooops. Sorry to answer my own question, but after a bit of research (which I should have done before posing the question, I guess) I found the answer. It's at www.youtube.com/html5 I guess it just isn't the default yet.
I care about none of those things. Youtube uses html 5 just fine.
How do you get to the HTML5 version of YouTube? Whenever I play a YouTube video, it uses Flash. I know this cause if I right click on a video a menu pops up and one of the options is "About Adobe Flash Player". Is there a different URL for the HTML5 site, or is there a settings menu somewhere where I can change it?
Don't buy this. It's all part of a GCHQ conspiracy to foist weak encryption on the populace. The Enigma has been cracked. I repeat, the Enigma HAS been cracked! You have been warned.
I don't believe someone needs to die to warrant a bigger sentence. The fact is, this psychopath put many people in harms way and got their doors broken down and live guns pointed at them. The fact that nobody died is a miracle
If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.
Especially when the "summary" has more than 140 characters.
Formatting what appears to be a list into one single paragraph makes it awkward to decipher.
Maybe it's a sparse list.
Nude equals rude only for a prude.
prohibit the private registration of domains which are "associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions
I'm not sure I have a big problem with this. If you do business with a company that can just disappear, that'd be a bummer. That said, you shouldn't do business with a company like that, but people aren't always smart.
I've registered several domains in the past and never been asked if they were for personal or commercial use. Are domain name registrars now going to be in the business of policing how domain names are used? At the present time, I don't think they have any involvement in how a domain is actually used, and many are used for multiple purposes, some commercial and some not. Who exactly is going to be responsible for doing this kind of content policing? If it is the registrars, I imagine the cost of registering a domain will go way up to cover their labor costs in monitoring content.
My personal favorite James Horner soundtrack was that for the first Land Before Time movie. The movie itself was good, not great, but the music was absolutely amazing. The CD is well worth buying. He will be missed.
But facebook wants to become one.
I want to become dictator of the world. It doesn't mean people should let me, and the world would be a terrible place if they did.
They would report to the parents, without notification to the student
Gotta call bullshit on this. It's illegal for a university to release that kind of information to anyone other than the student without their consent. Minors attending university have to do special paperwork to address this, but adult students have 100% control over information release to third parties.
That's actually not true. Specific information, such as grades, financial, and medical records are generally protected by laws in most states, and can't be released to parents without the student's consent, but I'm not aware of any such laws which cover other random information such as locations of WiFi access points that students have been using.
For the first few times I saw IMAX it was good. Then IMAX decided to create just a large flat screen and slap IMAX logo to wring cash. The large flat screen is nowhere near the IMAX parabolic dome screen.
I think you're confusing IMAX and OMNIMAX. OMNIMAX has the dome shaped screen.
EXACTLY. What if the DJ had played the songs in a park? Would the city have to pay BMI's licensing shakedown fee?
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem.
Moving water to where people live is indeed an engineering problem, but I'd hardly call it "simple". Especially given the quantities that would be involved.
This rule would only apply to the internet, not TV or print.
I think we go down a very slippery slope when we say that the Internet should receive less First Amendment protection than television or print media. Television and print are largely in the control of large media companies with lots of money. The Internet is accessible to anyone; it costs almost nothing to start your own blog. In a sense, the Internet is (or has the potential to be) a great equalizer. As soon as you start placing restrictions on Internet speech that don't apply to "big media" speech, you tip the balance of power back in the direction of the wealthy elite.
Additionally, the line between TV and print on the one hand and the Internet on the other is becoming more and more blurred all the time. Many people watch their television through Internet streaming services. Does that count as TV or Internet? And most print newspapers have an online edition, with many people reading only the online edition. Your rule would mean that some articles appearing in the print edition would not be able to appear on the online edition. And what about e-reader (such as Kindle) editions of newspapers? Do the print or Internet rules apply to those?
U.S. American tech company immigrants are coming, with their educations and disposable incomes.
As a Canadian, I would welcome this. We are also well educated here (the University of Waterloo has a world class computer science program) and any infusion of tech capital would be a good thing. I'd be very happy to work alongside American immigrants in the tech sector. I think there'd be plenty of jobs to go around.