Judges look to the intent of the law as well as the the language of the law
That's the theory at least. However since US judges are effectively running for political office and are even members of a political party the impression is that they are more interested in what they think the law should mean rather than what the legislators who passed it intended. Obviously some bias is inevitable when anyone interprets the law but when it is actively encouraged justice becomes doubtful and legislators are rendered relatively powerless.
Tilting libel in favor of plaintiffs would surely create more fact-checking, but I wouldn't bet on that happening any time in the near future. The Roberts Court is very pro-First Amendment.
So perhaps if the courts stuck to their original job of applying the law rather than writing the law then the legislators could go back to their job of writing laws and journalists could be made to return writing true stories to keep the courts and legislators honest....hmmm I think I see a flaw here.
No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
I don't see how making up malicious lies falls anywhere in the realm of "fair comment" and this is what he is accused of. However if he has seen something that might reasonably lead him to make the claims he has then I completely agree it is fair comment.
How is the Streisand effect relevant? Have they tried to suppress the website? They don't seem to be acting in a manner to suppress the information, their actions are more consistent with them having found someone committing a criminal offence. Whether or not he is guilty of it remains to be seen but he is accused of criminal defamation, not civil, and there is a big difference.
And he's allowed to. There's no law saying that you cannot comment publicly on police behaviour.
Correct...but there are laws against maliciously defaming people by telling lies. If the RCMP can prove that what he claims is false, and for criminal charges the burden surely lies with them (but IANAL), then he deserves what he gets. If they cannot prove it then they are going to end up looking very bad.
Be a man, respond with, "he's right; we need to fix that."
If what the man is alleging is true then I'd agree that would be the correct response. However why are you automatically assuming that he is telling the truth? Suppose he is just an idiot with an axe to grind against the police? The fact that they called in the RCMP and that criminal charges have been made suggests that at least the RCMP think he is lying.
I have no idea about the facts of the case but if this man is lying then I think it is completely right and proper that he should get charged with criminal defamation since he would be undermining confidence in an important public institution through lies and misinformation. Frankly I'd be a lot more concerned if they had gone for a civil suit - if you want to bully someone into shutting up that would be the way to go since the burden of proof is so much lower.
"Every mineral and piece of food that comes out of the ground" is also a finite resource. Yes, even crops are finite as they rely on minerals in the ground to grow, and there is only so much space one can use to grow crops.
While technically you are correct you are limiting yourself to just the Earth. While we lack the technology to colonize the solar system or further afield this is not beyond the realms of possibility and, if you consider the size of the Universe, resources are effectively infinite. So the value of a technology which would let use exploit these resources would huge and a good way to create value beyond what we have on the planet now.
As a plasma physicist I'd be curious to know your thoughts on this attempted fusion reactor. It seems a very interesting and potentially clever design and very different to anything I've heard of before but, while it seems to pass the smell test I'm a particle, not a plasma physicist so that does not mean much!
what, precisly is so shocking about a scientist who has faith?
Nothing. What is shocking is that you would include references to your faith throughout a scientific text. Science is about what you can prove, not what you believe. Putting constant references to your religious beliefs in a science book is as inappropriate as putting constant references to your political beliefs would be. Neither will help communicate the ideas that you are trying to get across (in fact the exact reverse if the audience does not share your beliefs) and both muddy the waters about what the point of the book is. If you are going to write a scientific text you must stick only to scientific knowledge. If you start adding in beliefs (of any description) it becomes hard for readers to distinguish between one person's belief and established scientific fact which makes the book useless as a reliable scientific reference....and I say that as a scientist who is also a christian.
Apparently, since you can get glass over 60cm thick, at least as thick as the person who used that description. I suppose they'll be telling us that the screen is as long as a piece of string next.
Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States...
This is exactly consistent with what I said: the condition ONLY applies when considering admission to the US it DOES NOT apply once you are re-admitted. I know this sounds crazy and I agree but those are your rules as told to me by a US lawyer.
The other problem is that "reasonably" is not well defined. I had no such intent when being admitted and genuinely only changed my mind inside the US after having such trouble getting admitted that the university's international office suggested that I get a green card, even though I did not intend to stay there permanently, simply to avoid this problem.
I was not proposing anything - this is what the US currently does. I know it works because I applied and got a green card while in the US on a J-1 simply because it was so unpleasant to re-enter with a non-immigrant visa and then I simply surrendered the green card when I left (and boy was it hard to find out how to do that voluntarily!).
To attain status as a legal permanent resident, you must enter the country on either an immigrant visa
Not true. You may apply for a US "green" card while in the US on any visa. However you may not enter the US on a non-immigrant visa if you intend to apply for permanent resident status at the time of entry but you are free to change your mind after entry. It's a bizarre rule which can lead to trouble when you re-enter the US after a short drive to Canada, on a J-1, valid for 3 years, and they ask you "what do you intend to do after the visa expires" and you answer honestly "I don't know - I've only been here for 2 months and have not thought that far ahead". After this very unpleasant incident every time I re-entered and was asked the same question I was very careful to answer "leave the US and not return" which, as coincidence happens, was also a very honest answer.
First off -- I applaud your use of open-note exams. That is the ONLY real-world way to learn and demonstrate knowledge.
I could not disagree more. While it is true that we look things up outside an exam you only look SOME things up not everything. Hence even in real life you must have some level of stored information to rely on. This is particularly important when it comes to learning. If you do not have the basic framework of knowledge on which to add new material you are completely sunk when it comes to learning more. It is just as valid to test the core of understanding and knowledge that you expect the students to retain as it is to test the level of understanding and knowledge they can display when allowed to look things up.
Where the open book exam fails though is that in real life you don't use books so much as the internet and other searchable digital resources. I almost never look things up in paper books: I'll search an electronic paper archive, an electronic book or other digital resource because it is so much simpler. The problem is that if you allow that in your exam cheating becomes so easy your exam becomes farcical.
...if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances.
Hang on that is NOT what the article says. The scientists in question are EMPLOYED by the government. They are not university-based faculty who also apply for grants, are employed by a university and have tenured positions. While this is certainly very disturbing and worrying it is not as far reaching as applying to everyone who gets government research grants, only to those employed directly by the government.
Of course the irony is that, since I am someone getting a research grant from the Canadian government, but not employed by them, the government policy might make you doubt that what I just wrote is true.... which is why it is a really stupid policy to muzzle scientists whether they are government employed or not. It makes it hard to believe scientists if they come up with evidence that actually supports a government policy yet everyone will still believe them if they announce evidence against a policy....and so far university scientists can still do that.
they just start the very long paper trail of documenting your 'poor performance and attitude' and xyz other legal requirements to fire you, so that when you do finally lose your job, you're a) completely unprepared and b) now have a paper trail of BS performance reviews and poor references.
I don't see how you can have both (a) and (b). If you get (b) then surely you can see the writing on the wall? However it is an interesting point of view. I grew up in the UK which has frankly insane employment protection laws that make it extremely hard to fire anyone even for appalling performance. But I still think that some level of protection is required. In this case the OP could get fired AND get poor references simply because the company can't be bothered to do its homework.
Or in thinking the its the school rather than the parent that has the right to make this choice for the child.
If you do not trust the school to make the at least acceptable choices for your child while they are at school what on earth are you doing sending them there? I certainly don't agree with all the things that my kids' school does but learning that different people have different ideas about how to do things is part of learning to deal with the world.
I agree the life+forever extensions are too much, but most people want to leave something for their heirs and whether that's cash or stocks or property or royalties it's still money.
So why can't they leave cash or stocks or property which they earned from their job writing/composing/performing etc. just like everyone else? I don't see the families of teachers, policemen or nurses etc. continuing to get income for their family after they die because of their job (excluding retirement or life insurance which authors/composers etc could also purchase). You could argue that a work takes X years to make the money which would support a fixed term copyright of X years but dependence on the life of the creator is not justifiable.
However, you have begged the question, and ACCEPTED AS FACT that they presume you guilty and that YOU MUST PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.
Isn't that how it works in the US where you have (at least in some states) employment "at will" and it is very easy for a company to fire someone? The innocent until proven guilty only works for criminal cases. This sort of thing is exactly why you need laws protecting employees....of course he really needs to talk to a lawyer to see whether there are any such laws applicable here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd probably send a "fuck off" reply
Please, if you are replying to a legal letter the correct response is "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".
Don't be - we have a well established history of people being refreshingly honest in the UK.
Judges look to the intent of the law as well as the the language of the law
That's the theory at least. However since US judges are effectively running for political office and are even members of a political party the impression is that they are more interested in what they think the law should mean rather than what the legislators who passed it intended. Obviously some bias is inevitable when anyone interprets the law but when it is actively encouraged justice becomes doubtful and legislators are rendered relatively powerless.
Tilting libel in favor of plaintiffs would surely create more fact-checking, but I wouldn't bet on that happening any time in the near future. The Roberts Court is very pro-First Amendment.
So perhaps if the courts stuck to their original job of applying the law rather than writing the law then the legislators could go back to their job of writing laws and journalists could be made to return writing true stories to keep the courts and legislators honest....hmmm I think I see a flaw here.
I think they've been reading Niven not Star Trek. In particular it sounds like they are going after the General Products #3 hull.
the idea of experiencing a steep banking turn with a transparent fuselage makes fairly nauseous.
Don't worry it sounds like it's a self correcting problem...
Just wait, tomorrow Airbus will announce it is changing its name to "General Products", then the fun will really start....
No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
I don't see how making up malicious lies falls anywhere in the realm of "fair comment" and this is what he is accused of. However if he has seen something that might reasonably lead him to make the claims he has then I completely agree it is fair comment.
How is the Streisand effect relevant? Have they tried to suppress the website? They don't seem to be acting in a manner to suppress the information, their actions are more consistent with them having found someone committing a criminal offence. Whether or not he is guilty of it remains to be seen but he is accused of criminal defamation, not civil, and there is a big difference.
And he's allowed to. There's no law saying that you cannot comment publicly on police behaviour.
Correct...but there are laws against maliciously defaming people by telling lies. If the RCMP can prove that what he claims is false, and for criminal charges the burden surely lies with them (but IANAL), then he deserves what he gets. If they cannot prove it then they are going to end up looking very bad.
Be a man, respond with, "he's right; we need to fix that."
If what the man is alleging is true then I'd agree that would be the correct response. However why are you automatically assuming that he is telling the truth? Suppose he is just an idiot with an axe to grind against the police? The fact that they called in the RCMP and that criminal charges have been made suggests that at least the RCMP think he is lying.
I have no idea about the facts of the case but if this man is lying then I think it is completely right and proper that he should get charged with criminal defamation since he would be undermining confidence in an important public institution through lies and misinformation. Frankly I'd be a lot more concerned if they had gone for a civil suit - if you want to bully someone into shutting up that would be the way to go since the burden of proof is so much lower.
"Every mineral and piece of food that comes out of the ground" is also a finite resource. Yes, even crops are finite as they rely on minerals in the ground to grow, and there is only so much space one can use to grow crops.
While technically you are correct you are limiting yourself to just the Earth. While we lack the technology to colonize the solar system or further afield this is not beyond the realms of possibility and, if you consider the size of the Universe, resources are effectively infinite. So the value of a technology which would let use exploit these resources would huge and a good way to create value beyond what we have on the planet now.
Take $89 million...buy a Falcon 9 launch...pocket the difference.
As a plasma physicist I'd be curious to know your thoughts on this attempted fusion reactor. It seems a very interesting and potentially clever design and very different to anything I've heard of before but, while it seems to pass the smell test I'm a particle, not a plasma physicist so that does not mean much!
what, precisly is so shocking about a scientist who has faith?
Nothing. What is shocking is that you would include references to your faith throughout a scientific text. Science is about what you can prove, not what you believe. Putting constant references to your religious beliefs in a science book is as inappropriate as putting constant references to your political beliefs would be. Neither will help communicate the ideas that you are trying to get across (in fact the exact reverse if the audience does not share your beliefs) and both muddy the waters about what the point of the book is. If you are going to write a scientific text you must stick only to scientific knowledge. If you start adding in beliefs (of any description) it becomes hard for readers to distinguish between one person's belief and established scientific fact which makes the book useless as a reliable scientific reference....and I say that as a scientist who is also a christian.
Apparently, since you can get glass over 60cm thick, at least as thick as the person who used that description. I suppose they'll be telling us that the screen is as long as a piece of string next.
Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States...
This is exactly consistent with what I said: the condition ONLY applies when considering admission to the US it DOES NOT apply once you are re-admitted. I know this sounds crazy and I agree but those are your rules as told to me by a US lawyer.
The other problem is that "reasonably" is not well defined. I had no such intent when being admitted and genuinely only changed my mind inside the US after having such trouble getting admitted that the university's international office suggested that I get a green card, even though I did not intend to stay there permanently, simply to avoid this problem.
The problem with what you propose
I was not proposing anything - this is what the US currently does. I know it works because I applied and got a green card while in the US on a J-1 simply because it was so unpleasant to re-enter with a non-immigrant visa and then I simply surrendered the green card when I left (and boy was it hard to find out how to do that voluntarily!).
To attain status as a legal permanent resident, you must enter the country on either an immigrant visa
Not true. You may apply for a US "green" card while in the US on any visa. However you may not enter the US on a non-immigrant visa if you intend to apply for permanent resident status at the time of entry but you are free to change your mind after entry. It's a bizarre rule which can lead to trouble when you re-enter the US after a short drive to Canada, on a J-1, valid for 3 years, and they ask you "what do you intend to do after the visa expires" and you answer honestly "I don't know - I've only been here for 2 months and have not thought that far ahead". After this very unpleasant incident every time I re-entered and was asked the same question I was very careful to answer "leave the US and not return" which, as coincidence happens, was also a very honest answer.
First off -- I applaud your use of open-note exams. That is the ONLY real-world way to learn and demonstrate knowledge.
I could not disagree more. While it is true that we look things up outside an exam you only look SOME things up not everything. Hence even in real life you must have some level of stored information to rely on. This is particularly important when it comes to learning. If you do not have the basic framework of knowledge on which to add new material you are completely sunk when it comes to learning more. It is just as valid to test the core of understanding and knowledge that you expect the students to retain as it is to test the level of understanding and knowledge they can display when allowed to look things up.
Where the open book exam fails though is that in real life you don't use books so much as the internet and other searchable digital resources. I almost never look things up in paper books: I'll search an electronic paper archive, an electronic book or other digital resource because it is so much simpler. The problem is that if you allow that in your exam cheating becomes so easy your exam becomes farcical.
...if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances.
Hang on that is NOT what the article says. The scientists in question are EMPLOYED by the government. They are not university-based faculty who also apply for grants, are employed by a university and have tenured positions. While this is certainly very disturbing and worrying it is not as far reaching as applying to everyone who gets government research grants, only to those employed directly by the government.
Of course the irony is that, since I am someone getting a research grant from the Canadian government, but not employed by them, the government policy might make you doubt that what I just wrote is true.... which is why it is a really stupid policy to muzzle scientists whether they are government employed or not. It makes it hard to believe scientists if they come up with evidence that actually supports a government policy yet everyone will still believe them if they announce evidence against a policy....and so far university scientists can still do that.
Next up on Slashdot 18% of Americans, 16% of Germans, and 19% of Britons hate being asked stupid questions in surveys.
they just start the very long paper trail of documenting your 'poor performance and attitude' and xyz other legal requirements to fire you, so that when you do finally lose your job, you're a) completely unprepared and b) now have a paper trail of BS performance reviews and poor references.
I don't see how you can have both (a) and (b). If you get (b) then surely you can see the writing on the wall? However it is an interesting point of view. I grew up in the UK which has frankly insane employment protection laws that make it extremely hard to fire anyone even for appalling performance. But I still think that some level of protection is required. In this case the OP could get fired AND get poor references simply because the company can't be bothered to do its homework.
Or in thinking the its the school rather than the parent that has the right to make this choice for the child.
If you do not trust the school to make the at least acceptable choices for your child while they are at school what on earth are you doing sending them there? I certainly don't agree with all the things that my kids' school does but learning that different people have different ideas about how to do things is part of learning to deal with the world.
I agree the life+forever extensions are too much, but most people want to leave something for their heirs and whether that's cash or stocks or property or royalties it's still money.
So why can't they leave cash or stocks or property which they earned from their job writing/composing/performing etc. just like everyone else? I don't see the families of teachers, policemen or nurses etc. continuing to get income for their family after they die because of their job (excluding retirement or life insurance which authors/composers etc could also purchase). You could argue that a work takes X years to make the money which would support a fixed term copyright of X years but dependence on the life of the creator is not justifiable.
However, you have begged the question, and ACCEPTED AS FACT that they presume you guilty and that YOU MUST PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.
Isn't that how it works in the US where you have (at least in some states) employment "at will" and it is very easy for a company to fire someone? The innocent until proven guilty only works for criminal cases. This sort of thing is exactly why you need laws protecting employees....of course he really needs to talk to a lawyer to see whether there are any such laws applicable here.