Not only that, but even if you don't take the religious perspective, forced abortion would be taking away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore, forcing an abortion would be bad if you're "pro-choice", and also bad if you're "pro-life". Basically, no one wins.
As far as I can tell, it boils down to the fact that if you 'cure' someone, it implies that they were deficient to begin with, and a lot of deaf people object to the idea that they are deficient.
To me, that question comes down to individual choice. If Deaf Person A considers their deafness to not be a deficiency, then there's nothing to "cure", so let them be. If Deaf Person B considers their deafness to be a deficiency, then let them be "cured".
They didn't conceive the child naturally, they selected embryos to ensure deafness.
No, their first child, who is deaf, was conceived naturally. They want to have a second child using IVF, but are upset that a bill going through Commons would require "deaf" embryos to be automatically discarded.
Nevertheless, if a "deaf" embryo is chosen, and a deaf child is born, that child's only possibilities are to be born deaf, or to not be born. The parents would not have intentionally made the child deaf, they would have only intentionally not prevented the child from being born. This would be quite similar to a couple conceiving naturally, learning that the fetus was deaf, and choosing not to have an abortion. Would you want that child to sue the parents for "intentionally crippling" him/her?
If people put a fraction of the time they spend on fake farms into a real business, they'd be rich.
There's a limited number of real-world businesses that can be successful. There's an unlimited number of virtual businesses that can be successful.
Also, starting an unsuccessful real-world business can mess up your life. Starting an unsuccessful virtual business wastes nothing but a few hours of your time.
Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general), this would also imply that movie and portable game copyright infringement is legal too, eh?
The law explicitly states that this applies to audio recordings only.
Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!
I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.
The levy already exists. This is merely an extension to it. The money is distributed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective to the various organizations that already handle royalties for everything else in the industry. In the case of songwriters, that means SOCAN.
So, if you're a struggling artist, and you have not handed your copyrights over to a record company, and you're a SOCAN member (membership is free, if I remember correctly), then you are eligible to receive part of this money.
It's a perfectly valid option. I used Avant for years because at the time IE did the best job of rendering the most websites, but I wanted advanced features that IE didn't provide (tabbed browsing, saved sessions, etc).
Today I use Firefox, but if someone prefers Avant, why not use it? So what if it's just a wrapper for IE. It's still a valid option, and if you're going to provide a comprehensive list of browser options, it should be included.
They're probably repelling people by playing it really loudly and with horrible quality. Classical music has a lot of high notes and when played poorly it's a lot like listening to nails on a chalkboard.
That's exactly what the 7-11 that all the teenagers used to hang out in front of back in the late 80's where I grew up in Canada used to do. This is nothing new.
Google results for "tequila" (semi-randomly chosen search):
Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net Jose Cuervo Tequila Bar & Nightclub - All about Tequila - itequila.org The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra - The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra Tila Tequila A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila (Ep. 101) "Surprise! I Like Boys... In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico YouTube - Pee Wee Herman - Tequila
Bing results for "tequila":
Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net TEQUILA\ All about Tequila - itequila.org Jose Cuervo Tequila Travel Guide:Tequila, Jalisco, hotels, restaurants, activities... Tequila (The Webtender) In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila Culture In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico Tequila
Many of the results are the same. Where there are differences, I'd probably have to go with the Bing results. I mean, seriously, Bing gave me brands of tequila, tequila bars, and recipes that use tequila, while Google gave me a band, a TV show, and a YouTube video of Pee Wee Herman.
Note: I did both searches on the Canadian versions of Google and Bing, so YMMV.
Maybe even all but one of the posts will contain cuss-words.
All but two, actually.
Not only that, but of course this story gets tagged "censorship", even though the whole point of this is to merely ask people not to swear for one week. Absolutely no enforcement whatsoever is happening.
(Cue the "...for now" comments in 3... 2... 1...)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a silly waste of time, and I wonder if CA politicians don't have actual issues to attempt to address. But this is a huge non-story.
My initial reaction to this was "what, they don't have other search engines on the Internet?" I mean, I use Google myself, and I'm quite happy with it, but if it disappeared tomorrow I'd just start using something else.
Then I (gasp!) read TFA, which I know many (most?) of you won't do, so I'll fill you in on the part that the summary missed. The issue here isn't so much that they fear losing Google, but that they fear losing Google Scholar, which, as far as I can tell (although I've never used it), has no free (as in beer) alternatives.
Computers/technology isn't accurate in films but that is a small part of a much larger general rant in which all of the fields of anything are abused for your viewing pleasure.
The above modified statement is, in my opinion, much more accurate.
As a software developer/general nerd, I cringe whenever someone on screen starts talking about technology. As a private pilot, I cringe whenever someone on screen starts talking about aviation. I've watched movies with people from all kinds of professions who cringe when their particular area of expertise is represented on screen. And don't get me started on those painful scenes in which actors who obviously have never picked up a musical instrument in their life try to play the role of a musician.
On the aviation aspect, one of my personal favourites was a movie I saw years ago (can't remember what it was) in which someone is flying a single-engine Cessna, and occasionally "the bad guys" would call him on his cell phone, and he would shut off the engine when this happened because he didn't want them to know he was "coming for them". Every time he did this, the Cessna would nose down and start plummeting to the ground, just to add some suspense. Because, of course, an airplane couldn't possibly, you know, glide for a little while— especially not a Cessna, which is so prone to dropping like a rock without engine power.
The fact that the crime was committed against those who were themselves engaged in criminal acts may cause the courts to consider it a justified act committed to prevent a much greater crime (i.e. the theft of large amounts of taxpayer money).
I don't know about Latvia, but around here vigilantism isn't looked on too kindly by most courts.
I agree, "criminal" doesn't necessarily mean "bad". I kind of took it from your comment that you were implying he hadn't done anything criminal, because the leaked information should be public anyway. I'm just saying that, while leaking the information may not necessarily be criminal, and certainly isn't bad, obtaining it was definitely criminal, and there's not enough information to determine whether or not it was bad.
If there's any indication that Neo has done anything bad (other than choosing a really pretentious and unoriginal alias) I don't see it in TFA.
Then you must not have read this sentence, found in both TFA and TFS: "On the one hand of course he has stolen confidential data... and he actually has committed a crime."
Just because some of the information in some of the stolen documents should be made public doesn't change the fact that he stole the documents. Having a good reason to commit a crime doesn't make it not a crime. It might, in some circumstances, get you leniency in sentencing, but it's still a crime.
Also to play devil's advocate, there is another possibility. Maybe the school obtained evidence of the "bad behaviour" through other means entirely unrelated to the webcam spying. For example, maybe the student took a picture of himself engaging in the "bad behaviour", emailed it to a friend, and a teacher caught the friend looking at the picture in class. Or maybe the kid took his laptop back to the school for service and somebody found an image on the hard drive. Then, when confronted with his "bad behaviour", he decided to "expose" the school's webcam spying functionality as a smokescreen.
Just a thought. At this point, the whole story is 99% speculation with close to zero actual facts being released.
I thought I had read that they stated the laptop had been reported stolen, but looking back on the articles it looks like they only implied it. Specifically, the AP reports:
The suit does not say if his laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.
It seems like he meant to imply that the laptop had been reported stolen. Of course, an alternate explanation is that the image that was being used to target the student was not obtained via the webcam spying feature at all:
According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was "engaged in improper behavior in his home." She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph "embedded" in his school-issued laptop.
This almost sounds like they simply found an image on his hard-drive, and the webcam issue is unrelated. Of course, it's difficult to really know what a non-technical person is really saying when they talk about a "photograph" that's "embedded" in a laptop.
If the company is using it without her knowledge, then good on the IOC. Because that means the athlete is being taken advantage of by the company. If the company wants to be associated with the athlete, they should pay!
All they did was post a blog posting in which they discuss the coverage found on NBC's UniversalSports.com, and criticize the fact that it focuses on trivialities, such as Vonn's hair. The entire section mentioning Vonn's name follows:
They just posted a good rundown of the Woman's field disguised as story about the rivalry between top skiers (and best friends!) Lindsey Vonn and Maria Reisch.
You just have to get through the apparently compulsory attempt to dumb it down for the American audience, as in, "Perhaps the most significant difference between the two skiers, other than their hairstyles, is that Vonn has two overall World Cup titles and Riesch none."
That's it. They're not taking advantage of Ms. Vonn. They're not trying to become associated with her without paying. They're just talking about Olympic coverage in a blog post.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but even if you don't take the religious perspective, forced abortion would be taking away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore, forcing an abortion would be bad if you're "pro-choice", and also bad if you're "pro-life". Basically, no one wins.
As far as I can tell, it boils down to the fact that if you 'cure' someone, it implies that they were deficient to begin with, and a lot of deaf people object to the idea that they are deficient.
To me, that question comes down to individual choice. If Deaf Person A considers their deafness to not be a deficiency, then there's nothing to "cure", so let them be. If Deaf Person B considers their deafness to be a deficiency, then let them be "cured".
They didn't conceive the child naturally, they selected embryos to ensure deafness.
No, their first child, who is deaf, was conceived naturally. They want to have a second child using IVF, but are upset that a bill going through Commons would require "deaf" embryos to be automatically discarded.
Nevertheless, if a "deaf" embryo is chosen, and a deaf child is born, that child's only possibilities are to be born deaf, or to not be born. The parents would not have intentionally made the child deaf, they would have only intentionally not prevented the child from being born. This would be quite similar to a couple conceiving naturally, learning that the fetus was deaf, and choosing not to have an abortion. Would you want that child to sue the parents for "intentionally crippling" him/her?
...they're trying to make that something seem like it;s worth a lot more than it really is.
That's called advertising. Every company does it.
"Our product doesn't contain arsenic! It's Space Age technology(tm)! Now with electrolytes!
If people put a fraction of the time they spend on fake farms into a real business, they'd be rich.
There's a limited number of real-world businesses that can be successful. There's an unlimited number of virtual businesses that can be successful.
Also, starting an unsuccessful real-world business can mess up your life. Starting an unsuccessful virtual business wastes nothing but a few hours of your time.
Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general), this would also imply that movie and portable game copyright infringement is legal too, eh?
The law explicitly states that this applies to audio recordings only.
Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!
I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.
The levy already exists. This is merely an extension to it. The money is distributed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective to the various organizations that already handle royalties for everything else in the industry. In the case of songwriters, that means SOCAN.
So, if you're a struggling artist, and you have not handed your copyrights over to a record company, and you're a SOCAN member (membership is free, if I remember correctly), then you are eligible to receive part of this money.
It's a perfectly valid option. I used Avant for years because at the time IE did the best job of rendering the most websites, but I wanted advanced features that IE didn't provide (tabbed browsing, saved sessions, etc).
Today I use Firefox, but if someone prefers Avant, why not use it? So what if it's just a wrapper for IE. It's still a valid option, and if you're going to provide a comprehensive list of browser options, it should be included.
Yet most people think the country has got worse, and seem to blame the youth more and more.
You've just described every "older" generation in every country in the world all throughout human history.
They're probably repelling people by playing it really loudly and with horrible quality. Classical music has a lot of high notes and when played poorly it's a lot like listening to nails on a chalkboard.
That's exactly what the 7-11 that all the teenagers used to hang out in front of back in the late 80's where I grew up in Canada used to do. This is nothing new.
Google results for "tequila" (semi-randomly chosen search):
Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...
Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net
Jose Cuervo
Tequila Bar & Nightclub
- All about Tequila - itequila.org
The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra - The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra
Tila Tequila
A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila (Ep. 101) "Surprise! I Like Boys
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico
YouTube - Pee Wee Herman - Tequila
Bing results for "tequila":
Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...
Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net
TEQUILA\
All about Tequila - itequila.org
Jose Cuervo
Tequila Travel Guide:Tequila, Jalisco, hotels, restaurants, activities
Tequila (The Webtender)
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila Culture
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico
Tequila
Many of the results are the same. Where there are differences, I'd probably have to go with the Bing results. I mean, seriously, Bing gave me brands of tequila, tequila bars, and recipes that use tequila, while Google gave me a band, a TV show, and a YouTube video of Pee Wee Herman.
Note: I did both searches on the Canadian versions of Google and Bing, so YMMV.
I’ll wait until I can buy a surface as big as a full keyboard, with morphing tactile keys, and a full display surface beneath.
This is for mobile phones. You really want to carry a full-sized keyboard around with you everywhere you go?
That would be cool. Unfortunately they're not planning on selling it to you or me. They're only selling it to mobile phone manufacturers.
Maybe even all but one of the posts will contain cuss-words.
All but two, actually.
Not only that, but of course this story gets tagged "censorship", even though the whole point of this is to merely ask people not to swear for one week. Absolutely no enforcement whatsoever is happening.
(Cue the "...for now" comments in 3... 2... 1...)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a silly waste of time, and I wonder if CA politicians don't have actual issues to attempt to address. But this is a huge non-story.
My initial reaction to this was "what, they don't have other search engines on the Internet?" I mean, I use Google myself, and I'm quite happy with it, but if it disappeared tomorrow I'd just start using something else.
Then I (gasp!) read TFA, which I know many (most?) of you won't do, so I'll fill you in on the part that the summary missed. The issue here isn't so much that they fear losing Google, but that they fear losing Google Scholar, which, as far as I can tell (although I've never used it), has no free (as in beer) alternatives.
Computers/technology isn't accurate in films but that is a small part of a much larger general rant in which all of the fields of anything are abused for your viewing pleasure.
The above modified statement is, in my opinion, much more accurate.
As a software developer/general nerd, I cringe whenever someone on screen starts talking about technology. As a private pilot, I cringe whenever someone on screen starts talking about aviation. I've watched movies with people from all kinds of professions who cringe when their particular area of expertise is represented on screen. And don't get me started on those painful scenes in which actors who obviously have never picked up a musical instrument in their life try to play the role of a musician.
On the aviation aspect, one of my personal favourites was a movie I saw years ago (can't remember what it was) in which someone is flying a single-engine Cessna, and occasionally "the bad guys" would call him on his cell phone, and he would shut off the engine when this happened because he didn't want them to know he was "coming for them". Every time he did this, the Cessna would nose down and start plummeting to the ground, just to add some suspense. Because, of course, an airplane couldn't possibly, you know, glide for a little while— especially not a Cessna, which is so prone to dropping like a rock without engine power.
But breaking into computer systems was a crime before the DMCA, and will continue to be a crime even if the DMCA disappears tomorrow.
The fact that the crime was committed against those who were themselves engaged in criminal acts may cause the courts to consider it a justified act committed to prevent a much greater crime (i.e. the theft of large amounts of taxpayer money).
I don't know about Latvia, but around here vigilantism isn't looked on too kindly by most courts.
The DMCA is about copyright protection and reverse engineering. It has nothing to do with hacking into information systems to obtain data.
I agree, "criminal" doesn't necessarily mean "bad". I kind of took it from your comment that you were implying he hadn't done anything criminal, because the leaked information should be public anyway. I'm just saying that, while leaking the information may not necessarily be criminal, and certainly isn't bad, obtaining it was definitely criminal, and there's not enough information to determine whether or not it was bad.
If there's any indication that Neo has done anything bad (other than choosing a really pretentious and unoriginal alias) I don't see it in TFA.
Then you must not have read this sentence, found in both TFA and TFS: "On the one hand of course he has stolen confidential data... and he actually has committed a crime."
Just because some of the information in some of the stolen documents should be made public doesn't change the fact that he stole the documents. Having a good reason to commit a crime doesn't make it not a crime. It might, in some circumstances, get you leniency in sentencing, but it's still a crime.
Also to play devil's advocate, there is another possibility. Maybe the school obtained evidence of the "bad behaviour" through other means entirely unrelated to the webcam spying. For example, maybe the student took a picture of himself engaging in the "bad behaviour", emailed it to a friend, and a teacher caught the friend looking at the picture in class. Or maybe the kid took his laptop back to the school for service and somebody found an image on the hard drive. Then, when confronted with his "bad behaviour", he decided to "expose" the school's webcam spying functionality as a smokescreen.
Just a thought. At this point, the whole story is 99% speculation with close to zero actual facts being released.
I thought I had read that they stated the laptop had been reported stolen, but looking back on the articles it looks like they only implied it. Specifically, the AP reports:
The suit does not say if his laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.
It seems like he meant to imply that the laptop had been reported stolen. Of course, an alternate explanation is that the image that was being used to target the student was not obtained via the webcam spying feature at all:
According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was "engaged in improper behavior in his home." She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph "embedded" in his school-issued laptop.
This almost sounds like they simply found an image on his hard-drive, and the webcam issue is unrelated. Of course, it's difficult to really know what a non-technical person is really saying when they talk about a "photograph" that's "embedded" in a laptop.
(The above quotes are from this article.)
How is snapping a picture of a student, with _no_ stolen laptop, following in line with their stated security policy?
The school has claimed that the laptop had been reported stolen, and that they therefore enabled the security feature in accordance with their policy.
How it is possible that the laptop could have been reported stolen when it clearly wasn't has never been explained.
If the company is using it without her knowledge, then good on the IOC. Because that means the athlete is being taken advantage of by the company. If the company wants to be associated with the athlete, they should pay!
All they did was post a blog posting in which they discuss the coverage found on NBC's UniversalSports.com, and criticize the fact that it focuses on trivialities, such as Vonn's hair. The entire section mentioning Vonn's name follows:
They just posted a good rundown of the Woman's field disguised as story about the rivalry between top skiers (and best friends!) Lindsey Vonn and Maria Reisch.
You just have to get through the apparently compulsory attempt to dumb it down for the American audience, as in, "Perhaps the most significant difference between the two skiers, other than their hairstyles, is that Vonn has two overall World Cup titles and Riesch none."
That's it. They're not taking advantage of Ms. Vonn. They're not trying to become associated with her without paying. They're just talking about Olympic coverage in a blog post.