To some extent, it doesn't exactly matter whether he fully complies. Yes, destroying the files and getting it out of his hands is part of the purpose but there's a secondary purpose likely as well. It also establishes that should the images or video subsequently get released somewhere, that he's been in violation of the court order and would be liable not just for privacy issues (which can be hard to establish) but also for contempt of court.
Basically, raises the bar to disincentivize the behaviour.
The International Court of Justice can only hear cases between state parties, not criminal cases against specific individuals.
If you meant the International Criminal Court, the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over any events that took place before July 1, 2002 and the persons being charged have to be from a country that is a ratified signatory of the Rome Statute. In this particular case, the killings took place in the 1980s so the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction and Iraq is not a member of the Rome Statute.
I agree that the whole trial was very problematic, but what should have been done is the international community should have established another international criminal tribunal along the lines of Yugoslavia or Rwanda or a hybrid international / domestic tribunal along the lines of Sierra Leone.
You miss the point entirely. You are correct in that animals producing methane is nothing new. You are also correct that it is pushed by various organizations to further their own political agendas. But neither of those points leads logically to "methane from animal agriculture has no impact on global warming."
The fact is that methane is a greenhouse gas, and it is a greenhouse gas whether it comes from a factory or a cow. Reducing animal agriculture to augment the level of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere through other human activities is useful. Plus, as another respondent pointed out, animal agriculture includes other areas that have an impact on global warming such as deforestation. Rainforest beef (ie that coming out of Brazil) is one of the main motivations for the continued destruction of the rainforest.
As far as your point on why global warming wasn't happening in the 1800s, its because of the point that animal agriculture is only one component of global warming producing activities. It does have an impact, it's just that it wouldn't generally be enough on its own to cause the effects we are seeing. It's continued existance, however, does lower the amount of other greenhouse gases that humans can sustainably produce in other ways.
There is another missing aspect of this story though. Animal agriculture, when done on a relatively small scale and as part of a crop rotation scheme, resupplies the land with essential nutrients such as nitrogen that get consumed in crop production. Animal waste is more useful as fertilizer than as gasoline, though only to a certain quantity. Beyond that it is a social waste.
I would like to point out that this is a clear instance of trademark infringement. Please send me your ISP's contact information so that I may inform the BSA and Microsoft of your illegal activities. Thank you.
You do realize that abortion is considered by many to be tantamount to murder
While that may be true, the point that Thomas Frank (author of the book) makes is that the Republicans never really move to ban abortion. They may pull out legislation like the Partial Birth Abortion Ban but it really accomplishes nothing since it was already nigh impossible to find doctors willing to perform such abortions. In essence, the Republicans know they have captured this massive vote that will stick with them as long as A) the Democrats are seen as the pro-choice party and B) Abortion remains a political issue.
The point is, the Republicans are using the pro-life vote without any real intent to ban abortions altogether because they realize it would effectively implode the party. Without that solid one issue voting block the Republicans lose. So, as stated in the Epilogue of the book:
The state [Kansas] watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive every year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities say stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the pollilng place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes!
I also dont like how it doesn't automatically save in.doc or have an option to do so.
Tools -> Options -> Load/Save -> General
You can set the default file format to whatever you want from there. Also, I think OO.o actually prompts when you first install it now as to whether you want to use.doc or.sxw.
I could not find anything in it about a length of support for the software.
It's under the Termination Provision:
Intuit shall have the right to change or add to the terms of this Agreement at any time, and to change, discontinue or impose conditions on any feature or aspect of the Intuit Software, or any internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Intuit Software. Such changes shall be effective upon notification by any means reasonable to give you actual or constructive notice, or upon posting such terms in the Intuit Software, and your continued use of the Intuit Software will indicate your agreement to any such change. For the latest version of this Agreement go to www.quicken.com or such other site designated by Intuit.
It would probably depend mostly on the EULA that comes with Quicken. If there is a provision in there that lets Intuit disable features in the future or anything along those lines I would bet the customers are out of luck.
A suit could argue that the provision would be ineffective because it is unconsionable. Courts seem to be moving more and more to distrust of boilerplate provisions since they know noone reads them but that would still be a long shot argument. Unconsionability basically means that to accept the provision would shock judicial conscience. Whether disabling features in older software would do that is questionable.
Also, the article didn't mention anyone whose software has actually been disabled. If Intuit is just sending these notices out without intent to disable the bill paying feature I'm not sure what that would end up being.
>However, no one is associating copyright laws with human rights
That's not exactly true. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27 States:
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.'
...
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits'
Also, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 15.1, after reiterating the Universal Declaration above requires states to:
[take steps] necessary for the conservation, development, and diffusion of science and culture.
Granted, as a Human Rights issue, for better or for worse, copyright/Intellectual Property Issues are still low on the priority list. And a human rights approach to Copyright is different from a purely economic one, in that it focuses on the development of the general welfare of all people, not just creators, but the association of human rights and copyright/intellectual property is definitely present.
Check out OOo's page on OSX development at http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/timeline.html
Quoting the relevent section
What's holding back the Quartz and Aqua tracks?
To implement Quartz and Aqua, we will need to change APIs that are owned by different projects here at OOo, and the one we really do need to target is undergoing a major revamp (Toolkit2). These changes will affect all platforms, so we are working with gsl to get the hooks we need to complete a native port.
Aside from our compilation efforts, the majority of our work can't be completed until these APIs are in place or at least designed to a point where we can begin figuring out how to marry them to MacOS X. There is no active coding at this time. With limited testing and development resources, it is unwise to spend all of our efforts porting a "dead" API that would not allow our work to be incorporated into newer versions of the software. As such, any delivery estimates here should be considered "relative" to the time the APIs are completed.
All further development of the Quartz and Aqua tracks has been postponed until OpenOffice.org 2.0 due to gsl timeline. Initial delivery of 2.0 for Win32, Solaris, and Linux x86 expected in Q1 2005. Projected OS X X11 port availability expected to be Q2 2005. Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006.
In other words, native OSX is coming but right now all the API's are being rewritten so porting the old ones is a waste of time for the developers. Porting the new ones can't really begin until the API's are finished being designed. It's a pain and it's frustrating. I still recommend NeoOffice/J (http://www.neooffice.org/java/) to my OSX using friends if they don't have access to Word. It's native but still pretty ugly. Just saves on having to install X11.
What does that even mean? I know it's from Star Wars, but a parsec is a unit of distance, not time.
I guess it's possible that the Kessel run has some astronomical challenge that it must be done very quickly or a ship will actually have to travel farther to complete it. It just doesn't make much sense as a speed gauge though.
The question is how is the surveillance actually going to stop terrorism from taking place?
Take for instance the practice of racial profiling in certain places. There is a lot of evidence (some of it testimony from police officers themselves) stating that the practice actually hurts the ability of the police to protect the population. At the same time there are significant human rights problems with the practice.
Now, I'm not arguing that the surveillance in Athens will cause the same problem or violate people's rights in the same way but I think it's a valid question. Is the serveillance going to be used to violate human rights more than it will be used to protect people? It's all in how it is actually done.
I just tried the same thing in same thing on my Mandrake cooker laptop. Here's what happened:
First, I copied a number of cells from an excel document (opened in OpenOffice) and pasted them into a Gimp 2.0 text box. (Note: simply hitting paste outside of a text box in Gimp didn't do anything. I had to intentionally create a text box and paste the cells into there). Gimp kept the formatting and everything worked as a normal text box after that. I also tried pasting the cells into kpaint and that read the paste as a bitmap.
Next, I selected the whole image in Gimp and pasted it into a new OpenOffice document. The clipboard pasted what I expected, an image file.
Lastly, I selected the cells again and pasted them directly into an OpenOffice Document. OpenOffice does not paste the cells into a table, instead it creates a small spreadsheet embedded within the rest of the document. Admitedly, the embedded spreadsheet is a little clumsier than a simple table, but it is a lot more powerful too (it will keep formula functionality instead of pasting all the information as simple text).
All-in-all the copy-and-paste worked about as I would have expected. I think it would be nice if OO had a "paste special" for pasting cells as a table for very simple information but it's sort of irrelevent to me. Hope that's informative.
This is incorrect. QT is GPL'd, GTK is GPL'd - you have the identical rights to use either under the GPL. If a company wants to create a GPL'd application they can do so without buying a development license. Hell, they can even create a closed source application provided it doesn't directly include code from QT or its libraries.
The only difference is if a company wants to create and distribute a closed source application without conforming to the GPL then they can buy a QT license from TT. With GTK there is no option to create such an application.
Actually, I think we get to bill this all out to Yale's Lawmeme sight.
Then again, I'm sort of betting that Yale's law students could get them out of this.
-Brian
Unfortuantely, there was no way for Columbia to get tot the ISS even if they had known about the problem. The Columbia was the heaviest shuttle in the fleet and was incapable of getting to the orbit that ISS is at even if a mission called for it.
Also, when a shuttle mission is sent to the ISS they have to carry special equipment in the cargo area to actually connect the shuttle to ISS and transfer crew members. The Columbia obviously didn't have that kind of equipment along.
From what I understand, about the only thing they could have done had they known was a) try and launch another shuttle to evacuate the crew, or b) bring them down in Columbia and hope that the shuttle would hold together long enough for the crew to be able to use an escape hatch and parachute to the ground. The likelihood of getting another shuttle prepped in time was almost nill so it's quite possible that even if they did know they didn't really have an alternative anyway.
You're close, this is certainly a ploy to get around the agreement that they have with Microsoft.
The reason for using FreeDOS, however, has less to do with politics than it does with having to support whatever OS they ship the computer with. Dell knows that roughly.1% of the people who order these computers are actually going to use FreeDos (hell, they don't even pre-install freedos when they ship the computer) so it adds almost nothing to their support costs. If, however, they started shipping with Linux they would have to train support staff to deal with linux issues. That can get pricey quick.
The thing about the Matrix movies is that they were released in the same year which probably ended up splitting their vote. It's not that the effects were bad but half of those with votes that wanted the Matrix movies up for a nomination voted for Reloaded while the other half voted for Revolutions.
Unfortunately for the Matrix that meant that neither movie got enough votes for a nomination.
That's what I was thinking as well. Back in '91 Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were both up for best actress for Thelma & Louise but neither won because they split the vote. It happens with the Oscars.
*Cheap Shot* You mean like President Bush? *Cheap Shot*
". . . composed of a majority of countries governed by dictators can grant any legitimacy?"
I fail to see how the US going unilaterally offers any more legitimacy. The United States didn't even weigh the concerns of other nations that are impacted by this war. We made some very false attempts at getting permission but when it became apparent that the UN security council would not even show a majority approval (omitting the vetoes that were going to happen anyway) Bush decided that we didn't need any approval. This was our war and we were going to fight it one way or the other. How is that legitimate? We are a global body with global responsibilities, but part of that responsibility is responding to the concerns of other nations.
This is all aside from the fact that the war was fed to US citizens and the world under false pretenses. The UN weapons inspectors managed to find and destroy many more WMD than the US since the occupation. That doesn't seem to support the cause of legitimacy.
Now, don't get me wrong. Saddam was an attrociously evil ruler and I'm happy that he is no longer in power, however, this is not the way that diplomacy should be done in the modern era. Removing leaders simply because we do not like them is not a way to work in the global public's good. The US has a history of ignoring and supporting dictators that we simply seem to like better. What was so special about Saddam? I've yet to see any convincing evidence of his involvement in 9/11.
I'm still waiting to hear what exactly we have to lose by allowing the occupational force to be run by the UN.
"Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda."
The desire to have the UN involved in Iraq is to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy. To make it clear that this occupation isn't about the United States' ego and that it really is about helping Iraqi citizens. The inclusion of the UN could go a long way towards repairing the damage already done to the US's image and towards stopping the attacks on US soldiers happening every day. What do we stand to lose?
Added to this, US tax payers are currently funding almost the entirety of the occupation (which in my opinion is only right since we decided to go at it unilaterally). Getting the UN involved could lessen the burden on the already weak US economy.
As to your perception that it's the same people who oppose Bush's occupation plans that are against UN regulation of the Internet, three things.
First, Slashdot is a big place with lots of different people and viewpoints.
Second, the Internet isn't broken, it doesn't need guidance from a slow-moving organization like the UN, and there is little to be gained from having a global governing council in charge of Internet issues. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there is no single regulating agency that can control and monitor all content. Once that entity is formed the free form Internet that we all know and love will begin to break down.
Lastly, the UN isn't something to be considered universally good or universally bad. The UN does some good things and some bad things. The same person can both praise it what it does right and critique it for what it does wrong. You're "Us vs. Them" mentality is outdated for the modern world, there is no singular them to scream about.
Slashdot Mirror
To some extent, it doesn't exactly matter whether he fully complies. Yes, destroying the files and getting it out of his hands is part of the purpose but there's a secondary purpose likely as well. It also establishes that should the images or video subsequently get released somewhere, that he's been in violation of the court order and would be liable not just for privacy issues (which can be hard to establish) but also for contempt of court.
Basically, raises the bar to disincentivize the behaviour.
Agree with you on the user interface for Amarok post KDE 4. Thankfully, new releases allow you to return to essentially the KDE 3 user interface.
The International Court of Justice can only hear cases between state parties, not criminal cases against specific individuals.
If you meant the International Criminal Court, the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over any events that took place before July 1, 2002 and the persons being charged have to be from a country that is a ratified signatory of the Rome Statute. In this particular case, the killings took place in the 1980s so the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction and Iraq is not a member of the Rome Statute.
I agree that the whole trial was very problematic, but what should have been done is the international community should have established another international criminal tribunal along the lines of Yugoslavia or Rwanda or a hybrid international / domestic tribunal along the lines of Sierra Leone.
The fact is that methane is a greenhouse gas, and it is a greenhouse gas whether it comes from a factory or a cow. Reducing animal agriculture to augment the level of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere through other human activities is useful. Plus, as another respondent pointed out, animal agriculture includes other areas that have an impact on global warming such as deforestation. Rainforest beef (ie that coming out of Brazil) is one of the main motivations for the continued destruction of the rainforest.
As far as your point on why global warming wasn't happening in the 1800s, its because of the point that animal agriculture is only one component of global warming producing activities. It does have an impact, it's just that it wouldn't generally be enough on its own to cause the effects we are seeing. It's continued existance, however, does lower the amount of other greenhouse gases that humans can sustainably produce in other ways.
There is another missing aspect of this story though. Animal agriculture, when done on a relatively small scale and as part of a crop rotation scheme, resupplies the land with essential nutrients such as nitrogen that get consumed in crop production. Animal waste is more useful as fertilizer than as gasoline, though only to a certain quantity. Beyond that it is a social waste.
I would like to point out that this is a clear instance of trademark infringement. Please send me your ISP's contact information so that I may inform the BSA and Microsoft of your illegal activities. Thank you.
While that may be true, the point that Thomas Frank (author of the book) makes is that the Republicans never really move to ban abortion. They may pull out legislation like the Partial Birth Abortion Ban but it really accomplishes nothing since it was already nigh impossible to find doctors willing to perform such abortions. In essence, the Republicans know they have captured this massive vote that will stick with them as long as A) the Democrats are seen as the pro-choice party and B) Abortion remains a political issue.
The point is, the Republicans are using the pro-life vote without any real intent to ban abortions altogether because they realize it would effectively implode the party. Without that solid one issue voting block the Republicans lose. So, as stated in the Epilogue of the book:
Tools -> Options -> Load/Save -> General
You can set the default file format to whatever you want from there. Also, I think OO.o actually prompts when you first install it now as to whether you want to use .doc or .sxw.
It's under the Termination Provision:
A suit could argue that the provision would be ineffective because it is unconsionable. Courts seem to be moving more and more to distrust of boilerplate provisions since they know noone reads them but that would still be a long shot argument. Unconsionability basically means that to accept the provision would shock judicial conscience. Whether disabling features in older software would do that is questionable.
Also, the article didn't mention anyone whose software has actually been disabled. If Intuit is just sending these notices out without intent to disable the bill paying feature I'm not sure what that would end up being.
That's not exactly true. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27 States:
Also, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 15.1, after reiterating the Universal Declaration above requires states to:
Granted, as a Human Rights issue, for better or for worse, copyright/Intellectual Property Issues are still low on the priority list. And a human rights approach to Copyright is different from a purely economic one, in that it focuses on the development of the general welfare of all people, not just creators, but the association of human rights and copyright/intellectual property is definitely present.
Quoting the relevent section
In other words, native OSX is coming but right now all the API's are being rewritten so porting the old ones is a waste of time for the developers. Porting the new ones can't really begin until the API's are finished being designed. It's a pain and it's frustrating. I still recommend NeoOffice/J (http://www.neooffice.org/java/) to my OSX using friends if they don't have access to Word. It's native but still pretty ugly. Just saves on having to install X11.
-Brian
Correction: Wine Implements the Win32 API on Linux so that windows programs can be run.
I know it's basically the same thing in the big picture of things, but it is a fundamentally different approach.
What does that even mean? I know it's from Star Wars, but a parsec is a unit of distance, not time.
I guess it's possible that the Kessel run has some astronomical challenge that it must be done very quickly or a ship will actually have to travel farther to complete it. It just doesn't make much sense as a speed gauge though.
-Brian
The question is how is the surveillance actually going to stop terrorism from taking place?
Take for instance the practice of racial profiling in certain places. There is a lot of evidence (some of it testimony from police officers themselves) stating that the practice actually hurts the ability of the police to protect the population. At the same time there are significant human rights problems with the practice.
Now, I'm not arguing that the surveillance in Athens will cause the same problem or violate people's rights in the same way but I think it's a valid question. Is the serveillance going to be used to violate human rights more than it will be used to protect people? It's all in how it is actually done.
-Brian
I just tried the same thing in same thing on my Mandrake cooker laptop. Here's what happened:
First, I copied a number of cells from an excel document (opened in OpenOffice) and pasted them into a Gimp 2.0 text box. (Note: simply hitting paste outside of a text box in Gimp didn't do anything. I had to intentionally create a text box and paste the cells into there). Gimp kept the formatting and everything worked as a normal text box after that. I also tried pasting the cells into kpaint and that read the paste as a bitmap.
Next, I selected the whole image in Gimp and pasted it into a new OpenOffice document. The clipboard pasted what I expected, an image file.
Lastly, I selected the cells again and pasted them directly into an OpenOffice Document. OpenOffice does not paste the cells into a table, instead it creates a small spreadsheet embedded within the rest of the document. Admitedly, the embedded spreadsheet is a little clumsier than a simple table, but it is a lot more powerful too (it will keep formula functionality instead of pasting all the information as simple text).
All-in-all the copy-and-paste worked about as I would have expected. I think it would be nice if OO had a "paste special" for pasting cells as a table for very simple information but it's sort of irrelevent to me. Hope that's informative.
-Brian
This is incorrect. QT is GPL'd, GTK is GPL'd - you have the identical rights to use either under the GPL. If a company wants to create a GPL'd application they can do so without buying a development license. Hell, they can even create a closed source application provided it doesn't directly include code from QT or its libraries.
The only difference is if a company wants to create and distribute a closed source application without conforming to the GPL then they can buy a QT license from TT. With GTK there is no option to create such an application.
Brian
But does anyone know whatever happened to the Angry Pixels group? Did they dissolve?
Actually, I think we get to bill this all out to Yale's Lawmeme sight. Then again, I'm sort of betting that Yale's law students could get them out of this. -Brian
Unfortuantely, there was no way for Columbia to get tot the ISS even if they had known about the problem. The Columbia was the heaviest shuttle in the fleet and was incapable of getting to the orbit that ISS is at even if a mission called for it.
Also, when a shuttle mission is sent to the ISS they have to carry special equipment in the cargo area to actually connect the shuttle to ISS and transfer crew members. The Columbia obviously didn't have that kind of equipment along.
From what I understand, about the only thing they could have done had they known was a) try and launch another shuttle to evacuate the crew, or b) bring them down in Columbia and hope that the shuttle would hold together long enough for the crew to be able to use an escape hatch and parachute to the ground. The likelihood of getting another shuttle prepped in time was almost nill so it's quite possible that even if they did know they didn't really have an alternative anyway.
-Brian
You're close, this is certainly a ploy to get around the agreement that they have with Microsoft.
.1% of the people who order these computers are actually going to use FreeDos (hell, they don't even pre-install freedos when they ship the computer) so it adds almost nothing to their support costs. If, however, they started shipping with Linux they would have to train support staff to deal with linux issues. That can get pricey quick.
The reason for using FreeDOS, however, has less to do with politics than it does with having to support whatever OS they ship the computer with. Dell knows that roughly
Brian
The thing about the Matrix movies is that they were released in the same year which probably ended up splitting their vote. It's not that the effects were bad but half of those with votes that wanted the Matrix movies up for a nomination voted for Reloaded while the other half voted for Revolutions.
Unfortunately for the Matrix that meant that neither movie got enough votes for a nomination.
That's what I was thinking as well. Back in '91 Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were both up for best actress for Thelma & Louise but neither won because they split the vote. It happens with the Oscars.
"Please explain to me how an unelected body . . ."
*Cheap Shot* You mean like President Bush? *Cheap Shot*
". . . composed of a majority of countries governed by dictators can grant any legitimacy?"
I fail to see how the US going unilaterally offers any more legitimacy. The United States didn't even weigh the concerns of other nations that are impacted by this war. We made some very false attempts at getting permission but when it became apparent that the UN security council would not even show a majority approval (omitting the vetoes that were going to happen anyway) Bush decided that we didn't need any approval. This was our war and we were going to fight it one way or the other. How is that legitimate? We are a global body with global responsibilities, but part of that responsibility is responding to the concerns of other nations.
This is all aside from the fact that the war was fed to US citizens and the world under false pretenses. The UN weapons inspectors managed to find and destroy many more WMD than the US since the occupation. That doesn't seem to support the cause of legitimacy.
Now, don't get me wrong. Saddam was an attrociously evil ruler and I'm happy that he is no longer in power, however, this is not the way that diplomacy should be done in the modern era. Removing leaders simply because we do not like them is not a way to work in the global public's good. The US has a history of ignoring and supporting dictators that we simply seem to like better. What was so special about Saddam? I've yet to see any convincing evidence of his involvement in 9/11.
I'm still waiting to hear what exactly we have to lose by allowing the occupational force to be run by the UN.
"Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda."
The desire to have the UN involved in Iraq is to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy. To make it clear that this occupation isn't about the United States' ego and that it really is about helping Iraqi citizens. The inclusion of the UN could go a long way towards repairing the damage already done to the US's image and towards stopping the attacks on US soldiers happening every day. What do we stand to lose?
Added to this, US tax payers are currently funding almost the entirety of the occupation (which in my opinion is only right since we decided to go at it unilaterally). Getting the UN involved could lessen the burden on the already weak US economy.
As to your perception that it's the same people who oppose Bush's occupation plans that are against UN regulation of the Internet, three things.
First, Slashdot is a big place with lots of different people and viewpoints.
Second, the Internet isn't broken, it doesn't need guidance from a slow-moving organization like the UN, and there is little to be gained from having a global governing council in charge of Internet issues. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there is no single regulating agency that can control and monitor all content. Once that entity is formed the free form Internet that we all know and love will begin to break down.
Lastly, the UN isn't something to be considered universally good or universally bad. The UN does some good things and some bad things. The same person can both praise it what it does right and critique it for what it does wrong. You're "Us vs. Them" mentality is outdated for the modern world, there is no singular them to scream about.