IIRC, Roman law before Justinian is not normally considered in discussions of (modern) common law (i.e., one doesn't normally go back to the 12 Tables when discussiing precedents in a European court case - but I am not a lawyer).
Yes, it is, but the point is not to spoil the damned story, and if you get into a complete explanation of the voyage across the ice you pretty much ruin the impact of the book now, don't you. This isn't a review or a critical article, it's a teaser.
Ursula LeGuin wrote two absolutely classic SF novels:
The Dispossessed, about an anarcho-syndalicist society formed when the founders of their political movement were exiled to their planet's moon, and whose first visitor to the a couple of hundred years later is the most brilliant physicist in known space: a man who has figured out a very, very important issue in physics (which I will not reveal), and has numerous adventures that illustrate the homeworld's society (and also has contact with an alien ambassador from a very familiar planet).
The Left Hand of Darkness, about an alien ambassador visiting a planet whose inhabitants naturally change sex with each mating season, and so have a very fluid concept of "gender" - and who consider someone who sticks with one sex throughout life to be a pervert. There's some political intrigue, too, and a journey across an ice field.
She's probably most famous for A Wizard of Earthsea and its related books, which formed the basis of the miniseries being critiqued.
Exactly, in opposition to (e.g.) "Roman Law" (the basis of the Napoleonic Code and many other European-originated law codes), which comes out of Justinian. IANAL.
Come to think of it, though, nearly everyone who is doing work like this would (and yes, there are probably more English speakers in India than in any other country). So I conced that you have a point. But it is nevertheless a better idea to have people do data entry if they don't know the language, if you are dealing with a simple writing system like Latin/English.
Nice try, but not all billion people in India speak English, as I know from visiting friends who have guests who don't speak English. But thank you for playing.
I don't see how they can impose a royalty on the TEXT of a book from their special collections, if the book was published before 1923. On their images (product of their scanning), sure, as they create the images and so own the copyright on the images; but they don't own the copyright on the original books.
I suspect that on a word-to-word basis, the LoC would come out ahead: many of the items in the BL might be very short (for instance, is each papyrus fragment counted as a separate item? Many of those have only part of one word on them.). At any rate, the claim that Harvard Libraries is second only to the LoC would only be credible if they're talking about the US, because I'm pretty sure that both the BL and the Bibliotheque Nationale are bigger that Harvard Libraries.
He just OCRed it, that's all. Seriously, there's a reason that stuff is sent to Asia to be hand-input rather than OCRed: someone typing a language they don't know is always more accurate than OCR, and therefore the practice reduces editing time. (Someone typing a language they DO know is a different issue: they tend to "improve" things, albeit unintentionally: they read "affect" and type "effect," etc.)
Once again, the only response to a detailed factual posting is an "overrated" (and hence un-metamoderated) moderation. Those of you who are doing this should realize that it is reflecting upon the courage (or more precisely *lack* of courage) of your partisans, especially when dealing with facts. So here it is again (I'll happily burn karma to get out the truth): the Abu Ghraib story was primarily investigated by Seymour Hersh and published in The New Yorker, and The New Yorker reached 1,000,000 circulation for the first time in the same period in which those articles were published. So no, reporting Abu Ghraib is not likely to cause anyone's circulation to go down. Why anyone would object to reporting on Abu Ghraib, when the president himself has wisely condemned what happened there (disproving once and for all the claims that he's stupid), is beyond me. Now, go ahead, mod me down with another "overrated," so you can prove that the only way you can win in the court of public opinion is by trying to prevent people from hearing the other side of the argument.
I suppose you are saying that all conservative publications are growing in circulation, even anti-Bush ones. The Economist reluctantly endorsed Kerry in the last election. It explicitly cited the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as one of its reasons:
But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.
Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)
So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.
This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!
I think you're reading that wrong; I think "last listed owner" refers to the actual owner, and "registrant" to the first person to file with a claim of ownership. Try this page.
The interesting questions are 1. would global warming lead to increased or decreased desertification? 2. how would global warming affect tropical ecologies? 3. would the reduction of the polar caps lead to raising or lowering the ocean levels and what would the effects of that be (remember that a great deal of that ice is stacked up on land - on Antarctica, Greenland, and the Canadian and Siberian arctic, and not just sea ice)? 4. would global warming STOP at some reasonable temperature, or would it spin out of control and completely destroy the ecosystem (and thus, us)?
Five little words: Richard Milhouse Nixon and Watergate. One president was impeached for an illegal coverup of illegal election practices, and he was a Republican.
By the way, do you know what the difference is between your precious George W. and Dick Cheney on the one hand, and Teddy Kennedy vis a vis Mary Jo Kopechne? George W. didn't crash off a bridge when he was arrested for drunk driving (in Kennebunkport, Maine). (Cheney was in his early twenties, so we'll excuse him that bit of stupidity; but W. was 30). By the way, what is this impunity nonsense? Kennedy was CONVICTED, SENTENCED, and served his SENTENCE (it may have been a suspended sentence, but he served it) in the Chappaquidick crash.
Mozilla is multi-licensed, or at least it was last time I checked (several years ago). Netscape (and then AOL) made sure of that for just this reason, I suspect.
Those people have spent more time in Washington than many politicians, trying to lobby for money and support.
This is the second occasion on which you have resorted to argumentum ad verecundiam. I'd suggest you refrain from using it further, it simply weakens your arguments.
Otherwise, yes, I agree that the president's numbers are unrealistically low. They need to be raised, dramatically. As are his numbers for Iraq, and pretty much every other program he's proposed. It's a long-time Republican tactic, and folks should call them on it more often.
"Zero-sum game" certainly does apply. What I'm saying is that the APS should be arguing far more vehemently for increases in overall funding, to permit the new programs to be fully funded while leaving existing programs at reasonable funding levels. An excellent place to start would be by cutting the anti-ballistic missile programs (i.e., Star Wars II) and raising taxes on those who benefit the most from this kind of research (for instance, a surtax on CEO bonuses). What they're doing is going ahead and letting the president have his no-income-stream, wild-and-useless "defense" programs, and saying "hell, you can't have a manned space program unless you cannibalize the money from us, so you shouldn't have one." At least, that is what I understand to be the thrust of their argument; if you have references from the conclusions that show my understanding to be false, please feel free to provide them.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, Roman law before Justinian is not normally considered in discussions of (modern) common law (i.e., one doesn't normally go back to the 12 Tables when discussiing precedents in a European court case - but I am not a lawyer).
Yes, it is, but the point is not to spoil the damned story, and if you get into a complete explanation of the voyage across the ice you pretty much ruin the impact of the book now, don't you. This isn't a review or a critical article, it's a teaser.
Good luck, Dwight. Sorry if I helped to make your day a living hell.
Wow, that's a great typo: should be anarcho-syndicalist. Sorry.
Ursula LeGuin wrote two absolutely classic SF novels:
The Dispossessed, about an anarcho-syndalicist society formed when the founders of their political movement were exiled to their planet's moon, and whose first visitor to the a couple of hundred years later is the most brilliant physicist in known space: a man who has figured out a very, very important issue in physics (which I will not reveal), and has numerous adventures that illustrate the homeworld's society (and also has contact with an alien ambassador from a very familiar planet).
The Left Hand of Darkness, about an alien ambassador visiting a planet whose inhabitants naturally change sex with each mating season, and so have a very fluid concept of "gender" - and who consider someone who sticks with one sex throughout life to be a pervert. There's some political intrigue, too, and a journey across an ice field.
She's probably most famous for A Wizard of Earthsea and its related books, which formed the basis of the miniseries being critiqued.
I'm guessing her next blog posting will be a complaint about Slashdot.
Exactly, in opposition to (e.g.) "Roman Law" (the basis of the Napoleonic Code and many other European-originated law codes), which comes out of Justinian. IANAL.
Come to think of it, though, nearly everyone who is doing work like this would (and yes, there are probably more English speakers in India than in any other country). So I conced that you have a point. But it is nevertheless a better idea to have people do data entry if they don't know the language, if you are dealing with a simple writing system like Latin/English.
Nice try, but not all billion people in India speak English, as I know from visiting friends who have guests who don't speak English. But thank you for playing.
I don't see how they can impose a royalty on the TEXT of a book from their special collections, if the book was published before 1923. On their images (product of their scanning), sure, as they create the images and so own the copyright on the images; but they don't own the copyright on the original books.
I suspect that on a word-to-word basis, the LoC would come out ahead: many of the items in the BL might be very short (for instance, is each papyrus fragment counted as a separate item? Many of those have only part of one word on them.). At any rate, the claim that Harvard Libraries is second only to the LoC would only be credible if they're talking about the US, because I'm pretty sure that both the BL and the Bibliotheque Nationale are bigger that Harvard Libraries.
He just OCRed it, that's all. Seriously, there's a reason that stuff is sent to Asia to be hand-input rather than OCRed: someone typing a language they don't know is always more accurate than OCR, and therefore the practice reduces editing time. (Someone typing a language they DO know is a different issue: they tend to "improve" things, albeit unintentionally: they read "affect" and type "effect," etc.)
Once again, the only response to a detailed factual posting is an "overrated" (and hence un-metamoderated) moderation. Those of you who are doing this should realize that it is reflecting upon the courage (or more precisely *lack* of courage) of your partisans, especially when dealing with facts. So here it is again (I'll happily burn karma to get out the truth): the Abu Ghraib story was primarily investigated by Seymour Hersh and published in The New Yorker, and The New Yorker reached 1,000,000 circulation for the first time in the same period in which those articles were published. So no, reporting Abu Ghraib is not likely to cause anyone's circulation to go down. Why anyone would object to reporting on Abu Ghraib, when the president himself has wisely condemned what happened there (disproving once and for all the claims that he's stupid), is beyond me. Now, go ahead, mod me down with another "overrated," so you can prove that the only way you can win in the court of public opinion is by trying to prevent people from hearing the other side of the argument.
But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.
Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)
So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.
This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!
The US can
Thank you all for making me feel like less of an idiot. I did this very thing when I first started using PGP many years ago.
I think you're reading that wrong; I think "last listed owner" refers to the actual owner, and "registrant" to the first person to file with a claim of ownership. Try this page.
You mean Cobalt. My Tungsten runs Garnet.
The interesting questions are 1. would global warming lead to increased or decreased desertification? 2. how would global warming affect tropical ecologies? 3. would the reduction of the polar caps lead to raising or lowering the ocean levels and what would the effects of that be (remember that a great deal of that ice is stacked up on land - on Antarctica, Greenland, and the Canadian and Siberian arctic, and not just sea ice)? 4. would global warming STOP at some reasonable temperature, or would it spin out of control and completely destroy the ecosystem (and thus, us)?
Always assuming that Labor retains control of the government, of course. Good posting.
Yes, you're right, not sure why I said something that stupid. He was being investigated for impeachment, but resigned.
Five little words: Richard Milhouse Nixon and Watergate. One president was impeached for an illegal coverup of illegal election practices, and he was a Republican.
By the way, do you know what the difference is between your precious George W. and Dick Cheney on the one hand, and Teddy Kennedy vis a vis Mary Jo Kopechne? George W. didn't crash off a bridge when he was arrested for drunk driving (in Kennebunkport, Maine). (Cheney was in his early twenties, so we'll excuse him that bit of stupidity; but W. was 30). By the way, what is this impunity nonsense? Kennedy was CONVICTED, SENTENCED, and served his SENTENCE (it may have been a suspended sentence, but he served it) in the Chappaquidick crash.
I believe EyeTV also will interrupt the end of a program to catch the beginning of the next, but I haven't quite figured out which it is yet.
Mozilla is multi-licensed, or at least it was last time I checked (several years ago). Netscape (and then AOL) made sure of that for just this reason, I suspect.
See my latest response to Jef1K. My point is that just going along with the process is wrong, they should be fighting the way the money is allocated.
Those people have spent more time in Washington than many politicians, trying to lobby for money and support.
This is the second occasion on which you have resorted to argumentum ad verecundiam. I'd suggest you refrain from using it further, it simply weakens your arguments.
Otherwise, yes, I agree that the president's numbers are unrealistically low. They need to be raised, dramatically. As are his numbers for Iraq, and pretty much every other program he's proposed. It's a long-time Republican tactic, and folks should call them on it more often.
"Zero-sum game" certainly does apply. What I'm saying is that the APS should be arguing far more vehemently for increases in overall funding, to permit the new programs to be fully funded while leaving existing programs at reasonable funding levels. An excellent place to start would be by cutting the anti-ballistic missile programs (i.e., Star Wars II) and raising taxes on those who benefit the most from this kind of research (for instance, a surtax on CEO bonuses). What they're doing is going ahead and letting the president have his no-income-stream, wild-and-useless "defense" programs, and saying "hell, you can't have a manned space program unless you cannibalize the money from us, so you shouldn't have one." At least, that is what I understand to be the thrust of their argument; if you have references from the conclusions that show my understanding to be false, please feel free to provide them.