I have two life based definitions. After all, humans view most things from the human perspective.
Life definition: A planet is any body which is sustaining life on an indefinite or permanent basis. Under this definition, a small asteroid or comet which contains cellular life which is doing it's thing would be a planet, if such exists.
Human centric definition: A planet is any body on which humans or humanic entities are indefinitely or permanently living, whether or not using technology to enable it. Under this definition, only the Earth is a planet so far, but Mars, Venus, the moon, and even Mercury could potentially become planets.
The second definition agrees well with the Kirk test mentioned above.
Remember, the US is not below "moving people" to more cooperative jurisdictions.
What he said is true. It remains beyond me that courts have said "yes, the kidnapping of the defendant was illegal" and yet, because the defendant is in court, the court can proceed because physical presence gives them jurisdiction. At least, this is how it works in the US when foreigners are involved. US Citizens have protections.
I'd just like to add that I don't think this is a crime that should have got the DA involved.
My reasoning is that the computers were given as part of the school's activities, as part of a mandatory program, if I understand correctly.
Since schools are de facto guardians of students while the students are under their control, they are effectively parents. I believe it's termed in loco parentis.
Anyway, a DA would not get involved if a kid hacked his parent's computers - it would be a domestic issue in most cases. So I say the school should handle it this way as well. If it's bad enough, then expulsion. But not a felony charge. That's not right. Kids will be kids, and schools should shoulder the responsibility, since the law requires parents to surrender their kids to them.
was suspended for violating school rules once.
is a fun story to tell now.
You've hit the nail on the head regarding filetrading not being wrong, at least socially.
Generations have grown up in the US taping music off of the radio and sharing albums with friends. Now with the Internet, it's just easier.
That is why the people of the US don't see anything wrong in p2p - it's basically what was done for decades, only easier, and can be done without knowing the people. But it's the same idea.
Actually, intelligence can exist in many forms. It is quite possible for a doctor to be a medical genius but incompetent as far as learning computer technology is concerned. Just as it is possible for a person to be a genius in both areas.
Of course, there is no reason to hold dumbness in a non-medical area against a doctor. But there are doctors who are dumb in non-medical areas just as there are Presid^H^H^H^H^H^H people who are dumb in business who have MBAs.
(I hit on the President as it seems conclusively proven that he was a failure at running companies. As was Truman, IIRC).
Actually, each of the four allies got a section of Berlin. After the Berlin wall, in effect there was the western part and the Russian part. The military of all the allies were able to pass freely into each other's zones at will. Though, not without occasional pot shots at each other.
Oh, Stalin got about 1/2 of Berlin which always confused me.
Lived in Berlin before the wall came down. Was weird riding the subway through the abandoned subway stops (actually inoperative but staffed with Soviet soldiers).
At first I didn't like your analogy, but after thinking I think you're on the right track. I'm feeling pedantic, so here's my take on an accurate analogy. Basically, you take the actual story, substitute car for laptop, father for administration, and sons for students.
What you get is: A father decides, for some reason that helps his sons, to give each son a car. Since we're talking ibooks in the actual story, the car can be as you chose, a BMW. But the father puts a limiter on each car that only allows the car to be driven 5 blocks from their house. The car will refuse to be driven past 5 blocks with the limiter engaged. The limiters have a password bypasses, though, which the father has on a slip of paper taped to the back of the sunvisor. Simply by normal use of the car, each son will inevitably see the password.
One by one, sons disengage the limiters and begin using their cars to go outside the 5 block radius. Eventually, they are all doing it (natural human trait - if he can do it so will I).
When the father resets the passwords (how, I don't know, by wireless?), the sons use hacking tools to determine what the new passwords are.
There, a very close analogy using cars. Without some exception, the law is against the kids.
To me, this is simply a property rights situation. The traditional battle between owners who wish to limit use of their property that must be used by others and the desire of normal people to use property entrusted to them to the fullest extent that can benefit them.
It's clear in the US whose side the law is on.
This reminds me of a situation in tort law. Obviously, people who are injured by equipment they use at work can sue and win damages if they're injured by unsafe equipment. Also, if the employer puts safety measures into effect, and the employees are injured by disabling the safety measures, often the employer is not liable. Employers are liable in such situations, however, when they entice the employees to disable the safety measures. I.e., an employer puts in safety measures which slow the worker down, but then has a bonus regime which favors high production. Since the employee can make higher production by disabling the safety device, the employee does and gets injured. In such situations, the employer is ususally liable even though they officially forbit the disablement.
I doubt it's possible, but what if the students could prove they needed the extra power which came from having the administrative password in order to properly carry out assignments given to them by the school? Very unlikely this would be the case, and unlikely the students actually used the passwords in any way to further their school studies (they were teenage boys, after all), but I toss it out there as an idea.
His name is Les Bishop. Phone number and address are on the pdf linked to in the article.
You know, filing a DMCA claim on an obviously trademark issues seems either grossly incompetent or, more likely, a frivilous claim. In the latter case, it would be an ethics violation for sure. Lawyers are under a duty to report violations of fellow attorneys, so I hope someone reports this if there is any violation.
On another front, I've been in court with FedEx. Hate them now. They lost a package of mine and refused to reimburse me so I had to sue. Then they had the gall to tell me that I had complained to the wrong company or it would have been handled right away. Something about FedEx having 4 companies. I had called the claim number on my paperwork - so how did I get the "wrong" company?
(Hates it that they own Kinko's now, since I have to use Kinko's occasionally.)
If you don't want to keep the book, then buy the ebook if
E If you want to keep the book, or the book will change editions after the course (and thus the bookstore won't rebuy it), then buy the ebook if
E Of course, if you want to carry the book around as a reference after school (to the office and back occasionally), then I'd guess the ebook option might not be valid at all (didn't read the FA to see if you could change machines after purchase).
Making the algorithms public would greatly improve their usefullness as tools. At present, we are left to determine by feel / intuition (based on multiple searches over time) how searches work. For simple things like whether both singular and plural versions of terms are included in the results, this can easily be determined in a few searches (I know most search engines do tell you this much in their search tips page, but bear with me). But for more complex techniques, users may never get the correct idea of what is happening. Not to mention that search algorithms are changed usually without notice.
All search engines are tools, nothing more. Exclusively using one or the other means that in some circumstances, you are not using the best tool for the job. No search engine does everything the best. But not knowing the algorithms used means there is a learning curve to determine which is best for which type of search.
We will never be told the algorithms used in most cases, however, for obvious reasons.
Just finished the bar. Don't remember it from Constitutional law but for the bar, we studied the fundimental rights pretty thoroughly. The right to privacy is a fundamental, if implied, right which in turn leads to other rights - the right to marry, to procreate, to use contraceptives, to have an abortion, etc.
So for now, it is alive and well in theory.
But scotus has taken rights that once were fundamental and reclassified them as not (forget which ones right now). So it comes down to what the scotus du jure thinks.
There was a guy in my law classes who, after 911, kept saying that we may have passed into an era where privacy must be sacrificed. I don't think it is necessary and hope he was wrong.
Related comment - last year I reported some vandalism on my property. I refused to fill out the fields for age, race, hair and eye color, etc. The police called me and refused to enter the report (I did it online) unless I provided that information. I said "why? You know where I live and I was the victim (sort of - my property was)" Their reply? "The FBI won't like it." Scary.
* where there is a triving underground that kills you and takes your implant and becomes you until the next time they need to change identities in order to evade the law or get access to funds.
Why don't we just reeducate Americans to enjoy the taste of dog and cat? Lots of good protein going to waste there. We could just eat the unwanted animals. This would save the US from the horrors of wild dogs and cats and increase our food supply thus staving off starvation of the poor.
Everybody wins. Well, except the dogs and cats, but the goverment puts them to sleep anyway.
The weird thing about this is that, what, Disney would lose copyright in a few ancient filmettes. Steamboat Willy and some others. It's not like they would lose the exclusive right to Mickey Mouse himself as I'm sure Mickey is trademarked. (Isn't he?, too lazy to check right now)
I'm wondering when the last time was they made money from Steamboat Willy?
Pox on Samuel Clemmens and his advocacy for extended copyrights. All for his two daughters who were apparently too ugly to get married.
I am a past examiner and I can tell you that every examiner has production quotas. Their bosses (called supervisory patent examiners) get bonuses if all their people do over set amounts (e.g. up to 110% of quota), so some bosses really ratchet up the pressure. The guy that hired me even made me orally agree to do 110% of quota before hiring me.
Additionally, though, the bosses get alot of power. In training we were told to do things one way, but if our bosses wanted the opposite, we were to do that instead. Some bosses are great, to the point that people even have second jobs (maybe not now, but some did when I was there) and goof off at the USPTO, getting their quotas on one or two days work. Other bosses are from hell and get very personal on people, refusing to sign off on their work and requiring them to redo things time and again. There is NO way to meet quota when your boss refuses to sign off on your work, at least until you reach primary examiner status. People in such situations generally had no recourse, especially as the bosses could prevent transfer requests, so the people were forced to leave or be fired. And upper management had a "hands off" policy so no help there.
I literally know of dozens of good examiners who were forced out by recalcitrant bosses, including several primaries.
On the other hand, if you have a good boss and get into a schedule where you can get your work done in less than 40 hours a week, the USPTO can be very difficult to leave.
It is very obvious that the USPTO management doesn't care about examiner attrition. If they did, they would have figured out safeguards against it long ago. But why should they? After all, there are always people wanting jobs there, if not birth Americans, then all the Vietnamese, Indians, and Ethiopians who have gotten their citizenships. And it's not like the companies are going to go away - no matter how long it takes to get a patent, there is only one source for patents. And congress can't do much - the USPTO is self-funded, congress can't force the USPTO to improve beyond what they are doing without more money, and congress isn't about to supply that. So I think the system is stuck without some enlightened new management.
Illegals with children who are US citizens are undeportable.
This is not true. AFAIK (from an immigration class), US citizen children are virtually no bar to deportation. The main exception is if deportation would be an extreme hardship on the child.
... as it represents a substantial cost in lost ticket sales.
Dude, this is called arbitration. A buys something, but doesn't use it up, so A sells it to B. Disney hasn't lost anything - they were already paid for the days A couldn't use.
If they prevent B from buying A's unused tickets and force B to buy a new ticket that means they're double dipping.
Not a moral thing to do. But of course, in the good old USA, this is not only legal, it's the thing to do. Profits uber alles.
This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.
I think, to take it further, it would be if the developer in your city left the front door open with a sign out front having the floor plan. Or even a lock on the door and the code on the sign.
Of course, everyone moving in will take the sign down and shut and lock the door. Who wouldn't? That's cause everyone knows how. The difference with the wifi is that not everyone knows how, and there are likely alot who don't even realize there's a problem with leeching.
If the owner knows how to secure his network, then his not securing it could arguably be an invitation. But if he doesn't know how to secure it, then his not securing it can not be considered an invitation.
I'm so with you but I think the logic goes as such:
Child pornography costs money (I assume so, never have had a taste for it nor would pay for it even if I did). So, the more people who buy it, the more demand there is, so there's incentive to make more to get repeat business.
Seems to me that if the real concern is ONLY to not endanger children - then why doesn't the government create really good simulation software and simulate child pornography? Those who want to see child pornography get what they want, and the government gets what it wants since no children have to be abused anymore.
I'm sure such logic wouldn't prevail, though, since someone would come up with the equivalent of the 'marijuana is a stepping stone drug' argument - that viewing child pornography inevitably leads to actual child molestation.
Slashdot Mirror
Life definition: A planet is any body which is sustaining life on an indefinite or permanent basis. Under this definition, a small asteroid or comet which contains cellular life which is doing it's thing would be a planet, if such exists.
Human centric definition: A planet is any body on which humans or humanic entities are indefinitely or permanently living, whether or not using technology to enable it. Under this definition, only the Earth is a planet so far, but Mars, Venus, the moon, and even Mercury could potentially become planets.
The second definition agrees well with the Kirk test mentioned above.
What he said is true. It remains beyond me that courts have said "yes, the kidnapping of the defendant was illegal" and yet, because the defendant is in court, the court can proceed because physical presence gives them jurisdiction. At least, this is how it works in the US when foreigners are involved. US Citizens have protections.
Linky goodness.
Sure you want to say that?
Oh, I'm out of context again.
My reasoning is that the computers were given as part of the school's activities, as part of a mandatory program, if I understand correctly.
Since schools are de facto guardians of students while the students are under their control, they are effectively parents. I believe it's termed in loco parentis.
Anyway, a DA would not get involved if a kid hacked his parent's computers - it would be a domestic issue in most cases. So I say the school should handle it this way as well. If it's bad enough, then expulsion. But not a felony charge. That's not right. Kids will be kids, and schools should shoulder the responsibility, since the law requires parents to surrender their kids to them.
was suspended for violating school rules once.
is a fun story to tell now.
Generations have grown up in the US taping music off of the radio and sharing albums with friends. Now with the Internet, it's just easier.
That is why the people of the US don't see anything wrong in p2p - it's basically what was done for decades, only easier, and can be done without knowing the people. But it's the same idea.
That's what the **AA are fighting,
Of course, there is no reason to hold dumbness in a non-medical area against a doctor. But there are doctors who are dumb in non-medical areas just as there are Presid^H^H^H^H^H^H people who are dumb in business who have MBAs.
(I hit on the President as it seems conclusively proven that he was a failure at running companies. As was Truman, IIRC).
Actually, each of the four allies got a section of Berlin. After the Berlin wall, in effect there was the western part and the Russian part. The military of all the allies were able to pass freely into each other's zones at will. Though, not without occasional pot shots at each other.
Oh, Stalin got about 1/2 of Berlin which always confused me.
Lived in Berlin before the wall came down. Was weird riding the subway through the abandoned subway stops (actually inoperative but staffed with Soviet soldiers).
What you get is: A father decides, for some reason that helps his sons, to give each son a car. Since we're talking ibooks in the actual story, the car can be as you chose, a BMW. But the father puts a limiter on each car that only allows the car to be driven 5 blocks from their house. The car will refuse to be driven past 5 blocks with the limiter engaged. The limiters have a password bypasses, though, which the father has on a slip of paper taped to the back of the sunvisor. Simply by normal use of the car, each son will inevitably see the password.
One by one, sons disengage the limiters and begin using their cars to go outside the 5 block radius. Eventually, they are all doing it (natural human trait - if he can do it so will I).
When the father resets the passwords (how, I don't know, by wireless?), the sons use hacking tools to determine what the new passwords are.
There, a very close analogy using cars. Without some exception, the law is against the kids.
To me, this is simply a property rights situation. The traditional battle between owners who wish to limit use of their property that must be used by others and the desire of normal people to use property entrusted to them to the fullest extent that can benefit them.
It's clear in the US whose side the law is on.
This reminds me of a situation in tort law. Obviously, people who are injured by equipment they use at work can sue and win damages if they're injured by unsafe equipment. Also, if the employer puts safety measures into effect, and the employees are injured by disabling the safety measures, often the employer is not liable. Employers are liable in such situations, however, when they entice the employees to disable the safety measures. I.e., an employer puts in safety measures which slow the worker down, but then has a bonus regime which favors high production. Since the employee can make higher production by disabling the safety device, the employee does and gets injured. In such situations, the employer is ususally liable even though they officially forbit the disablement.
I doubt it's possible, but what if the students could prove they needed the extra power which came from having the administrative password in order to properly carry out assignments given to them by the school? Very unlikely this would be the case, and unlikely the students actually used the passwords in any way to further their school studies (they were teenage boys, after all), but I toss it out there as an idea.
So where did the other 2.25bn - 790m = 1.46b come from? I'm guessing from country contributions which came from their taxpayers.
So do the taxpayors of these countries get to use all of these words too?
You know, filing a DMCA claim on an obviously trademark issues seems either grossly incompetent or, more likely, a frivilous claim. In the latter case, it would be an ethics violation for sure. Lawyers are under a duty to report violations of fellow attorneys, so I hope someone reports this if there is any violation.
On another front, I've been in court with FedEx. Hate them now. They lost a package of mine and refused to reimburse me so I had to sue. Then they had the gall to tell me that I had complained to the wrong company or it would have been handled right away. Something about FedEx having 4 companies. I had called the claim number on my paperwork - so how did I get the "wrong" company?
(Hates it that they own Kinko's now, since I have to use Kinko's occasionally.)
If you don't want to keep the book, then buy the ebook if
E If you want to keep the book, or the book will change editions after the course (and thus the bookstore won't rebuy it), then buy the ebook if
E Of course, if you want to carry the book around as a reference after school (to the office and back occasionally), then I'd guess the ebook option might not be valid at all (didn't read the FA to see if you could change machines after purchase).
God, mod this guy up. This is the only reasonable comment I've seen so far.
All search engines are tools, nothing more. Exclusively using one or the other means that in some circumstances, you are not using the best tool for the job. No search engine does everything the best. But not knowing the algorithms used means there is a learning curve to determine which is best for which type of search.
We will never be told the algorithms used in most cases, however, for obvious reasons.
So for now, it is alive and well in theory.
But scotus has taken rights that once were fundamental and reclassified them as not (forget which ones right now). So it comes down to what the scotus du jure thinks.
There was a guy in my law classes who, after 911, kept saying that we may have passed into an era where privacy must be sacrificed. I don't think it is necessary and hope he was wrong.
Related comment - last year I reported some vandalism on my property. I refused to fill out the fields for age, race, hair and eye color, etc. The police called me and refused to enter the report (I did it online) unless I provided that information. I said "why? You know where I live and I was the victim (sort of - my property was)" Their reply? "The FBI won't like it." Scary.
The spending and the necessary and proper clauses?
* where there is a triving underground that kills you and takes your implant and becomes you until the next time they need to change identities in order to evade the law or get access to funds.
Why don't we just reeducate Americans to enjoy the taste of dog and cat? Lots of good protein going to waste there. We could just eat the unwanted animals. This would save the US from the horrors of wild dogs and cats and increase our food supply thus staving off starvation of the poor. Everybody wins. Well, except the dogs and cats, but the goverment puts them to sleep anyway.
I'm wondering when the last time was they made money from Steamboat Willy?
Pox on Samuel Clemmens and his advocacy for extended copyrights. All for his two daughters who were apparently too ugly to get married.
I am a past examiner and I can tell you that every examiner has production quotas. Their bosses (called supervisory patent examiners) get bonuses if all their people do over set amounts (e.g. up to 110% of quota), so some bosses really ratchet up the pressure. The guy that hired me even made me orally agree to do 110% of quota before hiring me.
Additionally, though, the bosses get alot of power. In training we were told to do things one way, but if our bosses wanted the opposite, we were to do that instead. Some bosses are great, to the point that people even have second jobs (maybe not now, but some did when I was there) and goof off at the USPTO, getting their quotas on one or two days work. Other bosses are from hell and get very personal on people, refusing to sign off on their work and requiring them to redo things time and again. There is NO way to meet quota when your boss refuses to sign off on your work, at least until you reach primary examiner status. People in such situations generally had no recourse, especially as the bosses could prevent transfer requests, so the people were forced to leave or be fired. And upper management had a "hands off" policy so no help there.
I literally know of dozens of good examiners who were forced out by recalcitrant bosses, including several primaries.
On the other hand, if you have a good boss and get into a schedule where you can get your work done in less than 40 hours a week, the USPTO can be very difficult to leave.
It is very obvious that the USPTO management doesn't care about examiner attrition. If they did, they would have figured out safeguards against it long ago. But why should they? After all, there are always people wanting jobs there, if not birth Americans, then all the Vietnamese, Indians, and Ethiopians who have gotten their citizenships. And it's not like the companies are going to go away - no matter how long it takes to get a patent, there is only one source for patents. And congress can't do much - the USPTO is self-funded, congress can't force the USPTO to improve beyond what they are doing without more money, and congress isn't about to supply that. So I think the system is stuck without some enlightened new management.
/ex patent examiner
This is not true. AFAIK (from an immigration class), US citizen children are virtually no bar to deportation. The main exception is if deportation would be an extreme hardship on the child.
Used to be a way to stay, not now.
Dude, this is called arbitration. A buys something, but doesn't use it up, so A sells it to B. Disney hasn't lost anything - they were already paid for the days A couldn't use.
If they prevent B from buying A's unused tickets and force B to buy a new ticket that means they're double dipping.
Not a moral thing to do. But of course, in the good old USA, this is not only legal, it's the thing to do. Profits uber alles.
I think, to take it further, it would be if the developer in your city left the front door open with a sign out front having the floor plan. Or even a lock on the door and the code on the sign.
Of course, everyone moving in will take the sign down and shut and lock the door. Who wouldn't? That's cause everyone knows how. The difference with the wifi is that not everyone knows how, and there are likely alot who don't even realize there's a problem with leeching.
If the owner knows how to secure his network, then his not securing it could arguably be an invitation. But if he doesn't know how to secure it, then his not securing it can not be considered an invitation.
Child pornography costs money (I assume so, never have had a taste for it nor would pay for it even if I did). So, the more people who buy it, the more demand there is, so there's incentive to make more to get repeat business.
Seems to me that if the real concern is ONLY to not endanger children - then why doesn't the government create really good simulation software and simulate child pornography? Those who want to see child pornography get what they want, and the government gets what it wants since no children have to be abused anymore.
I'm sure such logic wouldn't prevail, though, since someone would come up with the equivalent of the 'marijuana is a stepping stone drug' argument - that viewing child pornography inevitably leads to actual child molestation.
Why was this reposted from here?