So perhaps we should wait until it is too hot to grow corn in Iowa or wheat in Kansas. Or maybe we should wait until the last global warming denier dies of heat stroke, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or freedom to be as ignorant as they choose.
Before convicting people of crimes.........yes you should.
Alternately, you can pass some laws so they know what laws to avoid breaking. In a nation of laws, we don't convict people before the break a law.
Simply linking to data though is not copyright infringement
This is not "simply linking to data" and you know it.
So if the public rightfully believes....
"Belief" doesn't enter into copyright law.
URLs are already a loop hole in copyright law in many countries. This would widen that hole since the entire copyrighted work could even theoretically be contained within a very long URL.
This is like a nerd dream that lacks understanding of how the law works.
In other words voluntarily lock yourself into a walled garden? But isn't one of the biggest advantages of Android the freedom to install anything you want from any place you want?
I'm not sure why the significance of voluntarily escapes you.
That's because of large deposit Exxon puts in your bank account every quarter, right shill?
If I'm a shill, then explain why I'm wrong. Prove the point clearly, then mock me with derision at my obvious lies, so no one respects me any more.
Merely accusing people of being a shill is so weak.
It’s obvious that you guys are engineers and not lawyers. You don’t need to prove global warming caused the damage, you only have to pursuade a jury of ignorant citizens.
Heh.......it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and haven't done much research. Not every court case has a jury. Check out United States v. Philip Morris, a RICO case that was decided by a judge, not a jury.
a friend who noticed a lot of strange activity coming from my phone's IP — sorry, I don't have the logs, but he pointed out that there were pings coming from my phone to a lot of sketchy addresses — which pretty much seals the deal.
Pull out WireShark and see what's getting sent. I consider advertisers to be "sketchy addresses," and I think your friend is probably a noob if he didn't show you what was in the packets.
If you're not interested in doing that, then just factory reset your phone.
Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for.
Fraud. The cigarette companies were damaging people by intentionally deceiving them (and advertising to kids). So, to get a settlement from this, you'll need to show that:
1) Oil companies (or whoever) intentionally lied about what their scientists told them, or told their scientists to produce studies with the 'correct' result. I've skimmed through some of the documents provided by the link, and I'm not sure I see evidence of that.
2) They have to prove that someone was damaged. The cigarette companies didn't lose because they lied, they lost because their lies damaged people. The link says there are threats of future damage, but doesn't present evidence of any actual damage. That's something they will have to fix.
It's not illegal, unethical, or wrong to fund science. It's a good thing, even if oil companies do it. It's only unethical when they require a specific result, or otherwise pressure the scientist. The more funding we have for science, the better.
The RICO against the cigarette companies was a "think of the children" thing. The companies were accused of:
1) Marketing to minors
2) Advertising "low-tar" cigarettes as safer (when they knew they weren't)
3) Manipulating nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive
Yes, misleading the public on scientific research was part of it, but by itself, I don't think they would have had success. Especially since by 1999, everyone knew cigarettes were dangerous. The government needed to prove that damage had been done.
If you chaps don't mind the energy and oil companies audited... and the financial paperwork of Koch brothers political bribery and campaign contribution schemes checked out...
No one opposes that, and any large energy/oil company already gets audited.
the Russian language often has a letter 'k' where English words would have a letter 'c'.
Specifically, Russian doesn't have the nonsense where the letter 'c' can sometimes make an 's' sound, and sometimes a 'k' sound.
In Russian, 'k' is always 'k' and 'c' is always 's'. Very consistent.
Interestingly, the RICO lawsuit against the cigarette companies was a civil action, it wasn't criminal (which is why it didn't go to jury), the purpose was to recover damages caused by AGW.
The problem here is proving that the actions of climate change deniers has caused any monetary damages that can be recovered.
RICO allows a private citizen to sue for racketeering damages, they don't need to wait. They can file their own lawsuit.
The problem is, they'll need to show that someone was damaged. So far, there has been no damage that you can point to and say, "This was caused by global warming."
If you post a link to a tweet with a serial number are you committing piracy? If the website has a widget which then embeds the tweet are you worse or better off? If you post a URL which has the serial number in the URL... are you then just sharing a link or are you sharing the content? Does Google's URL shortener bare any legal responsibility under safe harbor for taking down URLs that contain copyrighted material?
Sometimes geeks think they can get around laws with this kind of 'clever' trickery, but the answer is no, if you are purposely sharing copyrighted material in the URLs, then you are still liable.
Steve Wozniak actively tried to build a fake bomb at school. When the principal found it ticking, he ran with it to the football field and ripped the wires off. Wozniak started laughing when he heard it, but they sent him to juvy. While there, he taught the other prisoners how to "disconnect the wires leading to the ceiling fans and connect them to the bars so people got shocked when touching them."
The principal in Woz's case deserves real credit for risking his life to save kids from a bomb. Principal today? Not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
You're gonna have to sleep that off somehow, so who cares???
Better to sleep 8 hours than 22 hours.
I would, but the price is kind of expensive.
If they added it to other routes, I would be even happier.
it should always be beyond a reasonable doubt..
It's likely to be a civil case, which means you don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt (for various reasons).
Oh and by the way there is pretty good empirical evidence that people don't take cancer into account when choosing addictive drugs.
I can totally believe that, but if you have research, it would certainly entertain me to see it.
So perhaps we should wait until it is too hot to grow corn in Iowa or wheat in Kansas. Or maybe we should wait until the last global warming denier dies of heat stroke, so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or freedom to be as ignorant as they choose.
Before convicting people of crimes.........yes you should.
Alternately, you can pass some laws so they know what laws to avoid breaking. In a nation of laws, we don't convict people before the break a law.
Simply linking to data though is not copyright infringement
This is not "simply linking to data" and you know it.
So if the public rightfully believes ....
"Belief" doesn't enter into copyright law.
URLs are already a loop hole in copyright law in many countries. This would widen that hole since the entire copyrighted work could even theoretically be contained within a very long URL.
This is like a nerd dream that lacks understanding of how the law works.
In other words voluntarily lock yourself into a walled garden? But isn't one of the biggest advantages of Android the freedom to install anything you want from any place you want?
I'm not sure why the significance of voluntarily escapes you.
That's because of large deposit Exxon puts in your bank account every quarter, right shill?
If I'm a shill, then explain why I'm wrong. Prove the point clearly, then mock me with derision at my obvious lies, so no one respects me any more.
Merely accusing people of being a shill is so weak.
It’s obvious that you guys are engineers and not lawyers. You don’t need to prove global warming caused the damage, you only have to pursuade a jury of ignorant citizens.
Heh.......it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and haven't done much research. Not every court case has a jury. Check out United States v. Philip Morris, a RICO case that was decided by a judge, not a jury.
You're speculating, because you don't like oil companies. In court you have to give a preponderance of evidence.
a friend who noticed a lot of strange activity coming from my phone's IP — sorry, I don't have the logs, but he pointed out that there were pings coming from my phone to a lot of sketchy addresses — which pretty much seals the deal.
Pull out WireShark and see what's getting sent. I consider advertisers to be "sketchy addresses," and I think your friend is probably a noob if he didn't show you what was in the packets.
If you're not interested in doing that, then just factory reset your phone.
Exactly. I've already seen friends whom I'd otherwise consider very intelligent
That's why you should never friend/unfriend anyone based on politics or global warming. It turns otherwise reasonable fellows into irrational fools.
Simply saying you're against it is just speech, so I'm trying to figure out what they're going to RICO them for.
Fraud. The cigarette companies were damaging people by intentionally deceiving them (and advertising to kids). So, to get a settlement from this, you'll need to show that:
1) Oil companies (or whoever) intentionally lied about what their scientists told them, or told their scientists to produce studies with the 'correct' result. I've skimmed through some of the documents provided by the link, and I'm not sure I see evidence of that.
2) They have to prove that someone was damaged. The cigarette companies didn't lose because they lied, they lost because their lies damaged people. The link says there are threats of future damage, but doesn't present evidence of any actual damage. That's something they will have to fix.
It's not illegal, unethical, or wrong to fund science. It's a good thing, even if oil companies do it. It's only unethical when they require a specific result, or otherwise pressure the scientist. The more funding we have for science, the better.
is the Director of Climate Change Communication,
I'm seriously questioning why a university feels the need to have a Director of Climate Change Communication.
The RICO against the cigarette companies was a "think of the children" thing. The companies were accused of:
1) Marketing to minors
2) Advertising "low-tar" cigarettes as safer (when they knew they weren't)
3) Manipulating nicotine levels to make cigarettes more addictive
Yes, misleading the public on scientific research was part of it, but by itself, I don't think they would have had success. Especially since by 1999, everyone knew cigarettes were dangerous. The government needed to prove that damage had been done.
If you chaps don't mind the energy and oil companies audited... and the financial paperwork of Koch brothers political bribery and campaign contribution schemes checked out...
No one opposes that, and any large energy/oil company already gets audited.
the Russian language often has a letter 'k' where English words would have a letter 'c'.
Specifically, Russian doesn't have the nonsense where the letter 'c' can sometimes make an 's' sound, and sometimes a 'k' sound.
In Russian, 'k' is always 'k' and 'c' is always 's'. Very consistent.
Interestingly, the RICO lawsuit against the cigarette companies was a civil action, it wasn't criminal (which is why it didn't go to jury), the purpose was to recover damages caused by AGW.
The problem here is proving that the actions of climate change deniers has caused any monetary damages that can be recovered.
scamming the government out of grants
That seems unlikely, as long as they actually did the research they said they would do.
RICO allows a private citizen to sue for racketeering damages, they don't need to wait. They can file their own lawsuit.
The problem is, they'll need to show that someone was damaged. So far, there has been no damage that you can point to and say, "This was caused by global warming."
The sad thing is that none of them work very well. But at least some don't spy on you horribly.
EA could be a bigger problem.
Yeah, EA has problems making their titles work right on Windows.
If you post a link to a tweet with a serial number are you committing piracy? If the website has a widget which then embeds the tweet are you worse or better off? If you post a URL which has the serial number in the URL... are you then just sharing a link or are you sharing the content? Does Google's URL shortener bare any legal responsibility under safe harbor for taking down URLs that contain copyrighted material?
Sometimes geeks think they can get around laws with this kind of 'clever' trickery, but the answer is no, if you are purposely sharing copyrighted material in the URLs, then you are still liable.
Steve Wozniak actively tried to build a fake bomb at school. When the principal found it ticking, he ran with it to the football field and ripped the wires off. Wozniak started laughing when he heard it, but they sent him to juvy. While there, he taught the other prisoners how to "disconnect the wires leading to the ceiling fans and connect them to the bars so people got shocked when touching them."
The principal in Woz's case deserves real credit for risking his life to save kids from a bomb. Principal today? Not so much.
Oh come on, it's usually not that hard. Start by turning off the TV and heading to the library.