But the FCC has no right to force private property owners to allow the university to do something just because it has police and a military to back up their decision. Its utterly arbitrary.
UTD is NOT a "private property owner". It is an arm of the government of the state of Texas and it operates pursuant to the authority granted it by that state.
The FCC could not prevent a private landlord from prohibiting WiFi devices in a lease. It probably could not prevent UTD from prohibiting them in a lease either. But that's not what's happening here. This is a "school policy", which people are just now receiving notice of.
If this were a private school, it wouldn't be a problem. But since this is regulation by a state organization, the FCC ruling trumps it.
I don't speak Portuguese, but I did a quick text search on the page you linked to. The word "Diebold" does not appear anywhere on that page.
I am inclined to think that your system is probably more reliable than what ours will be... and we're not just using it for municipal elections either. We're using it--for only the first or second time in most states--in a Presidential election.
An appeals court ruled that Yahoo is not protected from French legal attacks due to Nazi-related items sold on Yahoo's auction site.
That's not what the court held at all. They simply ruled that Yahoo can't sue a Frenchman in the US for suing him in France. Any other result would be absurd and an affront to French sovereignty.
The French plaintiff still cannot enforce his judgment in American courts, so American sovereignty is not affected.
Whoa there cowboy.... Where do you think things like "political correctness" and "hate speech" came from?
Interesting that you call them "things", when really, they are just words.
Both of those came from the left, and both of those ARE "policing your language use".
People are free to criticize what they consider to be "hate speech", and you are free to criticize them for saying so.
Neither of you is policing anyone.
It's true that there are some misguided (IMO) laws against "hate crimes". But those laws go to intent, not speech. And they only apply when there is a violent crime involved.
OTOH, conservatives frequently propose constitutional amendments to directly limit expression and other personal rights.
"Political correctness" et al, may be asinine and irritating, but it is not "policing".
Most of us are happy to let you say whatever you want... If what you say is bullshit, we will argue with you... but no true liberal would say that your speech should be "completely exterminated".
There are, however, plenty of people on the right who want to tell you what you can or cannot say, what you can or cannot do in your own bedroom, what magazines you may read, which movies you may watch, who you can marry, et cetera.
It is true of any group that you will find immoderate wackos, and this includes liberals... but as far as wanting to limit your freedoms, the right has an overabundance.
Why do you think the ACLU is often mistaken for a "liberal organization"? Because liberals usually agree that your constitutional rights should be preserved or even extended. Whereas conservatives (while claiming to be against big government) often want to amend the Constitution to ban whatever personal expressions or activities that they don't like.
You have every right to make unsupported generalizations about "the left". But I also have every right to tell you that you're wrong. If you mistake that for trying to have you "completely exterminated", then maybe it's because you really are wrong.
Is this a smart business move, or a violation of the GPL?
Uhm, how about neither.
GPL is just a license. If Novell owns the copyright, they can release the work under as many different licenses as they please.
But asking people to sign over their ownership to you, and later using it in a proprietary product defeats the purpose of the GPL (encouraging contributions) and is pretty horrible PR.
The only good thing about this is that they are telling people in advance that they will do it, instead of surprising them afterwards.
She's famous* now. Would she be able to use this against any future printings of the book?
Heh. No. The measure of damages for that claim is the value of the use. In other words, what that person could have charged for the use. The "fair market value" if you will.
Her fame has only come about as a result of the book, instead of the other way around.
Royalties? No. If she were famous, she could sue for misappropriation of her "likeness". But that only applies if the use of her likeness was already commercially valuable.
OTOH, I think she has a great case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Using the name of someone's personal website as the title of a book about child sexual abuse certainly qualifies as "outrageous and offensive".
She would also have to show "severe emotional distress." But I don't think that would be too difficult considering that she had pictures of her own children on the site before she started getting emails from pedophiles.
Pretty much all of mainland Europe follows the civil law tradition. Generally, only those countries having roots in the British Empire follow the common law tradition.
The state of Louisiana still carries some remaining vestiges of the civil law tradition, which it inherits via its history as a French territory.
Slashdot Mirror
UTD is NOT a "private property owner". It is an arm of the government of the state of Texas and it operates pursuant to the authority granted it by that state.
The FCC could not prevent a private landlord from prohibiting WiFi devices in a lease. It probably could not prevent UTD from prohibiting them in a lease either. But that's not what's happening here. This is a "school policy", which people are just now receiving notice of.
If this were a private school, it wouldn't be a problem. But since this is regulation by a state organization, the FCC ruling trumps it.
Guess who writes the laws...
I don't speak Portuguese, but I did a quick text search on the page you linked to. The word "Diebold" does not appear anywhere on that page.
I am inclined to think that your system is probably more reliable than what ours will be... and we're not just using it for municipal elections either. We're using it--for only the first or second time in most states--in a Presidential election.
That's not what the court held at all. They simply ruled that Yahoo can't sue a Frenchman in the US for suing him in France. Any other result would be absurd and an affront to French sovereignty.
The French plaintiff still cannot enforce his judgment in American courts, so American sovereignty is not affected.
The First Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
That would be a pretty big difference.
Ever since the government started taxing us, it has been forcing us to pay for the privilege of being spied on.
If that were the case, those relying on the GPL would be in for a big surprise.
Interesting that you call them "things", when really, they are just words.
Both of those came from the left, and both of those ARE "policing your language use".
People are free to criticize what they consider to be "hate speech", and you are free to criticize them for saying so.
Neither of you is policing anyone.
It's true that there are some misguided (IMO) laws against "hate crimes". But those laws go to intent, not speech. And they only apply when there is a violent crime involved.
OTOH, conservatives frequently propose constitutional amendments to directly limit expression and other personal rights.
"Political correctness" et al, may be asinine and irritating, but it is not "policing".
At some point in every Congressional term, a Republican proposes a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
I think once in each Congressional term is sufficient to qualify as "often".
The left is not about policing your language use.
Most of us are happy to let you say whatever you want... If what you say is bullshit, we will argue with you... but no true liberal would say that your speech should be "completely exterminated".
There are, however, plenty of people on the right who want to tell you what you can or cannot say, what you can or cannot do in your own bedroom, what magazines you may read, which movies you may watch, who you can marry, et cetera.
It is true of any group that you will find immoderate wackos, and this includes liberals... but as far as wanting to limit your freedoms, the right has an overabundance.
Why do you think the ACLU is often mistaken for a "liberal organization"? Because liberals usually agree that your constitutional rights should be preserved or even extended. Whereas conservatives (while claiming to be against big government) often want to amend the Constitution to ban whatever personal expressions or activities that they don't like.
You have every right to make unsupported generalizations about "the left". But I also have every right to tell you that you're wrong. If you mistake that for trying to have you "completely exterminated", then maybe it's because you really are wrong.
Until they put on the Schwarzenneger costume and start travelling back to the present.
<not-so-subtle irony>
Apparently Slashdot is just a bunch of over-zealous Microsoft nuts.
</not-so-subtle irony>
Well, you know. At least they did something about Janet Jackson's nipple.
Distributing Windows as a legitimate use??? Windows is like a cancer. Thus, it's spread should never be considered legitimate.
A better example of bittorrent used for a legitimate purpose: Linux ISOs.
Instead of running an "emulation layer" (like Cygwin) or a "PC virtulization" (like vmWare), you could be running Linux alongside Windows.
Though it's a young project, I have been playing with it quite a bit, and haven't run into any problems re stability.
It might be faster than Cygwin too.
Uhm, how about neither.
GPL is just a license. If Novell owns the copyright, they can release the work under as many different licenses as they please.
But asking people to sign over their ownership to you, and later using it in a proprietary product defeats the purpose of the GPL (encouraging contributions) and is pretty horrible PR.
The only good thing about this is that they are telling people in advance that they will do it, instead of surprising them afterwards.
Heh. No. The measure of damages for that claim is the value of the use. In other words, what that person could have charged for the use. The "fair market value" if you will.
Her fame has only come about as a result of the book, instead of the other way around.
OTOH, I think she has a great case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Using the name of someone's personal website as the title of a book about child sexual abuse certainly qualifies as "outrageous and offensive".
She would also have to show "severe emotional distress." But I don't think that would be too difficult considering that she had pictures of her own children on the site before she started getting emails from pedophiles.
Find your AGs contact info here.
And for good measure, copy, paste, and submit your letter to the National Association of Attorneys General here.
And if the AG in your state is not independently elected, send a copy to your governor as well.
Oh wait! This is slashdot, never mind.
a few hundred or thousand bucks on eye surgery... or you could get a pair of eyeglasses online for less than $20.
Your courts follow stare decisis (respect of court precedent in addition to statute). Thus, you have fallen in line with the rest of us.
Pretty much all of mainland Europe follows the civil law tradition. Generally, only those countries having roots in the British Empire follow the common law tradition. The state of Louisiana still carries some remaining vestiges of the civil law tradition, which it inherits via its history as a French territory.
What kind of backwards universe do you live in?
Where I come from, if you have special knowledge and experience in something, you are in the perfect position to talk about it.
I suppose you think Stephen Hawking is in no position to talk about black holes?
TBS is Turner's company in name only. He does not own it directly, and his indirect ownership in TBS's parent company is now down to 1.1%.