You can do those things with a laptop, but form factor does make a difference. The laptop form is great if you're going to be doing a lot of typing, especially if you're going to be sitting at a desk or table. It's not so convenient if you're going to be sitting in an easy chair passively enjoying content. I bought an iPod Touch a few months ago, and found that when I'm home I often end up doing simple tasks like checking email on it, rather than my laptop or desktop computers. The iPod starts instantly, and it's more convenient to grab it and take it into the living room than the laptop. The screen is small, but if I'm just going to read a few emails and check Facebook it's more convenient than lugging the laptop and mouse around.
The analogies are important here, because this is a legal argument. Besides written laws, there are judicial decisions covering thinks like the privacy of an item in a locked briefcase, or of material stored on a landlord's premises. By making analogies to these things, the author is arguing that the principles in those judicial decisions should be applied to cloud storage as well. If that argument succeeds, it may not be necessary to make any new laws at all, just to correctly interpret the existing ones.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure from the wording that the "opaque case" idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions. It's an important principle, even for cryptography: it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can. By encrypting your data, you did more than just secure it, you also made it private, in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private, even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked.
Strange. Maybe I'm misreading something, but the deletion logs don't show any sign that the article on Metz on the English Wikipedia was ever deleted. Nor the redirects "Metz, France" and "Ville de Metz". I believe what you say, but can't verify it. I was hoping to check whether the person who wrote what you described was an admin, or just a random vandal deleting the text.
The current article on Metz was started in 2002.
I don't think wrongful blocks are very common. In a typical case, I would think a "contributing normal user" would drop the admin a polite note requesting he/she reconsider, and would be quickly unblocked. The conditions under which admins are allowed to block users are pretty well established—they are not supposed to be blocking people arbitrarily, and are supposed to try to be impartial. There are appeal mechanisms available if the blocking admin is unwilling to reconsider. Wrongful blocks are more of a problem with new users, who may not know what to do.
Note that admins do not permanently "delete" or ban a user for a single offense. Even outright vandalism typically gets a 24 hour block the first time, and even then only after several warnings. Admins who abuse their tools can and do get de-admined.
Thanks for replying, and I understand about keeping your identities separate. Sorry if my reply was too gruff. Mistakes do happen, and I agree that when they do, it alienates people. Your case may not be typical, though. A lot of the dissatisfaction with Wikipedia that I see here on/. seems to come from people who want to edit in a way that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. People come in and make disruptive changes or are rude to other editors, and react badly when others try to guide them in the right direction. Blocks are an important part of the system; they keep the project on track and prevent the encyclopedia from being drowned in a flood of vandalism and trolling.
Link, please. My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.
The numbers aren't as high as you think. There were 46 pediatric influenza deaths in the 2005–06 season, for example. The numbers since then have been higher: 78, 88, and 115 for the 06–07, 07–08, and 08–09 seasons, respectively. It's a bit of a stretch to say that 43 is about the same number as usually die, but it's not that big a stretch.
The answer to most of those is "yes, exactly like that". This is why scientists do controlled experiments. A simple observation that Y follows X is not reliable and useful data. Progress is made by doing controlled experiments that ensure X and Y are correlated, rule out other possible causes of Y, and explore the boundaries of X.
That's not likely to happen. It's much easier to add a capability that already exists in the human genome, than it is to add a capability that only exists in other animals, or not at all. Besides getting the genetics of the photoreceptor right, the brain has to have the right wiring to interpret the resulting signals. Get it wrong, and at best the new visual receptors won't work. Complete blindness would not be the worst possible outcome, either.
You and other readers of this thread might be interested in the Political Compass. The thesis is that politics is better described in a two-dimensional space.
I did look through it before I posted. I get it. My point is that the book shouldn't contain any pictures of 9/11, because that is not an example of a disaster that a child today is likely to hear about on the news or encounter personally. It was a one-shot event almost eight years ago.
Banning knives and boxcutters on planes was probably useful too. Yes, lots of dangerous stuff can still get on, but the restrictions make it harder for a terrorist to threaten the passengers into submission.
Closing the "secure" areas of airports to people who don't have tickets was probably a good idea too. Many other countries already did this before 9/11, but it took 9/11 to change the policy here in the US.
Yes, but the kids who were traumatized by 9/11 are now at least 12 years old. They don't need a coloring book to help them process any residual emotions about the event. A coloring book to help kids deal with traumatic experiences is a good idea, but it should have pictures of traumatic events that may be relevant to those kids. It's not very likely that kids are again going to experience airplanes flying into twin towers, so images of that event are not particularly useful. The book should be re-issued with more relevant images replacing the 9/11-specific ones.
You're confusing criminal and civil law. There is no prosecution or defense in a civil case.
That aside, you've misunderstood the RIAA strategy. They file John Doe claims so they can subpoena records from the ISPs that identify who the defendants are. Once they know who the defendant is, they can proceed with a normal case. The RIAA bends the rules in multiple ways in the course of doing this, but the dodgy part is not the John Doe claim itself, but other details in how they go about it.
Nice straw man argument. That publishing house is presumably not engaging in copyright infringement or in helping others to do so. For an organization that does help people to infringe on copyrights to call itself "Pirate Bay" is pretty good evidence that they knew their service would be used to infringe on copyrights, and that they intended that to be the case.
What you name a place has NOTHING to do with the law behind it. You can't be convicted based on what you called something, unless the name itself is somehow illegal.
Except that the name may indicate intent. I don't know about Swedish law, but in the legal systems I'm familiar with one of the requirements to prove a crime is to prove intent. A website that helps people to violate copyright might be legal if the operator is unaware that it is being used for that purpose, and does not intend for the site to be used that way. Take the same site and name it "Pirate Bay", and it may become illegal, because the name of the site is evidence that that operators intended the site to aid in violating copyright.
There seems to be a distinction your argument is missing. There is a difference between providing a link to copyrighted material, that some user happens to copy, and providing a collection of links to copyrighted material with the intent of providing a resource for users who wish to copy such material. In the latter case, you are clearly aiding in copyright infringement. If the court is satisfied that this aid is deliberate and done with foreknowledge, it seems perfectly reasonable that it should be punishable.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do those things with a laptop, but form factor does make a difference. The laptop form is great if you're going to be doing a lot of typing, especially if you're going to be sitting at a desk or table. It's not so convenient if you're going to be sitting in an easy chair passively enjoying content. I bought an iPod Touch a few months ago, and found that when I'm home I often end up doing simple tasks like checking email on it, rather than my laptop or desktop computers. The iPod starts instantly, and it's more convenient to grab it and take it into the living room than the laptop. The screen is small, but if I'm just going to read a few emails and check Facebook it's more convenient than lugging the laptop and mouse around.
Note that he didn't say "fully" blind. Perhaps he meant legally blind. One can be legally blind and still have some vision.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure from the wording that the "opaque case" idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions. It's an important principle, even for cryptography: it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can. By encrypting your data, you did more than just secure it, you also made it private, in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private, even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked.
Strange. Maybe I'm misreading something, but the deletion logs don't show any sign that the article on Metz on the English Wikipedia was ever deleted. Nor the redirects "Metz, France" and "Ville de Metz". I believe what you say, but can't verify it. I was hoping to check whether the person who wrote what you described was an admin, or just a random vandal deleting the text. The current article on Metz was started in 2002.
I don't think wrongful blocks are very common. In a typical case, I would think a "contributing normal user" would drop the admin a polite note requesting he/she reconsider, and would be quickly unblocked. The conditions under which admins are allowed to block users are pretty well established—they are not supposed to be blocking people arbitrarily, and are supposed to try to be impartial. There are appeal mechanisms available if the blocking admin is unwilling to reconsider. Wrongful blocks are more of a problem with new users, who may not know what to do.
Note that admins do not permanently "delete" or ban a user for a single offense. Even outright vandalism typically gets a 24 hour block the first time, and even then only after several warnings. Admins who abuse their tools can and do get de-admined.
I don't get it either. Somebody mod grandparent up; at least "under-rated".
Thanks for replying, and I understand about keeping your identities separate. Sorry if my reply was too gruff. Mistakes do happen, and I agree that when they do, it alienates people. Your case may not be typical, though. A lot of the dissatisfaction with Wikipedia that I see here on /. seems to come from people who want to edit in a way that is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. People come in and make disruptive changes or are rude to other editors, and react badly when others try to guide them in the right direction. Blocks are an important part of the system; they keep the project on track and prevent the encyclopedia from being drowned in a flood of vandalism and trolling.
Link, please. My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.
Are you confusing the New York Times with the New York Post and/or the Wall Street Journal?
Since the linked article is in the New York Times, the context ought to be clear enough.
The numbers aren't as high as you think. There were 46 pediatric influenza deaths in the 2005–06 season, for example. The numbers since then have been higher: 78, 88, and 115 for the 06–07, 07–08, and 08–09 seasons, respectively. It's a bit of a stretch to say that 43 is about the same number as usually die, but it's not that big a stretch.
The answer to most of those is "yes, exactly like that". This is why scientists do controlled experiments. A simple observation that Y follows X is not reliable and useful data. Progress is made by doing controlled experiments that ensure X and Y are correlated, rule out other possible causes of Y, and explore the boundaries of X.
That's not likely to happen. It's much easier to add a capability that already exists in the human genome, than it is to add a capability that only exists in other animals, or not at all. Besides getting the genetics of the photoreceptor right, the brain has to have the right wiring to interpret the resulting signals. Get it wrong, and at best the new visual receptors won't work. Complete blindness would not be the worst possible outcome, either.
You probably shouldn't take it personally. He's a chief technical officer. He ought to be better at your job than you are.
You and other readers of this thread might be interested in the Political Compass. The thesis is that politics is better described in a two-dimensional space.
I think the current US passports have a foil lining in the cover so that the RFID can only be read when the cover is open. No blocker wallet needed.
I did look through it before I posted. I get it. My point is that the book shouldn't contain any pictures of 9/11, because that is not an example of a disaster that a child today is likely to hear about on the news or encounter personally. It was a one-shot event almost eight years ago.
Banning knives and boxcutters on planes was probably useful too. Yes, lots of dangerous stuff can still get on, but the restrictions make it harder for a terrorist to threaten the passengers into submission. Closing the "secure" areas of airports to people who don't have tickets was probably a good idea too. Many other countries already did this before 9/11, but it took 9/11 to change the policy here in the US.
Yes, but the kids who were traumatized by 9/11 are now at least 12 years old. They don't need a coloring book to help them process any residual emotions about the event. A coloring book to help kids deal with traumatic experiences is a good idea, but it should have pictures of traumatic events that may be relevant to those kids. It's not very likely that kids are again going to experience airplanes flying into twin towers, so images of that event are not particularly useful. The book should be re-issued with more relevant images replacing the 9/11-specific ones.
Yes, but when taking care of your customers involves standing up to the government, it has always deserved applause.
Did you look at the photo at the top of the page? To an untrained eye, that might well look like "pursuit", rather than "escort".
That aside, you've misunderstood the RIAA strategy. They file John Doe claims so they can subpoena records from the ISPs that identify who the defendants are. Once they know who the defendant is, they can proceed with a normal case. The RIAA bends the rules in multiple ways in the course of doing this, but the dodgy part is not the John Doe claim itself, but other details in how they go about it.
Nice straw man argument. That publishing house is presumably not engaging in copyright infringement or in helping others to do so. For an organization that does help people to infringe on copyrights to call itself "Pirate Bay" is pretty good evidence that they knew their service would be used to infringe on copyrights, and that they intended that to be the case.
Except that the name may indicate intent. I don't know about Swedish law, but in the legal systems I'm familiar with one of the requirements to prove a crime is to prove intent. A website that helps people to violate copyright might be legal if the operator is unaware that it is being used for that purpose, and does not intend for the site to be used that way. Take the same site and name it "Pirate Bay", and it may become illegal, because the name of the site is evidence that that operators intended the site to aid in violating copyright.
There seems to be a distinction your argument is missing. There is a difference between providing a link to copyrighted material, that some user happens to copy, and providing a collection of links to copyrighted material with the intent of providing a resource for users who wish to copy such material. In the latter case, you are clearly aiding in copyright infringement. If the court is satisfied that this aid is deliberate and done with foreknowledge, it seems perfectly reasonable that it should be punishable.