So technically Wikipedia could sue him for copyright infringement or breach of license. It depends on how the license is drafted. This distinction comes from a US case issued in the past few years.
Being a former editor of an academic journal dealing with the law, I prefer Bluebook's format. Basically, do a cite analogous to its print version. An article published online would be
Author,/Article Title/, <<Webpage Name>>, Month Day, Year, url. (where the double greater/less thans pairing means smallcaps).
A book published online would be <<Author, Title>> page number (Edition# ed., Year), URL.
Anything available in print but also available online (think Lessig's Code 2.0) can be done like this: [CITE TO THE PRINT SOURCE],/available at/ URL.
Et cetera. There are a couple of things to add in certain circumstances. For example, an article without a date requires a "(last visited Month Day, Year)" and such in case the article changes or disappears.
No, Wikipedia is at best third-hand information as per their "No original research" policy. Original research would make it second hand (as the original experiencer would tell a first-hand account, the original researcher/interviewer would tell the second-hand account to the public, and Wikipedia, citing the researcher, would be telling a third-hand account).
Many books were explicitly illegal in the novel (hence my reference to Whitman and the Bible in an earlier post). The fact that people didn't want to read, I thought, was a direct result of the government teaching them that reading was both illegal and morally bad because of the dangers found within.
That sure as hell isn't what I read it as. I (and countless numbers of critics and researchers) read Fahrenheit 451 to be about state censorship (by destroying book and artwork that would have set the masses free). Banning Whitman and the Bible? Burning books? You don't see that as a tale of censorship?
It was a huge letdown to a large number of people when he released his statement that let us all know he didn't write something as brilliant as we all thought he had.
Sure, you could say that including a tremendously powerful message by accident shows true skill at incorporating allegory, but I say it's sheer dumb luck.
I read this and almost started weeping. Today, I've done this: read/., read my RSS, check Twitter, watch Hulu vids, shave, eat.
Granted, I just finished my copyright magnum opus for graduation yesterday, so I needed a mental break, but still...I COULD HAVE RUN A FEW MILES OR GONE TO THE GYM OR SWAM AT LEAST! *whimper*
To be fair, the guy was so dense that he wrote a book about how awesome books are compared to television. The fact is, he will be remembered for something he did by accident. He didn't intend to write a book about censorship, and he denies that the book is about censorship.
Bradbury: "Fahrenheit 451 is not, he says firmly, a story about government censorship."
Bradbury still has a lot to say, especially about how people do not understand his most famous literary work, Fahrenheit 451, published in 1953.... Bradbury . . . says it is . . . a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.
I stopped reading at his very first suggestion that "Zelda" comes from "dhelta" (Gk. for "delta") katakanized into Japanese. The problem is that the delta symbol in Japanese is "deruta," which a quick wikipediaing reveals. First, you go to the English delta, then click the Japanese link on the left to get to deruta.
the only argument against a fully private system would be this: if the government subsidizes education of some doctors, then it could demand that those, who were subsidized give back at least some of their time to the public system
Well, aside from the purely utilitarian argument I would suspect technogeeks to appreciate: Do what works best. If socialized medicine leads to a healthier society, then socialized medicine is better.
Seeing as how the most healthy (and happy!) societies are on socialized medicine plans, I suspect the impetus is on you to convince us as to why socialized medicine does not, in fact, work better.
I didn't mean to assert that CA did ban guns. I just picked a hypothetical state without loss of generality. I suppose it was misleading since DC actually can't ban guns, but it's the only place where basically only federal law applies that I know of.
Agreed on the guns. I have a Browning Hi-Power and a shotgun I just inherited. Nothing too special. They're locked away right now, though, because I don't trust my crummy apartment to withstand burglars while I'm out. And I don't have a C&C, so...
I'm not even sure I want a C&C, now that I think about it. I will be working in a federal courthouse starting at the end of August, so I won't even be allowed to take it in.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause entitles a man in TX who travels to LA to receive the same rights as a man from LA receives in LA. It has everything to do with receiving state rights and nothing to do with receiving federal rights.
Part of the damages implicated here, which the jury had to decide, was punitive damages. This necessarily includes morality, as punitive damages are calculated by how much someone "deserves" to be punished.
Sure, you could set up an S corporation and try it. But the second it becomes clear you're using your status as an S corp. to evade tort and contract liability, the courts will pierce the corporate veil.
Trust me, these sneaky things we/.ers think of were invented decades ago by sneaky, old men.
And the Second Amendment still hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states yet. This is why DC can't ban guns, but California can. Well, technically no state in the Ninth Circuit can now, since the Ninth Circuit recently selectively incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
The ruling just doesn't apply outside the Ninth Circuit. However, expect the SCOTUS to grant cert and incorporate within the next year or so.
Actually, the Bill of Rights was not initially understood to prevent states and local governments from infringing on rights.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that what you said was true. The major rights in the BoR have been "selectively incorporated" via the 14th to apply to the states. Before the Civil War, a state that didn't give you freedom of speech in its own constitution didn't have to obey the Constitution's 1st Amendment.
And you and I agree about the Constitution: it's a compromise, not a religious text. Hell, when the states ratified the Constitution, not all of them were operating under agreement about what it said.
See the Federalists vs. Anti-federalists, and how they affected different states to ratify with their wildly different interpretations.
Also see the founding fathers themselves disagreeing over whether the Necessary & Proper Clause affords the federal government the right to establish a national bank. See, e.g., Madison staunchly opposing a national bank until he let the First's charter die. Then he went "whoops, we actually need that" and became an early "living document"er.
Well, if you're right, I suppose Thomas has nothing to worry about, as it's an open-and-shut case, and appellate court judges aren't exactly in the pocket of Big Media.
you're there to bring the experience, knowledge, and morality of the peers of the defendant to bring a sane, just, and moral verdict
And I'm sure that many people on the jury felt that it was just and moral to punish a felony perjuror with a hefty fine. It's not like they got 12 drunk yahoos of the street. They got 12 average people. As statutory damages are intended to be punitive here, can you blame the jury for being punitive?
I mean, perjury (IMHO) is one of the worst things you can do. It's a complete subversion of the justice system. It's ratfink low.
Explain why half the states wanted a Bill of Rights, then. If the federal government was truly limited only to its enumerated powers, then a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because nothing in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress the right "to infringe the freedom of speech," e.g.
Slashdot Mirror
So technically Wikipedia could sue him for copyright infringement or breach of license. It depends on how the license is drafted. This distinction comes from a US case issued in the past few years.
Being a former editor of an academic journal dealing with the law, I prefer Bluebook's format. Basically, do a cite analogous to its print version. An article published online would be
Author, /Article Title/, <<Webpage Name>>, Month Day, Year, url. (where the double greater/less thans pairing means smallcaps).
A book published online would be <<Author, Title>> page number (Edition# ed., Year), URL.
Anything available in print but also available online (think Lessig's Code 2.0) can be done like this: /available at/ URL.
[CITE TO THE PRINT SOURCE],
Et cetera. There are a couple of things to add in certain circumstances. For example, an article without a date requires a "(last visited Month Day, Year)" and such in case the article changes or disappears.
Easy peezy.
Yeah, but those Hoyle cards I throw always end up in the gutter.
No, Wikipedia is at best third-hand information as per their "No original research" policy. Original research would make it second hand (as the original experiencer would tell a first-hand account, the original researcher/interviewer would tell the second-hand account to the public, and Wikipedia, citing the researcher, would be telling a third-hand account).
Many books were explicitly illegal in the novel (hence my reference to Whitman and the Bible in an earlier post). The fact that people didn't want to read, I thought, was a direct result of the government teaching them that reading was both illegal and morally bad because of the dangers found within.
That sure as hell isn't what I read it as. I (and countless numbers of critics and researchers) read Fahrenheit 451 to be about state censorship (by destroying book and artwork that would have set the masses free). Banning Whitman and the Bible? Burning books? You don't see that as a tale of censorship?
It was a huge letdown to a large number of people when he released his statement that let us all know he didn't write something as brilliant as we all thought he had.
Sure, you could say that including a tremendously powerful message by accident shows true skill at incorporating allegory, but I say it's sheer dumb luck.
I haven't bothered to read the new Plan since the Dems unveiled it. Is it really not single-payer? Those motherfuckers...
I read this and almost started weeping. Today, I've done this: read /., read my RSS, check Twitter, watch Hulu vids, shave, eat.
Granted, I just finished my copyright magnum opus for graduation yesterday, so I needed a mental break, but still...I COULD HAVE RUN A FEW MILES OR GONE TO THE GYM OR SWAM AT LEAST! *whimper*
To be fair, the guy was so dense that he wrote a book about how awesome books are compared to television. The fact is, he will be remembered for something he did by accident. He didn't intend to write a book about censorship, and he denies that the book is about censorship.
That book? Fahrenheit 451.
And I quote:
I stopped reading at his very first suggestion that "Zelda" comes from "dhelta" (Gk. for "delta") katakanized into Japanese. The problem is that the delta symbol in Japanese is "deruta," which a quick wikipediaing reveals. First, you go to the English delta, then click the Japanese link on the left to get to deruta.
Well, aside from the purely utilitarian argument I would suspect technogeeks to appreciate: Do what works best. If socialized medicine leads to a healthier society, then socialized medicine is better.
Seeing as how the most healthy (and happy!) societies are on socialized medicine plans, I suspect the impetus is on you to convince us as to why socialized medicine does not, in fact, work better.
I didn't mean to assert that CA did ban guns. I just picked a hypothetical state without loss of generality. I suppose it was misleading since DC actually can't ban guns, but it's the only place where basically only federal law applies that I know of.
Agreed on the guns. I have a Browning Hi-Power and a shotgun I just inherited. Nothing too special. They're locked away right now, though, because I don't trust my crummy apartment to withstand burglars while I'm out. And I don't have a C&C, so...
I'm not even sure I want a C&C, now that I think about it. I will be working in a federal courthouse starting at the end of August, so I won't even be allowed to take it in.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause entitles a man in TX who travels to LA to receive the same rights as a man from LA receives in LA. It has everything to do with receiving state rights and nothing to do with receiving federal rights.
Part of the damages implicated here, which the jury had to decide, was punitive damages. This necessarily includes morality, as punitive damages are calculated by how much someone "deserves" to be punished.
Sure, you could set up an S corporation and try it. But the second it becomes clear you're using your status as an S corp. to evade tort and contract liability, the courts will pierce the corporate veil.
Trust me, these sneaky things we /.ers think of were invented decades ago by sneaky, old men.
And the Second Amendment still hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states yet. This is why DC can't ban guns, but California can. Well, technically no state in the Ninth Circuit can now, since the Ninth Circuit recently selectively incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
The ruling just doesn't apply outside the Ninth Circuit. However, expect the SCOTUS to grant cert and incorporate within the next year or so.
Actually, the Bill of Rights was not initially understood to prevent states and local governments from infringing on rights.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that what you said was true. The major rights in the BoR have been "selectively incorporated" via the 14th to apply to the states. Before the Civil War, a state that didn't give you freedom of speech in its own constitution didn't have to obey the Constitution's 1st Amendment.
And you and I agree about the Constitution: it's a compromise, not a religious text. Hell, when the states ratified the Constitution, not all of them were operating under agreement about what it said.
See the Federalists vs. Anti-federalists, and how they affected different states to ratify with their wildly different interpretations.
Also see the founding fathers themselves disagreeing over whether the Necessary & Proper Clause affords the federal government the right to establish a national bank. See, e.g., Madison staunchly opposing a national bank until he let the First's charter die. Then he went "whoops, we actually need that" and became an early "living document"er.
Well, if you're right, I suppose Thomas has nothing to worry about, as it's an open-and-shut case, and appellate court judges aren't exactly in the pocket of Big Media.
Ah, I see. I read "retribution" as "commit super hardcore mega piracy," not "commit arson or some stuff."
One vote is not sufficient for a hung jury in a civil trial. Unanimity is not required.
The difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition and all that jazz
They were both lawyered. Unlike you fools, I've spent the last three years of my life building up an immunity to NewYorkCountryLawyer. ;)
And I'm sure that many people on the jury felt that it was just and moral to punish a felony perjuror with a hefty fine. It's not like they got 12 drunk yahoos of the street. They got 12 average people. As statutory damages are intended to be punitive here, can you blame the jury for being punitive?
I mean, perjury (IMHO) is one of the worst things you can do. It's a complete subversion of the justice system. It's ratfink low.
Does not compute.
Explain why half the states wanted a Bill of Rights, then. If the federal government was truly limited only to its enumerated powers, then a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because nothing in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress the right "to infringe the freedom of speech," e.g.