Indeed. I also got kicked one time after a particular upgrade removed a feature everyone wanted back. I don't remember what it was (this was gaim days, long before pidgin), but I asked what happened and that I'd prefer to have the feature back, and I got kicked (stop asking stupid questions, or something like that).
Gaim was supposed to support voice and video about 3 years ago but someone doing Google's Summer of Code apparently overhauled a lot of the base Gaim code and made merging Gaim and Gaim-vv impossible.
At least, this is what I was told on IRC by some devs back then.
Think of all the Latino people down south or the Canadians in Canadia who will be offended if I say "Americans are, generally speaking, idiots".
1. Canadians call only USA people Americans. 2. Mexicans call only USA people Americanos. 3. Quebecois call only USA people Américains. 4. South Americans call only USA people Americanos. 5. Brazilians call only USA people Americanos.
I wish he were an elected official so that we could keep him on that bench for a good long while
Federal judges are appointed for life. The only ways he'd leave the bench are if (1) he were impeached (I doubt Arizonians would want to keep him if this were the case), (2) he moved up to a higher court (elections wouldn't prevent this from happening), or (3) he retired (elections wouldn't prevent this from happening).
Public relations, public relations, public relations. If this increases DNA sequencing visibility in the general public's eyes, there might be more funding acquired.
Well, I think it's a testament to the size of the DNA database. If the man is 300 years old (I think that's the upper estimate), that is approximately 12 generations back.
Suppose each generation has two children who live to reproduction. That's 4096 descendants alive today. Considering the world's population is now over 6 gigapersons, that's pretty remarkable that 17 of those 4096 descendants (I know they're only matrilineally related and not true descendants, but I'm fudging for the sake of simple math) had their DNA registered/stored/whatevered.
Well, there may have been usability testing, but we all know that every group implicated in this test will completely ignore the feedback and strive to make the product even less usable.
How many times have we read the same criticisms about GIMP and how many times have they ignored them?
Didn't GNOME or some other group hire a usability expert and then totally ignore his suggestions?
otherwise Lincon would have had no recourse to lock up captured southern military soldiers as individual rebels
And therefore the exegencies of war trump the rule of law; is that your argument?
there was no concept of "enemy combatant"
There was too a concept of prisoner of war during the Civil War! While the First Geneva Convention was called during the Civil War, the practice of taking prisoners of war and holding them until cessation of hostilities is and was a time-honored practice dating back to time immemorial. What do you think the US and England did during the American Revolution? They didn't shoot every captive!
Even now, under Geneva, captives need not be charged with crimes if they are enemy combatants. pulls out his copy of the Geneva Conventions In fact, by Article 99 of the Third Geneva Convention, an enemy combatant who has become a prisoner of war cannot be tried for typical war-related activities (e.g., firing at the future captors during a skirmish). The combatant may only be tried for violations of the laws of war (e.g., dressing up like a civilian and then ambushing the enemy).
succeeding
"seceding," not "succeeding"--clearly the South didn't succeed.
That actually brings up an interesting point, however. Assume the South remained part of the USA throughout the Civil War. So the Southern states remained essential to ratification of amendments to the Constitution. So the North naturally forced their defeated comrades to ratify the 13th Amendment as a condition of re-entry into the Union. Wait, what? I could have sworn that they were still part of the Union...
Reunification and reconstruction did a lot of Constitutionally very iffy things. What I'm trying to say in this too-small Slashdot text-input box, essentially, is that (all justifications aside) Lincoln and the North bent the Constitution in order to get their way, paving the way for many argumentssupporters of Bush (includinghimself) use today.
I had some arguments planned out for this, but then I looked over my GP post and saw that I committed the cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned: I said copyrighted instead of patented.
I'm absolutely appalled at myself, and I'm going to hide in a cave for the next few years. Apologies to all, Slashdot!
Whether math is discovered or invented concerns whether mathematical processes can be copyrighted or not. Natural phenomena cannot be patented, while inventions can be.
The president can suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion or rebellion.
Ah, but see; that's where the rub is.
Read the Constitution. It says in Article I that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Article I is the Article that covers the legislative branch, not the executive.
Beyond that, here's something I think is interesting: the South seceded. That's not rebellion as I understand it; rebellion is acting against the constituent authority, and once the South seceded, the constituent authority was no longer the North (it was the South). The South declared independence, and, by virtue of the fact that the North did not withdraw its troops from the South, by definition the North had invaded the South, not the other way around.
Thus, it is perfectly understandable to view what happened as invasion by the North.
This incident is almost unprecedented (relatively speaking) in the history of such federations, but let's look at it this way: If France were to secede from the EU, would we say that France was in rebellion and subject to invasion? Of course not. We'd say they were withdrawing from the federation.
And finally, to reiterate my first point, suspension of the Great Writ is in Article I, and therefore the power of suspension is delegated to the Congress, and Licoln violated the Constitution by suspending it.
A major point of the American Revolution was that a powerful, central executive with the ability to arbitrarily imprison people was a Bad Thing. You think the Framers intended to give that power back to a king-like figure in American politics?
Under this law, they might be less willing to do so and eventually the administration would have to choose between complying and openly ignoring court orders.
There are many, many parallels between the Bush administration and the Lincoln administration (re:habeas corpus, unilateral declaration of war, unitary executive theory, etc.), but that brings up an interesting historical anecdote: President Lincoln actually did ignore court orders coming from the Supreme Court.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and kept it a secret from the American public. John Marryman was being held without trial, and the Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln basically ignored the writ.
You must either (1) not be American, (2) not follow the news, or (3) not be very old.
Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. To help win her case, her lawyers chose to show a pattern of behavior. This is a common way of bolstering a case against someone.
What I do is, I think, an improvement upon that. My password involves alphanumeric characters of varying capitalization and a few punctuation marks. What I do whenever I sit at a public terminal is fire up notepad, type a-zA-Z0-9 and a few punctuation characters. I then copy and paste my passwords when needed.
Unless they're running screen-recording software as well, I'm fine.
Wow. That's extremely surprising! It's practically "common knowledge" in the USA (at least, it was taught as fact in my torts class my first year of law school) that in the US, as opposed to in England (I'll say England here to stay safe--we don't really talk about Welsh, N. Irish, or Scottish law at my law school), truth is not a defense in a defamation suit.
Either that, or my mind somehow got really, really fucked over and I'm fabricating all these memories of hearing otherwise and believing them to have happened. Now that I'm Googling, I can't really find any information about it. Did my mind really somehow get fried and I'm going crazy right now? O, WORRISOME TIMES!
I accept your argument, partly because I find it a bit cognitively dissonant to think of Hitler as a patriot, but mostly because I think your argument is strong.
nowadays you can probably say anything you like about him and defend yourself by claiming that he has no reputation to lose
I'm not sure if you were just joking or not, but this is actually a (affirmative?) defense to defamation.
In order to prove defamation, you have to prove that the defamer harmed your reputation in the community. Oftentimes, the defendant will make a showing that the plaintiff had no reputation left. It's sometimes referred to as the "incapable of further defamation" defense (because you have to prove actual damages in a defamation suit). The plaintiff is, in that case, said to be "libel-proof."
I'm assuming this is true in other Common Law countries (e.g., the UK) because this was a defense in the US at common law long ago, I think even before the American Revolution (the truth defense is more recent, as it springs forth from the First Amendment in the US).
I don't think bongomanaic was making a joke. In the US, "truth" is a defense to a defamation suit--the plaintiff must prove that the statement is untrue.
However, in the UK, truth is not a defense to a defamation lawsuit.
You raise a very interesting point that I don't know how to refute; one implication is that Hitler was a patriot. Mussolini and Pol Pot? I'm not sure. But from what I've learned of Hitler in my heavily-weighted-toward-pre-WWII history courses, Hitler thought he was doing Germany a great service.
Actually, you could preface the first statement with "I think" and still get away with it. Many (most?) jurisdictions recognize opinion as a defense to defamation.
His comment about fraud is on Slashdot. Therefore it is written. Therefore it would be libel (if anything), and not slander.
And before you say that "say" implies spoken word, what about perfectly cromulent phrases such as "the newspaper said the police officer was retiring"?
I think he was talking about when he just said that the company was being fraudulent, and he didn't want to be in trouble for libel (and that he knows his vague comment about "isn't that fraud?" doesn't necessarily sidestep libel laws).
My search when I pulled up those cases included about a thousand that were pre-1950. I don't think those were isolated. The term "piracy" was used in conjunction with copyright infringement by Learned Hand (or J. Holmes, can't remember) near the turn of the century.
I agree that there wasn't as much copyright litigation going on, but that's because copyright couldn't BE infringed easily back then. Printing was expensive and distribution was expensive.
However, patent infringement was rampant. Did you ever wonder why Hollywood was in California? Because Edison had patents on things at the turn of the century and Hollywood was formed on the other side of the nation to avoid his litigiousness.
Get a clerkship somewhere. That makes up for low grades, and federal magistrate judges and state intermediate courts of appeals are doable on a middle-of-the-class top-40-school class rank.
After you finish that one-year program, lots of firms will want to hire you.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I also got kicked one time after a particular upgrade removed a feature everyone wanted back. I don't remember what it was (this was gaim days, long before pidgin), but I asked what happened and that I'd prefer to have the feature back, and I got kicked (stop asking stupid questions, or something like that).
Gaim was supposed to support voice and video about 3 years ago but someone doing Google's Summer of Code apparently overhauled a lot of the base Gaim code and made merging Gaim and Gaim-vv impossible.
At least, this is what I was told on IRC by some devs back then.
1. Canadians call only USA people Americans.
2. Mexicans call only USA people Americanos.
3. Quebecois call only USA people Américains.
4. South Americans call only USA people Americanos.
5. Brazilians call only USA people Americanos.
Who would complain again?
Public relations, public relations, public relations. If this increases DNA sequencing visibility in the general public's eyes, there might be more funding acquired.
Well, I think it's a testament to the size of the DNA database. If the man is 300 years old (I think that's the upper estimate), that is approximately 12 generations back.
Suppose each generation has two children who live to reproduction. That's 4096 descendants alive today. Considering the world's population is now over 6 gigapersons, that's pretty remarkable that 17 of those 4096 descendants (I know they're only matrilineally related and not true descendants, but I'm fudging for the sake of simple math) had their DNA registered/stored/whatevered.
Well, there may have been usability testing, but we all know that every group implicated in this test will completely ignore the feedback and strive to make the product even less usable.
How many times have we read the same criticisms about GIMP and how many times have they ignored them?
Didn't GNOME or some other group hire a usability expert and then totally ignore his suggestions?
Even now, under Geneva, captives need not be charged with crimes if they are enemy combatants. pulls out his copy of the Geneva Conventions In fact, by Article 99 of the Third Geneva Convention, an enemy combatant who has become a prisoner of war cannot be tried for typical war-related activities (e.g., firing at the future captors during a skirmish). The combatant may only be tried for violations of the laws of war (e.g., dressing up like a civilian and then ambushing the enemy)."seceding," not "succeeding"--clearly the South didn't succeed.
That actually brings up an interesting point, however. Assume the South remained part of the USA throughout the Civil War. So the Southern states remained essential to ratification of amendments to the Constitution. So the North naturally forced their defeated comrades to ratify the 13th Amendment as a condition of re-entry into the Union. Wait, what? I could have sworn that they were still part of the Union...
Reunification and reconstruction did a lot of Constitutionally very iffy things. What I'm trying to say in this too-small Slashdot text-input box, essentially, is that (all justifications aside) Lincoln and the North bent the Constitution in order to get their way, paving the way for many arguments supporters of Bush (including himself) use today.
I had some arguments planned out for this, but then I looked over my GP post and saw that I committed the cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned: I said copyrighted instead of patented.
I'm absolutely appalled at myself, and I'm going to hide in a cave for the next few years. Apologies to all, Slashdot!
Whether math is discovered or invented concerns whether mathematical processes can be copyrighted or not. Natural phenomena cannot be patented, while inventions can be.
Read the Constitution. It says in Article I that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Article I is the Article that covers the legislative branch, not the executive.
Beyond that, here's something I think is interesting: the South seceded. That's not rebellion as I understand it; rebellion is acting against the constituent authority, and once the South seceded, the constituent authority was no longer the North (it was the South). The South declared independence, and, by virtue of the fact that the North did not withdraw its troops from the South, by definition the North had invaded the South, not the other way around.
Thus, it is perfectly understandable to view what happened as invasion by the North.
This incident is almost unprecedented (relatively speaking) in the history of such federations, but let's look at it this way: If France were to secede from the EU, would we say that France was in rebellion and subject to invasion? Of course not. We'd say they were withdrawing from the federation.
And finally, to reiterate my first point, suspension of the Great Writ is in Article I, and therefore the power of suspension is delegated to the Congress, and Licoln violated the Constitution by suspending it.
A major point of the American Revolution was that a powerful, central executive with the ability to arbitrarily imprison people was a Bad Thing. You think the Framers intended to give that power back to a king-like figure in American politics?
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and kept it a secret from the American public. John Marryman was being held without trial, and the Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln basically ignored the writ.
You must either (1) not be American, (2) not follow the news, or (3) not be very old.
Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. To help win her case, her lawyers chose to show a pattern of behavior. This is a common way of bolstering a case against someone.
So calling the President to testify was eminently germane and important. Who is most at fault? Unless you want to say it's the fault of a woman who was sexually harassed, it was Pres. Clinton's fault for having a state trooper escort a woman to his hotel room and dropping trou in front of her.
What I do is, I think, an improvement upon that. My password involves alphanumeric characters of varying capitalization and a few punctuation marks. What I do whenever I sit at a public terminal is fire up notepad, type a-zA-Z0-9 and a few punctuation characters. I then copy and paste my passwords when needed.
Unless they're running screen-recording software as well, I'm fine.
Apparently medical and legal professions are not real jobs.
Wow. That's extremely surprising! It's practically "common knowledge" in the USA (at least, it was taught as fact in my torts class my first year of law school) that in the US, as opposed to in England (I'll say England here to stay safe--we don't really talk about Welsh, N. Irish, or Scottish law at my law school), truth is not a defense in a defamation suit.
Either that, or my mind somehow got really, really fucked over and I'm fabricating all these memories of hearing otherwise and believing them to have happened. Now that I'm Googling, I can't really find any information about it. Did my mind really somehow get fried and I'm going crazy right now? O, WORRISOME TIMES!
I accept your argument, partly because I find it a bit cognitively dissonant to think of Hitler as a patriot, but mostly because I think your argument is strong.
In order to prove defamation, you have to prove that the defamer harmed your reputation in the community. Oftentimes, the defendant will make a showing that the plaintiff had no reputation left. It's sometimes referred to as the "incapable of further defamation" defense (because you have to prove actual damages in a defamation suit). The plaintiff is, in that case, said to be "libel-proof."
I'm assuming this is true in other Common Law countries (e.g., the UK) because this was a defense in the US at common law long ago, I think even before the American Revolution (the truth defense is more recent, as it springs forth from the First Amendment in the US).
I don't think bongomanaic was making a joke. In the US, "truth" is a defense to a defamation suit--the plaintiff must prove that the statement is untrue.
However, in the UK, truth is not a defense to a defamation lawsuit.
You raise a very interesting point that I don't know how to refute; one implication is that Hitler was a patriot. Mussolini and Pol Pot? I'm not sure. But from what I've learned of Hitler in my heavily-weighted-toward-pre-WWII history courses, Hitler thought he was doing Germany a great service.
Actually, you could preface the first statement with "I think" and still get away with it. Many (most?) jurisdictions recognize opinion as a defense to defamation.
His comment about fraud is on Slashdot. Therefore it is written. Therefore it would be libel (if anything), and not slander.
And before you say that "say" implies spoken word, what about perfectly cromulent phrases such as "the newspaper said the police officer was retiring"?
I think he was talking about when he just said that the company was being fraudulent, and he didn't want to be in trouble for libel (and that he knows his vague comment about "isn't that fraud?" doesn't necessarily sidestep libel laws).
My search when I pulled up those cases included about a thousand that were pre-1950. I don't think those were isolated. The term "piracy" was used in conjunction with copyright infringement by Learned Hand (or J. Holmes, can't remember) near the turn of the century.
I agree that there wasn't as much copyright litigation going on, but that's because copyright couldn't BE infringed easily back then. Printing was expensive and distribution was expensive.
However, patent infringement was rampant. Did you ever wonder why Hollywood was in California? Because Edison had patents on things at the turn of the century and Hollywood was formed on the other side of the nation to avoid his litigiousness.
Get a clerkship somewhere. That makes up for low grades, and federal magistrate judges and state intermediate courts of appeals are doable on a middle-of-the-class top-40-school class rank.
After you finish that one-year program, lots of firms will want to hire you.