I confirm it. It's probably accurate to say about 90% of note-takers use laptops. I, for one, use computer-based mind-mapping software for notes (FreeMind FTW, and I'm converting people!), but most people use MS's One Note software (free for law students at my school) or Word (also free here).
I'll jump in here and suggest maybe your friend went to a terrible law school. Out of my law school's entire curriculum, only 2 hours (plus a required seminar that, depending on the topic when you take it, may be around 2 or 3 hours) are devoted to research and writing. The other 80-ish hours toward graduation could be non-research-based classes that don't even require law DB use a single time.
Nope. Many law students at my university play "gunner bingo" in class. The kids who raise their hands frequently in class to answer questions get put on bingo sheets, and the "cool" kids mark off the names on their sheet as the gunners raise their hands.
I'd like to point out that I was the center square at one point, and that I never played this game, so when you're thinking about hiring legal representation, come to me: I paid attention in class, did my readings before class, and actually tried to be intellectually challenged by the professor in a Socratically-taught class.
The idea of "Intellectual Property" is only 20 years old.
Really? Because I think Mitchell v. Tilghman (1873) begs to differ:
I must be content with wishing that Mr. Tilghman should have the courage to defend his intellectual property, that is to say, his honor.
So does Davoll v. Brown (1845):
Only thus can ingenuity and perseverance be encouraged to exert themselves in this way usefully to the community; and only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.
I think the point GP was trying to make is that what The Pirate Bay is doing is not illegal. They've definitely not been convicted of anything. Therefore, by definition, they can't be criminals.
A drug dealer, on the other hand, is clearly violating laws in many countries. I feel confident when I say that dealing drugs (depending on the drugs) is illegal in Sweden. From the US DOJ's World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems:
According to Swedish law it is illegal to enter the country, to have in possession, or to buy or use narcotics. The use of narcotics was criminalized in 1988. The list of prohibited drugs involve all common types of narcotics, including cannabis, and the number of drugs on the list totals around 170. In an international perspective, Sweden has a very restrictive drug policy.
Thanks for letting me have the last word; it was highly courteous of you.
Here's what you said first:
I'm perfectly capable of knowing what books to read. . . . I read for its own pleasure, and not for the purpose of becoming 'well rounded'.
Now here's what you just said:
I've chosen the latter approach [i.e, asking professors what are good books to read]. I know professors and ask them for suggestions.
I see a contradiction in your own writings.
Finally, you said
So you'd rather have a lot of things shoved down your throat
If you want to put it so bluntly, yes, I would like being forced to read certain books. I have clearly benefited from that practice--e.g., I have a better knowledge of political theory because I was forced to read some books on it during my History of the US Post 1865 class.
I would argue that Americans would be better educated if they would read Das Kapital (if for nothing else than to more effectively argue against Marxism), but what percentage of people in this world think of reading such a tome is leisure?
Finally, such reading is not forced down my throat because I choose to take the classes. If I don't want to read Descartes, I don't take a philosophy class that covers scientific philosophy, religious philosophy, French philosophy, or European philosophy. If it's a required class, go to a different university or choose a different major.
Also, it's called discipline. A developing mind cannot just be left to wander free on its own. It requires discipline to be honed. Being forced to read certain things is a good thing for a developing mind. Otherwise, the mind becomes biased to reading more of what it already supports and knows about. This is why (to use stereotypes) Republicans watch Fox News and loathe the New York Times and Democrats read the Huffington Post.
Finally, I'd like to point out that calling a discussion pointless in which your opponent repeatedly makes points that you carelessly ignore because they don't conform to your own beliefs, and then ignoring the discussion after that does not a victory make.
I will grant you one thing: your point about reading at university being time-pressured and therefore not ideal is well-noted. However, how else do you test people at the end of the semester, if you don't have a minimum requirement for passing the class?
I found reading assignments in undergrad to be extremely easy to do. There was no time pressure in my courses if I just sat down for a little every day (or even a couple hours on a Saturday instead of playing CS) and read my assigned immigration policy text.
No, my post did nothing of the sort. My post implied that there is AT LEAST ONE BOOK that is worthwhile but not enjoyable.
I merely chose Discourse on the Method as the book that I don't like to read but it's pretty incontrovertible that it's a very worthwhile book to read (and important historically).
For you, it might be Zinn's People's History of the United States, or A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, or Art Spiegelman's Maus, or War and Peace, etc.
I'm a fan of Japanese literature, but without taking a Japanese literature class while living in the country, I'd probably have not discovered Naomi until later in life, missing out on the greatness that is Tanizaki.
Unless you want to read every book of value ever written, I can select a book for my argument without loss of generality. Hence the "For example" in my post.
I think you got modded flamebait for the last comment, the assertion that GP doesn't know the difference between reading for pleasure adn reading for becoming well-rounded (insults are flamebait, no?).
What's odd is that you're arguing that you don't need a professor to know what to read. You say you read for pleasure and not to be well-rounded. However, it seems by that statement that you do need a professor telling you what to read, because often the important books are books you don't want to read.
For example, I really don't like reading Descartes. However, I trudged my way through Discourse on the Method because it's sort of essential reading to understand the development of the scientific method in the Western world.
By your own statements, you (1) don't need a professor to make you well rounded, yet you (2) refuse to read books to become well rounded unless you will derive pleasure from the reading.
I don't care if you would use the software. The implication of the rest of my post is that the decision makers would be less off-put by something like "Imagewave" or something, rather than "Shitting Dick Nippes." It's called tact, and it used to be considered a virtue.
Yeah, and "ass" is synonymous with donkey. That doesn't stop it from being bleeped on TV because it also means "butt." Same with "bitch," "dick," "cock," and "faggot." Would you really want to have to tell your boss that you need to install "Faggot" on your computer?
I shouldn't have included the "usually" in there; I'm well aware of the other meanings of "gimp." I just cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia's "gimp (sadomasochism)" page.
My point is that one very real meaning of the name of the software prevents people from using the word in a business setting.
Even if it means a cripple, do you really want to go in front of the higher-ups and suggest you install some software that means "person who is permanently disfigured"? I think that's only moderately better than "submissive sex slave" from a naming perspective.
IANAL, so does anybody know if these kinds of deals might have the effect of invalidating an ISP's 'common carrier' protections?
Common Carrier status for telecommunications springs from a law in the US. Virgin Media is a UK ISP. Thus, I hypothesize that common carrier status is absolutely irrelevant to Virgin Media.
You've got to be kidding me. Let's look at what "gimp" means:
Gimp is a usually derogatory term used to refer to a (male or female) sexual submissive person, typically dressed in black leather (or rubber), often in a gimp suit, and wearing a bondage hood or mask of the same material.
Would you think it a boneheaded move to name software "Shitting Dick Nipples"? It's not a stupid engineering board; it's people who don't want to stand in front of their boss and say, "DUDES WE TOTALLY NEED THIS SOFTWARE CALLED 'SADOMASOCHISM BONDANGE SLAVE'!!!"
If you've taken "courses" (plural) on copyright in law school, I'm surprised that you didn't encounter 17 USC 103. Lecture notes, even if purely factual, would still be protected under copyright by virtue of the fact that the creative organization and compilation of otherwise uncopyrightable information is still copyrightable. I learned this in Intro to Intellectual Property my 2L year. Here's another link about compilations of facts and copyrightability.
This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are.
Doesn't it burn when you assert that your opinion is more valuable than someone else's, and then proceed to be proven wrong by direct citations?
As intelligent tool users, the question we should ask ourselves about climate change is at what point the economic tradeoff of stopping it outweighs the economic costs of letting it continue.
That statement is only true if (1) the population, as a whole, is selfless; (2) we gain perpetual life; or (3) doom is so near that (simplifying the value equations a tiny bit) the majority of the population will still be alive for a long enough time to experience what they view as an unfavorable situation to doing without their wants.
Assuming that humans will never be selfless beings (clearly we're not now, or we'd be working more on this problem already) and humans will not attain infinite life before we destroy Earth, it looks like we'll have to get dangerously close to ruin before things get fixed.
Concerning a selfless population, humans will not willingly go without any amount of their wants unless they will recoup the benefit in the future. Hell, most Americans can't even deal with credit properly, and that's a much quicker-to-injury route than overusing resources.
Concerning attaining perpetual life and the balance of ages, consider this: suppose it is projected that in X years resources will be ruinously depleted. Assume the average life expectancy of a human is Y. That means any person who is at least Y-X years old couldn't give two shits and still be considered highly rational (assuming their value system isn't "NUMBER ONE PRIORITY: perpetuate human life").
Operating under the assumption that you disagree with the Iraq war and a lot of what the Bush Administration has done, I'd like to point out that the Dem-Congress-Rep-President hasn't fixed that problem, has it? When there are problems one party has caused and another party needs to fix, a mixed-party Washington is counterproductive.
I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.
What's interesting is that 10 USC Section 311 defines "militia" to basically include every male citizen from 17-45 and every woman in the National Guard. Thus, the "well regulated militia" of the Second Amendment could potentially mean, through a combination of the Constitution and legislation, to mean "well regulated [class of all male citizens from 17-45 years old and all women in the National Guard]."
Taking the Second Amendment again, we have that, because a well regulated militia is necessary to freedom, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Think about what the Second Amendment might mean after my reflections in the paragraph above.
Note: I'm not a Second Amendment scholar, merely a law student. I'm not an expert by any means. I just think it's important that we as a citizenry (and an interested non-citizenry) ought to discuss these issues lest someone else decide for us.
The problem is that it's quite difficult to check every packet originating in uTorrent since it's a BT program, which means you already will have thousands of in/outbound connections simultaneously. All uTorrent would have to do is obfuscate the information it's sending to the uTorrent servers to appear as a typical bittorrent packet. One extra packet when you're already downloading a 700MB Ubuntu ISO (as I did earlier today) is not noticeable at all.
If you're downloading some Linux ISO. I understand that the RIAA doesn't give two shits if you're downloading Ubuntu; they will not go to some Ubuntu torrent server to see who's downloading the ISOs. However, under my (theoretical) uTorrent model, the RIAA is informed of what you're doing automatically.
There's a difference between practically handing Big Media a list of your activities on a silver platter and making them actively pick content/a user out and searching to see what that one person is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I confirm it. It's probably accurate to say about 90% of note-takers use laptops. I, for one, use computer-based mind-mapping software for notes (FreeMind FTW, and I'm converting people!), but most people use MS's One Note software (free for law students at my school) or Word (also free here).
I'll jump in here and suggest maybe your friend went to a terrible law school. Out of my law school's entire curriculum, only 2 hours (plus a required seminar that, depending on the topic when you take it, may be around 2 or 3 hours) are devoted to research and writing. The other 80-ish hours toward graduation could be non-research-based classes that don't even require law DB use a single time.
Nope. Many law students at my university play "gunner bingo" in class. The kids who raise their hands frequently in class to answer questions get put on bingo sheets, and the "cool" kids mark off the names on their sheet as the gunners raise their hands.
I'd like to point out that I was the center square at one point, and that I never played this game, so when you're thinking about hiring legal representation, come to me: I paid attention in class, did my readings before class, and actually tried to be intellectually challenged by the professor in a Socratically-taught class.
A drug dealer, on the other hand, is clearly violating laws in many countries. I feel confident when I say that dealing drugs (depending on the drugs) is illegal in Sweden. From the US DOJ's World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems:
By your analogy, you use programming to design the object which creates math?
Here's what you said first:Now here's what you just said:I see a contradiction in your own writings.
Finally, you saidIf you want to put it so bluntly, yes, I would like being forced to read certain books. I have clearly benefited from that practice--e.g., I have a better knowledge of political theory because I was forced to read some books on it during my History of the US Post 1865 class.
I would argue that Americans would be better educated if they would read Das Kapital (if for nothing else than to more effectively argue against Marxism), but what percentage of people in this world think of reading such a tome is leisure?
Finally, such reading is not forced down my throat because I choose to take the classes. If I don't want to read Descartes, I don't take a philosophy class that covers scientific philosophy, religious philosophy, French philosophy, or European philosophy. If it's a required class, go to a different university or choose a different major.
Also, it's called discipline. A developing mind cannot just be left to wander free on its own. It requires discipline to be honed. Being forced to read certain things is a good thing for a developing mind. Otherwise, the mind becomes biased to reading more of what it already supports and knows about. This is why (to use stereotypes) Republicans watch Fox News and loathe the New York Times and Democrats read the Huffington Post.
Finally, I'd like to point out that calling a discussion pointless in which your opponent repeatedly makes points that you carelessly ignore because they don't conform to your own beliefs, and then ignoring the discussion after that does not a victory make.
I will grant you one thing: your point about reading at university being time-pressured and therefore not ideal is well-noted. However, how else do you test people at the end of the semester, if you don't have a minimum requirement for passing the class?
I found reading assignments in undergrad to be extremely easy to do. There was no time pressure in my courses if I just sat down for a little every day (or even a couple hours on a Saturday instead of playing CS) and read my assigned immigration policy text.
No, my post did nothing of the sort. My post implied that there is AT LEAST ONE BOOK that is worthwhile but not enjoyable.
I merely chose Discourse on the Method as the book that I don't like to read but it's pretty incontrovertible that it's a very worthwhile book to read (and important historically).
For you, it might be Zinn's People's History of the United States, or A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, or Art Spiegelman's Maus, or War and Peace, etc.
I'm a fan of Japanese literature, but without taking a Japanese literature class while living in the country, I'd probably have not discovered Naomi until later in life, missing out on the greatness that is Tanizaki.
Unless you want to read every book of value ever written, I can select a book for my argument without loss of generality. Hence the "For example" in my post.
I think you got modded flamebait for the last comment, the assertion that GP doesn't know the difference between reading for pleasure adn reading for becoming well-rounded (insults are flamebait, no?).
What's odd is that you're arguing that you don't need a professor to know what to read. You say you read for pleasure and not to be well-rounded. However, it seems by that statement that you do need a professor telling you what to read, because often the important books are books you don't want to read.
For example, I really don't like reading Descartes. However, I trudged my way through Discourse on the Method because it's sort of essential reading to understand the development of the scientific method in the Western world.
By your own statements, you (1) don't need a professor to make you well rounded, yet you (2) refuse to read books to become well rounded unless you will derive pleasure from the reading.
This seems to be contradictory.
I think GP meant "isolation" as in "by yourself, with no competition whatsoever," not "at a college in the boonies."
Brainfuck, the programming language, comes to mind as well. Also, I think there's a script kiddie program called Open Orifice.
I don't care if you would use the software. The implication of the rest of my post is that the decision makers would be less off-put by something like "Imagewave" or something, rather than "Shitting Dick Nippes." It's called tact, and it used to be considered a virtue.
Yeah, and "ass" is synonymous with donkey. That doesn't stop it from being bleeped on TV because it also means "butt." Same with "bitch," "dick," "cock," and "faggot." Would you really want to have to tell your boss that you need to install "Faggot" on your computer?
I shouldn't have included the "usually" in there; I'm well aware of the other meanings of "gimp." I just cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia's "gimp (sadomasochism)" page.
My point is that one very real meaning of the name of the software prevents people from using the word in a business setting.
Even if it means a cripple, do you really want to go in front of the higher-ups and suggest you install some software that means "person who is permanently disfigured"? I think that's only moderately better than "submissive sex slave" from a naming perspective.
Any UK lawyers want to chime in?
What concerns me is that I might have to pay back taxes for all the times I goatsed someone.
I agree. "Protected infringement" is a more artful way of saying "fair use."
Jesus, even the most famous case in copyright law, Feist Publ'n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 488 U.S 340 (1991), para. 8, says so (emphasis added):
Doesn't it burn when you assert that your opinion is more valuable than someone else's, and then proceed to be proven wrong by direct citations?
Assuming that humans will never be selfless beings (clearly we're not now, or we'd be working more on this problem already) and humans will not attain infinite life before we destroy Earth, it looks like we'll have to get dangerously close to ruin before things get fixed.
Concerning a selfless population, humans will not willingly go without any amount of their wants unless they will recoup the benefit in the future. Hell, most Americans can't even deal with credit properly, and that's a much quicker-to-injury route than overusing resources.
Concerning attaining perpetual life and the balance of ages, consider this: suppose it is projected that in X years resources will be ruinously depleted. Assume the average life expectancy of a human is Y. That means any person who is at least Y-X years old couldn't give two shits and still be considered highly rational (assuming their value system isn't "NUMBER ONE PRIORITY: perpetuate human life").
Operating under the assumption that you disagree with the Iraq war and a lot of what the Bush Administration has done, I'd like to point out that the Dem-Congress-Rep-President hasn't fixed that problem, has it? When there are problems one party has caused and another party needs to fix, a mixed-party Washington is counterproductive.
Taking the Second Amendment again, we have that, because a well regulated militia is necessary to freedom, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Think about what the Second Amendment might mean after my reflections in the paragraph above.
Note: I'm not a Second Amendment scholar, merely a law student. I'm not an expert by any means. I just think it's important that we as a citizenry (and an interested non-citizenry) ought to discuss these issues lest someone else decide for us.
The problem is that it's quite difficult to check every packet originating in uTorrent since it's a BT program, which means you already will have thousands of in/outbound connections simultaneously. All uTorrent would have to do is obfuscate the information it's sending to the uTorrent servers to appear as a typical bittorrent packet. One extra packet when you're already downloading a 700MB Ubuntu ISO (as I did earlier today) is not noticeable at all.
If you're downloading some Linux ISO. I understand that the RIAA doesn't give two shits if you're downloading Ubuntu; they will not go to some Ubuntu torrent server to see who's downloading the ISOs. However, under my (theoretical) uTorrent model, the RIAA is informed of what you're doing automatically.
There's a difference between practically handing Big Media a list of your activities on a silver platter and making them actively pick content/a user out and searching to see what that one person is doing.