Biofuel is not an effort to cure global warming. It is an effort to wean us from petroleum. Petroleum released greenhouse gases when it was created millions of years ago. Now it's the corn's turn. We cannot avoid making greenhouse gases when we make fuel.
He was talking to mobile phone companies, telling them to give consumers what they want. Well, what sort of music services does a phone user want? I can't imagine a phone being the ideal platform for listening to music. So it can only be a delivery platform. Let me buy music with my phone and deliver it to the device of my choice. That's what consumers want.
I disagree heartily with "matter of time", the first poster. By his logic, cell carriers would be liable if coverage does not extend into a restaurant. There is no right to use a cell phone, and many instances where their use or even possession is prohibited. Schools, medical offices, airplanes, court rooms, etc. If there's an emergency, then you just have to find the nearest landline, conveniently located at the maitre d's podium.
Getting into a confrontation with an inconsiderate, self-important slob is a great way to foment violence, and these days there is no telling where the violence will stop. Instead of arguing, just put an end to cell phone use and be done. Secrecy is necessary only because the practice is illegal, otherwise many venues would be proud to advertise they are cell phone free.
The woman deliberately looked and acted like a nut job in the last place we need nut jobs. She wanted to provoke a reaction to her "artwork" and the one she got was too subdued.
Every "recovery" disk I've ever seen wipes all your data and user-installed apps, restoring the PC to its out-of-the-box condition. Why would I pay someone to destroy all my hard-won warez?
... it's also WHERE and HOW you make it available! If your property is in my unlocked house (or PC) and someone steals it, I obviously had no criminal intent. But if your property is in my driveway garage sale, that's an easy call of intent to traffic in stolen goods. Whatever's in a Kazaa upload folder is in the garage sale.
... if he was a called an anomalous crackpot and all of his data was impeccably correct. A reviewer's opinion is protected unless it can shown that he acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. One can get all the answers right and still be a crackpot in someone's opinion.
The DMCA doesn't require you to leave on your PC whatever a vendor puts there. It just requires you not to make illegal copies of things, even by doing something as legal as deleting files and registry keys.
"Electrifying" financial reports Kite fighting Pinatas for April 1 parties Pin the tail on the AAAAGGGHH! Amusing bathroom tissue Infant training pants
This is totally WRONG, people! The entire insurance industry is based upon the pooling of diverse risks among members of a given population. Every single one of us is a health insurance claim risk. We cover each other's butts with our premiums.
So you're a buff skydiver or martial artist, and I'm a couch potato. I share your risk of broken bones and you share my risk of heart disease. Why should our employer get $10/paycheck from me but not from you?
What's next - your employer will fine you for skateboarding? Accounting clerks will pay lower premiums than forklift operators in the same firm?
This is a divisive, cherry-picking ploy of insurers. Don't stand for it!
I think it's been called USENET for a while now. Operates on the same principle as Santa Claus and Jesus: ask, and ye shall receive.
I used it recently to find a PC Card-format USB hub that wouldn't physically block the second slot on my notebook. Not only did I get a link to exactly such a product within 24 hours, but my "guide" sold me his card for ten bucks delivered, in contrast to the $70 to $90 that people have been paying for it on eBay lately.
It seems that ChaCha offers a compensation plan of sorts, so why would it be "unlikely" that IU's staff would not received any money? Who is scarfing that money?
It merely has to be an original work of expression to qualify for copyright protection. So, yeah, a DMCA takedown notice for a fake ID as legally binding as one for Gucci copies.
The exemption of genetic information obtained from "an embryo or fetus" makes no sense. Why should insurers be allowed to raise rates, or employers be allowed to reject or fire a worker, just because a fetus the worker is carrying might have genetic flaws?
The exemption might even make fetuses the targets of medically unnecessary genetic testing, which could result in more miscarriages and induced birth defects.
The law does not apply to abortion providers at all. I see no reason for this fetal exemption.
Close reading of TFA shows that the second team found the same fungus in the same samples tested by the first team, and that sample was not particularly large.
What tickles me is that the researchers wish to emphasize that this fungus discover is not the conclusion of the bee conundrum. If it was, their funding would end.:-)
If some guy in a raincoat flashes my kid, I don't simply tell the kid not to do likewise. I also call the cops and get the guy off the street.
If some a-hole car peddler thinks it's "cute" to suggest to my kid something that's dangerous, I get him off the airwaves AFTER I tell my kid not to do that.
Yes, schools have the SCOTUS' blessing to regulate student conduct and speech that "materially and substantially disrupts the educational environment". The meanings of the adjectives "materially" and "substantially" is the subject of much debate and overreaching interpretation by schoolers.
IMHO, "materially" should be interpreted to mean, "the disruption can be observed objectively by a third party". A student's reaction to a spitball in his ear is an easy example. But what about a student who claims he can't concentrate on his studies because of something another student allegedly said to or about him (on or off campus)?
First, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in compliance with the Bill of Rights, that the alleged disrupter actually said substantially what the alleged victim claims was said.
Second, one must look to the alleged victim's material performance (things teachers record, i. e., grades, class participation, on-time homework, etc.) before and after the alleged disruption. No degradation, no material disruption. A student's mere claim that the alleged disruption "makes it harder" to maintain his performance level is not material in and of itself. (It might rise to materiality if before-and-after records of hours spent on homework, papers crumpled and redone, and other objective metrics of effort are kept. But who keeps such records?)
Third, one must establish beyond reasonable doubt that what was said or done was the critical cause of the observed degradation in performance. That is, the material and substantial disruption would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged offense. The defense can raise doubt in the form of other factors that may have caused the degradation... unless those damned privacy laws prevent such discovery.
The SCOTUS has ruled (not in these words) that "substantially" means "more than an isolated and very transient" disruption. A student cannot be punished for a single fart that cracks up a whole class for a few seconds. But repeated farting substantially and materially disrupts teaching and learning. (How to respond to repeated farting involves the questions of intent and control.)
"The educational environment" also has vague boundaries. They have been expanded beyond the walls of the classroom, reasonably encompassing all school property and school-sponsored events - but including the rather questionable category of purely social rather than educational events (dances, bowling leagues, football games, etc.) Still, the physical boundaries of school authority are pretty well defined.
The boundary between what is "educational" and what is none of the school's business is a major bone of contention. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" highlights the question of whether drug policy is a matter of education or politics. Are t-shirts promoting Insane Clown Posse banned out of legitimate concern for student safety (substantial and material fights between rival fan groups within a specific school's physical boundaries) or because school board members don't like the music and want ICP banned district-wide, even where no material and substantial disruption has occurred?
I believe that out-of-bounds conduct or speech which causes in-bounds disruption of education falls within a school's purview. The point is not from where you mail a letter bomb; the principal crime occurs where it explodes (or is discovered and causes disruption). Again, substantial, material disruption and critical causation must be established beyond reasonable doubt, without violating the Bill of Rights.
have described the ingredients of justice as it is defined in the U. S. Quite obviously, schools are abysmal failures at dispensing justice. Schoolers lack the necessary training, resources, and most importantly the INCLINATION to dispense justice. When presented with a problem, they are only interested in making it go away as expediently as possible. As J. Edgar Hoover said, "Justice is in
I have no problem with laws against harassment, intimidation, stalking, etc., and they certainly should include electronic forms.
But schools are not appropriate substitutes for police or judicial systems. Schoolers do not have the resources, training, or legal authority to deal with crimes justly.
Schools do not provide due process, equal protection, immunity from coercion to incriminate oneself, or any other Constitutional right. Schoolers violate such rights routinely, out of expediency, ignorance, or arrogance. The only penalty that a school is authorized to mete out is the denial of another Constitutional right: the right to a free and appropriate public education. (A right that would not exist if education was not compulsory.)
Legislators who attempt an end-run around the Constitution by making schools responsible for law enforcement via patently unconstituional means are violating their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. They deserve impeachment or recall.
The SCOTUS long ago ruled that it is every citizen's right to record the actions of a public official in the performance of his public duties. The court's reasoing is that such citizens are acting in a journalistic capacity, doing exactly what the press is supposed to do: keeping government honest. What this couple did was not only legal, it was protected by the First Amendment. (Repeatedly emailing the cop afterward might be considered stalking, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Biofuel is not an effort to cure global warming. It is an effort to wean us from petroleum. Petroleum released greenhouse gases when it was created millions of years ago. Now it's the corn's turn. We cannot avoid making greenhouse gases when we make fuel.
He was talking to mobile phone companies, telling them to give consumers what they want. Well, what sort of music services does a phone user want? I can't imagine a phone being the ideal platform for listening to music. So it can only be a delivery platform. Let me buy music with my phone and deliver it to the device of my choice. That's what consumers want.
I disagree heartily with "matter of time", the first poster. By his logic, cell carriers would be liable if coverage does not extend into a restaurant. There is no right to use a cell phone, and many instances where their use or even possession is prohibited. Schools, medical offices, airplanes, court rooms, etc. If there's an emergency, then you just have to find the nearest landline, conveniently located at the maitre d's podium.
Getting into a confrontation with an inconsiderate, self-important slob is a great way to foment violence, and these days there is no telling where the violence will stop. Instead of arguing, just put an end to cell phone use and be done. Secrecy is necessary only because the practice is illegal, otherwise many venues would be proud to advertise they are cell phone free.
Comcast delays P2P traffic of a minority of users to avoid snail speeds for the majority. I don't think this merits a call to man the barricades.
The woman deliberately looked and acted like a nut job in the last place we need nut jobs. She wanted to provoke a reaction to her "artwork" and the one she got was too subdued.
Every "recovery" disk I've ever seen wipes all your data and user-installed apps, restoring the PC to its out-of-the-box condition. Why would I pay someone to destroy all my hard-won warez?
... it's also WHERE and HOW you make it available! If your property is in my unlocked house (or PC) and someone steals it, I obviously had no criminal intent. But if your property is in my driveway garage sale, that's an easy call of intent to traffic in stolen goods. Whatever's in a Kazaa upload folder is in the garage sale.
... if he was a called an anomalous crackpot and all of his data was impeccably correct. A reviewer's opinion is protected unless it can shown that he acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. One can get all the answers right and still be a crackpot in someone's opinion.
It is bad policy for government to fund one college major but not another.
The DMCA doesn't require you to leave on your PC whatever a vendor puts there. It just requires you not to make illegal copies of things, even by doing something as legal as deleting files and registry keys.
"Electrifying" financial reports
Kite fighting
Pinatas for April 1 parties
Pin the tail on the AAAAGGGHH!
Amusing bathroom tissue
Infant training pants
So you're a buff skydiver or martial artist, and I'm a couch potato. I share your risk of broken bones and you share my risk of heart disease. Why should our employer get $10/paycheck from me but not from you?
What's next - your employer will fine you for skateboarding? Accounting clerks will pay lower premiums than forklift operators in the same firm?
This is a divisive, cherry-picking ploy of insurers. Don't stand for it!
... on MySpace.
I think it's been called USENET for a while now. Operates on the same principle as Santa Claus and Jesus: ask, and ye shall receive.
I used it recently to find a PC Card-format USB hub that wouldn't physically block the second slot on my notebook. Not only did I get a link to exactly such a product within 24 hours, but my "guide" sold me his card for ten bucks delivered, in contrast to the $70 to $90 that people have been paying for it on eBay lately.
It seems that ChaCha offers a compensation plan of sorts, so why would it be "unlikely" that IU's staff would not received any money? Who is scarfing that money?
Jack Rickard, erstwhile publisher of Boardwatch Magazine, upon first grokking HTML 1.0.
... pluck it out.
It merely has to be an original work of expression to qualify for copyright protection. So, yeah, a DMCA takedown notice for a fake ID as legally binding as one for Gucci copies.
The exemption of genetic information obtained from "an embryo or fetus" makes no sense. Why should insurers be allowed to raise rates, or employers be allowed to reject or fire a worker, just because a fetus the worker is carrying might have genetic flaws?
The exemption might even make fetuses the targets of medically unnecessary genetic testing, which could result in more miscarriages and induced birth defects.
The law does not apply to abortion providers at all. I see no reason for this fetal exemption.
Close reading of TFA shows that the second team found the same fungus in the same samples tested by the first team, and that sample was not particularly large.
:-)
What tickles me is that the researchers wish to emphasize that this fungus discover is not the conclusion of the bee conundrum. If it was, their funding would end.
... the North Slope pipeline. :P
What "justification" is needed for seeking to know who is speaking?
If some a-hole car peddler thinks it's "cute" to suggest to my kid something that's dangerous, I get him off the airwaves AFTER I tell my kid not to do that.
IMHO, "materially" should be interpreted to mean, "the disruption can be observed objectively by a third party". A student's reaction to a spitball in his ear is an easy example. But what about a student who claims he can't concentrate on his studies because of something another student allegedly said to or about him (on or off campus)?
First, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in compliance with the Bill of Rights, that the alleged disrupter actually said substantially what the alleged victim claims was said.
Second, one must look to the alleged victim's material performance (things teachers record, i. e., grades, class participation, on-time homework, etc.) before and after the alleged disruption. No degradation, no material disruption. A student's mere claim that the alleged disruption "makes it harder" to maintain his performance level is not material in and of itself. (It might rise to materiality if before-and-after records of hours spent on homework, papers crumpled and redone, and other objective metrics of effort are kept. But who keeps such records?)
Third, one must establish beyond reasonable doubt that what was said or done was the critical cause of the observed degradation in performance. That is, the material and substantial disruption would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged offense. The defense can raise doubt in the form of other factors that may have caused the degradation... unless those damned privacy laws prevent such discovery.
The SCOTUS has ruled (not in these words) that "substantially" means "more than an isolated and very transient" disruption. A student cannot be punished for a single fart that cracks up a whole class for a few seconds. But repeated farting substantially and materially disrupts teaching and learning. (How to respond to repeated farting involves the questions of intent and control.)
"The educational environment" also has vague boundaries. They have been expanded beyond the walls of the classroom, reasonably encompassing all school property and school-sponsored events - but including the rather questionable category of purely social rather than educational events (dances, bowling leagues, football games, etc.) Still, the physical boundaries of school authority are pretty well defined.
The boundary between what is "educational" and what is none of the school's business is a major bone of contention. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" highlights the question of whether drug policy is a matter of education or politics. Are t-shirts promoting Insane Clown Posse banned out of legitimate concern for student safety (substantial and material fights between rival fan groups within a specific school's physical boundaries) or because school board members don't like the music and want ICP banned district-wide, even where no material and substantial disruption has occurred?
I believe that out-of-bounds conduct or speech which causes in-bounds disruption of education falls within a school's purview. The point is not from where you mail a letter bomb; the principal crime occurs where it explodes (or is discovered and causes disruption). Again, substantial, material disruption and critical causation must be established beyond reasonable doubt, without violating the Bill of Rights.
have described the ingredients of justice as it is defined in the U. S. Quite obviously, schools are abysmal failures at dispensing justice. Schoolers lack the necessary training, resources, and most importantly the INCLINATION to dispense justice. When presented with a problem, they are only interested in making it go away as expediently as possible. As J. Edgar Hoover said, "Justice is in
But schools are not appropriate substitutes for police or judicial systems. Schoolers do not have the resources, training, or legal authority to deal with crimes justly.
Schools do not provide due process, equal protection, immunity from coercion to incriminate oneself, or any other Constitutional right. Schoolers violate such rights routinely, out of expediency, ignorance, or arrogance. The only penalty that a school is authorized to mete out is the denial of another Constitutional right: the right to a free and appropriate public education. (A right that would not exist if education was not compulsory.)
Legislators who attempt an end-run around the Constitution by making schools responsible for law enforcement via patently unconstituional means are violating their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. They deserve impeachment or recall.
The SCOTUS long ago ruled that it is every citizen's right to record the actions of a public official in the performance of his public duties. The court's reasoing is that such citizens are acting in a journalistic capacity, doing exactly what the press is supposed to do: keeping government honest. What this couple did was not only legal, it was protected by the First Amendment. (Repeatedly emailing the cop afterward might be considered stalking, though.)