Case law is the set of existing rulings which made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law which are regulations established by executive branch agencies. Trials and hearings that do not result in written decisions of a court of record do not create precedent for future court decisions.[3][4] In some countries, such as the USA, the term is exclusively used for decisions from bodies discharging judicial functions, such as selected appellate courts and courts of first instance.
(emphasis is, of course, my own)
Note that this does not include the question of jurisdiction, but it is my understanding that this too is an official part of the legal system.
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
If nobody ever resists government requests for data (which is exactly what Twitter has done), then you DO have "illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not under genuine suspicion of committing crimes." If nobody says 'wait a minute, I'm not sure that's legal' and leaves it up to the government to decide on their own what is and is not legitimate surveillance, you end up with secret rooms at AT&T....
You do not know this guy is guilty. Nor does Twitter, nor does the prosecution in this case. That's what "Innocent until proven guilty" means.
Also, what if, for example, he doesn't want these tweets revealed because he was actually cooperating with police and doesn't want other activists to find out? The whole 'if he's innocent why doesn't he release them himself' argument is EXACTLY what the part in the Fifth Amendment about being compelled to witness against yourself is about.
TPB hasn't provided anything other than Magnet links in a LOOONG time (well, OK, some torrents provide the.torrent file alongside the magnet link, but that's pretty rare)
I personally haven't found a better source that isn't invite-only...
They'll say that the 0.05% that you uploaded was then re-uploaded 1,000,000 times by the people you uploaded to, therefore you're responsible for 50,000%.
However, any case law or ruling by any two bit judge in any podunk jurisdiction trumps the legislature every time.
Not every court decision automatically becomes case law. Courts also aren't compelled to abide by decisions in a different jurisdiction -- for example, it's entirely possible for the First Circuit court to make one decision, while the Third Circuit could have a near identical case later and reach the opposite decision. For examples of this look at case law around the country on filming police officers on duty -- the law really depends not only on what state you live in, but what judicial circuit -- some have stated this is a First Amendment freedom and therefore trumps any state or even federal law on the matter; courts elsewhere have disagreed. It won't really be decided on a national level until/unless the issue comes up before the Supreme Court.
The knowledge might as well be universal, because you can ask google (via keywords or plain English) what effect windmills have on weather, and it will tell you that the effect is negligible. This is actually easier and takes less time than posting a comment on slashdot, let alone waiting for the response. Therefore, it is either trolling (either for money or not) or a very stupid thing to do.
Or he's lazy. Or he's trying to encourage discussion, which I always thought was kind of the point of Slashdot.
I've always had the same question. It never made sense to me that a large number of wind turbines wouldn't have some effect on the weather -- until I saw your discussion comparing them to trees. That makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I thank you for it. I'd still be holding the same belief as this so-called troll had he not made his post.
And no, I never even considered Googleing it -- just not something I'm all that interested in (of course, not interested enough to post on Slashdot about it either really) and usually the results you get from Googleing something are not going to be anywhere near as clear as somebody with some knowledge in the area explaining why your point is wrong.
Just because someone posts a question that can be answered with some independent research doesn't make them a troll -- if it does, then damn near every single 'Ask Slashdot' question ever posted is also trolling. The motivations for posting a question on a site like Slashdot are very different from the motivations for typing something into Google.
There's a few wind turbines near where I used to live in Western Pennsylvania. I never talked to anyone who didn't think they were beautiful. You'd be driving down the highway and as you turn the corner around a mountain you see a group of big shining white wind turbines cropping up from just behind the mountain....everyone I know loved it. Granted, that wasn't quite in their backyards, but there are definitely plenty of people out there who enjoy the way windmills look.
It's just like running water -- personally, I would hate to have a water fountain of some sort in my home with the constant sound of the damn thing running, but most people seem to think it's incredibly calming.
Admittedly I'm not running a data center or anything so my experience is limited, but the only hard drives I've ever had fail on me have both been 80GB WD Caviars. Purchased a couple years apart. Haven't bought a WD drive since.
The fine wasn't for her copyright violation, it was for his negligence.
Here's a more appropriate analogy: In my state, you're required to have an emergency exit for every bedroom. The apartment I used to live at, before my roommates sued, had a bedroom with only one exit. This would be equivalent to punishing the landlord had my roommate fallen asleep with a lit cigarette and been killed/injured in the fire because he couldn't escape easily due to the building not being up to code.
The appropriate thing to be outraged about is not that he is being held responsible for his wife's crimes -- they're saying he was negligent and that's a pretty well accepted concept. The thing to be outraged about is that they've decided that having an open wifi network is negligent. I intentionally disable the security on mine...what would they call that? Conspiracy? Aiding and abetting?
ReactOS isn't Windows but it can run Windows apps. What's Microsoft doing? Nothing. Why? Exact same reason Google isn't doing anything about other phones running Android apps -- it's not illegal; there's nothing they CAN do.
Now, if they wanted to ship with Google apps preinstalled, without Google's permission...then there would be a problem. I assume the Acer phones currently do have those apps.
Is it installed by any of the manufacturers before purchase? No. Not the same thing. Of course you can do whatever the fuck you want to a phone after you buy it (as much as some manufacturers try to say otherwise...); that has absolutely no relevance to this though, as this is about them selling other phones that SHIP WITH a different OS that can run arbitrary APKs.
Yes. and if you talk to your local mayor, your local chief of police, your local council members...you'll get an actual response. At least I always have. Shit you send them an email and you get a clear, concise answer to exactly the issue you asked or complained about.
Try getting that from a anyone in the federal government. Sure, you can go talk to them. I've talked to my state senator many times. Last time he told me 'yes, I'm definitely going to vote against this bill, it's a solution in search of a problem'...and then a month later he voted in favor of it. You send them an email, and the reply you get is an automated response that's some long-winded background discussion of the issue usually without any statement of where they themselves stand on it.
I'd much rather be one of a thousand voices than one of a million.
of course there is one flaw in the plan. the overweight always have excuses why it's not their fault that they eat more calories than they burn. they might get more creative and start coming up with excuses for why they couldn't be bothered to undergo liposuction. perhaps it could be made mandatory? or maybe tax credits could incentivize it? i am open to ideas of course.
REALLY? THAT's the problem you see with this plan??? Seriously???
Obviously the companies that are then selling this extracted fat will provide a free tub of ice cream for every 20 pounds "donated". Or a bag of Doritos.
Replace 'bug' with 'poorly designed software' then.
Just because it's part of the design doesn't mean that design is a good one. You won't ever find a better way of doing things if you don't see anything wrong with the current one.
And if you're being run out of town by angry folk with pitchforks, tar and feathers?
That's a pretty absurd jump there. Just because you don't have a right to not be offended doesn't mean you don't have a right to not be run out of town by angry folk with pitchforks. Now, can you necessarily stop them? No. Can you stop people _right now_ from doing the exact same thing because, say, you're in a mostly (D) or (R) town (replace with your country's political parties if not the US) and happen to express the opposite view? Nope. So what's the difference?
Either you have a right to say offensive things, or you have no right to disagree with anyone ever over any issue -- because some people will always take any disagreement as offensive, no matter how you express it.
I dunno, my parents have three dogs and a cat (the dogs are a big black lab, a little shelty, and a medium sized long-haired mutt of some sort) and pet hair is exactly why my mom bought and loves the Roomba. She's had two now -- some dirt cheap thing that may be a knockoff brand, I don't remember (which she still has and it still works, but doesn't get used as often) and something along the lines of the 630 I think, though it's also a few years old now. Before buying these things she was vacuuming three or four times a week and the house was still covered in pet hair; now she has the Roomba set on a timer to run every day while she's at work and just empties it when she gets home. Doesn't get everywhere or everything, sure, but she's happy with it at least.
Wouldn't mind having one myself either if I had the money for it....keep the carpet fuzz in my new apartment at bay...although the damn thing would probably choke on it and die in seconds -- even my actual vacuum gets clogged from just my small bedroom once a week...
If we're talking language processing and such, I think Watson would be a better comparison than Siri. It doesn't do voice recognition I know, but clearly we have software fairly capable of that as well, it's just a matter of linking the two together. I just don't know how general purpose Watson could be though.
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, take away the poor and we'll score near the top. Minorities just tend to be poor.
Yes, even in (especially in!) countries where these "minorities" are the majority.
Wonder why that is?
Hundreds of years of colonial rule, perhaps?
Well, there's no reason you couldn't make a micro-USB compatible plug that does in fact lock. You could probably even make one that's reversible...
It isn't a matter of finding exceptions -- it's part of the very definition of case law. The examples were merely provided as further evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Case law is the set of existing rulings which made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law which are regulations established by executive branch agencies. Trials and hearings that do not result in written decisions of a court of record do not create precedent for future court decisions.[3][4] In some countries, such as the USA, the term is exclusively used for decisions from bodies discharging judicial functions, such as selected appellate courts and courts of first instance.
(emphasis is, of course, my own)
Note that this does not include the question of jurisdiction, but it is my understanding that this too is an official part of the legal system.
You're missing the point of what people mean when they say "if you have nothing to hide...". They're not saying we need to stop legitimate, specific, limited, manually approved warrants from being executed with the aim of finding the truth of a legal matter. Instead, we need to stop illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not (as this guy is) under genuine suspicion of committing crimes.
If nobody ever resists government requests for data (which is exactly what Twitter has done), then you DO have "illegitimate, broad-sweeping, unlimited, automatically approved acquisition of data from people who are not under genuine suspicion of committing crimes." If nobody says 'wait a minute, I'm not sure that's legal' and leaves it up to the government to decide on their own what is and is not legitimate surveillance, you end up with secret rooms at AT&T....
You do not know this guy is guilty. Nor does Twitter, nor does the prosecution in this case. That's what "Innocent until proven guilty" means.
Also, what if, for example, he doesn't want these tweets revealed because he was actually cooperating with police and doesn't want other activists to find out? The whole 'if he's innocent why doesn't he release them himself' argument is EXACTLY what the part in the Fifth Amendment about being compelled to witness against yourself is about.
Magnet links alone simplify locating torrents.
TPB hasn't provided anything other than Magnet links in a LOOONG time (well, OK, some torrents provide the .torrent file alongside the magnet link, but that's pretty rare)
I personally haven't found a better source that isn't invite-only...
They'll say that the 0.05% that you uploaded was then re-uploaded 1,000,000 times by the people you uploaded to, therefore you're responsible for 50,000%.
However, any case law or ruling by any two bit judge in any podunk jurisdiction trumps the legislature every time.
Not every court decision automatically becomes case law. Courts also aren't compelled to abide by decisions in a different jurisdiction -- for example, it's entirely possible for the First Circuit court to make one decision, while the Third Circuit could have a near identical case later and reach the opposite decision. For examples of this look at case law around the country on filming police officers on duty -- the law really depends not only on what state you live in, but what judicial circuit -- some have stated this is a First Amendment freedom and therefore trumps any state or even federal law on the matter; courts elsewhere have disagreed. It won't really be decided on a national level until/unless the issue comes up before the Supreme Court.
The knowledge might as well be universal, because you can ask google (via keywords or plain English) what effect windmills have on weather, and it will tell you that the effect is negligible. This is actually easier and takes less time than posting a comment on slashdot, let alone waiting for the response. Therefore, it is either trolling (either for money or not) or a very stupid thing to do.
Or he's lazy. Or he's trying to encourage discussion, which I always thought was kind of the point of Slashdot.
I've always had the same question. It never made sense to me that a large number of wind turbines wouldn't have some effect on the weather -- until I saw your discussion comparing them to trees. That makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I thank you for it. I'd still be holding the same belief as this so-called troll had he not made his post.
And no, I never even considered Googleing it -- just not something I'm all that interested in (of course, not interested enough to post on Slashdot about it either really) and usually the results you get from Googleing something are not going to be anywhere near as clear as somebody with some knowledge in the area explaining why your point is wrong.
Just because someone posts a question that can be answered with some independent research doesn't make them a troll -- if it does, then damn near every single 'Ask Slashdot' question ever posted is also trolling. The motivations for posting a question on a site like Slashdot are very different from the motivations for typing something into Google.
There's a few wind turbines near where I used to live in Western Pennsylvania. I never talked to anyone who didn't think they were beautiful. You'd be driving down the highway and as you turn the corner around a mountain you see a group of big shining white wind turbines cropping up from just behind the mountain....everyone I know loved it. Granted, that wasn't quite in their backyards, but there are definitely plenty of people out there who enjoy the way windmills look.
It's just like running water -- personally, I would hate to have a water fountain of some sort in my home with the constant sound of the damn thing running, but most people seem to think it's incredibly calming.
Still, imagine a phone that would need charging less than once a week!
Already have one. Not a 'smart phone', but by the time these batteries are in top of the line phones, it won't last a week there either!
I used to keep an Archos 5 IMT ( http://www.amazon.com/Archos-32-Internet-Tablet-Android/dp/B002OL2PLU ) in my pants pocket and never had a problem with it...hell you should see all the crap I've got in them right now...wallet, pack of smokes, lighter, two pencils, a pen, car keys & fob, RSA fob, house keys, office keys, apartment fob, detachable keychain, sunglasses, and an LG VX9800 ( http://www.cellphonestalk.com/cellphonereviews/lg/vx9800/lg-vx9800-flipside2.jpg )
Admittedly I'm not running a data center or anything so my experience is limited, but the only hard drives I've ever had fail on me have both been 80GB WD Caviars. Purchased a couple years apart. Haven't bought a WD drive since.
But how much heavier is the drive going to be if you make it that big?
I'm not too familiar with it, but if it's distributed with copyrighted Google apps pre-installed, yes.
The fine wasn't for her copyright violation, it was for his negligence.
Here's a more appropriate analogy:
In my state, you're required to have an emergency exit for every bedroom. The apartment I used to live at, before my roommates sued, had a bedroom with only one exit. This would be equivalent to punishing the landlord had my roommate fallen asleep with a lit cigarette and been killed/injured in the fire because he couldn't escape easily due to the building not being up to code.
The appropriate thing to be outraged about is not that he is being held responsible for his wife's crimes -- they're saying he was negligent and that's a pretty well accepted concept. The thing to be outraged about is that they've decided that having an open wifi network is negligent. I intentionally disable the security on mine...what would they call that? Conspiracy? Aiding and abetting?
ReactOS isn't Windows but it can run Windows apps. What's Microsoft doing? Nothing. Why? Exact same reason Google isn't doing anything about other phones running Android apps -- it's not illegal; there's nothing they CAN do.
Now, if they wanted to ship with Google apps preinstalled, without Google's permission...then there would be a problem. I assume the Acer phones currently do have those apps.
Illegally, sure. But I doubt it's gonna go so well for Acer if they start selling phones with pirated software preinstalled...
Is it installed by any of the manufacturers before purchase? No. Not the same thing. Of course you can do whatever the fuck you want to a phone after you buy it (as much as some manufacturers try to say otherwise...); that has absolutely no relevance to this though, as this is about them selling other phones that SHIP WITH a different OS that can run arbitrary APKs.
Yes. and if you talk to your local mayor, your local chief of police, your local council members...you'll get an actual response. At least I always have. Shit you send them an email and you get a clear, concise answer to exactly the issue you asked or complained about.
Try getting that from a anyone in the federal government. Sure, you can go talk to them. I've talked to my state senator many times. Last time he told me 'yes, I'm definitely going to vote against this bill, it's a solution in search of a problem'...and then a month later he voted in favor of it. You send them an email, and the reply you get is an automated response that's some long-winded background discussion of the issue usually without any statement of where they themselves stand on it.
I'd much rather be one of a thousand voices than one of a million.
of course there is one flaw in the plan. the overweight always have excuses why it's not their fault that they eat more calories than they burn. they might get more creative and start coming up with excuses for why they couldn't be bothered to undergo liposuction. perhaps it could be made mandatory? or maybe tax credits could incentivize it? i am open to ideas of course.
REALLY? THAT's the problem you see with this plan??? Seriously???
Obviously the companies that are then selling this extracted fat will provide a free tub of ice cream for every 20 pounds "donated". Or a bag of Doritos.
Replace 'bug' with 'poorly designed software' then.
Just because it's part of the design doesn't mean that design is a good one. You won't ever find a better way of doing things if you don't see anything wrong with the current one.
And if you're being run out of town by angry folk with pitchforks, tar and feathers?
That's a pretty absurd jump there. Just because you don't have a right to not be offended doesn't mean you don't have a right to not be run out of town by angry folk with pitchforks. Now, can you necessarily stop them? No. Can you stop people _right now_ from doing the exact same thing because, say, you're in a mostly (D) or (R) town (replace with your country's political parties if not the US) and happen to express the opposite view? Nope. So what's the difference?
Either you have a right to say offensive things, or you have no right to disagree with anyone ever over any issue -- because some people will always take any disagreement as offensive, no matter how you express it.
Been removed from that link, but it can be found here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml
I dunno, my parents have three dogs and a cat (the dogs are a big black lab, a little shelty, and a medium sized long-haired mutt of some sort) and pet hair is exactly why my mom bought and loves the Roomba. She's had two now -- some dirt cheap thing that may be a knockoff brand, I don't remember (which she still has and it still works, but doesn't get used as often) and something along the lines of the 630 I think, though it's also a few years old now. Before buying these things she was vacuuming three or four times a week and the house was still covered in pet hair; now she has the Roomba set on a timer to run every day while she's at work and just empties it when she gets home. Doesn't get everywhere or everything, sure, but she's happy with it at least.
Wouldn't mind having one myself either if I had the money for it....keep the carpet fuzz in my new apartment at bay...although the damn thing would probably choke on it and die in seconds -- even my actual vacuum gets clogged from just my small bedroom once a week...
If we're talking language processing and such, I think Watson would be a better comparison than Siri. It doesn't do voice recognition I know, but clearly we have software fairly capable of that as well, it's just a matter of linking the two together. I just don't know how general purpose Watson could be though.