Sorry, yes, that was supposed to read "during" the third trimester.
You're going to have to demonstrate that "to save the life of the mother" is equivalent to "i can't live with a child" in most states. Other wise, I'm going to have to assume that it is exactly as stated "to save the life of the mother", and that's definitely not a choice that the mother makes.
Uh...... hate to break it to you, but that chart is wrong. In at least the US, on-Demand abortions come with severe restrictions. Notably, they don't happen after the third-trimester.
I'm pretty sure that site isn't an authoritative source, if for no other reason that it refers to "pro-lifers" and "pro-abortionists". The chosen terminology by each group is pro-life and pro-choice. Respect it.
In hindsight, all scientific findings are "obvious" and "just common sense". What people forget to mention is that before the finding, there were about 200 competing, equally obvious and common sense based theories on what was happening.
That skill point is exactly like the point system in Leisure Suit Larry (the first one, since you're too young to know anything but PS2 games). Heck, you can even compare it to end-level score system in the first Sonic.
What is it with Sony fanboys that they are the most neurotically defensive gamers around? They're beating even the gloating Nintendo fanboys of the 80s, the paranoid Sega fanboys of the 90s and the smug Amiga fanboys.
Newsflash: everything's been done before. It doesn't matter if something's new, only if it works. In the meantime, stop foaming at the mouth. Sony will survive without you.
Yes. In this case, one is government sanctioned, the other is illegal. One has no recourse, the other has (theoretically) the recourse of a criminal proceeding.
Considering that the theft of credit card information that happened to TJ Maxx and other stores was done while the data was protected by Access Control Lists, I'm not sure this bill is worth the paper it is printed on. Does my Windows Logon constitute reasonable and industry-standard Access Control? Does it count if my keyphrase to my encrypted volume is "password", "god" or "John"?
The point of industry-standard security in most cases is just to make sure no one can just drive-by and clean everything out. It is an effort that is based on cost and perceived value, where the relationship between the two isn't always what we like it to be. As a result, it seems to me the only time that a data breach has to be reported is when someone has a laptop stolen that requires no login and where the data is on the desktop in a cvs file named "Secret".
Yeah, I'm not bitter at all about our corporate overlords writing our laws.
Ah..... now it makes sense. You see yourself as the equivalent of the old aristocrats: better than those muddling masses around you, better than those poor bastards who can't dress as well as you, smarter and more important than those below you and therefore deserving to make decisions for others.
Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin. You don't understand the creative process, you don't understand what I do and what I create, you don't understand the theory, the facts or the goals of copyright law, you don't even understand the difference between product and service, and yet you think you're uniquely qualified to rule on how copyright should function?
All you have is a borderless arrogance whose only root seems to be the ownership of a business.
Yes, it's a flame. Go suck on it. Some people can't handle a rational discussion. You're one of them.
I believe you haven't noticed the pattern. If lights are aligned vertically, the red light is ALWAYS on top and the green one ALWAYS on the bottom. If they're aligned horizontally, the red light is ALWAYS on the left. The arrangement is always the same, regardless of where the traffic light is exactly located.
Thanks for clarifying the syndrome name - I was reading the entry and couldn't figure out what the connection was.:) As for volition, my favorite counter-example is that of anchor values - the strong correlation that exists between someone being exposed to an arbitrary number that then influences the selection of another arbitrary number. Subtle, but weird.
As for your proposed idea - I can get on board with that. But it would have to be part of the rehabilitation process, with only a minimal impact on the sentencing process. I don't think the judge in question understands where he is going with his approach.
For some reason, people have associated high IQs with knowing a lot about everything. Unfortunately, knowledge and IQ is different, as is wisdom and IQ. Sheesh, first year D&D players can tell you this.
Corollary: just because you're smart and know a lot about one subject doesn't mean you're opinion on another subject matters. I'm always astounded by how many smart developers think that because they know ASP inside out that they also know which economic system is better.
You're completely right, and I'm not advocating that this approach should be the basis for everything we do. But it should be the basis for the legal system, because otherwise, your entire path through society will solely be determined by your genetic make-up. And I don't care much for that.
As for the purpose of prisons... I believe in rehab, but understand that rehab is hard, and just locking people up is easy. Furthermore, rehab isn't about letting people out early - it's making sure that when you do let them out, they're less likely to do the same thing again. But to some extent, that's an entirely different discussion, where the central problem is how to go about rehabilitation, and how to measure its effectiveness before letting people back out.
No, you misunderstood. The problem isn't liberal depravity. The problem is that this approach removes intent, and replaces it with "genes did it". Yes, it's an exaggeration, and even the Italian judge didn't go all the way on this.
Here's the problem with this approach: it is possible to tie a genetic predisposition to pretty much anything these days. And from what I know about the cognitive sciences area, more and more genes are found to influence more and more behaviors. The end game here is that pretty much any illegal action can at some point be tied to a genetic predisposition. This has two consequences:
1) it reduces a person's liability. As you correctly pointed, our legal system is big on intent. But with genes controlling your behavior, you are less and less responsible for your behavior, and are less and less able to form an intent that is independent of their influence. I.e., loss of free will, and loss of legal liability.
2) it also means that pre-crime becomes a natural extension of the legal system. If you know someone is predisposed to violence, shouldn't something be done beforehand? If you get a gene that codes for sociopathy and aggressive behavior, should these people be locked up before they commit a crime? Because after they commit a crime, they can point to their genes and say "Really, I had no choice." If they had no choice when they committed the crime, they shouldn't be allowed to be in a situation where they will be exposed to an opportunity to commit that crime. I.e., pre-emptive lock-up.
You're right, just assuming free will isn't the only solution. But allowing for genetic predispositions to temper liability is a very dangerous path to go down, and the simple alternative - assuming free will as an axiom - is already built-in into western society.
I create intellectual property as well. Every day. Furthermore, I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue. And you know what we found? We can't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it cannot be put into the public for 75 years after they die. What do we do? We use stuff licensed under BSD, GPL or CC terms. And we're able to create far more stuff than if we'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.
What you're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas. Because if you think that what you create is unique - you're deluding yourself.
What makes you think 34 senators will vote against something that will guarantee that their extra-marital affairs and racist comments cannot spread around the world in less time it takes you to say "No Comment"?
It's the smell of free will going out the window, courtesy of people thinking that gene==unable to overcome that impulse. And with free will out the window, there's no liability. And with no liability... well, the court system we have is completely unworkable.
I was wondering when that issue was going to crop up. Thankfully, Italy seems bound to test just how much of a disaster that road will be.
The only solution to this is to ignore genetic predisposition when judging a convicted criminal.
Or, to put it differently: we have no choice but to believe in free will. Our society depends on it.
This has got to be an officially approved MPAA troll. In three sentences, you made one horrible slippery slope argument, a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion based on american trigger terms.
Go away. I'm not subsidizing your mansion where you do no work, and are complacent enough to mooch off of others.
Easy solution: a few random words and spacings are changed in all documents. There are enough headers, footers, annotations, credits and places to insert white place that you can have a unique document for a nearly infinite population. Unless you have two copies, you won't even know it's there.
Right. Because blocking all communication between edge nodes, and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works. Right.
I'm pretty sure he'd sing a different tune if he was patrolling in front of that robot. Oh, the joys of never having to be near an actual battlefield anymore.
Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
Because this ignores the doctrine of first sale - that once you collect money for something, you don't control what happens to your product.
Wait, you say there's a contract involved? You're free to write any contract you want - some contracts are unenforceable though. Furthermore, you cannot unilaterally change a contract after the sale has occurred.
Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license.
Finally, you didn't enumerate your rights as the software creator. What are those? As far as I can tell, there are only a select few inherent and unalienable rights, and they're spelled out in the declaration of independence (or human rights, if that floats your boat more). None of those talk about anything even remotely related to copyright. It seems to me you're trying to impose your rights on others, rather than the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, yes, that was supposed to read "during" the third trimester.
You're going to have to demonstrate that "to save the life of the mother" is equivalent to "i can't live with a child" in most states. Other wise, I'm going to have to assume that it is exactly as stated "to save the life of the mother", and that's definitely not a choice that the mother makes.
Uh...... hate to break it to you, but that chart is wrong. In at least the US, on-Demand abortions come with severe restrictions. Notably, they don't happen after the third-trimester.
I'm pretty sure that site isn't an authoritative source, if for no other reason that it refers to "pro-lifers" and "pro-abortionists". The chosen terminology by each group is pro-life and pro-choice. Respect it.
I like the last paragraph: "Oh, and the journalistic generalizations were false as an expression of the authors' findings. Of course."
Of course. Sigh.
In hindsight, all scientific findings are "obvious" and "just common sense". What people forget to mention is that before the finding, there were about 200 competing, equally obvious and common sense based theories on what was happening.
That skill point is exactly like the point system in Leisure Suit Larry (the first one, since you're too young to know anything but PS2 games). Heck, you can even compare it to end-level score system in the first Sonic.
What is it with Sony fanboys that they are the most neurotically defensive gamers around? They're beating even the gloating Nintendo fanboys of the 80s, the paranoid Sega fanboys of the 90s and the smug Amiga fanboys.
Newsflash: everything's been done before. It doesn't matter if something's new, only if it works. In the meantime, stop foaming at the mouth. Sony will survive without you.
Yes. In this case, one is government sanctioned, the other is illegal. One has no recourse, the other has (theoretically) the recourse of a criminal proceeding.
Considering that the theft of credit card information that happened to TJ Maxx and other stores was done while the data was protected by Access Control Lists, I'm not sure this bill is worth the paper it is printed on. Does my Windows Logon constitute reasonable and industry-standard Access Control? Does it count if my keyphrase to my encrypted volume is "password", "god" or "John"?
The point of industry-standard security in most cases is just to make sure no one can just drive-by and clean everything out. It is an effort that is based on cost and perceived value, where the relationship between the two isn't always what we like it to be. As a result, it seems to me the only time that a data breach has to be reported is when someone has a laptop stolen that requires no login and where the data is on the desktop in a cvs file named "Secret".
Yeah, I'm not bitter at all about our corporate overlords writing our laws.
Ah..... now it makes sense. You see yourself as the equivalent of the old aristocrats: better than those muddling masses around you, better than those poor bastards who can't dress as well as you, smarter and more important than those below you and therefore deserving to make decisions for others.
Democracy must really suck for you, doesn't it?
Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin. You don't understand the creative process, you don't understand what I do and what I create, you don't understand the theory, the facts or the goals of copyright law, you don't even understand the difference between product and service, and yet you think you're uniquely qualified to rule on how copyright should function?
All you have is a borderless arrogance whose only root seems to be the ownership of a business.
Yes, it's a flame. Go suck on it. Some people can't handle a rational discussion. You're one of them.
I believe you haven't noticed the pattern. If lights are aligned vertically, the red light is ALWAYS on top and the green one ALWAYS on the bottom. If they're aligned horizontally, the red light is ALWAYS on the left. The arrangement is always the same, regardless of where the traffic light is exactly located.
I much prefer the short version: "When going through hell, keep going." -Churchill
Thanks for clarifying the syndrome name - I was reading the entry and couldn't figure out what the connection was. :) As for volition, my favorite counter-example is that of anchor values - the strong correlation that exists between someone being exposed to an arbitrary number that then influences the selection of another arbitrary number. Subtle, but weird.
As for your proposed idea - I can get on board with that. But it would have to be part of the rehabilitation process, with only a minimal impact on the sentencing process. I don't think the judge in question understands where he is going with his approach.
For some reason, people have associated high IQs with knowing a lot about everything. Unfortunately, knowledge and IQ is different, as is wisdom and IQ. Sheesh, first year D&D players can tell you this.
Corollary: just because you're smart and know a lot about one subject doesn't mean you're opinion on another subject matters. I'm always astounded by how many smart developers think that because they know ASP inside out that they also know which economic system is better.
You're completely right, and I'm not advocating that this approach should be the basis for everything we do. But it should be the basis for the legal system, because otherwise, your entire path through society will solely be determined by your genetic make-up. And I don't care much for that.
As for the purpose of prisons... I believe in rehab, but understand that rehab is hard, and just locking people up is easy. Furthermore, rehab isn't about letting people out early - it's making sure that when you do let them out, they're less likely to do the same thing again. But to some extent, that's an entirely different discussion, where the central problem is how to go about rehabilitation, and how to measure its effectiveness before letting people back out.
No, you misunderstood. The problem isn't liberal depravity. The problem is that this approach removes intent, and replaces it with "genes did it". Yes, it's an exaggeration, and even the Italian judge didn't go all the way on this.
Here's the problem with this approach: it is possible to tie a genetic predisposition to pretty much anything these days. And from what I know about the cognitive sciences area, more and more genes are found to influence more and more behaviors. The end game here is that pretty much any illegal action can at some point be tied to a genetic predisposition. This has two consequences:
1) it reduces a person's liability. As you correctly pointed, our legal system is big on intent. But with genes controlling your behavior, you are less and less responsible for your behavior, and are less and less able to form an intent that is independent of their influence. I.e., loss of free will, and loss of legal liability.
2) it also means that pre-crime becomes a natural extension of the legal system. If you know someone is predisposed to violence, shouldn't something be done beforehand? If you get a gene that codes for sociopathy and aggressive behavior, should these people be locked up before they commit a crime? Because after they commit a crime, they can point to their genes and say "Really, I had no choice." If they had no choice when they committed the crime, they shouldn't be allowed to be in a situation where they will be exposed to an opportunity to commit that crime. I.e., pre-emptive lock-up.
You're right, just assuming free will isn't the only solution. But allowing for genetic predispositions to temper liability is a very dangerous path to go down, and the simple alternative - assuming free will as an axiom - is already built-in into western society.
Your wants are no more important than other people's wants. Especially when your wants are short-sighted, selfish, and lead to a stalled society.
I create intellectual property as well. Every day. Furthermore, I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue. And you know what we found? We can't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it cannot be put into the public for 75 years after they die. What do we do? We use stuff licensed under BSD, GPL or CC terms. And we're able to create far more stuff than if we'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.
What you're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas. Because if you think that what you create is unique - you're deluding yourself.
What makes you think 34 senators will vote against something that will guarantee that their extra-marital affairs and racist comments cannot spread around the world in less time it takes you to say "No Comment"?
It's the smell of free will going out the window, courtesy of people thinking that gene==unable to overcome that impulse. And with free will out the window, there's no liability. And with no liability... well, the court system we have is completely unworkable.
I was wondering when that issue was going to crop up. Thankfully, Italy seems bound to test just how much of a disaster that road will be.
The only solution to this is to ignore genetic predisposition when judging a convicted criminal.
Or, to put it differently: we have no choice but to believe in free will. Our society depends on it.
This has got to be an officially approved MPAA troll. In three sentences, you made one horrible slippery slope argument, a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion based on american trigger terms.
Go away. I'm not subsidizing your mansion where you do no work, and are complacent enough to mooch off of others.
Easy solution: a few random words and spacings are changed in all documents. There are enough headers, footers, annotations, credits and places to insert white place that you can have a unique document for a nearly infinite population. Unless you have two copies, you won't even know it's there.
Right. Because blocking all communication between edge nodes, and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works. Right.
It's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves.
I'm pretty sure he'd sing a different tune if he was patrolling in front of that robot. Oh, the joys of never having to be near an actual battlefield anymore.
Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
Because this ignores the doctrine of first sale - that once you collect money for something, you don't control what happens to your product.
Wait, you say there's a contract involved? You're free to write any contract you want - some contracts are unenforceable though. Furthermore, you cannot unilaterally change a contract after the sale has occurred.
Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license.
Finally, you didn't enumerate your rights as the software creator. What are those? As far as I can tell, there are only a select few inherent and unalienable rights, and they're spelled out in the declaration of independence (or human rights, if that floats your boat more). None of those talk about anything even remotely related to copyright. It seems to me you're trying to impose your rights on others, rather than the other way around.