The so called Mrs. Murphy federal exception only applies if there are four or less units.
Yeah, I said if they live in the SAME unit. That would imply 1 unit. So, you're probably right about 4+ units, I don't know. So, if you rent a room out to someone, you can discriminate. I would be very surprised if that's not the case everywhere in the US, because think about that. Maybe you would have to rent the room next to your kid's room out to a sex offender because you're not allowed to discriminate against sex offenders right? When it's your own home, it's different.
Among the housing ads cited as objectionable by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc. were ones that read "NO MINORITIES," "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male," and "Only Muslims apply."
If the landloard lives in the same unit, it's legal to discriminate on ANY basis. In other words, if you want to rent a room in your house out to someone of your own race or gender, etc, the courts have ruled you can do so. I can see why this law exists because what if a single female wants to rent the room out to another single female? That would be against fair housing, but it's ok since it's her living unit. So, I'd imagine most of these ads are for a room rental because if you own some apartment complex, you probably only have one requirement: on time rent check.
Yeah, it's crazy. I wonder what Bloomberg would think if he walked into my company's office. We have a pool table, ping pong, etc. I've even seen places with an xbox or playstation. What's so bad about taking a break? Technically, even at an office job, you are allowed two 10 minute breaks per day by law. I suppose that Bloomberg could argue that the computer is not allowed to be used during these breaks, but give me a break! This is a great policy if you want to have a bunch of 9 to 5ers that don't really give a crap about their job. But if you want to have employees that actually try to accomplish goals as opposed to punching a clock and cashing a paycheck, you might want to have a little faith that they will do some work and manage thier own time.
What I don't understand is why an alternative 'internet' has been setup yet, using encrypted/disguised routes to the western world in a P2P fashion. If there's one niche in which open-source software can prosper it's going to be here.
You don't even need an 'alternative internet' to do this. All you need is an encrypted web proxy or vpn. As long as the traffic is at a reasonable level, no one would notice and no one would be able to tell where you're going.
The left thinks global warming is caused by humans.
The right thinks global warming is not caused by humans.
Who's right? It actually doesn't matter a whole lot. What we know is that over the last 100 years the temperature has risen about 1 degree celcius. If, in the next 100 years, the temperature rises another degree, we're probably going to be just fine. In 100 years we will have so many other options that don't cause global warming and besides we will run out of Oil well before 2100 if we keep using it at the current pace. Within 100 years, the ITER project will enable us to use Nuclear Fussion which will allow us to use sea water to power the entire world for millions of years. Within 100 years, we will likely have some breakthroughs in Nanotechnology that either allow us to use electric cars (and drive for hundreds of miles without refueling) or use fuel cells. Within the next 100 years, we will probably have break throughs in Solar that allow super cheap self supplied solar power to power houses and power our cars that are now electric. Maybe I'm an optomist, but I just see a cheap clean green future for energy by the time _our_ effects on the environment will matter. If it turns out that global warming is not caused by us, we still need to fix it. How do we do that? Well, there are proposals to pump SO2 into the atmosphere to reverse the global warming effect. When we have mature nanotechnology, this capability will be easily acheived.
>Like the "accidental" bombing of the Al-jazeera station in Afghanistan, or the planned bombing in Qatar?
How can you compare an accident to intentional actions? You seem to be implying it wasn't an accident. Do you know all the facts? Maybe there was a good reason for bombing this particular site.
>So how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since the last invasion?
In war time, there are civilian casualties. While everything has been done to prevent this, it still happens. This is not murder. There's a big difference between collateral damage and intentional killing.
That's right, we flag and ribbon wearing, Jesus loving, George Bush electing Americans have more in common with those Flag Burning, Mohammed loving, Hamas electing Muslims than we have with George Bush and the upper echelons of our government.
Come on man, give me a break. You're making the West out to be the moral equivelent of the terrorists here. This must be a joke. We don't surround embassies with guns and blow them up if a newspaper prints something we don't like. We don't send our women and children to blow up random people on the street trying to live their lives peacefully in order to be greeted by 76 virgins when we arrive in heaven. We don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings in nations that don't declare our religion as the official religion. We don't kidnap journalists, construction workers, or doctors and cut their heads off and send the video out over the internet. We don't send suicide bombers to a wedding reception. We don't murder people that have political dissagreements with us.
I think you really need to spend some time thinking about this more and doing more research. Sometimes there IS right and wrong, good and evil. Muslims are not evil, but there is a small group of people that are EVIL that have hijacked this noble religion.
Ok, I see your point. Maybe it's a little extreme to say that it would be impossible to profit without patents. It would certainly be easier for copy cats who do nothing creative to profit in a system without patents. For instance in China, people sell DVDs for under $1. These salesmen are certainly a group of people who have profited from the lack of intellectual property rights in China. I guess it comes down to what kind of behavior you want to encourage. If you want to encourage inteligent ideas like Google's Page Rank System, Alexander Graham Bell's telegraph and Edison's patent portfolio you will also encourage a strong patent system.
You must not have read my post. What I was saying is, if you ban patents altogether that would make it impossible for someone to profit from his/her ingenuity. The RIMM case is a different story, and I don't know all the facts about it. It's possible that there are injustices in that case. I really couldn't tell you. But we don't need a fence test to disallow patents for non physical objects. Look at it this way, if we did have a fence test would RIMM have ever formed? It's possible no one would be willing to invest in the R&D necessary to create such a system if they would not be allowed to profit from it without having other people rip off their idea. Is that what you want? Or should we just fix the injustices by having a better patent system with better peer reviewers, etc.?
If a fence test was implemented, all investment into non-physical research would be discouraged.
Yes, I agree this fence test is not well thought out. Take for instance a patent on a computer chip. This would pass the "fence test" because you can put a fence around a computer chip. But the underlying idea that you patent might very well be a VHDL algorithm. Why would this algorithm be patentable but not a Java program? If you want to take it a step further, think about a specification for an advanced bridge. This clearly passes the fence test, but the underlying idea could be more of a specification that is similar to software than it is to something you can touch in the physical world. What it comes down to is either you believe that inventions/ideas are patentable. If you do, then you agree with the concept of patents. If you don't, then just ban them all. Of course, this would not be a very logical system since no one would be allowed to profit from his/her ingenuity.
And thinking that 6 billion humans burning down forests and chucking out megatonnes of CO2 and SO2 couldn't possibly affect a balanced ecosystem is ignorant.
I won't deny that humans have burned down rain forests, but lightning also has. If you've ever lived in California, you'll know what the fire season is all about. Of course humans effect the ecosystem. I agree that it would be ignorant to think otherwise. So do rabits, wolves, and dogs. Mount Pinatubo also effected the ecosystem when it errupted. It emitted megatons of SO2 which could lead to global cooling. My main point is that humans are not the only ones effecting our environment. Because we do effect the environment doesn't mean we effect it more than volcanic erruptions or If you read some of my previous posts, I advocate using Solar power. The reason I advocate using Solar (and continued research of it) is two fold:
1.) If we are truly effecting the envoronment, we can avoid this by using renewable energy sources.
2.) Eventually, we will run out of Oil and be forced to make the switch.
dismissing it because it sounds arrogant to you is hardly a sign of careful, rational thought, and it certainly isn't scientific.
There have been many heating and cooling periods over the years. Thinking that human intervention can either promote or undermine global warming is somewhat arrogant.
. Considering the kit costs over three times what the gas savings amount to, it is hard to market on account of good money-sense.
Good evaluation. For an individual person, this is a very good thought process. When looking at the benefits to society there is a benefit to the environment if we generate less polution. Since individuals typically make decisions based on what's better for them rather than what's good for society with refernce to money matters, there is a need for government to use it's power to factor in the environmental impact through tax credits and or other incentives for car manufacturers. Even if government gave a $1000 credit for buying this car, there would be substantially more people that would buy. An example of this is low income housing. Government subsidises low income housing because we don't want to have a large number of homeless. If it weren't for this subsidy, real estate developers would have no incentive to develop these properties because it's not profitable.
I have limited understanding of the fabrication process of the solar panels, so it would be hard to say whether or not mother nature profits from this scenario.
This is also a good point. If it causes more polution to create this panel, it doesn't make sense to do this. Based on my understanding, since it takes energy (some derived from 'dirty' sources) to make solar panels. As we convert more of our energy production to renewables, this will become less and less of a problem because the inputed energy used to make the panels is reneable and thus clean.
It would be the first actual court judgement against the RIAA
I never read anything about a court judgement against the RIAA. I thought this was a lawsuit filed by the RIAA against this women? It's not an abuse of process to make a mistake. They'd have to prove that the RIAA is randomly suing people. So, if that happens, fine. I guess I'd be ok with this post if we had some info from the RIAA or at least an attempt to contact them. Without even giving a single point from there side, this story is just not newsworthy in my opinion.
This is the exact reason the Government (US, other countries, and Warcraft's government for that matter) should not be in the mariage business at all. They should allow Civil unions between anyone who wants to be united. It's like a partnership agreement between two individuals. It makes no difference if it's a man or a women or 3 individuals for that matter, it's just a civil union for tax purposes and for certain laws regarding hospitalization, power of atourney and the like. Then mariages can remain whatever the church wishes to define them as but according to the government, it's a civil union. This would make it much more reasonable for both sides since homesexuals could have all the legal rights they want (and any combination there of) and the people that want to define mariage as between a man and a women could still do so if that's what their church decides.
In French law, filing a lawsuit against such innocent people is dangerous : it's against the law since its diffamation and delation.
I don't have a problem with there being laws against frivilous lawsuits. The US has similar laws as well. If a court agrees this is frivilous, then I support fines being imposed, etc. I'm not questioning that at all. I'm questioning why this is in the news? I mean we have no facts presented just that someone's being sued by the RIAA.
(wich anyway the patriot act re-enables for you all US folks) here's why
As far as I know the patriot act has no provision for allowing frivilous law suits.
then how many other lawsuits... were also made against innocent people?
If there are many, then yes I agree it's newsworthy. A single lawsuit is not proof that there are many.
This isn't just an "oops, we mispelled her last name" type thing.
How do you know? It very well could be actually. Even if it's not that, maybe her grandson who lives in her house was downloading a boat load of music and the RIAA traced the ip to her house? That's equally likely, isn't it? Without knowing why the RIAA sued her we shouldn't rush to judgement about the RIAA's guilt. It could very well be that the RIAA did something wrong here, but there are explinations that could explain why they sued her.
This lawsuit must just be a mistake since the lady never used a computer. If that's the case, why is this even newsworthy? They probably just messed up. It happens. That's what independant judicial system is there for.
Until now, a mailing list gets on the AOL whitelist by following good e-mail practices, such as cleaning up dead addresses, making it easy for people to leave mailing lists, and of course not sending any spam. This is all going to be thrown out the window and replaced with the payment of hard currency to Goodmail.
This policy seems really stupid to me. My buddy who doesn't pay AOL to get his email address recognized will have his email sent to my trash bin, but then some spammer who is profitable enough pay AOL to get his email through will be able to send me as much email as he wants. If I was an AOL customer, I think I'd start only reading my trash folder and ignore my inbox.
Well, for one thing, it would have been illegal to business in Germany during time of war. You are right that it's a fine line, but I really think it's more of a Government role to determine when the line has been crossed. If the Government determines that things are not acceptable in China, they will force businesses out. It's actually good that companies like Google and Microsoft are doing business in China. If they start breaking laws, they will be totally censored out. I think you will agree that would be worse than having a few blogs dropped.
Slashdot Mirror
The so called Mrs. Murphy federal exception only applies if there are four or less units.
Yeah, I said if they live in the SAME unit. That would imply 1 unit. So, you're probably right about 4+ units, I don't know. So, if you rent a room out to someone, you can discriminate. I would be very surprised if that's not the case everywhere in the US, because think about that. Maybe you would have to rent the room next to your kid's room out to a sex offender because you're not allowed to discriminate against sex offenders right? When it's your own home, it's different.
Among the housing ads cited as objectionable by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc. were ones that read "NO MINORITIES," "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male," and "Only Muslims apply."
If the landloard lives in the same unit, it's legal to discriminate on ANY basis. In other words, if you want to rent a room in your house out to someone of your own race or gender, etc, the courts have ruled you can do so. I can see why this law exists because what if a single female wants to rent the room out to another single female? That would be against fair housing, but it's ok since it's her living unit. So, I'd imagine most of these ads are for a room rental because if you own some apartment complex, you probably only have one requirement: on time rent check.
Yeah, it's crazy. I wonder what Bloomberg would think if he walked into my company's office. We have a pool table, ping pong, etc. I've even seen places with an xbox or playstation. What's so bad about taking a break? Technically, even at an office job, you are allowed two 10 minute breaks per day by law. I suppose that Bloomberg could argue that the computer is not allowed to be used during these breaks, but give me a break! This is a great policy if you want to have a bunch of 9 to 5ers that don't really give a crap about their job. But if you want to have employees that actually try to accomplish goals as opposed to punching a clock and cashing a paycheck, you might want to have a little faith that they will do some work and manage thier own time.
What I don't understand is why an alternative 'internet' has been setup yet, using encrypted/disguised routes to the western world in a P2P fashion. If there's one niche in which open-source software can prosper it's going to be here.
You don't even need an 'alternative internet' to do this. All you need is an encrypted web proxy or vpn. As long as the traffic is at a reasonable level, no one would notice and no one would be able to tell where you're going.
The left thinks global warming is caused by humans.
The right thinks global warming is not caused by humans.
Who's right? It actually doesn't matter a whole lot. What we know is that over the last 100 years the temperature has risen about 1 degree celcius. If, in the next 100 years, the temperature rises another degree, we're probably going to be just fine. In 100 years we will have so many other options that don't cause global warming and besides we will run out of Oil well before 2100 if we keep using it at the current pace. Within 100 years, the ITER project will enable us to use Nuclear Fussion which will allow us to use sea water to power the entire world for millions of years. Within 100 years, we will likely have some breakthroughs in Nanotechnology that either allow us to use electric cars (and drive for hundreds of miles without refueling) or use fuel cells. Within the next 100 years, we will probably have break throughs in Solar that allow super cheap self supplied solar power to power houses and power our cars that are now electric. Maybe I'm an optomist, but I just see a cheap clean green future for energy by the time _our_ effects on the environment will matter. If it turns out that global warming is not caused by us, we still need to fix it. How do we do that? Well, there are proposals to pump SO2 into the atmosphere to reverse the global warming effect. When we have mature nanotechnology, this capability will be easily acheived.
>Like the "accidental" bombing of the Al-jazeera station in Afghanistan, or the planned bombing in Qatar?
How can you compare an accident to intentional actions? You seem to be implying it wasn't an accident. Do you know all the facts? Maybe there was a good reason for bombing this particular site.
>So how many Iraqi civilians have been killed since the last invasion?
In war time, there are civilian casualties. While everything has been done to prevent this, it still happens. This is not murder. There's a big difference between collateral damage and intentional killing.
That's right, we flag and ribbon wearing, Jesus loving, George Bush electing Americans have more in common with those Flag Burning, Mohammed loving, Hamas electing Muslims than we have with George Bush and the upper echelons of our government.
Come on man, give me a break. You're making the West out to be the moral equivelent of the terrorists here. This must be a joke. We don't surround embassies with guns and blow them up if a newspaper prints something we don't like. We don't send our women and children to blow up random people on the street trying to live their lives peacefully in order to be greeted by 76 virgins when we arrive in heaven. We don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings in nations that don't declare our religion as the official religion. We don't kidnap journalists, construction workers, or doctors and cut their heads off and send the video out over the internet. We don't send suicide bombers to a wedding reception. We don't murder people that have political dissagreements with us.
I think you really need to spend some time thinking about this more and doing more research. Sometimes there IS right and wrong, good and evil. Muslims are not evil, but there is a small group of people that are EVIL that have hijacked this noble religion.
Ok, I see your point. Maybe it's a little extreme to say that it would be impossible to profit without patents. It would certainly be easier for copy cats who do nothing creative to profit in a system without patents. For instance in China, people sell DVDs for under $1. These salesmen are certainly a group of people who have profited from the lack of intellectual property rights in China. I guess it comes down to what kind of behavior you want to encourage. If you want to encourage inteligent ideas like Google's Page Rank System, Alexander Graham Bell's telegraph and Edison's patent portfolio you will also encourage a strong patent system.
You must not have read my post. What I was saying is, if you ban patents altogether that would make it impossible for someone to profit from his/her ingenuity. The RIMM case is a different story, and I don't know all the facts about it. It's possible that there are injustices in that case. I really couldn't tell you. But we don't need a fence test to disallow patents for non physical objects. Look at it this way, if we did have a fence test would RIMM have ever formed? It's possible no one would be willing to invest in the R&D necessary to create such a system if they would not be allowed to profit from it without having other people rip off their idea. Is that what you want? Or should we just fix the injustices by having a better patent system with better peer reviewers, etc.?
If a fence test was implemented, all investment into non-physical research would be discouraged.
Yes, I agree this fence test is not well thought out. Take for instance a patent on a computer chip. This would pass the "fence test" because you can put a fence around a computer chip. But the underlying idea that you patent might very well be a VHDL algorithm. Why would this algorithm be patentable but not a Java program? If you want to take it a step further, think about a specification for an advanced bridge. This clearly passes the fence test, but the underlying idea could be more of a specification that is similar to software than it is to something you can touch in the physical world. What it comes down to is either you believe that inventions/ideas are patentable. If you do, then you agree with the concept of patents. If you don't, then just ban them all. Of course, this would not be a very logical system since no one would be allowed to profit from his/her ingenuity.
And thinking that 6 billion humans burning down forests and chucking out megatonnes of CO2 and SO2 couldn't possibly affect a balanced ecosystem is ignorant.
I won't deny that humans have burned down rain forests, but lightning also has. If you've ever lived in California, you'll know what the fire season is all about. Of course humans effect the ecosystem. I agree that it would be ignorant to think otherwise. So do rabits, wolves, and dogs. Mount Pinatubo also effected the ecosystem when it errupted. It emitted megatons of SO2 which could lead to global cooling. My main point is that humans are not the only ones effecting our environment. Because we do effect the environment doesn't mean we effect it more than volcanic erruptions or If you read some of my previous posts, I advocate using Solar power. The reason I advocate using Solar (and continued research of it) is two fold: 1.) If we are truly effecting the envoronment, we can avoid this by using renewable energy sources. 2.) Eventually, we will run out of Oil and be forced to make the switch. dismissing it because it sounds arrogant to you is hardly a sign of careful, rational thought, and it certainly isn't scientific.
Lack of skeptisism is also un-scientific.
My landloard, car payment, cable, broadband, and cell phone provider won't.
There have been many heating and cooling periods over the years. Thinking that human intervention can either promote or undermine global warming is somewhat arrogant.
. Considering the kit costs over three times what the gas savings amount to, it is hard to market on account of good money-sense.
Good evaluation. For an individual person, this is a very good thought process. When looking at the benefits to society there is a benefit to the environment if we generate less polution. Since individuals typically make decisions based on what's better for them rather than what's good for society with refernce to money matters, there is a need for government to use it's power to factor in the environmental impact through tax credits and or other incentives for car manufacturers. Even if government gave a $1000 credit for buying this car, there would be substantially more people that would buy. An example of this is low income housing. Government subsidises low income housing because we don't want to have a large number of homeless. If it weren't for this subsidy, real estate developers would have no incentive to develop these properties because it's not profitable.
I have limited understanding of the fabrication process of the solar panels, so it would be hard to say whether or not mother nature profits from this scenario.
This is also a good point. If it causes more polution to create this panel, it doesn't make sense to do this. Based on my understanding, since it takes energy (some derived from 'dirty' sources) to make solar panels. As we convert more of our energy production to renewables, this will become less and less of a problem because the inputed energy used to make the panels is reneable and thus clean.
Or two casinos for 6 months! Come on, who are they kidding. Vegas is in Clark County. This power is going right to them!
Yeah, interesting point. Powering a city that never sleeps will take a little bit more than your average city.
It would be the first actual court judgement against the RIAA
I never read anything about a court judgement against the RIAA. I thought this was a lawsuit filed by the RIAA against this women? It's not an abuse of process to make a mistake. They'd have to prove that the RIAA is randomly suing people. So, if that happens, fine. I guess I'd be ok with this post if we had some info from the RIAA or at least an attempt to contact them. Without even giving a single point from there side, this story is just not newsworthy in my opinion.
What's with the hat?
This is the exact reason the Government (US, other countries, and Warcraft's government for that matter) should not be in the mariage business at all. They should allow Civil unions between anyone who wants to be united. It's like a partnership agreement between two individuals. It makes no difference if it's a man or a women or 3 individuals for that matter, it's just a civil union for tax purposes and for certain laws regarding hospitalization, power of atourney and the like. Then mariages can remain whatever the church wishes to define them as but according to the government, it's a civil union. This would make it much more reasonable for both sides since homesexuals could have all the legal rights they want (and any combination there of) and the people that want to define mariage as between a man and a women could still do so if that's what their church decides.
In French law, filing a lawsuit against such innocent people is dangerous : it's against the law since its diffamation and delation.
I don't have a problem with there being laws against frivilous lawsuits. The US has similar laws as well. If a court agrees this is frivilous, then I support fines being imposed, etc. I'm not questioning that at all. I'm questioning why this is in the news? I mean we have no facts presented just that someone's being sued by the RIAA.
(wich anyway the patriot act re-enables for you all US folks) here's why
As far as I know the patriot act has no provision for allowing frivilous law suits.
then how many other lawsuits... were also made against innocent people?
If there are many, then yes I agree it's newsworthy. A single lawsuit is not proof that there are many.
This isn't just an "oops, we mispelled her last name" type thing.
How do you know? It very well could be actually. Even if it's not that, maybe her grandson who lives in her house was downloading a boat load of music and the RIAA traced the ip to her house? That's equally likely, isn't it? Without knowing why the RIAA sued her we shouldn't rush to judgement about the RIAA's guilt. It could very well be that the RIAA did something wrong here, but there are explinations that could explain why they sued her.
This lawsuit must just be a mistake since the lady never used a computer. If that's the case, why is this even newsworthy? They probably just messed up. It happens. That's what independant judicial system is there for.
Until now, a mailing list gets on the AOL whitelist by following good e-mail practices, such as cleaning up dead addresses, making it easy for people to leave mailing lists, and of course not sending any spam. This is all going to be thrown out the window and replaced with the payment of hard currency to Goodmail.
This policy seems really stupid to me. My buddy who doesn't pay AOL to get his email address recognized will have his email sent to my trash bin, but then some spammer who is profitable enough pay AOL to get his email through will be able to send me as much email as he wants. If I was an AOL customer, I think I'd start only reading my trash folder and ignore my inbox.
Well, for one thing, it would have been illegal to business in Germany during time of war. You are right that it's a fine line, but I really think it's more of a Government role to determine when the line has been crossed. If the Government determines that things are not acceptable in China, they will force businesses out. It's actually good that companies like Google and Microsoft are doing business in China. If they start breaking laws, they will be totally censored out. I think you will agree that would be worse than having a few blogs dropped.
And your sig "assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump" is not nerdy? LOL
Hahaha...Ok, so I was going by Malaysia. It's about 5 Ringit. That's just over $1. I should have known it was cheaper in China.