Now comes another surprise with potentially big ramifications to the future of embedding and in-line linking: The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an interlocutory appeal.
No. This has no ramifications whatsoever to the future of embedding and in-line linking. "Interlocutory appeals" are appeals that are taken while the case is still in the middle of being litigated in the trial court. Interlocutory appeals are an extremely rare exception to the concept that a trial court is to hear the entire matter and issue a final writted decision, and then the completed trial decision is to be appealed.
Look at the link. Does the appealed order "resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action"? The copyright infringement claim was the heart of the action. Is the order "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment"? No, an appeal from a final judgment of copyright infringement would squarely involve liability for embedding or in-line linking.
This was a purely procedural decision that the appeal was brought too early, and the appellate court wasn't having it.
Finish the trial, then come back. "I really really think that the ruling was wrong" is not a basis for interlocutory appeal.
The best explanation of a planet I've heard included stuff like: * an object that is in a more circular orbit than eliptical around a star (the sun in this case) * of sufficient mass to clear its orbit of other objects and/or capture them in an orbit around itself * with a center of mass that lies within the body
Any orbit that is not strictly circular is elliptical, e.g., the orbit of every single planet in the solar system. I of course know what you mean; you want to pick an arbitrary threshold for eccentricity. Mercury at 0.21 is in, but Pluto at 0.25 is out. Because there's a magic "more circular than elliptical" threshold in there.
Any orbit that crosses another in a two dimensional projection is not "cleared," beause we're simply going to ignore not only stable resonances but the fact that the closest approach of the orbits themselves in three dimensional space is 18AU. By that measure, Earth has not cleared its orbit due to the other occupants of the entire inner solar system.
Finally, we will arbitrarily declare that the barycenter of a planet must lie within its principal body. Binary stars, binary black holes, binary galaxies, but hell no binary planets.
Those parameters allow the asteroid belt to exist as its own sort of thing, and the 8 things we call planets today are still planets, and comets are still their own thing.
"Today" conveniently representing a fait accompli, since the 9 things we called planets when "today" was the early '00s are ancient history.
It also explains why pluto isn't a planet: * its orbit is a bit erratic
But not Mercury's.
* it may not have cleared its orbit, or may not be able to (it crosses over neptunes orbit, and neptune is far bigger)
Sun: Did you see that crazy Earth? It keeps swinging within 1AU of me! It needs to stay more than 18 AU away! Damn dwarf planet!
* though it has a moon, that causes its center of mass to be outside of pluto itself
And? When the earth-moon barycenter migrates above the surface of the Earth, will the Earth cease to be a planet?
We weren't given a list of hundreds of celestial bodies and then asked to identify which were planets. We were given a list of planets and told that those are the planets.
Conversely, we were taght rules of classification such as family, genus, species, where a subcategory remained a member of the parent category. A red house and a blue house are both houses. Only in IAU land could you declare that "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects" where the defintion of a planet allegedly excldes dwarf planets.
Pre-flight is about a 30-minute process, most flight planning is already done for them, and maybe an international pilot would spend about 3 hours combined going from cockpit to hotel room and hotel room back to airport. If a pilot is spending 150 hours in a simulator they are getting a type rating or qualifying on a new aircraft which can take over a month.
So the average pilot is obtaining a type rating or qualifying on new aircraft 12 times per year? Because, and let's process this carefully, the average pilot works an additional 150 hours per month performing other duties. So sayeth them, them, them, and them, for example. These guys definitely disagree with your expressed sentiment that '150 non-flying duty hours is exceptional.'
"A portrait of these hourly pay scales becomes even more pathetic when you consider that regional airline pilots, who are paid only from the time the airline leaves the gate to the time it arrives at the destination, only are on the clock on average about 21.5 hours per week."
"They have a minimum pay for time on duty at some airlines, like one hour of pay minimum for every two hours on duty, and one hour of pay for every 4-5 hours away from home,' Darby says. 'These rules are often not in effect at the smaller airlines, and are always guaranteed by the larger major airlines' union contracts."
Oooo... half-time pay, if you're lucky. Color me jealous.
Most of us consider the DRM a bug in the media and in the vendor, not a bug in the required customized drivers.
Where "us" is some group that is not even a plurality of Linux users. Most of us want a personal computer than can play legally obtained media.
Again, "Show that properly indexed writes to GMBUS are useful only for HDCP compliance and you might begin to have a point. " But you don't. You instead actively oppose any improvement to the technology, as well as improvements to the end user experience, because it conflicts with your personal philosophy. User freedom, but not the freedom to accept DRM.
This is not a desirable feature you fucking retard. Not an improvement.
Show that properly indexed writes to GMBUS are useful only for HDCP compliance and you might begin to have a point. Even then, it is a desirable feature and improvement. The "don't let DRM contaminate Linux" ship sailed and sank long ago. A larger proportion of Linux desktop users consider the inability to display HDCP-flagged media a bug rather than a feature.
Respecting freedom is a huge value in this community until suddenly it is not. So much for consensus-building and letting individuals exercise semantic control of their language. Kill your values to save them.
You made a spelling error. The correct version has "Restrictions".
Show us that you own the exclusive naming rights and you might begin to have a point. The fact that Stallman came along in 1997 and created his own backronym does not suffice to create a sole "correct version."
The driver was just an innocent bystander, but your wording here makes it sound like they were a target.
They were. Google "intent follows the bullet," i.e. transferred intent. The suicide intentionally threw themself in front of the train. The train was a target. If there's one thing that you either know or should know, it's that trains have drivers. Accordingly, the driver was a target.
Whether the suicide thought about the consequences to the driver is not relevant. You don't need to intend the damage, you merely need to intend the wrongful act.
Dead on accurate... after the fact. They changed their headline for one. It used to read :
"The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint".
Accurate before the fact too. Identify any instance in which the FCC would review a complaint without the $225 fee after the change-that-is-not-a-change.
"Democrats argue a new FCC rule would hinder consumers, but Commission says they got it wrong".
Acurate after the FCC's post-hoc response. Even more accurate after the subsequent update in the summary-linked article:
"The Federal Communications Commission has dropped the parts of its proposal dealing with informal complaints, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The move comes after Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel requested the provisions be struck. Several officials cited the political backlash over the issue as a reason the FCC will not vote on those provisions Thursday, with one official saying the proposal on informal complaints was never a âoeconservative plotâ intended to harm consumers."
It's almost as if the world continues to move on in increments after an article is published, and those increments are added to the articles.
This is a typical tactic, where you post an initial story, with initial "wrong facts" and "sensational" headline.
Identify the wrong facts. You haven't, yet. You've merely accepted the FCC's response as true, despite the FCC's own subsequent actions.
So yes, The Verge's story was initially bad. It was just later amended to be "Oh wait, lol journalism, our bad.
Your post is deicdedly bad. You will not follow up, or will merely fall back upon "lol not a journalist, f' you."
That doesn't address the point that if Russia is a threat why is Germany sending billions for energy sources.
May as well ask why the U.S. is sending billions to China for goods. Or hundreds of millions to Venezuela for oil - even in 2018. Or tens millions to Russia for rides to the International Space Station.
They can visit at the drop of a hat in order to assess whether it is a credible threat -- and you can politely tell them to sod off. There's a higher barrier for arrest and an even higher barrier to conviction.
Watts v. United States
No. 1107, Misc.
Decided April 21, 1969
394 U.S. 705
Syllabus
Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 871(a).
"First Amendment. Not a crime to write that. Fifth Amendment. Not providing you with any other statements. Fourth Amendment. No you may not come inside. Have a nice day."
Yes, please walk down the battlefield wearing a full dress mirror. It's completely safe and will not get you instantly spotted and killed by conventional weapons at all.
That's when you pull out the dinner-plate-sized disc of chobham armor. To think people cover entire tanks with the stuff... what a waste.
"Why worry about rubbing against people who's job it is to work with the diseased and can't even be bothered to change their clothes." is what you're telling me here.
... Congratulations, that's you just making shit up. I never insisted on such.
Hypocrite. Congratulations, that's you just making shit up. I never wrote such.
"Yes, because "everything must be sterile""
Congratulations, that's you just making shit up. I never insisted on such.
hardly. And whether you insisted on it is not relevant to the argument. You're the one assuming that those scrubs are being worn after contact with "the diseased." You're the one assuming that somehow only hospitalized patients are "the diseased." News flash buddy, 25% of the people around you are "diseased" with staphylococcus (staph, not staff, for short).
When hospital staff work with patients known to have communicable infections, they change into other scrubs -- if only to avoid communicating those infections to other patients. When they do not, those scrubs are no more risky than any other streetwear, including that of people who visit patients in the hospital. If you're freaked out by the sight of people wearing scrubs in public then, yes, you are a germophobe.
Do you want to have an electric dryer, water heater, or arc welder?
Lots of uses for a 240V 40A circuit in the garage. Housing stock that should last for generations should not be crippled by your 10-second imaginationless brain fart.
As an aside, universities should also get rid of all the adult daycare bullshit. I have to pay thousands of dollars every year in 'student activity fees' for the PhD program I'm in (Clemson, no problem naming & shaming). These fees are going toward things like 'Chocolate Milk Night,' 'Dave & Buster's Night,' 'Decorate a Mug Night,' and 'Tie Dye a T-shirt Night.' Not making that up, that's the sort of absolutely idiotic things people are going further into debt for.
$60/yr, with the assumption that you enroll for summer semesters.
You are, however, apparently paying thousands of dollars per year towards a PhD and filing to learn how to estimate quantities within even an order of magnitude, successfully engage in trivial research of such quantities, or cite to sources. I know how you can save quite a bit of money...
Do you have any idea how prosecution of driving offences works in the UK?
I have an idea that none of what you've described falls within the term "vigilante justice."
[Lots of whining about English-rule costs]
[Does not impress a driver in an American-rule jurisdiction in the least]
No doubt they will produce some very clear cut, extreme examples to gain support. But I have do doubt that there will be a huge number of innocent people accused and railroaded by the system.
And a slippery slope fallacy...
None of which support your claim that allowing the general public to provide videos of driving asshattery constitutes "vigilante justice." Nor your apparent claim that the entire populace surrounding you is or will be irrationally targeting your (stellar, I assume) driving.
Slashdot Mirror
Statutory damages for copyright infringement include a discretionary award of reasonable attorney fees.
No. This has no ramifications whatsoever to the future of embedding and in-line linking. "Interlocutory appeals" are appeals that are taken while the case is still in the middle of being litigated in the trial court. Interlocutory appeals are an extremely rare exception to the concept that a trial court is to hear the entire matter and issue a final writted decision, and then the completed trial decision is to be appealed.
Look at the link. Does the appealed order "resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the action"? The copyright infringement claim was the heart of the action. Is the order "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment"? No, an appeal from a final judgment of copyright infringement would squarely involve liability for embedding or in-line linking.
This was a purely procedural decision that the appeal was brought too early, and the appellate court wasn't having it.
Finish the trial, then come back. "I really really think that the ruling was wrong" is not a basis for interlocutory appeal.
Any orbit that is not strictly circular is elliptical, e.g., the orbit of every single planet in the solar system. I of course know what you mean; you want to pick an arbitrary threshold for eccentricity. Mercury at 0.21 is in, but Pluto at 0.25 is out. Because there's a magic "more circular than elliptical" threshold in there.
Any orbit that crosses another in a two dimensional projection is not "cleared," beause we're simply going to ignore not only stable resonances but the fact that the closest approach of the orbits themselves in three dimensional space is 18AU. By that measure, Earth has not cleared its orbit due to the other occupants of the entire inner solar system.
Finally, we will arbitrarily declare that the barycenter of a planet must lie within its principal body. Binary stars, binary black holes, binary galaxies, but hell no binary planets.
"Today" conveniently representing a fait accompli, since the 9 things we called planets when "today" was the early '00s are ancient history.
But not Mercury's.
Sun: Did you see that crazy Earth? It keeps swinging within 1AU of me! It needs to stay more than 18 AU away! Damn dwarf planet!
And? When the earth-moon barycenter migrates above the surface of the Earth, will the Earth cease to be a planet?
Conversely, we were taght rules of classification such as family, genus, species, where a subcategory remained a member of the parent category. A red house and a blue house are both houses. Only in IAU land could you declare that "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects" where the defintion of a planet allegedly excldes dwarf planets.
So the average pilot is obtaining a type rating or qualifying on new aircraft 12 times per year? Because, and let's process this carefully, the average pilot works an additional 150 hours per month performing other duties. So sayeth them, them, them, and them, for example. These guys definitely disagree with your expressed sentiment that '150 non-flying duty hours is exceptional.'
AC versus NBC News. Fight!
"A portrait of these hourly pay scales becomes even more pathetic when you consider that regional airline pilots, who are paid only from the time the airline leaves the gate to the time it arrives at the destination, only are on the clock on average about 21.5 hours per week."
"They have a minimum pay for time on duty at some airlines, like one hour of pay minimum for every two hours on duty, and one hour of pay for every 4-5 hours away from home,' Darby says. 'These rules are often not in effect at the smaller airlines, and are always guaranteed by the larger major airlines' union contracts."
Oooo... half-time pay, if you're lucky. Color me jealous.
You're pretty sure based upon what exactly? Your authoritative gut feeling?
Where "us" is some group that is not even a plurality of Linux users. Most of us want a personal computer than can play legally obtained media.
Again, "Show that properly indexed writes to GMBUS are useful only for HDCP compliance and you might begin to have a point. " But you don't. You instead actively oppose any improvement to the technology, as well as improvements to the end user experience, because it conflicts with your personal philosophy. User freedom, but not the freedom to accept DRM.
Show that properly indexed writes to GMBUS are useful only for HDCP compliance and you might begin to have a point. Even then, it is a desirable feature and improvement. The "don't let DRM contaminate Linux" ship sailed and sank long ago. A larger proportion of Linux desktop users consider the inability to display HDCP-flagged media a bug rather than a feature.
Respecting freedom is a huge value in this community until suddenly it is not. So much for consensus-building and letting individuals exercise semantic control of their language. Kill your values to save them.
Show us that you own the exclusive naming rights and you might begin to have a point. The fact that Stallman came along in 1997 and created his own backronym does not suffice to create a sole "correct version."
They were. Google "intent follows the bullet," i.e. transferred intent. The suicide intentionally threw themself in front of the train. The train was a target. If there's one thing that you either know or should know, it's that trains have drivers. Accordingly, the driver was a target.
Whether the suicide thought about the consequences to the driver is not relevant. You don't need to intend the damage, you merely need to intend the wrongful act.
Accurate before the fact too. Identify any instance in which the FCC would review a complaint without the $225 fee after the change-that-is-not-a-change.
Acurate after the FCC's post-hoc response. Even more accurate after the subsequent update in the summary-linked article:
"The Federal Communications Commission has dropped the parts of its proposal dealing with informal complaints, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The move comes after Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel requested the provisions be struck. Several officials cited the political backlash over the issue as a reason the FCC will not vote on those provisions Thursday, with one official saying the proposal on informal complaints was never a âoeconservative plotâ intended to harm consumers."
It's almost as if the world continues to move on in increments after an article is published, and those increments are added to the articles.
Identify the wrong facts. You haven't, yet. You've merely accepted the FCC's response as true, despite the FCC's own subsequent actions.
Your post is deicdedly bad. You will not follow up, or will merely fall back upon "lol not a journalist, f' you."
May as well ask why the U.S. is sending billions to China for goods. Or hundreds of millions to Venezuela for oil - even in 2018. Or tens millions to Russia for rides to the International Space Station.
"And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling Silicon Valley billionaire!"
They can visit at the drop of a hat in order to assess whether it is a credible threat -- and you can politely tell them to sod off. There's a higher barrier for arrest and an even higher barrier to conviction.
Watts v. United States
No. 1107, Misc.
Decided April 21, 1969
394 U.S. 705
Syllabus
Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 871(a).
"First Amendment. Not a crime to write that. Fifth Amendment. Not providing you with any other statements. Fourth Amendment. No you may not come inside. Have a nice day."
That's when you pull out the dinner-plate-sized disc of chobham armor. To think people cover entire tanks with the stuff... what a waste.
Hypocrite. Congratulations, that's you just making shit up. I never wrote such.
hardly. And whether you insisted on it is not relevant to the argument. You're the one assuming that those scrubs are being worn after contact with "the diseased." You're the one assuming that somehow only hospitalized patients are "the diseased." News flash buddy, 25% of the people around you are "diseased" with staphylococcus (staph, not staff, for short).
When hospital staff work with patients known to have communicable infections, they change into other scrubs -- if only to avoid communicating those infections to other patients. When they do not, those scrubs are no more risky than any other streetwear, including that of people who visit patients in the hospital. If you're freaked out by the sight of people wearing scrubs in public then, yes, you are a germophobe.
Do you want to have an electric dryer, water heater, or arc welder?
Lots of uses for a 240V 40A circuit in the garage. Housing stock that should last for generations should not be crippled by your 10-second imaginationless brain fart.
The "deliberately" part was quite recent. Substitute "recovered biologically-compounded" for "deliberately compounded" and you finally have something.
$60/yr, with the assumption that you enroll for summer semesters.
You are, however, apparently paying thousands of dollars per year towards a PhD and filing to learn how to estimate quantities within even an order of magnitude, successfully engage in trivial research of such quantities, or cite to sources. I know how you can save quite a bit of money...
Please tell me who is the victim in every other case... and why they are only a victim if the police witness it.
You first. Start by abandoning the "I don't mean to be wrong, so if what I've written is wrong, I didn't actually mean that" mode of discourse.
I have an idea that none of what you've described falls within the term "vigilante justice."
[Does not impress a driver in an American-rule jurisdiction in the least]
And a slippery slope fallacy...
None of which support your claim that allowing the general public to provide videos of driving asshattery constitutes "vigilante justice." Nor your apparent claim that the entire populace surrounding you is or will be irrationally targeting your (stellar, I assume) driving.
Literally what you yourself wrote, and conveniently clipped out from your reply.
And with that, nothing that you say is worth addressing, because none of it can be taken as representing what you actually think. *plonk*