I have to imagine that this would open the hospital up to some liability issues. The first time someone dies because a test wasn't run in time, I have a hard time seeing a jury accepting "the doctor didn't ask me nice enough" as an excuse for not running the test the doctor ordered.
The best compromise would probably be to treat extended copyrights more like trademarks. For the initial period, it could work much like copyrights do now, but after that it has to be actively registered (and then refiled periodically. Say, every ten years or so?) and utilized. Unless a work was actively registered, then it would be presumed to be in the public domain. So since the burden would be on the copyright holder to maintain, there would be no need to worry about monitoring royalties or distribution rights.
I disagree. While using another search engine certainly gives google and inventive to improve the search, it doesn't really help them to do it.
People switch services for all sorts of reasons. Fashion, apathy (if, say, they switch computers and it has a different default engine), etc. Dissatisfaction is just one reason, and since the process of leaving is silent, they have little enough way to tell why.
Reporting the trouble to them gives them the reason you're dissatisfied in a way that switching doesn't. Of course, they're always free to ignore it, but at least if they do then switching can be an incentive for them to improve rather than an enigma they have to puzzle out.
As I understand it, an english court ruled that using the word "bogus" meant that he was claiming that they were knowingly engaging in fraud. So now since Sigh has no presumption of innocence, he must not only prove that the treatments are ineffective, but that they knew that and were fraudulently selling them anyways.
As I understand it (and I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong), the ban didn't just mean that researchers were unable to receive grants for stem cell research. They were also forbidden from using any equipment that had ever had been paid for with federal funding. For many labs, then, this was effectively a ban.
There is a legal principal known as Fruit of the poisonous tree. Essentially, any evidence that has been found due to an illegal search, even if it wasn't found during the search itself, is inadmissible.
So if the stolen property was discovered because of the gps, then it is likely inadmissible. The article didn't say one way or another, so it is tough to tell. If it had nothing to do with the gps, then it can still be used in court
Remember also that the judge merely ordered a new trial with the bad evidence excluded. If they still have enough evidence that was discovered independent of the illegal search, he may still be convicted.
Ultimately, there is no better way to defend our rights that to completely bar any evidence that has been found in violation of them. It sometimes has the unfortunate side effect or letting the guilty go free, but so long as police maintain their professionalism and act legally it should be a rare occurrence.
That's what I figured. My take on it is that they're related to the Lords of Kobol, and since they started off the whole cycle by creating humanity they tried to work behind the scenes to end it peacefully.
Have you tried to directly contact someone at Blizzard about this? For regular players, or even small time mod makers, getting someone there to seriously communicate with you would be an iffy thing. But as you pointed out, you are maintaining one of the most popular mods in their game right now. I have to imagine that you would be taken at least a little seriously if you contacted them to try to explain the position that the new policy puts you in.
In the long term, it is clear that we will need space colonization to survive as a species. The thing to remember, though, is that the long term here is really really long. The sort of threats that colonization would defend us from are the sorts that will not likely come for many centuries or even many millenia. So while I agree with those who say that off world colonization must someday be a reality, it does not take precedence over the many other issues that we need to conquer to succeed as a species.
I also tend to have my own thoughts on what is the best way to proceed with the idea of an off world human presence. Many people use this goal to justify the manned space program, and while it has uses, I don't think that the current manned space program will be able to bridge the gap to real sustainable colonies for us.
I believe that we should be devoting more time and resources towards the goal automated fabrication in space. It's clear that the one hurdle that we will never truly escape is the massive energy cost to put something into orbit. Given this, it is essential that we learn how to build as much as possible off the surface of earth where we don't have to deal with the huge launch costs.
Obviously, this isn't something that we can do overnight. We don't have that sort of automation yet on Earth, much less the technology to do it in space, but it will be necessary if we want to do any sorts of large scale off world construction.
If the US really wants to set a meaningful goal for the space program, I think that it should ditch the talk of human missions to Mars and other similarly pointless goals, and set a strong but realistic goal towards achieving off world production. We should decide that by 2030, for example, we should be able to take the raw materials off of an asteroid, refine it into high grade metal or some similar material, and shape it into simple but useful forms.
This would greatly move us towards space colonization, and would also provide a lot of research into automated production that could be used with great benefit on Earth.
The decision not to vaccinate puts more people besides yourself at risk. For one thing, vaccines are not 100% effective. This isn't a problem when there are enough vaccinated people to stop the diseases from spreading enough to infect those whose vaccines aren't fully effective, but when enough people refuse the vaccines it puts even those who have been vaccinated at risk.
Also keep in mind that there are those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. Besides obvious examples such as newborns, it is my understanding that certain types of childhood diseases such as some forms of cancer prevent those children from receiving normal vaccines. When people who are able to get the vaccines refuse them, it also puts at risk those who do not have the option to vaccinate themselves.
Actually, the game assets were put into escrow as assets against investment from other companies. I don't remember if this "Redbana" is the investor, but there's someone that is interested and has a claim against the assets. So, no open sourcing for this game.
There is a bit of precedent for something like this. Blender came to be in a similar situation. When the company failed, their creditors agreed to open source it for a payment of around $100000, which was met by community donations. Now, I doubt that Hellgate: London could get the same level of donations that Blender did, but if the company is looking at a total loss they could possibly be persuaded to let it go relatively cheaply.
Beyond the issue of annoying users even more than current Captchas by forcing them to think up questions, this would be a pretty vulnerable system.
What happens if the spammers make their own list of "reasonable" questions and start flooding the site with them? Before long, there's a high probability that the question is one that the spammers created and have sitting their own databases.
I suppose they're assuming that anyone still playing at this point is the sort of person who would go ahead and buy whatever expansions they decide to push out on the cheap.
And how is that applicable here? A decision was made in this case, and the only problem is that a lot of people don't like that decision. This happens all the time with closed source software too, except that with closed source software users are left completely powerless to do anything about a decision that they don't like. With open source software, as we can see in this example, if you disagree with the way something is implemented you are free to make your own version. Users of Pidgin who are satisfied with the program don't need to pay any attention whatsoever to the fork, but now those who want the extra option can get what they want also.
In this case, the defendant claimed that he was using Kazaa to legally distribute non music files, and that due to some unknown cause the music became available. Perhaps not the most likely scenario in the world, but this was a ruling on a motion by the RIAA for summary judgment. In order for the motion to be granted, the RIAA has to show that they would win the case even if all allegations in dispute were interpreted in the light most favorable to the defendant. Since that was not the case here, the motion was denied.
The big news, however, was that the judge utterly rejected the RIAA's claim that merely making the files available online was in and of itself infringement. In other words, the RIAA must show that there is a good chance an actual transfer did take place.
No. That is exactly how Obstruction of Justice law is intended to be used. You destroy evidence, it's Obstruction of Justice. You don't hand over passwords, it is also. Not necessarily. In United States v. Boucher for example, a US district court ruled that the fifth amendment protections extend to encryption keys. The ruling has been appealed, of course, so we'll have to wait and see what happens there, but if it stands then there would seem that you can withhold your key in many cases.
True, perhaps, but 1 Mt St Helens isn't that terrible contained in a relatively small area (of course, with anything of this magnitude small is a very relative term). If something like this were to hit in the pacific, what would the tsunami produced by such an event be like?
The wikipedia article for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami states that the earthquake released around the equivalent of 1502 Hiroshimas, so we're talking over an order of magnitude difference. That said, a lot of the death toll in 2004 was caused by lack of warning, which certainly won't be an issue in the event of an impact, so I suppose that it will balance out somewhat.
Maybe there should be a quiz to get to the polls, replete with being cast off of a cliff (Monty Python style... Holy Grail) for trying to vote w/o being informed on the issues.;) Thing is... I'm certain we'd lose those administering the quiz, just like in the Holy Grail.:O What sort of issues would be on a quiz, though, and what if you are most informed about things that the people making the quiz didn't care about. For example, what if you mostly concerned with technology funding, education, and renewable energy, but the quiz was primarily about immigration, gun control, and abortion? Even for well informed people, there is only a finite amount of time that you can spend on any election so there are always going to be issues that you are not well informed about. I would certainly love to see some way to filter out completely clueless voters, especially in high profile elections like this where all the positions have been collected and are really readily available, but this isn't the way to do it and I'm not sure if an acceptable way even exists.
For the most part, perhaps. I've had a pretty good experience with the Chicago Tribune. I no longer live in the Chicago area, so I haven't really read it in a few years, but they used to do a pretty good job, especially in regards to tackling corruption and waste in the state. Among other things, they did a great job covering the flaws with capital punishment in Illinois and Governor Ryan's corruption very early on (he is now serving in prison), among other things. I don't know if things have changed in the meantime, but until it was overtaken by the internet I considered the Tribune to be one of the best news sources available in the area, and a model that ought to be emulated by other news sources.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to imagine that this would open the hospital up to some liability issues. The first time someone dies because a test wasn't run in time, I have a hard time seeing a jury accepting "the doctor didn't ask me nice enough" as an excuse for not running the test the doctor ordered.
The best compromise would probably be to treat extended copyrights more like trademarks. For the initial period, it could work much like copyrights do now, but after that it has to be actively registered (and then refiled periodically. Say, every ten years or so?) and utilized. Unless a work was actively registered, then it would be presumed to be in the public domain. So since the burden would be on the copyright holder to maintain, there would be no need to worry about monitoring royalties or distribution rights.
I disagree. While using another search engine certainly gives google and inventive to improve the search, it doesn't really help them to do it.
People switch services for all sorts of reasons. Fashion, apathy (if, say, they switch computers and it has a different default engine), etc. Dissatisfaction is just one reason, and since the process of leaving is silent, they have little enough way to tell why.
Reporting the trouble to them gives them the reason you're dissatisfied in a way that switching doesn't. Of course, they're always free to ignore it, but at least if they do then switching can be an incentive for them to improve rather than an enigma they have to puzzle out.
As I understand it, an english court ruled that using the word "bogus" meant that he was claiming that they were knowingly engaging in fraud. So now since Sigh has no presumption of innocence, he must not only prove that the treatments are ineffective, but that they knew that and were fraudulently selling them anyways.
As I understand it (and I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong), the ban didn't just mean that researchers were unable to receive grants for stem cell research. They were also forbidden from using any equipment that had ever had been paid for with federal funding. For many labs, then, this was effectively a ban.
There is a legal principal known as Fruit of the poisonous tree. Essentially, any evidence that has been found due to an illegal search, even if it wasn't found during the search itself, is inadmissible.
So if the stolen property was discovered because of the gps, then it is likely inadmissible. The article didn't say one way or another, so it is tough to tell. If it had nothing to do with the gps, then it can still be used in court
Remember also that the judge merely ordered a new trial with the bad evidence excluded. If they still have enough evidence that was discovered independent of the illegal search, he may still be convicted.
Ultimately, there is no better way to defend our rights that to completely bar any evidence that has been found in violation of them. It sometimes has the unfortunate side effect or letting the guilty go free, but so long as police maintain their professionalism and act legally it should be a rare occurrence.
That's what I figured. My take on it is that they're related to the Lords of Kobol, and since they started off the whole cycle by creating humanity they tried to work behind the scenes to end it peacefully.
Have you tried to directly contact someone at Blizzard about this? For regular players, or even small time mod makers, getting someone there to seriously communicate with you would be an iffy thing. But as you pointed out, you are maintaining one of the most popular mods in their game right now. I have to imagine that you would be taken at least a little seriously if you contacted them to try to explain the position that the new policy puts you in.
I'm guessing that you're thinking of the price of a kiloWatt hour, the measure of energy used by power companies to bill customers.
In this case, they're talking about the cost to manufacture a solar cell of a given instantaneous power output.
In the long term, it is clear that we will need space colonization to survive as a species. The thing to remember, though, is that the long term here is really really long. The sort of threats that colonization would defend us from are the sorts that will not likely come for many centuries or even many millenia. So while I agree with those who say that off world colonization must someday be a reality, it does not take precedence over the many other issues that we need to conquer to succeed as a species.
I also tend to have my own thoughts on what is the best way to proceed with the idea of an off world human presence. Many people use this goal to justify the manned space program, and while it has uses, I don't think that the current manned space program will be able to bridge the gap to real sustainable colonies for us.
I believe that we should be devoting more time and resources towards the goal automated fabrication in space. It's clear that the one hurdle that we will never truly escape is the massive energy cost to put something into orbit. Given this, it is essential that we learn how to build as much as possible off the surface of earth where we don't have to deal with the huge launch costs.
Obviously, this isn't something that we can do overnight. We don't have that sort of automation yet on Earth, much less the technology to do it in space, but it will be necessary if we want to do any sorts of large scale off world construction.
If the US really wants to set a meaningful goal for the space program, I think that it should ditch the talk of human missions to Mars and other similarly pointless goals, and set a strong but realistic goal towards achieving off world production. We should decide that by 2030, for example, we should be able to take the raw materials off of an asteroid, refine it into high grade metal or some similar material, and shape it into simple but useful forms.
This would greatly move us towards space colonization, and would also provide a lot of research into automated production that could be used with great benefit on Earth.
The decision not to vaccinate puts more people besides yourself at risk. For one thing, vaccines are not 100% effective. This isn't a problem when there are enough vaccinated people to stop the diseases from spreading enough to infect those whose vaccines aren't fully effective, but when enough people refuse the vaccines it puts even those who have been vaccinated at risk.
Also keep in mind that there are those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. Besides obvious examples such as newborns, it is my understanding that certain types of childhood diseases such as some forms of cancer prevent those children from receiving normal vaccines. When people who are able to get the vaccines refuse them, it also puts at risk those who do not have the option to vaccinate themselves.
Actually, the game assets were put into escrow as assets against investment from other companies. I don't remember if this "Redbana" is the investor, but there's someone that is interested and has a claim against the assets. So, no open sourcing for this game.
There is a bit of precedent for something like this. Blender came to be in a similar situation. When the company failed, their creditors agreed to open source it for a payment of around $100000, which was met by community donations. Now, I doubt that Hellgate: London could get the same level of donations that Blender did, but if the company is looking at a total loss they could possibly be persuaded to let it go relatively cheaply.
Beyond the issue of annoying users even more than current Captchas by forcing them to think up questions, this would be a pretty vulnerable system.
What happens if the spammers make their own list of "reasonable" questions and start flooding the site with them? Before long, there's a high probability that the question is one that the spammers created and have sitting their own databases.
PETA called they have a cease and desist order to stop the performance art.
But he still gets to keep the funding, right?
I suppose they're assuming that anyone still playing at this point is the sort of person who would go ahead and buy whatever expansions they decide to push out on the cheap.
And how is that applicable here? A decision was made in this case, and the only problem is that a lot of people don't like that decision. This happens all the time with closed source software too, except that with closed source software users are left completely powerless to do anything about a decision that they don't like. With open source software, as we can see in this example, if you disagree with the way something is implemented you are free to make your own version. Users of Pidgin who are satisfied with the program don't need to pay any attention whatsoever to the fork, but now those who want the extra option can get what they want also.
In this case, the defendant claimed that he was using Kazaa to legally distribute non music files, and that due to some unknown cause the music became available. Perhaps not the most likely scenario in the world, but this was a ruling on a motion by the RIAA for summary judgment. In order for the motion to be granted, the RIAA has to show that they would win the case even if all allegations in dispute were interpreted in the light most favorable to the defendant. Since that was not the case here, the motion was denied.
The big news, however, was that the judge utterly rejected the RIAA's claim that merely making the files available online was in and of itself infringement. In other words, the RIAA must show that there is a good chance an actual transfer did take place.
Ok, the comment might legitimately get modded up as funny, but how in the heck can someone look at it and decide that it is insightful.
They would still be able to get you for seeding it to others.
True, perhaps, but 1 Mt St Helens isn't that terrible contained in a relatively small area (of course, with anything of this magnitude small is a very relative term). If something like this were to hit in the pacific, what would the tsunami produced by such an event be like?
The wikipedia article for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami states that the earthquake released around the equivalent of 1502 Hiroshimas, so we're talking over an order of magnitude difference. That said, a lot of the death toll in 2004 was caused by lack of warning, which certainly won't be an issue in the event of an impact, so I suppose that it will balance out somewhat.
I would certainly love to see some way to filter out completely clueless voters, especially in high profile elections like this where all the positions have been collected and are really readily available, but this isn't the way to do it and I'm not sure if an acceptable way even exists.
For the most part, perhaps. I've had a pretty good experience with the Chicago Tribune. I no longer live in the Chicago area, so I haven't really read it in a few years, but they used to do a pretty good job, especially in regards to tackling corruption and waste in the state. Among other things, they did a great job covering the flaws with capital punishment in Illinois and Governor Ryan's corruption very early on (he is now serving in prison), among other things. I don't know if things have changed in the meantime, but until it was overtaken by the internet I considered the Tribune to be one of the best news sources available in the area, and a model that ought to be emulated by other news sources.