If you encourage people to use your work, and then try to pull the rug out from them by revoking their license, you can sue them for "reliance". Judges don't like that business model. Sure, if you can prove it. How many people do you think keep logs sufficient to demonstrate this? I don't. It's not enough to save a copy of the website TOS, you need to show that the content was on that website, and didn't have an alternate agreement specified. So, get a really big HD and keep of copy of all TCP sessions?
Really, what we need is for people to start using digital signatures, but for that we'll need a trustworthy and legally recognized certification system and revocation notification system, and for non-cryptographic electronic signatures to become not legally binding or people/companies will never bother, then to convince people not use use something unless a signed license is provided...
"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact." First, you can find somebody who says anything, so who said that and why should I believe them?
Second, what, exactly do you/they mean by "perceive?" If you mean "The air outside won't be noticeably warmer," so what? Getting cooked isn't what people are worried about (except real nutcases). It's been claimed that an increase in ocean temperature by three degrees would cause storms to become significantly worse. (I'm not saying proven, just claimed.) Would I notice that (on average) the air is three degrees warmer than it was over a decade ago? Nope. Would I care if my house got destroyed in one of the category-5 hurricanes that some people say will start coming every year? You bet.
I'm not saying that I know that global warming is caused or increased by humans ('cause I don't), but if you're going to say that it isn't, then tell me how you know, or I'm not going to give your claim any heed at all. (It's kinda funny if you expect that anyone's opinions or actions will be changed just because you have an unsourced quote in your sig, when you're making a post criticizing someone for expecting people on/. to know anything about anything other than computers.)
according to the supplemental brief (pdf) (see page 12,13 etc), the guy apparently was using KazAa and had the files into the shared directory. How do you find these things?
We don't. You do.:) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience. This is why it's important to read comments. You might find something that refutes, or supports, the story in the main.
Instead, they decide to take on the most powerful military in the world. Even on our bad days, that's not such a good idea. Really? Because unfortunately it looks like they are doing pretty good so far. Not as good as they could have. If they'd waited until we shipped out before making attacks, one of them might have gotten into power by now. As it is, they're still struggling to get us to give up, and then they have the big power struggle among themselves. By attacking while we were/are still there, they've likely increased what their total losses will be.
Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lieutenant):^) Despite my username, I don't have any military experience. I don't even know my history that well...)
I've never gotten much email spam (except on disposable email addresses), but today I got a spam text message on my cell phone, and my brother got an almost identical message on his phone. No advanced filter capabilities, no IP address revealed, and much more intrusive/annoying than email spam. Give me my email spam back!
Interesting. It might scare people from starting a case if they're not sure their evidence will be sufficient. On the other hand, it might be a good thing to make sure that the risks of revealing secrets are only taken when someone's sure enough of their position to stake their liberty on it.
I'd like to hear a retired intelligence worker's (or a lawyer's) thoughts on this.
Stimulating that region in a depressed person would probably result in someone who's optimistic about the chances of their next suicide attempt succeeding. Not all depressed people are suicidal.
Our interests there were/are not as important as those domestically. I doubt that the same kind of pussy-foot action would occur if a full-scale war were to take place on American soil. I'd add that in Iraq, nobody's winning. The insurgents are making trouble, but they aren't really getting what they want.
Also, things are getting worse here, but I'd much rather be here than there.
I also use it for scheduling (calendar type functions with conditional statements, conditional formatting, strewn throughout) to automatically generate events if certain criteria are made. I know, I need to find something better than a spreadsheet for that... But yeah, I find it nice and robust. I'd like to see an example of that. (I'm really sick of Palm, though that's partly because I squished the touchscreen.)
I have a LiveJournal 'blog, and have posted links on it. I do not review the LJ ToS or the content of the sites I link to regularly. I'm glad that I was informed about this through/. .
Maybe it's time to fire up wget, unless someone here knows a better way to get a dump of all your LJ posts. I really should be keeping a backup of my 'blog anyway.
Could it be that after the entanglement, the two particles stay connected at close range through a dimension not observable with today's tools and theory? This way, no law gets violated (in the entanglement case) and information gets transmitted faster than light had it traveled through our traditional 4 dimensions? (I am not a physicist.) Dimensions are just axises, like up-and-down, or left-and-right. If someone is directly in front of you, not to the left or right at all, then they're "close" to you in the left-and-right dimension, but could still be standing a mile away.
If what you say is true, then where is all the great non-label music? See my other post. He is overlooking the cost of advertising, though.
How about non-studio, blockbuster summer movies? How about truly great works of fiction not published by a major? He wasn't talking about movies or books. It takes a lot more to make a good movie than to make a good album. Anyway, try lulu.com . Maybe not a lot of high-quality stuff, but it's something. (I haven't actually watched or read anything there yet.) If you're fine with old books, there's Project Gutenberg for public domain stuff.
Why would you buy the album.. if you already have all the songs? Because some people like supporting artists they like. Check out Jamendo and Magnatune, they let you listen to the music for free, and "buy" it if you want to.
[Begin site plug] (I don't have anything to do with these sites except that I like them, but this sounds pluggish.) Magnatune's free versions are MP3, if you pay you get your choice of several formats, including a couple lossless ones and mailed CDs. Jamendo gives you the same stuff whether you paid or not. They both let the buyer set their prices (minimum $5 on Magnatune). Neither of them require exclusive contracts from their artists. (I've seen some albums on both.)
IIRC, each site keeps half of what you give them, and the other half goes to the artist. (Compare that to 10 - 20 cents per dollar for the big labels.) Sounds like a good deal for everyone to me. [End site plug]
I currently don't have a lot of money, so I shamelessly listen to music for free from those sites once in a while, knowing that after college, I'll pay for all the ones I like. Since they let me listen to it, the music will constantly remind me of their existence, so I'm not likely to forget to pay up.
By the way, if you like instrumental classical, check out Rob Costlow (solo piano).
Personally, a large part of me believes it should be illegal to refuse organ donation, just as it's illegal to stab some random bystander. Not quite. Stabbing is active; the attacker is trying to cause harm. Refusing to donate an organ isn't attacking, it's refusing to prevent an already caused death; very bad, but not exactly the same thing.
I think it's illegal not to offer assistance in a medical emergency. (For example, if someone else is stabbed, you need to call 911, try to stop the bleeding, etc.) Refusing to donate an organ seems comparable to that. (BTW, anyone know where that law is?)
For every parent that picks this up so they can just plop their kids in front of the computer and ignore them all day, there's going to be one that actually uses it the right way: as a means to enforce rules that have already been set down in the house. If mom and dad say "no porn," a kid is going to try to look for some anyway. If he's blocked, he'll probably think "damn" and find something else to do, instead. If he's motivated enough to circumvent the block, then perhaps another talk with the parents is in order. Also, the filter could be useful for a lot of those instances where "accidental" porn come up, like every other Google image search.
What's wrong with letting him/her view the porn? What's so wrong with porn? This is the problem I have with this constant "think of the children" argument. It's not them we're trying to protect, it's the parents clinging on to the sanctity of their children as they become more and more adult each day. It's the parent's complex not the child; the child doesn't care.
I'm not a parent myself but I just feel that if you give children arbitrary rules with no logical consistency behind them then they may think all of them are suspect and rebel against the ones that really matter.
Perhaps the best way to approach this is to tell your child that the porn on the Internet isn't like real sex. There's no love, there's often no real passion. It's just about cheap gratification. I think if you approached it like this they'd be smart enough to see why some people disagree with it. Hell, they may even choose for themselves that this material isn't for them! Imagine that!
It is my view that if you teach your child to be a moral consequentialist then your job as a parent is basically done. You don't do this by setting arbitrary rules, you do this by teaching them to think.
Simon.
Reread his last sentence. I don't think this only applies to children; some people just don't like having it show up uninvited. These systems probably aren't any good for making it so that someone can't get porn, but are probably fairly good at keeping you from accidentally stumbling on it. (I've never tried any myself.)
Even if you're neutral on porn, they're like ads: irrelevant to what ever you're looking for, and thus annoying (to some). (They often are ads...)
Not meaning to be glib, but why do you expect your neighbors to pay for your porn and "moviez"? It makes perfect sense to charge people extra for these tipes of extras, expecially on a shared connection such as residential cable.
Insurance companies charge smokers or drunk drivers, or speeders more for coverage because they impose undue burden on the system. Why should smut users be any different? First, there's the possibility that they'll filter out more than porn. (See the already existing debates on other threads.)
Second, if they want to charge by the amount of data transfered, then they should just charge by the amount of data transfered. If I want unfiltered access to essays on dissident website X, why should I have to pay more than the guy who watches YouTube all day?
Even if they never filter out anything other than porn, are you going charge people who look at still image porn more than the YouTube guy on the grounds that he must be using more resources? [sarcasm]Better lump the Linux geeks in there, always downloading packages instead of getting their software on CDs like "normal" people. Charge 'em double.[/sarcasm]
How did that guy intend to get back to his hotel or whatever after that party? I don't know. Maybe he planned to call a cab, but since he came in his car that doesn't seem likely. My guess would be that you're right and he failed to plan.
Either way, it does seem pretty stupid to go to a party without anyone you know. I think he's learned that lesson now, and the judge did admonish him to not be so naive.
There's no - ZERO - reason to get behind the wheel of a car after you've been drinking. Ever. If you have somewhere you urgently need to be and can't wait around or sleep it off, then maybe you shouldn't have been drinking in the first place. Avoid absolutes. ( Always!:^) ) Case in point: My mom was a juror for a drunk driving case. The defendant (who had only came into town that day) met someone who invited him to a party. He went, and after he drank some alcohol, the others there assaulted him. He went outside, but they followed him. Being in immediate physical danger, and there not being anyone sober around who wasn't threatening him, he had no choice but to drive.
Was he foolish? Yes. Criminally so? No. He could not have anticipated the urgent need to drive by himself, and the risk of causing death or injury by driving wasn't nearly as high as the risk would have been if he had stayed and let them pummel him.
BTW, I've never drunk alcohol and never will, so don't write me off as someone carelessly excusing his own foolish hobbies.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, what we need is for people to start using digital signatures, but for that we'll need a trustworthy and legally recognized certification system and revocation notification system, and for non-cryptographic electronic signatures to become not legally binding or people/companies will never bother, then to convince people not use use something unless a signed license is provided...
Second, what, exactly do you/they mean by "perceive?" If you mean "The air outside won't be noticeably warmer," so what? Getting cooked isn't what people are worried about (except real nutcases).
It's been claimed that an increase in ocean temperature by three degrees would cause storms to become significantly worse. (I'm not saying proven, just claimed.) Would I notice that (on average) the air is three degrees warmer than it was over a decade ago? Nope. Would I care if my house got destroyed in one of the category-5 hurricanes that some people say will start coming every year? You bet.
I'm not saying that I know that global warming is caused or increased by humans ('cause I don't), but if you're going to say that it isn't, then tell me how you know, or I'm not going to give your claim any heed at all.
(It's kinda funny if you expect that anyone's opinions or actions will be changed just because you have an unsourced quote in your sig, when you're making a post criticizing someone for expecting people on
(Man, that was a waste of time...)
We don't. You do.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 10/28/00
Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lieutenant)
Despite my username, I don't have any military experience. I don't even know my history that well...)
I've never gotten much email spam (except on disposable email addresses), but today I got a spam text message on my cell phone, and my brother got an almost identical message on his phone. No advanced filter capabilities, no IP address revealed, and much more intrusive/annoying than email spam. Give me my email spam back!
Interesting. It might scare people from starting a case if they're not sure their evidence will be sufficient. On the other hand, it might be a good thing to make sure that the risks of revealing secrets are only taken when someone's sure enough of their position to stake their liberty on it.
I'd like to hear a retired intelligence worker's (or a lawyer's) thoughts on this.
Why are the links going through anonymouse? Did the poster want to /. two sites at once?
Our interests there were/are not as important as those domestically. I doubt that the same kind of pussy-foot action would occur if a full-scale war were to take place on American soil. I'd add that in Iraq, nobody's winning. The insurgents are making trouble, but they aren't really getting what they want.
Also, things are getting worse here, but I'd much rather be here than there.
/. travels at light-speed; by our 20th anniversary, we'll be Digg! My brain's melting...
That's worse than being assimilated by the Borg; at least the Borg are cool.
I have a LiveJournal 'blog, and have posted links on it. I do not review the LJ ToS or the content of the sites I link to regularly. I'm glad that I was informed about this through /. .
Maybe it's time to fire up wget, unless someone here knows a better way to get a dump of all your LJ posts. I really should be keeping a backup of my 'blog anyway.
Feel free to educate me.
Anyway, try lulu.com . Maybe not a lot of high-quality stuff, but it's something. (I haven't actually watched or read anything there yet.) If you're fine with old books, there's Project Gutenberg for public domain stuff.
[Begin site plug] (I don't have anything to do with these sites except that I like them, but this sounds pluggish.)
Magnatune's free versions are MP3, if you pay you get your choice of several formats, including a couple lossless ones and mailed CDs. Jamendo gives you the same stuff whether you paid or not. They both let the buyer set their prices (minimum $5 on Magnatune). Neither of them require exclusive contracts from their artists. (I've seen some albums on both.)
IIRC, each site keeps half of what you give them, and the other half goes to the artist. (Compare that to 10 - 20 cents per dollar for the big labels.) Sounds like a good deal for everyone to me.
[End site plug]
I currently don't have a lot of money, so I shamelessly listen to music for free from those sites once in a while, knowing that after college, I'll pay for all the ones I like. Since they let me listen to it, the music will constantly remind me of their existence, so I'm not likely to forget to pay up.
By the way, if you like instrumental classical, check out Rob Costlow (solo piano).
I think it's illegal not to offer assistance in a medical emergency. (For example, if someone else is stabbed, you need to call 911, try to stop the bleeding, etc.) Refusing to donate an organ seems comparable to that.
(BTW, anyone know where that law is?)
I'm not a parent myself but I just feel that if you give children arbitrary rules with no logical consistency behind them then they may think all of them are suspect and rebel against the ones that really matter.
Perhaps the best way to approach this is to tell your child that the porn on the Internet isn't like real sex. There's no love, there's often no real passion. It's just about cheap gratification. I think if you approached it like this they'd be smart enough to see why some people disagree with it. Hell, they may even choose for themselves that this material isn't for them! Imagine that!
It is my view that if you teach your child to be a moral consequentialist then your job as a parent is basically done. You don't do this by setting arbitrary rules, you do this by teaching them to think.
Simon.
Reread his last sentence. I don't think this only applies to children; some people just don't like having it show up uninvited. These systems probably aren't any good for making it so that someone can't get porn, but are probably fairly good at keeping you from accidentally stumbling on it. (I've never tried any myself.)Even if you're neutral on porn, they're like ads: irrelevant to what ever you're looking for, and thus annoying (to some). (They often are ads...)
Insurance companies charge smokers or drunk drivers, or speeders more for coverage because they impose undue burden on the system. Why should smut users be any different? First, there's the possibility that they'll filter out more than porn. (See the already existing debates on other threads.)
Second, if they want to charge by the amount of data transfered, then they should just charge by the amount of data transfered. If I want unfiltered access to essays on dissident website X, why should I have to pay more than the guy who watches YouTube all day?
Even if they never filter out anything other than porn, are you going charge people who look at still image porn more than the YouTube guy on the grounds that he must be using more resources?
[sarcasm]Better lump the Linux geeks in there, always downloading packages instead of getting their software on CDs like "normal" people. Charge 'em double.[/sarcasm]
Either way, it does seem pretty stupid to go to a party without anyone you know. I think he's learned that lesson now, and the judge did admonish him to not be so naive.
Got me. Change that to "and have no intention to," or something like that.
My mom was a juror for a drunk driving case. The defendant (who had only came into town that day) met someone who invited him to a party. He went, and after he drank some alcohol, the others there assaulted him. He went outside, but they followed him.
Being in immediate physical danger, and there not being anyone sober around who wasn't threatening him, he had no choice but to drive.
Was he foolish? Yes. Criminally so? No. He could not have anticipated the urgent need to drive by himself, and the risk of causing death or injury by driving wasn't nearly as high as the risk would have been if he had stayed and let them pummel him.
BTW, I've never drunk alcohol and never will, so don't write me off as someone carelessly excusing his own foolish hobbies.