"jigga" is an accepted pronunctiation of the "giga" prefix.
No. No, it's not. Only in english (possibly in a few other languages) could you possibly pronounce the two g's differently, and even then it's relatively uncommon and usually derives from combining roots from two different original languages, or from a deliberate construction for the purpose of creating distinctness.
You realize that the Greek gamma is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative now right? So, neither English pronunciation is actually "correct". Although, Dutch would pretty much have the most accurate pronunciation.
Again, I noted receipt of stolen goods, and possession of stolen goods. Both of those crimes are however not accessory to theft, and neither is Conspiracy to Purchase Stolen Goods.
In fact, the link you provided would be a good case to use in NY law against someone attempting to charge a receiver of stolen goods who was unconnected with the original theft with accessory to theft.
I had a laptop taken from our property. The computer was logged in through SSH into the server, so I even knew the exact time that the laptop disconnected (went out of range of the wireless router). I was arriving home at nearly the exact same time with my boyfriend, and at pretty much the exact same time as well, a witness saw my boyfriend's brother exiting our property. We even had a temporary restraining order against my boyfriend's brother. Missing along with the laptop were legal papers and evidence in a briefcase that could only be useful to my boyfriend's brother. Later that day, my boyfriend's brother even called up the witness attempting to convince her to lie to the police about ever having seen him, and she reported this information to the police.
What happened? "No one saw your boyfriend's brother with the actual laptop (as it was in his backpack) therefore, we have nothing to work with."
So, we knew the exact time of the crime, we knew who did it, yet because of varying amount of police apathy, nothing was ever done about it...
To cite a specific example: an Alberta farmer who shot at thieves on his property was given 90 days for assault with a deadly weapon, while the thieves got 30 days for stealing.
The laws about justified use of force require that excessive force not be used. Using a lethal weapon is an unreasonable escalation of force against people who are simply stealing property. (Lethal force is usually only permissible in response to lethal force.)
However the final nail in the coffin is that he doesn't know how to spell photon (it is not spelt foton!)...so I have extreme doubts that this is paper is correct. In fact I'd need to hear from a GPS expert that his simplistic model is reasonable because I don't believe that it is (but then I'm not a GPS expert!).
The author is Dutch. In Dutch, it is spelled foton. You can't blame everyone for speaking English as a second language.
Actually in CA I believe it is considered being an accessory if you know it was not obtained legitimately.
Eh... after reading an article online, I could see a DA cooking up a story for why it fits. Short of a non-competent lawyer, or strong case law, I don't see it holding up so well, since there are specific laws describing the criminal act that was committed (receiving stolen property). Also, theft of an item of about $500 value (as the value was when it was stolen) is probably not as strong as receiving stolen property of a value of $5000 (established by how much they paid for it.)
Gizmodo stopped being protected by any journalism shield the moment they actively participated in theft of private property.
Just as a note here, purchasing a stolen good is not the same as being accessory to the theft. Usually, purchasing a stolen good is only punished by forfeiture of the item (without any refund). Yes, knowingly purchasing stolen goods (which Gizmodo clearly did) can be treated more harshly but it apparently has to have a value of more than $5,000 (convenient selling price you used there Gizmodo...)
But still, in order for the act to be accessory to the theft, the theft would have to be done at the request of the purchaser. As this was clearly a theft of opportunity, Gizmodo could have not participated in the theft, but rather only committed a separate crime. (And likely not even then, because the value wasn't high enough.)
A reasonable analysis would note that the behavior tends to prevent offspring and dramatically increase STD occurrence. It's thus clearly harmful, even ignoring the social effects and suicide rate. We also know it appears to be mainly caused by the womb environment, making it a birth defect.
Funny, nothing you suggest here about the harms of homosexuality are psychological harms. You realize that the DSM is designed to classify people who are experiencing mental problems, right? So, "lack of procreativity" shouldn't be included, or else being post-vasectomy would be in the DSM. "Increased STD occurrence" shouldn't be included, or else refusing to wear a condom would be a cause for being in the DSM... as would being a teenager. Social effects and suicide rates? They examined those issues, it turns out that not all homosexuals experience social problems, nor do they all attempt suicide. In fact, some homosexuals seem to be quite well adjusted and capable of performing well in a professional career. The psychologists knew this, because they had well adjusted people working in their field.
Leaving it out of the DSM is pure politics, not evidence-based medicine.
It wasn't pure politics. There was a lot of politics, because the only reason why being homosexual was in the DSM was because people believed that you couldn't be homosexual without having mental, and/or social issues. As more and more psychologists came out as being homosexual, it forced the community to recognize that, hey, being homosexual did not automatically imply that the person required psychological intervention.
Before these psychologists came out, the only homosexuals that the psychologists ever dealt with were ones who were already having "comorbid" psychological issues. So, it turns out that the psychologists thought that homosexuality automatically implied psychiatric distress was because the only people who admitted to being homosexual to them were people who were in psychiatric distress. There was a confirmation bias going on. Mentally healthy homosexuals didn't come out, and so they were hidden. And they were hidden for good reason: to avoid discrimination.
As a total hyothetical, take for example the idea that the only time doctors ever saw an appendix was if it were inflamed and infected. They would naturally presume that the only state an appendix exists in is inflamed and infected. After all, they had never seen an uninfected appendix. Now, imagine that they finally do find someone who has died, and has an uninfected appendix. Clearly, it is now not the case that appendices are pathological. They're simply a variation of human anatomy.
In the same way, psychologists were forced to recognize that homosexuality does not automatically present with mental health issues. Other ancillary conditions of homosexual body health are not sufficient to make homosexuality into a mental health disorder.
As a final note: women are more susceptible to STDs, they have a higher incident of uterine, ovarian, and cervix cancer, and in fact, there are special parts of hospitals devoted solely to treating women. Does this mean being a woman should be declared a mental health disorder? No, clearly not. It's noted on their charts like being a smoker, as there are ancillary health issues that any doctor should be aware of, but "being a smoker" is not a health disorder, and neither is "being a woman". Just like "being homosexual" is not a health disorder.
which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal
Appeal to tradition. Fuck the police and the law. Justice is not about satiating the victim.
You can call it a fallacy all you want, but that is how the US legal system works, and it doesn't care if you don't agree or not... it's going to keep doing what it does, because it has a monopoly of force.
I would ask you to please go look at the picture in TFA... while the Samsung may be "intended" to be used in a landscape orientation, it clearly allows itself to be operated from a letter orientation as well. If held side-by-side in the same orientation, telling one from the other is difficult without extensive experience with one or the other.
Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses.
Actually, people quite frequently break the law... it's kind of part of the reason for search warrants, and why police states end up being able to arbitrarily label anyone a criminal. I think your idea of "fantasizing does not result in actually breaking the law" is suffering from selective memory biases that humans have. You recall the times where you fantasize yet don't break the law more readily than you recall when you fantasize and then do break the law. Likely thinking most of the time that you broke the law without ever fantasizing about it.
Either way: no, simple fantasizing about a crime should never be good cause to arrest someone. However, this priest was in active violation of child-pornography laws, which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal, as the harm to children goes beyond simply just the harm done by sexually violating them in order to take the picture.
Loaded up the page to look at it. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by aspect ratio. I mean, I see that the aspect ratios are different, but how am I to know which is which? It's not like the iPad has a 1:Apple aspect ratio while the Galaxy Tab has a 1:Samsung ratio...
And if the company breaches this contract, who is going to sue them? The researcher who isn't a party to the contract, and thus has no standing to sue for breach of contract?
The idea is a nice thought, but not really enforceable.
Yeah seriously, they will straight up murder your face. Then procreate in it, then use your husk of a corpse as a weapon against your naive friends until it reaches adulthood. Rinse, repeat.
Hey... bob, are you ok? You've been looking a little... weird... since that Chrysalid touched you...
Note, that I said: "They would need to get a release from all the other contributors that were not working for hire for AMD." Having copyright assignments also works.
Actually, when you think of it, it's rather inspired. AMD does eventually drop support for old cards after a period, providing an opensource option allows for programmers to maintain support indefinitely. Plus, I'm guessing that this will increase the number of programmers interested in working on the drivers.
Except the WE7 driver won't be open source, so... no.
Your point being? The license is irrelevant. AMD, as the presumed owner of the Radeon source, could make the Radeon GPU driver for Windows Embedded closed source even if it was released GPL.
Yes, BUT not with any derivative code included. They would need to get a release from all the other contributors that were not working for hire for AMD. Namely, if I write an extra chapter to The Da'Vinci Code, and the original writer could totally change the license that the original Da'Vinci Code was released under, but could not include my extra chapter without my permission. (GPL makes this question simple, since you're already providing the source, you are known to be able to include any derivative works, since they also must be GPL.)
so it's official, the FOSS drivers are better than the proprietary drivers? (more likely it's that the proprietary drivers are just worse than the FOSS drivers...)
I noted above, but I'll note it again. The Windows driver is known to have a lot of special paths for all the various cool games that people want to run as fast as possible. For Windows Embedded, they want a good all-around driver that is simple to port. This would be the Linux driver, as that's exactly what it is written to be.
The resulting WEC7 driver for Radeon GPUs is proprietary, but that's allowed per the MIT license that the ATI-AMD Linux driver code is provided under."
Some people don't consider something "Free" until it is free in perpetuity. I don't fully agree with people like this, but I see their point, and can acknowledge their definition.
On the other hand, this is pretty awesome, and probably makes a lot of sense. Graphics drivers for Windows are known to carry heavy optimization and code-sensing techniques in order to provide the best performance possible for Arbitrary Game Choice(tm). The Linux driver is however a good all-around driver without all this special pathing. So, it should be easier to port.
Eh..... this is grey waters... I honestly think that Spamhaus is making an assertion of fact to a third party, and could be liable for defamation. It's well enough into the grey area that it would have to be settled by the court.
I suspected that were the case. Terminology was being thrown around like you knew what it meant, but it was still being thrown around wrong. (I won't admit that I'm necessarily any better... just more pedantic.)
I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)
Because they have an incomplete understanding of the legal aspects involved. Learning just a little bit of law can make you a dangerous. You might immediately start thinking you know everything and so you're qualified to explain how XY is illegal, but YX is actually legal. It's primarily why it's highly recommended not to represent yourself in court. (There are other good reason for why even lawyers shouldn't represent themselves.)
Hey JERK! We don't AGREE with people here on slashdot! I better see a good argument for why I'm a stupid idiot now, or else, I'm going to report you to the "too nice to be on slashdot" police.;)
Slashdot Mirror
"jigga" is an accepted pronunctiation of the "giga" prefix.
No. No, it's not. Only in english (possibly in a few other languages) could you possibly pronounce the two g's differently, and even then it's relatively uncommon and usually derives from combining roots from two different original languages, or from a deliberate construction for the purpose of creating distinctness.
You realize that the Greek gamma is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative now right? So, neither English pronunciation is actually "correct". Although, Dutch would pretty much have the most accurate pronunciation.
See Conspiracy to Purchase Stolen Goods.
Again, I noted receipt of stolen goods, and possession of stolen goods. Both of those crimes are however not accessory to theft, and neither is Conspiracy to Purchase Stolen Goods.
In fact, the link you provided would be a good case to use in NY law against someone attempting to charge a receiver of stolen goods who was unconnected with the original theft with accessory to theft.
I had a laptop taken from our property. The computer was logged in through SSH into the server, so I even knew the exact time that the laptop disconnected (went out of range of the wireless router). I was arriving home at nearly the exact same time with my boyfriend, and at pretty much the exact same time as well, a witness saw my boyfriend's brother exiting our property. We even had a temporary restraining order against my boyfriend's brother. Missing along with the laptop were legal papers and evidence in a briefcase that could only be useful to my boyfriend's brother. Later that day, my boyfriend's brother even called up the witness attempting to convince her to lie to the police about ever having seen him, and she reported this information to the police.
What happened? "No one saw your boyfriend's brother with the actual laptop (as it was in his backpack) therefore, we have nothing to work with."
So, we knew the exact time of the crime, we knew who did it, yet because of varying amount of police apathy, nothing was ever done about it...
To cite a specific example: an Alberta farmer who shot at thieves on his property was given 90 days for assault with a deadly weapon, while the thieves got 30 days for stealing.
The laws about justified use of force require that excessive force not be used. Using a lethal weapon is an unreasonable escalation of force against people who are simply stealing property. (Lethal force is usually only permissible in response to lethal force.)
However the final nail in the coffin is that he doesn't know how to spell photon (it is not spelt foton!)...so I have extreme doubts that this is paper is correct. In fact I'd need to hear from a GPS expert that his simplistic model is reasonable because I don't believe that it is (but then I'm not a GPS expert!).
The author is Dutch. In Dutch, it is spelled foton. You can't blame everyone for speaking English as a second language.
Actually in CA I believe it is considered being an accessory if you know it was not obtained legitimately.
Eh... after reading an article online, I could see a DA cooking up a story for why it fits. Short of a non-competent lawyer, or strong case law, I don't see it holding up so well, since there are specific laws describing the criminal act that was committed (receiving stolen property). Also, theft of an item of about $500 value (as the value was when it was stolen) is probably not as strong as receiving stolen property of a value of $5000 (established by how much they paid for it.)
Gizmodo stopped being protected by any journalism shield the moment they actively participated in theft of private property.
Just as a note here, purchasing a stolen good is not the same as being accessory to the theft. Usually, purchasing a stolen good is only punished by forfeiture of the item (without any refund). Yes, knowingly purchasing stolen goods (which Gizmodo clearly did) can be treated more harshly but it apparently has to have a value of more than $5,000 (convenient selling price you used there Gizmodo...)
But still, in order for the act to be accessory to the theft, the theft would have to be done at the request of the purchaser. As this was clearly a theft of opportunity, Gizmodo could have not participated in the theft, but rather only committed a separate crime. (And likely not even then, because the value wasn't high enough.)
A reasonable analysis would note that the behavior tends to prevent offspring and dramatically increase STD occurrence. It's thus clearly harmful, even ignoring the social effects and suicide rate. We also know it appears to be mainly caused by the womb environment, making it a birth defect.
Funny, nothing you suggest here about the harms of homosexuality are psychological harms. You realize that the DSM is designed to classify people who are experiencing mental problems, right? So, "lack of procreativity" shouldn't be included, or else being post-vasectomy would be in the DSM. "Increased STD occurrence" shouldn't be included, or else refusing to wear a condom would be a cause for being in the DSM... as would being a teenager. Social effects and suicide rates? They examined those issues, it turns out that not all homosexuals experience social problems, nor do they all attempt suicide. In fact, some homosexuals seem to be quite well adjusted and capable of performing well in a professional career. The psychologists knew this, because they had well adjusted people working in their field.
Leaving it out of the DSM is pure politics, not evidence-based medicine.
It wasn't pure politics. There was a lot of politics, because the only reason why being homosexual was in the DSM was because people believed that you couldn't be homosexual without having mental, and/or social issues. As more and more psychologists came out as being homosexual, it forced the community to recognize that, hey, being homosexual did not automatically imply that the person required psychological intervention.
Before these psychologists came out, the only homosexuals that the psychologists ever dealt with were ones who were already having "comorbid" psychological issues. So, it turns out that the psychologists thought that homosexuality automatically implied psychiatric distress was because the only people who admitted to being homosexual to them were people who were in psychiatric distress. There was a confirmation bias going on. Mentally healthy homosexuals didn't come out, and so they were hidden. And they were hidden for good reason: to avoid discrimination.
As a total hyothetical, take for example the idea that the only time doctors ever saw an appendix was if it were inflamed and infected. They would naturally presume that the only state an appendix exists in is inflamed and infected. After all, they had never seen an uninfected appendix. Now, imagine that they finally do find someone who has died, and has an uninfected appendix. Clearly, it is now not the case that appendices are pathological. They're simply a variation of human anatomy.
In the same way, psychologists were forced to recognize that homosexuality does not automatically present with mental health issues. Other ancillary conditions of homosexual body health are not sufficient to make homosexuality into a mental health disorder.
As a final note: women are more susceptible to STDs, they have a higher incident of uterine, ovarian, and cervix cancer, and in fact, there are special parts of hospitals devoted solely to treating women. Does this mean being a woman should be declared a mental health disorder? No, clearly not. It's noted on their charts like being a smoker, as there are ancillary health issues that any doctor should be aware of, but "being a smoker" is not a health disorder, and neither is "being a woman". Just like "being homosexual" is not a health disorder.
which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal
Appeal to tradition. Fuck the police and the law. Justice is not about satiating the victim.
You can call it a fallacy all you want, but that is how the US legal system works, and it doesn't care if you don't agree or not... it's going to keep doing what it does, because it has a monopoly of force.
Samsung is widescreen. Apple isn't.
I would ask you to please go look at the picture in TFA... while the Samsung may be "intended" to be used in a landscape orientation, it clearly allows itself to be operated from a letter orientation as well. If held side-by-side in the same orientation, telling one from the other is difficult without extensive experience with one or the other.
Everyone fantasizes about breaking the law from time to time; few people act on those impulses.
Actually, people quite frequently break the law... it's kind of part of the reason for search warrants, and why police states end up being able to arbitrarily label anyone a criminal. I think your idea of "fantasizing does not result in actually breaking the law" is suffering from selective memory biases that humans have. You recall the times where you fantasize yet don't break the law more readily than you recall when you fantasize and then do break the law. Likely thinking most of the time that you broke the law without ever fantasizing about it.
Either way: no, simple fantasizing about a crime should never be good cause to arrest someone. However, this priest was in active violation of child-pornography laws, which by US law traditions is inextricable from child abuse, such that even cartoons or any other depiction of child porn is deemed illegal, as the harm to children goes beyond simply just the harm done by sexually violating them in order to take the picture.
Loaded up the page to look at it. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference just by aspect ratio. I mean, I see that the aspect ratios are different, but how am I to know which is which? It's not like the iPad has a 1:Apple aspect ratio while the Galaxy Tab has a 1:Samsung ratio...
And if the company breaches this contract, who is going to sue them? The researcher who isn't a party to the contract, and thus has no standing to sue for breach of contract?
The idea is a nice thought, but not really enforceable.
Yeah seriously, they will straight up murder your face. Then procreate in it, then use your husk of a corpse as a weapon against your naive friends until it reaches adulthood. Rinse, repeat.
Hey... bob, are you ok? You've been looking a little... weird... since that Chrysalid touched you...
Note, that I said: "They would need to get a release from all the other contributors that were not working for hire for AMD." Having copyright assignments also works.
... [car analogy] ...
... you lost me...
...surely you can understand why *contributors* may be suspicious and thrusting of contributing to BSD licensed projects.
Thrusting contributors? God, as if the climate weren't sexist enough. (*TEASING!*)
Look, it's a watch that self-assembles!
Actually, when you think of it, it's rather inspired. AMD does eventually drop support for old cards after a period, providing an opensource option allows for programmers to maintain support indefinitely. Plus, I'm guessing that this will increase the number of programmers interested in working on the drivers.
Except the WE7 driver won't be open source, so... no.
Your point being? The license is irrelevant. AMD, as the presumed owner of the Radeon source, could make the Radeon GPU driver for Windows Embedded closed source even if it was released GPL.
Yes, BUT not with any derivative code included. They would need to get a release from all the other contributors that were not working for hire for AMD. Namely, if I write an extra chapter to The Da'Vinci Code, and the original writer could totally change the license that the original Da'Vinci Code was released under, but could not include my extra chapter without my permission. (GPL makes this question simple, since you're already providing the source, you are known to be able to include any derivative works, since they also must be GPL.)
so it's official, the FOSS drivers are better than the proprietary drivers? (more likely it's that the proprietary drivers are just worse than the FOSS drivers...)
I noted above, but I'll note it again. The Windows driver is known to have a lot of special paths for all the various cool games that people want to run as fast as possible. For Windows Embedded, they want a good all-around driver that is simple to port. This would be the Linux driver, as that's exactly what it is written to be.
The resulting WEC7 driver for Radeon GPUs is proprietary, but that's allowed per the MIT license that the ATI-AMD Linux driver code is provided under."
Some people don't consider something "Free" until it is free in perpetuity. I don't fully agree with people like this, but I see their point, and can acknowledge their definition.
On the other hand, this is pretty awesome, and probably makes a lot of sense. Graphics drivers for Windows are known to carry heavy optimization and code-sensing techniques in order to provide the best performance possible for Arbitrary Game Choice(tm). The Linux driver is however a good all-around driver without all this special pathing. So, it should be easier to port.
Eh..... this is grey waters... I honestly think that Spamhaus is making an assertion of fact to a third party, and could be liable for defamation. It's well enough into the grey area that it would have to be settled by the court.
I am also NAL.
I suspected that were the case. Terminology was being thrown around like you knew what it meant, but it was still being thrown around wrong. (I won't admit that I'm necessarily any better... just more pedantic.)
I'm not sure where everyone else gets off insinuating that it's somehow not illegal because it's happened before in the past (ridiculous), or that maybe the Apple employee wanted someone else to find it and take it (rampant speculation, which apparently is perfectly acceptable in court.)
Because they have an incomplete understanding of the legal aspects involved. Learning just a little bit of law can make you a dangerous. You might immediately start thinking you know everything and so you're qualified to explain how XY is illegal, but YX is actually legal. It's primarily why it's highly recommended not to represent yourself in court. (There are other good reason for why even lawyers shouldn't represent themselves.)
Hey JERK! We don't AGREE with people here on slashdot! I better see a good argument for why I'm a stupid idiot now, or else, I'm going to report you to the "too nice to be on slashdot" police. ;)