Decius wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] [ Total and complete bullshit. If she agrees to the surgery
]
] ] and she dies as a result, did she commit suicide? What if
] ] something goes wrong with the surgery and both fetuses die?
]
] ] Double homicide? Absurd. -k]
]
] I don't think this case is remotely as cut and dry as you guys
] are making it out to be. Your basing your perspective on an
] abstract concept of at what point children gain rights that is
] based upon your perspective on abortion. Essentially you are
] arguing that before they are naturally born children have
] absolutely no legal protection and absolutely no behavior on
] the part of the mother or anyone else is questionable
] regardless of how malicious it is.
]
] Deaths from natural birth complications are one in 10,000,
] whereas deaths from C-Sections are one in 2,500. Its clearly a
] more risky procedure, and women ought to be able to forgo it.
]
]
] However, this isn't a case where a bunch of bibled up nut
] cases are going after someone because she refused a C-Section
] because she was afraid of the increased risks involved. She
] refused a C-Section because she didn't want a scar. "Rowland
] told a hospital nurse that she would rather "lose one of the
] babies" than be scarred by the Caesarean section, which
] requires a surgical incision to the abdomen." Furthermore,
] this wasn't a case where there were questions about whether or
] not the baby would survive. She had obtained several different
] opinions from several different hospitals who clearly told her
] that she needed a C-section to save the life of the baby.
]
] She literally made a pre-meditated decision that she would
] rather one of the children die then have a scar on her
] abdomen. Thats what we are talking about here. Expecting
] someone who would make such a choice before birth to have the
] absolute respect for the health and well being of the child
] that we require after birth is absolutely ridiculous.
] Something is obviously wrong here.
]
] I think that its a bad idea to create a legal president that
] allows bibled up nut cases to go after any woman who chooses
] natural child birth in reasonable cases. I think that reacting
] to that possibility by proclaiming that we support any degree
] of maliciousness prior to childbirth is equally radical and
] equally unwise.

RYAN: Once again, the problems of making a judgment on one story of the incident. It has since come out that the mother had severe mental disturbances, was the child of a mentally handicapped mother, etc.... there is always more than meets the eye. A) that is why we have a fact-finding function. B) I think this is a test case that will allow your so-called "bibled up nut case" to go after a constitutionally-protected right under Casey. Unwise or not, this is not an abortion. I have a lot more to say on this, but I really don't want to get too deep into it. Too many other things to think about.

RE: Eschaton - The War on Women

] I read about Melissa Ann Rowland in the Dallas paper this
] morning By now, most of you probably have read or heard
] that she has been charged with murder for refusing to
] have a C-section which doctors had told her was the only
] way to ensure that both of the twins she was pregnant
] with would survive. One was stillborn. If convicted, Ms.
] Rowland could be sentenced to five years to life in
] prison. She is being held at the Salt Lake City jail.
]
]
] Ever since legislatures started enacting statutes that
] make it a crime to kill a fetus, events have conspired to
] get us to this point - a woman didn't want surgery, and
] is being charged as a murderer for refusing. Think about
] that for a minute - she didn't want to have surgery.
] She's charged with a crime.

Eschaton - The War on Women

Decius wrote:
] I think its inevitable. In 100 years the moon will be covered
] with settlements. On dark nights you'll look up a see a sphere
] covered with a glowing spider web of cities and roads. We take
] the night moon for granted, hanging there naked and pristine
] as nature created her. Future generations will not know that
] moon, and the last to know her will mourn her loss. I think
] someone will probably buy enough land up there to make a sign
] visible from earth. Land will be cheap at first as the place
] is inhospitable. And there will be nothing you can do about it
] really. What people on the moon do with their land is
] definately out of the jurisdiction of some country on earth.

[ I dunno, i wouldn't say anything is inevitable, except maybe the end of the universe. It's like anything, a matter of fighting for things you believe in. I don't think unbridled corporatism is our assured future... i think there's plenty of time to work out positive solutions to our problems. I *definitely* don't think the moon will be out of Earth nations' jurisdiction for a long, *long* time, if ever.
Do i think that the dark moon will live forever? No, and I feel like that's probably a good thing all in all. I'm not against change, just change that minimizes or marginalizes our humanity. Seeing the lights of a moon settlement seems to me to expand and excite that feeling of human accomplishment. Sky-sized advertisements, on the other hand, diminish our humanity, underscore the baser aspects of our nature and lock us into traditional modes, even if it's under a different mechanism.
In the same way that I can appreciate achitechture and efficient means for housing people doesn't mean i wish to see all the world covered with it, it's a matter of balancing progress with history, technology with nature. It's not a new theme, at all, and I tend to feel like we're sort of losing the battle in a lot of ways, but it's important, i think, to give plenty of thought to things like human commons, nature vs. efficiency, etc. We'll be voting in our lifetimes on laws regarding utilization of extraterrestrial resources... it's time to think about that now, right along side your opinion on utilization of earthbound forests, air and sea resources. -k]

RE: Yahoo! News - Russian Inventor Patents Space-Ads Device

] On May 9, 2000, Victory Day (celebrating the end of World
] War II in the former Soviet Union), former inhabitants of
] the Chernobyl "company town" of Pripyat were allowed to
] visit their old home. Aleksandr (Sasha) Sirota convinced
] his mother, the poet and anti-nuclear activist Lyubov
] Sirota, to accompany him and his friend Maksim on this
] painful journey. Sasha made the following photographic
] record of the visit, and the comments underneath the
] pictures are by Lyubov Sirota herself.

Another photoblog of chernobyl... At the end of this one, there is a link to another one. This really is interesting. In addition, the main purpose of the site is to reflect on poetry written about the disaster.

Lyubov Sirota Returns to Pripyat

inignoct wrote:
] "Imagine doing a Google search for a phone number, weather
] report or sports score. The results page would be filled with
] links to various sources of information. But what if someone
] typed in keywords and no results came back?
]
] That's the scenario critics are painting of a new bill wending
] its way through Congress that would let certain companies own
] facts, and exact a fee to access them."
]
] "The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill and the
] commerce committee is expected to review it on Thursday."
]
] [ Jesus. I don't even know what to say to this. I don't see
] how existing copyright law fails to address this. My
] understanding is that a verbatim copy of large sections of a
] published work, even one which is essentially a collection of
] facts, is already a violation of copyright. If you aren't
] publishing your database as a work, then you aren't really in
] danger of infringement, right?
]
] I want more details. If i write a really clever program that
] scrapes and aggregates court decisions and relevant case law
] straight from all the thousands of courts in the nation,
] indexes it and crosslinks it, and then i publish the result,
] does LexisNexis get to sue me? Under current law, i *think*
] the answer is no... would this change that? How can i be
] liable for creating my own independent collection of publicly
] available information? -k]

Ryan-- The key, as we were discussing last night, is the "sweat of the brow" doctrine which was overruled by the US Supremes in the most famous database/copyright decision, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340. In that case, Plaintiff published a telephone book. Defendant copied it. Plaintiff knew he did because they had placed false listings in it.

Long story short, facts are not copyrightable, as has always been the case. Compilations of facts, to the extent they require some form of originality and creativity, are protectable, but not as to the facts themselves. Hence, you don't get copyright protection just because you go through the work to compile something.

This new bill seeks to overturn Feist, for the most part. I have not read the text of the bill, so this is somewhat of a snap judgment, but from what I understand, they are seeking to protect databases from being ganked. There have been a few bills of this nature floated around the past several years here and in Europe (additionally in the international trade assns).

As to k's hypothetical, no, they are not seeking to stop you from doing that. Lexis/Nexis is seeking to keep you from indexing from their servers all of their services. They pretty much can do that through other means, such as terms of services, federal hacking laws, etc, but they are trying to add another tool to their arsenal. You could compile the cases from the court yourself, if you'd like.

I don't widely advocate using copyright law to accomplish this, but I think that databases probably should be protected in some form or another.

cheers,
Ryan

P.S. I guess I can say that I am a lawyer now!

RE: Wired News: Hands Off! That Fact Is Mine

] Senate bill 500, sponsored by conservative Republicans
] and members of the Green Party and libertarians, would
] add printers to Georgia’s 26,000 computerized voting
] booths so that officials have the ability to review any
] election.
]
] "What Senate bill 500 does is say there ought to be a
] paper trail. There ought to be a ballot like we did
] before that is cast for every single individual, so that
] if there's a problem or a question there's a check," said
] state Senator Tom Price (R-Roswell).

Ryan -- we should find a way to support this...

Atlanta,Georgia,11Alive,ATLANTA,News,Weather,Doppler,sports,events

] Tbogg has some suggestions for Bush/Cheney '04 slogans.
]
] The official slogan (really horrible I think) is "Steady
] Leadership in Times of Change." I forget where I saw
] this, but someone around the 'net suggested the following
] alternative:
]
] Don't Switch Horsemen Mid-Apocalypse

Eschaton: Bush/Cheney Slogan

inignoct wrote:
] ] "Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard
] ] to protecting our listeners from indecent content and
] ] Howard Stern's show blew right through it," said John
] ] Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. "It was
] ] vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and
] ] African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common
] ] decency. We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel
] ] stations until we are assured that his show will conform
] ] to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting,"
] ] Hogan said.
]
] [ It just did that NOW?!?!? Bullshit. Clearchannel has been
] raking in money via Howard Stern's obscenity for YEARS and
] loved every second of it. What's changed? Is this legit or
] should I fire up the Rove-meter? Did Stern make one too many
] orgasm sounds on the radio or did he give props to the Dems?
] Too many strippers and porn stars or too much W. bashing? Did
] he oppose the Hate Amendment?
]
] My inner conspiracy theory machine is mild and set low, but
] this set off some warning bells... i'm calling shenanigans.
] -k]

RYAN: I'll tell you why yesterday. The CEO of ClearChannel is speaking to Congress today on the subject of indecency in media. This is so he can take the moral high road and say, "Look, I did this, don't fine me," while in reality, he created Stern.

RE: Howard Stern Show Taken Off Clear Channel Stations

] "You certainly do have the power" — Dean, having fun with reporters ]the same day, as they gave him a T-shirt emblazoned with ]"Establishment Media" on the front and "We Have the Power, Dean Press ]Corps 2004" on the back.

CQ.com

] Even so, Atlanta is "the most dangerous city in America,"
] and the positive momentum is "fragile," according to the
] summary. Atlanta's violent crime is 463 percent higher
] than the average city's, and its homicide rate is 520
] percent higher than the national average, Linder &
] Associates found.

!!!

Atlanta,Georgia,11Alive,ATLANTA,News,Weather,Doppler,sports,events