SEMW

51 ms·

421.
by SEMW 14y ago
From my perspective, that seems pretty bizarre. Here, sticking to a single text-book (or the lecture notes) would probably ensure you didn't get a First - for that you're expected to do wider research & reading on your own. The lectur
422.
by SEMW 14y ago
As someone who goes to uni in Europe (the UK), I've never had anyone wheel in a an actual cart of textbooks, but nor have I ever had a lecturer proclaim only a single textbook is acceptable. Usually they give a list of 5-10, with a few of t
423.
by SEMW 14y ago
Interesting. I'm surprised that US contract law would differ from English in such a fundamental way. Thanks for the explanations, on that and on Scalia's approach.
424.
by SEMW 14y ago
Having briefly skimmed the Opinion[1] (IANYAL), the heart of it was an exercise of close statutory interpretation to try and figure out exactly how s. 602 interacts with s. 109, with the majority concluding that as s. 602 refers explicitly
425.
by SEMW 14y ago
It's possible they're still trying to determine congress's intent in a sense, they just give a more objective meaning to 'intent': i.e. what a reasonable person reading the statute would think that congress meant by the words they used. (As
426.
by SEMW 14y ago
> Food production has been optimized throughout the entirety of human existence. But it has been optimized to solve a problem most people reading this article no longer experience. Society no longer needs more food; it needs healthier f
427.
by SEMW 14y ago
Vaguely reminds me of Dave Mackay's (sadly now neglected) Dasher research project[1], in that both can be used to enter text with input devices that only have a single axis. Dasher's seems like it fits better with continuous/'analogue' inpu
428.
by SEMW 14y ago
The variance in recommendations on the best carb to protein ratio to take postworkout seems to be much bigger than the variance in the milkshakes you reviewed (between 1:1 and 5:1, with your shakes only varying between 2.7:1 and 4.4:1).
429.
by SEMW 14y ago
> there is no fair play among warring nations. This might be a fair point if the US government was only claiming that the (supposedly inalienable) human rights which it respects in its own citizens are only suspended as against citizens
430.
by SEMW 14y ago
Exactly right. A moral high ground built on an axiom of 'our citizens are now deserving of human rights than anyone else's' is more of a moral tar pit than a high ground.
431.
by SEMW 14y ago
"Prior art" is only stuff that was at the time available to the public, so wouldn't apply to internal company secrets. The relevant defence here is prior use , which is different: unlike prior art, it doesn't invalidate the patent, it's ju
432.
by SEMW 14y ago
The section the GP quoted was not the entire article. Rogers went on to end the quoted paragraph with the rhetorical question "We don't want Weston, but maybe we want Wayland?", and went on to address that question in the rest of the articl
433.
by SEMW 14y ago
The UK judiciary is famous for setting aside judgments when there's even a hint of the possibility of conflict of interest, certainly compared to other countries. E.g. the House of Lords in 2000 set aside its own ruling on the extradition o
434.
by SEMW 14y ago
> I don't know about UK bribery laws As of 2010, more or less the toughest in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010 (which has been criticised as going too far for effectively criminalising e.g. corporate hospitalit
435.
by SEMW 14y ago
> Cisco acted like a business, you can't blame them for that Any time someone on hn complains about some business ripping them off, some variant of this comment usually gets posted. And it completely misses the point. The point isn't mo
436.
by SEMW 14y ago
> in the UK a jury questioned its meaning, the judge got snottily arrogant over it and ditched the case ... Interesting to me that the judge was so unable to answer the question, that he ditched a whole trial. If you're talking about Hu
437.
by SEMW 14y ago
The question in R v T that Bayes theorem was being applied to was a specific, factual one: whether a footprint could have been made by a particular shoe.
438.
by SEMW 14y ago
> I hear that juries are selected for emotionality and not rationality The case the parent was talking about took place in the Netherlands. I don't think they even use juries in the Netherlands (though I could be wrong about that). Even
439.
by SEMW 14y ago
See also: R v T (Footwear Mark Evidence) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2439.html (which is redacted to hide the appellant's identity, giving the judgment a delightfully dystopian feel). There it was held that an expert wit
440.
by SEMW 14y ago
Exactly right: the image is from http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4309?viewlocale=en_US&loca... . (Props to Google reverse image search).
441.
by SEMW 14y ago
I've commented on that issue elsewhere in this thread (about a case on whether Star Wars stormtrooper helmets are copyrightable in the UK): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5250739
442.
by SEMW 14y ago
The theory is: - Sculpture is generally protected by copyright in Berne convention countries. - Copying includes reproducing a work in any material form. The fact that the process of making a copy involves CAD files isn't relevant: the resu
443.
by SEMW 14y ago
Interesting they use a Star Wars example. There was a major copyright case on my side of the pond - in the UK - in 2011 about whether a Star Wars stormtrooper helmet was a sculpture, covered by copyright, or just a movie prop (so covered on
444.
by SEMW 14y ago
Not sure if you're trying to imply that information written by lawyers wouldn't have such a disclaimer. If so, that's nonsense. The language is there to make clear the site doesn't put its authors in a lawyer-client relationship with its re
445.
by SEMW 14y ago
> is it even possible to grant a non-exclusive, non-revocable license? ...Yes? IAN(Y)AL. But licences aren't revocable by default. If I grant you a licence by contract, then you have a licence. If I want to revoke it, I have two optio
446.
by SEMW 14y ago
Happily (or unhappily), the law is applied by humans rather than computers, and isn't very susceptible to that sort of thing. Also -- 'being the copyright holder of a work that infringes copyright' isn't a thing. If I copy Harry Potter, by
447.
by SEMW 14y ago
There's a big difference between granting the school a non-exclusive copyright licence (including one that allows them to sublicense to anti-plagiarism companies), and assigning them your copyright. I'd be happy to do the first, but not the
448.
by SEMW 14y ago
For anyone who doesn't realise: That's part of the same case. National courts refer questions about interpretations of EU directives to the CJEU. They give guidance on interpretation, but don't rule on the specifics of the case. So after th
449.
by SEMW 14y ago
Sarcasm doesn't make a poor comparison into a good one. The arguments for invalidity here are: (1) generic use, that 'gaymers' is in customary use in online communities to mean a gay gaymer, and (2) descriptiveness, that it's a combination
450.
by SEMW 14y ago
> He trademarked it plain and simple and shouldn't be stripped of his trademark. Not much about the law is 'plain and simple'. Being granted a trademark isn't very good evidence that you should have been granted a trademark. Trademark

More ›