Teach your students to ensure there’s a delay between requests so they aren’t hammering anyone’s server, and follow the rules in the robots.txt. I’ve scraped more than a billion pages without any issues.
Actually many of the students are technically competent to do the scrpaing mostly using Python and I am pretty sure they learned not to overwhelm web servers.
I'd say the act of web scraping alone, is almost never unethical if you are careful to not cause undue load to servers. From an ethics, not legal perspective, I don't see a whole lot of difference between your computer's silicon eyes and your organic eyes just looking at something that's already in plain view.
It might be illegal in some jurisdiction; IANAL but I think you can just get out of that jurisdiction and scrape away if that is the case. It might violate some ToS but ToS isn't law; the consequences of violating a ToS are usually on the order of getting your IP banned.
What you do with the stuff you scraped can be ethical or unethical.
One of the best parts about having the freedom of speech is that I’m free to label those people genocidal racists.Freedom of speech doesn’t protect you in any way from being shamed for holding disgusting beliefs.
I rematch with people all the time. I literally rematched with someone in my last game just a second ago playing 10/0. Are you the sort who refuses to resign even when you have a hopeless material disadvantage?
I have won a couple games after being down with a seemingly hopeless material disadvantage. I'm not a grandmaster, and they don't play me (I suppose they might to laugh at a bad player, but that is unlikely). Until you get to the very high levels you should not assume your opponent knows how to convert even an easy endgame.
> It is good etiquette to request a resignation in chat?
Not a chance. People at lower ratings screw up what should be wins all the time. Your opponent may be hoping for a stalemate or to run out the clock or waiting for you to blunder.
That’s not at all why this is a big deal. Sessions recused himself from overseeing the special counsel. Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has been conducting honest and principled oversight to the dismay of republicans. Now that Sessions is gone, Trump can appoint a sycophant to undermine the investigation. This is terrible news for our democracy and the rule of law.
From a purely bi-partisan viewpoint, I think this is a big deal for many other reasons as well. If I remember correctly, a few Republicans defended Sessions saying that his firing would cause some backlash. This was due in part for their admiration of the man as he gave up a Senate seat to become AG and for being a pretty staunch Republican. On the left, Sessions is known to be the leader of all the big police/drug/immigration policies that the Trump Administration wanted enforced. He also was a piece of the puzzle between Trump himself and Mueller like you stated above. His ousting definitely has feathers ruffled on both sides from what I can see.
The problem with that book is so much of its unverifiable and unsourced or a gross exaggeration of the actual facts. It is not an accurate representation of history, and seems to just try and shock the reader.
I don't know if that guy is a liberal or conservative, but he is a Stanford professor, and that seems like a pretty reputable source. At least more than Howard Zinn.
No I am not a conservative. I have read that book, and the first time I read it I liked it a lot. I thought it was the definitive book on US history. However, I have heard from many reputable sources about the problems that the book has, and Howard Zinn himself has an obvious agenda. Regardless of ideology, a book that paints itself as nonfiction history book should be objective and unbiased. The Peoples History of the United States is undeniably biased in my opinion, and for that reason I do not recommend it except for someone's own personal enjoyment.
Isn’t that sort of debate pretty common when it comes to history books? The entire point of the book was to write about history from the point of view of those who “lost.” Of course it’s biased in that respect, and it was on purpose.
There is an aclu app called mobile justice that does this. There appears to be a different one for each state. I was previously under the impression that it uploads the video if you shake your phone, but I found some articles that suggest it transmits while you’re recording.
>The app features a large red “Record” button in the middle of the screen. When it’s pressed, the video is recorded on the phone and a duplicate copy is transmitted simultaneously to the ACLU server.
I have an app from the ACLU of New Jersey app (I live in Texas)...I still have it but I get a warning that it may not work with this version of Android everytime I open it. I'm not sure if the video are getting sent anywhere?
This area looks disorganized...can we put a few smart developers together to donate their time to something like this?
Only available in the US. I am really surprised that such obvious use case is not covered by tens of apps already. I would certainly pay few bucks for such app if the servers were out of reach from corrupt poluce departments and governments.
Aside from the US, the kinds of places where you'd want and be able to use this aren't the kinds of places that have fast enough internet for it to be possible.
I think by "duplicate copy transmitted simultaneously" they mean at the same time your local copy is saved, when the recording stops. The Mobile Justice CA app says "As soon as you stop recording , the video will be automatically sent..."
As someone who works on lawsuits for a living I join in your question. People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL. I can at least say that this particular issue has never come up in any employment suit I've ever worked on. It may well be true that employers do certain things because they're afraid of being sued, but I'm not convinced that those fears are well-founded because the things they do to protect themselves ultimately don't seem to do much good when the case goes to trial. For example, people often say that employers put employees on PIPs as a precursor to firing them because they think it will make it harder for the employee to file a lawsuit when he or she is subsequently fired. Does that dissuade some wrongfully terminated people from talking to a lawyer? Probably. But on the other hand, in pretty much every employment case I've seen go to trial involving someone who was fired from a large company, that person was on a PIP. At the very least, the protective effects of these measures seem exaggerated.
The concern is not about wrongful termination lawsuits, but the myriad other lawsuits that a business could be subject to. Examples might include sexual harassment cases involving employees that were sex offenders, negligence in personal injury cases, customers or vendors accusing the company of violating contracts, etc.
> People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL
Yet US based HR decisions aren't based on informed awareness, but instead fear. Consider what people "know" about the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, and what kind of training or legal advice most hr depts get (again, in the US. My understanding is that done other countries actually have standards for hr training)
I don't think that they get sued for hiring a convict.
It's more that if they get sued for some other reason (legitimate or not), the fact that they hired a convict may count against them in the jury's eyes.
So, as the business sees it, hiring a convict brings extra potential liability.
