Slashdot Mirror

I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary".

For the Google challenged: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subsidiary

4 player death match on a 20" screen, ugh!

That's why I have 4-player Brawl deathmatches on a 32" Vizio monitor. (So what if Lucas is low tier?) Fighting games like Brawl, Bomberman style games, and the like don't need to split the screen, yet they're like hen's teeth on the PC apart from collections of emulated classic arcade games such as Namco Museum and Midway Arcade Treasures.

PCs aren't generally much worse off price wise, I hate the "PC's are multi-thousand dollar, consoles are $200 fallacy.

Multiplayer ties directly into this fallacy. A PC singular isn't multi-thousand dollar, but PCs plural are. The dearth of shared-screen PC games implies that it's more honest to compare a LAN of four gaming PCs to a console with four controllers, and a LAN of PCs is multi-thousand dollar.

Console fan boys [...] completely ignore the fact that they already have and need a computer

A computer good enough for homework and Facebook is not necessarily good enough for the latest blockbuster PC game.

Yes, but this is like saying that your PSX can't handle PS3 games.

So people "already have and need a computer", but the computer that they "already have and need" is comparable to a PS2-based DVR compared to a gaming PC which is comparable to a PS3.

Going for a middle of the road computer [and] spending $80 on a video card

A middle-of-the-road desktop is comparable to a high-end laptop, as I understand it. A lot of the homework-and-Facebook set own only a laptop because they're so cheap: $350 for a computer and monitor that fit in a handbag or child's backpack and can get on Facebook in a restaurant. Yet laptops can't take video cards.

[PCs lack substitutes for] Smash Bros. [and a bunch of others]

I did say "90%" and "that I want to play".

So I guess consoles still have the advantage for the drunken-evenings-with-friends or weekend-play-dates-with-younger-cousins games I mentioned. But this brings up something else: small indie developers can't easily develop for consoles due to console makers' organizational requirements, and most PCs are connected to monitors too small for comfortable shared-screen gaming. What is a developer stuck between this rock and hard place supposed to do?

How many of you wouldn't have ended up in the exact same straights (or worse) if that had been YOUR life?

Through it all, at least Lindsay knows how to spell straits.

"Of course it matters, as it inserts 'reasonable doubt' into the equation."

Instead of using my mod points in this thread, I'm going to reply, because this is kinda important that people understand this.

The standard of proof in civil suits is not the same as in criminal accusations. It's "preponderance of the evidence" which is fuzzy to define and varies from state to state, sometimes reducing lawsuits to a crapshoot, which is why many people and companies sue for the sake of suing as if it's a lottery.

"Reasonable doubt" is not enough to defend yourself in a civil suit.

For a definition, see:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

--
BMO

Aren't photos copyrighted?

Not necessarily.

Incorrect. All works which are copyrightable, ARE copyrighted the moment they are created, including photography. No exceptions. You do not need to register or claim copyright in any way; it is yours exclusively by default. You hold all rights unless you have explicitly granted those rights to others. You need do nothing to reserve all rights to yourself. Public display does not grant public license. (It never ceases to amaze me that people still claim "you put it on the Internet so it's public domain"... those people either also probably still believe the Earth is flat or are shooting off their mouths to try to justify illegal and unethical behavior.)

That being said, when you upload info or a photo to Facebook, you are granting Facebook many rights (it's part of the terms of service). Facebook doesn't outright own your photos, but you have granted them a perpetual nonexclusive license to use those photos.

However, that doesn't allow sites not affiliated with Facebook to use the photos on their own site (though deep linking kinda-sorta skirts that). You haven't given Facebook the right to sublicense your copyrighted materials to unaffiliated third parties. Additionally, if a third-party site implies that the "scraped" users are in any way voluntarily endorsing or participating in the third-party site, or are attaching false statements to the taken profiles (i.e. "I'm looking for a date"), that's a textbook case of fraud as defined by the law (a false statement of a material fact, knowledge on the part of the fraudster that the statement is untrue, intent on the part of the fraudster to deceive the alleged victim, justifiable reliance by the defrauded person on the statement, and injury to the alleged defrauded person as a result. Definition paraphrased from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)

All that being said, it's funny as hell that Facebook, the number one mass purveyor of exploitative privacy-compromises, is suddenly up in arms about getting as good as it gives. Karma's a bitch, ain't it, Zucky ol' bean?

I'm pretty sure that in the US in criminal cases the prosecution is required to reveal all evidence that they have to the defense regardless of who it helps. So if the DA came across something on Facebook that would help the defense and didn't reveal it they could be in serious trouble.

IANAL, but it's my understanding that this is incorrect. Any statements by the defendant that tend to support the defense isn't considered evidence and isn't typically allowed to be heard in court. It's considered a self-serving statement: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/self-serving

This is one of the major points brought up in those 'Never talk to the police' lectures -- literally nothing you say to the police can ever possibly help your eventual court case.

O RLY?

You might want to look that one up. Ironic does indeed mean "coincidental"

You might want to take your own advice. From freedictionary.com

ironic (-rnk) also ironical (-rn-kl) adj.
1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
ironically adv.
ironicalness n.
Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

irony (r-n, r-) n. pl. ironies
1. a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2. a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.

literally also means virtually

You're a retard if you think your abuse of the language contributes to the definition of anything but your social (and most likely economic) status.

Somewhat off-topic, but you mean that it "suggests a question". "Begging the question" is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [wikipedia.org]

I agree that "begging the question" is as you say in formal logic.

But, increasingly I'm convinced that there is a similar phrase "begs the question" which means "this question has to be asked", like this ... more like "begs for the question". That phrase means something else, but has overlap with the formal logic one in terms of its wording.

As much as we don't always like the fact that language evolves, and the grammar nazi's among us refuse to allow things to change over time, I'm pretty sure that "begs the question" in this usage has been around for literally decades.

Let me make it easy on generic words:
Office
Word
Excel
Project

Let me make it easy on generic words:
Office
Word
Excel
Project

Let me make it easy on generic words:
Office
Word
Excel
Project

Let me make it easy on generic words:
Office
Word
Excel
Project

Seriously?

Yes I eat bread (learn to spell).

Bred is the past tense of breed, genius.

You truly are a boy like your name says.

"Pojut" is plural..."Poju" is singular. It's a nickname I got in high school from a friend who said my wide-spread interests (ranging from hiking to cars to gaming to computers to writing to music) made it seem like I was more than one person.

I dunno. I've always used "w/" or "w/o"

The TTIULWOP variation is conspicuously absent from:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TTIUWOP ... but it's not like I'm trying to be correct or even pedantic about it 8,]

Like these, which agree with Wikipedia's definition?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redaction
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redaction

More like cue the Grammar Nazis.

Maybe they will queue up to find out what "que" means?

More like cue the Grammar Nazis.

Maybe they will queue up to find out what "que" means?

More like cue the Grammar Nazis.

Maybe they will queue up to find out what "que" means?

He didn't take a picture of her home, he found it on street view.

Which demonstrated that he actually took steps that would lead someone to reasonably conclude that he both could, and would, act on his threats.

If the person on the receiving end of the threat reasonably believes you will carry it out, you have committed assault. If you do this across state lines, you have turned it into a Federal offense.

I suspect this guy is going to be on the receiving end of a world of hurt.

Once again, wrong.

The U. S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is sworn.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy

And from the same wikipedia article you quoted:

Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial once the jury and alternates are impaneled and sworn in.

Here's another reference:

http://openjurist.org/367/us/364

Once a jury has been impanelled and sworn, jeopardy attaches and a subsequent prosecution is barred, if a mistrial is ordered—absent a showing of imperious necessity.3 As stated by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Coolidge, 25 Fed.Cas. page 622, No.14,858, the discretion is to be exercised 'only in very extraordinary and striking circumstances.'

Only in the case of a mistrial (a hung jury is considered a mistrial) would Jeopardy not attach after a jury is sworn in. In non-jury trials it attaches when the first witness is sworn in and begins to testify.

Really?

Wikileaks =/= Assange

Just like Microsoft =/= Bill Gates. In fact, Microsoft continued chugging on along after Gates left.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prosecute

WANTING to prosecute, and prosecuting are different things.

And again, the American government can't pressure Sweden to do anything. Sweden is exceedingly neutral and doesn't cave into foreign pressure. Again, see Polanski.

Two seconds ago you insisted that Greenpeace and Amnesty International don't disclose their records. When I demonstrate that your statement is a complete lie you simply said my argument is invalid.

You argue like a five year old. Thankfully I can just hide your posts.

Problem solved.

What abuse? It was a tirade., Basically the judge saw this flimsy case and spent 30 minutes telling the prosecution that shouldn't be there wasting the courts time. They basically don't even have the minimum to be in court.

Nobody was subject to verbal 'assaul't' here. In fact, I don't even think you know what verbal assault is.

At no time was the Prosecution threaten with physical harm.

Here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault

'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English

Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance.

As abstract as "care", yet according to you, I neither could care less nor couldn't I care less. Thanks for a third opinion on that issue.

'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English

Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance

Except that it would have some abstract value, because you can be mildly interested, quite interested, or very interested - who while you can't exactly measure it in units it can still be represented by abstract values (Like a spinal tap amp that goes up to 11).

Saying his interest has peaked can be infered to that his interest is at "it's peak" which the definition of peak is:
the pointed top of anything.
his interest is at its top possible value.

Could you have possibly put a little more thought into it before going on a rant about it?

'My interest is peaked' (...) makes literal sense in English

Except that it doesn't, assuming these possible definitions (Ending in a peak, Having a sickly appearance, and Having a peak). It's syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless, because interest, as an abstract entity, has neither form nor appearance.

I have never heard of anyone using it in [that] sense (...)

For good reason.

[He] could have actually meant "I'm Peaked" and he has a rather pointy top and wishes everyone to know.

Indeed, "My interest is peaked" could mean "I'm peaked"--in the same way that "I drove a school bus to school today" could mean "He didn't want to go to school today"--when you have no compunction against replacing three quarters of the sentence.

However, in his original wording, "I'm peaked" - yes he probably meant "I'm piqued"

Congratulations! You pass the Turing test, if only just :P

... either that or I don't think that Hawaii is in the water just because it is surrounded by it.

... and, no, the atmosphere is not part of the earth. Much like outer space, it surrounds the Earth.

"Heh, no, in all honesty, I think I figured out what you're getting at: you don't understand what the word "release" means, and are interpreting it variously as "invalidating" or "relinquishing".

One of us doesn't understand what the word means in a legal context.

... you do know that you linked to "relinquish", not "release"? And that what you linked to is just a list of similar and related concepts?

Or maybe you don't know that, and you actually believe that the legal definition of "relinquish" is "abandon, abdicate, abjure, cast off, cease, cede, deliver, demit, desert, disclaim, discontinue, dismiss, do without, drop, eliminate, forgo, forsake, give over, give up, give up claim to, go without, hand over, jettison, lay aside, leave, let go, part with, pull out, quit, reject, release, relinquere, renounce, resign, rid, sacrifice, secede from, sign away, spare, surrender, throw away, turn one's back on, vacate, waive, withdraw, yield," since those all obviously mean the exact same thing.

The author does not release his rights, except in specific accordance with the terms of the contract between the Licensor and the Licensee. You, perhaps mistakenly rather than in an attempt to corrupt, left that detail out.

What detail? What the fark are you talking about? I never used the word "invalidate", and now you're claiming instead that I used "relinquish" and now you're on to some "detail" that I've left out of... something?

Please, do us all a favor - attempt to put a paragraph together that comprises a complete thought, without some strange copypasted link in the middle of it and reference to things being "left out".

"Heh, no, in all honesty, I think I figured out what you're getting at: you don't understand what the word "release" means, and are interpreting it variously as "invalidating" or "relinquishing".

One of us doesn't understand what the word means in a legal context. The author does not release his rights, except in specific accordance with the terms of the contract between the Licensor and the Licensee. You, perhaps mistakenly rather than in an attempt to corrupt, left that detail out. The Author continues to hold the copyright and all said exclusive rights, which your omission of aforementioned detail implied.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/caner

It's definition 8 or 9 I think, down toward the bottom, a disease where birds get cane-like sprouts at their follicles instead of feathers.

...interested in the turkey genome due to the animal's susceptibility to caner...

So, what part of the turkey gets "A slender, strong but often flexible stem, as of certain bamboos, reeds, or rattans."?

Seriously.

I'd suggest that he seek asylum on the island nation of Fernando Poo, but that might create an international crisis that leads us to the brink of nuclear war.

IANATL: I Am Not A Tax Lawyer.

To save everyone else the acronym lookup, ITG appears to be "Internet Tough Guy". I had never seen it before -- I spent some time finding it, so wanted to save the rest of you old folks the time. :) Saw it here -- it's the only one that really fits ("It Takes Guts" almost could, but not really within that sentence).

bias (bs)
n.
1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others. 4. Sports
a. A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling.
b. The tendency of such a ball to swerve.
5. The fixed voltage applied to an electrode.
adj.
Slanting or diagonal; oblique: a bias fold.
tr.v. biased or biassed, biasing or biassing, biases or biasses
1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
2. To apply a small voltage to (a grid).

Hum, english is not my native language so I might have missed that detail.
Nonetheless I was in doubt so before I posted I checked it (from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dish+on):

dish on someone
Sl. to gossip about or slander someone. e.g., Stop dishing on her. She never hurt you! They spent an hour dishing on Wally.

I'll keep that in mind in the future, thanks.

At present rate we have what ... 100 years of potash in the ground? At some point we will have to sustain the production with only atmospheric nitrogen.

If you wanted to see your local organic farmer toting bags of industrial nitrogen fertilizer, you're in for a disappointment.. :P http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Nitrogen+Fixation

But about energy, you're quite right. Unless we find some new source of energy, or notably improve an old one, most of us will be looking at substantial reduction of material standards of life. Personally, I don't think we will have any magical tokamak of legend suddenly pop out of some phycisist's head.

We will just have to blow on the same coal, so to speak, improve energy efficiency, curtail frivolous usage, invest in renewables and hope that it will tide us over until we have usable fusion tech.

"Five times during the cold war, dead people almost turned into zombies and wreaked havoc. But fortunately, they stayed dead."

FTFY.

For your future grammatical adventures, allow me to point out the difference between

• exuding an odor of havoc (reek)
• causing havoc (wreak).

No offense intended - I was actually amused by this particular homophonetic faux pas, and nearly modded it funny, but decided the correction would be of greater common good.

I must admit, zombies reeking havoc was an amusing mental image.

"Five times during the cold war, dead people almost turned into zombies and wreaked havoc. But fortunately, they stayed dead."

FTFY.

For your future grammatical adventures, allow me to point out the difference between

• exuding an odor of havoc (reek)
• causing havoc (wreak).

No offense intended - I was actually amused by this particular homophonetic faux pas, and nearly modded it funny, but decided the correction would be of greater common good.

I must admit, zombies reeking havoc was an amusing mental image.

Take your pick: Opaque, opaque, opaque, either way, his question is valid and the wikipedia entry on the subject matches not only all online and offline dictionary definitions but also textbook ones. And the answer that human hands are translucent is also valid. So give'm a break?

There is no holy browser...

Maybe not, but for a long time IE has been the holey browser.

The issuing of executive orders (i.e. making law) is unconstitutional.

You are 100% wrong.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

I refer you to the following:

Absent specific statutory authority, an executive order may have the force and effect of law if Congress has acquiesced in a long-standing executive practice that is well-known to it. For example, in Dames v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 101 S. Ct. 2972, 69 L. Ed. 2d 918 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various executive orders that suspended claims of U.S. nationals arising out of the Iranian hostage crisis, citing Congress's Acquiescence in a 180-year-old practice of settling U.S. citizens' claims against foreign governments by executive agreement.

That is settled law, in short, the law of the land. And...

Executive orders also may be authorized by the president's independent constitutional authority (Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55 [1890]). Various clauses of the U.S. Constitution have been cited to support the issuance of executive orders. Among them are the Vestiture Clause, which states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" (art. II, 1, cl. 1); the Take Care Clause, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (art. II, 3); and the Commander in Chief Clause, which states that the president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (art. II, 2, cl. 1).

Even though they are executive policies, they still carry the weight of law.

And google has the gaul to climb on a soap box about censorship...

What is the connection between the people who lived in Western Europe and were conquered by Julius Caesar have to do with Goolge climbing on a soap box? Or did you mean "gall" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall, third entry " Outrageous insolence; effrontery"?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/forensic-evidence.html

Evidence usable in a court, specially the one obtained by scientific methods such as ballistics, blood test, and DNA test.

A letter from BT is NOT "forensic evidence". http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Forensic+analysis

The application of scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal investigations.

Sometimes called simply forensics, forensic science encompasses many different fields of science, including anthropology, biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics, medicine, pathology, phonetics, psychiatry, and toxicology.

The related term criminalistics refers more specifically to the scientific collection and analysis of physical evidence in criminal cases. This includes the analysis of many kinds of materials, including blood, fibers, bullets, and fingerprints. Many law enforcement agencies operate crime labs that perform scientific studies of evidence. The largest of these labs is run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Forensic scientists often present Expert Testimony to courts, as in the case of pathologists who testify on causes of death and engineers who testify on causes of damage from equipment failure, fires, or explosions.

Modern forensic science originated in the late nineteenth century, when European criminal investigators began to use fingerprinting and other identification techniques to solve crimes. As the field of science expanded in scope throughout the twentieth century, its application to legal issues became more and more common. Because nearly every area of science has a potential bearing on the law, the list of areas within forensic science is long.

Again, a letter from BT is not "forensic evidence", any more than a letter from YOU would be. By itself, it proves nothing, and can't even be used as evidence.

Justice is not about revenge...Justice is saying we don't accept what Mr X has done and therefore he is punished.

Revenge - To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).

The aim... is to ensure that others won't try to do it themselves.

Sure, and that aim is brought about through threat of revenge. Our justice system is based on deterrent, not protection. Through fear and doubt we hope that the threat of revenge will prevent criminal activities, but the reality is that there is nothing protecting use from criminal activities, only the after the fact ability to extract revenge on those that injure or insult us.

I stand by my original statement that even in a civilization with a legal system you have freedom to do anything that you are physically capable of doing, you just might have to pay a price if you are caught and convicted. This is no different than without civilization, accept that even people that are not liked, or not powerful, have the same capability for revenge.

Qoined isn't English - it can't be as there is no U after the Q.

Quoined is a word, though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I had to look it up to, it seems to be correct English:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/all+but

The "improper" way is so widespread it has become acceptable usage now, perhaps even the standard usage.

An acronym is an abbreviation, but this is an initialism

"But I've read this factoid numerous times, "

Then surely you know it's false.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factoid

Factoid - A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition