Which is why the transmitter has to send gazillions of them. Which may very well interact with something inside you. Not that I'm particularly afraid, but I just thought I'd point out the flaw in your logic.
It would be kind of interesting if all of a sudden we'd be able to connect to the intergalactic network and see TV shows from all over the galaxy. Going from "are we alone?" to "oh my, there's trillions of them!" in one quick news flash. Of course it wouldn't take long for the RIAG to show up and sue us all...
But how can a trademark be valid against someone who was using it before the movie was even conceived? OK, it's not quite "prior art" but surely something similar must exist in copyright law? Can you just trademark something and then force everybody who was already using the name to stop using it?
Come on, isn't it clear that this pub will reduce their income from Tolkien IP? If you have the choice between going to a "hobbit" pub or renting the movie, surely you'll go for the pub? It's only natural that they're defending their interests. Ie everybody starts opening hobbit pubs everywhere, nobody will buy the books or movies anymore. Hell, if you can read the word "hobbit" on the pub for free, why would you pay to read the book? Makes perfect sense to me. In fact, all references to anything Tolkien-related should be banned everywhere. It all just detracts from the value of the IP.
And here I was, thinking that neutrons were inside the nucleus and electrons were orbiting around it. What's going on here? How can a neutron orbit a nucleus? It's an actual question, I know the atomic models I was once taught are way out of date (by a couple of centuries, probably), but I never heard of neutrons orbiting nuclei.
I don't think any doctor who has any doubts about the possible survival of a patient would declare him dead. In the few cases cited in the article, in the worst case it was a very unlikely resurrection and the patient kept severe neurological damage. In other cases, it was just a matter of "I think I might have seen a brain wave". The fear created by the article will kill far more people (due to lack of donors) than rogue doctors ever will.
The other people on the waiting list will be very grateful.
This sentence mostly shows just how little you know about transplantation. The problem is not the amount of organs, but whether a donor can be found with a compatible immune system. For any given recipient, it is extremely rare that there is more than 1 good donor, likewise most available organs are never used for anything. This would be true even if everybody donated organs.
It is frightening how strong an opinion people can have when being ill-informed to such a degree.
So no, nobody on the list will be grateful in the least. If there is an organ that would match me, chances that it will match someone else needing an organ are tiny. So nobody will be grateful.
Explain the existence of (numbered) waiting lists, then. For example, Steve Jobs was told that there were so many people ahead of him on the list that that he probably would not make it (he obviously couldn't just skip ahead to the top of the list because he was Steve Jobs). He ended up getting a transplant a bit sooner by putting his name on a list of another state with less people on it, and there was a bit of controvercy about whether or not that was dishonest. Such a controversy wouldn't make sense if eligibility only depended on compatibility. Sure, you don't actually have to be number one of the list, the organ goes to the highest ranking compatible recipient. Which may be number two or three, or maybe even twenty, but probably not number 100.
It's frightening how strongly some people will tell people off for supposedly being ignorant while being wrong themselves.
Oh great, hyperbole. If you were terminally ill and could get better if you just had the doctors kill some unknown homeless person, would you ? Some mentally retarded kid ? Some usually comatose old guy ? A black woman perhaps ? An infidel ? A republican ? A communist ? There's plenty of people who argue those lives to be less than worthwhile.
No, only people whose life has effectively ended. As in, brain dead, extremely unlikely to come alive again, and even in that very rare and unexpected case, "alive without actual human functionality, like a vegetable. In other words, a one in maybe ten thousand chance of being a vegetable, and "really" dead (but too dead to harvest organs) in all other cases. Obviously I would not want to take an organ from some healthy homeless person.
And for the record, if I was not sure about the circumstances in which said organ was taken, yes, I would refuse. For one thing, why would my life be worth more to the doctor than that of the guy they cut open for the organ in question ?
And what kind of proof would you need? Could you ever be certain? If not, better carry that document stating "does not accept donated organs"...
I find it most offensive that you somehow find it "moral" to claim a right on my organs. Let's see if you reciprocate : can I cut out your heart ? You claim a right on mine, so why can't I have yours ?
I am a registered organ donor, so the answer is "yes, you can cut out my heart". If I am brain dead, obviously. And even if I am not quite brain dead but could only ever be brought back to some kind of zombie state and kept in an institution somewhere, unable to communicate or think clearly. But that's just me.
How about younger children where killing an older person might save them (killing = the older person doesn't agree) ? What about a rich person needing a heart and a poor person "not having a liveable life anyway ?". What about a politically desirable individual needing one ?
Only those people who cannot be brought back to a fully conscious life. That, to me, seems to be a safe and conservative boundary. The life is lost anyway. And if a qualified doctor determines that that is indeed the case, that's good enough for me. Keeping someone alive on the off-chance that some miracle might happen that might allow the person to raise an eyebrow and nothing else, while other people are dying for lack of organs, doesn't make sense to me.
I would not be able to live with a "donated" organ that was taken under the conditions you seem to think give you a right to kill other people.
By all means, then, carry a document that stipulates that you do not want to receive organs. The other people on the waiting list will be very grateful. Would you carry such a document? If you were terminally ill and could only be saved with an organ from the victim of a traffic accident, would you refuse? If not, then stop being a hypocrite.
Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's exactly the kind of reaction I was afraid of when I saw the article. Thousands of people who are waiting for a transplant to save their life, will die because of people reading articles like this and going "maybe there's a tiny little chance that the doctors are wrong, who knows, maybe I'll still feel pain even without a brain, and maybe they'll find a miracle cure to revive dead brains during the hours that I'm brain dead, and who knows what else...".
Someone who needs a transplant to survive, has a 100% chance of dying if he or she does not get that organ. Weigh that against your "maybe this" or "maybe that". Once the doctors declare you brain dead, even if through some magical unexplained event you do come alive again, you're likely to be more like a zombie than your old self. And if your brain is dead, even though your body "responds" to pain, "you" won't feel a thing. Your brain is dead, you are not conscious, who cares if some of your muscles still twitch in an automatic reaction to pain.
Maybe people with a donor card should get priority to receive organs before any of the irrational and/or selfish cowards do. That would probably help a lot in the shortage of organs.
But at least it seems to indicate that MS is not that unhappy with them. Which makes sense, as they'll have to compete with Apple's iWork soon. More and more people are going to use that if the Microsoft alternative is not available. So here are these nice guys from Onlive keeping people in the Microsoft ecosystem, temporarily for free, until they can be switched to paying versions. Win-win, right?
Yeah, when I read the title of the post, "The Fallout From a Flickr DMCA Takedown", I was really, really hoping that the fallout was for the company that issued the takedown. Finally! But no, sadly, the fallout is still for the victims and not for the big companies claiming false copyright on other people's intellectual property. Will someone please sue those people? Claiming copyright on someone else's work, to me, is far, far worse than just copying someone's work. Imagine what would happen if I went to a record store and said "this song by Beyonce is actually mine, I made it, so you must remove it from your store at once".
My wife, who is a red head, has a very low pain threshold as well. Whenever she accidentally bumps into something, you get the impression that she's broken a bone or cut off a body part. In the beginning I jumped up right away, but now I got used to it so whenever I hear a loud, spine chilling scream, I barely look up anymore. She's always using the "red heads are more sensitive to pain" excuse, but now I can point her to this article!:-)
Well, they are supposed to be for international organisations, but in reality ".com" has always been shorthand for ".co.us". That's not the way it's supposed to be, but in practice that's pretty much the way it is. How many ".us" sites do you know? Compare with ".co.uk", ".be", ".fr",... Americans just take.com because the other countries on the internet don't matter anyway.
Yes, I was pretty shocked by that detail as well. Maybe it's because I'm European, but I thought laws were made by lawmakers and, even though companies could be allowed to do some lobbying, the lawmakers were the ones who made the decision based on objective reasoning, like wise men. In reality, apparently, it's companies that decide whether to "support" laws (by buying congressmen to vote for it) or kill them (by buying congressmen to vote against it). It doesn't even appear to strike most slashdot users as abnormal anymore.
Yes, we might not find aliens living there, but maybe they'll hang out there for cooking. Using space elevators to lower their salmon and chicken into the steam. Yummy! I would suggest pointing SETI that way and finally find the elusive buggers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's a crossover. One of the TMNTs thought he could turn a frog into a princess by... well, the rest is history.
Actually, after reading the FA, I guess it's probably the other way around.
Which is why the transmitter has to send gazillions of them. Which may very well interact with something inside you. Not that I'm particularly afraid, but I just thought I'd point out the flaw in your logic.
No, the principal will most certainly take it away from you.
Just give the details to Jony Ive and he'll make you one that fits in the palm of your hand, or at least in a manila envelope.
It would be kind of interesting if all of a sudden we'd be able to connect to the intergalactic network and see TV shows from all over the galaxy. Going from "are we alone?" to "oh my, there's trillions of them!" in one quick news flash. Of course it wouldn't take long for the RIAG to show up and sue us all...
Oh, almost forgot, obligatory xkcd
"Just don't hold it that way"
A Library of Congress is about an assload of assloads.
Did that help?
Who cares how long it takes to download a movie, if it's free?
But how can a trademark be valid against someone who was using it before the movie was even conceived? OK, it's not quite "prior art" but surely something similar must exist in copyright law? Can you just trademark something and then force everybody who was already using the name to stop using it?
Come on, isn't it clear that this pub will reduce their income from Tolkien IP? If you have the choice between going to a "hobbit" pub or renting the movie, surely you'll go for the pub? It's only natural that they're defending their interests. Ie everybody starts opening hobbit pubs everywhere, nobody will buy the books or movies anymore. Hell, if you can read the word "hobbit" on the pub for free, why would you pay to read the book? Makes perfect sense to me. In fact, all references to anything Tolkien-related should be banned everywhere. It all just detracts from the value of the IP.
And here I was, thinking that neutrons were inside the nucleus and electrons were orbiting around it. What's going on here? How can a neutron orbit a nucleus? It's an actual question, I know the atomic models I was once taught are way out of date (by a couple of centuries, probably), but I never heard of neutrons orbiting nuclei.
I don't think any doctor who has any doubts about the possible survival of a patient would declare him dead. In the few cases cited in the article, in the worst case it was a very unlikely resurrection and the patient kept severe neurological damage. In other cases, it was just a matter of "I think I might have seen a brain wave". The fear created by the article will kill far more people (due to lack of donors) than rogue doctors ever will.
The other people on the waiting list will be very grateful.
This sentence mostly shows just how little you know about transplantation. The problem is not the amount of organs, but whether a donor can be found with a compatible immune system. For any given recipient, it is extremely rare that there is more than 1 good donor, likewise most available organs are never used for anything. This would be true even if everybody donated organs.
It is frightening how strong an opinion people can have when being ill-informed to such a degree.
So no, nobody on the list will be grateful in the least. If there is an organ that would match me, chances that it will match someone else needing an organ are tiny. So nobody will be grateful.
Explain the existence of (numbered) waiting lists, then. For example, Steve Jobs was told that there were so many people ahead of him on the list that that he probably would not make it (he obviously couldn't just skip ahead to the top of the list because he was Steve Jobs). He ended up getting a transplant a bit sooner by putting his name on a list of another state with less people on it, and there was a bit of controvercy about whether or not that was dishonest. Such a controversy wouldn't make sense if eligibility only depended on compatibility. Sure, you don't actually have to be number one of the list, the organ goes to the highest ranking compatible recipient. Which may be number two or three, or maybe even twenty, but probably not number 100.
It's frightening how strongly some people will tell people off for supposedly being ignorant while being wrong themselves.
Oh great, hyperbole. If you were terminally ill and could get better if you just had the doctors kill some unknown homeless person, would you ? Some mentally retarded kid ? Some usually comatose old guy ? A black woman perhaps ? An infidel ? A republican ? A communist ? There's plenty of people who argue those lives to be less than worthwhile.
No, only people whose life has effectively ended. As in, brain dead, extremely unlikely to come alive again, and even in that very rare and unexpected case, "alive without actual human functionality, like a vegetable. In other words, a one in maybe ten thousand chance of being a vegetable, and "really" dead (but too dead to harvest organs) in all other cases. Obviously I would not want to take an organ from some healthy homeless person.
And for the record, if I was not sure about the circumstances in which said organ was taken, yes, I would refuse. For one thing, why would my life be worth more to the doctor than that of the guy they cut open for the organ in question ?
And what kind of proof would you need? Could you ever be certain? If not, better carry that document stating "does not accept donated organs"...
I find it most offensive that you somehow find it "moral" to claim a right on my organs. Let's see if you reciprocate : can I cut out your heart ? You claim a right on mine, so why can't I have yours ?
I am a registered organ donor, so the answer is "yes, you can cut out my heart". If I am brain dead, obviously. And even if I am not quite brain dead but could only ever be brought back to some kind of zombie state and kept in an institution somewhere, unable to communicate or think clearly. But that's just me.
How about younger children where killing an older person might save them (killing = the older person doesn't agree) ? What about a rich person needing a heart and a poor person "not having a liveable life anyway ?". What about a politically desirable individual needing one ?
Only those people who cannot be brought back to a fully conscious life. That, to me, seems to be a safe and conservative boundary. The life is lost anyway. And if a qualified doctor determines that that is indeed the case, that's good enough for me. Keeping someone alive on the off-chance that some miracle might happen that might allow the person to raise an eyebrow and nothing else, while other people are dying for lack of organs, doesn't make sense to me.
I would not be able to live with a "donated" organ that was taken under the conditions you seem to think give you a right to kill other people.
By all means, then, carry a document that stipulates that you do not want to receive organs. The other people on the waiting list will be very grateful. Would you carry such a document? If you were terminally ill and could only be saved with an organ from the victim of a traffic accident, would you refuse? If not, then stop being a hypocrite.
That's exactly the kind of reaction I was afraid of when I saw the article. Thousands of people who are waiting for a transplant to save their life, will die because of people reading articles like this and going "maybe there's a tiny little chance that the doctors are wrong, who knows, maybe I'll still feel pain even without a brain, and maybe they'll find a miracle cure to revive dead brains during the hours that I'm brain dead, and who knows what else...".
Someone who needs a transplant to survive, has a 100% chance of dying if he or she does not get that organ. Weigh that against your "maybe this" or "maybe that". Once the doctors declare you brain dead, even if through some magical unexplained event you do come alive again, you're likely to be more like a zombie than your old self. And if your brain is dead, even though your body "responds" to pain, "you" won't feel a thing. Your brain is dead, you are not conscious, who cares if some of your muscles still twitch in an automatic reaction to pain.
Maybe people with a donor card should get priority to receive organs before any of the irrational and/or selfish cowards do. That would probably help a lot in the shortage of organs.
But at least it seems to indicate that MS is not that unhappy with them. Which makes sense, as they'll have to compete with Apple's iWork soon. More and more people are going to use that if the Microsoft alternative is not available. So here are these nice guys from Onlive keeping people in the Microsoft ecosystem, temporarily for free, until they can be switched to paying versions. Win-win, right?
You're just speculating now.
Yeah, when I read the title of the post, "The Fallout From a Flickr DMCA Takedown", I was really, really hoping that the fallout was for the company that issued the takedown. Finally! But no, sadly, the fallout is still for the victims and not for the big companies claiming false copyright on other people's intellectual property. Will someone please sue those people? Claiming copyright on someone else's work, to me, is far, far worse than just copying someone's work. Imagine what would happen if I went to a record store and said "this song by Beyonce is actually mine, I made it, so you must remove it from your store at once".
My wife, who is a red head, has a very low pain threshold as well. Whenever she accidentally bumps into something, you get the impression that she's broken a bone or cut off a body part. In the beginning I jumped up right away, but now I got used to it so whenever I hear a loud, spine chilling scream, I barely look up anymore. She's always using the "red heads are more sensitive to pain" excuse, but now I can point her to this article! :-)
Well, they are supposed to be for international organisations, but in reality ".com" has always been shorthand for ".co.us". That's not the way it's supposed to be, but in practice that's pretty much the way it is. How many ".us" sites do you know? Compare with ".co.uk", ".be", ".fr",... Americans just take .com because the other countries on the internet don't matter anyway.
Yes, I was pretty shocked by that detail as well. Maybe it's because I'm European, but I thought laws were made by lawmakers and, even though companies could be allowed to do some lobbying, the lawmakers were the ones who made the decision based on objective reasoning, like wise men. In reality, apparently, it's companies that decide whether to "support" laws (by buying congressmen to vote for it) or kill them (by buying congressmen to vote against it). It doesn't even appear to strike most slashdot users as abnormal anymore.
Yes, we might not find aliens living there, but maybe they'll hang out there for cooking. Using space elevators to lower their salmon and chicken into the steam. Yummy! I would suggest pointing SETI that way and finally find the elusive buggers.
So the Twin Towers were not towers? Learned something new today...
What is the Burj Khalifa supported by, then? Did they attach it to a space elevator? Oh, wait, I get it, you meant financially self-supporting?