I get that John and Jane Doe could be sued with judgement pending positive identification; but how can they be sued pending the discovery of any evidence that a transgression has been committed? What are they actually going to have to talk about in court?
Verizon doesn't offer FIOS or DSL in your building?
Suppose they did. The user then has a choice between Filter Package A and Filter Package B. The free-market hand waving, implied by this article, that suggests that Unfiltered Option C will magically appear is total rubbish.
A window of opportunity doesn't guarantee infection. Leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean you'll get robbed; it just elevates the risk. So the question is, what is the baseline risk? At what frequency do our cells normally become become malignant growths, and what percentage of these are prevented by these genes? I don't think we're in a position to know the latter as yet, as the idea of disabling them seems relatively new. Are those genes stopping 10 tumors a week, or less than one a year? If you gave it a week to reattach a finger, what is the actual chance that, in that timeframe, a dangerous tumor would take hold that these genes could have stopped? If that risk is 10 to 1, that's a hell of a risk. If it's.01%, I say go for it. If it gets a tumor, cut it off and try again, the odds are sharply against it happening the second time.
I won't call this a terrible idea until we know the risks. Right now it's just a new idea that some people are concerned about.
The dangers of leaving your anti-cancer genes in the "off" state for a decade aside; I'm trying to imagine how that would even work. You couldn't obstruct the stump or you would hinder growth. Instead of a rod, the limb would have to be some kind of open cage/exo-skeleton that left plenty of room for the real limb to grow and breathe inside it; or you would have to be constantly having it resized and adjusted.
I am visualizing something cool and cyborgy; the science fiction effect is enhanced if you picture the easily visible mutant nub growing inside it.
Almost by definition, anything regenerated using this technology would have a higher incidence of cancer.
Not at all, by my reading. The tumor suppressors are only turned off to allow the tissue to regenerate, when the drug dissipates, they are turned back on. Anything still acting like a target for the anti-cancer genes would be destroyed like normal.
Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)
I've actually done extensive research on this subject, and I'll be siding with the Krogoths. Arm doesn't have shit on them.
It doesn't. If you restore the words that they glossed over with ellipses, you will find that this is a law against making fraudulent government credentials.
or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
In TFA they state that they do not add points to your license for the cam tickets.
Neither article states this. The only mention of points is in the comments of the second link in which "poptones" suggests that they do add points with the $50 fine.
If she lets her doppelganger drive your car, then you get to sleep with it. I think the law is pretty clear on that, but the Weird Stuff provisions vary by state.
I get that from a liability standpoint, if someone gets into an accident with your car:it's on you. But that seems like a different issue, this is about the driving record of the person at the wheel. Do they not issue points on your license from these tickets? If a cop pulls me over running a red light in my wife's car, I would get the points. If I fled the scene before they could identify me, they might later track down my wife, but they would still have to prove it was her driving. A camera shouldn't get to skip this step.
We've reached out to the photographer, who appears to be a friend of Cory, and mentions Cory. It appears that the Slashdot post was from an anonymous Slashdot reader who was trolling for attention, not from the photographer, as Rob stated earlier. Not from a rightsholder, but from someone trying to punk Slashdot and prank Cory while Cory was away (he says so pretty clearly in this blog post).
I think that may warrant a little clarification in the summary.
And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
It has also been less than 24 hours since it was even posted and the Poster is already being advised to sue. That's some pretty expert-level gun-jumping.
So... the caption that the artist placed on the photo that Cory posted on BoingBoing reads:
Restoring a hammock to Moonwatcher's Point, courtesy of Cory Doctorow.
All is now right with the world. Feel free to drop by when you need a moment's peace. And thank the kindness of strangers.
I don't even know what's happening now. Is this what a stroke feels like?
But in this instance, I suspect the overwhelming majority of those eyeballs are there to hear about Cory's vacation. Of the reasons they are viewing those ads, I suspect the small image of a lake and a hammock is not in the top 5.
If the headline read: "Check out this photo!" Then yes, they're 'exchanging' it for ad revenue, but it didn't, the photo was superfluos (ex: It had been removed and the draw and content of the article would seem unchanged). This specific usage, with full attribution and link (which the BB article originally had), would seem like a good thing to me.
I mean, from what I understand, schools just plain do not hold anyone back because they fail...they just continue to promote them on to the next grade regardless of their level of learning the material.
Depends on the school district, around here they can only hold them back once, then they have to advance them. It isn't about self esteem, not entirely anyway, if the kids don't do well (don't pass), the state cuts funding and fucks it up for everyone. Fuck up too much, and the school has to close, overloading the other schools and the slow downward spiral continues. Teacher salaries are also based on standardized test scores; which is extra fun if you teach special needs kids who either don't take them or cannot do that well. The state of affairs in the public school system here is beyond reckoning, and every "attempt" to fix it just seems to make it worse.
Memento and Inception both have underlying plots that require a bit of digging and discussion to bring out; but Memento's 'default' plot still took effort to follow. If people don't want to analyze Inception to bring out the hidden story, they don't have to; it still works.
You don't have to worry about spoilers because there aren't any. This is a painfully brief blurb from July 8th, before the movie was released, and only directly makes reference to a few scenes in the trailer.
Which is disappointing because I was really hoping for something of substance. The "article" spends more time talking about Courbould's other projects than Inception.
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably asking for summary judgment since the John Does didn't show in court.
There are currently zero counts of infringement or unlawful behavior. What is that judgment supposed to be based on?
I get that John and Jane Doe could be sued with judgement pending positive identification; but how can they be sued pending the discovery of any evidence that a transgression has been committed? What are they actually going to have to talk about in court?
I'm suing you for slandering me! You haven't done it yet, but YOU MIGHT.
If I slander you in the future it will be for good reason. I am countersuing you for the libelous press release that you might issue if you lose.
Verizon doesn't offer FIOS or DSL in your building?
Suppose they did. The user then has a choice between Filter Package A and Filter Package B. The free-market hand waving, implied by this article, that suggests that Unfiltered Option C will magically appear is total rubbish.
Sorry, after the first round through the argument machine I had forgotten the second half of your initial statement. My apologies.
But he should have paid for the whole fling out of his own pocket; too many CEOs treat the company treasury as their piggy bank.
True, but if you use company funds for your peccadilloes it's a lot harder for your wife to find out.
It would seem that wives are more effective financial auditors than corporate accountants.
Somewhere in that lies a business model for a successful accounting firm; a marketing pitch at the very least.
A window of opportunity doesn't guarantee infection. Leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean you'll get robbed; it just elevates the risk. So the question is, what is the baseline risk? At what frequency do our cells normally become become malignant growths, and what percentage of these are prevented by these genes? I don't think we're in a position to know the latter as yet, as the idea of disabling them seems relatively new. Are those genes stopping 10 tumors a week, or less than one a year? If you gave it a week to reattach a finger, what is the actual chance that, in that timeframe, a dangerous tumor would take hold that these genes could have stopped? If that risk is 10 to 1, that's a hell of a risk. If it's .01%, I say go for it. If it gets a tumor, cut it off and try again, the odds are sharply against it happening the second time.
I won't call this a terrible idea until we know the risks. Right now it's just a new idea that some people are concerned about.
The dangers of leaving your anti-cancer genes in the "off" state for a decade aside; I'm trying to imagine how that would even work. You couldn't obstruct the stump or you would hinder growth. Instead of a rod, the limb would have to be some kind of open cage/exo-skeleton that left plenty of room for the real limb to grow and breathe inside it; or you would have to be constantly having it resized and adjusted.
I am visualizing something cool and cyborgy; the science fiction effect is enhanced if you picture the easily visible mutant nub growing inside it.
Almost by definition, anything regenerated using this technology would have a higher incidence of cancer.
Not at all, by my reading. The tumor suppressors are only turned off to allow the tissue to regenerate, when the drug dissipates, they are turned back on. Anything still acting like a target for the anti-cancer genes would be destroyed like normal.
Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)
I've actually done extensive research on this subject, and I'll be siding with the Krogoths. Arm doesn't have shit on them.
I hope I don't have to explain that reference.
Wye would you do that when I had just rectified the situation?? On a side note, I am trying to phase caffeine out of my daily routine.
The current direction of this discussion has the potential to give me a pun-migraine.
electron! Whew.
or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
"Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both"
Okay so I had to go and look this one up. Because there are so many ...'s that pretty much all of the information is missing.
And they apparently missed a few ellipses. I guess they thought:
"Whoever ... possesses any ... insignia ... or any colorable imitation thereof ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both"
Looked too amateur.
In TFA they state that they do not add points to your license for the cam tickets.
Neither article states this. The only mention of points is in the comments of the second link in which "poptones" suggests that they do add points with the $50 fine.
If she lets her doppelganger drive your car, then you get to sleep with it. I think the law is pretty clear on that, but the Weird Stuff provisions vary by state.
I get that from a liability standpoint, if someone gets into an accident with your car:it's on you. But that seems like a different issue, this is about the driving record of the person at the wheel. Do they not issue points on your license from these tickets?
If a cop pulls me over running a red light in my wife's car, I would get the points. If I fled the scene before they could identify me, they might later track down my wife, but they would still have to prove it was her driving. A camera shouldn't get to skip this step.
We've reached out to the photographer, who appears to be a friend of Cory, and mentions Cory. It appears that the Slashdot post was from an anonymous Slashdot reader who was trolling for attention, not from the photographer, as Rob stated earlier. Not from a rightsholder, but from someone trying to punk Slashdot and prank Cory while Cory was away (he says so pretty clearly in this blog post).
I think that may warrant a little clarification in the summary.
The photograph IS the proof.
If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction; not the identity of the perpetrator.
And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
It has also been less than 24 hours since it was even posted and the Poster is already being advised to sue. That's some pretty expert-level gun-jumping.
Restoring a hammock to Moonwatcher's Point, courtesy of Cory Doctorow. All is now right with the world. Feel free to drop by when you need a moment's peace. And thank the kindness of strangers.
I don't even know what's happening now. Is this what a stroke feels like?
But in this instance, I suspect the overwhelming majority of those eyeballs are there to hear about Cory's vacation. Of the reasons they are viewing those ads, I suspect the small image of a lake and a hammock is not in the top 5.
If the headline read: "Check out this photo!" Then yes, they're 'exchanging' it for ad revenue, but it didn't, the photo was superfluos (ex: It had been removed and the draw and content of the article would seem unchanged). This specific usage, with full attribution and link (which the BB article originally had), would seem like a good thing to me.
I mean, from what I understand, schools just plain do not hold anyone back because they fail...they just continue to promote them on to the next grade regardless of their level of learning the material.
Depends on the school district, around here they can only hold them back once, then they have to advance them. It isn't about self esteem, not entirely anyway, if the kids don't do well (don't pass), the state cuts funding and fucks it up for everyone. Fuck up too much, and the school has to close, overloading the other schools and the slow downward spiral continues. Teacher salaries are also based on standardized test scores; which is extra fun if you teach special needs kids who either don't take them or cannot do that well. The state of affairs in the public school system here is beyond reckoning, and every "attempt" to fix it just seems to make it worse.
Memento and Inception both have underlying plots that require a bit of digging and discussion to bring out; but Memento's 'default' plot still took effort to follow. If people don't want to analyze Inception to bring out the hidden story, they don't have to; it still works.
You don't have to worry about spoilers because there aren't any. This is a painfully brief blurb from July 8th, before the movie was released, and only directly makes reference to a few scenes in the trailer.
Which is disappointing because I was really hoping for something of substance. The "article" spends more time talking about Courbould's other projects than Inception.