My good friends, the cephalopods and the raccoons, told me about this wonderful movie. They were watching me in my sleep and whispered in my ear, "You should see Axe Cop. It's funny" which kinda freaked me out, because I hadn't invited them over...
Of course it's a hit piece, it's from Infoworld. Their business model is to take corporate press releases, put one of their "author's" names on them, and publish them as if they were news.
You aren't helping your cause with your paranoid rantings. Accusing your foes of being communists trying to destroy the free market is so last millennium. Questioning other people's motives makes them question yours as well: are you on the payroll of some big polluter or something? Why else would you be spreading anti government propaganda? It couldn't be that you actually believe what you are saying and trying to do the right thing, nah, you must have ulterior motives just like the 'communists' who want to destroy the free markets by legislating against global warming.
Randall can tell people off for overquoting Python, but you don't get to quote Randall telling people off for overquoting Python without looking like the exact kind of person Randall is making fun of.
Yeah, but if you actually remember the Sixties then you weren't there, man! Plus, you've got to figure that the double whammy of Alzheimer's and Senile Dementia is starting to creep up on Gen-X as well by now. All in all, I think it's quite understandable that they might have forgotten whether or not they even inhaled, let alone what the shit actually looked like, besides wasn't everything in trippy colours back then, I can't quite remember...
Look, we all want to know if this has something to do with open source, or if it is just an abuse of the patent system being corrected, but that information simply does not exist. There is no way we could, for example, click on a link and just read about it. We're all in the same no-clue-having boat as you.
therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.
Sheesh. Stop and think for a second. Do they do business in the US? Then they aren't immune. Just think of the ramifications if foreign companies that did business in the US actually were immune from lawsuits like you claim.
Please, if you are interested in these topics, I suggest you go to primary references, which can explain them better than I.
In civil law, the standard is looser than criminal law, so when I say you must prove something, I mean the legal definition of prove in a civil case: the preponderance of evidence must show it. This is looser than beyond a reasonable doubt.
You aren't thinking about the situation clearly. No one has to prove anything false. The defendant in a libel or slander case may try to prove that his statements are true, as this is a valid defense. The plaintiff in a libel case doesn't have to prove he isn't a kiddy fiddler, he's the plaintiff, remember, he isn't on trial. The defendant has to prove the plaintiff IS a kiddy fiddler, if he wants to use truth as a defense.
As for intent to cause harm, you are correct that motivation can be hard to prove, but again, this is common in many different types of criminal and civil cases, and there are guidelines for determining such things. If you can be shown to have planned to kill someone, there is 'malice aforethought,' which is worse than killing in the heat of passion. These are motivations, and intangible, yet we have used these as guidelines in law for thousands of years.
Hope this helps, but again, you may want to read a more authoritative source if you have questions about the legal system.
You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true
Fail, right there. Truth is an absolute defence.
It may sound outrageous, but in the UK, truth is NOT absolute defense, which is the point I was trying to make.
While I am glad I can help you enlarge your limited understanding of legal systems world wide, again, if you are interested in learning about such things, I'm knowledgeable, but no expert.
Uh, was there any running around and shooting in the book? The themes may have been similar, but was the actual PLOT of the movie anything like the book? Was the TONE of the movie anything like the book? If you admit that the only thing the book and movie had in common was the three laws and ubiquitous robots, I think we can agree.
Bad writing? Hardly. Asimov is not to everyone's taste. His writing is for thoughtful people interested in character motivations and dialogue, not fans of space opera shoot-'em-up action. Which means his books don't generally make good movies unless you completely rewrite them.
Hacking into an alien military computer system with an Apple laptop! How could you leave THAT out?
Funny, when I read the Foundation series, I never pictured it as a big budget action movie. I never thought it would need 3Dand whiz bang special effects. And, you know, it isn't one story, it's a whole bunch of separate stories. I'm thinking this movie will bear about as much resemblance to the books as I, Robot did to its books. That is to say, I predict they will share a similar title, and not much else.
Or: God is evil. Or: God is not omnipotent. Or: God id not omniscient. Which doesn't really address the problem of evil, which is: how can there be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and still be evil?
I live in a fantasy every time I take a step. How am I to know that this time the ground will still be solid, just because it was every time before this?
Some fantasies are necessary. Others, like creationism, not so much.
What? No. Reality is not open for voting. What is, is, regardless of who or how many believe it. Yes, people are free to believe whatever they like, but saying that evolution and creationism are both guesses is duplicitous. They are not. One is a falsifiable theory, that has not been falsified even after over a hundred years of people trying to falsify it. The other is religious dogma. Religious dogma has no place in science class, just as science has no place in religious belief.
There are no 'zealots' on one side. This isn't a religious war , no matter how you'd like to try to frame the debate. More importantly, creationism is not a popular guess. A small percentage of people on the planet believe in creationism, most of them in the southern half of the United States and nowhere else.
You can't 'compare and contrast' the two. One requires faith, and can not be proven wrong. No matter what evidence I show you, your 'God' can cheat, and manufacture such evidence out of thin air. I can never prove creationism wrong, you can always claim, "Well, God made it that way." However, just one rabbit found in a cretaceous ere stratum would be enough to prove evolution wrong. That means creationism is not science. It makes no testable predictions.
Evolution relies on many hundreds of lines of evidence. The theory says we will find certain things, like DNA, and we have. It says we will find certain kinds of fossils in certain places, and we have. It says that we will observe speciation events, and we have. For evolution to be incorrect, almost all of science that we rely on day to day would have to be wrong too. That's the thing with science, it build an interconnected web of supporting observations and theories. Everything from physics to microbiology to astronomy helps support the theory of evolution.
In over a hundred years, we have not observed a single piece of evidence that calls the theory of evolution into question. Not one.
Slashdot Mirror
My good friends, the cephalopods and the raccoons, told me about this wonderful movie. They were watching me in my sleep and whispered in my ear, "You should see Axe Cop. It's funny" which kinda freaked me out, because I hadn't invited them over...
Of course it's a hit piece, it's from Infoworld. Their business model is to take corporate press releases, put one of their "author's" names on them, and publish them as if they were news.
You aren't helping your cause with your paranoid rantings. Accusing your foes of being communists trying to destroy the free market is so last millennium. Questioning other people's motives makes them question yours as well: are you on the payroll of some big polluter or something? Why else would you be spreading anti government propaganda? It couldn't be that you actually believe what you are saying and trying to do the right thing, nah, you must have ulterior motives just like the 'communists' who want to destroy the free markets by legislating against global warming.
As if I'd find an intelligent argument there...
Check to see if someone else quoted that same damn thing before quoting a comic about not quoting a TV show. You look slightly less silly that way.
Sure, but in the comic, the Python quote isn't topical. Mine always are, which makes it okay according to the official Python Quoting Handbook.
No, see, at no point in its history did Monty Python suck. It's just been run in to the ground. XKCD has sucked *hard* for vast tracts of its history.
Such as when?
Randall can tell people off for overquoting Python, but you don't get to quote Randall telling people off for overquoting Python without looking like the exact kind of person Randall is making fun of.
Drop your panties, Sir William, I can not wait until lunchtime!
Do you want to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy?
Yeah, but if you actually remember the Sixties then you weren't there, man! Plus, you've got to figure that the double whammy of Alzheimer's and Senile Dementia is starting to creep up on Gen-X as well by now. All in all, I think it's quite understandable that they might have forgotten whether or not they even inhaled, let alone what the shit actually looked like, besides wasn't everything in trippy colours back then, I can't quite remember...
In fact, America's Finest News Source is reporting on this very story.
Look, we all want to know if this has something to do with open source, or if it is just an abuse of the patent system being corrected, but that information simply does not exist. There is no way we could, for example, click on a link and just read about it. We're all in the same no-clue-having boat as you.
therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.
Sheesh. Stop and think for a second. Do they do business in the US? Then they aren't immune. Just think of the ramifications if foreign companies that did business in the US actually were immune from lawsuits like you claim.
That's no moon...
Please, if you are interested in these topics, I suggest you go to primary references, which can explain them better than I.
In civil law, the standard is looser than criminal law, so when I say you must prove something, I mean the legal definition of prove in a civil case: the preponderance of evidence must show it. This is looser than beyond a reasonable doubt.
You aren't thinking about the situation clearly. No one has to prove anything false. The defendant in a libel or slander case may try to prove that his statements are true, as this is a valid defense. The plaintiff in a libel case doesn't have to prove he isn't a kiddy fiddler, he's the plaintiff, remember, he isn't on trial. The defendant has to prove the plaintiff IS a kiddy fiddler, if he wants to use truth as a defense.
As for intent to cause harm, you are correct that motivation can be hard to prove, but again, this is common in many different types of criminal and civil cases, and there are guidelines for determining such things. If you can be shown to have planned to kill someone, there is 'malice aforethought,' which is worse than killing in the heat of passion. These are motivations, and intangible, yet we have used these as guidelines in law for thousands of years.
Hope this helps, but again, you may want to read a more authoritative source if you have questions about the legal system.
Fail, right there. Truth is an absolute defence.
It may sound outrageous, but in the UK, truth is NOT absolute defense, which is the point I was trying to make.
While I am glad I can help you enlarge your limited understanding of legal systems world wide, again, if you are interested in learning about such things, I'm knowledgeable, but no expert.
Uh, was there any running around and shooting in the book? The themes may have been similar, but was the actual PLOT of the movie anything like the book? Was the TONE of the movie anything like the book? If you admit that the only thing the book and movie had in common was the three laws and ubiquitous robots, I think we can agree.
No, the fact that we were all children when we first watched it explains the success of Star Wars.
I liked Dukes of Hazard and Benny Hill back then, if that gives you any idea of the aesthetic sensibilities of the average child-geek.
Bad writing? Hardly. Asimov is not to everyone's taste. His writing is for thoughtful people interested in character motivations and dialogue, not fans of space opera shoot-'em-up action. Which means his books don't generally make good movies unless you completely rewrite them.
Hacking into an alien military computer system with an Apple laptop! How could you leave THAT out?
Funny, when I read the Foundation series, I never pictured it as a big budget action movie. I never thought it would need 3Dand whiz bang special effects. And, you know, it isn't one story, it's a whole bunch of separate stories. I'm thinking this movie will bear about as much resemblance to the books as I, Robot did to its books. That is to say, I predict they will share a similar title, and not much else.
Or: God is evil. Or: God is not omnipotent. Or: God id not omniscient. Which doesn't really address the problem of evil, which is: how can there be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and still be evil?
As a Minnesotan, you're going to need a bigger version. From what I gather, Minnesota has mosquitoes the size of Buicks.
I live in a fantasy every time I take a step. How am I to know that this time the ground will still be solid, just because it was every time before this?
Some fantasies are necessary. Others, like creationism, not so much.
What? No. Reality is not open for voting. What is, is, regardless of who or how many believe it. Yes, people are free to believe whatever they like, but saying that evolution and creationism are both guesses is duplicitous. They are not. One is a falsifiable theory, that has not been falsified even after over a hundred years of people trying to falsify it. The other is religious dogma. Religious dogma has no place in science class, just as science has no place in religious belief.
There are no 'zealots' on one side. This isn't a religious war , no matter how you'd like to try to frame the debate. More importantly, creationism is not a popular guess. A small percentage of people on the planet believe in creationism, most of them in the southern half of the United States and nowhere else.
You can't 'compare and contrast' the two. One requires faith, and can not be proven wrong. No matter what evidence I show you, your 'God' can cheat, and manufacture such evidence out of thin air. I can never prove creationism wrong, you can always claim, "Well, God made it that way." However, just one rabbit found in a cretaceous ere stratum would be enough to prove evolution wrong. That means creationism is not science. It makes no testable predictions.
Evolution relies on many hundreds of lines of evidence. The theory says we will find certain things, like DNA, and we have. It says we will find certain kinds of fossils in certain places, and we have. It says that we will observe speciation events, and we have. For evolution to be incorrect, almost all of science that we rely on day to day would have to be wrong too. That's the thing with science, it build an interconnected web of supporting observations and theories. Everything from physics to microbiology to astronomy helps support the theory of evolution.
In over a hundred years, we have not observed a single piece of evidence that calls the theory of evolution into question. Not one.
A no-tail? Are you local? This is a local shop for local people, we'll have no trouble here.