Why the "intentional" requirement? What about negligence?
Example (a real virus): If a surgeon found out he had AIDS but didn't quit his job and later infected a patient during surgery, I think we'd all agree that he'd be liable for the patient's sickness.
In such a case, the surgeon is held to higher standards of responsibility because of his profession- so if the comparison is made to stick legally, computer professionals would be held liable for negligence, while J. Random User would not.
1) He's before our time. He was more of a celebrity years ago. He may be a fake, but he certainly was quite well known, almost a household word. 2) Whether or not we consider him a fake has nothing to do with the validity of his claim, which clearly has basis. 3) The utterly overinflated amount is probably a tactical move in the plan to get lots of dough from the settlement.
This divisive issue remains a painful one for people in many countries.
I am prolife personally, but I believe that this should not be legislated.
Abortion, while wrong (in my opinion), is almost unique in that it involves the refusal of a woman to prolong a life within her own body.
I believe that in a perfect world there would be no abortions, but this does not excuse condoning murder of abortion clinic doctors.
I rather believe that it is our duty to make sure that acceptable alternatives to abortion are available and recognisable in our society.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was part of Old Testament, First Covenant law that Jesus came to replace... it is mere history and has nothing to do with the existences of modern, Gentile Christians.
There is no justification for basing our code of conduct on this law. It also has a section detailing what a woman's movements should be during her monthly period, as well as regulating the allowed shape of a man's beard.
While Jesus is recorded in the New Testament as being fired with anger in his eviction of the moneychangers in the temple, it must be remembered that this is the only documentation of his anger, and that it was directed against blasphemous hypocrisy.
Nowhere does his anger take the direction of harm against persons.
A friend and I made a similar logo (not linux) a few years ago. We printed out the logo of my friend's company on glossy paper... and stuck it into the little depressed area. It looked great,and shouldn't be too difficult... If I were doing it now, I'd cover it with clear contact paper or 3M book tape or something.
Slashdot Mirror
ARRGH!
I'm sorry, I can't help it- I have to respond.
"Loose" and "Lose" are very different words.
"Loose" means "release".
"Lose" means to misplace, fail, not to win, etc.
So to say "The customer can't loose" is incorrect.
In such a case, the surgeon is held to higher standards of responsibility because of his profession- so if the comparison is made to stick legally, computer professionals would be held liable for negligence, while J. Random User would not.
The issue seems to have been the ISP's refusal to remove the defamation.
Thus, the new burden is not to monitor Usenet, but to remove defamatory material hosted locally.
1) He's before our time. He was more of a celebrity years ago. He may be a fake, but he certainly was quite well known, almost a household word.
2) Whether or not we consider him a fake has nothing to do with the validity of his claim, which clearly has basis.
3) The utterly overinflated amount is probably a tactical move in the plan to get lots of dough from the settlement.
I think it's a great idea- comfort for the commercial types....
This divisive issue remains a painful one for people in many countries.
I am prolife personally, but I believe that this should not be legislated.
Abortion, while wrong (in my opinion), is almost unique in that it involves the refusal of a woman to prolong a life within her own body.
I believe that in a perfect world there would be no abortions, but this does not excuse condoning murder of abortion clinic doctors.
I rather believe that it is our duty to make sure that acceptable alternatives to abortion are available and recognisable in our society.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was part of Old Testament, First Covenant law that Jesus came to replace... it is mere history and has nothing to do with the existences of modern, Gentile Christians.
There is no justification for basing our code of conduct on this law. It also has a section detailing what a woman's movements should be during her monthly period, as well as regulating the allowed shape of a man's beard.
While Jesus is recorded in the New Testament as being fired with anger in his eviction of the moneychangers in the temple, it must be remembered that this is the only documentation of his anger, and that it was directed against blasphemous hypocrisy.
Nowhere does his anger take the direction of harm against persons.
A friend and I made a similar logo (not linux) a few years ago.
We printed out the logo of my friend's company on glossy paper... and stuck it into the little depressed area.
It looked great,and shouldn't be too difficult...
If I were doing it now, I'd cover it with clear contact paper or 3M book tape or something.