The plain fact is that vehicles and roads can both safely support higher speed limits. The "speed kills" BS is there because it's more politically expedient to blame driving problems on an arbitrary number than it is to put the blame where it belongs - in the hands of the crappy driver that caused the wreck.
While variable, human reaction time is not an arbitrary measurement.
Interestingly, because women, African-Americans, Latinos and particularly Latinas have to be grossly overqualified and between two and three times harder working than their white male counterparts
Huh? Particularly Latinas? Speaking as a neutral, white male observer, African-Americans, particularly African-American men, have it a hell of a lot harder than any of the other groups you just mentioned.
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
The thing about the Apple cult is it lets Apple sell people bad design because those people will convince themselves that it's actually a great design. The fact that itunes doesn't have nested playlists is idiotic. But the Apple fanatics refuse to accept this characterization, instead arguing that through a complicated series of smart playlist kludges and a lot of work you can sort-of simulate nested playlists.
Chile, Nicaragua, Iran and Guatemala, maybe. Hawaii was a monarchy, Nicaragua was ruled by a junta, Honduras, South Vietnam, and Indonesia were never toppled by America, Panama was a dictatorship, Afghanistan was not by any definition of the word a democracy, and before Spain ceded the Phillipines to the US, it was not a democracy.
Telling people who are risking their lives for us that they aren't emotionally stable enough to handle this game is insulting. Maybe some of them can't, but that should be their decision, not yours or mine.
Well, technically it should be GameStop's decision, since it's their stores. And they're deciding. But like many of the posters here you're mistaking discretion/respect for "fear of an emotional collapse."
Like, if I see you waiting on line for a movie, I am not going to just cut ahead of you. I won't do this not because I'm afraid you'll have an emotional breakdown then and there, but because it shows politeness.
Pulling the advertisements I can agree with, maybe even putting the game behind the counter out of sight, but how can you justify making the game completely unavailable to them?
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
I think I understand your feelings but the practice of awarding default judgements without inspecting proofs seems as bad as not showing up in courts.
Unless you're willing to hire a lot more judges, inspecting proofs on defaults would bring the system to a halt. A huge number of lawsuits go to default judgments; in fact, I would not be surprised if a majority of them did, mostly foreclosures and credit card debt actions.
Suppose the New York Post gets mistakenly sued for something written on the New York Times: would we excuse the judge for not looking at the incriminated newspaper page and not noticing they are suing the wrong company, even if the NYP didn't show up in court?
The newspaper page would not have been attached to the Complaint initiating the lawsuit, though; you're not supposed to present evidence in a Complaint (outside certain narrow exceptions), it's not the right medium for that. And if the Complaint itself as written states that the New York Post said something, and they don't show up to respond, it's not the judge's job to grab his magnifying glass and Sherlock Holmes hat and go out and investigate the case. If you want an inquisitorial justice system rather than an adversarial one, then write your congresspeople.
Not sure how much evidence was presented; they didn't really need to attach any when filing the lawsuit (actually, doing so is usually improper). The evidence is supposed to be presented later, after the defendant responds to the lawsuit, when the parties make their cases. And even if the judge saw, say, a printout of the offending webpage, he could just think they made a typo in the Complaint. Under the doctrine of idem sonans spelling a party's name incorrectly does not invalidate the lawsuit.
Yeah, that was a bit dumb, and it's especially funny considering Venable is supposed to be one of the elite. I'm not sure what the judge/clerk in this case should have done, though; it's not their job to go through the website trying to find the defamatory statement (especially since even if they didn't find it, they'd assume it had just been taken down).
If a suit is that ridiculous, the judge probably won't grant judgment. Here, however, that wasn't the case. How is the judge supposed to immediately realize that where you have two gossip websites, the one the plaintiff said published the defamatory statements isn't the right one?
How about the lawyer do his due diligence BEFORE all this happens? You people... seriously... there needs to be more crotches punched in this world. You're all sleepwalking zombies.
Yeah, yeah, we're all simpleminded sheep because we rely on the well-established court procedures for fixing the error that happened rather than following your advice and go around punching people who we disagree with. Truly your way will lead to a brighter tomorrow.
Is this going to harm or benefit the career of the judge?
The weird thing about all the slashdot legal-system-hate is it always comes down to angry posters demanding not necessarily change, but that the actors who follow the system be punished.
What exactly should the judge have done? He or she is told a certain website published a defamatory statement. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong shady gossip site?
shouldn't the judge(s) at least check to make sure if there's at least some basic evidence before forcing an innocent party to respond or be considered guilty by default if they don't respond to all of them?
The judge isn't even in the picture at that point; in a lawsuit someone files a complaint, serves it, then someone files an answer or some other kind of response. Neither of those things require the judge's attention, because nothing is being asked of them yet. And yes, if it was completely and utterly crazy, the judge would probably deny the motion for a default judgment, but where is that here? The plaintiff alleges that a certain website published certain statements. The judge isn't going to investigate whether they had the right website; he or she isn't even supposed to do that sort of investigation on their own. And even if the judge did, how would they know there was a problem? Go through the entire website trying to find the offending statement? If it's not there, just assume they have the wrong website? What if they were on the right website but the comment had been removed?
How is that a fair judgment, simple because they did not respond to completely unfounded and false claims about themselves.
Any person or company should know, you don't just ignore someone who's suing you.
f you ask me it is the judge that should be fined, are they not supposed to have some minimum amount of evidence about the truth of a matter before they pass judgment.
Why do you think the judge should be allowed to just ignore the law that says, if a party refuses to defend itself in a lawsuit, they get a judgment against them? Do you think judges should just do what they want even if the law says differently?
For a European, that is EXACTLY the way the US looks.
An ignorant European, maybe. Europeans will elect crazies to office even more right-wing than the crazies we do. The UK's BNP and Germany's NPD, and France's Front National, for example, are well to the right of even the reactionary wing of the Republican party. And they win elections.
You cannot simply count the number of each type of station and divide the number of explosions of each by it. Doing that completely ignores:
- how long the stations have been around
- how often they are used (wear)
You did not read close enough. I mentioned that the variables I did not take into account for actually favored gas stations even further.
- new-technology problems (have risks been ironed out in the new stations)
The hydrogen stations ARE new.
- did someone do something really stupid one this single occasion
One event does not make 'stats' even more so when you have no data associated with it.
...Only I expressly pointed that out.
I'd say the reading comprehension on slashdot has gone down, but the sad thing is, except for your post and a few others, it's actually better.
Slashdot Mirror
The plain fact is that vehicles and roads can both safely support higher speed limits. The "speed kills" BS is there because it's more politically expedient to blame driving problems on an arbitrary number than it is to put the blame where it belongs - in the hands of the crappy driver that caused the wreck.
While variable, human reaction time is not an arbitrary measurement.
Interestingly, because women, African-Americans, Latinos and particularly Latinas have to be grossly overqualified and between two and three times harder working than their white male counterparts
Huh? Particularly Latinas? Speaking as a neutral, white male observer, African-Americans, particularly African-American men, have it a hell of a lot harder than any of the other groups you just mentioned.
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?
Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.
Won't someone please think of the poor pornographers?
The thing about the Apple cult is it lets Apple sell people bad design because those people will convince themselves that it's actually a great design. The fact that itunes doesn't have nested playlists is idiotic. But the Apple fanatics refuse to accept this characterization, instead arguing that through a complicated series of smart playlist kludges and a lot of work you can sort-of simulate nested playlists.
You're kind of a sociopath there, aren't you...
Chile, Nicaragua, Iran and Guatemala, maybe. Hawaii was a monarchy, Nicaragua was ruled by a junta, Honduras, South Vietnam, and Indonesia were never toppled by America, Panama was a dictatorship, Afghanistan was not by any definition of the word a democracy, and before Spain ceded the Phillipines to the US, it was not a democracy.
No, you wouldn't do this because I'd kick your ass for it.
Kind of missing the point. If it helps, assume I'm a lot bigger than you.
Telling people who are risking their lives for us that they aren't emotionally stable enough to handle this game is insulting. Maybe some of them can't, but that should be their decision, not yours or mine.
Well, technically it should be GameStop's decision, since it's their stores. And they're deciding. But like many of the posters here you're mistaking discretion/respect for "fear of an emotional collapse."
Like, if I see you waiting on line for a movie, I am not going to just cut ahead of you. I won't do this not because I'm afraid you'll have an emotional breakdown then and there, but because it shows politeness.
Pulling the advertisements I can agree with, maybe even putting the game behind the counter out of sight, but how can you justify making the game completely unavailable to them?
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
I would start with the ability to read.
If the complaint says the wrong entity defamed her, how is the judge supposed to know it's the wrong entity?
I think I understand your feelings but the practice of awarding default judgements without inspecting proofs seems as bad as not showing up in courts.
Unless you're willing to hire a lot more judges, inspecting proofs on defaults would bring the system to a halt. A huge number of lawsuits go to default judgments; in fact, I would not be surprised if a majority of them did, mostly foreclosures and credit card debt actions.
Suppose the New York Post gets mistakenly sued for something written on the New York Times: would we excuse the judge for not looking at the incriminated newspaper page and not noticing they are suing the wrong company, even if the NYP didn't show up in court?
The newspaper page would not have been attached to the Complaint initiating the lawsuit, though; you're not supposed to present evidence in a Complaint (outside certain narrow exceptions), it's not the right medium for that. And if the Complaint itself as written states that the New York Post said something, and they don't show up to respond, it's not the judge's job to grab his magnifying glass and Sherlock Holmes hat and go out and investigate the case. If you want an inquisitorial justice system rather than an adversarial one, then write your congresspeople.
Not sure how much evidence was presented; they didn't really need to attach any when filing the lawsuit (actually, doing so is usually improper). The evidence is supposed to be presented later, after the defendant responds to the lawsuit, when the parties make their cases. And even if the judge saw, say, a printout of the offending webpage, he could just think they made a typo in the Complaint. Under the doctrine of idem sonans spelling a party's name incorrectly does not invalidate the lawsuit.
Yeah, that was a bit dumb, and it's especially funny considering Venable is supposed to be one of the elite. I'm not sure what the judge/clerk in this case should have done, though; it's not their job to go through the website trying to find the defamatory statement (especially since even if they didn't find it, they'd assume it had just been taken down).
If a suit is that ridiculous, the judge probably won't grant judgment. Here, however, that wasn't the case. How is the judge supposed to immediately realize that where you have two gossip websites, the one the plaintiff said published the defamatory statements isn't the right one?
How about the lawyer do his due diligence BEFORE all this happens? You people... seriously... there needs to be more crotches punched in this world. You're all sleepwalking zombies.
Yeah, yeah, we're all simpleminded sheep because we rely on the well-established court procedures for fixing the error that happened rather than following your advice and go around punching people who we disagree with. Truly your way will lead to a brighter tomorrow.
Is this going to harm or benefit the career of the judge?
The weird thing about all the slashdot legal-system-hate is it always comes down to angry posters demanding not necessarily change, but that the actors who follow the system be punished.
What exactly should the judge have done? He or she is told a certain website published a defamatory statement. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong shady gossip site?
shouldn't the judge(s) at least check to make sure if there's at least some basic evidence before forcing an innocent party to respond or be considered guilty by default if they don't respond to all of them?
The judge isn't even in the picture at that point; in a lawsuit someone files a complaint, serves it, then someone files an answer or some other kind of response. Neither of those things require the judge's attention, because nothing is being asked of them yet. And yes, if it was completely and utterly crazy, the judge would probably deny the motion for a default judgment, but where is that here? The plaintiff alleges that a certain website published certain statements. The judge isn't going to investigate whether they had the right website; he or she isn't even supposed to do that sort of investigation on their own. And even if the judge did, how would they know there was a problem? Go through the entire website trying to find the offending statement? If it's not there, just assume they have the wrong website? What if they were on the right website but the comment had been removed?
How is that a fair judgment, simple because they did not respond to completely unfounded and false claims about themselves.
Any person or company should know, you don't just ignore someone who's suing you.
f you ask me it is the judge that should be fined, are they not supposed to have some minimum amount of evidence about the truth of a matter before they pass judgment.
Why do you think the judge should be allowed to just ignore the law that says, if a party refuses to defend itself in a lawsuit, they get a judgment against them? Do you think judges should just do what they want even if the law says differently?
For a European, that is EXACTLY the way the US looks.
An ignorant European, maybe. Europeans will elect crazies to office even more right-wing than the crazies we do. The UK's BNP and Germany's NPD, and France's Front National, for example, are well to the right of even the reactionary wing of the Republican party. And they win elections.
So, really, what you pay for is multiplayer.. that they don't even host. They do the matchmaking and get out of the way.
Must be why they only charge a paltry $5 a month.
This is probably the least outrageous thing I've read on slashdot in a while.
In the US legal system that would be textbook hearsay.
Oh my.
...Only I expressly pointed that out.
You cannot simply count the number of each type of station and divide the number of explosions of each by it. Doing that completely ignores: - how long the stations have been around - how often they are used (wear)
You did not read close enough. I mentioned that the variables I did not take into account for actually favored gas stations even further.
- new-technology problems (have risks been ironed out in the new stations)
The hydrogen stations ARE new. - did someone do something really stupid one this single occasion One event does not make 'stats' even more so when you have no data associated with it.
I'd say the reading comprehension on slashdot has gone down, but the sad thing is, except for your post and a few others, it's actually better.