You might assume too much about the abilities of flying insects. The bugs around my house can't seem to avoid hitting a wall or myself, much less a nearly invisible web.
Which means that really, its not free speech people want, its their personal right to say what they want.
No, we already have that right. What you're seeing is people appreciating that a hate group is being fought back against. This is what we refer to as a "grey area". Oppression of speech can be appreciated in certain circumstances without people conceding that all speech is subject to being oppressed.
None of them actually believe any of what they say. It's not an issue of right/wrong. It's simply an issue of greed.
Do you seriously believe that? You think that these are actually decent, loving people who have a rational view of religion but are just greedy? I have no doubt that their hate is real and is rooted in a sense of self-righteousness based on their distorted religious beliefs (they refer to their hate as love, by the way, the love the sinner enough to point out his flaws and help him get saved). They believe they have the correct interpretation of the bible, they want to spread that message of hate, and they seek out the most high-profile ways to do that. The fact that many of them are also lawyers who sue people for gain is part of that plan, but I don't think that's the whole plan. That would be like saying that the entire point of the FLDS is to make money on the government by having as many wives and children as possible, and having all of your wives except one claim that they are single mothers eligible for government assistance. That's not the point of the FLDS lifestyle, the lifestyle is the point, the money is just incidental.
What about the WBC's hate speech? Doesn't that also have the potential to have very serious consequences? More specifically, isn't public anger and a reaction against them one of those consequences?
They are reporting your mail as spam which is why you're getting blocked (this is domain reputation). You may not understand why, but they are, so deal with it.
That's one possibility, and may even be likely considering his subject material. In this example he says he sent a total of 7 new proxy domains to 420,000 addresses, but only sent 1 domain to each person. So each domain got sent to a random 60,000 people, his reasoning being so that a censor could not subscribe and get a list of all new proxies, they would only get one (per address, at least).
But, instead of them getting those emails and blocking the proxies, it may be more effective for the censors to always report his emails as spam, thereby getting them blocked, and then no one gets any of the 7 new proxies. So the people reporting spam aren't doing it because they don't want the mail, they're doing it to stop other people from getting it.
If we're suggesting words to stop using, I would like to nominate "boffin". A "boffin" is the term that a British journalist, apparently unable to distinguish an astronomer from a geologist, uses to describe someone who uses their brain in their job (as opposed to a British journalist).
Really though, go out there and spend a month and $10k designing and building a vehicle driven by camera sight with a functional remotely operated turret, then at the end of one month we can compare your effort with what these guys did and you can point out everywhere they went wrong. I'm sure they would appreciate your constructive criticism.
For extra credit, do it in a place that has an ongoing civil war and start with nothing but the cash.
The DNA/RNA that a lethal virus injects into cells kills people. That DNA/RNA doesn't need to be lethal, though, for it to be a virus. It will reprogram the cell, in this case to help the person.
Hold on, are you trying to suggest that a vehicle that took a month and $10k to design and build doesn't have the same capabilities as an M1A2? Have you notified the author?
Seriously though, cut the guys some slack. It might not fit your definition of a "tank", but it's pretty impressive that these guys are able to design, build, and field vehicles like this. If the fighting goes on for too much longer then I'm sure we'll see version 3 of this vehicle. I doubt they are trying to put these things up against T90s, but it's a novel idea when they need a machine gun out there and an advantage against the other troops. It's like an IFV without the I.
If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned.
This has nothing to do with the internet, if none of what she says is true, or even just the majority of it, then she deserves a fine that big. That much money is a good year or 2 of work for a small contractor business that he may have lost. That review is clearly out to destroy his business. If what she said is correct, then it's not a bad thing to get that information out where other people can see it. If she's completely wrong, then that much money is justified. If she's not wrong, then Dietz is screwed, he's out of business, and rightly so.
If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.
That's what I like about this story. I don't know the facts of the case, I don't know which side is in the right. But if they disagree with the review then they're right to sue her frankly, and there will most likely be one of two outcomes. Either she wins, and she gets to change her review to say that her claims have been upheld, or she loses and has to remove the review and face a penalty. At this point, with how little I know about the case, I'm OK with either outcome.
You have to wonder though if it will ever become more practical than traditional cargo ships.
The two are used (or will be used) for completely different things. You use a cargo ship like the Emma Maersk when you have 150,000 tons of cargo that you need to move from one shipping port to another (using up to 3,600 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour, or "only" 1,660 gallons per hour in economy mode). After that, it's on to rail lines or trucks (using more fuel). But the point is that a cargo ship can carry vast amounts of cargo from port to port. Starting in 2014 there will be ships capable of moving 250,000 tons.
The Aeroscraft can only move 66 tons at a time. So it's obviously not a drop-in replacement for a cargo ship. But the major advantage to using the airship is its point-to-point capability. It could theoretically fly directly to the factory producing the equipment, pick up the cargo there with no ground infrastructure needed, and deliver it directly to where it's going to be used. Depending on the final destination (Nebraska, middle of China, etc), it's probably going to be a lot faster than loading your cargo onto a train, shipping it to a port, loading it onto a ship, shipping to the next port, loading it back onto a train or truck, and heading to the destination. You only need to load and unload once with the airship. It probably also uses vastly less fuel than a combined ship/train/truck route.
So the limitation is that it can only carry 66 tons, but the advantage is that it can pick up and deliver anywhere in the world, literally. Fuel efficiency per ton of cargo would be a calculation that depends on where you're going and how many modes of ground transportation you need.
Or an alternate - if any claim in the request is found to be false, the entire request is thrown out. If they want to list 100 URLs that supposedly infringe, and one of them doesn't, then the request is thrown out and they get to figure out which URL wasn't correct.
Make the bastards pay for promotion like they did in the days of newspaper advertising. Charge them 10 million dollars per movie studio, 1 million per movie, and 100k per site to get back into Google's index.
Google could justify that fee as an increased cost of doing business due to all of the personnel they need on hand to deal with DMCA requests for the studios' products.
Slashdot Mirror
You might assume too much about the abilities of flying insects. The bugs around my house can't seem to avoid hitting a wall or myself, much less a nearly invisible web.
Which means that really, its not free speech people want, its their personal right to say what they want.
No, we already have that right. What you're seeing is people appreciating that a hate group is being fought back against. This is what we refer to as a "grey area". Oppression of speech can be appreciated in certain circumstances without people conceding that all speech is subject to being oppressed.
None of them actually believe any of what they say. It's not an issue of right/wrong. It's simply an issue of greed.
Do you seriously believe that? You think that these are actually decent, loving people who have a rational view of religion but are just greedy? I have no doubt that their hate is real and is rooted in a sense of self-righteousness based on their distorted religious beliefs (they refer to their hate as love, by the way, the love the sinner enough to point out his flaws and help him get saved). They believe they have the correct interpretation of the bible, they want to spread that message of hate, and they seek out the most high-profile ways to do that. The fact that many of them are also lawyers who sue people for gain is part of that plan, but I don't think that's the whole plan. That would be like saying that the entire point of the FLDS is to make money on the government by having as many wives and children as possible, and having all of your wives except one claim that they are single mothers eligible for government assistance. That's not the point of the FLDS lifestyle, the lifestyle is the point, the money is just incidental.
What about the WBC's hate speech? Doesn't that also have the potential to have very serious consequences? More specifically, isn't public anger and a reaction against them one of those consequences?
Let's start a petition asking to take our petitions seriously and not in the most condescending and patronizing manner possible.
There already is one, no duplicates allowed. Here is their response.
They are reporting your mail as spam which is why you're getting blocked (this is domain reputation). You may not understand why, but they are, so deal with it.
That's one possibility, and may even be likely considering his subject material. In this example he says he sent a total of 7 new proxy domains to 420,000 addresses, but only sent 1 domain to each person. So each domain got sent to a random 60,000 people, his reasoning being so that a censor could not subscribe and get a list of all new proxies, they would only get one (per address, at least).
But, instead of them getting those emails and blocking the proxies, it may be more effective for the censors to always report his emails as spam, thereby getting them blocked, and then no one gets any of the 7 new proxies. So the people reporting spam aren't doing it because they don't want the mail, they're doing it to stop other people from getting it.
Obviously, this is 100% speculation.
For the past six years researchers at NIF have been trying to use the laser to spark a fusion reaction in a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel.
When you say "tiny", what exactly are you comparing that to? Is the fusion reaction also "tiny"?
If we're suggesting words to stop using, I would like to nominate "boffin". A "boffin" is the term that a British journalist, apparently unable to distinguish an astronomer from a geologist, uses to describe someone who uses their brain in their job (as opposed to a British journalist).
Any idiot with a welder could make this.
So what's your excuse, you don't have a welder?
Really though, go out there and spend a month and $10k designing and building a vehicle driven by camera sight with a functional remotely operated turret, then at the end of one month we can compare your effort with what these guys did and you can point out everywhere they went wrong. I'm sure they would appreciate your constructive criticism.
For extra credit, do it in a place that has an ongoing civil war and start with nothing but the cash.
The DNA/RNA that a lethal virus injects into cells kills people. That DNA/RNA doesn't need to be lethal, though, for it to be a virus. It will reprogram the cell, in this case to help the person.
That's correct, they say the vehicle is vulnerable to RPG fire and anything larger than a 23mm cannon.
While that's a nice video, both articles cite the thickness at 2.5cm, or 1 inch.
How do you get 1/4 - 1/2 inches from 2.5cm? 2.5cm is .98 inches. Both articles cite 2.5cm as the thickness of the steel.
Hold on, are you trying to suggest that a vehicle that took a month and $10k to design and build doesn't have the same capabilities as an M1A2? Have you notified the author?
Seriously though, cut the guys some slack. It might not fit your definition of a "tank", but it's pretty impressive that these guys are able to design, build, and field vehicles like this. If the fighting goes on for too much longer then I'm sure we'll see version 3 of this vehicle. I doubt they are trying to put these things up against T90s, but it's a novel idea when they need a machine gun out there and an advantage against the other troops. It's like an IFV without the I.
This is true as long as the game company actually markets their game.
That's what I was thinking. If this game is so great and mindblowing, then why haven't I heard of it? I've never seen an ad for it.
In fact, the court seemed totally uninterested in whether it was true.
I'm going to guess that she couldn't prove it.
I am curious why she would hire a contractor that isn't even licensed to work in the state though?
According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.
I was just getting ready to respond to your numbered list with a reasonable response, then I read your last sentence, laughed, and agreed.
If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned.
This has nothing to do with the internet, if none of what she says is true, or even just the majority of it, then she deserves a fine that big. That much money is a good year or 2 of work for a small contractor business that he may have lost. That review is clearly out to destroy his business. If what she said is correct, then it's not a bad thing to get that information out where other people can see it. If she's completely wrong, then that much money is justified. If she's not wrong, then Dietz is screwed, he's out of business, and rightly so.
If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.
That's what I like about this story. I don't know the facts of the case, I don't know which side is in the right. But if they disagree with the review then they're right to sue her frankly, and there will most likely be one of two outcomes. Either she wins, and she gets to change her review to say that her claims have been upheld, or she loses and has to remove the review and face a penalty. At this point, with how little I know about the case, I'm OK with either outcome.
Well done, my reply would have been much snarkier.
Let's play a game: name an inspirational figure from history, and lets all find a way to tear them down.
You have to wonder though if it will ever become more practical than traditional cargo ships.
The two are used (or will be used) for completely different things. You use a cargo ship like the Emma Maersk when you have 150,000 tons of cargo that you need to move from one shipping port to another (using up to 3,600 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour, or "only" 1,660 gallons per hour in economy mode). After that, it's on to rail lines or trucks (using more fuel). But the point is that a cargo ship can carry vast amounts of cargo from port to port. Starting in 2014 there will be ships capable of moving 250,000 tons.
The Aeroscraft can only move 66 tons at a time. So it's obviously not a drop-in replacement for a cargo ship. But the major advantage to using the airship is its point-to-point capability. It could theoretically fly directly to the factory producing the equipment, pick up the cargo there with no ground infrastructure needed, and deliver it directly to where it's going to be used. Depending on the final destination (Nebraska, middle of China, etc), it's probably going to be a lot faster than loading your cargo onto a train, shipping it to a port, loading it onto a ship, shipping to the next port, loading it back onto a train or truck, and heading to the destination. You only need to load and unload once with the airship. It probably also uses vastly less fuel than a combined ship/train/truck route.
So the limitation is that it can only carry 66 tons, but the advantage is that it can pick up and deliver anywhere in the world, literally. Fuel efficiency per ton of cargo would be a calculation that depends on where you're going and how many modes of ground transportation you need.
Or an alternate - if any claim in the request is found to be false, the entire request is thrown out. If they want to list 100 URLs that supposedly infringe, and one of them doesn't, then the request is thrown out and they get to figure out which URL wasn't correct.
Make the bastards pay for promotion like they did in the days of newspaper advertising. Charge them 10 million dollars per movie studio, 1 million per movie, and 100k per site to get back into Google's index.
Google could justify that fee as an increased cost of doing business due to all of the personnel they need on hand to deal with DMCA requests for the studios' products.
I wish. It was a painting she bought.