Judges opinions are usually written out, clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc).
Judges are selected from lawyers, whose entire professional carreer is spent disregarding right and wrong, and true and false. Their entire skillset revolves around making any argument they can, no matter how disingenuous, in order to prove their point. Is it any suprise that judges are able to come up with elaborate rationalizations for their opinions?
If a judge told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.
His misunderstanding comes from Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It's easy to mistake the behavior of federal judges as stupid based on that rule. Of course, they can't be stupid because law school is hard. Therefore stupidity is an inadequate explanation. The implications of this are left as an exercise for the reader.
No one's stopping you from registering 'straightdude'. I do think it's a little annoying that they seem to think their sexual orientation is relevant in many context where it is not. But that's not reverse orientation, you're free to act as annoying as they do if you want.
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?
The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken. If you're on UNIX, you can just get a wm that works. If you're on windows, you're screwed.
I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.
So dedicate a virtual desktop to the multiple window version of the GIMP and maximize the image. You don't have to see anything you don't want to see.
I don't even care about Perry. There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for him and this one won't change anyones mind. I'm honestly more appalled that anyone could think that this quackery is medicine than that Perry would make a good president. In fact, the chances that Rick Perry will be the best president this country ever had dwarf the chances that this is effective medical treatment.
The only faith a scientist needs, if it can yet be called that, is the faith that the universe operates under rules that can be tested, and that human minds could eventually unravel the mysteries.
They are falsifying NOTHING by looking for it. Eventually, they will either find it, or not find it. IF they don't find it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that they can't find it.
It does falsify SOMETHING, because the theory predicts that we will find it. If we cannot find it then the theory must be wrong.
But the point I was making was that people BELIEVE it exists, and are looking for it, without any proof that it DOES exist.
Scientists don't believe. They EXPECT based on past observations. Those past observations are evidence that it DOES exist.
In fact, we're spending BILLIONS of looking for it, so I actually hope they DO find it.
We're spending BILLIONS of dollars to find out whether it exists or not. Whether or not we find it we will know the answer to that question, so we really can't lose.
But as of this moment, it makes a perfect example of where FAITH gets applied by those that deny it has any real value.
It makes a perfect example of people making predictions from past observations and testing them through experiment. If that's what you mean by FAITH I'm all for it!
Religious types have a bunch of stock phrases they turn to whenever the inevitable contradiction pops up. In this case they'd use "God helps those who help themselves" or something similar.
He is some random dude. Just because he has an MD doesn't make him a researcher. MDs "prescribe" treatments like homeopathy all the time. Not effective, not FDA approved, but the government can't do anything about it. That's exactly what's happening here.
Context matters a lot. Is the experimental treatment part of the process to get the treatment FDA approved? Or is it a couple of guys a strip mall with a syringe and a centrifuge?
I guarantee you it's a lot more like the latter than the former. The FDA would like to shut these guys down, but your own cells aren't legally considered a drug. The FDA is going to court to try to change that.
I'm assuming the stuff he removed infringed Atari copyrights.
That would be a bad assumption. The stuff he removed was just demos that run on Atari hardware. That doesn't infringe on any of Atari's rights any more than Firefox infringes on Microsoft's rights. Atari falsely claimed rights to his demos, and he took them down rather than fight a behemoth.
Unfortunately they can. Fighting Atari would require the hobbiest to show up in court halfway around the world. He can't do that, so Atari can do whatever they want.
That's the crazy thing. Infogrames took the Atari name, presumably to capitalize on people's good memories. Now they are attacking the very people trying the hardest to keep those memories alive. This makes no business sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it measured their sweatiness.
Increasing trade grows the economy and increases revenue. You really do have to spend money to make money.
Judges opinions are usually written out, clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc).
Judges are selected from lawyers, whose entire professional carreer is spent disregarding right and wrong, and true and false. Their entire skillset revolves around making any argument they can, no matter how disingenuous, in order to prove their point. Is it any suprise that judges are able to come up with elaborate rationalizations for their opinions?
If a judge told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.
His misunderstanding comes from Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It's easy to mistake the behavior of federal judges as stupid based on that rule. Of course, they can't be stupid because law school is hard. Therefore stupidity is an inadequate explanation. The implications of this are left as an exercise for the reader.
No one's stopping you from registering 'straightdude'. I do think it's a little annoying that they seem to think their sexual orientation is relevant in many context where it is not. But that's not reverse orientation, you're free to act as annoying as they do if you want.
True, but they're just as likely to have fun playing with the box it came in.
Of course you tip! You tip better than usual (20-25% rather than 15-20%) because the bill is going to be smaller.
Any kid old enough to use an iPad is old enough to mind their manners at dinner.
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?
The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken. If you're on UNIX, you can just get a wm that works. If you're on windows, you're screwed.
I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.
So dedicate a virtual desktop to the multiple window version of the GIMP and maximize the image. You don't have to see anything you don't want to see.
The American propaganda system is the best in the world.
I never get drunk at restaurants if I'm dining alone. Why pay restaurant prices if you're not trying to impress anyone?
If you're dining alone, hell yes bring a tablet. Or in my case a Neo Geo Pocket Color. Not every meal is a social situation.
You people need to eat more fiber.
Flash is an external process and thus bypasses browser settings
So disable it during private browsing. Better to have real security with some limited functionality than a false sense of security.
Do you believe in everything for which there is no evidence? If not, how do you decide?
I don't even care about Perry. There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for him and this one won't change anyones mind. I'm honestly more appalled that anyone could think that this quackery is medicine than that Perry would make a good president. In fact, the chances that Rick Perry will be the best president this country ever had dwarf the chances that this is effective medical treatment.
Problem is, you can't enable governments to stop one without enabling them to stop the other.
The only faith a scientist needs, if it can yet be called that, is the faith that the universe operates under rules that can be tested, and that human minds could eventually unravel the mysteries.
I'd argue that that is a testable prediction too.
They are falsifying NOTHING by looking for it. Eventually, they will either find it, or not find it. IF they don't find it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that they can't find it.
It does falsify SOMETHING, because the theory predicts that we will find it. If we cannot find it then the theory must be wrong.
But the point I was making was that people BELIEVE it exists, and are looking for it, without any proof that it DOES exist.
Scientists don't believe. They EXPECT based on past observations. Those past observations are evidence that it DOES exist.
In fact, we're spending BILLIONS of looking for it, so I actually hope they DO find it.
We're spending BILLIONS of dollars to find out whether it exists or not. Whether or not we find it we will know the answer to that question, so we really can't lose.
But as of this moment, it makes a perfect example of where FAITH gets applied by those that deny it has any real value.
It makes a perfect example of people making predictions from past observations and testing them through experiment. If that's what you mean by FAITH I'm all for it!
Religious types have a bunch of stock phrases they turn to whenever the inevitable contradiction pops up. In this case they'd use "God helps those who help themselves" or something similar.
He is some random dude. Just because he has an MD doesn't make him a researcher. MDs "prescribe" treatments like homeopathy all the time. Not effective, not FDA approved, but the government can't do anything about it. That's exactly what's happening here.
Context matters a lot. Is the experimental treatment part of the process to get the treatment FDA approved? Or is it a couple of guys a strip mall with a syringe and a centrifuge?
I guarantee you it's a lot more like the latter than the former. The FDA would like to shut these guys down, but your own cells aren't legally considered a drug. The FDA is going to court to try to change that.
I'm assuming the stuff he removed infringed Atari copyrights.
That would be a bad assumption. The stuff he removed was just demos that run on Atari hardware. That doesn't infringe on any of Atari's rights any more than Firefox infringes on Microsoft's rights. Atari falsely claimed rights to his demos, and he took them down rather than fight a behemoth.
Unfortunately they can. Fighting Atari would require the hobbiest to show up in court halfway around the world. He can't do that, so Atari can do whatever they want.
That's the crazy thing. Infogrames took the Atari name, presumably to capitalize on people's good memories. Now they are attacking the very people trying the hardest to keep those memories alive. This makes no business sense whatsoever.