If DC allows the monument for this child, what's to prevent some other family asking for the same use of the superman logo (likeness?)? Where do the requests stop?
Why would this be a problem?
As in what, precisely, would be wrong with allowing parents to use your trademark of a beloved children's character on their dead kids' tombstones?
I'm having a hard time accepting that you think people deserve/don't deserve to have a fictional fucking comic book character's logo on their damn tombstone.
I mean, OK, you want to be that way? What, then, did Reeve or Reeves ever do that was super? Save a baby from a burning building? Or did they just act in a couple of crappy films? What's so damn super about that?
If anyone "deserves" a Superman logo on their grave, it's the soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save their buddies, by throwing themselves on a grenade, for example. Or firemen in general. Or yea, maybe a little boy who endured some shit that no child should ever go through. Not some B-list actor who sucked at riding horses.
a lot of people are not going to like this
Well good, it gives me hope for humanity that a lot of people instantly recognize ignorant shit-speak when they see it.
It's pretty easy to find my phone in my pocket, and the phone is only pocketed when on foot. Maybe you're thinking of a large purse rather than a pocket.
I never said anything about difficulty. I said that some people find the practice of digging about in a pocket for a timepiece, when they could more easily keep one strapped to a wrist, to be stupid.
Which is an absolute fact (that some people feel that way, not that it's necessarily a stupid action).
My question is, why does it matter to you the reasons other people do things you don't? Don't try to say it doesn't, as it's plainly obvious you care at least enough to make a remark about it, then respond to someone who replied to your remark.
Judging from the drawings, and the statements that Airbus has made bragging about how they can now put the cockpit anywhere in the plane (because of the lack of need for front-viewing), I'm going to guess that's not in the plans.
Can't disagree. I care more about equal treatment under law than I do for punishing some pervert for having a sick fantasy (that they never actually act on).
Are they going to distinguish this new type of K-9 unit in any way, or is he going to be rolled in with the drug dogs? Because this seems, to me, like another way to drum up "probable cause" by sicking the dog on your car and "getting a hit," which then gives the SS an excuse to shred your vehicle and rifle through your belongings.
Because who, in this day and age, doesn't carry some sort of electronic memory device with them almost everywhere they go?
Kiddie diddlers my ass, they're making a new excuse to search you.
Just came across an example of one of my complaints:
During the German lesson, I was asked to translate "Ein Mann trinkt Wasser." I accidentally wrote "The man" as opposed to "A man" or "One man."
Now, since I already have a basic knowledge of the language, I knew why I was wrong immediately; but would a person who's not already familiar really learn anything from the following "tip?"
You used the definite "The" here, instead of the indefinite "One".
Huh? That's just confusing, especially considering that we're talking about the very first lesson in the German group; someone who is not familiar with words having different modes (i.e., most uni-lingual Americans) would find that extremely difficult to understand.
First impressions: it's cutesy fun, and the site is obviously based on the same system that Codeacademy uses.
Two problems I've noticed thus far: 1, certain parts want you to use a microphone. I HATE websites that want to use my mic, and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone in feeling that way.
The other, larger issue I have is that, when you answer incorrectly, the system doesn't necessarily specify why you were wrong, which tends to lead to frustration and ultimately, giving up, since not knowing why you were wrong makes it a lot harder to know how to be right.
Still, leaning towards the "this is pretty cool" end of the spectrum, and hopefully it gets better with time.
I don't think he actually bought the tools. He was googling around for some of them, and for a recipe for chloroform, but I just read the New Yorker article and it didn't say he bought any of the tools. He talked about having an oven he could fit a woman in, but didn't actually own such an oven. He also talked about having a cabin in the woods they could take a victim, but he didn't own such a cabin.
If he had bought the tools, yeah I'd say a conspiracy to commit murder charge might be appropriate, but he didn't. So it was still in the realm of fantasy.
What, you mean a mainstream media outlet gave me bad info? Inconceivable!
Regardless, the whole thing is creepy as fuck. Ordinarily, I wouldn't give a crap what somebody's fantasy or fetish is. Their business. Even this guy's. But once he started naming names and making plans, that pushes it over the edge. That is a hard, hard thing to say "live and let live" about.
Agreed; add in the fact that non-government-agent types who have done pretty much the same thing were not let off so lightly.
I don't even know how they could arrest the guy. He had done nothing at that point, he had made no plans to do anything, no tools, according to his ex who installed spyware on his computer, he was supposedly writing on anonymous fetish sites.
I presume you're basing this assumption on the contents of TFS.
I read some other articles about this case yesterday - he bought the tools, and used a classified police database to shop for victims. To me, that's a bit past "fantasy" and more into "planning to do this shit."
Yes, now let's hope that they extend the result of this ruling to apply to all citizens, not just ones in employ of the King (by which I mean the government).
***** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER ***** This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didnt mean to send it to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately delete yourself & destroy your computer! Once you have taken this action please contact us.. no you idiot, you cant use your computer, you just destroyed it, and by the way, you are also deleted, but we digress......
The Originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the information contained in this communication, unless they are the originator in which case they probably are liable and rightly so considering the content of the aforementioned communication.
In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mothers brothers wife wearing nothing but cami-knickers, and we will immediately refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Pal Meaty-Bites you bought when you went to Woolies yesterday.
We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running Windows NT & everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm,shit, where was I..umm, no matter what happens, IT's NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!
The comments & opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing porno sites,would cut off my gonads and feed them to me for afternoon tea.
You would think as heavily regulated as Goldman is supposed to be they would have these kinds of systems in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
FTFY.
Regulations only work if they are actually enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
If DC allows the monument for this child, what's to prevent some other family asking for the same use of the superman logo (likeness?)? Where do the requests stop?
Why would this be a problem?
As in what, precisely, would be wrong with allowing parents to use your trademark of a beloved children's character on their dead kids' tombstones?
I'm having a hard time accepting that you think people deserve/don't deserve to have a fictional fucking comic book character's logo on their damn tombstone.
I mean, OK, you want to be that way? What, then, did Reeve or Reeves ever do that was super? Save a baby from a burning building? Or did they just act in a couple of crappy films? What's so damn super about that?
If anyone "deserves" a Superman logo on their grave, it's the soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save their buddies, by throwing themselves on a grenade, for example. Or firemen in general. Or yea, maybe a little boy who endured some shit that no child should ever go through. Not some B-list actor who sucked at riding horses.
a lot of people are not going to like this
Well good, it gives me hope for humanity that a lot of people instantly recognize ignorant shit-speak when they see it.
It's corporate bullshit all the way down...
Either way.
As in most things, there are moronic arguments on both sides of the Bitcoin/Uber debates.
Then, while they're tearing it down, get it on film...
This is exactly what I was thinking. Show them for the heartless bastards they are.
Hell, if I knew a granite man, I'd have one made and deliver it myself.
I welecome the change. Bitcoin makes othewise smart people stupid. The arguements with uber are a thousand times more palatible.
Well, some of them are.
But you have to admit, a lot of the arguments are Bitcoin-level stupid.
It's easy to undercut the competition when they adhere to regulations and you don't.
That is not within the scope of the patent, from what I've read.
Personally, I don't know if I'd want to get in a plane whose pilot doesn't have any "skin in the game," so to speak.
It's pretty easy to find my phone in my pocket, and the phone is only pocketed when on foot. Maybe you're thinking of a large purse rather than a pocket.
I never said anything about difficulty. I said that some people find the practice of digging about in a pocket for a timepiece, when they could more easily keep one strapped to a wrist, to be stupid.
Which is an absolute fact (that some people feel that way, not that it's necessarily a stupid action).
My question is, why does it matter to you the reasons other people do things you don't? Don't try to say it doesn't, as it's plainly obvious you care at least enough to make a remark about it, then respond to someone who replied to your remark.
Judging from the drawings, and the statements that Airbus has made bragging about how they can now put the cockpit anywhere in the plane (because of the lack of need for front-viewing), I'm going to guess that's not in the plans.
Why would anyone want to strap a watch to their wrist if it's not picking up heart rate, body temp, movement, etc...
Because some people think digging in their pocket to find a phone just to tell them the time is stupid.
That's my reasoning, anyway. Can't speak for anyone else, nor would I care to.
Can't disagree. I care more about equal treatment under law than I do for punishing some pervert for having a sick fantasy (that they never actually act on).
Are they going to distinguish this new type of K-9 unit in any way, or is he going to be rolled in with the drug dogs? Because this seems, to me, like another way to drum up "probable cause" by sicking the dog on your car and "getting a hit," which then gives the SS an excuse to shred your vehicle and rifle through your belongings.
Because who, in this day and age, doesn't carry some sort of electronic memory device with them almost everywhere they go?
Kiddie diddlers my ass, they're making a new excuse to search you.
I think you miss the point. A search cannot be legally executed unless there is probable cause established before hand.
Hi, you must be new here.
Just came across an example of one of my complaints:
During the German lesson, I was asked to translate "Ein Mann trinkt Wasser." I accidentally wrote "The man" as opposed to "A man" or "One man."
Now, since I already have a basic knowledge of the language, I knew why I was wrong immediately; but would a person who's not already familiar really learn anything from the following "tip?"
Huh? That's just confusing, especially considering that we're talking about the very first lesson in the German group; someone who is not familiar with words having different modes (i.e., most uni-lingual Americans) would find that extremely difficult to understand.
Playing with it now (phrasing, BOOM)...
First impressions: it's cutesy fun, and the site is obviously based on the same system that Codeacademy uses.
Two problems I've noticed thus far: 1, certain parts want you to use a microphone. I HATE websites that want to use my mic, and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone in feeling that way.
The other, larger issue I have is that, when you answer incorrectly, the system doesn't necessarily specify why you were wrong, which tends to lead to frustration and ultimately, giving up, since not knowing why you were wrong makes it a lot harder to know how to be right.
Still, leaning towards the "this is pretty cool" end of the spectrum, and hopefully it gets better with time.
I don't think he actually bought the tools. He was googling around for some of them, and for a recipe for chloroform, but I just read the New Yorker article and it didn't say he bought any of the tools. He talked about having an oven he could fit a woman in, but didn't actually own such an oven. He also talked about having a cabin in the woods they could take a victim, but he didn't own such a cabin.
If he had bought the tools, yeah I'd say a conspiracy to commit murder charge might be appropriate, but he didn't. So it was still in the realm of fantasy.
What, you mean a mainstream media outlet gave me bad info? Inconceivable!
Regardless, the whole thing is creepy as fuck. Ordinarily, I wouldn't give a crap what somebody's fantasy or fetish is. Their business. Even this guy's. But once he started naming names and making plans, that pushes it over the edge. That is a hard, hard thing to say "live and let live" about.
Agreed; add in the fact that non-government-agent types who have done pretty much the same thing were not let off so lightly.
Only if you can prove he really was about to do something.
Let's be realistic here - if he wasn't a government agent, he'd already be in jail.
Like these people.
I don't even know how they could arrest the guy. He had done nothing at that point, he had made no plans to do anything, no tools, according to his ex who installed spyware on his computer, he was supposedly writing on anonymous fetish sites.
I presume you're basing this assumption on the contents of TFS.
I read some other articles about this case yesterday - he bought the tools, and used a classified police database to shop for victims. To me, that's a bit past "fantasy" and more into "planning to do this shit."
He went victim-shopping on a classified police database, the only charge that actually stuck.
Dude wasn't just fantasizing, he was conspiring.
Yes, now let's hope that they extend the result of this ruling to apply to all citizens, not just ones in employ of the King (by which I mean the government).
***** IMPORTANT INFORMATION/DISCLAIMER *****
This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this message it was obviously addressed to you and therefore you can read it, even it we didnt mean to send it to you. However, if the contents of this email make no sense whatsoever then you probably were not the intended recipient, or, you are a mindless cretin; either way, you should immediately delete yourself & destroy your computer! Once you have taken this action please contact us.. no you idiot, you cant use your computer, you just destroyed it, and by the way, you are also deleted, but we digress......
The Originator of this email is not liable for the transmission of the information contained in this communication, unless they are the originator in which case they probably are liable and rightly so considering the content of the aforementioned communication.
In the event that the originator did not send this email to you, then please return it to us and attach a scanned-in picture of your mothers brothers wife wearing nothing but cami-knickers, and we will immediately refund you exactly half of what you paid for the can of Pal Meaty-Bites you bought when you went to Woolies yesterday.
We take no responsibility for non-receipt of this email because we are running Windows NT & everyone knows how glitchy that can be. In the event that you do get this message then please note that we take no responsibility for that either. Nor will we accept any liability, tacit or implied, for any damage you may or may not incur as a result of receiving, or not, as the case may be, from time to time, notwithstanding all liabilities implied or otherwise, ummm,shit, where was I..umm, no matter what happens, IT's NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, OUR FAULT!
The comments & opinions expressed herein are my own and NOT those of my employer, who, if he knew I was sending emails and surfing porno sites,would cut off my gonads and feed them to me for afternoon tea.
-- http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/s...
You would think as heavily regulated as Goldman is supposed to be they would have these kinds of systems in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
FTFY.
Regulations only work if they are actually enforced.
RE: the headline
No. From TFA:
Yingchuang New Materials Inc. was able to print the shells of 10 one-room structures in 24 hours
The way this summary is worded, they make it sound like this company actually printed the buildings in place. Which did not, in fact, happen.
This is why I love Slashdot. The learning never stops. Neither does the illegal gambling.
Nor the bad jokes and memes.