I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us
the real question you should ask yourself is: do you really have any more freedom than citizens of north korea? if you are an ignorant fool you would answer "of course", but i think fundamentally the governments of north korea and the united states aren't as different as you would like to think
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you
no... actually if the government had no right to punish citizens then there wouldn't be much point in having courts would there
government's responsibility to uphold the constitution?
"governments" don't have rights or responsibilities because it isn't a tangible thing... only individuals do how would you sue the government? even if you managed to win a lawsuit, the "government" wouldn't pay you anything... individual taxpayers would have to foot the bill
dunno what retard modded parent down... maybe he's just an asphole
as much as javascript is as shit as python, it's like that annoying relative that you just can't get rid of so you may as well get used to
client-server has been at the forefront for years and will continue to be the case, particularly as clients evolve in the mobile arena the only fixed baseline is the trusty ol' web browser
i'm pretty sure if you remove the incentive to compete, they won't compete... and you'll be stuck with the same shitty old copper till it degrades to nothing
oddly enough, the same thing happens when the government subsidizes healthcare
i'm here because i like to make fun of the stupidity of others like yourself, and occasionally discuss issues with those that demonstrate a shred of intellect. i frankly don't give a crap if people care about my point of view or not.
the easiest way to handle google bots is to display a fuck off message to any user agent containing a blacklisted string
there's websites that list all the different known user agents that you can use as a guide
the fuck off message that i use in my websites is: "The user agent with which you have accessed this website is banned from accessing content as it is suspected of attempting to steal copyright information without the copyright holder's permission."
Regardless of the case in TFA, anyone from Joe Simpleton to the NY Times can be charged with libel. The defference comes down to capacity to mount a defense.
Existing case law is often contradictory and requires interpretation on a case-by-case basis. The outcome of the case in TFA will no doubt be used in future cases, but it won't necessarily dictate the outcome of future cases.
The law seems a bit messy due to defamation being usually under state jurisdiction, which can be overturned by the federal courts but convictions have and do stick, particularly if a statement is considered defamatory "per se".
Statements are only determined to be sanctioned or not after they have already been made (is isn't always possible to know if someone is going to be libeled by something you intend to say, particularly in the age of the internet where even the most innocuous comments can go viral), so this could in itself be considered a form of prior restraint; if you want to say something that could possibly be construed as defamatory, perhaps you should refrain from saying it in case it is ultimately found to be. This isn't necessarily restraint on the right to free speech, but is possibly somewhat related to your right to due process per the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). There's also consumer and corporate law, such as prevention of false advertising, not to mention national security interests, etc.
Sounds like you weren't trying to prove your own theory, that you thought up
When engineers design structures and machines, the hypothesis is that they will operate safely and reliably for their intended life. Whether this hypothesis is true or not can rarely be determined without rigorous process, usually involving multiple levels of peer review before final acceptance.
Certification of a design by engineers is about taking that hypothesis and putting it to the test; to prove that the design is safe in accordance with accepted standards and regulatory requirements. This usually entails either analysis, testing or justification by experience. Experience can rarely be accepted on its own, and analysis is usually only accepted based on significant historical emperical justification of the techniques behind the analysis (such as with FEA or CFD), so regardless of how engineers justify the safety of a design, testing forms the fundamental basis of that justification.
the constitution ensures your right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. the constitution ensures your right to free speech, it doesn't give you the right to libel someone.
defamation laws don't inhibit your right to free speech... you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory. just as you are free to bear arms, but if you shoot someone in anything but self defence you face a murder trial. every action has consequnces. rights don't come without responsibilities. the bill of rights covers your rights... various other laws cover your responsibilities. the bill of rights is itself merely a law. "inalienable" merely means those rights can't be transferred by force or contract, not that they absolve you of any responsibilities. only idiot americans think they can say and do whatever they want without any repercussions.
You've never tried to prove something with an experiment have you
yes i have. i'm not a "scientist", but as an engineer i've been paid to physically test many things to prove they are compliant with various regulations for certification. there are differences between experimentation and testing, and whilst engineers generally have an idea of how things they design will behave, especially with testing of large (and expensive) structures such as major aircraft components there are finger crossing moments when you resort to mere hope that failure doesn't occur due to uncertainties that often crop up. on the same token, scientists don't generally just experiment wildly with no idea of what to expect; they start with a hypothesis, formulate a method to test that hypothesis under certain conditions and they also have some idea what they might expect (both for and against their original hypothesis) from their results by variation of certain parameters.
It's a humbling experience.
experimentation and testing is usually a repetitive, tedious and mechanical process, which is why much of the time either graduates are employed or machines are developed to perform it. maybe if you're working at CERN or something it can be humbling, but the majority of scientific experimentation isn't exciting or revolutionary.
non-scientists don't have the esoteric experience of demonstrating something empirically
there's nothing scientific about gathering data (machines can do it automatically in many cases)... the real intelligence in science is interpretation of data to draw conclusions, which may or many not be obvious from the data and is also where things can get subjective and be affected by external influences unrelated to the data (which i think has been the case with the climate change debate).
maybe i have a mental or optical bitcoin story filter, or i just have a higher annoyance threshold than you, but i don't see that many of them in the listings (including the new ones).
i see what you mean, and maybe i wasn't the target of icebike's flame but i wasn't offended since i know most of what he said (in this case) is true. i just took the last paragraph with a grain of salt (this is slashdot after all).
technically if the point 6 bales of hay into the field that he mentioned was shielded behind an iron clad building (like a hay or machinery shed) it could make a difference:-)
you're saying it is not detrimental to your professional image to FALSIFY NUMBERS AND FIGURES ON YOUR PAPERS
you're implying that anyone who does this is caught, and corruption goes beyond falsifying figures... there are all manner of ways that calculated figures can be incorrect or test results invalid, some deliberately, some ignorantly, some mistakenly. the scientific method seems simple when you look at it through the tunnel vision of ignorance, but as Penguinisto said, "scientists are just as human as the rest of us", which means that they are not only corruptable, but also prone to fucking up.
if a scientist finds out that he's blown thousands of taxpayer dollars down the drain chasing after proof of some hypothesis and test results show it doesn't work (which makes applying for the next grant that much harder to justify) or he invests years of time and energy and then discovers a flaw in his assumptions or test method or results etc (which can also easily get past peer review), do you think coming out would be easy? do you think it wouldn't be detrimental to his professional image?
engineers face a similar dilemma and there are even professional ethical and legal obligations on engineers to admit wrongdoing, and yet some engineers are still found guilty of malpractice. scientists in many cases aren't bound by such strict legal obligations as engineers so i doubt the scientific community is any more ethical than the engineering fraternity.
malpractice (by engineers or scientists) isn't always even caused by corruption on a personal level, but by external influences (such as funding obligations, management pressures to get results out in a tight schedule, etc) so anyone that assumes that science is incorruptible or not prone to human error is retarded.
why do you care about bitcoin at all? why are bitcoin slashvertisements any worse than all the rest? methinks you invested during the highs and crashed and burned... sucker:-) only idiots buy high and sell low q: why is the u.s. stock bubble is still going on? a: because there are plenty of idiots in america
Slashdot Mirror
everything's fair game to push your agenda
nah... actually us "wingnuts" just like pushing buttons, and judging by your reaction we're pretty good at it :-)
I guess North Korean citizens are just as free as us
the real question you should ask yourself is: do you really have any more freedom than citizens of north korea?
if you are an ignorant fool you would answer "of course", but i think fundamentally the governments of north korea and the united states aren't as different as you would like to think
They resolve you of responsibilities that involve the government punishing you
no... actually if the government had no right to punish citizens then there wouldn't be much point in having courts would there
government's responsibility to uphold the constitution?
"governments" don't have rights or responsibilities because it isn't a tangible thing... only individuals do
how would you sue the government? even if you managed to win a lawsuit, the "government" wouldn't pay you anything... individual taxpayers would have to foot the bill
you keep focusing on your punctuation then... even if the message you're trying to get across is a load of horseshit
dunno what retard modded parent down... maybe he's just an asphole
as much as javascript is as shit as python, it's like that annoying relative that you just can't get rid of so you may as well get used to
client-server has been at the forefront for years and will continue to be the case, particularly as clients evolve in the mobile arena the only fixed baseline is the trusty ol' web browser
...it's called "outdoor activity"
completely amazing and revolutionary stuff
although i'm personally opposed to any such new technology... that's why i still use linux :-)
i'm pretty sure if you remove the incentive to compete, they won't compete... and you'll be stuck with the same shitty old copper till it degrades to nothing
oddly enough, the same thing happens when the government subsidizes healthcare
i'm here because i like to make fun of the stupidity of others like yourself, and occasionally discuss issues with those that demonstrate a shred of intellect.
i frankly don't give a crap if people care about my point of view or not.
you're here because you are a doofus.
you don't pay me enough to use correct punctuation and capitalization
the easiest way to handle google bots is to display a fuck off message to any user agent containing a blacklisted string
there's websites that list all the different known user agents that you can use as a guide
the fuck off message that i use in my websites is:
"The user agent with which you have accessed this website is banned from accessing content as it is suspected of attempting to steal copyright information without the copyright holder's permission."
Regardless of the case in TFA, anyone from Joe Simpleton to the NY Times can be charged with libel. The defference comes down to capacity to mount a defense.
Existing case law is often contradictory and requires interpretation on a case-by-case basis. The outcome of the case in TFA will no doubt be used in future cases, but it won't necessarily dictate the outcome of future cases.
The law seems a bit messy due to defamation being usually under state jurisdiction, which can be overturned by the federal courts but convictions have and do stick, particularly if a statement is considered defamatory "per se".
Statements are only determined to be sanctioned or not after they have already been made (is isn't always possible to know if someone is going to be libeled by something you intend to say, particularly in the age of the internet where even the most innocuous comments can go viral), so this could in itself be considered a form of prior restraint; if you want to say something that could possibly be construed as defamatory, perhaps you should refrain from saying it in case it is ultimately found to be.
This isn't necessarily restraint on the right to free speech, but is possibly somewhat related to your right to due process per the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). There's also consumer and corporate law, such as prevention of false advertising, not to mention national security interests, etc.
All interesting stuff :-)
Sounds like you weren't trying to prove your own theory, that you thought up
When engineers design structures and machines, the hypothesis is that they will operate safely and reliably for their intended life. Whether this hypothesis is true or not can rarely be determined without rigorous process, usually involving multiple levels of peer review before final acceptance.
Certification of a design by engineers is about taking that hypothesis and putting it to the test; to prove that the design is safe in accordance with accepted standards and regulatory requirements. This usually entails either analysis, testing or justification by experience. Experience can rarely be accepted on its own, and analysis is usually only accepted based on significant historical emperical justification of the techniques behind the analysis (such as with FEA or CFD), so regardless of how engineers justify the safety of a design, testing forms the fundamental basis of that justification.
There's nothing un-scientific about engineering.
the constitution ensures your right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
the constitution ensures your right to free speech, it doesn't give you the right to libel someone.
it's not rocket science.
go easy on him... he obviously watches CNN ;-)
defamation laws don't inhibit your right to free speech... you are free to commit libel just as long as you are willing to face the consequences if saying something wrongfully defamatory.
just as you are free to bear arms, but if you shoot someone in anything but self defence you face a murder trial.
every action has consequnces.
rights don't come without responsibilities. the bill of rights covers your rights... various other laws cover your responsibilities.
the bill of rights is itself merely a law. "inalienable" merely means those rights can't be transferred by force or contract, not that they absolve you of any responsibilities.
only idiot americans think they can say and do whatever they want without any repercussions.
It's not like the government, or anyone else, can make you say something against your will
try telling that to the inmates of gitmo and bagram
You've never tried to prove something with an experiment have you
yes i have. i'm not a "scientist", but as an engineer i've been paid to physically test many things to prove they are compliant with various regulations for certification. there are differences between experimentation and testing, and whilst engineers generally have an idea of how things they design will behave, especially with testing of large (and expensive) structures such as major aircraft components there are finger crossing moments when you resort to mere hope that failure doesn't occur due to uncertainties that often crop up. on the same token, scientists don't generally just experiment wildly with no idea of what to expect; they start with a hypothesis, formulate a method to test that hypothesis under certain conditions and they also have some idea what they might expect (both for and against their original hypothesis) from their results by variation of certain parameters.
It's a humbling experience.
experimentation and testing is usually a repetitive, tedious and mechanical process, which is why much of the time either graduates are employed or machines are developed to perform it.
maybe if you're working at CERN or something it can be humbling, but the majority of scientific experimentation isn't exciting or revolutionary.
non-scientists don't have the esoteric experience of demonstrating something empirically
there's nothing scientific about gathering data (machines can do it automatically in many cases)... the real intelligence in science is interpretation of data to draw conclusions, which may or many not be obvious from the data and is also where things can get subjective and be affected by external influences unrelated to the data (which i think has been the case with the climate change debate).
you have obviously never conducted any sort of peer reviewed research in your life, so i wouldn't expect you to know any better
maybe i have a mental or optical bitcoin story filter, or i just have a higher annoyance threshold than you, but i don't see that many of them in the listings (including the new ones).
how many have cropped up in the last week?
pure gold my friend :-)
Your hypothesis that both physics and mathematics are simply branches of philosophy is elegant, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
i see what you mean, and maybe i wasn't the target of icebike's flame but i wasn't offended since i know most of what he said (in this case) is true. i just took the last paragraph with a grain of salt (this is slashdot after all).
technically if the point 6 bales of hay into the field that he mentioned was shielded behind an iron clad building (like a hay or machinery shed) it could make a difference :-)
hmm... fair enough :-)
you're saying it is not detrimental to your professional image to FALSIFY NUMBERS AND FIGURES ON YOUR PAPERS
you're implying that anyone who does this is caught, and corruption goes beyond falsifying figures... there are all manner of ways that calculated figures can be incorrect or test results invalid, some deliberately, some ignorantly, some mistakenly. the scientific method seems simple when you look at it through the tunnel vision of ignorance, but as Penguinisto said, "scientists are just as human as the rest of us", which means that they are not only corruptable, but also prone to fucking up.
if a scientist finds out that he's blown thousands of taxpayer dollars down the drain chasing after proof of some hypothesis and test results show it doesn't work (which makes applying for the next grant that much harder to justify) or he invests years of time and energy and then discovers a flaw in his assumptions or test method or results etc (which can also easily get past peer review), do you think coming out would be easy? do you think it wouldn't be detrimental to his professional image?
engineers face a similar dilemma and there are even professional ethical and legal obligations on engineers to admit wrongdoing, and yet some engineers are still found guilty of malpractice. scientists in many cases aren't bound by such strict legal obligations as engineers so i doubt the scientific community is any more ethical than the engineering fraternity.
malpractice (by engineers or scientists) isn't always even caused by corruption on a personal level, but by external influences (such as funding obligations, management pressures to get results out in a tight schedule, etc) so anyone that assumes that science is incorruptible or not prone to human error is retarded.
If you keep everything encrypted you are protected from any law officer under the delusion that they don't need a warrant.
bahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
what a dumbass!
why do you care about bitcoin at all? :-)
why are bitcoin slashvertisements any worse than all the rest?
methinks you invested during the highs and crashed and burned... sucker
only idiots buy high and sell low
q: why is the u.s. stock bubble is still going on?
a: because there are plenty of idiots in america