Putting the burden of proof on the accused sounds pretty chilling. Where I live you can be tried for defamation, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and not only is truth a defense, but the accuser has to prove that you either actually knew you were lying or you had no idea one way or the other and just didn't care.
I also use a different email per site, when I can bothered anyway. I've actually never found a third party spamming me based on me giving such an address to anyone who actually claimed they would keep my address private. The worst I get is some random email a year later from a site I visited once asking me to come back.
If you know you have DNT set, and you see adds that suspiciously appear to be targeting you, then you will be mad about them. If you are mad about the ads you will feel antipathy towards the things being advertised, which is contrary to the purposes of advertising. Granted you have to be aware of the DNT setting and also have cause to suspect the tracking, but attempting to target without looking like you're targeting is probably a losing proposition.
He doesn't need to have broken a law in Cambodia. Sweden can't go into Cambodia and drag him out, but there's nothing preventing them from asking Cambodia to expel him. Now, hopefully Cambodia has some standards in place for determining whether they will comply with such a request, like asking for enough evidence to warrant a trial.
Freedom of speech isn't at issue. Nobody is claiming Harris said something bad and should be prosecuted for saying it.
Someone is claiming that Harris publicly said something that is evidence that other claims he is making are false. Harris has a right to privacy. The prosecution has a right to search for evidence. These are the kinds of conflicts the courts are supposed to be deciding. Generally if the prosecution can show specific enough cause for their belief that the evidence exists they will be given permission for the search which seems a pretty fair balance to me.
The article didn't go into details about why the prosecutor thinks the evidence is there in this case, so I don't have an opinion on this particular decision.
Fair enough, but that wasn't the argument I was making. And the post way up in this thread was where I was explaining what makes Shaw's hypothesis silly whereas the general hypothesis of exogenesis is not.
Specifically
a) an outer-space species could exist b) it would get here c) it could live and thrive here
Isn't all that unlikely given current data. What is unlikely is a, b, c, plus
d) it would appear so similar to other life on Earth that biologists with morphological and molecular studies think they can place roughly where it fits in the phylogeny of all other life on Earth e) it does not decend from the same root species as every other known species on Earth
I'm going to try to ignore the condescending tone and assume you are merely confused and not deliberately building up a straw man to attack.
Your hypothesis is that an alien species incredibly hardy travelled through space to land on earth, managed to survive by competing with the existing lifeforms, but somehow slowly devolved into a microscopic eight legged bear.
Well, it's not my hypothesis, I merely lend it some credence that you don't. Two mistakes here. First, you are adding the assumption that life already existed on Earth when the alien species arrives. Second, assuming you are using "devolve" to mean something like "the opposite of evolve" then you misunderstand evolution in general. Evolution is a slow process of change in response to selective pressures. There's no end goal towards which organism evolve or away from which they "devolve." There is no unchange, only change.
Assumptions made: There is life in space, such life travels, it somehow found this particular tiny speck in the outer parts of the galaxy...
So far, so good.
... it wasn't hardy enough to trump other life on earth, it is similar enough to other life on earth that we can't tell the difference scientifically other than by its hardiness... I'll take a break here, feel free to go on by yourself as an exercise in critical thinking.
Oops, now you've gone off the rails again. You're assuming other life on Earth to trump. You're further assuming that 2 entirely separate lineages are not able to be determined as such, which I think you'll find in case d above if you care to look.
Opposing hypothesis is that somehow a species on earth evolved to be extraordinarily hardy.
Assumptions made: Evolution is real.
Now, let's apply Occam's razor here, and cut away the hypothesis that makes the most assumptions.
Okay let's do that, but without the bogus additional assumptions you've inserted. For one hypothesis you have: -Life emerged from nonlife on Earth.
For the other you have: -Life emerged from nonlife somewhere other than Earth. -Some life from somewhere other than Earth survived to travel from where it emerged to Earth.
Which is more likely? I don't know. There's an awful lot more places that aren't Earth than are Earth, but successfully traveling seems like it would be hard too. Hard to say, which is what makes both hypotheses reasonable.
For those specific species yes, it would seem incredibly unlikely they caught a ride on an asteroid or somesuch. But for an ancestor a few hundred billion generations back? Who knows?
Just those three stipulations alone don't make it that far fetched. Exogenesis, the hypothesis that all life on Earth originally comes from somewhere else, is legitimate. What would make the claim far-fetched is adding: d) it would appear so similar to other life on Earth that biologists with morphological and molecular studies think they can place roughly where it fits in the phylogeny of all other life on Earth e) it does not decend from the same root species as every other known species on Earth
They mention FLAC about 7 minutes into that video for anyone looking for it. They don't say much other than that they aren't trying to replace codecs for lossless (FLAC) or very low bitrate (codec2).
The article claims they were photographing military installations. That could be anything from a snapshot that happens to include a military base to skirting the border of the thing and taking photos from every conceivable angle to get pictures of things clearly meant not to be public to actually wandering around the installation photographic everything in sight.
The first one shouldn't cause anyone any concern. The second one I could see as being something a government could legitimately seek to limit, but I'd hope that the penalty would be limited to confiscating the images. The third could reasonably be treated as criminal if the installation isn't meant to be public. I have a feeling that if details come out they're going to be uncomfortably between one and two.
XP is definitely market driven. Back then marketers thought starting with an X means cool to consumers. A couple of years before that everything had to be an eGadget. Apple appears to have appropriated that particular convention with with the next available vowel and so everything they make is an iDevice. I'm just glad we don't currently have to deal with.-=xXx PRODUCT xXx=-.
You're ignoring the word "internal" in the sentence you quote as well as AC's next sentence, "Starting with Windows 7, and followed by Windows 8, they have a pretty straightforward public-facing version."
I once saw someone post a "link" to a screenshot on the forums that was something like "c:\documents and settings\username\desktop\World of Warcraft\screenshots\WowScrnShot_2353.tga." He didn't understand why nobody else could see it.
That would be true but the materials they purchased the rights to had already been made available under the Creative Commons License BY-SA. Internet Brands has the rights to the content, but they can't revoke licenses already given. The license under which the material was already made available permits redistribution as long as the redistribution is done with an identical license to the original and provides attribution, so if Wikimedia follows those guidelines they are free to redistribute it, create derivative works, etc.
Consider this analogy in the print world. I write a novel and license a PublisherCo to distribute the novel in any form for all time in exchange for a big one-time payment up front. I'm then free to sell the copyright to Paper Brands for another one-time payment. Paper Brands now holds the copyright, but the licenses are still out there. They can't call up PublisherCo and call takesies-backsies any more than I could have before selling the rights.
The first time I personally used pinch to zoom was on a Microsoft Surface about a month before the iPhone released. At the very least it must have been on people's minds at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you know, not everyone gets all bent out of shape over seeing some ads.
Putting the burden of proof on the accused sounds pretty chilling. Where I live you can be tried for defamation, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and not only is truth a defense, but the accuser has to prove that you either actually knew you were lying or you had no idea one way or the other and just didn't care.
I also use a different email per site, when I can bothered anyway. I've actually never found a third party spamming me based on me giving such an address to anyone who actually claimed they would keep my address private. The worst I get is some random email a year later from a site I visited once asking me to come back.
If you know you have DNT set, and you see adds that suspiciously appear to be targeting you, then you will be mad about them. If you are mad about the ads you will feel antipathy towards the things being advertised, which is contrary to the purposes of advertising. Granted you have to be aware of the DNT setting and also have cause to suspect the tracking, but attempting to target without looking like you're targeting is probably a losing proposition.
He doesn't need to have broken a law in Cambodia. Sweden can't go into Cambodia and drag him out, but there's nothing preventing them from asking Cambodia to expel him. Now, hopefully Cambodia has some standards in place for determining whether they will comply with such a request, like asking for enough evidence to warrant a trial.
To sue/convict someone of defamation in Sweden do you have to prove the person isn't telling the truth?
What right would be trampled by allowing the video in all regions?
Freedom of speech isn't at issue. Nobody is claiming Harris said something bad and should be prosecuted for saying it.
Someone is claiming that Harris publicly said something that is evidence that other claims he is making are false. Harris has a right to privacy. The prosecution has a right to search for evidence. These are the kinds of conflicts the courts are supposed to be deciding. Generally if the prosecution can show specific enough cause for their belief that the evidence exists they will be given permission for the search which seems a pretty fair balance to me.
The article didn't go into details about why the prosecutor thinks the evidence is there in this case, so I don't have an opinion on this particular decision.
Fair enough, but that wasn't the argument I was making. And the post way up in this thread was where I was explaining what makes Shaw's hypothesis silly whereas the general hypothesis of exogenesis is not.
Specifically
a) an outer-space species could exist
b) it would get here
c) it could live and thrive here
Isn't all that unlikely given current data. What is unlikely is a, b, c, plus
d) it would appear so similar to other life on Earth that biologists with morphological and molecular studies think they can place roughly where it fits in the phylogeny of all other life on Earth
e) it does not decend from the same root species as every other known species on Earth
I'm going to try to ignore the condescending tone and assume you are merely confused and not deliberately building up a straw man to attack.
Your hypothesis is that an alien species incredibly hardy travelled through space to land on earth, managed to survive by competing with the existing lifeforms, but somehow slowly devolved into a microscopic eight legged bear.
Well, it's not my hypothesis, I merely lend it some credence that you don't. Two mistakes here. First, you are adding the assumption that life already existed on Earth when the alien species arrives. Second, assuming you are using "devolve" to mean something like "the opposite of evolve" then you misunderstand evolution in general. Evolution is a slow process of change in response to selective pressures. There's no end goal towards which organism evolve or away from which they "devolve." There is no unchange, only change.
Assumptions made: There is life in space, such life travels, it somehow found this particular tiny speck in the outer parts of the galaxy...
So far, so good.
... it wasn't hardy enough to trump other life on earth, it is similar enough to other life on earth that we can't tell the difference scientifically other than by its hardiness... I'll take a break here, feel free to go on by yourself as an exercise in critical thinking.
Oops, now you've gone off the rails again. You're assuming other life on Earth to trump. You're further assuming that 2 entirely separate lineages are not able to be determined as such, which I think you'll find in case d above if you care to look.
Opposing hypothesis is that somehow a species on earth evolved to be extraordinarily hardy.
Assumptions made: Evolution is real.
Now, let's apply Occam's razor here, and cut away the hypothesis that makes the most assumptions.
Okay let's do that, but without the bogus additional assumptions you've inserted. For one hypothesis you have:
-Life emerged from nonlife on Earth.
For the other you have:
-Life emerged from nonlife somewhere other than Earth.
-Some life from somewhere other than Earth survived to travel from where it emerged to Earth.
Which is more likely? I don't know. There's an awful lot more places that aren't Earth than are Earth, but successfully traveling seems like it would be hard too. Hard to say, which is what makes both hypotheses reasonable.
Sure. I sympathize with the sentiment to some extent, but even idiots deserve some privacy.
For those specific species yes, it would seem incredibly unlikely they caught a ride on an asteroid or somesuch. But for an ancestor a few hundred billion generations back? Who knows?
Just those three stipulations alone don't make it that far fetched. Exogenesis, the hypothesis that all life on Earth originally comes from somewhere else, is legitimate. What would make the claim far-fetched is adding:
d) it would appear so similar to other life on Earth that biologists with morphological and molecular studies think they can place roughly where it fits in the phylogeny of all other life on Earth
e) it does not decend from the same root species as every other known species on Earth
They mention FLAC about 7 minutes into that video for anyone looking for it. They don't say much other than that they aren't trying to replace codecs for lossless (FLAC) or very low bitrate (codec2).
The article claims they were photographing military installations. That could be anything from a snapshot that happens to include a military base to skirting the border of the thing and taking photos from every conceivable angle to get pictures of things clearly meant not to be public to actually wandering around the installation photographic everything in sight.
The first one shouldn't cause anyone any concern. The second one I could see as being something a government could legitimately seek to limit, but I'd hope that the penalty would be limited to confiscating the images. The third could reasonably be treated as criminal if the installation isn't meant to be public. I have a feeling that if details come out they're going to be uncomfortably between one and two.
XP is definitely market driven. Back then marketers thought starting with an X means cool to consumers. A couple of years before that everything had to be an eGadget. Apple appears to have appropriated that particular convention with with the next available vowel and so everything they make is an iDevice. I'm just glad we don't currently have to deal with .-=xXx PRODUCT xXx=-.
An airborne empire run by Emperor Cain and the Gazel ministry.
Those dumb assonances with their consonant alliteration.
You're ignoring the word "internal" in the sentence you quote as well as AC's next sentence, "Starting with Windows 7, and followed by Windows 8, they have a pretty straightforward public-facing version."
Felis silvestris catus
Wildcats and domestic cats interbreed all the time.
I once saw someone post a "link" to a screenshot on the forums that was something like "c:\documents and settings\username\desktop\World of Warcraft\screenshots\WowScrnShot_2353.tga." He didn't understand why nobody else could see it.
That would be true but the materials they purchased the rights to had already been made available under the Creative Commons License BY-SA. Internet Brands has the rights to the content, but they can't revoke licenses already given. The license under which the material was already made available permits redistribution as long as the redistribution is done with an identical license to the original and provides attribution, so if Wikimedia follows those guidelines they are free to redistribute it, create derivative works, etc.
Consider this analogy in the print world. I write a novel and license a PublisherCo to distribute the novel in any form for all time in exchange for a big one-time payment up front. I'm then free to sell the copyright to Paper Brands for another one-time payment. Paper Brands now holds the copyright, but the licenses are still out there. They can't call up PublisherCo and call takesies-backsies any more than I could have before selling the rights.
Yes, civilization has degraded to the point where people will ignore any and all data in an article and instead complain about its diction.
One presumes the phones in question have markedly different prices as well.
The first time I personally used pinch to zoom was on a Microsoft Surface about a month before the iPhone released. At the very least it must have been on people's minds at the time.