a) He wasn't asked, he was told. b) It is legal until a superior court says it is not legal. c) Your supposition is argument by absurdity. If a judge were to state "Go kill this person" in open court, he would be arrested, probably immediately by his own bailiff. d) Your little story is why one can ask the judge to recuse himself, why one can file an appeal, why judicial oversight committees exist, and why one can apply to a higher court for relief.
The person can be jailed for contempt of court. The length of the jailing can be specified and/or limited by law and it can be at the discretion of the court, which can set a length of "until he complies with the order".
Case in point: A reporter was held in jail for two years for contempt of court for refusing to name a source.
The site may be, but the person controlling the site is not. The court ordered the person controlling the site to take it down and he refused. Now he is being charged with contempt of court.
Your statement seems wrong. Specifically, you state
"it is not actionable unless it is both true and in the public interest" That decodes to "If the offending statement is true and in the public interest, one can not file a case. One can not file a case if the statement is untrue and/or not in the public interest."
Did you mean "It is not actionable if it is both true and in the public interest"?
I can't retire my XP box because Linux does not have good support for the Hauppauge HVR-1600 that came in my PVR-250 box. If I want my MPC to work, I have to use XP.
But, but, but, choice is good! And, the more choices the better! It can't possibly hurt the community to have to choose from 15 different possibilities! That's just crazy talk!
From what? Cattle rustlers and horse theives, yes they still exist. Pot growers. Portable meth labs. metal thieves. copper and aluminum are fetching a pretty price these days.
You are a cowardly people who would rather let criminals steal than defend yourselves.
Wow, you really don't have a clue about how the internet and networking works, do you?
I love this part:
the local use of wireless networks, a great deal of the traffic will be completely off the wired network, since it will be distributed within dense urban hubs. Please tell us how this is going to work for a network model that is almost completely wired. Yes, do explain where those wireless networks will be and who will be providing those "dense urban hubs" of wireless connectivity.
Your dubious suggestion only works in a world where the "last mile" is almost completely wireless and all wireless hubs can act as said distribution points.
In other words, it requires an entirely new network topology and architecture.
The only problem with your explanation is that it is wrong. It does not reflect TCP/IP. It more accurately describes line multiplexing.
If one has 200 users using TCP/IP, each of those users will have a different amount of bandwidth depending on the number of connections they have open.
Widening backbones and massive rollouts are not cost effective in the short run or the long run. Just ask Verizon about FiOS, assuming they will actually tell the truth.
Smaller rollouts and increasing the backbone in small increments is cost effective and is what is happening. The problem is the usage is increasing faster than the net work can be grown in a cost effective manner.
I hereby revoke the shanen's geek credentials for failing to understand that single source versus multiple sources doesn't matter if the problem is the total volume.
The problem is not that on server or site is overloading. The problem is that the provider's network, including things like routers and gateways, have a finite bandwidth and these applications, regardless of source, are using up most of it.
Ever hear the phrase "You can't put 10lbs of shit in a 5lbs bag"? Ever wonder why they put in new water mains and increase the size of water mains when the build more housing developments? Or why the widen roads with more housing? It is because the total volume has increased.
Not the first given, the first premise. In order for the first given to be true, God must exist. As there is no evidence God exists, the premise that is the basis of the first given is questionable at best, false at worst. The first given is based on a false premise.
Conclusion: I have disproved your statement that "critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god" by counterexample. QED. Your conclusion is nonsense. If one starts with a fallacy, then one arrives at a false conclusion. Even with your logical thinking and critical thinking skills, if you start with a false premise, such as "the bible contains true information", then you can end up with the false conclusion that there is some reason to believe in God.
Before one can use logical and critical thinking to justify belief in God, one must provide evidence of a God. There is no evidence that there is a God, therefore there is no possible way logical and critical thinking lead to "Believe in God." To come to that conclusion, one must stipulate that there is, in fact, a God to believe in, which is a fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
The court has the right to tell him to do that and he is required to follow the court's order.
The court has the right to tell him to do that.
a) He wasn't asked, he was told.
b) It is legal until a superior court says it is not legal.
c) Your supposition is argument by absurdity. If a judge were to state "Go kill this person" in open court, he would be arrested, probably immediately by his own bailiff.
d) Your little story is why one can ask the judge to recuse himself, why one can file an appeal, why judicial oversight committees exist, and why one can apply to a higher court for relief.
The person can be jailed for contempt of court. The length of the jailing can be specified and/or limited by law and it can be at the discretion of the court, which can set a length of "until he complies with the order".
Case in point: A reporter was held in jail for two years for contempt of court for refusing to name a source.
The site may be, but the person controlling the site is not. The court ordered the person controlling the site to take it down and he refused. Now he is being charged with contempt of court.
Specifically, you state "it is not actionable unless it is both true and in the public interest" That decodes to "If the offending statement is true and in the public interest, one can not file a case. One can not file a case if the statement is untrue and/or not in the public interest."
Did you mean "It is not actionable if it is both true and in the public interest"?
I can't retire my XP box because Linux does not have good support for the Hauppauge HVR-1600 that came in my PVR-250 box. If I want my MPC to work, I have to use XP.
The fanboy response:
But, but, but, choice is good! And, the more choices the better! It can't possibly hurt the community to have to choose from 15 different possibilities! That's just crazy talk!
It could have been the large telecom company I left several months ago.
It could also be the large telecom company I current work for.
Commercial sources don't claim to use the so-called wisdom of crowds.
Commercial sources don't say anyone can edit the entries.
From what?
Cattle rustlers and horse theives, yes they still exist.
Pot growers.
Portable meth labs.
metal thieves. copper and aluminum are fetching a pretty price these days.
You are a cowardly people who would rather let criminals steal than defend yourselves.
Analog? That is so 1980s
Where in any of the referenced articles does it suggest that tin whiskers are fiction?
Yeah, that stops it. Unless, of course, one of the administrators takes over an article and enforces his point of view, which I have seen.
I had an administrator remove factual, documented information from an article because it didn't jive with the rest of the obviously biased article.
On Wikipedia, the truth is what the Admins says is the truth.
I love this part: the local use of wireless networks, a great deal of the traffic will be completely off the wired network, since it will be distributed within dense urban hubs. Please tell us how this is going to work for a network model that is almost completely wired. Yes, do explain where those wireless networks will be and who will be providing those "dense urban hubs" of wireless connectivity.
Your dubious suggestion only works in a world where the "last mile" is almost completely wireless and all wireless hubs can act as said distribution points.
In other words, it requires an entirely new network topology and architecture.
It could have been a pot farm or drug lab, complete with home made land mines and trigger happy tenders.
a) Darcy is a bigot.
b) I wonder how these geohahsers would like it if a group of people showed up in their back yard, or house, unnivited.
The only problem with your explanation is that it is wrong. It does not reflect TCP/IP. It more accurately describes line multiplexing.
If one has 200 users using TCP/IP, each of those users will have a different amount of bandwidth depending on the number of connections they have open.
The AC that replied to you give a good example.
Actually, that is not quite right.
Widening backbones and massive rollouts are not cost effective in the short run or the long run. Just ask Verizon about FiOS, assuming they will actually tell the truth.
Smaller rollouts and increasing the backbone in small increments is cost effective and is what is happening. The problem is the usage is increasing faster than the net work can be grown in a cost effective manner.
OK, your geek credentials are revoked too. Go read up on routers and gateways and promiscuous packet sniffing.
I hereby revoke the shanen's geek credentials for failing to understand that single source versus multiple sources doesn't matter if the problem is the total volume.
The problem is not that on server or site is overloading. The problem is that the provider's network, including things like routers and gateways, have a finite bandwidth and these applications, regardless of source, are using up most of it.
Ever hear the phrase "You can't put 10lbs of shit in a 5lbs bag"? Ever wonder why they put in new water mains and increase the size of water mains when the build more housing developments? Or why the widen roads with more housing? It is because the total volume has increased.
Not the first given, the first premise. In order for the first given to be true, God must exist. As there is no evidence God exists, the premise that is the basis of the first given is questionable at best, false at worst. The first given is based on a false premise.
That is where it fails.
Actually, as a pro-God post/argument, it fails because it requires one to accept as premise that there is some reason to believe there is a god.
Before one can use logical and critical thinking to justify belief in God, one must provide evidence of a God. There is no evidence that there is a God, therefore there is no possible way logical and critical thinking lead to "Believe in God." To come to that conclusion, one must stipulate that there is, in fact, a God to believe in, which is a fallacy.
When did /. turn into coward troll central? Is it spill over from Digg or something?