If your post is correct, why did the south secede based on just the expectation that the next president would admit new states into the Union as free states?
I have never understood how school districts think.
On one hand they're terrified of getting sued. They have huge lists of things, even common, ordinary actions, that are not allowed to prevent even the slightest chance of getting sued.
Then, on the other hand, they take actions that random people on the street realize will cause a lawsuit. Strip searching students for searching for asprin, cancelling proms when gay students wish to attend, secretly spying on students with webcams. What the hell are they thinking?
Except that this is an industrial solvent that was never designed or intended for human consumption. And yes... if you buy ethyl alcohol today from an industrial supply company? Still poisonous. Still marked as poison, yet people aren't drinking the stuff.
Exactly. I don't dry clean my own clothes. Theoretically, I could. The methods and chemicals aren't a secret. Instead I turn over control of my cleaning to a third party. Precisely how they do things I do not know... and if they use too much starch I have no way to debug the process.
But guess what, it's a lot better than wasting my time and money learning the process, buying the equipment and filling my basement with vats of noxious chemicals.
You present a series of questions as if they do not already have legal answers, but they do and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
That is nice, would they be just as supportive when the RIAA deciced to publish their names for illegal filesharing and they get expelled from their schools, told to leave their jobs, asked to resign from their clubs?
The RIAA, through their lawsuits, already does this. There has been no great public outcry regarding the practice (not the practice of suing itself, but of making press releases about the suits that have been filed, naming those involved.)
There is a reason we put the law into the hands of the legal system and have deciced that lynchings are wrong. The simple problem is that of where does it end.
Suspects are routinely named in both criminal and civil cases. In this case the specious argument is made that the Drew's identity has been concealed to protect their daughter. The identities of people accused of everything from murder to petty theft are released, without regard to how their family members might be affected. As a matter of fact, given the situation, one of the few reasons for not revealing the Drew's identity is absent. The Drews have admitted their actions to the police. What they did is uncontested, unlike in most criminal cases.
Say that this woman's daughter now commits suicide, is it then right for her family to publish the bloggers personal details? Publicly try them on the internet?
Again, there is a well established legal answer to your question. The Drews admit they did something horrible and the press (and the courts have found that bloggers are "the press") reported the uncontested fact that the Drews are the individuals that did the acts they described in the police report. Reporting the facts in a criminal inquiry (which this was) is not now, nor has it ever been, a criminal or civil offense. On the other hand, harassing journalists for reporting the news has already been established as civil offense, and, depending on how far the harassment goes, a criminal offense.
Should the dutch teens who stole items from an online game be named and shamed? Should the blogger who published this info have every part of his private life put on the web for all to see?
Again, the community has already decided this one. The accused get named. The journalists, who are not accused of any wrongdoing, do not. Simply because you do not like the answers to your questions doesn't mean the answers will change simply by asking them over and over again.
Innocent until proven guilty, presumption of innocence, trial by jury. My how quickly these ideals seem to be forgotten when blogging is involved. Note that when it is the other way around and some blogger gets exposed "slashdot" has shown an almost fanatical support for the sancitiy of privacy.
Yes, we have a presumption of innocence, however, the Drews admit they did exactly what they are accused of. Legally they are presumed innocent, but they've already publicly admitted the very reprehensible activities the press stated they did. This admission, a declaration against interests, is especially believable as the Drews were not compelled to make the statement, and it was against their interests to say anything. The bloggers merely attached the correct name to those reprehensible activities.
Since this is a suicide where the whole community failed, why aren't they all being named and shamed. Why not print a list of all the people involved, everyone that could have talked to the girl, made friends with her, and publish them under the headline, "where were you!".
Now you're just being idiotic. The whole community didn't befriend Megan and make up a fake persona to do so. They didn't gain her trust by deceit over a series of months before turning on her and driving her to kill herself. The Drews did, and your hyperbolic ranting won't change that.
It doesn't matter what you sue them for. The suit just needs to survive a motion to dismiss. Then you can get discovery and find out what the secret limit is... moments later it's not a secret.
Recently a 14 year old girl was charged with producing and possessing child pornography for taking and sending a topless picture of herself to her 14 year old boyfriend.
Now, no one thinks she should be doing this... but likewise I think the majority of people in this country can agree that not only wasn't she producing child pornography, but that she's also not a sex offender, as she would be automatically classified if she's convicted of the child pornography charge.
I've seen quite a bit of problems with failed power supplies in these computers as well. The common thread appears to be that the failed power supplies are 250 watt models by Bestec.
There's a simple solution to that problem. Before you begin college assign all the rights to your written works to someone else. You can't give ownership of a paper to the school if you don't own the rights to it.
How does the RIAA have standing to sue? They aren't the copywrite holder nor do they licence the copywritten works. They're merely an industry organization that makes no profit on music, although their members do.
This may be the hardest thing you have ever done in your life, showing some respect for the people around you, thinking about the consequences of your actions and behaving like a responsible adult.
People who do not show respect to you do not deserve your respect.
Some idiots here suggest you should escalate the problem. The problem with that is you don't know where it will end. If you escalate enough, it can end with destroyed lives, his or yours. Think about that.
In a choice between escalation and appeasement I'd go with escalation every time. There is no reason to allow the disrespectful behavior of this old guy with a grudge to be rewarded in any way.
Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant?
on
The Real Purpose of DRM
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Do the Slashdot editors really feel that introducing a woman by a description of her (in this context irrelevant) physical looks is appropriate?
Slashdot Mirror
If your post is correct, why did the south secede based on just the expectation that the next president would admit new states into the Union as free states?
I have never understood how school districts think.
On one hand they're terrified of getting sued. They have huge lists of things, even common, ordinary actions, that are not allowed to prevent even the slightest chance of getting sued.
Then, on the other hand, they take actions that random people on the street realize will cause a lawsuit. Strip searching students for searching for asprin, cancelling proms when gay students wish to attend, secretly spying on students with webcams. What the hell are they thinking?
Except that this is an industrial solvent that was never designed or intended for human consumption. And yes... if you buy ethyl alcohol today from an industrial supply company? Still poisonous. Still marked as poison, yet people aren't drinking the stuff.
It's not like the government kept this a secret. The bottles were even marked "poison". If stupid people chose to drink poison...
Wouldn't this be a pretty clear case of abuse of process?
Ah. So idiots buy the dead tiger parts. That explains it.
Ebay is your friend!
I might be missing something, but the fact that they were even having a meeting with Palm would have been covered by the NDA, wouldn't it?
If they started talking before even the first meeting took place it's not surprising Palm pulled the plug.
Right, but they didn't say anything about new lawsuits in September or later :D
They didn't commit perjury. The RIAA stopped filing new lawsuits in August of 2008 nearly a year ago!
Exactly. I don't dry clean my own clothes. Theoretically, I could. The methods and chemicals aren't a secret. Instead I turn over control of my cleaning to a third party. Precisely how they do things I do not know... and if they use too much starch I have no way to debug the process.
But guess what, it's a lot better than wasting my time and money learning the process, buying the equipment and filling my basement with vats of noxious chemicals.
I get it, I get it Rich... but come on, this kind of ranting is just getting old. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad.
How'd it work out? He won $300,000 in his suit.
The government did only request they comply. Some companies refused.
But even if the government ordered them to, so what?
If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty? It's against the law no matter who tells you to do it.
You present a series of questions as if they do not already have legal answers, but they do and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
That is nice, would they be just as supportive when the RIAA deciced to publish their names for illegal filesharing and they get expelled from their schools, told to leave their jobs, asked to resign from their clubs?
The RIAA, through their lawsuits, already does this. There has been no great public outcry regarding the practice (not the practice of suing itself, but of making press releases about the suits that have been filed, naming those involved.)
There is a reason we put the law into the hands of the legal system and have deciced that lynchings are wrong. The simple problem is that of where does it end.
Suspects are routinely named in both criminal and civil cases. In this case the specious argument is made that the Drew's identity has been concealed to protect their daughter. The identities of people accused of everything from murder to petty theft are released, without regard to how their family members might be affected. As a matter of fact, given the situation, one of the few reasons for not revealing the Drew's identity is absent. The Drews have admitted their actions to the police. What they did is uncontested, unlike in most criminal cases.
Say that this woman's daughter now commits suicide, is it then right for her family to publish the bloggers personal details? Publicly try them on the internet?
Again, there is a well established legal answer to your question. The Drews admit they did something horrible and the press (and the courts have found that bloggers are "the press") reported the uncontested fact that the Drews are the individuals that did the acts they described in the police report. Reporting the facts in a criminal inquiry (which this was) is not now, nor has it ever been, a criminal or civil offense. On the other hand, harassing journalists for reporting the news has already been established as civil offense, and, depending on how far the harassment goes, a criminal offense.
Should the dutch teens who stole items from an online game be named and shamed? Should the blogger who published this info have every part of his private life put on the web for all to see?
Again, the community has already decided this one. The accused get named. The journalists, who are not accused of any wrongdoing, do not. Simply because you do not like the answers to your questions doesn't mean the answers will change simply by asking them over and over again.
Innocent until proven guilty, presumption of innocence, trial by jury. My how quickly these ideals seem to be forgotten when blogging is involved. Note that when it is the other way around and some blogger gets exposed "slashdot" has shown an almost fanatical support for the sancitiy of privacy.
Yes, we have a presumption of innocence, however, the Drews admit they did exactly what they are accused of. Legally they are presumed innocent, but they've already publicly admitted the very reprehensible activities the press stated they did. This admission, a declaration against interests, is especially believable as the Drews were not compelled to make the statement, and it was against their interests to say anything. The bloggers merely attached the correct name to those reprehensible activities.
Since this is a suicide where the whole community failed, why aren't they all being named and shamed. Why not print a list of all the people involved, everyone that could have talked to the girl, made friends with her, and publish them under the headline, "where were you!".
Now you're just being idiotic. The whole community didn't befriend Megan and make up a fake persona to do so. They didn't gain her trust by deceit over a series of months before turning on her and driving her to kill herself. The Drews did, and your hyperbolic ranting won't change that.
Consider this, if this woman is guilty of the
It doesn't matter what you sue them for. The suit just needs to survive a motion to dismiss. Then you can get discovery and find out what the secret limit is... moments later it's not a secret.
It's only generated hate messages from those too stupid to read the article.
(I.E. 90% of Slashdot users.)
Backed by a current survey... no... but...
Recently a 14 year old girl was charged with producing and possessing child pornography for taking and sending a topless picture of herself to her 14 year old boyfriend.
Now, no one thinks she should be doing this... but likewise I think the majority of people in this country can agree that not only wasn't she producing child pornography, but that she's also not a sex offender, as she would be automatically classified if she's convicted of the child pornography charge.
My printer is already 3 dimensional.
I've seen quite a bit of problems with failed power supplies in these computers as well. The common thread appears to be that the failed power supplies are 250 watt models by Bestec.
There's a simple solution to that problem. Before you begin college assign all the rights to your written works to someone else. You can't give ownership of a paper to the school if you don't own the rights to it.
How does the RIAA have standing to sue? They aren't the copywrite holder nor do they licence the copywritten works. They're merely an industry organization that makes no profit on music, although their members do.
People who do not show respect to you do not deserve your respect.
In a choice between escalation and appeasement I'd go with escalation every time. There is no reason to allow the disrespectful behavior of this old guy with a grudge to be rewarded in any way.
But dude, she is hot!
Now I remember why I don't read the -1 posts.