That's irrelevant. We have a justice system to deal with these cases. If the kid committed slander or libel, prosecute him through the criminal justice system, or settle it in the civil justice system. School officials ought to have no authority over what happens outside of school grounds or school activities.
Do you honestly think that it should be government policy that school administrators are not allowed to punish students for minor civil/criminal infractions (like fighting or libelous insults) with minor punishments like suspension in favor of turning the full weight of the law on them (including thousands or dollars in fines or months of jailtime, as well as untold decades of future harm to job prospects)?
That's just not good policy. The kid needs to officially reprimanded for her actions -- you don't want kids thinking that they can get away with this kind of stuff "in the real world," and you don't want to ruin their entire futures over it (nor spend local government resources fighting these sorts of court battles). The full force of the law is heavy and should not be turned on minors when they are still learning about how to become a productive member of society.
Conservativism rejects mandatory aid for those the government may choose to define as "the poor." Voluntary aid is preached and expected amongst all members of the conservative circles.
And doesn't happen. At least not enough to cover the bases and not towards people who may need it but may not be likable to you. Voluntary welfare works about as well as voluntary adherence to the law (a.k.a. deregulation). People find it all too easy to be callous to others without some societal pressure not to be a jerk.
Besides, our private healthcare system just isn't working for people like me who aren't upper middle class or employed by a large company right now. I'm not "poor," by any means, but I think there are some areas where government could be doing a better job than the private sector is. (Just look at the wonderful financial crisis we're all in thanks to deregulation of unscrupulous lenders and foolhardy buyers.)
and BOTH major political parties currently focus their power to remove criminality from business executives.
I wouldn't really disagree too much. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one party proudly beats its chest about voting for pro-business & anti-consumer legislation, and the other party feels guilty about it (and is quicker to react when the public gets upset).
The party bases and the underlying philosophies differ, though, on the issues. One reason that I'd love to see better public election financing is that it would finally do away with the necessity to coddle special interests groups and open up a real difference between the two parties. I'd love to see what the parties would do if their morals weren't shackled by the need for big donations.
Of course you convince yourselves that notions like good and evil are outdated because few will admit to serving evil so you solve that problem by handwaving the whole question away.
And yet your side rejects aid for the poor, supports wars, and is absolutely intent on removing any sort of accountability from business executives of the harm their actions cause to our finances and our environment.
You honestly think conservatives are on the side of good when you refuse to punish the evil that powerful men do in favor of kicking the weak while they're down?
The Constitution is (supposedly) an agreement between the people and the government, which includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. None of these aspects of the government have any power or authority beyond what the people give them, as mediated by the Constitution.
Agreed. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is that we've done exactly that in the current system.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to strike down a act of the legislature or the executive branch as un-Constitutional, since the government can always refuse to use a power it may or may not have been granted. However, to allow the Supreme Court to become the final arbiter of what is Constitutional is the height of irresponsibility.
Now, that's crazy talk. You can't rule what is unconstitutional without also opening up the possibility of ruling the other way.
It is the people themselves who are in a position to judge the Constitutionality of the government's actions, as they are the sole source of the government's claim to authority. It is meaningless for the government to endorse its own behavior.
The people have chosen to delegate that power to objective factfinders instead of letting majority whim determine what our laws actually mean. It's a counter-majoritarian system, but one that has provided stability and consistency of law as a result. Furthermore, it is one with a democratic check for if it gets out of line -- the amendment process.
People around here react rather negatively to the idea that a voluntary but fixed contract can be altered at will by a large organization in a better bargaining position. The Constitution is involuntary, and is presented by an even larger organization, with its own enforcement arm, which arrogates to itself the right to interpret the meaning of the document in its own courts. Why can't people see that this is a far worse situation?
You claim the Constitution is "involuntary?" Did you miss the whole adoption by popular will in 1789, or do you just think that democratic decisions shouldn't be binding on the people who come later? The alternative to the latter is chaos -- a nation with no social or legal precedents that turns on the will of the demagogue who can garner 51% of the vote. That's not a country I want to live in, because that's not a country that will guarantee my liberties.
I just don't get where you're coming from. You say that the government exists by the authority granted by the will of the people, yet you don't recognize that the *current* government is *also* granted authority by the will of the people, and you don't like it when the government does things that the people want (like provide healthcare and education) because that would be "unconstitutional," but you don't like when the government rules "constitutional" things that the majority wanted to do (or they wouldn't have passed in Congress).
Do you or do you not believe in the validity of a counter-majoritarian system of representative democracy?
If you do, then it should be okay for that government to rule that it can do things that the people don't all immediately like (like ruling on its own behavior).
If you don't, then there shouldn't be any problem with the majority passing healthcare legislation because "unconstitutional" doesn't matter anyway -- that's entirely a counter-majoritarian check.
How do any of those items involve the act of interstate commerce, trade between people in different states? How does the 14th Amendment relate to any of this? I've already pointed out elsewhere that affirmative action is not "equal protection under the laws"; the rest don't even come close.
Look, I'm not going to teach you a class on Con Law. Affirmative action is an area of law in flux, and frankly it may be ruled unconstitutional soon under the current court (if Parents v. Seattle is an
The following are not within the purview of the federal government:
The interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment pretty much cover each and every one of those.
I know that a lot of conservative/libertartian thinkers like to believe that Supreme Court caselaw has absolutely no say on what is and isn't constitutional, but come on. You're just saying, "Constitutional is what I say it is," and ignoring legal authority on the matter.
There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.
This is absolutely, unequivocally true. However, the New Testament has a lot more to say on our responsibilities to our neighbors, and it's often dismaying how often conservatives gloss over the implications of that towards the idea of rugged individualism and tough love.
Quite possibly. I don't know the law on this and whether getting on a soapbox about your cases is prohibited in his jurisdiction. If it turns out that their claims have even the slightest sliver of merit to them, it would be unwise to post here, and it would be equally unwise to do so without thoroughly checking first, and even then it might be unwise if you think it would look bad to the judge (if they have discretion on the issue).
All in all, I wouldn't post here if I was him. It's just generally bad policy to comment in public on cases against you if there's a question over whether your conduct carried liability.
No. Accusations in a court of law are privileged communication and have been traditionally recognized as exempt.
Under the common law, an act of libel used to have strict liability on the falsity of one's claims*, with intent only required for the act of publication, so there would have been very serious legal implications if one could've been sued for libel for statements made in court back in the day. If that were possible, then any plaintiff (and many defendants making counterclaims) who lost in court would be guilty of libel -- they would've deliberately published a statement that happened to be determined to be false by a court of law, and their statements would tend to be the sort of thing to harm one's reputation if true.
Lawyers who knowingly press false claims though can be caught be civil procedure sanctions for not acting in "good faith" and related torts for barratry and the like (... like the one the RIAA is suing Mr. Beckerman with). The standard for winning on those can be pretty high, though. Courts disfavor slapping down people for suing over things that there's even the slightest chance they could legitimately win on unless their behavior is egregious.
Not knowing anything more about the body of law he's being sued under, I won't comment further on the possible merits (or lack thereof) of the RIAA's case. However, there's no libel case against them for this. (And even if the communication wasn't privileged, under NY Times v. Sullivan, Mr. Beckerman would have a hard time prevailing as a public figure given the "actual malice" standard for defamation of public figures established there.)
(IANAL. Do not rely on this information in figuring out what you can get away with.)
Considering the level of industry cooperation and coordination involved, I don't unless the game or computer industry as a whole collapses into a monopoly, either natural or government mandated.
The barriers to doing this a social, economic, and political -- not technical. We already have Xbox Live doing much of that now. I doubt those barriers to One Gaming Profile To Rule Them All are going to go away no matter the march of progress.
In addition to what the previous poster said, I'd like to point out that it's not like this is the first time someone's done manned space flights. China's just doing what other countries tried out first, having learned from our failures & successes instead of stepping forth into the unknown themselves.
I'd be rather disappointed in a nation with their economic might and engineering experience if they couldn't get it right in this timeframe.
China is spending millions on space suits and America is spending millions on bailing out big corporations. Strange how that works, huh?
Now, now. What makes you think the modern US government chose only one of those two options?
We're currently spending $183 million on design work for the next generation of space suits for the Constellation program, with an option for future contracts for $260-300 million. That covers 4 suits for moon walkers and 6 suits for people headed to the ISS. (ref)
(Oh, and the Chinese are considering bailing out Lehman brothers, so they're getting in on that action too, I guess.)
If you think that removing all funding for research that doesn't turn a profit will help advance the sciences, then it's not surprising that intellectual curiosity isn't a strong suit.
McCain accused Obama of teaching about sex. Not about sex-education , as you, amazingly, continue to repeat! Sorry, kid, you aren't qualified to talk on an adults' forum.
Adults don't quibble semantics to weasel out of addressing a valid point when it's obvious what he meant. Only high school debate club kids who are far too impressed with the form of their arguments to care about the substance of the other side's do that kind of childish, "but that's not what you said" flouncing about.
Do you honestly feel that that's an intellectually honest way to address the other poster's point, or do you just have such open disrespect for rational discourse that you don't care?
Now, feeling charitable, I'll explain, that one simply can not teach about "sexual predators" without also mentioning "sex" in some way (and answering related questions from curious toddlers).
McCain's ad was an out and out lie. You can teach little kids about "bad touches" without explaining to them why those touches feel bad or why adults would be interested in touching them in bad places.
I mean, did no one teach you as a kid (a) not to take candy from strangers, (b) not to get in a car with a stranger, or (c) to tell an adult if someone touched you in a place that made you feel bad? Did anyone explain to you why they were telling you those things -- that every one of those was about keeping kids away from sexual predators and their (a) temptations, (b) abductions, and (c) molestation?
Geez, it's like some people want to believe the other side is so full of rotten and evil people that they throw all common sense and past experiences out the window to keep themselves ideologically "pure."
If you've had material taken off your YouTube pages, and people who try to access it see that you were allegedly "violating YouTube's Terms of Service", or you've had your YouTube account canceled because the Co$ falsely claimed you were infringing, especially if you had your real name on the YouTube account, then your reputation has suffered (certainly your reputation with YouTube; possibly also with your adoring fanbase if you've got one.)
If you're a vocal critic of Scientology, then how is your reputation hurt for being accused of violating the copyright over materials that the vast majority of Scientology critics don't think should be copyrighted -- especially when the foundation for much of the internet drama over the CoS is because of copyright conflicts?
(Consider also that Google upon finding out that many of the claims were bogus went ahead and restored the videos and thus the "good name" of any of the accused.)
I mean, I guess you can try, but again, I think you'll win nominal damages at best.
And maybe you'll only win $1 damages, or $1 + legal costs, but it's going to cost Co$ lawyer time to defend themselves, and losing repeatedly will make it harder for Co$ to get away with false accusations.
You're not going to win legal costs. Not under the American Rule, unless the CoS lawyers do something really in bad faith, like ignore discovery requests or knowingly (and provably) lie to the court in their filings.
So, you'll end up spending a lot of money in attorney's fees -- I expect CoS lawyers will tie you up in discovery hell for a couple of years. Chances are that the CoS has a LOT more money than the total number of people willing to sue for libel. You'll also identify yourself to an organization known for harassment of its enemies, as will your attorney. I imagine that will make it hard to find an attorney (once each prospect does some background research), but on the bright side you'll probably end up with a bit of a crusader if you do find one willing to take them on.
I think someone earlier in this article's comments noted that "principle" is the most expensive word in the law. Ponder this very seriously before tilting at windmills.
These "body tarpnars" cause irrationality because of the huge 3d movie theatre where I assume the tarpnars were forced to watch the Spice Girls movie for millions of years until they thought it was a good movie.
Sadly, this would explain so much of what's wrong modern life...
What's your theory of damages? How has your reputation been materially harmed by the libel?
Just because someone's done something you consider wrong doesn't mean that a court will entertain the notion of punishing them for it. You'd be lucky to win $1 nominal damages.
Why don't they just give the filesystem's creator a computer and have him continue to update it from inside the cell? He'll have plenty of time to get it done, still won't be out on the streets, and if he enjoys it then it won't be cruel and unusual punishment.
Prison isn't about getting to do the things you love with free room and board.
Oh, and I forgot to ask - why has Taco linked to a "review" by someone who openly admits to not having even downloaded the product!?
What's wrong with that?
Nothing's more intellectually consistent on Slashdot than an editor posting a link to an article they didn't read for viewers of the site who have no intention of reading it about a product that the reviewer didn't even look at.
The fact that 2 of 3 links are dead and the other hangs up my browswer only puts the cherry on top!
Yeah, because devouring bugmen swarms, socially advanced aliens with elongated features & psychic weaponry, and space marines / infantry were also sooooo original when Games Workshop did it.
So, the way to defeat internet eavesdropping is to have a centralized service that double-checks all the websites you go to?
Does anyone else think this is mutually incompatible with any concept of anonymity online? In other words, this reduces the risk of one form of eavesdropping by having you accept an entirely different form of eavesdropping.
Don't forget too, that the earth is a giant magnet with a very powerful field.
Eh. 0.3-0.6 G isn't that impressive for a fixed magnet. A kitchen magnet can have a field several hundred times that from a few centimeters away. The Earth's field *is* very powerful in that it has that kind of strength over the *whole planet* at distances from the core to the surface, but as an ambient source of magnetic influence on our biology, it's pretty weak compared to that of the various electrical devices we've only been exposing ourselves to for the past 120+ years.
(And better accounted for, I'd imagine, by evolution.)
Plus, as you tacitly acknowledge, AC vs. DC does make a difference in the effects of the field on objects within it.
You already have pulsating magnetic fields in your house. In the US, AC current is 60 hz, so you have a constant 60 hz magnetic field. That hum you hear is the oscillating magnetic field moving steel back and forth.
Electrical wiring in houses shouldn't produce very strong fields -- on the order of mG a few inches away. That hum you hear is most likely from transformers in devices you have plugged into the wall than from induction on the beams in your house unless you have a very strange house.
The magnetic field won't hurt you. My dad was an electrical lineman for forty years, often working on the 30,000 volt towers. He couldn't wear a mechanical wristwatch because it would become magnetized. He just turned 77 and he's healthier than a lot of guys my age.
If magnetic fields caused cancer, linemen would die of lukemia right and left.
Wrong type of cancer.
Epidemiological studies show that people working with magnetic fields in fact *do* have a higher rate of brain cancers than the average population. (See here , here, and here.)
That last study notes that leukemia rates aren't affected by EM exposure, and this study shows no increase in breast cancers in rats due to magnetic field exposure.
We actually have a model and theory for how AC fields promote brain cancers. You can read this full paper on an experiment to test a theory that iron-mediated free radical creation is at fault. Here's an abstract for a study testing for oxidative effects of EMF in snails.
(Also, the plural of anecdote is not evidence -- much less, "I knew a guy who did [X risky thing] and is doing just awesome, so stop worrying about it, you pansies!")
Slashdot Mirror
That's irrelevant. We have a justice system to deal with these cases. If the kid committed slander or libel, prosecute him through the criminal justice system, or settle it in the civil justice system. School officials ought to have no authority over what happens outside of school grounds or school activities.
Do you honestly think that it should be government policy that school administrators are not allowed to punish students for minor civil/criminal infractions (like fighting or libelous insults) with minor punishments like suspension in favor of turning the full weight of the law on them (including thousands or dollars in fines or months of jailtime, as well as untold decades of future harm to job prospects)?
That's just not good policy. The kid needs to officially reprimanded for her actions -- you don't want kids thinking that they can get away with this kind of stuff "in the real world," and you don't want to ruin their entire futures over it (nor spend local government resources fighting these sorts of court battles). The full force of the law is heavy and should not be turned on minors when they are still learning about how to become a productive member of society.
Conservativism rejects mandatory aid for those the government may choose to define as "the poor." Voluntary aid is preached and expected amongst all members of the conservative circles.
And doesn't happen. At least not enough to cover the bases and not towards people who may need it but may not be likable to you. Voluntary welfare works about as well as voluntary adherence to the law (a.k.a. deregulation). People find it all too easy to be callous to others without some societal pressure not to be a jerk.
Besides, our private healthcare system just isn't working for people like me who aren't upper middle class or employed by a large company right now. I'm not "poor," by any means, but I think there are some areas where government could be doing a better job than the private sector is. (Just look at the wonderful financial crisis we're all in thanks to deregulation of unscrupulous lenders and foolhardy buyers.)
and BOTH major political parties currently focus their power to remove criminality from business executives.
I wouldn't really disagree too much. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one party proudly beats its chest about voting for pro-business & anti-consumer legislation, and the other party feels guilty about it (and is quicker to react when the public gets upset).
The party bases and the underlying philosophies differ, though, on the issues. One reason that I'd love to see better public election financing is that it would finally do away with the necessity to coddle special interests groups and open up a real difference between the two parties. I'd love to see what the parties would do if their morals weren't shackled by the need for big donations.
Of course you convince yourselves that notions like good and evil are outdated because few will admit to serving evil so you solve that problem by handwaving the whole question away.
And yet your side rejects aid for the poor, supports wars, and is absolutely intent on removing any sort of accountability from business executives of the harm their actions cause to our finances and our environment.
You honestly think conservatives are on the side of good when you refuse to punish the evil that powerful men do in favor of kicking the weak while they're down?
The Constitution is (supposedly) an agreement between the people and the government, which includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. None of these aspects of the government have any power or authority beyond what the people give them, as mediated by the Constitution.
Agreed. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is that we've done exactly that in the current system.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to strike down a act of the legislature or the executive branch as un-Constitutional, since the government can always refuse to use a power it may or may not have been granted. However, to allow the Supreme Court to become the final arbiter of what is Constitutional is the height of irresponsibility.
Now, that's crazy talk. You can't rule what is unconstitutional without also opening up the possibility of ruling the other way.
It is the people themselves who are in a position to judge the Constitutionality of the government's actions, as they are the sole source of the government's claim to authority. It is meaningless for the government to endorse its own behavior.
The people have chosen to delegate that power to objective factfinders instead of letting majority whim determine what our laws actually mean. It's a counter-majoritarian system, but one that has provided stability and consistency of law as a result. Furthermore, it is one with a democratic check for if it gets out of line -- the amendment process.
People around here react rather negatively to the idea that a voluntary but fixed contract can be altered at will by a large organization in a better bargaining position. The Constitution is involuntary, and is presented by an even larger organization, with its own enforcement arm, which arrogates to itself the right to interpret the meaning of the document in its own courts. Why can't people see that this is a far worse situation?
You claim the Constitution is "involuntary?" Did you miss the whole adoption by popular will in 1789, or do you just think that democratic decisions shouldn't be binding on the people who come later? The alternative to the latter is chaos -- a nation with no social or legal precedents that turns on the will of the demagogue who can garner 51% of the vote. That's not a country I want to live in, because that's not a country that will guarantee my liberties.
I just don't get where you're coming from. You say that the government exists by the authority granted by the will of the people, yet you don't recognize that the *current* government is *also* granted authority by the will of the people, and you don't like it when the government does things that the people want (like provide healthcare and education) because that would be "unconstitutional," but you don't like when the government rules "constitutional" things that the majority wanted to do (or they wouldn't have passed in Congress).
Do you or do you not believe in the validity of a counter-majoritarian system of representative democracy?
If you do, then it should be okay for that government to rule that it can do things that the people don't all immediately like (like ruling on its own behavior).
If you don't, then there shouldn't be any problem with the majority passing healthcare legislation because "unconstitutional" doesn't matter anyway -- that's entirely a counter-majoritarian check.
How do any of those items involve the act of interstate commerce, trade between people in different states? How does the 14th Amendment relate to any of this? I've already pointed out elsewhere that affirmative action is not "equal protection under the laws"; the rest don't even come close.
Look, I'm not going to teach you a class on Con Law. Affirmative action is an area of law in flux, and frankly it may be ruled unconstitutional soon under the current court (if Parents v. Seattle is an
Yes. And?
I mean it stinks, but that doesn't mean that NYCL should be imprudent as "a matter of principle" or whatever.
The following are not within the purview of the federal government:
The interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment pretty much cover each and every one of those.
I know that a lot of conservative/libertartian thinkers like to believe that Supreme Court caselaw has absolutely no say on what is and isn't constitutional, but come on. You're just saying, "Constitutional is what I say it is," and ignoring legal authority on the matter.
There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.
This is absolutely, unequivocally true. However, the New Testament has a lot more to say on our responsibilities to our neighbors, and it's often dismaying how often conservatives gloss over the implications of that towards the idea of rugged individualism and tough love.
Quite possibly. I don't know the law on this and whether getting on a soapbox about your cases is prohibited in his jurisdiction. If it turns out that their claims have even the slightest sliver of merit to them, it would be unwise to post here, and it would be equally unwise to do so without thoroughly checking first, and even then it might be unwise if you think it would look bad to the judge (if they have discretion on the issue).
All in all, I wouldn't post here if I was him. It's just generally bad policy to comment in public on cases against you if there's a question over whether your conduct carried liability.
Hey, how about a legitimate link to the wikipedia article on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?
(No idea how that happened.)
No. Accusations in a court of law are privileged communication and have been traditionally recognized as exempt.
Under the common law, an act of libel used to have strict liability on the falsity of one's claims*, with intent only required for the act of publication, so there would have been very serious legal implications if one could've been sued for libel for statements made in court back in the day. If that were possible, then any plaintiff (and many defendants making counterclaims) who lost in court would be guilty of libel -- they would've deliberately published a statement that happened to be determined to be false by a court of law, and their statements would tend to be the sort of thing to harm one's reputation if true.
(* This is no longer true. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. .)
Lawyers who knowingly press false claims though can be caught be civil procedure sanctions for not acting in "good faith" and related torts for barratry and the like (... like the one the RIAA is suing Mr. Beckerman with). The standard for winning on those can be pretty high, though. Courts disfavor slapping down people for suing over things that there's even the slightest chance they could legitimately win on unless their behavior is egregious.
Not knowing anything more about the body of law he's being sued under, I won't comment further on the possible merits (or lack thereof) of the RIAA's case. However, there's no libel case against them for this. (And even if the communication wasn't privileged, under NY Times v. Sullivan, Mr. Beckerman would have a hard time prevailing as a public figure given the "actual malice" standard for defamation of public figures established there.)
(IANAL. Do not rely on this information in figuring out what you can get away with.)
Considering the level of industry cooperation and coordination involved, I don't unless the game or computer industry as a whole collapses into a monopoly, either natural or government mandated.
The barriers to doing this a social, economic, and political -- not technical. We already have Xbox Live doing much of that now. I doubt those barriers to One Gaming Profile To Rule Them All are going to go away no matter the march of progress.
In addition to what the previous poster said, I'd like to point out that it's not like this is the first time someone's done manned space flights. China's just doing what other countries tried out first, having learned from our failures & successes instead of stepping forth into the unknown themselves.
I'd be rather disappointed in a nation with their economic might and engineering experience if they couldn't get it right in this timeframe.
China is spending millions on space suits and America is spending millions on bailing out big corporations. Strange how that works, huh?
Now, now. What makes you think the modern US government chose only one of those two options?
We're currently spending $183 million on design work for the next generation of space suits for the Constellation program, with an option for future contracts for $260-300 million. That covers 4 suits for moon walkers and 6 suits for people headed to the ISS. (ref)
(Oh, and the Chinese are considering bailing out Lehman brothers, so they're getting in on that action too, I guess.)
If you think that removing all funding for research that doesn't turn a profit will help advance the sciences, then it's not surprising that intellectual curiosity isn't a strong suit.
McCain accused Obama of teaching about sex. Not about sex-education , as you, amazingly, continue to repeat! Sorry, kid, you aren't qualified to talk on an adults' forum.
Adults don't quibble semantics to weasel out of addressing a valid point when it's obvious what he meant. Only high school debate club kids who are far too impressed with the form of their arguments to care about the substance of the other side's do that kind of childish, "but that's not what you said" flouncing about.
Do you honestly feel that that's an intellectually honest way to address the other poster's point, or do you just have such open disrespect for rational discourse that you don't care?
Now, feeling charitable, I'll explain, that one simply can not teach about "sexual predators" without also mentioning "sex" in some way (and answering related questions from curious toddlers).
McCain's ad was an out and out lie. You can teach little kids about "bad touches" without explaining to them why those touches feel bad or why adults would be interested in touching them in bad places.
I mean, did no one teach you as a kid (a) not to take candy from strangers, (b) not to get in a car with a stranger, or (c) to tell an adult if someone touched you in a place that made you feel bad? Did anyone explain to you why they were telling you those things -- that every one of those was about keeping kids away from sexual predators and their (a) temptations, (b) abductions, and (c) molestation?
Geez, it's like some people want to believe the other side is so full of rotten and evil people that they throw all common sense and past experiences out the window to keep themselves ideologically "pure."
So that's how Ford is moving SUVs off the lot these days.
If you've had material taken off your YouTube pages, and people who try to access it see that you were allegedly "violating YouTube's Terms of Service", or you've had your YouTube account canceled because the Co$ falsely claimed you were infringing, especially if you had your real name on the YouTube account, then your reputation has suffered (certainly your reputation with YouTube; possibly also with your adoring fanbase if you've got one.)
If you're a vocal critic of Scientology, then how is your reputation hurt for being accused of violating the copyright over materials that the vast majority of Scientology critics don't think should be copyrighted -- especially when the foundation for much of the internet drama over the CoS is because of copyright conflicts?
(Consider also that Google upon finding out that many of the claims were bogus went ahead and restored the videos and thus the "good name" of any of the accused.)
I mean, I guess you can try, but again, I think you'll win nominal damages at best.
And maybe you'll only win $1 damages, or $1 + legal costs, but it's going to cost Co$ lawyer time to defend themselves, and losing repeatedly will make it harder for Co$ to get away with false accusations.
You're not going to win legal costs. Not under the American Rule, unless the CoS lawyers do something really in bad faith, like ignore discovery requests or knowingly (and provably) lie to the court in their filings.
So, you'll end up spending a lot of money in attorney's fees -- I expect CoS lawyers will tie you up in discovery hell for a couple of years. Chances are that the CoS has a LOT more money than the total number of people willing to sue for libel. You'll also identify yourself to an organization known for harassment of its enemies, as will your attorney. I imagine that will make it hard to find an attorney (once each prospect does some background research), but on the bright side you'll probably end up with a bit of a crusader if you do find one willing to take them on.
I think someone earlier in this article's comments noted that "principle" is the most expensive word in the law. Ponder this very seriously before tilting at windmills.
These "body tarpnars" cause irrationality because of the huge 3d movie theatre where I assume the tarpnars were forced to watch the Spice Girls movie for millions of years until they thought it was a good movie.
Sadly, this would explain so much of what's wrong modern life...
What's your theory of damages? How has your reputation been materially harmed by the libel?
Just because someone's done something you consider wrong doesn't mean that a court will entertain the notion of punishing them for it. You'd be lucky to win $1 nominal damages.
Why don't they just give the filesystem's creator a computer and have him continue to update it from inside the cell? He'll have plenty of time to get it done, still won't be out on the streets, and if he enjoys it then it won't be cruel and unusual punishment.
Prison isn't about getting to do the things you love with free room and board.
Oh, and I forgot to ask - why has Taco linked to a "review" by someone who openly admits to not having even downloaded the product!?
What's wrong with that?
Nothing's more intellectually consistent on Slashdot than an editor posting a link to an article they didn't read for viewers of the site who have no intention of reading it about a product that the reviewer didn't even look at.
The fact that 2 of 3 links are dead and the other hangs up my browswer only puts the cherry on top!
(the CIA had yet to invent AIDS)
[...]
You young fellows don't know what you're missing. Man, I really miss the stone age.
No offense, but based on the above comment, I don't really think you ever really left.
May have checked out, though.
Yeah, because devouring bugmen swarms, socially advanced aliens with elongated features & psychic weaponry, and space marines / infantry were also sooooo original when Games Workshop did it.
So, the way to defeat internet eavesdropping is to have a centralized service that double-checks all the websites you go to?
Does anyone else think this is mutually incompatible with any concept of anonymity online? In other words, this reduces the risk of one form of eavesdropping by having you accept an entirely different form of eavesdropping.
Don't forget too, that the earth is a giant magnet with a very powerful field.
Eh. 0.3-0.6 G isn't that impressive for a fixed magnet. A kitchen magnet can have a field several hundred times that from a few centimeters away. The Earth's field *is* very powerful in that it has that kind of strength over the *whole planet* at distances from the core to the surface, but as an ambient source of magnetic influence on our biology, it's pretty weak compared to that of the various electrical devices we've only been exposing ourselves to for the past 120+ years.
(And better accounted for, I'd imagine, by evolution.)
Plus, as you tacitly acknowledge, AC vs. DC does make a difference in the effects of the field on objects within it.
You already have pulsating magnetic fields in your house. In the US, AC current is 60 hz, so you have a constant 60 hz magnetic field. That hum you hear is the oscillating magnetic field moving steel back and forth.
Electrical wiring in houses shouldn't produce very strong fields -- on the order of mG a few inches away. That hum you hear is most likely from transformers in devices you have plugged into the wall than from induction on the beams in your house unless you have a very strange house.
The magnetic field won't hurt you. My dad was an electrical lineman for forty years, often working on the 30,000 volt towers. He couldn't wear a mechanical wristwatch because it would become magnetized. He just turned 77 and he's healthier than a lot of guys my age.
If magnetic fields caused cancer, linemen would die of lukemia right and left.
Wrong type of cancer.
Epidemiological studies show that people working with magnetic fields in fact *do* have a higher rate of brain cancers than the average population. (See here , here, and here.)
That last study notes that leukemia rates aren't affected by EM exposure, and this study shows no increase in breast cancers in rats due to magnetic field exposure.
We actually have a model and theory for how AC fields promote brain cancers. You can read this full paper on an experiment to test a theory that iron-mediated free radical creation is at fault. Here's an abstract for a study testing for oxidative effects of EMF in snails.
(Also, the plural of anecdote is not evidence -- much less, "I knew a guy who did [X risky thing] and is doing just awesome, so stop worrying about it, you pansies!")