The moral problem with "Transhumanists" is that they regard human beings as expendable - in much the same way that 19th-century industrialists viewed drayage horses. What are you babbling about? Transhumanists only consider the human body and some of its evolved limitations to be something to cast off. They don't consider humans (or generally any sentient life) to be something to be used and disposed of.
I can only surmise that you don't even know what the word means.
Wow... wait, your old-school, simplistic BBS is actually just a web site.. with tons of banners, flash and other crap. Please explain for the audience how exactly that's not still a Bulletin Board System.
I didn't miss the point. Just because a site is popular doesn't mean it's good. I wouldn't want to use that site. The measure of a site's success or value, especially to its users, is not merely how much money it makes in a year. Oh? Then if high frequency use by a wide variety of people doesn't measure its "success of value, especially to its users," then what exactly does?
Just because you wouldn't use that site doesn't mean that it's without value. It's popularity as a place to goof-off and waste time speaks for itself.
Well he's not a Web 2.0 site, so he's obviously running on Web 1.0 measures of profits. You know. "Stickiness" and all that jazz. It's one of the most heavily trafficked sites in all of Japan, and he manages to turn a profit. More than a profit, actually -- he earns around $1 million a year. He may point out that a convenience store can make 3 times that, but he gets all that without having to genuinely work for a living on a super low-rent site.
Honestly, you can take your Web 2.0 measures of profits (whatever that buzzword-filled garbage is supposed to mean) and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'd take his measures any day if given the chance.
Chances are that they'll want to try to compromise foreign systems and not US systems to use in a botnet to avoid legal liability within the country.
Humorously, I could see a lawsuit from this opening up the door for the first expansion of the 3rd Amendment since Engblom v. Carey if they did compromise the machines of US citizens to use in an offensive botnet. Arguably being forced to host Air Force activities on your private property violates the same kinds of rights that the 3rd Amendment protects.
The Second Circuit said:
[W]e hold that property-based privacy interests protected by the Third Amendment are not limited solely to those arising out of fee simple ownership [of homes] but extend to those recognized and permitted by society as founded on lawful occupation or possession with a legal right to exclude others. The court was talking about state-owned rental properties where striking prison guards were evicted and replaced with National Guardsmen, but I can see an argument for extending this to being forced to host Air Force use of one's chattels within a home (or maybe even outside of a home since the same possessory "right to exclude others" exists). I don't see Scalia or Thomas buying the argument, but it would be fun to watch someone try and argue it before the rest of the court.
If you don't mind me asking, why did you raise the Rule 11 flag? I didn't see anything in the RIAA's response other than the usual boilerplate, laundry list of denials and affirmative defenses (which must be raised then or forever lost).
I've heard that opposing counsel in New York (as well as Chicago or LA) courts can be a little more acrimonious than where I'm studying, but I didn't think that Rule 11 sanctions for this sort of thing were possible.
It's also worth noting that federal fact pleading standards are pretty lax. That's notice pleading, not fact pleading. Fact pleading is the code pleading still retained in a few state. Notice pleading is the federal method.
I always get that mixed up and say the wrong thing.
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim generally only require a response when they might actually succeed. Judges will usually give a party a chance to amend their claims to make them non-frivolous, but when the claims are good enough to state actual legal controversy that can be tried, then there's no need to get the other party involved.
It's also worth noting that federal fact pleading standards are pretty lax. You have to really just plead random crazy talk.
Really, I'm surprised the NYCL though that Rule 11 sanctions would be even a possibility for filing a 12(b)(6) motion. I thought that was just standard practice and that failing to raise these affirmative defenses was risking a future legal malpractice suit. Rule 11 sanctions, in practice, are an extraordinary occurrence, AFAIK.
Actually, "here be dragons" is an old cartographers phrase used to denote unexplored and presumably dangerous areas on maps, in the same spirit as drawing sea serpents off the coast of unexplored water.
Me, I just couldn't fathom why I'd want to waste time putting vitriol into my code and comments. I need the comments to explain to me what I'm doing and why so that 2 months from now I know what I'd been trying to do. See, that's actually *why* I put vitriol and sarcasm into some of my comments. If it caused me horrible frustration the first time I had to work with it, then I should be reminded of that later. Especially because that emotional trigger will bring the memories back faster.
Bonus points if you think the person who originally wrote the code you spent two days deciphering will get to see it.
Equally fun though if they've left the company, and everyone who comes after you will be going through the same process of slack-jawed disbelief at what they have to maintain. It's a way of patting the next person on the back and saying, "There, there. I've been through what you're about to go through too."
Naturally, I recommend using this extremely *sparingly.* You don't want to get a reputation for being "that guy" or worse put something in a logging or debugging function that might somehow someday be seen by a customer. (You never know what a production machine is going to overheat, have a hiccup, and enter the "should never happen" part of the code and start spewing profanity into the logs. Not that this happened to a program my first company sold or anything.)
Further, most 4th Amendment cases are probably brought up in criminal cases because that is where the question arises most often! That doesn't mean that challenging an illegal search is pointless or "not done". Yeah, yeah, you can file a Bivens or a 42 USC 1983 claim, but those are extremely rare, and you'd have to distinguish Cady.
Police perform searches that would normally be in violation of the 4th Amendment if they were looking for evidence or suspects all the time to check up on people on behalf of worried family members. This is known as a "community caretaking search," and was established as a legal basis for searches in Cady v. Dombrowski.
It's worth noting that 4th Amendment rights almost entirely enforced via evidence suppression motions in criminal trials. If you aren't on trial for a crime, then generally you have no real legal way of challenging a search.
Speed Racer was cool when I was maybe FIVE. [...] Why not remake something that we remember fondly, like Robotech? How old were you when you last watched Robotech?
Oregon is noted for having one of the nation's most broadly interpreted free-speech clauses in their state constitution, which goes *way* beyond the U.S. Constitution's first amendment.
Article I, section 8:
No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. I seriously doubt, given the history of this clause, that the Oregon Supreme Court is going to find that it's okay to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever," but not to sell the result. Hell, I mean Oregon voters rejected Measure 19 intended to specifically exempt porn from this clause in 1994, and then again with Measure 31 two years later.
While the law is pretty narrowly tailored in defining what sexually explicit material is (you can read it here), I'm surprised they thought it would stand. Maybe they didn't -- who knows?
wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) I remember when this acronym was so frequently used as a selling point in the 80s that you wouldn't have had to explain it.
Did you throw away your Naked Gun movies because OJ Simpeon killed those people? No. I threw them away because by the third one, I realized the series wasn't actually as funny as I remembered. The movies do not age well.
Which means the farmers who grow those crops have realized almost a DOUBLING of their incomes. This doesn't refute my point, it reinforces it. We're talking net and not gross, here. On what basis do you believe that a doubling in market price equals a doubling in net profits for farmers?
You're missing the fact that these people have to eat too. Any increase in prices also comes with increased expenses for buying the foods that they don't grow themselves. In the end, people in impoverished countries are not seeing a windfall -- they're starving instead.
Markets can adjust for rising fuel and fertilizer prices by utilizing alternatives such as GM crops that can grow in poorer soils, cyclic farming and using electrical power or biofuels or animals for work. You really just have no clue what 3rd world, subsistence farmers go through, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless your "weeds" are actually some sort of food crop, I call BS.
Plants don't just randomly pick up genes from unrelated species.
We're going off the Rails on a crazy train?
I can only surmise that you don't even know what the word means.
Just because you wouldn't use that site doesn't mean that it's without value. It's popularity as a place to goof-off and waste time speaks for itself.
Honestly, you can take your Web 2.0 measures of profits (whatever that buzzword-filled garbage is supposed to mean) and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'd take his measures any day if given the chance.
Humorously, I could see a lawsuit from this opening up the door for the first expansion of the 3rd Amendment since Engblom v. Carey if they did compromise the machines of US citizens to use in an offensive botnet. Arguably being forced to host Air Force activities on your private property violates the same kinds of rights that the 3rd Amendment protects.
The Second Circuit said: [W]e hold that property-based privacy interests protected by the Third Amendment are not limited solely to those arising out of fee simple ownership [of homes] but extend to those recognized and permitted by society as founded on lawful occupation or possession with a legal right to exclude others. The court was talking about state-owned rental properties where striking prison guards were evicted and replaced with National Guardsmen, but I can see an argument for extending this to being forced to host Air Force use of one's chattels within a home (or maybe even outside of a home since the same possessory "right to exclude others" exists). I don't see Scalia or Thomas buying the argument, but it would be fun to watch someone try and argue it before the rest of the court.
Commenting to undo accidental moderation. I was trying to mod you Funny and accidentally hit Overrated. Don't you hate these new instant-apply forms?
If you don't mind me asking, why did you raise the Rule 11 flag? I didn't see anything in the RIAA's response other than the usual boilerplate, laundry list of denials and affirmative defenses (which must be raised then or forever lost).
I've heard that opposing counsel in New York (as well as Chicago or LA) courts can be a little more acrimonious than where I'm studying, but I didn't think that Rule 11 sanctions for this sort of thing were possible.
You know, we all make typos. I do it a lot, and I've have posted several today by being too hasty.
But there's something inherently funny about misspelling the name of a DICTIONARY website TWICE in one post.
I always get that mixed up and say the wrong thing.
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim generally only require a response when they might actually succeed. Judges will usually give a party a chance to amend their claims to make them non-frivolous, but when the claims are good enough to state actual legal controversy that can be tried, then there's no need to get the other party involved.
It's also worth noting that federal fact pleading standards are pretty lax. You have to really just plead random crazy talk.
Really, I'm surprised the NYCL though that Rule 11 sanctions would be even a possibility for filing a 12(b)(6) motion. I thought that was just standard practice and that failing to raise these affirmative defenses was risking a future legal malpractice suit. Rule 11 sanctions, in practice, are an extraordinary occurrence, AFAIK.
IANAL, though. Just a student.
Actually, "here be dragons" is an old cartographers phrase used to denote unexplored and presumably dangerous areas on maps, in the same spirit as drawing sea serpents off the coast of unexplored water.
It's kind of a running joke in computer circles.
Bonus points if you think the person who originally wrote the code you spent two days deciphering will get to see it.
Equally fun though if they've left the company, and everyone who comes after you will be going through the same process of slack-jawed disbelief at what they have to maintain. It's a way of patting the next person on the back and saying, "There, there. I've been through what you're about to go through too."
Naturally, I recommend using this extremely *sparingly.* You don't want to get a reputation for being "that guy" or worse put something in a logging or debugging function that might somehow someday be seen by a customer. (You never know what a production machine is going to overheat, have a hiccup, and enter the "should never happen" part of the code and start spewing profanity into the logs. Not that this happened to a program my first company sold or anything.)
Good luck with that.
Police perform searches that would normally be in violation of the 4th Amendment if they were looking for evidence or suspects all the time to check up on people on behalf of worried family members. This is known as a "community caretaking search," and was established as a legal basis for searches in Cady v. Dombrowski.
It's worth noting that 4th Amendment rights almost entirely enforced via evidence suppression motions in criminal trials. If you aren't on trial for a crime, then generally you have no real legal way of challenging a search.
Perhaps you should read the bill's definition of sexually explicit material before getting all worked up about that.
Hint: "Most novels" don't apply.
Article I, section 8: No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. I seriously doubt, given the history of this clause, that the Oregon Supreme Court is going to find that it's okay to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever," but not to sell the result. Hell, I mean Oregon voters rejected Measure 19 intended to specifically exempt porn from this clause in 1994, and then again with Measure 31 two years later.
While the law is pretty narrowly tailored in defining what sexually explicit material is (you can read it here), I'm surprised they thought it would stand. Maybe they didn't -- who knows?
You're missing the fact that these people have to eat too. Any increase in prices also comes with increased expenses for buying the foods that they don't grow themselves. In the end, people in impoverished countries are not seeing a windfall -- they're starving instead. Markets can adjust for rising fuel and fertilizer prices by utilizing alternatives such as GM crops that can grow in poorer soils, cyclic farming and using electrical power or biofuels or animals for work. You really just have no clue what 3rd world, subsistence farmers go through, do you?
He didn't care that it was an advertisement. He cared that it violated netiquette standards for message formatting.
Big difference. Spamming itself wasn't the issue.