Our only hope is to sign an international treaty that would limit the amount of food each person ate and would require excercise.
To clarify this point, because I think it's the only thing people may actually be concerned about (the logic being sound of course). By excercise, I mean LOW impact activities like riding a stationary bike, swimming, or doing sit-ups. You absolutely would be prohibited from jumping, running, power lifting, or any other activity that resulted in a concentrated force being applied to the fragile ground below our feet.
Remember, a butterfly in Brazil can cause polar ice shifts on Mars.
Hell yes, someone finally understands how to best look at this problem. Global Warming is certainly one of the most talked about and pressing topics of our day, but I'm sure that once this line of logic is accepted we'll realize that Global Compaction is actually a much much much worse problem. The basic logic is exactly like yours...
We know people are heavy (and getting fatter!), we know we're drastically increasing the # of people (and their getting fatter!), it would be a massive shock to science to find out that those two didn't mean that planet was being crushed under the weight of the humanity that was carelessly wandering around its surface! The Oregon bulge, Earthquakes in California, the Tsunami, all examples of the Earth being crushed underneath the weight of man. Our only hope is to sign an international treaty that would limit the amount of food each person ate and would require excercise. The wealthy countries would be able to comply first of course because of all of the leisure time and disposable income they have and should also comply because they've systamtically concentrated massive amounts of weight in their cities (again... we can see why their are Earthquakes in California and Iowa).
So anyways. Thanks for post, I see it's been modded Insightful. Tread lightly folks. Tread lightly!
I'd write you off as a nutcase if I didn't know for a fact that moon landing was completely faked. I have seen irefutable evidence that proves the landing was shot in a government sound studio located in NASA's secret moon base.
I agree w/ fuzzybunny, "One could argue that you shouuld be able to copyright a certain type of [publicly funded] presentation or collection of, say, laws, but not the texts themselves", and would add that this would be the perfect thing for your State government to pass into law.
Google is not a company lacking in intelligence or money. I wonder if their using the library product to actually draw out a suit. The rationale being that copyright law and digital media has created a vast space of uncertainty around what can and can't be done with copies of a work. Google's interest in clearing out that uncertainty is that if they can legally gain the ability to selectively duplicate copyrighted content they can extend their search capabilities far beyond public content published to the web or other fora and also pull in a hefty payback from booksellers and other advertisers. They've started w/ books, but imagine if they legally could index songs, movies, and less television/radio/other media? They wouldn't allow you to have a copy of the work, but could index it, show you a clip, and point you to the correct source to purchase the rights to the media. Massive speculation on my part.
There are a lot of great American musicians putting out music, both past and present. Here's a short list to get you started... hopefully you've heard of one or two of them.
The Beatles
Led Zepplin
Franz Ferdinand
Can
Architecture in Helsinki
Bjork
Lucciano Pavorati
The list goes on and on dude... all great musicians... all 100% American!
Apple should partner w/ Google and the recently announced Google Wi-Fi service. Two power houses, major distribution and mind share, not to mention the pile of cash they're both sitting on. Oh and they'd be getting free advertisements w/ 2-3 combined posts per day here on/.
ReactOS will have replaced windows in the same way FreeDOS can replace MS-DOS today.
By that do you mean ReactOS will be able to replace a completely obsolete OS that has been superseeded by a much stronger and more market dominant OS made by the same company. If so... whoopie for open sores... we've wons ourselves a bigun'.
How come, on the edge of bankruptcy, switching Windows to Open Source saves the company? I thought the product was crap?
I honestly think in 15 years your Gentoo box will have just finished compiling Emacs for Gnome and all of the dependancies.
So panspermia allows for a scientific explanation of life's formation that is perhaps more plausible than formation on early Earth.
Scientific? Sounds to me like you have a untestable theory for the origins of life. You can test components of the theory, but ultimately you always be able to say... well sure it came from somewhere else, but it's been millions/billions of years and all of the concrete evidence has been washed away.
Good point... my intent was to say that it's rather pointless to sue for libel if you can't prove the claims are false. But you're right that the ruling in the case, not the case itself, is what would define wether the claims were false or not.
This info about defamation law is helpful. The plaintiff does have a burden of showing that the statements they are suing for are in fact false. Of course the trial itself will determine if the claims are indeed false and were actually damaging.
Suing is always a last resort for those who can't refute complaints with truth.
No. That's roughly like saying the police are just for pussies who can't take care of themselves. (analogy police come hither and destroy my analogy).
In this case the complaints consisted of claims against the defendent. The person making the claims is when they are defamatory is responsible for being able to justify the claims. The doctor could have waged a publicity battle against the patients, but most likely would have suffered more harm than good simply because the public doesn't take the time to read through all of the details, look for opposing views, or weigh the logic and evidance supporting the claims. If someone attempts to attack you by slandering you in public using unfounded or false claims a lawsuit is an appropriate option. It may not be the best option in all situations, but it's certainly not categorically the last option.
Slashdot Mirror
Well this has nothing to do with their browser's security. It really has to do with the security of the Mozilla servers in Korea.
Steve Balmer is going to have a good day today.
Oh man. I walked RIGHT into that one, didn't I?
:)
Yeah, but the evidence you provided for the nutcases who do actually believe the moon landing was faked was worth posting anyway
Does this mean there are pirates on Mars?
Our only hope is to sign an international treaty that would limit the amount of food each person ate and would require excercise.
To clarify this point, because I think it's the only thing people may actually be concerned about (the logic being sound of course). By excercise, I mean LOW impact activities like riding a stationary bike, swimming, or doing sit-ups. You absolutely would be prohibited from jumping, running, power lifting, or any other activity that resulted in a concentrated force being applied to the fragile ground below our feet.
Remember, a butterfly in Brazil can cause polar ice shifts on Mars.
Hell yes, someone finally understands how to best look at this problem. Global Warming is certainly one of the most talked about and pressing topics of our day, but I'm sure that once this line of logic is accepted we'll realize that Global Compaction is actually a much much much worse problem. The basic logic is exactly like yours...
We know people are heavy (and getting fatter!), we know we're drastically increasing the # of people (and their getting fatter!), it would be a massive shock to science to find out that those two didn't mean that planet was being crushed under the weight of the humanity that was carelessly wandering around its surface! The Oregon bulge, Earthquakes in California, the Tsunami, all examples of the Earth being crushed underneath the weight of man. Our only hope is to sign an international treaty that would limit the amount of food each person ate and would require excercise. The wealthy countries would be able to comply first of course because of all of the leisure time and disposable income they have and should also comply because they've systamtically concentrated massive amounts of weight in their cities (again... we can see why their are Earthquakes in California and Iowa).
So anyways. Thanks for post, I see it's been modded Insightful. Tread lightly folks. Tread lightly!
I'd write you off as a nutcase if I didn't know for a fact that moon landing was completely faked. I have seen irefutable evidence that proves the landing was shot in a government sound studio located in NASA's secret moon base.
How can I make sure never to buy a book from an Authors Guild writer or company?
Write it yourself. If it's anything like your post it'll be a fantasy about trolls.
I agree w/ fuzzybunny, "One could argue that you shouuld be able to copyright a certain type of [publicly funded] presentation or collection of, say, laws, but not the texts themselves", and would add that this would be the perfect thing for your State government to pass into law.
Google is not a company lacking in intelligence or money. I wonder if their using the library product to actually draw out a suit. The rationale being that copyright law and digital media has created a vast space of uncertainty around what can and can't be done with copies of a work. Google's interest in clearing out that uncertainty is that if they can legally gain the ability to selectively duplicate copyrighted content they can extend their search capabilities far beyond public content published to the web or other fora and also pull in a hefty payback from booksellers and other advertisers. They've started w/ books, but imagine if they legally could index songs, movies, and less television/radio/other media? They wouldn't allow you to have a copy of the work, but could index it, show you a clip, and point you to the correct source to purchase the rights to the media. Massive speculation on my part.
The list goes on and on dude... all great musicians... all 100% American!
Apple should partner w/ Google and the recently announced Google Wi-Fi service. Two power houses, major distribution and mind share, not to mention the pile of cash they're both sitting on. Oh and they'd be getting free advertisements w/ 2-3 combined posts per day here on /.
ReactOS will have replaced windows in the same way FreeDOS can replace MS-DOS today.
By that do you mean ReactOS will be able to replace a completely obsolete OS that has been superseeded by a much stronger and more market dominant OS made by the same company. If so... whoopie for open sores... we've wons ourselves a bigun'.
How come, on the edge of bankruptcy, switching Windows to Open Source saves the company? I thought the product was crap?
I honestly think in 15 years your Gentoo box will have just finished compiling Emacs for Gnome and all of the dependancies.
Aye, me hardy. Blinding a scurvy alligator is near to me heart, but what of my Parrot, Old Reliable Joe?
pirates, aye matey?
ominous masks and hiding in the shadows? It's worked for all these years... no need to change now.
NOT A FSCKING CHANCE IN HELL would I ever go for a transplant from a cadaver.
I totally agree with you... human life is far to cheap these days to have to resort to cadavers.
ROFWIPVOMAMHDFYICAM - Rolling on the floor wrything in pain vomiting on myself and my hideously disfigured face you insensitive clod, argghh matey
Saw that on IRC the other day. How fortuitous.
On page 498 the headmaster dies.
I run my IDE on in a virtual machine running a sandboxed OS running on top of Emacs. Doesn't everybody do it that way?
So panspermia allows for a scientific explanation of life's formation
that is perhaps more plausible than formation on early Earth.
Scientific? Sounds to me like you have a untestable theory for the origins of life. You can test components of the theory, but ultimately you always be able to say... well sure it came from somewhere else, but it's been millions/billions of years and all of the concrete evidence has been washed away.
Good point... my intent was to say that it's rather pointless to sue for libel if you can't prove the claims are false. But you're right that the ruling in the case, not the case itself, is what would define wether the claims were false or not.
because it's shinier.
This info about defamation law is helpful. The plaintiff does have a burden of showing that the statements they are suing for are in fact false. Of course the trial itself will determine if the claims are indeed false and were actually damaging.
Suing is always a last resort for those who can't refute complaints with truth.
No. That's roughly like saying the police are just for pussies who can't take care of themselves. (analogy police come hither and destroy my analogy).
In this case the complaints consisted of claims against the defendent. The person making the claims is when they are defamatory is responsible for being able to justify the claims. The doctor could have waged a publicity battle against the patients, but most likely would have suffered more harm than good simply because the public doesn't take the time to read through all of the details, look for opposing views, or weigh the logic and evidance supporting the claims. If someone attempts to attack you by slandering you in public using unfounded or false claims a lawsuit is an appropriate option. It may not be the best option in all situations, but it's certainly not categorically the last option.