I previously didn't anything about how my hypothetical boy felt. But I'll now say that let's assume he did it just to harass her (again, with his real name and information). Some people would still think that what he did was bad. Therefore, again, the falsification of information (had he used false information) is irrelevant. That's my only point.
So, if everything had been the same except that she was actually who she pretended to be, she would still have been violating the last term, and possibly the second (depending on whether the ToS prohibit that generally or only prohibit adults from soliciting minors personal information), and would still seem to be liable to prosecution under the act.
Right, which is why I said the falsification of information is irrelevant.
And Al Capone went to jail for the rest of his life over tax fraud...
The difference is that he was actually guilty of tax evasion (which is a criminal offense).
However, the prosecution warped creating a fictitious profile and violation of MySpace's TOS (at best, a civil offense) into "accessing a computer without authorization" (a criminal offense). That's the problem.
An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.
Sure, but that's got nothing to do with my point which was in response to BobMcD's point of making a big deal out of the fact that the information was falsified. OK, so what if Lori had used her real name and information? The fact that she drove a girl to suicide is the problem. The fact that she used false information is, again, irrelevant.
This is what happens to someone who falsifies their information to use an online service TO A BAD END.
What if it were a real teenaged boy who used his real name and information and he harassed the girl and drove her to suicide?
To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.
As convincing as this might sound to some, it ignores the case of the other guy drawing his gun first, holding it to your head, and preventing you from drawing your gun on threat of having your head blown off if you attempt to reach for your gun. The next thing the other guy is going to do is to disarm you. The gun at your side is rendered useless.
You might continue to argue that the other guy would be less inclined to attempt to hold the gun to your head in the first place if he knows you're armed. While that might be true some of the time, it can't possibly be true all the time. A 220-pound mugger or a 19-year-old gang banger will not only have the advantage of surprise, but will also obviously have his weapon already drawn while yours is still in your holster (or purse, most likely, if you're a woman). Your reaction time (especially if you're a 75-year-old retiree) won't be as good as the much younger assailant's.
And those would be... what? Regardless, it's up to the local district attorney to seek criminal charges.
Does anyone know if he's planning on going that route?
Given that he's about to become the POTUS, I think he's got more important things to worry about.
Plus, it would seem rather petty by presidential standards.
I used to purchase Sony products because they represented quality. Need a top of the line Palm Pilot, CRT, television, laptop, CD player, etc.? Sony was the place to go.
Tell me about it. I have a Sony tuner that's nearly 20 years old (I bought it just out of college). It even has a button for DAT input. It's still going strong.
They're not changing the name of the language. "C++0x" simply refers to the C++ specification that is slated for release sometime in the future. Back when they started working on it, they couldn't forecast the year in which it would actually get released; hence "0x" is a placeholder where "x" will eventually get replaced with the last digit of the year the specification is released. As of right now, it's looking like it'll be 2009; hence the specification will become C++09.
Maybe there is, but as of yet, there's no evidence to support that....
Actually there is in the form of idiot savants. Almost all of them are blind, mentally deficient, and yet have extraordinary musical ability -- beyond what any normal person could do -- ever. And it almost always happens with that trinity of blindness, mental deficiency, and musical ability. That strongly points to a biological basis.
In the Star Wars universe, having a high enough midichlorian count to be Force-sensitive is rare, and if yours is low, you're SOL, you'll never be a Jedi.
But the same kind of thing may be true in the real universe. Just because we don't currently know of a biological basis for those who are great artists, writers, mathematicians, composers, etc., doesn't mean there isn't a biological basis for such traits. Those with no artistic, literary, mathematical, or musical talent are just SOL and will never be great in those fields no matter how hard they try. Perhaps there's a biological reason.
[W]hat would the discovery of alien life do for intelligent design? Basically, it would destroy their entire way of thinking, right?
Most likely not, unfortunately.
The problem is that you almost never can use either logic or scientific proof to refute dogma.
Remember that the ID crowd are the same people who, after being shown fossils, carbon dating, etc., came up with the wacky explanation that the fossils were placed there either by god to test their faith or the devil to make people not believe in god.
If life were discovered elsewhere, I assure you that the ID crowd will contrive some wacky explanation to account for it.
Well as far as I understand, the theory is that a single large moon keep the earth's tilt relatively constant. In simulations, if the large moon is not present, it varies wildly anywhere from 0 to 90 degrees.
The Earth got its tilt due to a Mars-sized object colliding with the Earth way back and creating the moon from debris. Had there been no such collision, there would be neither a moon nor tilt. A tilt of 0 wouldn't precess. The other rocky plants have either no moons (or no moons of gravitational consequence) and their tilts are fairly constant.
So yes, post-collision and tilt, the moon does keep the tile from varying wildly; but if there were no moon, there wouldn't be a tilt either, and therefore wouldn't be a need to keep it from precessing.
I am still boggled by the fact that Microsoft didn't fix the deep problems here ten years ago.
Why? Microsoft has the dominant market share. They got there (and are remaining there) even with the bugs, so there's really no incentive for them to devote developers' time to fix the bugs. Until their myriad of bugs start to erode their market share in a serious way, nothing will change.
No, evolution is a fact. The thing that makes evolution special is that it can't generally be observed directly because it takes many thousands of years to progress for non-trivial changes, e.g., fish to amphibian. Gravity doesn't have this problem because dropping something or launching a projectile make it start to fall immediately.
Newton did no such thing. He created laws of motion, not gravity. Newton never proposed any law, or even theory, as to what gravity itself actually is. His equations merely described the way gravity works. It was Einstein who first proposed General Relativity as a theory of what gravity itself actually is, i.e., a curvature of space-time in the presence of mass.
You could counter your neighbour with "gravity is 'just a theory'" as well.
I understand the point you're trying to make, except it's wrong and just makes the problem of misusing the word "theory" worse. Gravity is a fact. The currently accepted theory of gravity is General Relativity. The word "theory" describes "General Relativity," not gravity. The problem is that people far too often leave off the "is" part.
The thing most people don't understand is that the word "theory" doesn't describe the word "evolution." The correct way to say it is, "Darwin's theory of evolution is Natural Selection" or "Natural Selection is the theory of evolution." Hence the theory is Natural Selection that describes the fact of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
I previously didn't anything about how my hypothetical boy felt. But I'll now say that let's assume he did it just to harass her (again, with his real name and information). Some people would still think that what he did was bad. Therefore, again, the falsification of information (had he used false information) is irrelevant. That's my only point.
Right, which is why I said the falsification of information is irrelevant.
The difference is that he was actually guilty of tax evasion (which is a criminal offense). However, the prosecution warped creating a fictitious profile and violation of MySpace's TOS (at best, a civil offense) into "accessing a computer without authorization" (a criminal offense). That's the problem.
Sure, but that's got nothing to do with my point which was in response to BobMcD's point of making a big deal out of the fact that the information was falsified. OK, so what if Lori had used her real name and information? The fact that she drove a girl to suicide is the problem. The fact that she used false information is, again, irrelevant.
What if it were a real teenaged boy who used his real name and information and he harassed the girl and drove her to suicide? To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.
You might continue to argue that the other guy would be less inclined to attempt to hold the gun to your head in the first place if he knows you're armed. While that might be true some of the time, it can't possibly be true all the time. A 220-pound mugger or a 19-year-old gang banger will not only have the advantage of surprise, but will also obviously have his weapon already drawn while yours is still in your holster (or purse, most likely, if you're a woman). Your reaction time (especially if you're a 75-year-old retiree) won't be as good as the much younger assailant's.
And those would be... what? Regardless, it's up to the local district attorney to seek criminal charges.
Given that he's about to become the POTUS, I think he's got more important things to worry about. Plus, it would seem rather petty by presidential standards.
There's lots of good stuff in here.
Because it's not possible to learn this power from a Jedi.
Tell me about it. I have a Sony tuner that's nearly 20 years old (I bought it just out of college). It even has a button for DAT input. It's still going strong.
They're not changing the name of the language. "C++0x" simply refers to the C++ specification that is slated for release sometime in the future. Back when they started working on it, they couldn't forecast the year in which it would actually get released; hence "0x" is a placeholder where "x" will eventually get replaced with the last digit of the year the specification is released. As of right now, it's looking like it'll be 2009; hence the specification will become C++09.
Actually there is in the form of idiot savants. Almost all of them are blind, mentally deficient, and yet have extraordinary musical ability -- beyond what any normal person could do -- ever. And it almost always happens with that trinity of blindness, mental deficiency, and musical ability. That strongly points to a biological basis.
But the same kind of thing may be true in the real universe. Just because we don't currently know of a biological basis for those who are great artists, writers, mathematicians, composers, etc., doesn't mean there isn't a biological basis for such traits. Those with no artistic, literary, mathematical, or musical talent are just SOL and will never be great in those fields no matter how hard they try. Perhaps there's a biological reason.
But it'll take a while until all testing is completed because they'd only do testing on Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!
Most likely not, unfortunately. The problem is that you almost never can use either logic or scientific proof to refute dogma. Remember that the ID crowd are the same people who, after being shown fossils, carbon dating, etc., came up with the wacky explanation that the fossils were placed there either by god to test their faith or the devil to make people not believe in god. If life were discovered elsewhere, I assure you that the ID crowd will contrive some wacky explanation to account for it.
The Earth got its tilt due to a Mars-sized object colliding with the Earth way back and creating the moon from debris. Had there been no such collision, there would be neither a moon nor tilt. A tilt of 0 wouldn't precess. The other rocky plants have either no moons (or no moons of gravitational consequence) and their tilts are fairly constant.
So yes, post-collision and tilt, the moon does keep the tile from varying wildly; but if there were no moon, there wouldn't be a tilt either, and therefore wouldn't be a need to keep it from precessing.
One has taste.
LightZone correctly handles Canon 1DS RAW TIFF files. (It was rather silly of Canon to put raw data into a file having a .tif extension.)
Then what's this?
No, evolution is a fact. The thing that makes evolution special is that it can't generally be observed directly because it takes many thousands of years to progress for non-trivial changes, e.g., fish to amphibian. Gravity doesn't have this problem because dropping something or launching a projectile make it start to fall immediately.
But unless you really explain all this, IMHO, it does more harm than good.
The thing most people don't understand is that the word "theory" doesn't describe the word "evolution." The correct way to say it is, "Darwin's theory of evolution is Natural Selection" or "Natural Selection is the theory of evolution." Hence the theory is Natural Selection that describes the fact of evolution.