It is more realistic in the long run to pick your room up a little bit every day than to fight an epic battle in which clutter is banished forever.
I disagree. You can actually win the epic battle against clutter. Because your neighbors aren't sneaking insurgents in to throw more clutter in your face.
Wasn't one of the problems with the "gecko tape" that it was "too" sticky? That is; _everything_ sticks to it, thus all the dust/dirt/hair/etc. would make the tape unusable in a short time.
Obviously, real geckos don't have this problem. You don't see them walking around with sticks, dirt and sand stuck to their feet, so how do they solve that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
The general rule is that "he who asserts must prove", i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff (the party bringing the action).
The exceptions to this rule include an allegation of frustration where a plaintiff sues for breach of contract. In this situation a defendant would have the legal burden of proving that he was unable to complete the contract due to the fault of another person, or another act, e.g., fire etc.
http://www.ogc.umich.edu/faq_judicial.htm The plaintiff goes first because the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, often characterized by attorneys as merely 51%.
And finally; http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/u.s._legal_s ystem/civil_cases.html The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial. Instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" -- the criminal standard -- jurors or judges render a verdict on the basis of the "preponderance of the evidence."
Still, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Although most civil defendants present evidence, a defendant has the option of simply arguing that the plaintiff did not meet the required burden of proof. (emphasis mine) ------------------
So the defendant in this case is essentially saying, "Prove this number is valid." instead of rolling over and paying the RIAA their extortion money. It is the RIAA's responsibility to PROVE their case is worth it.
Suppose some individual only shared a file four times. And each of those four downloaders shared it four times. And so on. After only four levels of sharing, there's 256 incidences which could not have happened (theoretically) if that first individual had not shared that content.
The problem with this statement is that the law does not work in supposition. The Law depends on FACTS (as defined legally, look it up). I present my facts. You argue my facts and present your own facts. I argue your facts. Rinse, repeat.
So if the RIAA wants to prove damages this high, they have to PROVE that the defendant distributed the song over 1000 times. And if (hopefully when) they are asked to do this, then we'll see their cases stop. The only download they can PROVE is the one they made themselves to confirm that the defendant actually had the file!!
You can't prove how many times the song was downloaded, thus the 750 figure is inordinately high. And when the penalty per song falls to the single digit dollar range, their lawsuits become UN-profitable. No profit, no reason to sue.
Umm hello? Well the sun is making us hot so let's block it out. WTF? That Sun also keeps plants alive, and guess what? Those plants provide our OXYGEN. So did they figure out how much LESS oxygen will be produced when they block out 2% of the sunlight? I'll bet it's significant. So we get less oxygen, and guess what. That means a higher percentage of greenhouse gases relative to "beneficial" ones.
Slashdot Mirror
will be given the opportunity to name the asteroid in about four years.
Unfortunately, this will be 5 months after it collides with the earth.
I pay the same rate as my neighbor who has a Verizon phone line.
You should ask them why they're making you pay the same for less services...
It is more realistic in the long run to pick your room up a little bit every day than to fight an epic battle in which clutter is banished forever.
I disagree. You can actually win the epic battle against clutter. Because your neighbors aren't sneaking insurgents in to throw more clutter in your face.
Except Mythbusters proved that theory wrong.
You won't get sucked in by the train. However, you will get knocked over by the pressure of the air being pushed in front of it.
Sounds rather comfy...
If I had points, I'd mod you up for actually posting useful information.
Doh, my bad.
;)
Plural possessive is so commonly screwed up, i thought that was what you were referring to.
I turn in my reading comprehension badge.
There is nothing misspelled in that phrase.s ive
volunteers' is the possessive form of volunteers
Otherwise known as plural possessive.
http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm#Posses
The phrase can be rewritten as "home computers belonging to the volunteers"
Your spelling/grammar nazi badge is hereby revoked.
Alas, my mod points disappeared today... Or I would have given you an "Insightful" for most accurate acronym for a US law, ever.
I'm sure the convicted guy in the story has some "friends" who can sell you some Pi1Lz for that...
"My bum is on R2D2. My bum is on the X-wing. My bum is on the light-sab... OW! FUCK!"
Precisely the reason I tagged this story with "minorityreport."
*Bing!* "You've got ads!"
WTF is loctose?
Nah.... too easy.
His post wasn't there when I started typing mine.
Good info.
(though i don't think I needed to be down-modded.)
Wasn't one of the problems with the "gecko tape" that it was "too" sticky?
That is; _everything_ sticks to it, thus all the dust/dirt/hair/etc. would make the tape unusable in a short time.
Obviously, real geckos don't have this problem. You don't see them walking around with sticks, dirt and sand stuck to their feet, so how do they solve that?
I think I just felt my brain twitch inside my skull.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
I haven't been able to find a place to buy deuterium, unless you want to talk to a guy called Al (last name of 'Qaeda').
t .cfm?prod_id=5267
Put away the fear-mongering, and learn to use Google. Deuterium is easily obtained from many places for *gasp!* science experiments.
http://unitednuclear.com/hw.htm
http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduc
And the world's leading "producer" of Deuterium is Canada.
Oh yes they most certainly do.
s ystem/civil_cases.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/burden_of_proof.htm
Legal Burden of Proof - Civil Cases
The general rule is that "he who asserts must prove", i.e., the burden rests with the plaintiff (the party bringing the action).
The exceptions to this rule include an allegation of frustration where a plaintiff sues for breach of contract. In this situation a defendant would have the legal burden of proving that he was unable to complete the contract due to the fault of another person, or another act, e.g., fire etc.
http://www.ogc.umich.edu/faq_judicial.htm
The plaintiff goes first because the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, often characterized by attorneys as merely 51%.
And finally;
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/u.s._legal_
The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial. Instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" -- the criminal standard -- jurors or judges render a verdict on the basis of the "preponderance of the evidence."
Still, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Although most civil defendants present evidence, a defendant has the option of simply arguing that the plaintiff did not meet the required burden of proof. (emphasis mine)
------------------
So the defendant in this case is essentially saying, "Prove this number is valid." instead of rolling over and paying the RIAA their extortion money. It is the RIAA's responsibility to PROVE their case is worth it.
Ok. I thought i was missing something reading that article... :-/
Then I realized you linked to the 2ND PAGE.
Suppose some individual only shared a file four times. And each of those four downloaders shared it four times. And so on. After only four levels of sharing, there's 256 incidences which could not have happened (theoretically) if that first individual had not shared that content.
The problem with this statement is that the law does not work in supposition. The Law depends on FACTS (as defined legally, look it up). I present my facts. You argue my facts and present your own facts. I argue your facts. Rinse, repeat.
So if the RIAA wants to prove damages this high, they have to PROVE that the defendant distributed the song over 1000 times. And if (hopefully when) they are asked to do this, then we'll see their cases stop. The only download they can PROVE is the one they made themselves to confirm that the defendant actually had the file!!
You can't prove how many times the song was downloaded, thus the 750 figure is inordinately high. And when the penalty per song falls to the single digit dollar range, their lawsuits become UN-profitable. No profit, no reason to sue.
Umm hello?
1 &cid=16732829
Well the sun is making us hot so let's block it out. WTF?
That Sun also keeps plants alive, and guess what? Those plants provide our OXYGEN.
So did they figure out how much LESS oxygen will be produced when they block out 2% of the sunlight?
I'll bet it's significant. So we get less oxygen, and guess what. That means a higher percentage of greenhouse gases relative to "beneficial" ones.
Net result. Zero. We still fry.
Like a previous poster already said- http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20493
"We could just cut down on our insane energy usage/wastage.
But hey, that would involve personal effort and we can't have that, can we."
The GP link is slow because it's linking to analyze the utube site.
the parent url of http://www.websiteoptimization.com/ is quite fast, actually.
Yeah! Like the Patent office checks for prior art!
Oh wait...
Lies! ;)
Domain Name: EYEBM.COM
Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.register.com
Referral URL: http://www.register.com/
Name Server: NS.WATSON.IBM.COM
Name Server: INTERNET-SERVER.ZURICH.IBM.COM
Name Server: NS.ERS.IBM.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Status: REGISTRAR-HOLD
EPP Status: clientDeleteProhibited
EPP Status: clientUpdateProhibited
EPP Status: clientHold
EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 27-Nov-2005
Creation Date: 27-Nov-1996
Expiration Date: 26-Nov-2006