Believe it or not, lawmakers actually do think about things like that when they write laws. Perhaps that's why the law states:
The requirements of this section shall not apply to... A person who fails to report based on a reasonable fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of his or her family.
THIS "Good Samaritan" law is not aimed at first responders. Its intent is obviously to criminalize witnesses who do not intervene... and a poorly-thought-out law it is.
The law does not in any way require witnesses to intervene. It only requires witnesses to report the crime to the police.
It probably will not pass.
It almost certainly will pass. It's simply an extension to a law that already exists. The current law only applies if the victim of the crime is 14 or under. The new law simply extends that to all victims.
If it does, people won't obey it.
Why not? What's so difficult about calling the police when you see a violent crime?
The Constitution is a list of rules. The test is a list of instructions. There is a difference. Instructions are performed sequentially. Rules apply simultaneously.
The article summary is stupid. The particular fleur-de-lis that they're going after is very clearly intended to be a reference to The Saints. It's on a shirt that has a slogan referencing a song about The Saints.
The NFL's claim is a bit shaky here, but suggesting they're going to start going after any and all use of an old and widely-used symbol just because they've now gone after a specific NFL-oriented use of that symbol is just stupid.
It's good to know I'm not the only one who has that problem with the elevator door buttons. They are absolutely the worst. The time it takes me to process those buttons and determine which one I should be pressing is at least 3-5 times as long as it takes for the doors to close and the elevator to start moving.
Whenever I encounter a situation where someone's rushing to the elevator as the door is starting to close, I just hit one of the buttons randomly, figuring that 50% of the time I'll open the door for them, and 50% of the time I'll actually work against them, but at least it'll look like I tried.
Your sentence is a little repetitive and redundant;)
You, sir, you're correctly right. I guess that I imagine I didn't really think about or ponder or contemplate my post enough in advance beforehand prior to submitting it by clicking the "Submit" button to submit it.
Yes, but this is a childishly simple and unaccountable way to provide said access.
Considering Facebook logs everything, I wouldn't describe this as "unaccountable". I'm sure it's not that difficult to track who did what and when. In fact, the interview discusses cases where people who abused it were tracked down and fired.
It's not the best system, but that's exactly why they replaced it. It did the job for a while, then they introduced a better system. That's how things usually work.
There's funny, and then there's irresponsible. Having "Chuck Norris" as a master password that grants access to any account is most definitely the latter. I would expect that from a couple of teenagers running their first web server, not one of the most popular websites on the Internet.
Despite what the summary and title say, the password was not "Chuck Norris". The password was a combination of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols that essentially spelled "Chuck Norris". In other words, probably something like "(hu(|<N0rr15". Also, it only worked from within the Facebook office, and was only known to certain individuals. It's not like you or I could have used the password from home to enter anyone's account.
There is a time and a place for silly HTML comments or in-joke variable names, but a master password for a site with hundreds of millions of users is not one of them.
It's pretty normal for support personnel to have access to production systems in order to provide support.
Anyone who finds a girlfriend through the internet is a fucking loser.
Everyone who ever finds a girlfriend at all does so through social networking. Just like anything else in the world, adding "on the Internet" doesn't change anything.
Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?)
The movie had the impossible task of wrapping up six never-made seasons' worth of story in under two hours. Consequently, there were a whole lot of back-stories that never got told. There really wasn't room to tell Book's story, which is incredibly unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Once again, the jackasses who cancelled the show are to blame.
Personally, when I see a movie, if it's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking, I don't give two and a half shits if it's a remake, a reboot, or a rip-off. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. Some remakes suck, and some don't. Some original movies suck, and some don't.
Wasn't Gibson one of the producers of Johnny Mnemonic?
According to IMDB's credits list, he wrote the screenplay, and that's it.
A lot can happen between writing a screenplay and then having it actually turned into a movie. Then again, maybe the screenplay was just crap. Some stories are just better books than movies.
Personally, I have no problem with those deaths, for reasons similar to what you stated.
However, if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue, I would want those characters to return. Serenity was a conclusion to the story. The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion. But I'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story — not because I didn't like the movie (in fact, I loved it), but simply because I want to see more Firefly. When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion, they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want. But until then, I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.
Of course, in reality, it isn't likely going to happen. The end of Firefly is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with (insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy).
Seriously. I love the originals, but I'd love to see a complete reboot. Let's see what somebody else would've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.
After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago, I vote for Abrams.
People can customize "true companion" personalities and then share the programs with others online on the company's website, according to Hines.
"Just think about wife or girlfriend swapping without actually giving the person to someone else," Hines said. "You can share the personality online."
Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, when planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and an empty field in Pennsylvania.
"I had a friend who passed away in 9/11," Hines said. "I promised myself I would create a program to store his personality, and that became the foundation for Roxxxy True Companion."
The problem with discussing sentience on Slashdot is that everyone here fails to understand that the word has different definitions in different fields, and they all use the science fiction/Artificial Intelligence definition of sentience, which is really sapience.
When using the definition of sentience that is appropriate to a philosophical discussion of living creatures, hardly anyone argues that animals are not sentient.
I've never understood why people seem to freak out so much more over lab animals than they do over agricultural ones.
Because people are ignorant.
Most people, when they think of animal research, think of animals being tortured. Those same people, when they think of agricultural practices, think of happy little family farms where animals live a wonderful life and then eventually die a quick and painless death for the greater good.
They think this way because they are also selfish. Being opposed to animal research is easy. Being opposed to animal food, on the other hand, means actually changing the way they eat. And, hey, meat is tasty. Eating it gives pleasure. Few people are willing to give up pleasure for a little thing like ethics.
Those same people usually can't be bothered to do a little research and boycott products that do invasive animal testing.
Morals are okay as long as I don't have to change my ways in order to have them.
Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping
on
IPv4 Will Not Die In 2010
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Parking a domain doesn't necessarily use up an IP address. A parked domain generally directs the user to an ad page, where multiple domains can all be directed to the same ad page. So, really, domain parking conserves IP addresses.
It's not like the guy was going to market a cell phone or mobile operating system any time soon. That happens to be all the Google trademarks apply to.
I honestly don't believe that the PKD estate will win this, nor that they should, but if a trademark is famous enough it can actually be applied to completely unrelated products. For example, if Google tried to call their phone the "Mickey Mouse", they would be sued into oblivion.
Basically, if there is a reasonable expectation that consumers can be confused (ie. thinking that the "Mickey Mouse" phone is an official Disney product), then the trademark will apply to that product, even though Disney doesn't make phones.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, lawmakers actually do think about things like that when they write laws. Perhaps that's why the law states:
The requirements of this section shall not apply to ... A person who fails to report based on a reasonable fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of his or her family.
THIS "Good Samaritan" law is not aimed at first responders. Its intent is obviously to criminalize witnesses who do not intervene... and a poorly-thought-out law it is.
The law does not in any way require witnesses to intervene. It only requires witnesses to report the crime to the police.
It probably will not pass.
It almost certainly will pass. It's simply an extension to a law that already exists. The current law only applies if the victim of the crime is 14 or under. The new law simply extends that to all victims.
If it does, people won't obey it.
Why not? What's so difficult about calling the police when you see a violent crime?
In a country with thousands of libraries dedicated to just housing the law, how would anyone besides an actual lawyer know?
It only applies to violent crime. You don't need a law degree to know when someone's being assaulted, raped, or murdered.
The Constitution is a list of rules. The test is a list of instructions. There is a difference. Instructions are performed sequentially. Rules apply simultaneously.
The article summary is stupid. The particular fleur-de-lis that they're going after is very clearly intended to be a reference to The Saints. It's on a shirt that has a slogan referencing a song about The Saints.
The NFL's claim is a bit shaky here, but suggesting they're going to start going after any and all use of an old and widely-used symbol just because they've now gone after a specific NFL-oriented use of that symbol is just stupid.
It's good to know I'm not the only one who has that problem with the elevator door buttons. They are absolutely the worst. The time it takes me to process those buttons and determine which one I should be pressing is at least 3-5 times as long as it takes for the doors to close and the elevator to start moving.
Whenever I encounter a situation where someone's rushing to the elevator as the door is starting to close, I just hit one of the buttons randomly, figuring that 50% of the time I'll open the door for them, and 50% of the time I'll actually work against them, but at least it'll look like I tried.
Your sentence is a little repetitive and redundant ;)
You, sir, you're correctly right. I guess that I imagine I didn't really think about or ponder or contemplate my post enough in advance beforehand prior to submitting it by clicking the "Submit" button to submit it.
Inquiry, how do you know this? You from facebook?
No, I used a novel new approach to acquiring information — I read the article.
Yes, but this is a childishly simple and unaccountable way to provide said access.
Considering Facebook logs everything, I wouldn't describe this as "unaccountable". I'm sure it's not that difficult to track who did what and when. In fact, the interview discusses cases where people who abused it were tracked down and fired.
It's not the best system, but that's exactly why they replaced it. It did the job for a while, then they introduced a better system. That's how things usually work.
There's funny, and then there's irresponsible. Having "Chuck Norris" as a master password that grants access to any account is most definitely the latter. I would expect that from a couple of teenagers running their first web server, not one of the most popular websites on the Internet.
Despite what the summary and title say, the password was not "Chuck Norris". The password was a combination of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols that essentially spelled "Chuck Norris". In other words, probably something like "(hu(|<N0rr15". Also, it only worked from within the Facebook office, and was only known to certain individuals. It's not like you or I could have used the password from home to enter anyone's account.
There is a time and a place for silly HTML comments or in-joke variable names, but a master password for a site with hundreds of millions of users is not one of them.
It's pretty normal for support personnel to have access to production systems in order to provide support.
BRILLIANT!
I'm convinced.
Well played. :)
This is Slashdot. Every summary must have at least one grammatical error.
And "investigating it's staff" wasn't good enough?
Anyone who finds a girlfriend through the internet is a fucking loser.
Everyone who ever finds a girlfriend at all does so through social networking. Just like anything else in the world, adding "on the Internet" doesn't change anything.
Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?)
The movie had the impossible task of wrapping up six never-made seasons' worth of story in under two hours. Consequently, there were a whole lot of back-stories that never got told. There really wasn't room to tell Book's story, which is incredibly unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Once again, the jackasses who cancelled the show are to blame.
Personally, when I see a movie, if it's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking, I don't give two and a half shits if it's a remake, a reboot, or a rip-off. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. Some remakes suck, and some don't. Some original movies suck, and some don't.
Wasn't Gibson one of the producers of Johnny Mnemonic?
According to IMDB's credits list, he wrote the screenplay, and that's it.
A lot can happen between writing a screenplay and then having it actually turned into a movie. Then again, maybe the screenplay was just crap. Some stories are just better books than movies.
Personally, I have no problem with those deaths, for reasons similar to what you stated.
However, if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue, I would want those characters to return. Serenity was a conclusion to the story. The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion. But I'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story — not because I didn't like the movie (in fact, I loved it), but simply because I want to see more Firefly. When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion, they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want. But until then, I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.
Of course, in reality, it isn't likely going to happen. The end of Firefly is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with (insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy).
Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.
How about all of them?
Seriously. I love the originals, but I'd love to see a complete reboot. Let's see what somebody else would've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.
After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago, I vote for Abrams.
Because other girls don't have dicks.
At the moment, this comment is modded "Informative".
Only on Slashdot.
The inventor is nuts.....
People can customize "true companion" personalities and then share the programs with others online on the company's website, according to Hines.
"Just think about wife or girlfriend swapping without actually giving the person to someone else," Hines said. "You can share the personality online."
Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, when planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and an empty field in Pennsylvania.
"I had a friend who passed away in 9/11," Hines said. "I promised myself I would create a program to store his personality, and that became the foundation for Roxxxy True Companion."
Wow.
The problem with discussing sentience on Slashdot is that everyone here fails to understand that the word has different definitions in different fields, and they all use the science fiction/Artificial Intelligence definition of sentience, which is really sapience.
When using the definition of sentience that is appropriate to a philosophical discussion of living creatures, hardly anyone argues that animals are not sentient.
I've never understood why people seem to freak out so much more over lab animals than they do over agricultural ones.
Because people are ignorant.
Most people, when they think of animal research, think of animals being tortured. Those same people, when they think of agricultural practices, think of happy little family farms where animals live a wonderful life and then eventually die a quick and painless death for the greater good.
They think this way because they are also selfish. Being opposed to animal research is easy. Being opposed to animal food, on the other hand, means actually changing the way they eat. And, hey, meat is tasty. Eating it gives pleasure. Few people are willing to give up pleasure for a little thing like ethics.
Those same people usually can't be bothered to do a little research and boycott products that do invasive animal testing.
Morals are okay as long as I don't have to change my ways in order to have them.
Parking a domain doesn't necessarily use up an IP address. A parked domain generally directs the user to an ad page, where multiple domains can all be directed to the same ad page. So, really, domain parking conserves IP addresses.
It's not like the guy was going to market a cell phone or mobile operating system any time soon. That happens to be all the Google trademarks apply to.
I honestly don't believe that the PKD estate will win this, nor that they should, but if a trademark is famous enough it can actually be applied to completely unrelated products. For example, if Google tried to call their phone the "Mickey Mouse", they would be sued into oblivion.
Basically, if there is a reasonable expectation that consumers can be confused (ie. thinking that the "Mickey Mouse" phone is an official Disney product), then the trademark will apply to that product, even though Disney doesn't make phones.