The BMI calculation is based on the height-weight ratios of the 1930s or 40s. People have gotten generally bigger frames since then.
Health should not be measured by weight or percentages, but rather by how well your internal systems are running. If everything inside is in good shape, it doesn't matter if this sticks out or that is covered in fat -- you're healthy. Attractive, now that is another matter.
The thing is, a motion to dismiss is a decision on the merits... sort of. The judge did find that there was at least some merit (perhaps not enough evidence to preponderate in SK's favor, but enough to warrant continuing the suit) to SK's claims.
Being as I wrote it, yeah, it was "unintentional," because I thought our discussion was limited to internet cites commonly cited as authority... like Wikipedia.
I think they're in love with credible sources. The problem is that most credible sources also have a print version. An internet-only source is inherently less credible because it allows any Tom, Dick or Harry with an internet connection to edit it.
That being said, if you cite to any encyclopedia, you're a retard. Read the source the encyclopedia got its information from, and cite to it.
How bourgeoisie... tell me, do you think laws written by those with money and power serve the interests of those with money and power, or the interests of those without money and power?
Comrade! We have detected you using mathematics and logic to stop an anti-Apple tirade! Please be advised: this is Slashdot. Apple sells only massively overpriced hardware. Pointing out that Apple sells something equivalent to its actual value, instead of the fantasy-land price that internet geeks believe it should cost (id est, free) is double-plus-ungood. We here at the Ministry for Nerdy Indignation hope that you will reconsider your eminently logical position and join with us in our outrage that Apple does not price their products at Mom's Basement prices. Thank you.
You're strawmanning. No one is saying that the world is going to "end" from warming/climate change. We're just saying that human settlement and living patterns have been set in place with regard to the current climate situation. A huge climate shift is going to force entire populations to move because of the way the world is going to change (it's too late to stop it now... the only question is whether we can delay it or lessen the negative effects). That's a HUGE logistical problem for a world like ours that is already overpopulated. It's not a doomsday scenario, but it's not exactly bunnies and rainbows either.
The single biggest... counterargument... I see against Gore's work is that he himself has a large carbon footprint. But there's nothing about this argument that invalidates what he's trying to do. But I've long since stopped expecting the majority of people I meet to understand logic.
It's not bricked. If you haven't jacked around withe the hardware, you can just roll back to an earlier version of the firmware and it will work as intended.
Criminal property damage is also not the right analysis. Someone voluntarily modified a product, using software and hardware that the manufacturer did not contemplate nor envision. It's no different than the aftermarket stereo I put in my car. If something goes wrong with it, I don't take it to Ford to fix. If Ford sent me a new peripheral to use with my non-Ford stereo, I would not whine if it didn't work properly with my aftermarket stereo. If I shorted out my radio attempting to install it, it wouldn't be Ford's fault for something that I knowingly and voluntarily did without the knowledge or consent of Ford. It is very different than the virus you imagine, unless you (1) installed a new operating system, (2) downloaded the virus from the maker of the original operating system, and (3) installed the virus willingly knowing that the original owner said, "do not uninstall our operating system and put another on the computer, or else we will not service any future problems.
This may be the first intelligent response to this issue I've seen.
Your gripe is that Apple made a bad business decision by not opening up the platform. That is valid. What I am tired of seeing is people complaining that Apple won't support their unauthorized hard- software hacks. There is no legal basis that these customers might rely on to compel Apple not to produce firmware updates that will not work with these hacks.
iPhone users own it... but does that mean that Apple should have to release software to work with homebrewed mods and non-Apple firmware? Why do people insist that it's Apple's duty to support people making hard and soft hacks that Apple themselves didn't envision? No way. You may disagree with Apple's closing of the platform to non-Apple development, but don't thereby expect Apple to cave in and support non-Apple hard and soft hacks.
Why wouldn't Apple want this to be multi-carrier? Then they could sell more iPhones through more carriers, and I'm sure they could just as easily negotiate a cut of the monthly service fees for the privilege of that carrier being able to offer an iPhone. Apple has all the market incentives in the world to make it multi-carrier (now that they know it is in-demand and doing well).
Malicious prosecution has nothing to do with contract law. You want Apple to release new software to run on a phone that you have either (1) intentionally tampered with the software on or (2) actively changed the hardware on. Why should Apple be forced to support the changes you made? Because you want to use it on a network that is not the one they are under a contract with? No way. Apple is well within their legal and moral rights to release an update that breaks compatibility with these hard and soft hacks. To better analogize to a car, this is like a manufacturer sending you a new drive shaft, and you complain when this driveshaft does not fit the custom engine you installed.
I'm aware of the argument... the question is whether one has a right to that profit in the first place. Since there is no common law "right to profit," I think most courts will be conservative in recognizing it.
The legal definition of theft is appropriation of another's property with the intent to deprive that person totally of the use of that property. In other words, I steal your car when I take it, and drive away with no intent to return it. If I take your CD to my house, copy it, and return the CD, I haven't deprived you of any property so totally as to bar your further use of that property. So I haven't committed theft. I may have violated the copyrights on the CD, but not theft.
From the original post: "stupid, pretty female culture a LOT more than women get discriminated against by stupid male geek culture."
From the one I responded to directly: "I think his entire point is that geek culture is far from having a monopoly on stupid sexist ideas of gender roles."
My response: "even if geek culture does not have a monopoly on stupid, sexist ideas, that does not excuse the fact that it does have stupid, sexist ideas. If we consider it to be "superior" in the respect of being not-stupid, then we damn well ought to be able to shed our stupid sexist ideas first.
And, as someone pointed out above, it is a good example of tu quoque (I have been looking for that Latin term for ages, thanks!) reasoning, which is flawed reasoning.
You don't seem to realize that the "you too!" form of argumentation is generally in poor taste and logically flawed. You can't point out "but but but women are sexist too!" and have that excuse your own sexism. It works with any form of argument. Seriously. It's like two little kids getting in trouble for something. "But little Johnny did it too!"
The point is that it's no defense to your own faults to point out a fault in another. If you are so concerned with the way others are acting, change your own behavior to show them a better way to act. Do the right thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Health should not be measured by weight or percentages, but rather by how well your internal systems are running. If everything inside is in good shape, it doesn't matter if this sticks out or that is covered in fat -- you're healthy. Attractive, now that is another matter.
The thing is, a motion to dismiss is a decision on the merits... sort of. The judge did find that there was at least some merit (perhaps not enough evidence to preponderate in SK's favor, but enough to warrant continuing the suit) to SK's claims.
Like some douche arguing with David Chalmers about Chalmers' own book.
Being as I wrote it, yeah, it was "unintentional," because I thought our discussion was limited to internet cites commonly cited as authority... like Wikipedia.
Why would you cite Amazon?
That being said, if you cite to any encyclopedia, you're a retard. Read the source the encyclopedia got its information from, and cite to it.
How bourgeoisie... tell me, do you think laws written by those with money and power serve the interests of those with money and power, or the interests of those without money and power?
I once wrote a short story about Jesus living his life in a cheap motel on the edge of Route 66. It was dark and twisted.
Yeah, never underestimate the power of public shaming.
Comrade! We have detected you using mathematics and logic to stop an anti-Apple tirade! Please be advised: this is Slashdot. Apple sells only massively overpriced hardware. Pointing out that Apple sells something equivalent to its actual value, instead of the fantasy-land price that internet geeks believe it should cost (id est, free) is double-plus-ungood. We here at the Ministry for Nerdy Indignation hope that you will reconsider your eminently logical position and join with us in our outrage that Apple does not price their products at Mom's Basement prices. Thank you.
Those are bad but not apocalyptic.
You're strawmanning. No one is saying that the world is going to "end" from warming/climate change. We're just saying that human settlement and living patterns have been set in place with regard to the current climate situation. A huge climate shift is going to force entire populations to move because of the way the world is going to change (it's too late to stop it now... the only question is whether we can delay it or lessen the negative effects). That's a HUGE logistical problem for a world like ours that is already overpopulated. It's not a doomsday scenario, but it's not exactly bunnies and rainbows either.
The single biggest... counterargument... I see against Gore's work is that he himself has a large carbon footprint. But there's nothing about this argument that invalidates what he's trying to do. But I've long since stopped expecting the majority of people I meet to understand logic.
Criminal property damage is also not the right analysis. Someone voluntarily modified a product, using software and hardware that the manufacturer did not contemplate nor envision. It's no different than the aftermarket stereo I put in my car. If something goes wrong with it, I don't take it to Ford to fix. If Ford sent me a new peripheral to use with my non-Ford stereo, I would not whine if it didn't work properly with my aftermarket stereo. If I shorted out my radio attempting to install it, it wouldn't be Ford's fault for something that I knowingly and voluntarily did without the knowledge or consent of Ford. It is very different than the virus you imagine, unless you (1) installed a new operating system, (2) downloaded the virus from the maker of the original operating system, and (3) installed the virus willingly knowing that the original owner said, "do not uninstall our operating system and put another on the computer, or else we will not service any future problems.
Your gripe is that Apple made a bad business decision by not opening up the platform. That is valid. What I am tired of seeing is people complaining that Apple won't support their unauthorized hard- software hacks. There is no legal basis that these customers might rely on to compel Apple not to produce firmware updates that will not work with these hacks.
iPhone users own it... but does that mean that Apple should have to release software to work with homebrewed mods and non-Apple firmware? Why do people insist that it's Apple's duty to support people making hard and soft hacks that Apple themselves didn't envision? No way. You may disagree with Apple's closing of the platform to non-Apple development, but don't thereby expect Apple to cave in and support non-Apple hard and soft hacks.
Why wouldn't Apple want this to be multi-carrier? Then they could sell more iPhones through more carriers, and I'm sure they could just as easily negotiate a cut of the monthly service fees for the privilege of that carrier being able to offer an iPhone. Apple has all the market incentives in the world to make it multi-carrier (now that they know it is in-demand and doing well).
Malicious prosecution has nothing to do with contract law. You want Apple to release new software to run on a phone that you have either (1) intentionally tampered with the software on or (2) actively changed the hardware on. Why should Apple be forced to support the changes you made? Because you want to use it on a network that is not the one they are under a contract with? No way. Apple is well within their legal and moral rights to release an update that breaks compatibility with these hard and soft hacks. To better analogize to a car, this is like a manufacturer sending you a new drive shaft, and you complain when this driveshaft does not fit the custom engine you installed.
In Slashdot land, the tag does not work. The preview button does, but only if one is smart enough to click it.
FTFY.
No, my friend... the intention is very material. It's called "mens rea," and it's required in all criminal definitions except for strict liability.
I'm aware of the argument... the question is whether one has a right to that profit in the first place. Since there is no common law "right to profit," I think most courts will be conservative in recognizing it.
The legal definition of theft is appropriation of another's property with the intent to deprive that person totally of the use of that property. In other words, I steal your car when I take it, and drive away with no intent to return it. If I take your CD to my house, copy it, and return the CD, I haven't deprived you of any property so totally as to bar your further use of that property. So I haven't committed theft. I may have violated the copyrights on the CD, but not theft.
From the one I responded to directly: "I think his entire point is that geek culture is far from having a monopoly on stupid sexist ideas of gender roles."
My response: "even if geek culture does not have a monopoly on stupid, sexist ideas, that does not excuse the fact that it does have stupid, sexist ideas. If we consider it to be "superior" in the respect of being not-stupid, then we damn well ought to be able to shed our stupid sexist ideas first.
And, as someone pointed out above, it is a good example of tu quoque (I have been looking for that Latin term for ages, thanks!) reasoning, which is flawed reasoning.
The point is that it's no defense to your own faults to point out a fault in another. If you are so concerned with the way others are acting, change your own behavior to show them a better way to act. Do the right thing.