He actually didn't. He really just purposely misinterpret what the writer was trying to say. It's pretty clear that by style the writer was referring to stylized graphics of the game.
Of course a better word might have been chosen, but the fact remains that the writers meaning was clear.
99% of civil matters are heard in front of a judge as the parties wave their right to a jury since a jury is likely to fall asleep during your average civil trail. But we have something called the Seventh Amendment that says if you want to you can have a jury trial. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
I should clarify. You just can't go off on someone for no good reason. You have to have some reason, any reason, to think what you do. But it's pretty easy to demonstrate that I may have reason to believe that Microsoft is evil (the eat's babies is a bit over the top...) I wouldn't need to prove, that in fact, Microsoft is evil, I would merely need to point to a couple of news stories about Microsoft bullying companies or it's anticompetitive practices to prove that in fact I am of the belief that Microsoft is evil. You also can't benefit from finically from your commentary.
That depends on how you phrase the statement. 'Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies' Is a no no because it could be taken as a statement of fact. And would seem that I have some sort of factual bases for my argument even if there is none, thus it could damage Microsoft's reputation. However 'In my opinion Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies' Is ok because it's my opinion, I need no facts to back it up. Clearly the comments on Slashdot are opinions and as such are protected. It's really all about appearance. If it's clear that your comments are to be take as nothing more then commentary you'll be ok. If you write something that reads like a research paper that is full of slanders remarks about a company your going to get in trouble.
Of course you can always be sued no matter what you do. It's just the speed at which the case is dismissed will just depend on how clear the fact that your statements are commentary is.
/sigh The plaintiff is a US company and the defendant is a US citizen. That comment was directed at a case taking place entirely in the US legal system. How is that comment insightful? It's more of trolling then anything else.
No one sued suprnova. As long as they complied with take down notices they could have operated legally (that's not to say they couldn't get sued... they just shouldn't be. Just like Google shouldn't be sued either, but still does) They sued the people running the trackers. Similar to how they sued Napster; they're basically going after the facilitators rather then the actual uploaders.
Of course sense bit torrent isn't actually an integrated network I fail to see how the illegal file trading affects you at all.... PR I suppose. But then again it's been said there's no such thing as bad press
If the government didn't license these events it would be chaos. I could protest high tolls on the express way by parking my car on the on ramp. Blocking tens of thousands from going to work. The very notion that you would suggest that it is evil for the government to limit time and location of protests is utter nonsense.
But anyway we could go back and forth about whether or not we're witnessing the death of the first amendment all day. So there's really no point to do so.
But I still ridiculus that you would suggest holding back a technology that has the potetional to save lives just be cause it could be abused. I mean if people thought like you maybe we should have discovered electricity god knows how many people have been tortured with that. Or hell maybe the cavemen shouldn't have harnessed fire. I'm sure that's been used to hurt people. You fear of this technology is baseless parnaoia. If you think it will be abused don't fear the tech, fear the people that would abuse it.
I'm ranting about the fact that a government is acquiring better tools to suppress dissent.
They aren't. They're getting better tools to stop riots. You can dissent all you want and you'll never see these tools. Start rioting and they'll be used on you. I mean your dissenting from the government right now. Do you expect them to kick down your door and fry you with heat beam?
If you have a responsible government thats not abusing its power and is making sound decisions there maybe isn't much rationale for protests and but people should ALWAYS have them as an option in a country with freedom of speech. If you have a government like the one currently in the U.S. which is trampling civil rights, massively abusing its power, lying the nation in to wars and is actively seeking to suppress all forms of protest, then protests are the last resort of the people to express their dissatisfaction with an out of control government. Well there is the ballot box buts its pretty clear the American people thanks to their ever rising tide of ignorance about the world, are so easily manipulated they will vote in some spectacularly bad politicians.
That's not true at all you only need 51% of the country to agree with you to suppress the other 49%. That's 147 million people that could have very strong objections to a perfectly legitimate decision. You many not agree with the decision of the majority but that is the system we have. If you don't like the system go start your own country because no one has come up with a better system yet.
The biggest problem with protest suppression lately is the government is suppressing all protests unless they are in cages out of sight and out of mind as was the case at the conventions last year. ANY protest that doesn't adhere to government restrictions is basically classified as illegal and ripe for suppression, so they have made most protests pointless and impotent.
You are only guaranteed the right to protest, not the right to an audience. If you don't like it, go protest it, but don't get mad when CNN decides not to give you any air time.
Though I do agree that the designated protest areas are a pretty under handed trick by the Bush regime but the fact is those events are pretty over played in the news. They're much more isolated and ligament then the news channels would have you believe. I mean do you really think Bush like Cindy Sheehan sitting out side his ranch? Surely they would do something about that one if they really so evil.
In particular its invisible. It causes intense pain, you can sweep a large crowd with it from a distance and relatively concealed location. There aren't any images of tear gas, or cops wielding clubs and shields. It will just put a crowd down writhing in pain. Its pretty much a very clean torture device, no marks, and it's not clear what happened.
Ok what do you want the police to do? They are there protection peoples lives and property. There is 10,000 people coming down the road flipping cars and throwing rocks at you. You are not going to back down less the city fall into chaos. You can use the old standard of tear gas but that's dangerous to many people and not always effective. What do you want the police to do? Open fire with real weapons? Kill everyone? I guess you properly would because then there'd be some great images for the 10 o'clock news. If the police are using force on the crowd there is a good reason. You think the police just go around chucking tear gas at every anti-bush rally? Of course not. These weapons are used only when the crowd gets out of control and becomes dangerous. Of course they can be abused. But so can any tool or weapon. I personally wouldn't worry about what weapon they choose to use against me if it was illegal use of it. I'd be more worried that they used ANY weapon against me illegally. Why would it matter whether or it's a heat ray or a nightstick if the weapon is being abused? The people wil
Sounds like your more of ranting about the fact those riots were put down rather then the weapons that were used. I mean serious what exactly does that have to do with the weapons that were used, let alone the weapons that are being worked on? Those events show EXACTLY why we need these types of weapons. Police do have the ability to put down riots quite effetely with no high tech devices needed and if they had the type of crowd control weapons they're working on now maybe not as many people would have been hurt.
If people want to riot the mere threat of force won't stop them whether it be from tear gas, nightsticks, or high tech heat rays. And since the police are going to use force to stop them I say it's better to use the least dangerous form of force to stop them.
Of course non lethal weapons wouldn't be very effective on putting down a crowd that was really interested in causing damage. Given that a good percent of Americans are armed with lethal weapons. They are however very good at what they are designed to do. Stop a rioting crowd that is really there for no other reason to riot. If the Government wanted to protect themselves from a population that was really out to do them harm they would turned to tanks and machine guns. Your paranoia has no basis in reality (not that most paranoia is based on reality...)
If these things cause cancer. Wait 5 years and see what happens to the Australian population. I mean Australia got like 20 million people, with 66% of the population covered that's over 13 million test subjects;)
If you had a choice between the worlds best doctor and a med student, but the med student cost less. Which would you choose to entrust your health care too? That's not to say there is anything wrong with this guys endoscope. But seriously if you have the choice between a 1k dollar device made by someone who admittedly had no technical training. And a 30k dollar device built and designed by professional engineers and technicians... Hmm doesn't seem like a very hard choice. Personally I'm going with to the doctor with the fancy equipment.
Note: This is entirely about the US healthcare system. A cheep device is perfectly acceptable to places that can afford a good one, like Vietnam
Ohhh the bible is just the cliff notes. That makes sense, God is all powerful, but yet can't express himself properly.
Please, that's BS This new take that bible is not to be taken literally is an attempt to give meaning to a book that has largely lost it's meaning in the modern world. The bible was written by combining a bunch of second hand stories and by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then follow around a guy who said he was the son of God. If your willing to admit that the is not the word of God then why obey it at all? For all you know Moses was lieing when he said the commandments were written by God and he jotted them down himself. But you still believe that killing is against god don't you? Why do you pick and choose the parts of the bible that need 'interpreting' and the parts that are clear? I'll tell you why, because it's an attempt at justification of your beliefs. Your weak mindedness can't allow you accept that there might be no God, that some question might go unanswered, that you need God to give your life meaning. And so when forced to choose between what's right (example being women's rights, which the bible is also against) and your faith that says they shouldn't have any rights you try to have your cake and eat it to.
The hypocrisy of it all just piss me off to no end.
Ever heard of Sodom & Gomorrah? You can bet quite a few people died when the whole city was destroyed by God. Besides you don't even need to turn to the bible to find examples of the evilness of your God with respect to life. I'm sure that tsunami God sent to 'help' the people in SW Asia was really appreciated. Oh and remind me to thank God for AIDs, some of his best work. I never thought he'd be able to top the Black Death, but he is omnipotent.
All Christens worship to the bible. The bible tells them what they should and shouldn't do and there are some very clearly things they shouldn't do. -Can't have gay sex Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -No women priests Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And so on, there are 100s of examples of that kind of crap in there.
If someone doesn't believe those things that's their choice, but they're not a Christens if they don't. And further more, claiming to believe those things while claiming to be a Christen makes them look even more stupid for not even know what's in the fucking book they claim to worship.
If they don't believe the things in their holy book why do they still follow it? Rewrite the thing and start a new religion. Until then, there are 2 options for Christens AS DEFINED BY THEIR BOOK. 1) They are a hateful bunch that disapprove of everyone that doesn't agree with them. 2) Are hypocritical morons that have no idea what they're religion is really based on. Neither makes them look very good, therefore I have a very good reason to not like them.
No it's not prejudice because I have a very good reason.
I hate Christians because they're idiots. They blindly worship a book for no reason other then the previous generation of idiots worshiped it.
Christians are small minded people that fear change and see progress as an attack on their values.
Besides if God is such a big fan of free will then why is he always smiting and condemning everyone that disagrees with him?
Basically you can have free will as long as you make the right choice; other wise your burning at the stake as a heretic.
I'd figure on there being 2 main reasons.
1)There's no proof it will work yet. Many great things didn't getting the funding they deserved because there was no guarantee it would work.
2)And what exactly would they patent? You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.
I suppose they could patent the method of using them, but a rival company could easily take what they came up with, modify it enough so they can get their own patent and save a lot of money.
You independent movie fans always come off as so conceited. Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't make it a bad movie.
In fact lots of people think your wrong about 'War of the Worlds'. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/ratings
If you really want to pick on a movie that is all flash and no substance try picking on a real bomb like 'Stealth'.
I looked up the case on pacer (the US courts online management system) not all the documents are imaged (particularly the complaint) online but from the headers of the case it looks like he was charge with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Scheme to Defraud: Money, State Tax Stamps (Trafficking in stolen Property)
The case number is 1:04-cr-01273-AKH-ALL and 01314 In case anyone wants to look it up and has a pacer account.
Slashdot Mirror
He actually didn't.
He really just purposely misinterpret what the writer was trying to say.
It's pretty clear that by style the writer was referring to stylized graphics of the game.
Of course a better word might have been chosen, but the fact remains that the writers meaning was clear.
99% of civil matters are heard in front of a judge as the parties wave their right to a jury since a jury is likely to fall asleep during your average civil trail.
But we have something called the Seventh Amendment that says if you want to you can have a jury trial.
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
I should clarify.
You just can't go off on someone for no good reason.
You have to have some reason, any reason, to think what you do.
But it's pretty easy to demonstrate that I may have reason to believe that Microsoft is evil (the eat's babies is a bit over the top...)
I wouldn't need to prove, that in fact, Microsoft is evil, I would merely need to point to a couple of news stories about Microsoft bullying companies or it's anticompetitive practices to prove that in fact I am of the belief that Microsoft is evil.
You also can't benefit from finically from your commentary.
That depends on how you phrase the statement.
'Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies'
Is a no no because it could be taken as a statement of fact. And would seem that I have some sort of factual bases for my argument even if there is none, thus it could damage Microsoft's reputation.
However
'In my opinion Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies'
Is ok because it's my opinion, I need no facts to back it up.
Clearly the comments on Slashdot are opinions and as such are protected.
It's really all about appearance. If it's clear that your comments are to be take as nothing more then commentary you'll be ok.
If you write something that reads like a research paper that is full of slanders remarks about a company your going to get in trouble.
Of course you can always be sued no matter what you do. It's just the speed at which the case is dismissed will just depend on how clear the fact that your statements are commentary is.
(not to be taken as official legal advice)
/sigh
The plaintiff is a US company and the defendant is a US citizen.
That comment was directed at a case taking place entirely in the US legal system.
How is that comment insightful? It's more of trolling then anything else.
No one sued suprnova. As long as they complied with take down notices they could have operated legally (that's not to say they couldn't get sued... they just shouldn't be. Just like Google shouldn't be sued either, but still does)
They sued the people running the trackers. Similar to how they sued Napster; they're basically going after the facilitators rather then the actual uploaders.
Of course sense bit torrent isn't actually an integrated network I fail to see how the illegal file trading affects you at all....
PR I suppose. But then again it's been said there's no such thing as bad press
If the government didn't license these events it would be chaos.
I could protest high tolls on the express way by parking my car on the on ramp. Blocking tens of thousands from going to work.
The very notion that you would suggest that it is evil for the government to limit time and location of protests is utter nonsense.
But anyway we could go back and forth about whether or not we're witnessing the death of the first amendment all day. So there's really no point to do so.
But I still ridiculus that you would suggest holding back a technology that has the potetional to save lives just be cause it could be abused.
I mean if people thought like you maybe we should have discovered electricity god knows how many people have been tortured with that. Or hell maybe the cavemen shouldn't have harnessed fire. I'm sure that's been used to hurt people.
You fear of this technology is baseless parnaoia. If you think it will be abused don't fear the tech, fear the people that would abuse it.
I'm ranting about the fact that a government is acquiring better tools to suppress dissent.
They aren't. They're getting better tools to stop riots.
You can dissent all you want and you'll never see these tools. Start rioting and they'll be used on you.
I mean your dissenting from the government right now. Do you expect them to kick down your door and fry you with heat beam?
If you have a responsible government thats not abusing its power and is making sound decisions there maybe isn't much rationale for protests and but people should ALWAYS have them as an option in a country with freedom of speech. If you have a government like the one currently in the U.S. which is trampling civil rights, massively abusing its power, lying the nation in to wars and is actively seeking to suppress all forms of protest, then protests are the last resort of the people to express their dissatisfaction with an out of control government. Well there is the ballot box buts its pretty clear the American people thanks to their ever rising tide of ignorance about the world, are so easily manipulated they will vote in some spectacularly bad politicians.
That's not true at all you only need 51% of the country to agree with you to suppress the other 49%. That's 147 million people that could have very strong objections to a perfectly legitimate decision. You many not agree with the decision of the majority but that is the system we have. If you don't like the system go start your own country because no one has come up with a better system yet.
The biggest problem with protest suppression lately is the government is suppressing all protests unless they are in cages out of sight and out of mind as was the case at the conventions last year. ANY protest that doesn't adhere to government restrictions is basically classified as illegal and ripe for suppression, so they have made most protests pointless and impotent.
You are only guaranteed the right to protest, not the right to an audience.
If you don't like it, go protest it, but don't get mad when CNN decides not to give you any air time.
Though I do agree that the designated protest areas are a pretty under handed trick by the Bush regime but the fact is those events are pretty over played in the news. They're much more isolated and ligament then the news channels would have you believe. I mean do you really think Bush like Cindy Sheehan sitting out side his ranch? Surely they would do something about that one if they really so evil.
In particular its invisible. It causes intense pain, you can sweep a large crowd with it from a distance and relatively concealed location. There aren't any images of tear gas, or cops wielding clubs and shields. It will just put a crowd down writhing in pain. Its pretty much a very clean torture device, no marks, and it's not clear what happened.
Ok what do you want the police to do?
They are there protection peoples lives and property. There is 10,000 people coming down the road flipping cars and throwing rocks at you.
You are not going to back down less the city fall into chaos.
You can use the old standard of tear gas but that's dangerous to many people and not always effective.
What do you want the police to do? Open fire with real weapons? Kill everyone? I guess you properly would because then there'd be some great images for the 10 o'clock news.
If the police are using force on the crowd there is a good reason. You think the police just go around chucking tear gas at every anti-bush rally? Of course not. These weapons are used only when the crowd gets out of control and becomes dangerous.
Of course they can be abused. But so can any tool or weapon. I personally wouldn't worry about what weapon they choose to use against me if it was illegal use of it. I'd be more worried that they used ANY weapon against me illegally.
Why would it matter whether or it's a heat ray or a nightstick if the weapon is being abused?
The people wil
Sounds like your more of ranting about the fact those riots were put down rather then the weapons that were used.
I mean serious what exactly does that have to do with the weapons that were used, let alone the weapons that are being worked on?
Those events show EXACTLY why we need these types of weapons. Police do have the ability to put down riots quite effetely with no high tech devices needed and if they had the type of crowd control weapons they're working on now maybe not as many people would have been hurt.
If people want to riot the mere threat of force won't stop them whether it be from tear gas, nightsticks, or high tech heat rays. And since the police are going to use force to stop them I say it's better to use the least dangerous form of force to stop them.
Of course non lethal weapons wouldn't be very effective on putting down a crowd that was really interested in causing damage. Given that a good percent of Americans are armed with lethal weapons.
They are however very good at what they are designed to do. Stop a rioting crowd that is really there for no other reason to riot.
If the Government wanted to protect themselves from a population that was really out to do them harm they would turned to tanks and machine guns.
Your paranoia has no basis in reality (not that most paranoia is based on reality...)
If these things cause cancer. ;)
Wait 5 years and see what happens to the Australian population.
I mean Australia got like 20 million people, with 66% of the population covered that's over 13 million test subjects
If you had a choice between the worlds best doctor and a med student, but the med student cost less. Which would you choose to entrust your health care too?
That's not to say there is anything wrong with this guys endoscope. But seriously if you have the choice between a 1k dollar device made by someone who admittedly had no technical training. And a 30k dollar device built and designed by professional engineers and technicians...
Hmm doesn't seem like a very hard choice.
Personally I'm going with to the doctor with the fancy equipment.
Note: This is entirely about the US healthcare system. A cheep device is perfectly acceptable to places that can afford a good one, like Vietnam
Ohhh the bible is just the cliff notes. That makes sense, God is all powerful, but yet can't express himself properly.
Please, that's BS
This new take that bible is not to be taken literally is an attempt to give meaning to a book that has largely lost it's meaning in the modern world. The bible was written by combining a bunch of second hand stories and by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then follow around a guy who said he was the son of God.
If your willing to admit that the is not the word of God then why obey it at all?
For all you know Moses was lieing when he said the commandments were written by God and he jotted them down himself. But you still believe that killing is against god don't you? Why do you pick and choose the parts of the bible that need 'interpreting' and the parts that are clear? I'll tell you why, because it's an attempt at justification of your beliefs. Your weak mindedness can't allow you accept that there might be no God, that some question might go unanswered, that you need God to give your life meaning. And so when forced to choose between what's right (example being women's rights, which the bible is also against) and your faith that says they shouldn't have any rights you try to have your cake and eat it to.
The hypocrisy of it all just piss me off to no end.
Oh snap, how could I forget the flood; when god specifically wiped out all the wicked of earth.
Ever heard of Sodom & Gomorrah? You can bet quite a few people died when the whole city was destroyed by God.
Besides you don't even need to turn to the bible to find examples of the evilness of your God with respect to life.
I'm sure that tsunami God sent to 'help' the people in SW Asia was really appreciated.
Oh and remind me to thank God for AIDs, some of his best work. I never thought he'd be able to top the Black Death, but he is omnipotent.
All Christens worship to the bible.
The bible tells them what they should and shouldn't do and there are some very clearly things they shouldn't do.
-Can't have gay sex
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
-No women priests
Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And so on, there are 100s of examples of that kind of crap in there.
If someone doesn't believe those things that's their choice, but they're not a Christens if they don't. And further more, claiming to believe those things while claiming to be a Christen makes them look even more stupid for not even know what's in the fucking book they claim to worship.
If they don't believe the things in their holy book why do they still follow it?
Rewrite the thing and start a new religion. Until then, there are 2 options for Christens AS DEFINED BY THEIR BOOK.
1) They are a hateful bunch that disapprove of everyone that doesn't agree with them.
2) Are hypocritical morons that have no idea what they're religion is really based on.
Neither makes them look very good, therefore I have a very good reason to not like them.
No it's not prejudice because I have a very good reason.
I hate Christians because they're idiots. They blindly worship a book for no reason other then the previous generation of idiots worshiped it. Christians are small minded people that fear change and see progress as an attack on their values.
Besides if God is such a big fan of free will then why is he always smiting and condemning everyone that disagrees with him?
Basically you can have free will as long as you make the right choice; other wise your burning at the stake as a heretic.
I'd figure on there being 2 main reasons.
1)There's no proof it will work yet. Many great things didn't getting the funding they deserved because there was no guarantee it would work.
2)And what exactly would they patent? You'd have a hard time patenting stem cells since nature invented them long before the Pharm companies did.
I suppose they could patent the method of using them, but a rival company could easily take what they came up with, modify it enough so they can get their own patent and save a lot of money.
Just my thoughts.
I wasn't aware that I was in the midst of the Spokesman of God and all things Christian. ;)
That would be the pope... who is also against it
You independent movie fans always come off as so conceited. Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't make it a bad movie.
In fact lots of people think your wrong about 'War of the Worlds'.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/ratings
If you really want to pick on a movie that is all flash and no substance try picking on a real bomb like 'Stealth'.
I was really going for funny rather then informative.
Weird how the karma flows some times.
So true.
Especially considering the Median house price is 600k in SF!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8633039/
I looked up the case on pacer (the US courts online management system) not all the documents are imaged (particularly the complaint) online but from the headers of the case it looks like he was charge with
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Scheme to Defraud: Money, State Tax Stamps (Trafficking in stolen Property)
The case number is
1:04-cr-01273-AKH-ALL
and 01314
In case anyone wants to look it up and has a pacer account.
I think Japan has just won the stupidest laws ever award.