I'm sure no one is in disagreement (at least on Slashdot) that software patents are wrong, because the underlying concepts provide the foundation for all sorts of things, not the least of which is mathematics. I'm oversimplifying, but you get the gist of it. But I for one feel that if you have patented anything, if you've no prototype.. invalid patent. Patenting ideas just seems foreign to me (and lots of others, I might add.)
Patents like this one are cash-grabs. Microsoft (and the rest of the 22 companies) didn't fall off the OS turnip truck yesterday. Simply put, we've seen the implementation asserted in this patent _many_ years ago...
Thanks for missing my entire point. Public school graduate, I presume?:)
The secondary point is how copyright has gotten completely out of hand. But suffice to say, most people have enough of a bias that they miss the point entirely. Did I endorse piracy? No. Did I condone the trojan? No. But, thanks for reading anyway.:) I don't want to put forth the wrong expectation, but I do think that every salvo in this war of ideas should be halted until we can at least agree that Copyright in its current form is _NOT_ what the Founders were after. If we can at least get that far (we know the *AA's and copyright holding houses like Disney won't budge), maybe we can get some sanity back into this and stop trying to stamp these things out with viruses, trojans, legislation, criminalization, and excessive litigation.
The tragic thing is, it's not doing anything but annoying those who weren't going to buy their product anyway (provided it's indeed a disgruntled developer). So in effect, unlike an after-school special where everyone learns something and grows as human beings, this just annoys some dude who was stupid enough not to use a VM to run suspect programs.:) It's all a monumental stack of steaming shit because we've allowed ourselves to be tricked into believing the Founding Fathers intended for Disney to rape the Public Domain and charge us perpetually for things they didn't even have to pay for. It's a bloody tragic b-movie where we all get caught with our pants down. And yet, nothing changes.
Both sides of this argument have emotional ties to the subject, and their imagery always degenerates into the "starving artist/artisan" and the "freedom loving anarchist".:) While it's silly that something that sells for $10 is posted on usenet, the inevitability of such an action should be no surprise to even the RIAA.
We simply need to get away from the "copyright guarantees revenue" that the big faceless corporations are trying to turn into a cultural meme through misinformation and buying legislation. Once we get those assholes out of the argument, we might actually find a productive middle ground where freedom prevails for all involved. Putting a simple trojan up on a torrent site, or like Madonna's stupid limewire trick, do nothing but make for an interesting read and continue to give the faceless entities fodder to use in their spread of propaganda and misinformation to the great unwashed.
*Sigh.* I wish there was a better solution, but as long as there have been things that have a perceived value, there have always been those who simply want to take from others. It's ingrained into the deepest instincts, and I don't know how to make anyone act civil. The **AA's think you can scare and sue people into civility... Now I'm depressed.:-/
You've hit the nail on the head. Patents != copyright. Though these patent trolls seem to think it does. Which is a shame, and because of it, we've got to deal with this nonsense in the news and clogging up the courts. Suffice to say, the companies being sued are fat with cash, which is probably the reason Cygnus decided to have a go...
Patents do not allow you to "placehold" an idea indefinitely with nothing to show for it but a lawsuit. The fact that the courts don't force those attempting to defend their patent to produce a prototype or existing product is odd. It'd surely speed up the process.:)
And yet... patent trolls are still patent trolls. See a program Cygnus is pitching that is being "infringed"? No? PATENT TROLL. Sorry... time to call a spade a spade. Even if you read the "whole" document.
It's not that talk radio uses that term quite a bit, rather it's not theirs to claim. It existed before Hannity and Limbaugh used it as a derogatory term for "left leaning" media.
It doesn't matter which ones are silly and which ones are "trendy". The boss of a company can no more make you do a Scientology indoctrination any more than the boss of a company make you take Bible classes as a condition of employment. The only way that would even CLOSELY be legitimate is if you were working as a help desk for Bible study, or a church. Since Diskeeper's not a bloody church, they can't trample the non-Scientologists religion any more than Ross Perot saying all employees of EDS have to be Mormon.
The free exercise of religion _is_ provided to individuals... not for individuals to exercise ON someone else.:)
And whether or not you think religions are silly, they're protected liberties for all Americans. Not just Tom Cruise.
If you've had the problem... I'm sure you're aware. And as nerds... we are already aware of the problems from other news sites that don't say "News for Nerds... Stuff that matters":)
When Apple releases a fix or tells us what the problem really is (rather than relying on posts to forums..sorry, "lots" of posts to forums on the subject) THEN I suspect it'll qualify for "news for nerds"...
But until then, the MacFuse and AincentFS announcements ARE news.
NO.
The "blades" system initially set up by microsoft was compact, useful, and dare I say, quite snappy. Now we have these moronic billboards attached to each of our files, and long stretches of unused air between your current "tableau" and the next... not to mention several metric tons of adverts under "SPOTLIGHT", but I guess you missed them. NXE is a response to the hype of Home and the Wii. Nothing more. There is nothing useful about the NXE (that wasn't cut due to time constraints... some of it that was cut might've been interesting, but who knows when that'll show up, if ever.)
At least you can go back to the old blades view IIRC. And in Home, you can still use the XMB and ignore it entirely... provided you're not some rabid masochist who has never used a PS3 but feels the need to comment like an 8 year old borrowing daddy's laptop. You're being advertised to by both companies in equal annoyance quantities. The fact that you dismiss it in NXE doesn't make it "okay" compared to the ads in Home.
Get it? Probably not. You LIKE the NXE.... that's what, -20 IQ points right there. Hope you're not in deficit now, troll.
I think that's the very thing they wanted to do with their "miis" since the Wii was so successful, not to mention the amount of so-called "casual" gamers who have bought a Wii.... MS and sony thought, "Mii == casual gamer" and voila, now we've got our very own Sony/MS branded Miis. Marketroids have done it again.;)
It depends on if you think Home is the lynchpin of their overall plan to become "Microsoft's bitch" in the online world. At least it's free.;) I think there will be some big reworking and retooling of the Home stuff as it leaves beta... (and into another beta! heh.)
Besides "flawed business model" is like "synergy"... makes you want to hit someone with a bat every time you hear it.
SCEA has been reportedly saying that SCJ (or whatever it's called over there) is basically clueless when it comes to the importance of online and community in the new console generation. Now granted, I'm not so sure the whole "community" aspect needs to be the sole focus of the big picture, but it does have a place (just not in my universe... so I'm old.) But if SCEA can see Sony Japan's reluctance to try and do battle with MS in the online arena (networked games don't count), it must be patently obvious to everyone.:) That being said, perhaps Home will become the tool it needs to be and less of the "MMO" it is trying to be.... *shrug* (I'm skeptical... because Sony's big, cumbersome and glacial...)
That's funny, because I thought the 'NXE' xbox interface was quite homely and vapid as well. Sony and Microsoft are beating themselves to death trying to recreate some buzz around virtual characters like the Wii has. (Don't Sony and MS realize that the online portion of the Wii is as hard as Mandarin Chinese to get anything useful going on with 4000 character "friend codes" and other fun stuff.) Still, I despise the beta of home, and I got to experience it before the open beta. I got utterly bored... It's like a really silly collection of loading screens.;) I'd rather eat dirt and put plaid pants on my Xbox "avatar".
I'm no fan of either's online presence... because all they seem to collect are morons, half-wits, and people who think they're "kewl" because they call everyone "fag" and don't get the living snot beat out of them. (Penny Arcade's summation of what the internet does to common courtesy speaks volumes about _ALL_ online offerings.)
Funny thing is, you have to _pay_ for the privilege of the a-holes on XBL, but Home's FWEE!:) Meh. I guess I'm getting old. I'd rather just play games, thanks... and in the rare occasion I get enough time to play multiplayer... it'll be with people I already know, rather than the 8 metric tons of idiots that troll the online gaming world looking for a few stupid laughs about dick size and "mad skillz".
I see your point, and the court is a vital tool for the host of ambiguities that come up in this sort of thing, but I'm always cautious when we have to get courts involved. Because of the simple fact that there have been entirely too many cases that simply fly in the face of precedent and equal application of the law merely because some judge or prosecutor has an axe to grind. It's not rampant, but anytime you involve the court, you run the risk of doing damage to freedom for what we both agree is something that needs to be cleared up somehow. I just look at the statement from a "least squares" perspective (so to speak). I'm just one of those crass individuals who take a probably overly skeptical view of defamation in general.... particularly when it's used as the "big hammer of silence" for certain powerful entities/persons who want to cut off their detractors. (that's not always the case with celebrities, but by and large, it seems like bad press gets a defamation smack... but with the internet, it's getting harder to cover that up.. heh.) Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think you'll agree that there's something else brewing just below the surface on this one.
As for the ISP situation, I think obviously we can see that pure anonymity isn't going to work on the internet any more than it would in real life... and we've got to remember the boundaries we set for anonymity can change, and we must be careful not to change them for the worse, or we'll lose valuable things like whistleblowers and anonymous tips for crimes if we close the circle too tightly to protect against every single piece of possible defamation that exists in print or on the web.
My hunch is, as I've been mulling this over, one of two things have occurred here... 1) the owner thinks he might know who this person is and is using the court to flush them out. Perhaps it's a rival franchisee... or an ex of some sort... *shrug* or (or possibly and) 2) the place was a sty and the owner's using the courts to cover it (and future dissent) up... but since it's public now, I don't suspect (if he indeed was trying tactic 2) he had thought that through all the way.:)
Well, that's assuming this person (anonymous or not) either has information as to the breadth and scope of the Health Inspector's information and data, and 2nd, that they are using said data as a barometer to express such an opinion. Since we cannot assume this person is a health inspector, we have to conclude they are speaking for themselves (as reasonable people), and such expertise is not in question. (Thats why I think the anonymity thing's going to be a bigger deal than simply seeing if this statement is defamation or not... at some point they're going to need to figure out if this person is indeed someone who would benefit from the closure of this establishment, or the reduction in business, say for a competing business say...)
But here's the rub, your example with the car specifically states that the "speeding" car is the fastest "speeding" car they've seen. Now, that puts a qualifier on what kind of car, and hence that could be construed as someone who knows, or has more info on the subject of speeding cars... (or the person's a kook... that's a possibility too.) That in and of itself lends to the original argument w/r/t health inspector. But, if, like this person did with their statement about how dirty the establishment is, it's more generic than say "that's by far the filthiest establishment I've ever seen a dirty establishment before." Now that would qualify as a specific barometer and not the hyperbolic opinion that I think the original is. I mean, they don't put you in jail for saying "I'd kill for a klondike bar"... though, they might arrest you if you told someone "I'd kill person X with a lead pipe for a klondike bar..."
I see your point, don't misunderstand, but in terms of specific, narrowly focused speech, I think there's a great deal of leeway both the poster and the "allegedly defamed" (I forget his name) are using when promoting "opinion v. defamation". Now, I can see if the person cited specific items that were nasty, etc.. that could be some shaky ground (if it's not true, of course.... this is all moot if it's actually a true statement.) But like I said, it'll be interesting to find out what shakes out of this whole thing.:)
The issue here must not be the obvious, and more importantly, how this sort of thing affects whistleblowers etc (this would set some sort or precedent in Maryland at least). I'm not privy to the reasoning they used, but for me taking the statement at face value, it simply doesn't pass the "reasonable man test" (to qualify for defamation). For the courts in MD, though, it could very well be a bad law making bad precedent, or like the case with that girl who committed suicide and the whole myspace EULA nonsense rulings that were the result of using a VERY big legal hammer to "get" someone who did something morally reprehensible, but not illegal (in the case of the woman).
In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to see where this goes... not only in terms of the legal implications of anonymity on the web (and otherwise), but in terms of how we can take things meant to be an opinion and turn them into defamation. We used to have a VERY narrow definition of defamation, and I think we're losing that narrowness. Whether it be because the legal system is struggling to deal with the new medium of the internet, or we're simply becoming too sensitive, it's anyone's guess I suppose.
I mean, for instance, I could say that Angelina Jolie is "the ugliest woman I've seen", and say it in public (or post it), and since Angelina makes her living on her looks (and acting too, but she has modeled IIRC), she could claim I defamed her and I'd get the shaft... admittedly it's a stretch and most people would think I was batshit crazy for thinking it, much less saying it. (I may think she's a beauty deep down, but she's like an Italian sportscar... entirely too much maintenance for what you get.)
I still hold to the truism "on matters of taste, there is no argument." Either way, this is (and should) get a bit more press, since it might have implications even we can't think of at the moment...
Well certainly, but this is so blinking obvious, why clog the courts? The statement is so obviously an opinion, even people with English as a 3rd language can comprehend the statement isn't defamation, it's simply an opinion. Granted, the courts might swiftly (as swiftly as they can move) dismiss this case, but the fact remains that there is a slim chance for a moron (or someone with an agenda) to turn this upside down and like the good old days with the "DeCSS" case, screw up something fierce.
I'd rather let the obvious stand, and let the courts sort out the confusing ones.
Because the person has to come forward. Do you think the court will examine this statement as it is, without the identity of the one who wrote it? Anonymous speech that isn't a violation should remain anonymous. It's none of the owner's business who holds that opinion.
No. The quote was " one of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." That's an opinion. That is not defamation. If it was "the health department recently said that's the most unsanitary place they've ever seen" (or something like that), then you might have a case for defamation.
I don't have to prove my opinion, and I am free to say it on a forum that supports open discussion. This is nothing more than a business owner who thinks he can squeeze someone because either a) he's got an axe to grind, or b) he really does have a stank-ified establishment and he is trying to cover his butt... which is sleazy to the nth degree either way you slice it.
Defamation? I think not. And I think the courts are with me on this, or we've truly slipped into the abyss.
Precisely my point. The irrational fear of the flu vaccine prevents its widespread use every year.(forget those couple of years where they didn't make enough and such... generally they have enough and it's either free or $5 for chrissakes). The irrational fear that prevents otherwise sane people from getting their kids vaccinated for really nasty diseases is tantamount to being the cause for the eventual pandemic. It's not a logical leap to think so. For most of the developing world, still struggling to get out of the muck, they'd kill for some decent protection from the nasties. (Unless of course the local leaders claim the vaccines are tainted to give you HIV, in which case people irrationally avoid them and *boom* another outbreak of something we thought we'd eradicated.)
The risks of some vaccines (not all, mind you... most of them are clearly safe) are a LOT lower than the disease itself. Even WITH the risk of the vaccine, people STILL have a better chance vaccinated than not. People don't get that. Remember the polio vaccine? It was possible to actually GET polio from it! Yet the risk of getting polio from the vaccine was FAR LESS than going unvaccinated and rolling the dice, hoping you wouldn't get it (or more importantly your child wouldn't get it.) In this hyper-litigious, ultra-sensitive, and irresponsible world, we're short-changing our children because we (collectively) are acting like superstitious nutjobs and not realizing the TRUTH from the PANICKY beatwriters who are looking for good copy. In short, if this trend continues, we're screwed.
Having a high fever for a long period of time can lead to permanent disability... additionally a high fever can cause respiratory and circulatory problems in some people resulting in death.
So, you want to take the bet that the vaccine will kill you, or would you like to gamble with permanent brain damage or even death as a result of a major illness that could've been prevented with a vaccine. Sorry, this sort of stuff, like all medical information, has too much emotion attached to it. You're _never_ going to get a straight answer until you remove the interests. Jenny McCarthy and all these celebrity wannabes need to STOP using their fame to incite and allow REAL science to take over and REAL results give us some answers. It's a slow process, but one I'm willing to wait out.
There are people who are goddamned convinced that they get the flu when they get vaccinated. In one sense they're right (the virus is dead), but in another sense they are misinformed, so they refuse to get a shot, thereby creating yet another in a large population of people who _get_ the flu, pass it to others, and run the risk of serious upper-respiratory complications as a result of their ignorance. Apply that to a really nasty disease we have a vaccine for, and you'll see why I'm skeptical of the people who believe vaccines are giving kids all sorts of ailments.
But remember... we have a little thing called "The Constitution" that is to be upheld, evil or not. No one seems too worried Obama isn't on the same path of attempting to gut the Bill of Rights as his predecessor, but looking at his cabinet, he's not on the path towards anything other than "More of the Same."
As for the "continuation of bush years" crap, honestly... McCain was closer to Obama on the political spectrum than anyone gives him credit for... simply because he had an elephant instead of a donkey as mascot really doesn't matter when it comes down to brass tacks... (you can look at his voting record to see that...) We were voting for a white or half-white version of Obama... we chose the half-white.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure no one is in disagreement (at least on Slashdot) that software patents are wrong, because the underlying concepts provide the foundation for all sorts of things, not the least of which is mathematics. I'm oversimplifying, but you get the gist of it. But I for one feel that if you have patented anything, if you've no prototype.. invalid patent. Patenting ideas just seems foreign to me (and lots of others, I might add.)
Patents like this one are cash-grabs. Microsoft (and the rest of the 22 companies) didn't fall off the OS turnip truck yesterday. Simply put, we've seen the implementation asserted in this patent _many_ years ago...
Vote Monkey! :)
Thanks for missing my entire point. Public school graduate, I presume? :)
:) I don't want to put forth the wrong expectation, but I do think that every salvo in this war of ideas should be halted until we can at least agree that Copyright in its current form is _NOT_ what the Founders were after. If we can at least get that far (we know the *AA's and copyright holding houses like Disney won't budge), maybe we can get some sanity back into this and stop trying to stamp these things out with viruses, trojans, legislation, criminalization, and excessive litigation.
The secondary point is how copyright has gotten completely out of hand. But suffice to say, most people have enough of a bias that they miss the point entirely. Did I endorse piracy? No. Did I condone the trojan? No. But, thanks for reading anyway.
The tragic thing is, it's not doing anything but annoying those who weren't going to buy their product anyway (provided it's indeed a disgruntled developer). So in effect, unlike an after-school special where everyone learns something and grows as human beings, this just annoys some dude who was stupid enough not to use a VM to run suspect programs. :) It's all a monumental stack of steaming shit because we've allowed ourselves to be tricked into believing the Founding Fathers intended for Disney to rape the Public Domain and charge us perpetually for things they didn't even have to pay for. It's a bloody tragic b-movie where we all get caught with our pants down. And yet, nothing changes.
:) While it's silly that something that sells for $10 is posted on usenet, the inevitability of such an action should be no surprise to even the RIAA.
:-/
Both sides of this argument have emotional ties to the subject, and their imagery always degenerates into the "starving artist/artisan" and the "freedom loving anarchist".
We simply need to get away from the "copyright guarantees revenue" that the big faceless corporations are trying to turn into a cultural meme through misinformation and buying legislation. Once we get those assholes out of the argument, we might actually find a productive middle ground where freedom prevails for all involved. Putting a simple trojan up on a torrent site, or like Madonna's stupid limewire trick, do nothing but make for an interesting read and continue to give the faceless entities fodder to use in their spread of propaganda and misinformation to the great unwashed.
*Sigh.* I wish there was a better solution, but as long as there have been things that have a perceived value, there have always been those who simply want to take from others. It's ingrained into the deepest instincts, and I don't know how to make anyone act civil. The **AA's think you can scare and sue people into civility... Now I'm depressed.
You've hit the nail on the head. Patents != copyright. Though these patent trolls seem to think it does. Which is a shame, and because of it, we've got to deal with this nonsense in the news and clogging up the courts. Suffice to say, the companies being sued are fat with cash, which is probably the reason Cygnus decided to have a go...
:)
Patents do not allow you to "placehold" an idea indefinitely with nothing to show for it but a lawsuit. The fact that the courts don't force those attempting to defend their patent to produce a prototype or existing product is odd. It'd surely speed up the process.
And yet... patent trolls are still patent trolls. See a program Cygnus is pitching that is being "infringed"? No? PATENT TROLL. Sorry... time to call a spade a spade. Even if you read the "whole" document.
It's not that talk radio uses that term quite a bit, rather it's not theirs to claim. It existed before Hannity and Limbaugh used it as a derogatory term for "left leaning" media.
It doesn't matter which ones are silly and which ones are "trendy". The boss of a company can no more make you do a Scientology indoctrination any more than the boss of a company make you take Bible classes as a condition of employment. The only way that would even CLOSELY be legitimate is if you were working as a help desk for Bible study, or a church. Since Diskeeper's not a bloody church, they can't trample the non-Scientologists religion any more than Ross Perot saying all employees of EDS have to be Mormon.
:)
The free exercise of religion _is_ provided to individuals... not for individuals to exercise ON someone else.
And whether or not you think religions are silly, they're protected liberties for all Americans. Not just Tom Cruise.
If you've had the problem... I'm sure you're aware. And as nerds... we are already aware of the problems from other news sites that don't say "News for Nerds... Stuff that matters" :)
When Apple releases a fix or tells us what the problem really is (rather than relying on posts to forums..sorry, "lots" of posts to forums on the subject) THEN I suspect it'll qualify for "news for nerds"...
But until then, the MacFuse and AincentFS announcements ARE news.
NO. The "blades" system initially set up by microsoft was compact, useful, and dare I say, quite snappy. Now we have these moronic billboards attached to each of our files, and long stretches of unused air between your current "tableau" and the next... not to mention several metric tons of adverts under "SPOTLIGHT", but I guess you missed them. NXE is a response to the hype of Home and the Wii. Nothing more. There is nothing useful about the NXE (that wasn't cut due to time constraints... some of it that was cut might've been interesting, but who knows when that'll show up, if ever.) At least you can go back to the old blades view IIRC. And in Home, you can still use the XMB and ignore it entirely... provided you're not some rabid masochist who has never used a PS3 but feels the need to comment like an 8 year old borrowing daddy's laptop. You're being advertised to by both companies in equal annoyance quantities. The fact that you dismiss it in NXE doesn't make it "okay" compared to the ads in Home. Get it? Probably not. You LIKE the NXE.... that's what, -20 IQ points right there. Hope you're not in deficit now, troll.
I think that's the very thing they wanted to do with their "miis" since the Wii was so successful, not to mention the amount of so-called "casual" gamers who have bought a Wii.... MS and sony thought, "Mii == casual gamer" and voila, now we've got our very own Sony/MS branded Miis. Marketroids have done it again. ;)
bleh.
Good points... thanks for the discussion.... I enjoyed it.
It depends on if you think Home is the lynchpin of their overall plan to become "Microsoft's bitch" in the online world. At least it's free. ;) I think there will be some big reworking and retooling of the Home stuff as it leaves beta... (and into another beta! heh.)
:) That being said, perhaps Home will become the tool it needs to be and less of the "MMO" it is trying to be.... *shrug* (I'm skeptical... because Sony's big, cumbersome and glacial...)
Besides "flawed business model" is like "synergy"... makes you want to hit someone with a bat every time you hear it.
SCEA has been reportedly saying that SCJ (or whatever it's called over there) is basically clueless when it comes to the importance of online and community in the new console generation. Now granted, I'm not so sure the whole "community" aspect needs to be the sole focus of the big picture, but it does have a place (just not in my universe... so I'm old.) But if SCEA can see Sony Japan's reluctance to try and do battle with MS in the online arena (networked games don't count), it must be patently obvious to everyone.
That's funny, because I thought the 'NXE' xbox interface was quite homely and vapid as well. Sony and Microsoft are beating themselves to death trying to recreate some buzz around virtual characters like the Wii has. (Don't Sony and MS realize that the online portion of the Wii is as hard as Mandarin Chinese to get anything useful going on with 4000 character "friend codes" and other fun stuff.) Still, I despise the beta of home, and I got to experience it before the open beta. I got utterly bored... It's like a really silly collection of loading screens. ;) I'd rather eat dirt and put plaid pants on my Xbox "avatar".
:) Meh. I guess I'm getting old. I'd rather just play games, thanks... and in the rare occasion I get enough time to play multiplayer... it'll be with people I already know, rather than the 8 metric tons of idiots that troll the online gaming world looking for a few stupid laughs about dick size and "mad skillz".
I'm no fan of either's online presence... because all they seem to collect are morons, half-wits, and people who think they're "kewl" because they call everyone "fag" and don't get the living snot beat out of them. (Penny Arcade's summation of what the internet does to common courtesy speaks volumes about _ALL_ online offerings.)
Funny thing is, you have to _pay_ for the privilege of the a-holes on XBL, but Home's FWEE!
I see your point, and the court is a vital tool for the host of ambiguities that come up in this sort of thing, but I'm always cautious when we have to get courts involved. Because of the simple fact that there have been entirely too many cases that simply fly in the face of precedent and equal application of the law merely because some judge or prosecutor has an axe to grind. It's not rampant, but anytime you involve the court, you run the risk of doing damage to freedom for what we both agree is something that needs to be cleared up somehow. I just look at the statement from a "least squares" perspective (so to speak). I'm just one of those crass individuals who take a probably overly skeptical view of defamation in general.... particularly when it's used as the "big hammer of silence" for certain powerful entities/persons who want to cut off their detractors. (that's not always the case with celebrities, but by and large, it seems like bad press gets a defamation smack... but with the internet, it's getting harder to cover that up.. heh.) Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think you'll agree that there's something else brewing just below the surface on this one.
:)
As for the ISP situation, I think obviously we can see that pure anonymity isn't going to work on the internet any more than it would in real life... and we've got to remember the boundaries we set for anonymity can change, and we must be careful not to change them for the worse, or we'll lose valuable things like whistleblowers and anonymous tips for crimes if we close the circle too tightly to protect against every single piece of possible defamation that exists in print or on the web.
My hunch is, as I've been mulling this over, one of two things have occurred here... 1) the owner thinks he might know who this person is and is using the court to flush them out. Perhaps it's a rival franchisee... or an ex of some sort... *shrug* or (or possibly and) 2) the place was a sty and the owner's using the courts to cover it (and future dissent) up... but since it's public now, I don't suspect (if he indeed was trying tactic 2) he had thought that through all the way.
Well, that's assuming this person (anonymous or not) either has information as to the breadth and scope of the Health Inspector's information and data, and 2nd, that they are using said data as a barometer to express such an opinion. Since we cannot assume this person is a health inspector, we have to conclude they are speaking for themselves (as reasonable people), and such expertise is not in question. (Thats why I think the anonymity thing's going to be a bigger deal than simply seeing if this statement is defamation or not... at some point they're going to need to figure out if this person is indeed someone who would benefit from the closure of this establishment, or the reduction in business, say for a competing business say...)
:)
But here's the rub, your example with the car specifically states that the "speeding" car is the fastest "speeding" car they've seen. Now, that puts a qualifier on what kind of car, and hence that could be construed as someone who knows, or has more info on the subject of speeding cars... (or the person's a kook... that's a possibility too.) That in and of itself lends to the original argument w/r/t health inspector. But, if, like this person did with their statement about how dirty the establishment is, it's more generic than say "that's by far the filthiest establishment I've ever seen a dirty establishment before." Now that would qualify as a specific barometer and not the hyperbolic opinion that I think the original is. I mean, they don't put you in jail for saying "I'd kill for a klondike bar"... though, they might arrest you if you told someone "I'd kill person X with a lead pipe for a klondike bar..."
I see your point, don't misunderstand, but in terms of specific, narrowly focused speech, I think there's a great deal of leeway both the poster and the "allegedly defamed" (I forget his name) are using when promoting "opinion v. defamation". Now, I can see if the person cited specific items that were nasty, etc.. that could be some shaky ground (if it's not true, of course.... this is all moot if it's actually a true statement.) But like I said, it'll be interesting to find out what shakes out of this whole thing.
The issue here must not be the obvious, and more importantly, how this sort of thing affects whistleblowers etc (this would set some sort or precedent in Maryland at least). I'm not privy to the reasoning they used, but for me taking the statement at face value, it simply doesn't pass the "reasonable man test" (to qualify for defamation). For the courts in MD, though, it could very well be a bad law making bad precedent, or like the case with that girl who committed suicide and the whole myspace EULA nonsense rulings that were the result of using a VERY big legal hammer to "get" someone who did something morally reprehensible, but not illegal (in the case of the woman).
In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to see where this goes... not only in terms of the legal implications of anonymity on the web (and otherwise), but in terms of how we can take things meant to be an opinion and turn them into defamation. We used to have a VERY narrow definition of defamation, and I think we're losing that narrowness. Whether it be because the legal system is struggling to deal with the new medium of the internet, or we're simply becoming too sensitive, it's anyone's guess I suppose.
I mean, for instance, I could say that Angelina Jolie is "the ugliest woman I've seen", and say it in public (or post it), and since Angelina makes her living on her looks (and acting too, but she has modeled IIRC), she could claim I defamed her and I'd get the shaft... admittedly it's a stretch and most people would think I was batshit crazy for thinking it, much less saying it. (I may think she's a beauty deep down, but she's like an Italian sportscar... entirely too much maintenance for what you get.)
I still hold to the truism "on matters of taste, there is no argument." Either way, this is (and should) get a bit more press, since it might have implications even we can't think of at the moment...
Well certainly, but this is so blinking obvious, why clog the courts? The statement is so obviously an opinion, even people with English as a 3rd language can comprehend the statement isn't defamation, it's simply an opinion. Granted, the courts might swiftly (as swiftly as they can move) dismiss this case, but the fact remains that there is a slim chance for a moron (or someone with an agenda) to turn this upside down and like the good old days with the "DeCSS" case, screw up something fierce.
I'd rather let the obvious stand, and let the courts sort out the confusing ones.
Because the person has to come forward. Do you think the court will examine this statement as it is, without the identity of the one who wrote it? Anonymous speech that isn't a violation should remain anonymous. It's none of the owner's business who holds that opinion.
No. The quote was " one of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." That's an opinion. That is not defamation. If it was "the health department recently said that's the most unsanitary place they've ever seen" (or something like that), then you might have a case for defamation.
I don't have to prove my opinion, and I am free to say it on a forum that supports open discussion. This is nothing more than a business owner who thinks he can squeeze someone because either a) he's got an axe to grind, or b) he really does have a stank-ified establishment and he is trying to cover his butt... which is sleazy to the nth degree either way you slice it.
Defamation? I think not. And I think the courts are with me on this, or we've truly slipped into the abyss.
Precisely my point. The irrational fear of the flu vaccine prevents its widespread use every year.(forget those couple of years where they didn't make enough and such... generally they have enough and it's either free or $5 for chrissakes). The irrational fear that prevents otherwise sane people from getting their kids vaccinated for really nasty diseases is tantamount to being the cause for the eventual pandemic. It's not a logical leap to think so. For most of the developing world, still struggling to get out of the muck, they'd kill for some decent protection from the nasties. (Unless of course the local leaders claim the vaccines are tainted to give you HIV, in which case people irrationally avoid them and *boom* another outbreak of something we thought we'd eradicated.)
The risks of some vaccines (not all, mind you... most of them are clearly safe) are a LOT lower than the disease itself. Even WITH the risk of the vaccine, people STILL have a better chance vaccinated than not. People don't get that. Remember the polio vaccine? It was possible to actually GET polio from it! Yet the risk of getting polio from the vaccine was FAR LESS than going unvaccinated and rolling the dice, hoping you wouldn't get it (or more importantly your child wouldn't get it.) In this hyper-litigious, ultra-sensitive, and irresponsible world, we're short-changing our children because we (collectively) are acting like superstitious nutjobs and not realizing the TRUTH from the PANICKY beatwriters who are looking for good copy. In short, if this trend continues, we're screwed.
Having a high fever for a long period of time can lead to permanent disability... additionally a high fever can cause respiratory and circulatory problems in some people resulting in death.
So, you want to take the bet that the vaccine will kill you, or would you like to gamble with permanent brain damage or even death as a result of a major illness that could've been prevented with a vaccine. Sorry, this sort of stuff, like all medical information, has too much emotion attached to it. You're _never_ going to get a straight answer until you remove the interests. Jenny McCarthy and all these celebrity wannabes need to STOP using their fame to incite and allow REAL science to take over and REAL results give us some answers. It's a slow process, but one I'm willing to wait out.
There are people who are goddamned convinced that they get the flu when they get vaccinated. In one sense they're right (the virus is dead), but in another sense they are misinformed, so they refuse to get a shot, thereby creating yet another in a large population of people who _get_ the flu, pass it to others, and run the risk of serious upper-respiratory complications as a result of their ignorance. Apply that to a really nasty disease we have a vaccine for, and you'll see why I'm skeptical of the people who believe vaccines are giving kids all sorts of ailments.
That's what you get for thinking.
Wait a minute... Is that you Bill? Mr. Gates, you're retired now... go fishing or something, ya bastard.
Let's take the wayback machine quite a ways...
:) Very simple, but digs in like an Alabama tick. I can still hear it if I even say "Stones".
"Stones" from the Ultima series...
On a more recent note... Total Annihilation's soundtrack was (and still is) epic.
But remember... we have a little thing called "The Constitution" that is to be upheld, evil or not. No one seems too worried Obama isn't on the same path of attempting to gut the Bill of Rights as his predecessor, but looking at his cabinet, he's not on the path towards anything other than "More of the Same."
As for the "continuation of bush years" crap, honestly... McCain was closer to Obama on the political spectrum than anyone gives him credit for... simply because he had an elephant instead of a donkey as mascot really doesn't matter when it comes down to brass tacks... (you can look at his voting record to see that...) We were voting for a white or half-white version of Obama... we chose the half-white.