It would not have been possible to write all the elvish dialog in the films just based on JRRT's original published work. That Elvish is a functional language the filmmakers could write new dialgue in was because of Christopher gathering, restoring and adding to his father's unpublished notes. To some extent the same could be said for the black speech of the Orcs.
The maps used in the film are based on Christopher's maps and not just his father's. Various details of middle earth geography and architecture (such as the large sculpted head seen laying half buried on a hillside near the end of film 1, the barrows east-southeast of the shire, and the design of the ruins on Weathertop hill) are also extrapolated from Christopher's work and the manuscripts he edited and preserved. I'm not sure but what the cold green fire associated with the Witch King's fortress is something from the notes and not from the trilogy itself, or something made up by the filmmakers.
The opening speeches about the ring's own history in all three parts include a lot that isn't in the trilogy or the Hobbit. Since the producers have said they wanted all that in to help audiences who hadn't read the books understand Middle Earth, and Peter Jackson has said that he thought using those to help make the movies accessible was vital to getting the films made, that's a pretty serious contribution all by itself.
(I don't get a kickback from Phil and Kaja for this, I'm just prostituting myself for nothing. As one of Phil's characters also said "Hey, I'm easy but I'm not cheap!).
Any author can already put the money they make during a fixed term into a trust for their heirs, or otherwise leave it to them in their will or make many other arrangements to get it to them, just like a person running a business or working for wages can leave money. So it's not just like any other property, it's a special, additional way to provide for a family after death, added on to all the rest everyone including authors can use.
There's no way to avoid this sort of comparison. If I cited any example of a bad law that should not be enforced, and it was just as serious as our bad copyright laws, most people would have no opinion on that law. and of the few who did, roughly half of the people would argue that it was a good law (especially here). Just try it. Is tougher sentencing for crack cocaine than regular cocaine about proportional to copyright law? How about occasional abuse of eminent domain clauses? Raising the drinking age to 21 and including members of the armed forces on post? You have to compare the abysmal but quite limited injustice that is current copyright law to something more serious, something that affected hundreds of millions and literally cost lives, broke governments, or caused wars, or you can't make a critical comparison at all.
In the US, everyone's work was copyrighted for a fixed time, whether they lived or died. The question about doing it the modern way is, why should a young author in good health end up with his or her works protected much longer than an older writer, or one with medical problems? That hardly sounds like equal justice to me.
Most people do want their kids to do well (not really Everybody, but pretty close, say 99%). But, an author can put income aside to benefit his or her kids just as anyone else can. If they don't, they are gambling that the work will be popular enough to produce income after their death, which is nowhere close to a safe bet. Extending copyright to Life + encourages authors to spend the royalties they get then and gamble that there will be more later for their heirs. It is not in the interests of real justice to encourage people to take risks when their children and beyond are involved.
Christopher did substantial work on some of the revisions published after JRRT's death. You could, admittedly get into a legal debate about whether some of those works had any new genuinely creative input after the sire's death, or whether any work Christopher did fell short of some creative standard, but there are at least four of the posthumous works where that point isn't really even close to debatable.
What could be debated is whether certain parts of the films draw on Christopher's work. I'm thinking in particular of the increased role of women in the films. Some of that parallels Christopher's changes to older stories from the Silmarillion, and there are some claims by the filmmakers on record that they made those changes from other reasons. That's probably something that could be taken to court. For example having Arwin ride to the ford dodging black riders and carrying a comatose Frodo, supposedly happened because the male actor scheduled to do those scenes couldn't ride worth a damn, or something like that, and the decision to substitute Liv Tyler and her stunt doubles came during shooting. That's the kind of thing that putting a few actors on the stand could settle strongly one way or the other, and judges tend to like claims that can be clearly tested.
The clearest way for the heirs to win this suit would be to show that not just the dead author's work was involved, but the still living one's. That way, they don't have to worry about your points. It might be nice for the law to look at some of the issues you raise, but I wouldn't particularly expect that to come out of this case.
It does sound like the court is going to end up issuing a decision that somehow formalizes what fair use includes. That's not even something an appellate court would normally risk taking on. It's more something the Supreme Court might consider doing. If it does happen, watch for the judge to only elaborate on one point of fair use, say deciding that region shifting is as legitmate as time shifting per analogy with the Betamax case. I really can't see any trial judge giving us a big list of new examples of fair use and exemptions from fair use, and detailing all sorts of subsidiary limitations. It's ballsy as all get out to try for just one. It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal that will have to go all the way to the very top.
You spent several hours going to a website and typing Ray's name into a form to autogenerate a rambling complaint letter? Poor little troll, either you have the slowest Internet connection of us all, or someone must have punched you in the nose and broke all your little fingers.
Don't mod him up just yet. There's some truth and at least a little insight in the post, but it's also got quite a few inaccuracies (whether the poster means to lie or is just inadvertently wrong is hard to say). Don't assume he is not making anything up until you get a reliable reference or two.
I do know that from what I have seen, there are a lot more posts to slashdot that assume that there are right and wrong ways to make money than claim either that making money is always wrong or always right. I'm sure you could find a post or two that say making a profit is always immoral, but how many of them do you think their are, and how many posts from people who think that there are both moral and immoral ways to make money do you think there are in a typical slashdot thread on copyright. Now what does that make the poster, who has misrepresented at least 90% or so of the people who post on this subject. Maybe he's not doing it deliberately, but why mod up someone who oversimplifies things to the point where he is claiming 90% or more of the posts he has seen don't exist?
I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain shouldn't be allowed, for various reasons. Mickey Mouse is, after all, a national treasure, and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history, it's really not about the money. We, the people, certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress. But if we do, there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in, so I have to come down on the side of we shouldn't.
I suspect your request for proof is made impossible by your own definitions. Let's look at your experience, if you are a typical human-like being. You can't say that 100% of your experience points to there being a shared, objective, external reality we share.
Nor can I. I'm assuming you're really there, at the other end of what I write, but the proof is definitely not based on all my experiences. My dreams don't prove reality exists. I can't deduce reality from the times I have been mistaken, or fooled by an illusion, even a simple optical one. My memory tells me that I have sometimes misremembered things in the past. Some of my experience suggests an external, objective reality. Some of that suggests there are other humans who share some perception of that same reality. But certainly not 100%.
On the other hand, I have never once been aware of something I was not aware of. 100% of my experience points to my being something which experiences. I've never not been aware of being a self, not once. Maybe there are times I wasn't aware, but if so, I wasn't I at those times, so I really can't say. I have more evidence for my existence as an awareness than I do for the outside universe, and at least somewhat more evidence for the outside universe than I do that you share some apprehension of it with me. If I'm right about my strong suspicion that there's an external reality and if I have a pretty good grasp of some of its details, you should be able to make the same claims.
So how do I prove anything about the thing I am 100% aware of, using only the portion of my evidence we may share, when that portion is less certain than the thing you are asking me to prove with it. If my experience of an unpersonal, objective, external universe that exists even when I am not aware of it, even when no one else is aware of it either, were solid as bedrock, then I might be able to reason logically from it to my equal reality as a subject, but it's simply not. The thing I'm being asked to prove is already more reliable than the weakest links of the chain of reason I would have to logically use.
Oh, and yes Elephants have souls, as do Chimps and at least some Gorillas. By your definition. Now does my little white cat have Buddha nature?
All this is the typical slashdot approach to religion (if there's really such a thing as typical at all among such diverse posters). People discuss having souls as some sort of separate appendage, rather than being souls. They assume that the soul is supernatural and then turn the word supernatural into unnatural without noticing that they are doing it. And then the smarter ones (like you, nothing personal) point out some of the logical consequences. Yes, you're quite correct, the implications of their being souls simply couldn't avoid being really, really big, making many other things more complex, and being scary. But is it at all reasonable to believe that hypothetical souls would be energy? Does it make sense to think God would make souls and they would operate by rules that conflict with the rules 'He' makes for the natural universe? (Cthulhu might, but he's a wild and crazy guy).
You're offering some good reasons why the kind of 'God' that would make this universe, and then make souls in particular ways that don't fit the rest of the system, would make no sense, but it's not real practical to generalize that idea to 'souls' or 'God' in general making no sense.
I don't follow how there's a problem with someone trying to hack the soul if it exists though. In that context, a soul sounds more like a defense against someone hacking our neuroanatomy. If we're bound by the same deterministic laws that govern the macroverse, and we can only hope for a little quantum weirdness underlying that, we are hackable to our ultimate depth. A QM style 'soul' won't save us from that particular fate. What would stop someone from trying to hack the soul itself? Nothing stops people from trying, but it would at least be harder than succeeding at hacking a materialist model brain based personality, if that's all there is.
Filing may be required, although if so that's not just a result of Florida law, and right now, is only conjectural re. a third party covenant, but disputing the facts as stated in the original claim isn't required. As it stands, if one representative of the company makes a claim and the other disputes it, since both of them can check their information inside the company, and have an obligation to check before making statements, one of them has committed perjury. How will doing that protect the company from a legal challenge?
The whole point of 80/20's and such is to offload some of the risk on a questionable loan. When WF covered its own bet because it had doubts about that same deal unless somebody covered part of the risk, common sense went out the window right there. Expecting the law to work well in such a case is expecting the impossible, like demanding justice be tempered with mercy for the man who shot his parents, because he's an orphan.
I could see Wells Fargo being forced into complying with the State of Florida's legal requirement. I'm sure this explanation appeals to some people who want to believe that it's always governments and not corporations that act stupid and crazy. But why have your defense deny the other allegations? Why not file a motion, have the other department agree with all points and settle out of court, so the company as a whole can get on with what it needs to do. Whatever law Wells Fargo blames this on, there certainly isn't a law that requires litigants to disagree with claims and insist on going through the entire trial process. I will flat guarantee you no state has a law saying litigants can't settle out of court. Still, it makes a superficially good story when you are caught being idiots.
If companies can be this screwed up and turn a quarterly profit what will ultimately pick up is sales of barrels and suspenders. (unless you mean the mattresses should be put under Wall Street windows rather than used to hold your money.).
Most people never go outside the UI, because... Um, Oh Gee, that's right, they're Users. Whatever the differences under the hood, shouldn't we be expecting typical Users to Use the User Interface for all their User needs? You may be right that the old and new Windows run the same under that surface layer, and at least most of the real changes are in the UI, but right or wrong, most people will still only see the part that's in the UI.
I'm happy to pay for a gym membership myself. In fact, I treated my Ex to one too, and we get along much better, in part because we are doing more things we both feel good about together.
The best thing at the gym for me is probably the zero impact aerobics gadjets, particularly the ones that reproduce a natural running motion rather than a skying stride. When you get sore knees at the track, two weeks using them instead and you are through the problem without it turning into a real crippler. I could buy one, but I've only needed it a couple of times. You could build a very good set of weights at home, or have several machines if you have that kind of space, but there are always those odd exercises, such as doing alternate side crunches in a roman chair with a kettlebell in your lower hand, that all those machines wouldn't approximate. I have about 10 exercises I do three times a week, and I could do all of them at home, and sometimes do. But there are typically 10 more exercises I rotate into and out of my routine.
Slashdot, where you can post as AC, put words in other people's mouths, and bash fat people and get modded up. Look, whoever you are and whatever you do, I guarantee you, just from reading what you have posted, you have an issue at least as large as the person you are attacking. Someday, when that problem has reduced you to a pitiful object of contempt and derision, you will look back and realize the compassion you aren't getting is the compassion you did not have. I don't expect you to believe this - part of the problem is you really can't bring yourself to think you even might have a problem bigger than the people you are picking out for your AC posts. But someday, it will hit you. It will hit you so hard that you will see every word of my post as clearly as you see it right now, and the words will echo in your head like thunder, even if it takes 20 years.
As somebody who has gotten to the gym, who has run the laps and hiked the hills, who has gotten to a healthy body weight, and conditioning way beyond most, and who is currently controlling diabetes with just oral meds and diet, and working to get off the last remaining pill if posssible, let me say you are an asshole.
I beat all the conditions you are feeling so superior for not facing. Every time I heard the shit you are pumping out, it was one more reason to give up, one more reason to feel inferior to all the people who made it seem so effortless. But I didn't, and one thing I learned is people never say the kind of crap you do to actually help. They say it to get a cheap feeling of superiority while bullying one of the few groups it is safe to bully. You should be posting as AC because you are a bully, and very much a coward.
Eradicating the script kiddies really sounds like a worthwhile goal in itself, but you're right, it doesn't really make the net any more secure or functional to trim off the low hanging fruit. This looks to be a lone black hat who wants it to appear he falls somewhere in the legitimately gray areas, but really is well over any ethical lines. I suspect the whole presentation of there being a group that stands behind the defacement is itself also false.
When you eat anything nutritious, it gets turned into body and blood - yours. That's not mysticism, it's science. The bread and wine used at communion is definitely getting turned into somebody's body and blood (within a few days at most and at a certain level of efficiency) so now we're really just debating whose body it becomes, yours or some kind of Holy Spirit which is embodied inside of you (and if you believe the Bible, other people, so don't go thinking you're special).
I mostly practice as an Episcopalian. Doctrine there is, you attend church, and hear several short lessons read from the bible (usually one from the Old Testament, one from the New, and one specifically from the four Gospels.). Then there's a sermon from the priest, which is based around one or more of those three lessons. At communion, it's specifically said that God has given us spiritual food already (presumably those lessons, and hopefully, the priest's opinions on them as well) and is giving us bread and wine as a symbol of the spiritual instruction, and a reminder to absorb those lessons and make them part of us, and put them to use in the world, just as we absorb the physical food and presumably put it to good use. There's also a statement that Jesus had the same supper with his desciples and ordered them to use the bread and wine as a symbol (presumably that explains why the communion isn't cheese and beer or a nice salad and chocolate milk or something else instead, is that there's a claim that historically, it was bread and wine).
The Roman Catholic doctrine seems to be it isn't just a symbolic gesture, which is different from claiming there's no symbolism. Beyond that, I'm not going to try to explain why they think it's an important distinction, but personally, I don't see their reasoning as a big deal one way or the other. If God doesn't do anything supernatural or miraculous there, but acts by natural processes, I don't see that as harming the rest of the faith, just like I don't think you can shoot down the claim from the parable of the good Samaritan that any person who would stop and help you is your brother, regardless of race, by proving that the story of Jonah and the whale didn't happen.
Fail. See, the only way to talk about Christians on Slashdot is to oversimplify and parody their beliefs until you are describing what almost nobody actually believes, and then claim you have more authority to decide who is actually a Christian than they themselves do.
It's like you claim Capitalists worship a Giant Invisible Hand and make human sacrifices to it. When somebody starts posting something reasonable about supply vs demand driven economic cycles of commodity items, you then denounce them as not a "real" Capitalist. Wash, rinse, repeat.
(And to anybody who is a Marxist. Libertarian, Anarchosyndicalist, Anarchocapitalist, Randroid, Goldwaterist, Left-Center-Syncretist Labor Party, Technophile, Technophobe, Techno-is-my-bitch, Viist, Emacsist, FIAWOList, FIJAGDHist, or whatever, don't think there is no way to translate your beliefs into a straw man and then attack them.)
So far, none of this particular Christian bash has been really vicious, and some of it has actually been funny. For the rest, He says He forgives you.
Slashdot Mirror
It would not have been possible to write all the elvish dialog in the films just based on JRRT's original published work. That Elvish is a functional language the filmmakers could write new dialgue in was because of Christopher gathering, restoring and adding to his father's unpublished notes. To some extent the same could be said for the black speech of the Orcs.
The maps used in the film are based on Christopher's maps and not just his father's. Various details of middle earth geography and architecture (such as the large sculpted head seen laying half buried on a hillside near the end of film 1, the barrows east-southeast of the shire, and the design of the ruins on Weathertop hill) are also extrapolated from Christopher's work and the manuscripts he edited and preserved. I'm not sure but what the cold green fire associated with the Witch King's fortress is something from the notes and not from the trilogy itself, or something made up by the filmmakers.
The opening speeches about the ring's own history in all three parts include a lot that isn't in the trilogy or the Hobbit. Since the producers have said they wanted all that in to help audiences who hadn't read the books understand Middle Earth, and Peter Jackson has said that he thought using those to help make the movies accessible was vital to getting the films made, that's a pretty serious contribution all by itself.
That was Phil Foglio's cartoon, "What's New"
Interested people can read those at:
http://www.studiofoglio.com/
(I don't get a kickback from Phil and Kaja for this, I'm just prostituting myself for nothing. As one of Phil's characters also said "Hey, I'm easy but I'm not cheap!).
Yes, but He's already made an offer to keep that cut at only 10%. If the Pope's really his agent, he only gets 10% of that.
Any author can already put the money they make during a fixed term into a trust for their heirs, or otherwise leave it to them in their will or make many other arrangements to get it to them, just like a person running a business or working for wages can leave money. So it's not just like any other property, it's a special, additional way to provide for a family after death, added on to all the rest everyone including authors can use.
There's no way to avoid this sort of comparison. If I cited any example of a bad law that should not be enforced, and it was just as serious as our bad copyright laws, most people would have no opinion on that law. and of the few who did, roughly half of the people would argue that it was a good law (especially here). Just try it. Is tougher sentencing for crack cocaine than regular cocaine about proportional to copyright law? How about occasional abuse of eminent domain clauses? Raising the drinking age to 21 and including members of the armed forces on post? You have to compare the abysmal but quite limited injustice that is current copyright law to something more serious, something that affected hundreds of millions and literally cost lives, broke governments, or caused wars, or you can't make a critical comparison at all.
In the US, everyone's work was copyrighted for a fixed time, whether they lived or died. The question about doing it the modern way is, why should a young author in good health end up with his or her works protected much longer than an older writer, or one with medical problems? That hardly sounds like equal justice to me.
Most people do want their kids to do well (not really Everybody, but pretty close, say 99%). But, an author can put income aside to benefit his or her kids just as anyone else can. If they don't, they are gambling that the work will be popular enough to produce income after their death, which is nowhere close to a safe bet. Extending copyright to Life + encourages authors to spend the royalties they get then and gamble that there will be more later for their heirs. It is not in the interests of real justice to encourage people to take risks when their children and beyond are involved.
Christopher did substantial work on some of the revisions published after JRRT's death. You could, admittedly get into a legal debate about whether some of those works had any new genuinely creative input after the sire's death, or whether any work Christopher did fell short of some creative standard, but there are at least four of the posthumous works where that point isn't really even close to debatable.
What could be debated is whether certain parts of the films draw on Christopher's work. I'm thinking in particular of the increased role of women in the films. Some of that parallels Christopher's changes to older stories from the Silmarillion, and there are some claims by the filmmakers on record that they made those changes from other reasons. That's probably something that could be taken to court. For example having Arwin ride to the ford dodging black riders and carrying a comatose Frodo, supposedly happened because the male actor scheduled to do those scenes couldn't ride worth a damn, or something like that, and the decision to substitute Liv Tyler and her stunt doubles came during shooting. That's the kind of thing that putting a few actors on the stand could settle strongly one way or the other, and judges tend to like claims that can be clearly tested.
The clearest way for the heirs to win this suit would be to show that not just the dead author's work was involved, but the still living one's. That way, they don't have to worry about your points. It might be nice for the law to look at some of the issues you raise, but I wouldn't particularly expect that to come out of this case.
It does sound like the court is going to end up issuing a decision that somehow formalizes what fair use includes. That's not even something an appellate court would normally risk taking on. It's more something the Supreme Court might consider doing. If it does happen, watch for the judge to only elaborate on one point of fair use, say deciding that region shifting is as legitmate as time shifting per analogy with the Betamax case. I really can't see any trial judge giving us a big list of new examples of fair use and exemptions from fair use, and detailing all sorts of subsidiary limitations. It's ballsy as all get out to try for just one. It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal that will have to go all the way to the very top.
You spent several hours going to a website and typing Ray's name into a form to autogenerate a rambling complaint letter? Poor little troll, either you have the slowest Internet connection of us all, or someone must have punched you in the nose and broke all your little fingers.
Don't mod him up just yet. There's some truth and at least a little insight in the post, but it's also got quite a few inaccuracies (whether the poster means to lie or is just inadvertently wrong is hard to say). Don't assume he is not making anything up until you get a reliable reference or two.
I do know that from what I have seen, there are a lot more posts to slashdot that assume that there are right and wrong ways to make money than claim either that making money is always wrong or always right. I'm sure you could find a post or two that say making a profit is always immoral, but how many of them do you think their are, and how many posts from people who think that there are both moral and immoral ways to make money do you think there are in a typical slashdot thread on copyright. Now what does that make the poster, who has misrepresented at least 90% or so of the people who post on this subject. Maybe he's not doing it deliberately, but why mod up someone who oversimplifies things to the point where he is claiming 90% or more of the posts he has seen don't exist?
I almost feel for the American Psychiatric Association. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of other people arguing that letting their pet item go into the public domain shouldn't be allowed, for various reasons. Mickey Mouse is, after all, a national treasure, and Disney just wants to conserve that special piece of history, it's really not about the money. We, the people, certainly could give the Rorschach blots some kind of special status via congress. But if we do, there will be a thousand companies trying to stretch that law to cover whatever they think there is some more money in, so I have to come down on the side of we shouldn't.
I suspect your request for proof is made impossible by your own definitions.
Let's look at your experience, if you are a typical human-like being. You can't say that 100% of your experience points to there being a shared, objective, external reality we share.
Nor can I. I'm assuming you're really there, at the other end of what I write, but the proof is definitely not based on all my experiences. My dreams don't prove reality exists. I can't deduce reality from the times I have been mistaken, or fooled by an illusion, even a simple optical one. My memory tells me that I have sometimes misremembered things in the past. Some of my experience suggests an external, objective reality. Some of that suggests there are other humans who share some perception of that same reality. But certainly not 100%.
On the other hand, I have never once been aware of something I was not aware of. 100% of my experience points to my being something which experiences. I've never not been aware of being a self, not once. Maybe there are times I wasn't aware, but if so, I wasn't I at those times, so I really can't say. I have more evidence for my existence as an awareness than I do for the outside universe, and at least somewhat more evidence for the outside universe than I do that you share some apprehension of it with me. If I'm right about my strong suspicion that there's an external reality and if I have a pretty good grasp of some of its details, you should be able to make the same claims.
So how do I prove anything about the thing I am 100% aware of, using only the portion of my evidence we may share, when that portion is less certain than the thing you are asking me to prove with it. If my experience of an unpersonal, objective, external universe that exists even when I am not aware of it, even when no one else is aware of it either, were solid as bedrock, then I might be able to reason logically from it to my equal reality as a subject, but it's simply not. The thing I'm being asked to prove is already more reliable than the weakest links of the chain of reason I would have to logically use.
Oh, and yes Elephants have souls, as do Chimps and at least some Gorillas. By your definition. Now does my little white cat have Buddha nature?
All this is the typical slashdot approach to religion (if there's really such a thing as typical at all among such diverse posters). People discuss having souls as some sort of separate appendage, rather than being souls. They assume that the soul is supernatural and then turn the word supernatural into unnatural without noticing that they are doing it. And then the smarter ones (like you, nothing personal) point out some of the logical consequences. Yes, you're quite correct, the implications of their being souls simply couldn't avoid being really, really big, making many other things more complex, and being scary. But is it at all reasonable to believe that hypothetical souls would be energy? Does it make sense to think God would make souls and they would operate by rules that conflict with the rules 'He' makes for the natural universe? (Cthulhu might, but he's a wild and crazy guy).
You're offering some good reasons why the kind of 'God' that would make this universe, and then make souls in particular ways that don't fit the rest of the system, would make no sense, but it's not real practical to generalize that idea to 'souls' or 'God' in general making no sense.
I don't follow how there's a problem with someone trying to hack the soul if it exists though. In that context, a soul sounds more like a defense against someone hacking our neuroanatomy. If we're bound by the same deterministic laws that govern the macroverse, and we can only hope for a little quantum weirdness underlying that, we are hackable to our ultimate depth. A QM style 'soul' won't save us from that particular fate. What would stop someone from trying to hack the soul itself? Nothing stops people from trying, but it would at least be harder than succeeding at hacking a materialist model brain based personality, if that's all there is.
Filing may be required, although if so that's not just a result of Florida law, and right now, is only conjectural re. a third party covenant, but disputing the facts as stated in the original claim isn't required. As it stands, if one representative of the company makes a claim and the other disputes it, since both of them can check their information inside the company, and have an obligation to check before making statements, one of them has committed perjury. How will doing that protect the company from a legal challenge?
The whole point of 80/20's and such is to offload some of the risk on a questionable loan. When WF covered its own bet because it had doubts about that same deal unless somebody covered part of the risk, common sense went out the window right there. Expecting the law to work well in such a case is expecting the impossible, like demanding justice be tempered with mercy for the man who shot his parents, because he's an orphan.
I could see Wells Fargo being forced into complying with the State of Florida's legal requirement. I'm sure this explanation appeals to some people who want to believe that it's always governments and not corporations that act stupid and crazy. But why have your defense deny the other allegations? Why not file a motion, have the other department agree with all points and settle out of court, so the company as a whole can get on with what it needs to do. Whatever law Wells Fargo blames this on, there certainly isn't a law that requires litigants to disagree with claims and insist on going through the entire trial process. I will flat guarantee you no state has a law saying litigants can't settle out of court. Still, it makes a superficially good story when you are caught being idiots.
If companies can be this screwed up and turn a quarterly profit what will ultimately pick up is sales of barrels and suspenders. (unless you mean the mattresses should be put under Wall Street windows rather than used to hold your money.).
Most people never go outside the UI, because... Um, Oh Gee, that's right, they're Users. Whatever the differences under the hood, shouldn't we be expecting typical Users to Use the User Interface for all their User needs? You may be right that the old and new Windows run the same under that surface layer, and at least most of the real changes are in the UI, but right or wrong, most people will still only see the part that's in the UI.
Yes, if this is a matter of fat people acquiring pig characteristics from their diet, that would be Lamarckian evolution, not Darwinian at all.
I'm happy to pay for a gym membership myself. In fact, I treated my Ex to one too, and we get along much better, in part because we are doing more things we both feel good about together.
The best thing at the gym for me is probably the zero impact aerobics gadjets, particularly the ones that reproduce a natural running motion rather than a skying stride. When you get sore knees at the track, two weeks using them instead and you are through the problem without it turning into a real crippler. I could buy one, but I've only needed it a couple of times. You could build a very good set of weights at home, or have several machines if you have that kind of space, but there are always those odd exercises, such as doing alternate side crunches in a roman chair with a kettlebell in your lower hand, that all those machines wouldn't approximate. I have about 10 exercises I do three times a week, and I could do all of them at home, and sometimes do. But there are typically 10 more exercises I rotate into and out of my routine.
Slashdot, where you can post as AC, put words in other people's mouths, and bash fat people and get modded up. Look, whoever you are and whatever you do, I guarantee you, just from reading what you have posted, you have an issue at least as large as the person you are attacking. Someday, when that problem has reduced you to a pitiful object of contempt and derision, you will look back and realize the compassion you aren't getting is the compassion you did not have. I don't expect you to believe this - part of the problem is you really can't bring yourself to think you even might have a problem bigger than the people you are picking out for your AC posts. But someday, it will hit you. It will hit you so hard that you will see every word of my post as clearly as you see it right now, and the words will echo in your head like thunder, even if it takes 20 years.
As somebody who has gotten to the gym, who has run the laps and hiked the hills, who has gotten to a healthy body weight, and conditioning way beyond most, and who is currently controlling diabetes with just oral meds and diet, and working to get off the last remaining pill if posssible, let me say you are an asshole.
I beat all the conditions you are feeling so superior for not facing. Every time I heard the shit you are pumping out, it was one more reason to give up, one more reason to feel inferior to all the people who made it seem so effortless. But I didn't, and one thing I learned is people never say the kind of crap you do to actually help. They say it to get a cheap feeling of superiority while bullying one of the few groups it is safe to bully. You should be posting as AC because you are a bully, and very much a coward.
Eradicating the script kiddies really sounds like a worthwhile goal in itself, but you're right, it doesn't really make the net any more secure or functional to trim off the low hanging fruit. This looks to be a lone black hat who wants it to appear he falls somewhere in the legitimately gray areas, but really is well over any ethical lines. I suspect the whole presentation of there being a group that stands behind the defacement is itself also false.
When you eat anything nutritious, it gets turned into body and blood - yours. That's not mysticism, it's science. The bread and wine used at communion is definitely getting turned into somebody's body and blood (within a few days at most and at a certain level of efficiency) so now we're really just debating whose body it becomes, yours or some kind of Holy Spirit which is embodied inside of you (and if you believe the Bible, other people, so don't go thinking you're special).
I mostly practice as an Episcopalian. Doctrine there is, you attend church, and hear several short lessons read from the bible (usually one from the Old Testament, one from the New, and one specifically from the four Gospels.). Then there's a sermon from the priest, which is based around one or more of those three lessons. At communion, it's specifically said that God has given us spiritual food already (presumably those lessons, and hopefully, the priest's opinions on them as well) and is giving us bread and wine as a symbol of the spiritual instruction, and a reminder to absorb those lessons and make them part of us, and put them to use in the world, just as we absorb the physical food and presumably put it to good use. There's also a statement that Jesus had the same supper with his desciples and ordered them to use the bread and wine as a symbol (presumably that explains why the communion isn't cheese and beer or a nice salad and chocolate milk or something else instead, is that there's a claim that historically, it was bread and wine).
The Roman Catholic doctrine seems to be it isn't just a symbolic gesture, which is different from claiming there's no symbolism. Beyond that, I'm not going to try to explain why they think it's an important distinction, but personally, I don't see their reasoning as a big deal one way or the other. If God doesn't do anything supernatural or miraculous there, but acts by natural processes, I don't see that as harming the rest of the faith, just like I don't think you can shoot down the claim from the parable of the good Samaritan that any person who would stop and help you is your brother, regardless of race, by proving that the story of Jonah and the whale didn't happen.
Fail. See, the only way to talk about Christians on Slashdot is to oversimplify and parody their beliefs until you are describing what almost nobody actually believes, and then claim you have more authority to decide who is actually a Christian than they themselves do.
It's like you claim Capitalists worship a Giant Invisible Hand and make human sacrifices to it. When somebody starts posting something reasonable about supply vs demand driven economic cycles of commodity items, you then denounce them as not a "real" Capitalist. Wash, rinse, repeat.
(And to anybody who is a Marxist. Libertarian, Anarchosyndicalist, Anarchocapitalist, Randroid, Goldwaterist, Left-Center-Syncretist Labor Party, Technophile, Technophobe, Techno-is-my-bitch, Viist, Emacsist, FIAWOList, FIJAGDHist, or whatever, don't think there is no way to translate your beliefs into a straw man and then attack them.)
So far, none of this particular Christian bash has been really vicious, and some of it has actually been funny. For the rest, He says He forgives you.