It's simpler than that. Someone is confused. The summary states "eukaryote microbe that completely lacks mitochondria.. All eukaryotic cells contain a nucleus, organelles and mitochondrion."
If all eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria, then it's impossible for them to have discovered a eukaryote that completely lacks mitochondria, it is by definition something completely different.
They also seem confused on plurality - mitochondrion/mitochondria. Are they seriously claiming that all eukaryotic cells contain a single mitochondrion?
And, what good is a discussion of cells without any mention of Golgi apparatus?
"the typical hour of cable TV includes 15 minutes and 38 seconds of commercials"
Unless you have a DVR. It takes me about 30 seconds to skip past those 15 minutes of commercials on my TiVo. News is about the only thing I watch live.
No more family dynasties. I'm done with Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Harrisons, Adams, Madison/Taylors. With 320000000 people, Clinton and Trump (and the other runners) are the best the major parties can come up with? That says a lot about party politics in the US.
Time for third parties to gain influence, as a step away from party politics.
I suspect it's Win Live Mail. My work email is through Office365, and Thunderbird/IMAP works fine (and doesn't force you to top post, like Outlook does).
Well, the current zoning laws were create by and for the rich. Before it was Silicon Valley, it was the Valley of Heartâ(TM)s Delight, because of the number of fruit and vegetable growers and sellers. I'd consider them "grandfathered" in.
I believe the submission is asking, not from a legal perspective (which won't be decided here in any case), but from an ethical one.
It does seem to me that the photographer is trying to take advantage of the situation. If he accepted payment of X for 2 years of use, accepting the same or less (no more work involved) for an addition 2 years seems appropriate. OTOH, if the photo is so good that it the customer wants to continue using it, perhaps they should pay more. But my suspicion is that, if he wanted more, they'd be perfectly happy to have someone else take a new photo, and probably a "work for hire" so they could use in perpetuity.
Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks. Individual against corporation shouldn't matter, sentiment around/. seems to be against extortion when it's corporation against individual. This isn't any different, other than the parties being reversed. So, is the answer based on ethics/principles, or on "screw the big guy?"
They already have access, the hard drive is in their possession. It's no different than if he wrote papers in his own secret shorthand, he couldn't be forced to translate.
A warrant is completely different. The cops can search all they want, but that's completely different than compelling someone to testify against themselves. It's the difference between searching for suspected evidence, and compelling a suspect to produce knowledge.
Even with a search warrant, the suspect cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a safe because it is the "expression of the contents of an individual's mind" (Doe v. U.S)
[A]ny compulsory discovery by... compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom... we are further of opinion that a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the constitution, and is the equivalent of a search and seizureâ"and an unreasonable search and seizureâ"within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Courts do not have the power to compel a person to provide evidence against themselves,which is not specifically known to exist. Read the 5th Amendment, then read United States v. Hubbell. The prosecution is fishing.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh.
It's simpler than that. Someone is confused. The summary states "eukaryote microbe that completely lacks mitochondria.. All eukaryotic cells contain a nucleus, organelles and mitochondrion."
If all eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria, then it's impossible for them to have discovered a eukaryote that completely lacks mitochondria, it is by definition something completely different.
They also seem confused on plurality - mitochondrion/mitochondria. Are they seriously claiming that all eukaryotic cells contain a single mitochondrion?
And, what good is a discussion of cells without any mention of Golgi apparatus?
"Having a completely arbitrary worldwide event in a practical plague area that causes horrible birth defects in the infected is fucking stupid."
Fucking stupid is not using condoms in that situation.
Summary: "I fucked up my expensive car, and don't want to take responsibility and pay for it, so I'll claim that it did it on its own."
"commercial breaks also gives the opportunity to mentally disengage ..."
Commercials are the opportunity to get some bread to go with the circus.
"the typical hour of cable TV includes 15 minutes and 38 seconds of commercials"
Unless you have a DVR. It takes me about 30 seconds to skip past those 15 minutes of commercials on my TiVo. News is about the only thing I watch live.
Why single out the Rs? It's not like Bernie is going to win, or that anyone else with any ethical convictions is running for the Ds.
No more family dynasties. I'm done with Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Harrisons, Adams, Madison/Taylors. With 320000000 people, Clinton and Trump (and the other runners) are the best the major parties can come up with? That says a lot about party politics in the US.
Time for third parties to gain influence, as a step away from party politics.
"Well, it is a theory, so now he his looking to go there in person."
Life can be wonderful, in Theory. The problem is no one knows where Theory is.
"That's what gambling is, by its very definition."
You're referring to parimutuel betting, which is subset of gambling.
I suspect it's Win Live Mail. My work email is through Office365, and Thunderbird/IMAP works fine (and doesn't force you to top post, like Outlook does).
"The conclusion is bullshit. Free will isn't an illusion "
Someone was destined to say that.
"Free Willy was just story, it wasn't real."
Tell that to this guy.
Well, the current zoning laws were create by and for the rich. Before it was Silicon Valley, it was the Valley of Heartâ(TM)s Delight, because of the number of fruit and vegetable growers and sellers. I'd consider them "grandfathered" in.
"San Francisco, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Nashville, Tennessee, and Atlanta"
One of these things is not like the others.
"200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe."
You should learn the difference between "global" and "coastal."
Enjoy your panem et circenses..
Whoosh. You very obviously missed the "legal vs ethical" preface. Buh bye.
Define "in doors" and "all over the internet [sic]."
I believe the submission is asking, not from a legal perspective (which won't be decided here in any case), but from an ethical one.
/. seems to be against extortion when it's corporation against individual. This isn't any different, other than the parties being reversed. So, is the answer based on ethics/principles, or on "screw the big guy?"
It does seem to me that the photographer is trying to take advantage of the situation. If he accepted payment of X for 2 years of use, accepting the same or less (no more work involved) for an addition 2 years seems appropriate. OTOH, if the photo is so good that it the customer wants to continue using it, perhaps they should pay more. But my suspicion is that, if he wanted more, they'd be perfectly happy to have someone else take a new photo, and probably a "work for hire" so they could use in perpetuity.
Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks. Individual against corporation shouldn't matter, sentiment around
They already have access, the hard drive is in their possession. It's no different than if he wrote papers in his own secret shorthand, he couldn't be forced to translate.
Even with a search warrant, the suspect cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a safe because it is the "expression of the contents of an individual's mind" (Doe v. U.S)
-Boyd v US
" If the evidence already exists (as encrypted data on the hard drive)"
Ah, but it's NOT known to exist. The prosecution only suspects there's evidence on the hard drive, and they're fishing.
Courts do not have the power to compel a person to provide evidence against themselves,which is not specifically known to exist. Read the 5th Amendment, then read United States v. Hubbell. The prosecution is fishing.
I find that court contemptible, and won't change my mind.