The question is what English speaking people like to call rhetorical. Language, words, sentence structure, learn them and be happy.
It's a pretty fucking stupid rhetorical question when the answer any sane person would give is "yes" rather than the "no" that your feeble-minded, bigoted, xenophobic, paranoid phrasing suggests.
And worth further noting, you all conveniently ignore the fact that I am right, you cannot complain that no WMD's were found in Iraq when the place is just lousy with IEDs and then call the Marathon bombs WMDs. You socialists don't seem to have the whole logic thing quite together there do you? Of course those of us with our eyes open have known this all along.
Facts... troublesome things.
I don't know any socialists who would agree that the Marathon bombs were WMDs. That's a rightwing US word choice.
Not surprised you posted as AC, the only people more rabid than the space nutters on slashdot are...oh wait, no there's simply no one more rabid. Even libertarian Apple users of emacs are moderate by comparison.
this is actually one of the arguments for why we shouldnt wait for sometime in the future to make colony ships for interstellar exploration, but should instead start now.
My problem with the idea of colony ships is that the only sort of people who are prepared to go on a voyage in a cramped, windowless tin box until they die, and their children, and their grandchildren and...die are essentially insane and shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of a padded cell.
The idea of being on a ship where everyone knew they were never going home frankly terrifies me.
I thought the English were safe from crime, given their disarmed society
No, what we're mainly safe from are significant number of gunshot deaths in our major cities every day, and double at weekends. It's still news if someone gets knifed to death, even in London.
(Chechnya is our enemy. Chechnya has always been our enemy.)
At least some of us had heard of Chechnya before last Thursday. I'm quite amused by the mental acrobatics that you Americans now need to do to reconcile hating Chechan Islamists and supporting Russian repression. Sort of the opposite of what you did with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
..for someone who was apparently so drunk after a work-related party that he actually states:
I’ll never know how someone got the PIN out of me because I have no memory of it happening so I can’t tell you much about that.
I don't think you've ever been out at night in central London (or any other big UK city) have you? Everyone is drunk. It's what we do instead of going to the gym, watching baseball or praying in church.
I'll never be ten years old again when I watch a Star Wars movie
I'm afraid that just about says it all. Star Wars is fine if you're under 11. After that, you need to move to more grown up stuff like Doctor Who or one of the films/TV shows set in the marvellously well-drawn and rich Star Trek universe.
Just because there's a metric shit-ton of Star Wars books out there doesn't mean Disney's going to use any of them. Likely, we'll see Princess Leia cavorting around with alien bluebirds cheesily CGI'ed in, circling her and chirping irritatingly, in the musical version of Star Wars.
Alternatively it's some bored 12 year old doing it for the lulz. Sorry, the 1337 hacktivist hit squads of Anonymous protesting against tyranny wherever it rears its ugly head.
Because you are reading a lot of nonsense on Slashdot. And because what really counts is whether there was defamation or not. I could say something about you that is strictly the truth, but leaving out information or twisting information in such a way that someone reading it would get the wrong impression about you. In that case, it's defamation and truth is no defense.
No, there has to be defamation for it to be libel, by definition. "Saying hurtful things" isn't something you can be sued for. There has to be some sort of damage to the person's reputation. And truth is a defence.
Saying that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile is definitely defamatory, but as it's true it wouldn't have mattered my saying it while he was alive if I could have proved it.
The only odd thing is your apparent inability to do a one minute check on Wikipedia/Google and discover that the truth is a valid defence in our courts.
In other shocking news, Dick Van Dyke's chimney sweep in Mary Poppins isn't how any Englishman has ever spoken.
If the company can prove that they payed her promptly then this is libel,
Nope, this is British libel law. The company doesn't have to prove a damn thing. *She* has to prove that they *didn't* pay her.
She only has to prove that because she says it happened.
Why does everyone (American) here seem to think that you should have absolute free reign just to make up shit about people/companies and expect no repurcussions?
This is Britain. All they have to do is say 'she said these bad-but-true things with the intention of hurting our reputation' and they win. That's all there is to it.
Under English law, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that his or her statement is not defamatory. So what the GP said is absolutely correct.
Umm, no.
GP did NOT say "not defamatory", he said "not true".
Therein lies the problem with English libel law - even if it is provably true, it can still be libel if it is "defamatory".
Unlike in the USA, where "truth" trumps "defamatory"....
The only problem with your eloquent and largely grammatical post is that it's complete bollocks.
In English law, if you can prove it's true, it's not libel. People do have problems proving things, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, but that's a different issue.
And libel is, by definition, defamatory. Defamation is slander if it's spoken, libel otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is what English speaking people like to call rhetorical. Language, words, sentence structure, learn them and be happy.
It's a pretty fucking stupid rhetorical question when the answer any sane person would give is "yes" rather than the "no" that your feeble-minded, bigoted, xenophobic, paranoid phrasing suggests.
And worth further noting, you all conveniently ignore the fact that I am right, you cannot complain that no WMD's were found in Iraq when the place is just lousy with IEDs and then call the Marathon bombs WMDs. You socialists don't seem to have the whole logic thing quite together there do you? Of course those of us with our eyes open have known this all along.
Facts... troublesome things.
I don't know any socialists who would agree that the Marathon bombs were WMDs. That's a rightwing US word choice.
And, racist? Really? In what sense? What are you even talking about?
Technically, "Muslim" isn't a race, so your use of the word "mozzie" is not racist, it's just offensive, bigoted, xenophobic and puerile.
Future generations can only get better at moon colonisation if we try, and learn, and maybe fail and learn some more.
That is begging the question of whether having a moon colony serves any useful purpose in the first place.
Not surprised you posted as AC, the only people more rabid than the space nutters on slashdot are ...oh wait, no there's simply no one more rabid. Even libertarian Apple users of emacs are moderate by comparison.
this is actually one of the arguments for why we shouldnt wait for sometime in the future to make colony ships for interstellar exploration, but should instead start now.
My problem with the idea of colony ships is that the only sort of people who are prepared to go on a voyage in a cramped, windowless tin box until they die, and their children, and their grandchildren and...die are essentially insane and shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of a padded cell.
The idea of being on a ship where everyone knew they were never going home frankly terrifies me.
And I don't want a bunch of whacko libertarian might-is-right corporate yahoos in control of it.
I thought the English were safe from crime, given their disarmed society
No, what we're mainly safe from are significant number of gunshot deaths in our major cities every day, and double at weekends. It's still news if someone gets knifed to death, even in London.
(Chechnya is our enemy. Chechnya has always been our enemy.)
At least some of us had heard of Chechnya before last Thursday. I'm quite amused by the mental acrobatics that you Americans now need to do to reconcile hating Chechan Islamists and supporting Russian repression. Sort of the opposite of what you did with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Newsflash: knives can kill, a broken bottle can kill, a brick to the head can kill, and if the muggers feel like having fun, even bare hands can kill.
The difference is that it takes a lot of effort, whereas any twat with a gun can kill you without breaking a sweat.
A disarmed society is a herd of sheep.
No, we still have knives, bricks, bottles, boots and fists.
People who carry guns are cowards and weaklings.
Most writers on blogs and tech sites are journalists in the same way that someone who can write "Hello World!" in Java is a software developer.
Reddit. I'm going there now.
If you're lucky they'll have another "crowdsourced" internet witchhunt going on that you can contribute to.
..for someone who was apparently so drunk after a work-related party that he actually states:
I don't think you've ever been out at night in central London (or any other big UK city) have you? Everyone is drunk. It's what we do instead of going to the gym, watching baseball or praying in church.
Many of it want to get rid of they and return to DIY justice
Maybe when you get into secondary school, eh?
I'll never be ten years old again when I watch a Star Wars movie
I'm afraid that just about says it all. Star Wars is fine if you're under 11. After that, you need to move to more grown up stuff like Doctor Who or one of the films/TV shows set in the marvellously well-drawn and rich Star Trek universe.
Just because there's a metric shit-ton of Star Wars books out there doesn't mean Disney's going to use any of them. Likely, we'll see Princess Leia cavorting around with alien bluebirds cheesily CGI'ed in, circling her and chirping irritatingly, in the musical version of Star Wars.
And it would still be less irritating than Yoda.
I do, in general, have more faith in Disney than in George Lucas for coming up with a quality film.
This, ladies and gentleman, is a classic example of 'damning with faint praise'.
Or 'setting the bar pitifully low'.
Alternatively it's some bored 12 year old doing it for the lulz. Sorry, the 1337 hacktivist hit squads of Anonymous protesting against tyranny wherever it rears its ugly head.
rm -rf / is usually a bad idea
Luckily there is no command line in Windows so I can't make that sort of
Because you are reading a lot of nonsense on Slashdot. And because what really counts is whether there was defamation or not. I could say something about you that is strictly the truth, but leaving out information or twisting information in such a way that someone reading it would get the wrong impression about you. In that case, it's defamation and truth is no defense.
No, there has to be defamation for it to be libel, by definition. "Saying hurtful things" isn't something you can be sued for. There has to be some sort of damage to the person's reputation. And truth is a defence.
Saying that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile is definitely defamatory, but as it's true it wouldn't have mattered my saying it while he was alive if I could have proved it.
In other shocking news, Dick Van Dyke's chimney sweep in Mary Poppins isn't how any Englishman has ever spoken.
Nope, this is British libel law. The company doesn't have to prove a damn thing. *She* has to prove that they *didn't* pay her.
She only has to prove that because she says it happened.
Why does everyone (American) here seem to think that you should have absolute free reign just to make up shit about people/companies and expect no repurcussions?
This is Britain. All they have to do is say 'she said these bad-but-true things with the intention of hurting our reputation' and they win. That's all there is to it.
Your comment is...wrong.
However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
Why? The company is making the accusation therefore the burden of proof is on them, not the woman.
Not in England, mate.
What is the point in making legal comments about a country whose laws you don't understand?
Umm, no.
GP did NOT say "not defamatory", he said "not true".
Therein lies the problem with English libel law - even if it is provably true, it can still be libel if it is "defamatory".
Unlike in the USA, where "truth" trumps "defamatory"....
The only problem with your eloquent and largely grammatical post is that it's complete bollocks.
In English law, if you can prove it's true, it's not libel. People do have problems proving things, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, but that's a different issue.
And libel is, by definition, defamatory. Defamation is slander if it's spoken, libel otherwise.