You missed the qualifier: A person can be smart. People can be stupid.
Evidence in support of the notion that people can be smart: I'm sending this message to people over a network of high tech inventions that exists because even with the drag effect of stupid people, smart people can still come together and make pretty impressive things happen that can span the globe.
Evidence in support of the notion that a person can be not smart: Bush.
Abuse of the word "like" there I think. A few Islamic extremists didn't get two countries invaded; countries don't tend to be invaded these days for single reasons, invading a country's a big thing that has to be more worth while doing to more of the major players than it will cause harm to the major players, and usually that will means that there are various people which for various reasons have a vested interest in the removal of an enemy. Anyone who thinks that complex things happen for a single reason is just a fool. I don't even go to the shop for a single reason.
"For such an 'intelligent' species, humans sure seem shortsighted"
You do realise that humans are like... completely different people, and the few can ruin things for the many? Like, if you find somebody with a 50 IQ, you can't determine from that that "humans are a stupid species"; the fact that there are people with IQ's of 50 doesn't discredit the work that people with IQ's of 150 do, just as rapists don't invalidate the work that the charitable and selfless do, and the fact that you paint a species of 6 billion with a single brush doesn't mean that there aren't people who can tell different people apart exist.
(full disclosure: I also piped it thru |sed -e 's/^\.\///g' for formatting purposes (slashdot puts it all one one line if they begin with./ for some reason) and |sort because I'm just like that)
Is this like some low-bar turing test? Who can write a bot that is passable as a spammer moron? Yay, we've reached a milestone in AI development! Yaaaayyy, let's party like it's 1999!
By providing them with a better option! Damn their evilness! Now people are going to be stuck having to choose the thing that they want out of a choice of many, this is a bad day for freedom:-(
You do know that Bill Gates has only donated a bajillion dollars to find a cure for HIV so that people with AIDS can live long enough to have to buy Windows 8 don't ya? The same with malaria! Evil b***ard!!!
"Is the problem that they are always being detected too late to do anything with them?"
It can be, if they either come from the direction of the sun, or from the galaxy center where there's a lot of bright stars and other things moving, it can be more difficult to spot them. But while they're zipping past the earth at high speed is probably not the best place to intercept them anyway, as you need to get up to the speed 'n direction that they're travelling, and that direction is going to be altered somewhat as they pass by the earth, chasing them slightly further out is more likely going to be a lot easier. If there was enough interest in it.
Well it's certainly good that you're only sharing how you think you would've felt in a hypothetical past situation upon the reflection at this later date, and not suggesting that you have more insight into the feelings and reactions of some children that you don't know than their own father does, cuz that would be somewhat arrogant. I do hope at least we can remember than different people are different, and that we shouldn't generalise from self, or judge based on self.
Well speaking only for myself here (I regret to say) I didn't bother clicking your links and you needn't bother trying to convince me of this. Thinking I should pay more attention to what's going on in the country and in the world, I started watching BBC News 24. I have now unplugged my TV and cancelled my TV license. What I saw disgusted me so much that I could no longer in good conscience put money into that organisation, no matter how much I love and support some of their other works (such as their world class science documentaries). And somehow, BBC news are actually one of the best in this country. It's a horrible, horrible state of affairs, where our news 'n media outlets are even more corrupt than our politions, and I don't say that lightly, and I try to point this out, backed by solid examples (swine flu was an excellent one) of where this is true, to people every day. Is good to know I'm not alone with this passion.
The way I also see it is that unless we can find some way of making our press responsible for the information they put out there to motivate them to quit perverting the truth in the way they do (even when they're not outright lying, they have ways of twisting the truth to the extent that the truth is no longer recognisable) - we have to keep the House of Lords, because the Commons are too malleable, because they are affected by voters, who are being mislead by the press, who basically like shittin on people in a Cartman style "I told on you!!!" and too many people are allowing themselves to be mislead! Until voters, in one way or another, discontinue being mislead, we must insulate our government from its voters. This is a sad, sad, fact. Public policy must not be dictated by the fear markets, and trial by media must end. But then, I've always been a dreamer:-)
Erm, no, thanks for the offer but... I have like, stuff to do, plus I think 'M' is actually just a fictional character, and I don't think courts lets you sue fictional characters, unless the court is fictional as well and... well basically, it just sounds like too much work cuz as I said, I've already so much stuff to do. Thanks though, for granting me the freedom to, that's very American of you.
If the court rules that teachbook doesn't infringe on facebook's trademark, guess what? That's okay! The existence of teachbook can not then be used to demonstrate that Facebook haven't been protecting their trademark, which, if teachbook did infringe and facebook didn't go after them, then somebody else could. Either way, it's better to determine these things in a court so it is known than leave it to someone else down the line. Whether Facebook "win" or "lose" this case, they achieve their purpose of making sure 'teachbook' isn't a threat to their brand. Cuz let's face it, the only way teachbook could likely to be a threat to facebook is indirectly, as the legal weapon of choice of somebody wishing to move in on Facebook's brand. Facebook's action here is the minimum that is required to ensure that can't happen. That's due to laws that were in place long before Facebook were, so it's hardly their fault.
"And that's totally irrelevant - the suit is in the US"
Not irrelevant at all. They're American, that's where the money they make comes, so of course that's where the case will be. Their brand name is world wide, and has a direct effect on how much money they, in America, will make. You know the 'www' that appears before their domain name when you go to their site? Do you know what the first two 'w's stand for? That should be a hint that things that happen in one country don't automatically stop at the border of that country.
"And facebooks' "population stats" are skewed"
And that is irrelevant, unless you're disputing that Facebook has a large number of users around the world.
Actually if you type Tom Cruise into Google and see what suggestions come up (yes, that's a valid measurement of reputation!) you get things like 'films', 'movies', and 'height', so his overriding reputation seems to be "short actor".
More people in the world know that he's a short actor than know that he's a mental tax evading retard who won't come out of the closet, even though that does appear to be written all over his face.
That's like comparing Apple suing iOrange. Soft is short for Software, that's what the connotation is. That's why various software companies put 'soft' in their name. It's like 'OS' for Operating System, which is why you don't get MS suing Apple for OSX because they own the OS as in DOS, or SunOS, etc.
Any connotations of Social Networking that the word 'book' has comes from facebook. It wasn't there before.
If Skype was actually called SkyPE, or PSkyE, then the comparison with BSkyB would be valid. But it's not, so it isn't.
Something like that yes. I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage, and that that reputation has been damaged (eg, if you have a reputation in one area, but the libelous words were spoken elsewhere to someone who'd never heard of you, that wouldn't count).
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually, you may be correct in that that is somewhat considered secondary... the damage is damage. However, what the court awards you for the damage is likely to be affected by this. You may win the case but only be awarded £1 + legal costs. The problem is that the legal costs are likely large enough that even if the court say you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined. This is why it desperately needs change, because it is just a weapon for the rich.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the qualifier:
A person can be smart.
People can be stupid.
Evidence in support of the notion that people can be smart: I'm sending this message to people over a network of high tech inventions that exists because even with the drag effect of stupid people, smart people can still come together and make pretty impressive things happen that can span the globe.
Evidence in support of the notion that a person can be not smart: Bush.
Abuse of the word "like" there I think. A few Islamic extremists didn't get two countries invaded; countries don't tend to be invaded these days for single reasons, invading a country's a big thing that has to be more worth while doing to more of the major players than it will cause harm to the major players, and usually that will means that there are various people which for various reasons have a vested interest in the removal of an enemy. Anyone who thinks that complex things happen for a single reason is just a fool. I don't even go to the shop for a single reason.
"For such an 'intelligent' species, humans sure seem shortsighted"
You do realise that humans are like... completely different people, and the few can ruin things for the many? Like, if you find somebody with a 50 IQ, you can't determine from that that "humans are a stupid species"; the fact that there are people with IQ's of 50 doesn't discredit the work that people with IQ's of 150 do, just as rapists don't invalidate the work that the charitable and selfless do, and the fact that you paint a species of 6 billion with a single brush doesn't mean that there aren't people who can tell different people apart exist.
cd /usr/src/linux &&
grep -ilE 'super.?user' `find . -iname *.[ch]`
arch/avr32/mm/cache.c
arch/h8300/include/asm/cachectl.h
arch/ia64/kernel/unaligned.c
arch/m68k/include/asm/cachectl.h
arch/m68k/kernel/sys_m68k.c
arch/parisc/hpux/sys_hpux.c
arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
arch/x86/kernel/ioport.c
drivers/char/apm-emulation.c
drivers/char/rio/errors.h
drivers/char/rio/rioctrl.c
drivers/net/wireless/airo.c
drivers/scsi/megaraid.c
drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mm.c
drivers/staging/vt6655/iwctl.c
drivers/staging/vt6656/iwctl.c
fs/cachefiles/daemon.c
fs/ext4/mballoc.c
fs/fcntl.c
fs/namei.c
fs/ntfs/super.c
fs/smbfs/file.c
fs/ubifs/budget.c
fs/ufs/ufs_fs.h
fs/unionfs/sioq.c
fs/utimes.c
fs/xfs/quota/xfs_qm.c
fs/xfs/quota/xfs_qm_syscalls.c
fs/xfs/xfs_quota.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/linux/dqblk_xfs.h
include/linux/fd.h
include/linux/keyboard.h
include/linux/random.h
include/linux/sched.h
include/linux/shm.h
include/net/sock.h
kernel/kexec.c
kernel/sys.c
kernel/sysctl.c
kernel/time/ntp.c
mm/mempolicy.c
mm/migrate.c
mm/oom_kill.c
net/core/dev.c
net/core/sock.c
net/netlink/af_netlink.c
net/netrom/af_netrom.c
(full disclosure: I also piped it thru |sed -e 's/^\.\///g' for formatting purposes (slashdot puts it all one one line if they begin with ./ for some reason) and |sort because I'm just like that)
I remember that! Where Linux used jiffies as its unit of time, it instead used lunitix
"Hey, spammer moron!"
Is this like some low-bar turing test? Who can write a bot that is passable as a spammer moron? Yay, we've reached a milestone in AI development! Yaaaayyy, let's party like it's 1999!
Oh yeah, even our jokes get peer reviewed!
Well in true Haystack style, they should give us the real reason, and 999 fake decoy reasons!
Apparently Wikileaks is a military target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX_kcPyRw50
By providing them with a better option! Damn their evilness! Now people are going to be stuck having to choose the thing that they want out of a choice of many, this is a bad day for freedom :-(
6 was actually a big failure, everybody hated it, was really slow 'n crashy. I think 7 was profit.
You do know that Bill Gates has only donated a bajillion dollars to find a cure for HIV so that people with AIDS can live long enough to have to buy Windows 8 don't ya? The same with malaria! Evil b***ard!!!
I wonder if they're gonna get Glenn Beck to make the announcement *gets all giddy* it's gonna change Google forever!!
"Is the problem that they are always being detected too late to do anything with them?"
It can be, if they either come from the direction of the sun, or from the galaxy center where there's a lot of bright stars and other things moving, it can be more difficult to spot them. But while they're zipping past the earth at high speed is probably not the best place to intercept them anyway, as you need to get up to the speed 'n direction that they're travelling, and that direction is going to be altered somewhat as they pass by the earth, chasing them slightly further out is more likely going to be a lot easier. If there was enough interest in it.
Well it's certainly good that you're only sharing how you think you would've felt in a hypothetical past situation upon the reflection at this later date, and not suggesting that you have more insight into the feelings and reactions of some children that you don't know than their own father does, cuz that would be somewhat arrogant. I do hope at least we can remember than different people are different, and that we shouldn't generalise from self, or judge based on self.
Well speaking only for myself here (I regret to say) I didn't bother clicking your links and you needn't bother trying to convince me of this. Thinking I should pay more attention to what's going on in the country and in the world, I started watching BBC News 24. I have now unplugged my TV and cancelled my TV license. What I saw disgusted me so much that I could no longer in good conscience put money into that organisation, no matter how much I love and support some of their other works (such as their world class science documentaries). And somehow, BBC news are actually one of the best in this country. It's a horrible, horrible state of affairs, where our news 'n media outlets are even more corrupt than our politions, and I don't say that lightly, and I try to point this out, backed by solid examples (swine flu was an excellent one) of where this is true, to people every day. Is good to know I'm not alone with this passion.
The way I also see it is that unless we can find some way of making our press responsible for the information they put out there to motivate them to quit perverting the truth in the way they do (even when they're not outright lying, they have ways of twisting the truth to the extent that the truth is no longer recognisable) - we have to keep the House of Lords, because the Commons are too malleable, because they are affected by voters, who are being mislead by the press, who basically like shittin on people in a Cartman style "I told on you!!!" and too many people are allowing themselves to be mislead! Until voters, in one way or another, discontinue being mislead, we must insulate our government from its voters. This is a sad, sad, fact. Public policy must not be dictated by the fear markets, and trial by media must end. But then, I've always been a dreamer :-)
"GO AHEAD sue m there all you want"
Erm, no, thanks for the offer but... I have like, stuff to do, plus I think 'M' is actually just a fictional character, and I don't think courts lets you sue fictional characters, unless the court is fictional as well and... well basically, it just sounds like too much work cuz as I said, I've already so much stuff to do. Thanks though, for granting me the freedom to, that's very American of you.
"First, who the heck uses "www" any more?"
Says the person saying 'heck' hehe :-p
If the court rules that teachbook doesn't infringe on facebook's trademark, guess what? That's okay! The existence of teachbook can not then be used to demonstrate that Facebook haven't been protecting their trademark, which, if teachbook did infringe and facebook didn't go after them, then somebody else could. Either way, it's better to determine these things in a court so it is known than leave it to someone else down the line. Whether Facebook "win" or "lose" this case, they achieve their purpose of making sure 'teachbook' isn't a threat to their brand. Cuz let's face it, the only way teachbook could likely to be a threat to facebook is indirectly, as the legal weapon of choice of somebody wishing to move in on Facebook's brand. Facebook's action here is the minimum that is required to ensure that can't happen. That's due to laws that were in place long before Facebook were, so it's hardly their fault.
"The device is hardly useless"
This is true... "use-restricted" would be more accurate.
"And that's totally irrelevant - the suit is in the US"
Not irrelevant at all. They're American, that's where the money they make comes, so of course that's where the case will be. Their brand name is world wide, and has a direct effect on how much money they, in America, will make. You know the 'www' that appears before their domain name when you go to their site? Do you know what the first two 'w's stand for? That should be a hint that things that happen in one country don't automatically stop at the border of that country.
"And facebooks' "population stats" are skewed"
And that is irrelevant, unless you're disputing that Facebook has a large number of users around the world.
Actually if you type Tom Cruise into Google and see what suggestions come up (yes, that's a valid measurement of reputation!) you get things like 'films', 'movies', and 'height', so his overriding reputation seems to be "short actor".
More people in the world know that he's a short actor than know that he's a mental tax evading retard who won't come out of the closet, even though that does appear to be written all over his face.
That's like comparing Apple suing iOrange. Soft is short for Software, that's what the connotation is. That's why various software companies put 'soft' in their name. It's like 'OS' for Operating System, which is why you don't get MS suing Apple for OSX because they own the OS as in DOS, or SunOS, etc.
Any connotations of Social Networking that the word 'book' has comes from facebook. It wasn't there before.
If Skype was actually called SkyPE, or PSkyE, then the comparison with BSkyB would be valid. But it's not, so it isn't.
"when you hear the name "teachbook" doesn't that make you immediately think "facebook for teachers"?"
Yes.
"When you hear the name "Textbook" does that make you think "facebook for texts"?"
No.
I seem to be a bit of a spastic:
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually true, you may be correct...
and
that even if the court says you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined
Something like that yes. I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage, and that that reputation has been damaged (eg, if you have a reputation in one area, but the libelous words were spoken elsewhere to someone who'd never heard of you, that wouldn't count).
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually, you may be correct in that that is somewhat considered secondary ... the damage is damage. However, what the court awards you for the damage is likely to be affected by this. You may win the case but only be awarded £1 + legal costs. The problem is that the legal costs are likely large enough that even if the court say you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined. This is why it desperately needs change, because it is just a weapon for the rich.