Why didn't you just post "tl;dr" and be done with it?
Why you choose to willfully ignore the actual recommendation of the referee in favor of a supplemental recommendation is just perplexing. And you got modded up for it, brilliant.
In case your skimming isn't up to snuff, the referee found that a lesser 10 year disbarrment was inadequate, and spent 160+ pages excoriating Jack Thompson as completely and wholly unprofessional and lacking in ethics. I completely fail to see how that equates to nothing much happening here.
Excepting that wikipedia has gotten a rep as playing fast and loose with copyright laws in the first place. Isn't there a provision in the gdfl that requires adequate attribution to the author? When something is deleted/oversighted/otherwise removed completely, and then reinserted later by another author, does that not violate the copyright of the original contributor?
Point being: if wikipedia did include such copyright notices, they'd have to be a lot more careful with their bookwork regarding contributions, especially those of editors banned from the site who lack the ability to look after the contributions themselves. As far as I can tell, they've avoided any such notification for the sole purpose of avoiding any and all legal entanglements.
Where's the mod option for "completely missing the point and stretching a statement by the parent to absurd lengths to prove a related, but seperate, point"?
Tim Russert was one of the few journalists today who are worthy of that name. Hearkening back to the proud traditions of Walter Kronkite and Edward R Murrough, who asked tough questions of big players who could normally intimidate or frighten their way out of being asked the questions.
Instead, we're left with Barbara Walters asking what sort of tree people would be, and persisting.
your ego just refuses to be seen in them My id, on the other hand, will drive and piece of junk it can get it's hands on. Usually at recklessly unsafe speeds...
Discussions of metallurgy and engineering seem quite apropos for "news for nerds" to me.
Too many comments here about how things aren't really "nerdy" enough because it doesn't fit someone's particular ideal of what is nerdy. You aren't the final arbiter on what is or isn't news for nerds.
Don't like the articles being posted here, go to the firehose and mod them down or stop reading.
The only information I could find anywhere about a conflict between the two was from Boeings Sept. 2007 SEC filing
The Boeing-built NSS-8 satellite was declared a total loss due to an anomaly during launch on January 30, 2007. The NSS-8 satellite was insured for $200, which was collected during the second and third quarters of 2007. New Skies Satellites B.V. ("New Skies") declined to exercise its option to purchase a replacement spacecraft due to its assertion that we anticipatorily breached the contract. We believe that had New Skies exercised its option, we would have fulfilled our contractual responsibilities. We do not expect the launch anomaly or New Skies' assertion to materially impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
Sounds like they lost a satellite from a launch problem (other news articles said it was a rocket failure on the converted oil-rig launch platform Boeing has in partnership with a Russian rocket firm) and are not buying Boeing's claim of innocence.
Could you explain how this constitutes irrefutable proof? To my semi-trained eye (worked several jobs in an assistant capacity without any formal training or certification) I am not seeing this as proof. I see a letter dated january '08 and several attached filings dated may '07. Something about ex post facto being applied makes this not proof of anything, to my mind. Then again, I'm not the lawyer.
I don't consider a blogspot page to be irrefutable.
What is this, wikipedia, where we discriminate against certain domains and sources, calling them unreliable because they aren't harmonious with our own pov?
Even if they were a monopoly, which they really aren't, where have you been hiding the last 8 years? This administration would never do anything to harm the golden calf of corporate profits.
No, you need to review Article VI of the constiution. It states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land
It's not only a law, it is the law within the United States, which no other law, order, decision or treaty may supercede. In theory...
Scientology is no more ridiculous... killing your first born.
Pretty sure my parents didn't consider that too terribly rediculous at several points during my youth...
Re:Banks is not a good author
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
His books fail to give any real backstory or context
This is the biggest problem, in my estimation. I'd love to read his Culture books (have heard fantastic things about them) but have no idea where to start. I did pick up one (forget the title offhand) and got about halfway through before I had to put it down. Brilliantly written, incredible scifi, but completely out of my depth and unable to parse it due to a lack of background. Much as I revile the numbered series fad that sweeps scifi and fantasy, in this case it would be incredibly helpful to have something of a starting point. The books just don't seem well suited to picking up whatever one hits your fancy.
For stand alone books, however, I found Feersum Endjin to be incredible.
So jobs is a douchebag, but because he succeeds, that makes it okay? No, just because you're a visionary (which I'm not even sure he is) doesn't make it okay to be a dick.
According to contemporary American culture, it is ok. In fact, to a large number of people, it is expected. How many times have you heard someone say, 'He won't succeed because he doesn't have the killer instinct'? Just replace killer instinct with dick, and you've got it.
Also, most shareholders don't care how the successful act. They want money, and if you're an evil dictator but make them money, they don't care.
What (admittedly little) I've read of her work so far, she doesn't seem that professional in the first place. Comes off more as someone who wanted to be a big journalist, but didn't have the chops for it. The same thinking as with bad software patents, put it on the internet and all of a sudden it's new and worthwhile.
This is part of why the "new media" is not displacing the old tv and print media as quickly as it probably should. Instead of hard-hitting journalists, you get bimbos flirting with their subjects and pitching softball questions.
Hey, the pope says it's 6000 years old, I say it's 6000 years old. I've gotten this far in life by not offending cranky old German guys (and there's quite a few in my family) and I'm not going to start now.
Slashdot Mirror
I am Jack's review...
With the irony of him complaining about other people inappropriately showing penises...
Why didn't you just post "tl;dr" and be done with it?
Why you choose to willfully ignore the actual recommendation of the referee in favor of a supplemental recommendation is just perplexing. And you got modded up for it, brilliant.
In case your skimming isn't up to snuff, the referee found that a lesser 10 year disbarrment was inadequate, and spent 160+ pages excoriating Jack Thompson as completely and wholly unprofessional and lacking in ethics. I completely fail to see how that equates to nothing much happening here.
When the hell did that become any sort of standard?
Dude, it was delivered in a series of tubes, not in trucks. Get with the times.
CLAIRE HOFFMAN Posted Jun 26, 2008 2:25 PM
Excepting that wikipedia has gotten a rep as playing fast and loose with copyright laws in the first place. Isn't there a provision in the gdfl that requires adequate attribution to the author? When something is deleted/oversighted/otherwise removed completely, and then reinserted later by another author, does that not violate the copyright of the original contributor?
Point being: if wikipedia did include such copyright notices, they'd have to be a lot more careful with their bookwork regarding contributions, especially those of editors banned from the site who lack the ability to look after the contributions themselves. As far as I can tell, they've avoided any such notification for the sole purpose of avoiding any and all legal entanglements.
Where's the mod option for "completely missing the point and stretching a statement by the parent to absurd lengths to prove a related, but seperate, point"?
What, too long?
Ye gods, now I'm mortified.
Tim Russert was one of the few journalists today who are worthy of that name. Hearkening back to the proud traditions of Walter Kronkite and Edward R Murrough, who asked tough questions of big players who could normally intimidate or frighten their way out of being asked the questions.
Instead, we're left with Barbara Walters asking what sort of tree people would be, and persisting.
Another blow to quality journalism in America.
My id, on the other hand, will drive and piece of junk it can get it's hands on. Usually at recklessly unsafe speeds...
Isn't that just what the legitimite linguists in the article are doing, though?
Discussions of metallurgy and engineering seem quite apropos for "news for nerds" to me.
Too many comments here about how things aren't really "nerdy" enough because it doesn't fit someone's particular ideal of what is nerdy. You aren't the final arbiter on what is or isn't news for nerds.
Don't like the articles being posted here, go to the firehose and mod them down or stop reading.
The only information I could find anywhere about a conflict between the two was from Boeings Sept. 2007 SEC filing The Boeing-built NSS-8 satellite was declared a total loss due to an anomaly during launch on January 30, 2007. The NSS-8 satellite was insured for $200, which was collected during the second and third quarters of 2007. New Skies Satellites B.V. ("New Skies") declined to exercise its option to purchase a replacement spacecraft due to its assertion that we anticipatorily breached the contract. We believe that had New Skies exercised its option, we would have fulfilled our contractual responsibilities. We do not expect the launch anomaly or New Skies' assertion to materially impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
Sounds like they lost a satellite from a launch problem (other news articles said it was a rocket failure on the converted oil-rig launch platform Boeing has in partnership with a Russian rocket firm) and are not buying Boeing's claim of innocence.
Fair enough, we all make mistakes. Admitting culpability and retracting your error puts you far above many of the other lawyers I've met.
I support you and all the hard work you're doing in this arena, keep it up.
Can we get NYCL's post pointing out the error and retraction modded up please?
Could you explain how this constitutes irrefutable proof? To my semi-trained eye (worked several jobs in an assistant capacity without any formal training or certification) I am not seeing this as proof. I see a letter dated january '08 and several attached filings dated may '07. Something about ex post facto being applied makes this not proof of anything, to my mind. Then again, I'm not the lawyer.
What is this, wikipedia, where we discriminate against certain domains and sources, calling them unreliable because they aren't harmonious with our own pov?
Even if they were a monopoly, which they really aren't, where have you been hiding the last 8 years? This administration would never do anything to harm the golden calf of corporate profits.
No, you need to review Article VI of the constiution. It states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land
It's not only a law, it is the law within the United States, which no other law, order, decision or treaty may supercede. In theory...
Pretty sure my parents didn't consider that too terribly rediculous at several points during my youth...
This is the biggest problem, in my estimation. I'd love to read his Culture books (have heard fantastic things about them) but have no idea where to start. I did pick up one (forget the title offhand) and got about halfway through before I had to put it down. Brilliantly written, incredible scifi, but completely out of my depth and unable to parse it due to a lack of background. Much as I revile the numbered series fad that sweeps scifi and fantasy, in this case it would be incredibly helpful to have something of a starting point. The books just don't seem well suited to picking up whatever one hits your fancy.
For stand alone books, however, I found Feersum Endjin to be incredible.
According to contemporary American culture, it is ok. In fact, to a large number of people, it is expected. How many times have you heard someone say, 'He won't succeed because he doesn't have the killer instinct'? Just replace killer instinct with dick, and you've got it.
Also, most shareholders don't care how the successful act. They want money, and if you're an evil dictator but make them money, they don't care.
What (admittedly little) I've read of her work so far, she doesn't seem that professional in the first place. Comes off more as someone who wanted to be a big journalist, but didn't have the chops for it. The same thinking as with bad software patents, put it on the internet and all of a sudden it's new and worthwhile.
This is part of why the "new media" is not displacing the old tv and print media as quickly as it probably should. Instead of hard-hitting journalists, you get bimbos flirting with their subjects and pitching softball questions.
I prefer Pope Classic myself. New Pope just isn't as pallatable to me.
Hey, the pope says it's 6000 years old, I say it's 6000 years old. I've gotten this far in life by not offending cranky old German guys (and there's quite a few in my family) and I'm not going to start now.