No way! Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Thirteen minutes and thirty-nine seconds of Samuel Taylor Coleridge goodness. Plus, it will help stave off the ADD that video games tend to be involved in.
Good point. That can only happen by rotation relevant to the direction to the sun. (Interesting thought: is it possible to have a moon that never rotates relative to the sun?)
I'm not sure I follow, but it sounds like you are saying that, anytime someone sues someone else for defamation, if he alleges any damage to his reputation he must be a public figure. I didn't read the man's complaint, so again I am not sure I follow your meaning here. As to malice, you say "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth" and then "lack of intent" in the same paragraph. The only intent required in defamation is the intent to state something. If it was stated with reckless disregard for the truth, it is actionable. The real question is whether publishing the results of a computer program with insufficient attention to its input (as seems to be the case here) can constitute reckless disregard for the truth.
I actually spent some time looking into what word to use. I would have gone with "iologist," but I couldn't find an apropos use of that term so I went with exobiologist, which is listed as an alias of astrogeology on Wikipedia. I don't like using geocentric terms when discussing other heavenly bodies, but wasn't left much real choice here.
While someone else pointed out that Io rotates on the same period as its orbit, don't forget that the photos were taken by a probe as it flew past Jupiter - in other words, the camera was far from stationary. I don't know the path that the probe took, but regardless of that, flying past a sphere gives the impression that the sphere is rotating. In summary:
Io is rotating, contrary to the comment that asserted that tidal locking == no rotation (even though that's clearly not what he meant, it is what he started out saying
The appearance of rotation in the animated GIF in TFA is due to a combination of Io's rotation and the probe's movement relative to it; either one on its own would be sufficient to make it look like that
Curiously enough, it's actually the use of words like puerile that will keep articles off the front page.*
I agree that this was just gratuitous. My favorite part is that the submitter put "barfing" into quotation marks, as if it wasn't his word. My second favorite part is that the use of the word combined with the phrase "into space" implies that it is spewing matter beyond its sphere of influence. Watching the animated gif from TFA makes it seem (at least to me, IANAE (I am not an exogeologist)) that the matter settles to the moon's surface.
* - Unless, of course, you spell it wrong or use it to mean something it doesn't.
My favorite part is that the blurb links to a printer-friendly version of the article, which happens to bring up a printer dialog for me when it loads. Thanks for checking the links, Zonk!
The limited enforceability of shrink-wrap contracts (which are somewhat different from EULAs; this case is about the former) that we do have stems from a desire to avoid having to force you to read a long contract before you buy anything online or, even worse, over the phone. There is at least a rational argument here, and there are numerous legal theories that can be applied to support enforceability. I tend to disagree, but you can't just say "this is retarded" and think you've won the day.
Sure. The 7th amendment does not preclude double jeopardy. That is cut off by the 5th amendment. The 7th is purely about civil cases. Its requirement that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined is about jury determinations of fact in civil cases. All that it means is that, if a jury decides that fact X is true, the factual finding of X cannot be overturned by a court except in those circumstances permitted at common law (such as the fact being unsupported by any evidence at all). Keep in mind that determinations of fact are limited... in any case, there are certain facts that must be proven and certain decisions of law to make. The judge is responsible for decisions of law. Sometimes, something that looks like a fact will become a question of law through doctrinal development or other processes.
Anyhow, the 7th amendment has not been incorporated against the states, meaning that it only applies in federal court. State courts can do as they see fit with jury trials, although by and large they have kept them intact. Part of this is due to state constitutional requirements, and part is just due to the system being ancient and well-liked. But the 7th amendment does not require state courts to provide a jury in all civil matters above $20. Note also that, in Virginia, if you lose in GDC or small claims court, you can generally appeal to a Circuit Court and get a jury to hear your case (even if it's $4,500 or below).
No matter how good the lawyers behind you are, standing up in court for yourself presents many opportunities to dig a hole, jump into it, and ask for someone to start shoveling in dirt on top.
In the small claims division in Virginia, small claims courts have the following provision:
A corporate or partnership plaintiff or defendant may be represented by an owner, a general partner, an officer or an employee of that corporation or partnership who shall have all the rights and privileges given an individual to represent, plead and try a case without an attorney. An attorney may serve in this capacity if he is appearing pro se, but he may not serve in a representative capacity.
In most places with a separate small claims court, no lawyers are allowed. Virginia has something similar to what you are describing, which is its General District Court. The GDC sits without a jury and has looser procedural rules than the Circuit Court, which is the trial court that can have juries and has more power. The Circuit Court cannot hear cases from $4,500 down. The GDC cannot hear cases over $15,000. You can have a lawyer in either of those courts. There is also a small claims division within the GDC, which cannot hear cases above $5,000 and where lawyers are not allowed. Even when they let someone other than the actual party go to small claims court on the party's behalf (incapacitated people, corporations, etc.), they generally let you have anyone go except for lawyers.
But every state is unique, and it seems that the relevant one here permits lawyers in small claims court, which is kind of a shame. (The alternative is that Gateway removed the case from small claims court to a "real" court, which is sometimes a right that defendants have when sued in small claims court.)
As to all the EULA talk, please don't post comments about it until you've read at least the section on their enforceability in the Wikipedia article, which provides a fairly decent summary of the varying law in the area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability. The section on shrink-wrap licenses in the same article is also pertinent, and includes links to other, more prominent cases where Gateway was sued over its EULA. The bad news is that nobody can tell you whether a given EULA will be enforced, given all the things on which their enforceability depends. Never trust a blanket statement that EULAs are or are not enforceable.
Is that what the Supreme Court actually held? I thought that they held that the FCC could regulate such words on TV, which is a far cry from holding that you can't say them on TV at all.
I just use Unison from my Powerbook and Power Mac to synchronize my documents to my Linux server - I don't have OS X Server around to play with and I leave my Power Mac logged in 24/7. I'll have to do some more research but thanks for clarifying a bit.:)
There are plenty of dance styles that are similar to DDR on its higher levels. It's just that the music you are "dancing" that way to with DDR is worlds apart from the kind that goes along with the actual dancing.
DDR has much more in common with dancing than Guitar Hero does with playing guitar. However, I agree with the gist here: if you enjoy Guitar Hero, then play it.
It seems that you could get her for creation, as well, depending on the content of the takedown letter. Unless the copyright was assigned to her, then she would have to be the original copyright holder which means she either created it herself or hired someone to create it as a work made for hire. Am I missing something?
By and large, Congress can retroactively make behavior non-criminal, as far as I know. But even if they can't, the President could probably just give them a blanket pardon.
Slashdot Mirror
No way! Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Thirteen minutes and thirty-nine seconds of Samuel Taylor Coleridge goodness. Plus, it will help stave off the ADD that video games tend to be involved in.
Does my fake Rolex count? ;)
Good point. That can only happen by rotation relevant to the direction to the sun. (Interesting thought: is it possible to have a moon that never rotates relative to the sun?)
I'm not sure I follow, but it sounds like you are saying that, anytime someone sues someone else for defamation, if he alleges any damage to his reputation he must be a public figure. I didn't read the man's complaint, so again I am not sure I follow your meaning here. As to malice, you say "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth" and then "lack of intent" in the same paragraph. The only intent required in defamation is the intent to state something. If it was stated with reckless disregard for the truth, it is actionable. The real question is whether publishing the results of a computer program with insufficient attention to its input (as seems to be the case here) can constitute reckless disregard for the truth.
I actually spent some time looking into what word to use. I would have gone with "iologist," but I couldn't find an apropos use of that term so I went with exobiologist, which is listed as an alias of astrogeology on Wikipedia. I don't like using geocentric terms when discussing other heavenly bodies, but wasn't left much real choice here.
Curiously enough, it's actually the use of words like puerile that will keep articles off the front page.*
I agree that this was just gratuitous. My favorite part is that the submitter put "barfing" into quotation marks, as if it wasn't his word. My second favorite part is that the use of the word combined with the phrase "into space" implies that it is spewing matter beyond its sphere of influence. Watching the animated gif from TFA makes it seem (at least to me, IANAE (I am not an exogeologist)) that the matter settles to the moon's surface.
* - Unless, of course, you spell it wrong or use it to mean something it doesn't.
Read further in the article you link to. "Actual malice" doesn't mean actual malice. And "public figure" is not a given, either.
My favorite part is that the blurb links to a printer-friendly version of the article, which happens to bring up a printer dialog for me when it loads. Thanks for checking the links, Zonk!
The limited enforceability of shrink-wrap contracts (which are somewhat different from EULAs; this case is about the former) that we do have stems from a desire to avoid having to force you to read a long contract before you buy anything online or, even worse, over the phone. There is at least a rational argument here, and there are numerous legal theories that can be applied to support enforceability. I tend to disagree, but you can't just say "this is retarded" and think you've won the day.
Sure. The 7th amendment does not preclude double jeopardy. That is cut off by the 5th amendment. The 7th is purely about civil cases. Its requirement that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined is about jury determinations of fact in civil cases. All that it means is that, if a jury decides that fact X is true, the factual finding of X cannot be overturned by a court except in those circumstances permitted at common law (such as the fact being unsupported by any evidence at all). Keep in mind that determinations of fact are limited ... in any case, there are certain facts that must be proven and certain decisions of law to make. The judge is responsible for decisions of law. Sometimes, something that looks like a fact will become a question of law through doctrinal development or other processes.
Anyhow, the 7th amendment has not been incorporated against the states, meaning that it only applies in federal court. State courts can do as they see fit with jury trials, although by and large they have kept them intact. Part of this is due to state constitutional requirements, and part is just due to the system being ancient and well-liked. But the 7th amendment does not require state courts to provide a jury in all civil matters above $20. Note also that, in Virginia, if you lose in GDC or small claims court, you can generally appeal to a Circuit Court and get a jury to hear your case (even if it's $4,500 or below).
No matter how good the lawyers behind you are, standing up in court for yourself presents many opportunities to dig a hole, jump into it, and ask for someone to start shoveling in dirt on top.
In most places with a separate small claims court, no lawyers are allowed. Virginia has something similar to what you are describing, which is its General District Court. The GDC sits without a jury and has looser procedural rules than the Circuit Court, which is the trial court that can have juries and has more power. The Circuit Court cannot hear cases from $4,500 down. The GDC cannot hear cases over $15,000. You can have a lawyer in either of those courts. There is also a small claims division within the GDC, which cannot hear cases above $5,000 and where lawyers are not allowed. Even when they let someone other than the actual party go to small claims court on the party's behalf (incapacitated people, corporations, etc.), they generally let you have anyone go except for lawyers.
But every state is unique, and it seems that the relevant one here permits lawyers in small claims court, which is kind of a shame. (The alternative is that Gateway removed the case from small claims court to a "real" court, which is sometimes a right that defendants have when sued in small claims court.)
As to all the EULA talk, please don't post comments about it until you've read at least the section on their enforceability in the Wikipedia article, which provides a fairly decent summary of the varying law in the area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability. The section on shrink-wrap licenses in the same article is also pertinent, and includes links to other, more prominent cases where Gateway was sued over its EULA. The bad news is that nobody can tell you whether a given EULA will be enforced, given all the things on which their enforceability depends. Never trust a blanket statement that EULAs are or are not enforceable.
Is that what the Supreme Court actually held? I thought that they held that the FCC could regulate such words on TV, which is a far cry from holding that you can't say them on TV at all.
Have you found one that does handle subprojects well? I use darcs for most everything nowadays, but I'm always open to new ideas.
I just use Unison from my Powerbook and Power Mac to synchronize my documents to my Linux server - I don't have OS X Server around to play with and I leave my Power Mac logged in 24/7. I'll have to do some more research but thanks for clarifying a bit. :)
What do you use for the laptop auto-synchronization?
Then what was the predecessor? The point stands.
I'm more concerned with "predecessor." Is the prior version dead and completely unsupported in any way?
Whatever happened to cyberspace as a virtual utopia?
It works exactly the same as real utopiae, as you pointed out. So far, it's working perfectly.
There are plenty of dance styles that are similar to DDR on its higher levels. It's just that the music you are "dancing" that way to with DDR is worlds apart from the kind that goes along with the actual dancing.
DDR has much more in common with dancing than Guitar Hero does with playing guitar. However, I agree with the gist here: if you enjoy Guitar Hero, then play it.
It seems that you could get her for creation, as well, depending on the content of the takedown letter. Unless the copyright was assigned to her, then she would have to be the original copyright holder which means she either created it herself or hired someone to create it as a work made for hire. Am I missing something?
By and large, Congress can retroactively make behavior non-criminal, as far as I know. But even if they can't, the President could probably just give them a blanket pardon.