All lies would be acceptable? Fraud, medical malpractice, and such should be legally protected acts?
Holy Flammable Strawman Batman! Fraud and malpractice are ACTIONS not STATEMENTS. What he's saying is that no STATEMENTS should be illegal. Fraud is an action.
Example: I can tell you I'm a doctor all day long (I'm not really, so that's the lie). This should not be illegal. The moment I cut you open with a scalpel under that pretense however, then you have a crime.
Other example: I can tell you I have a killer investment strategy all I want (I don't, so that's the lie). If I take your money for my plan and run to the Bahamas, that's an action. That's illegal.
That still wouldn't have amended the constitution. The states would have had to ratify it after the fact, which would be very unlikely (getting 2/3 of state legislatures to agree on something is like putting KY back in the tube).
I think his point was that it is ok to quote someone else's statement regardless of whether it is libelous if you are simply stating that the other person said it.
Or maybe Britain really is that fascist these days.
I also regularly search for terms on terms in Qu'ranic Islam (I'm an atheist but find it interesting) and nuclear technology (I'm a physics geek and that's one of my "things".)
I hear the weather in Gitmo is great this time of year.
Protip: If you find yourself saying, "It seems so obvious that _____________," then an expert in the field probably already thought of it and examined it, and a google search would do you good.
As others have already posted, the idea of MACHOs has been explored, and is (as best as we can tell) not able to explain (most of) the missing matter.
I pay $2.5 per 5 gallon jug. That's only about $27.50 a barrel, nowhere near the price of oil, and I've been in places where water costs much less than that.
'Good' would be ridding the world of the mosquito.
No, that would be a terrible idea. A huge number of other species would go extinct because you just chilidishly took away their food supply so you wouldn't have to use deet.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Indeed. It sounds less like boycotts have been affected Ubisoft's decisions than that executives in charge of DRM decisions keep getting fired/quitting.
Yes, but you're still wrong. It's still only used following an (perceived) error. You don't throw random [sic]s into a quote to insult someone if the quote has no (perceived) errors.
Jurors are obliged to reach a verdict based upon the relevant actions of the person charged. This is why irrelevant evidence (for or against) is not to be considered.
Several centuries of common law precedent disagree with this statement. You're spouting the statist party line, but it's not the legal reality.
Evidence can be ruled inadmissible for a long list of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with whether or not it is relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
you sure overreacted to it, just like Hitler would have.
NOW we've been properly Godwinned.
Ad hominem much?
If a stinking, festering sphincter is right, well, then he's right. Of course he's still a big ol' puddle of santorum.
the moral fibre of a Bangkok pimp
Hey, pimps are a noble group of professionals responding to legitimate market needs.
Cameron's just a @#!$&%.
All lies would be acceptable? Fraud, medical malpractice, and such should be legally protected acts?
Holy Flammable Strawman Batman! Fraud and malpractice are ACTIONS not STATEMENTS. What he's saying is that no STATEMENTS should be illegal. Fraud is an action.
Example: I can tell you I'm a doctor all day long (I'm not really, so that's the lie). This should not be illegal. The moment I cut you open with a scalpel under that pretense however, then you have a crime.
Other example: I can tell you I have a killer investment strategy all I want (I don't, so that's the lie). If I take your money for my plan and run to the Bahamas, that's an action. That's illegal.
That still wouldn't have amended the constitution. The states would have had to ratify it after the fact, which would be very unlikely (getting 2/3 of state legislatures to agree on something is like putting KY back in the tube).
When? Obscenity laws are pretty weak nowadays because the Supreme court has ruled almost all of them to be unconstitutional.
I think his point was that it is ok to quote someone else's statement regardless of whether it is libelous if you are simply stating that the other person said it.
Or maybe Britain really is that fascist these days.
This is not a GPS fix.
GPS is not a gloss for all radio-based location finding.
Same. I'll probably upgrade with the S5 (or buy an S4 when my carrier drops the price after the S5 is released).
Someone's got a sense of entitlement there.
You're forgetting that the players write the rules of the game.
Never mind hating the players; let's trying skull fucking them and using their pelvises as serving platters!
I also regularly search for terms on terms in Qu'ranic Islam (I'm an atheist but find it interesting) and nuclear technology (I'm a physics geek and that's one of my "things".)
I hear the weather in Gitmo is great this time of year.
Protip: If you find yourself saying, "It seems so obvious that _____________," then an expert in the field probably already thought of it and examined it, and a google search would do you good.
As others have already posted, the idea of MACHOs has been explored, and is (as best as we can tell) not able to explain (most of) the missing matter.
But it was the only one claimed to be made from plankton.
You do know they don't actually make Soylent Green from that stuff, right?
I pay $2.5 per 5 gallon jug. That's only about $27.50 a barrel, nowhere near the price of oil, and I've been in places where water costs much less than that.
If you're going to be a physics pedant, at least get it right.
Drag is approximated by a Taylor series truncated at n=2 for low velocities. In reality, drag is more complicated than that.
I see no reason for heating to be less energy intensive than cooling.
I can. An electric heater can be nearly 100% efficient. An air conditioner isn't going to be anywhere near that.
Life? So what? A virus is alive. Sperm is alive.
No they are not. Neither meets the definition of a living organism.
Is there a compelling reason that US citizens suspected of joining al queda should be given better treatment than other suspected al queda members?
Yes. It's called THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you fascist jackass.
Always have a lawyer on standby. This is the reality of our society.
'Good' would be ridding the world of the mosquito.
No, that would be a terrible idea. A huge number of other species would go extinct because you just chilidishly took away their food supply so you wouldn't have to use deet.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Indeed. It sounds less like boycotts have been affected Ubisoft's decisions than that executives in charge of DRM decisions keep getting fired/quitting.
Yes, but you're still wrong. It's still only used following an (perceived) error. You don't throw random [sic]s into a quote to insult someone if the quote has no (perceived) errors.
Jurors are obliged to reach a verdict based upon the relevant actions of the person charged. This is why irrelevant evidence (for or against) is not to be considered.
Several centuries of common law precedent disagree with this statement. You're spouting the statist party line, but it's not the legal reality.
Evidence can be ruled inadmissible for a long list of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with whether or not it is relevant.