You make the same points others make, but you people always forget the same thing.
Hydrogen can be used to transport energy. It isn't a very good energy source, but it's great for transporting energy from other places. And this
"It takes more energy to make H than what you get from burning it"
is just a pathetic lie. Some methods of making hydrogen fall in this category, but many others do not, and like so many others fools, you assume the current level of technology is what we'll be using forever.
"If their incentive to submit is attribution, they shouldn't be submitting."
That's your opinion and I disagree. Your opinion obviously doesn't make sense to me, and you've given no reason other than your personal feelings for your opinion.
So my question is why should anyone who doesn't care about the submitter change their mind?
What apart from personal jealousy is the driving force behind your opinion?
"Submitting just to gain attribution is the wrong reason to do it."
No it's not.
See how I made that last argument, or rather, made no argument at all? That's your post, an exposition on what you think should happen with no logic, fact or reason at all.
Why don't you just ask your question directly, or say what you really mean? That is, that you think he is lying.
Why couch your statment in weasel words?
More importantly, you were told they were different people, so what kind of proof would you require, and what makes you think you deserve any kind of proof in the first place?
I hate that there are enough people here with their priorities screwed up that they waste time yammering about submitters, and modding people like you up.
YOU and those like you are far more objectionable with your whining about submitters that the submitters will EVER be.
"Whenever I've gotten mod points, I've modded up comments like that because they need to be seen."
Why? They're not relevant, and you're misusing your mod points. Mod them offtopic or don't mod them.
"NO ONE should be able to profit from submitting and getting a story accepted."
Again, why? You don't get to decide that, and you have yet to make any case other that "because I said so". Frankly, I don't give two craps who submitted a story, and I have yet to hear a decent reason to punish these submitters.
"The only thing you should get in return is the knowledge that you've shared valuable information with your fellow reader."
Why? The only people I see who have a problem with it are people like you, and you have yet to list ONE reason that isn't just plain stupid. Example
"Fame, money, girls, etc... should all be left to REAL work: building or designing stuff, cooking, or cleaning for example."
So, you've set yourself up as the arbiter of what real work is, what submitters should be censored, and what the motivation of submitters should be, but you have yet to answer WHY.
My guess is that you won't be able to, because your jealousy is the real answer and you won't ever own up to that.
"He reasonably expected people to understand who he was talking about and his criticism, no matter how harsh and infantile and no matter how appropriate and mature, was censored"
Can he still write a blog? Yes. Can he still say whatever he wants whenever he wants in exactly the same fashion as he did before? Yes.
He just can't have a professional relationship with the university if he does.
So where's the censorship smart guy?
Oh right, it's not censorship, that's just what people like you scream when the facts are against you.
It's called being responsible for your actions. And, since you've clearly never bothered to read it, the first amendment doesn't relieve you of your responsibility, nor does any other part of the Constitution.
Take a second and think about how stupid someone would sound if they started screaming "EMBEZZLEMENT!" when they saw someone shoplifitng.
That's what you just did, Mr. Censorship.
Of course, even though it makes perfect sense, you don't care because it's treason.
Oh look at that, I did it too, calling it something it wasn't. Oops:) Now you and I have something in common.
"Well yes, the US puts a gun to everyones head, are you really that naive? The US tries to force it's values and political views on countries that it trades with."
And those countires can say no and deal with the consequences.
How spineless are you that you'll allow a country you apparently hate to rule your leaders?
Wait sorry, did I say spineless? I meant european, as they mean the same thing these days.
Nothing else, just thought I'd make a ridiculous statement of opinion in keeping with your post.
How sad and miserable people like you are, blaming an unrelated government for your own impotence.
See, if you weren't such a piece of crap, you'd stand up for yourself instead of jumping on the blame bandwagon. You know, be a citizen and actually hel run your government. But, you take the classic "blame someone else" tack.
What a disgusting victim mentality.
"Does somebody want to take a guess if I still like the US?"
Would you like to guess if any of us who lve is easily the greatest country on earth care about trash like you, or what you think?
And the university has every right to ask him to engage in certain behavior in order to attend. If he doesn't like it he can go somewhere else.
While acting indignant and throwing around charged language is fun, understanding the intracacies of the situation is more useful. You've managed the first part just fine, now work on the second.
and you asked me to help, I'd tell you to fuck off.
The last thing I would want is for my degree to have less value because of a loud mouthed adolescent.
This guy is a representative of the university. His behavior could damage the credibility of the school. it didn't, and it wouldn't have evn been noticed, but that isn't the point and never was. He agreed to behave a certain way, he didn't. There's nothing else to it.
It's very funny to me that this
"Apart from their incredibly bad judgement"
was your fisrt statement when it is EXACTLY what the student did. Why are you advocating for someone who engaged in the behavior you are hammering the university for?
"They have no right nor jurisdiction for him to be required to perform community service and/or get counseling."
I have to be honest, I bristled at this a bit as well. I think where this becomes a problemn in this case is that this guy wanted to continue attending the school (rightfully so) and so had to agree to some type of intervention. In this case it strikes me more as an agreement by both parties.
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral."
All true, doesn't matter. The university is allowed to refuse to do business with an individual they believe will cause their reputation harm through his conduct. This is not a rule they apply unilaterally, it is an AGREEMENT between the students and the university, and this guy broke that agreement.
Now as far as your allegations, if the university failed to adhere to its policies and procedures, then they're on the hook too. But I find the probation agreement and curious lack of a lawsuit pretty compelling evidence that they didn't violate anything.
How is his speech being restricted? Is not still able to say EXACTLY what he said before?
Yes he is. He can do it at his leisure. He can do it daily, even hourly if he wanted to. There is NO restriction of his speech of any kind.
What is being restricted is his right to do business with one university. Remember, this is NOT a government entity (and please save us the nine degrees of separation for federal funding game) this is a private business, that he signed a contract with, and they believe he violated that contract. They are allowed to refuse to do business with him. He is allowed to refuse to do business with them.
They may or may not be right, but this is a contract law case, not a civil rights case, so save your outrage for something worthy.
"What kind of crazy student conduct code says you can't complain about unnamed students?"
The kind that he signed after choosing to enroll. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's not a good enough reason to nullify it. He didn't abide by a contract, and NO, it's not an illegal contract either, this has been hashed out dozens of times before.
"Maybe he's a whiner and all, but this is school.. the place where you're supposed to do stupid crap."
No, a school is where you learn the skills you need when you are an adult. He learned that he'd better damn well know what the consequences are if decides to run his mouth. That's a lesson we've all learned at some point.
You don't like the decision, that's cool, I find it a bit silly myself.
That being said, the school didn't force anyhting on this guy, he signed up for it. Bitching about how he got screwed over doesn't really work when it was voluntary.
But unless you can find someplace in there that covers private entities and freedom of speech (you won't) the bill of rights doesn't apply.
Read it. After you do, you'll realize it doesn't have anything to do with private entities, so pointing to the bill of rights in an effort to support your argument is useless.
The single greatest horror of my life was watching an 87 year old man run my mom over while she crossing the street, on a red light, in the crosswalk, in adherence to all legal statutes.
If that wasn't bad enough, the cop tried to write my very seriously injured and recently airlifted mother a ticket for "violating the right of way", apparently for... well I honestly never got a good answer what for.
I have to confess, homicide seemed like a viable option at the time.
And to keep it on topic, my mom died, and the driver got away with it.
You're right, pedestrians don't get the protection they deserve.
"Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though."
How do you jackasses mod this jackass up, when he's equating driving an SUV with murder?
"I guess it re-inforces the stereotype of the SUV driver as the guy who doesn't give a shit about anybody else except themselves."
Maybe, but your moronic post reinforce the stereotype of the "Green Taliban", don't give a shit about reality, don't give a shit about facts, just throw around words like murder and watch the other ignoramuses mod you up.
"I wish "failing to signal" was treated more seriously as a road offense, or at least noticed more often. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone lane-shift without signalling, I'd be rich.
Around here (central Florida) I've observed the following common road habits: 1) Turn signals are optional, and often not used when lane-shifting. When they are used, half the time its some nimwit tourist on I-4 who forgot to turn off the signal when originally getting onto the highway."
Well, I'd like to say you should learn the law before you start making judgements about how others drive. Signals really ARE optional here in Central Florida. Yes, it's true, look it up. There was a case involving profiling a few years ago in which the officer claimed he stopped the individual because of an illegal lane change (no signals), but the law requiring the use of signals for lane changes was taken off the books in the 60's.
So, if you were sitting in your car steaming about the idiots who don't signal, that was because of your ignorance of the law, not the other guy's driving habits.
That being said, if your too close to an individual to avoid them, indicators aren't your problem, your tailgaiting is.
This judgement won't even put a dent in this guy. He'll file bankruptcy and use his ill gotten gains, which he has certainly stashed somewhere foreign and inhospitable to American law enforcement, to open a new spamming service in a country that is also hostile to American law enforcement.
The only thing this judgement did was force this guy and others like him to take their business to a more hospitable climate.
The filing of either a Chapter Seven straight bankruptcy or Chapter Thirteen debt adjustment immediately stops any lawsuits from being filed or judgments being taken against you. If a law suit is pending at the time of such filing, it can go no further. If a judgment has been taken, its enforcement can go no further. If a creditor has a judgment and is garnishing your wages, the garnishment can be stopped. Filing for Chapter Seven straight bankruptcy may relieve you of the obligation to pay the judgment. In a Chapter Thirteen debt adjustment, you may be able to satisfy the judgment over a period not to exceed five years. If the judgment has placed a lien on your home, that lien can be removed if it interferes with your homestead. If lawsuits or judgments are a threat or reality, the protection afforded under the bankruptcy laws may be an appropriate solution for you."
It appears that in some states the law is a little different, but generally the answer is yes, you can file bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
You make the same points others make, but you people always forget the same thing.
Hydrogen can be used to transport energy. It isn't a very good energy source, but it's great for transporting energy from other places. And this
"It takes more energy to make H than what you get from burning it"
is just a pathetic lie. Some methods of making hydrogen fall in this category, but many others do not, and like so many others fools, you assume the current level of technology is what we'll be using forever.
You just don't know what you're talking about.
"If their incentive to submit is attribution, they shouldn't be submitting."
That's your opinion and I disagree. Your opinion obviously doesn't make sense to me, and you've given no reason other than your personal feelings for your opinion.
So my question is why should anyone who doesn't care about the submitter change their mind?
What apart from personal jealousy is the driving force behind your opinion?
"Submitting just to gain attribution is the wrong reason to do it."
No it's not.
See how I made that last argument, or rather, made no argument at all? That's your post, an exposition on what you think should happen with no logic, fact or reason at all.
"Denying that what happened was suspicious is calling your community stupid."
If you waste time whining about the specifics of submitter/editor relations, you are stupid and you deserve to be called such.
Why don't you just ask your question directly, or say what you really mean? That is, that you think he is lying.
Why couch your statment in weasel words?
More importantly, you were told they were different people, so what kind of proof would you require, and what makes you think you deserve any kind of proof in the first place?
I hate that there are enough people here with their priorities screwed up that they waste time yammering about submitters, and modding people like you up.
YOU and those like you are far more objectionable with your whining about submitters that the submitters will EVER be.
"Whenever I've gotten mod points, I've modded up comments like that because they need to be seen."
Why? They're not relevant, and you're misusing your mod points. Mod them offtopic or don't mod them.
"NO ONE should be able to profit from submitting and getting a story accepted."
Again, why? You don't get to decide that, and you have yet to make any case other that "because I said so". Frankly, I don't give two craps who submitted a story, and I have yet to hear a decent reason to punish these submitters.
"The only thing you should get in return is the knowledge that you've shared valuable information with your fellow reader."
Why? The only people I see who have a problem with it are people like you, and you have yet to list ONE reason that isn't just plain stupid. Example
"Fame, money, girls, etc... should all be left to REAL work: building or designing stuff, cooking, or cleaning for example."
So, you've set yourself up as the arbiter of what real work is, what submitters should be censored, and what the motivation of submitters should be, but you have yet to answer WHY.
My guess is that you won't be able to, because your jealousy is the real answer and you won't ever own up to that.
The reason I laugh is because if you read his responses, he wasn't doing either of those things. He was quite serious.
"If you knew how to read intelligently..."
Stones, glass houses etc.
Shut up now.
"He reasonably expected people to understand who he was talking about and his criticism, no matter how harsh and infantile and no matter how appropriate and mature, was censored"
:) Now you and I have something in common.
Can he still write a blog? Yes. Can he still say whatever he wants whenever he wants in exactly the same fashion as he did before? Yes.
He just can't have a professional relationship with the university if he does.
So where's the censorship smart guy?
Oh right, it's not censorship, that's just what people like you scream when the facts are against you.
It's called being responsible for your actions. And, since you've clearly never bothered to read it, the first amendment doesn't relieve you of your responsibility, nor does any other part of the Constitution.
Take a second and think about how stupid someone would sound if they started screaming "EMBEZZLEMENT!" when they saw someone shoplifitng.
That's what you just did, Mr. Censorship.
Of course, even though it makes perfect sense, you don't care because it's treason.
Oh look at that, I did it too, calling it something it wasn't. Oops
"Well yes, the US puts a gun to everyones head, are you really that naive? The US tries to force it's values and political views on countries that it trades with."
And those countires can say no and deal with the consequences.
How spineless are you that you'll allow a country you apparently hate to rule your leaders?
Wait sorry, did I say spineless? I meant european, as they mean the same thing these days.
Nothing else, just thought I'd make a ridiculous statement of opinion in keeping with your post.
How sad and miserable people like you are, blaming an unrelated government for your own impotence.
See, if you weren't such a piece of crap, you'd stand up for yourself instead of jumping on the blame bandwagon. You know, be a citizen and actually hel run your government. But, you take the classic "blame someone else" tack.
What a disgusting victim mentality.
"Does somebody want to take a guess if I still like the US?"
Would you like to guess if any of us who lve is easily the greatest country on earth care about trash like you, or what you think?
And the university has every right to ask him to engage in certain behavior in order to attend. If he doesn't like it he can go somewhere else.
While acting indignant and throwing around charged language is fun, understanding the intracacies of the situation is more useful. You've managed the first part just fine, now work on the second.
and you asked me to help, I'd tell you to fuck off.
The last thing I would want is for my degree to have less value because of a loud mouthed adolescent.
This guy is a representative of the university. His behavior could damage the credibility of the school. it didn't, and it wouldn't have evn been noticed, but that isn't the point and never was. He agreed to behave a certain way, he didn't. There's nothing else to it.
It's very funny to me that this
"Apart from their incredibly bad judgement"
was your fisrt statement when it is EXACTLY what the student did. Why are you advocating for someone who engaged in the behavior you are hammering the university for?
"They have no right nor jurisdiction for him to be required to perform community service and/or get counseling."
I have to be honest, I bristled at this a bit as well. I think where this becomes a problemn in this case is that this guy wanted to continue attending the school (rightfully so) and so had to agree to some type of intervention. In this case it strikes me more as an agreement by both parties.
Otherwise I agree with you.
"There has to be a socially recognized limit,"
There is. It's essentially that you shouldn't agree to the terms of a contract if you don't intend to abide by it. That's the relevant idea here.
Stop making a contract case into a civil rights case.
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral."
All true, doesn't matter. The university is allowed to refuse to do business with an individual they believe will cause their reputation harm through his conduct. This is not a rule they apply unilaterally, it is an AGREEMENT between the students and the university, and this guy broke that agreement.
Now as far as your allegations, if the university failed to adhere to its policies and procedures, then they're on the hook too. But I find the probation agreement and curious lack of a lawsuit pretty compelling evidence that they didn't violate anything.
How is his speech being restricted? Is not still able to say EXACTLY what he said before?
Yes he is. He can do it at his leisure. He can do it daily, even hourly if he wanted to. There is NO restriction of his speech of any kind.
What is being restricted is his right to do business with one university. Remember, this is NOT a government entity (and please save us the nine degrees of separation for federal funding game) this is a private business, that he signed a contract with, and they believe he violated that contract. They are allowed to refuse to do business with him. He is allowed to refuse to do business with them.
They may or may not be right, but this is a contract law case, not a civil rights case, so save your outrage for something worthy.
Then why has exactly that situtaion ocurred more times than you can count?
You've seen it happen, yet you claim it could never happen. How do you justify this?
"What kind of crazy student conduct code says you can't complain about unnamed students?"
The kind that he signed after choosing to enroll. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's not a good enough reason to nullify it. He didn't abide by a contract, and NO, it's not an illegal contract either, this has been hashed out dozens of times before.
"Maybe he's a whiner and all, but this is school.. the place where you're supposed to do stupid crap."
No, a school is where you learn the skills you need when you are an adult. He learned that he'd better damn well know what the consequences are if decides to run his mouth. That's a lesson we've all learned at some point.
You don't like the decision, that's cool, I find it a bit silly myself.
That being said, the school didn't force anyhting on this guy, he signed up for it. Bitching about how he got screwed over doesn't really work when it was voluntary.
But unless you can find someplace in there that covers private entities and freedom of speech (you won't) the bill of rights doesn't apply.
Read it. After you do, you'll realize it doesn't have anything to do with private entities, so pointing to the bill of rights in an effort to support your argument is useless.
The single greatest horror of my life was watching an 87 year old man run my mom over while she crossing the street, on a red light, in the crosswalk, in adherence to all legal statutes.
If that wasn't bad enough, the cop tried to write my very seriously injured and recently airlifted mother a ticket for "violating the right of way", apparently for... well I honestly never got a good answer what for.
I have to confess, homicide seemed like a viable option at the time.
And to keep it on topic, my mom died, and the driver got away with it.
You're right, pedestrians don't get the protection they deserve.
"Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though."
How do you jackasses mod this jackass up, when he's equating driving an SUV with murder?
"I guess it re-inforces the stereotype of the SUV driver as the guy who doesn't give a shit about anybody else except themselves."
Maybe, but your moronic post reinforce the stereotype of the "Green Taliban", don't give a shit about reality, don't give a shit about facts, just throw around words like murder and watch the other ignoramuses mod you up.
"I wish "failing to signal" was treated more seriously as a road offense, or at least noticed more often. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone lane-shift without signalling, I'd be rich.
Around here (central Florida) I've observed the following common road habits:
1) Turn signals are optional, and often not used when lane-shifting. When they are used, half the time its some nimwit tourist on I-4 who forgot to turn off the signal when originally getting onto the highway."
Well, I'd like to say you should learn the law before you start making judgements about how others drive. Signals really ARE optional here in Central Florida. Yes, it's true, look it up. There was a case involving profiling a few years ago in which the officer claimed he stopped the individual because of an illegal lane change (no signals), but the law requiring the use of signals for lane changes was taken off the books in the 60's.
So, if you were sitting in your car steaming about the idiots who don't signal, that was because of your ignorance of the law, not the other guy's driving habits.
That being said, if your too close to an individual to avoid them, indicators aren't your problem, your tailgaiting is.
This judgement won't even put a dent in this guy. He'll file bankruptcy and use his ill gotten gains, which he has certainly stashed somewhere foreign and inhospitable to American law enforcement, to open a new spamming service in a country that is also hostile to American law enforcement.
The only thing this judgement did was force this guy and others like him to take their business to a more hospitable climate.
"* LAWSUITS AND JUDGMENTS
The filing of either a Chapter Seven straight bankruptcy or Chapter
Thirteen debt adjustment immediately stops any lawsuits from being filed
or judgments being taken against you. If a law suit is pending at the
time of such filing, it can go no further. If a judgment has been
taken, its enforcement can go no further. If a creditor has a judgment
and is garnishing your wages, the garnishment can be stopped. Filing
for Chapter Seven straight bankruptcy may relieve you of the obligation
to pay the judgment. In a Chapter Thirteen debt adjustment, you may be
able to satisfy the judgment over a period not to exceed five years. If
the judgment has placed a lien on your home, that lien can be removed if
it interferes with your homestead. If lawsuits or judgments are a
threat or reality, the protection afforded under the bankruptcy laws may
be an appropriate solution for you."
It appears that in some states the law is a little different, but generally the answer is yes, you can file bankruptcy.
And Futurama is a second rate Simpson's ripoff?