That's no "clarification" at all. I am entirely capable of lusting after a hottie whether she is dressed or not, and capable of viewing a naked person whom I don't find attractive without a bit of lust.
Don't forget that Eve was the most attractive woman of her generation.
It is also violating the copyright on the product b/c you are now changing the product in ways it was not designed to be changed and to which you have not been granted rights.
You, sir, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
In the age of Google and Wikipedia, there is absolutely no excuse for not making the minimal effort of checking the meaning of the terms that you use.
Turn your brain on and get a clue about what "copyright" is and isn't.
Until you learn how to use the grey matter between your ears properly, please don't - post - talk - breed
By reading this site you forever give up and waive the right to sue me in any court for any reason; and in the event you do sue me, you hereby consent to binding arbitration in Avalon, California aboard a glass bottom boat at your sole expense. You further agree to pay all of my travel, hotel and per diem expenses incurred in attending the arbitration, up front. The arbitrator in such a case shall interpret this agreement according to UCITA and other Virginia laws. You further agree that the maximum amount of money you can recover in any such lawsuit is $0.02. If you sue me or initiate arbitration and lose, you agree to pay my attorney fees and costs. For that matter, you agree to pay my attorney fees and costs even if you win.
> If you promise that something will happen, without knowing for sure that it will happen, that's fraud. > Specifically false representation, in this case "A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement".
Question #1: how many politicians actually deliver on their promises? Question #2: how many politicians get charged with fraud? For bonus points: explain why.
> I think the difference is smaller than you think. > > I do not believe that there is a banana on my head. > I believe that there is not a banana on my head. > > It's the same point with more or less conviction.
Not at all. You are just playing with semantics.
The absense of belief in X is different from a belief in the absense of X.
The banana, your head and the relationship between them are all well defined. There is no room for belief here, only facts and knowledge.
Consider a slight change: I do not know if there is a banana on my head. I know that there is not a banana on my head.
> [...] having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces
So let's change the parameters a bit.
Let's postulate a vessel that is capable of sustaining a 2g acceleration for half the trip (about 10 light-years) and then a 2g deceleration for the other half.
How much subjective time will the journey take then?
>> It is [a religion]. Atheism assumes without evidence. >> That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). > Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There is a difference between "I do not believe that god exists" and "I believe that god does not exist".
The first is a good fit for the stamps analogy, the second is not.
> The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense. > If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings. > After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their > websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
Do you believe that the postal office should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous mail? Do you believe that the phone company should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous calls?
> in the US justice system currently, if a cop gets a confession from you but didn't tell your rights, > you go free and the cop faces no punishment. That's exactly backwards! Presuming the confession was legit, > the crook should be locked up as normal, but the cop should be fired or at least severely demoted.
How do we know the confession was "legit"? The problem is that it is never clear cut.
The system, any system, tends to protect itself. Usually it is your word (the word of a suspected criminal) against the word of the cop (an outstanding member of the community, who daily risks his/her life to protect us and our children).
And yes, if the choice is between a 10% rate of false positives and 50% rate of false negatives, I'll take the later any day of the week.
> within the narrow scope of police abuse of power, i fear criminal action more than that
You, my friend, are mistaken. Not stupid, not "sheeple", just plain misinformed. Happens to the best of us.
Unfortunately, being misinformed in this particular matter is dangerous (both to yourself and to others) so I feel obliged to add to the discussion.
For starters, please consider:
You have more protection from criminal action than from abuse of power (police or otherwise).
Abuse of power is criminal action, but performed by people who (a) are less likely to be investigated for their crimes, (b) are less likely to be punished for their crimes, and (c) have more tools at their disposal to commit those crimes.
Corruption destroys a society from the inside. To me, this is much scarier than criminal activity.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a teaching/research hospital in your area, try them.
Also see this post
> Only on /. does a joke comparing the brain to an Array, or anything in programming, get modding insightful...
/. does a post complaining about a joke comparing the brain to an Array, or anything in programming, can get modded insightful...
Only on
Partial implementation is available from Boost.
A commercial full implementation can be purchased from DinkumWare.
Source?
You, sir, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
In the age of Google and Wikipedia, there is absolutely no excuse for not making the minimal effort of checking the meaning of the terms that you use.
Turn your brain on and get a clue about what "copyright" is and isn't.
Until you learn how to use the grey matter between your ears properly, please don't
- post
- talk
- breed
>
> As your advice seems both sensible and free, this is hard to believe.
Judjing by his website, he certainly is:
> Any law that makes a criminal out of the majority is a bad law by definition.
E.g., speeding.
For an interesting take on things, read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn.
Freely available from your local library or from Baen.
> Warner - and the MPAA by extension - want control of Canada the way they have control of America.
And knowing our politicians, I suspect they will succeed.
> I want to see DOM 2 support
DOM-2?
I really hope it will never be supported!
> Compare that to our imports. I think you will see my point.
No, I don't.
You (assuming same AC) wrote:
"The US does not export or make much of anything any more."
You did not write that the US imports 85% more than it exports.
I see absolutely no similarities between the statements.
I would be interested to know the source of this information.
From what I could find, the US is the second larger exporter, right behind Germany and ahead of China.
The exports being:
> He made a spin off on a famous poem, "First they came...",
> written by Martin Niemöller about the Holocaust and Nazi rise to power.
More info here
> If you promise that something will happen, without knowing for sure that it will happen, that's fraud.
> Specifically false representation, in this case "A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement".
Question #1: how many politicians actually deliver on their promises?
Question #2: how many politicians get charged with fraud?
For bonus points: explain why.
> I think the difference is smaller than you think.
>
> I do not believe that there is a banana on my head.
> I believe that there is not a banana on my head.
>
> It's the same point with more or less conviction.
Not at all. You are just playing with semantics.
The absense of belief in X is different from a belief in the absense of X.
The banana, your head and the relationship between them are all well defined.
There is no room for belief here, only facts and knowledge.
Consider a slight change:
I do not know if there is a banana on my head.
I know that there is not a banana on my head.
> [...] having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces
So let's change the parameters a bit.
Let's postulate a vessel that is capable of sustaining a 2g acceleration for half the trip (about 10 light-years) and then a 2g deceleration for the other half.
How much subjective time will the journey take then?
>> It is [a religion]. Atheism assumes without evidence.
>> That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s).
> Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There is a difference between "I do not believe that god exists"
and "I believe that god does not exist".
The first is a good fit for the stamps analogy, the second is not.
> You made the same mistake your parent did.
Must... Resist... Contraceptive... Joke...
> The idea that anonymous users exist on the net is an excuse to publish libel is nonsense.
> If you run a message board [or equiv] you should be held liable for any and ALL anonymous postings.
> After all, you're the one who is publishing it. I think it's reasonable that people moderate their
> websites such that libelous content is not widely distributed.
Do you believe that the postal office should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous mail?
Do you believe that the phone company should be held liable "for any and ALL" anonymous calls?
If not, please explain the difference.
> in the US justice system currently, if a cop gets a confession from you but didn't tell your rights,
> you go free and the cop faces no punishment. That's exactly backwards! Presuming the confession was legit,
> the crook should be locked up as normal, but the cop should be fired or at least severely demoted.
How do we know the confession was "legit"? The problem is that it is never clear cut.
The system, any system, tends to protect itself. Usually it is your word (the word of a suspected criminal) against the word of the cop (an outstanding member of the community, who daily risks his/her life to protect us and our children).
And yes, if the choice is between a 10% rate of false positives and 50% rate of false negatives, I'll take the later any day of the week.
> within the narrow scope of police abuse of power, i fear criminal action more than that
You, my friend, are mistaken.
Not stupid, not "sheeple", just plain misinformed. Happens to the best of us.
Unfortunately, being misinformed in this particular matter is dangerous (both to yourself and to others) so I feel obliged to add to the discussion.
For starters, please consider:
You have more protection from criminal action than from abuse of power (police or otherwise).
Abuse of power is criminal action, but performed by people who
(a) are less likely to be investigated for their crimes,
(b) are less likely to be punished for their crimes, and
(c) have more tools at their disposal to commit those crimes.
Corruption destroys a society from the inside.
To me, this is much scarier than criminal activity.
> The judge is God.
Indeed.
> Trans Fat is illegal in some cities
And this is bad? Why?