The whole problem is the forum in which the rant was "posted."
Not so. She published it online, and Slashdotters know there's no such thing as 'un-publishing' something online. The fact that she did so, even though she removed it from her MySpace, happened, and you can't dispute that.
It would have been perfectly acceptable, IMO, for the newspaper to print a news story (not a letter to the editor) saying that she said these things, and printing some or all of the post. That would even get them a stronger "fair use" defense since it's criticism/commentary.
Compare this to the Michael Richards example. He can't un-call people the n-word, no matter how much apologizing he may have done, and the fact that he said it in a comedy club doesn't mean it isn't relevant to people who weren't there.
The only things wrong here were that the newspaper misrepresented the girl (by falsely publishing it as a letter to the paper), and that the publisher doesn't review his paper before releasing them (ours did when I was on the board of my university's student paper).
You know, normally I'd be morally opposed to publishing such a person's contact info to unleash the/. mob on them, but in this case that's exactly what he did to the girl.
But you're still looking only at the relationship between the car and the driver. Your model of sustainability does not take into account the vast infrastructure required to support it. Whether it runs on gasoline or pixie dust, a car is still a car. It still occupies the same amount of space on the roads, in driveways, and in parking lots. It still weighs as much, and therefore requires as much energy (wherever it may come from) to propel.
When you upgrade to a new, more fuel-efficient car, what happens to your old one? Unless you destroy/retire it, it probably gets driven by somebody else, and the result is that where there was a single less-efficient car, there is now a less-efficient car AND a more-efficient car on the road, consuming more resources and creating more pollution than the less-efficient car on its own. On top of this the same amount of roads must accommodate two vehicles where it previously only needed to carry one. Roads must be not only maintained, but expanded, using more fuel and resources. This isn't practical in built up areas (e.g. downtowns) with no room for streets to expand, and causes gridlock. Recent articles on Slashdot about states having to turn their asphalt roads to rubble suggest that we can't afford it.
A model of environmentalism that accepts the idea of more cars is simply NOT sustainable.
Where's the article? I clicked on the link, and it's barely longer than the summary.
There's so much they could have elaborated on, like the "years of research", and what the hell they mean by "those were the only non-letter keys that Lenovo hasn't made any bigger." (Because I highly doubt they've made PrintScreen any bigger)
[AT&T] hasn't exactly been garnering positive reactions from its legions of Twitter-using members.
I'd say. If their customer service is anything like cell phone companies up here, it probably takes more than 140 characters to navigate their phone tree to talk to a human!
I'm a bit curious that the real numbers would exist anywhere. I mean, if you're going to make up the results, why go to all the bother of actually counting the votes? (Not to mention the risk that the real results are leaked)
If they implement this they become the State Based Terrorists that they themselves fear!
The only thing they fear about crime and terrorism is if it were to go away, because they'd have no more scapegoat to inflate their power.
Hence whey the Conservatives always introduce so-called "tough-on-crime" legislation at the end of the session, or at other times where it will be voted down or die on the order paper, so that they can claim they tried to fight crime, but the Liberals prevented them and therefore they need a majority government to protect us from all the Bad People.
I really like Futurama; I have all four DVD sets and the four movies. However, I think this series should rest in peace. It's over.
Look, if you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. For example, I haven't seen the H2G2 movie because I don't want it to spoil the way I remember H2G2.
But don't deprive the rest of us from seeing what we want to see. It might turn out to be really good, and I think that's a good chance to take.
I'm Canadian, and I do have may 25th on my calendar.
I'm Canadian too, but let's not get too caught up in ourselves: Unless it's a rare 364-day misprint, I think it's safe to say May 25th is on all (Western) calendars.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole problem is the forum in which the rant was "posted."
Not so. She published it online, and Slashdotters know there's no such thing as 'un-publishing' something online. The fact that she did so, even though she removed it from her MySpace, happened, and you can't dispute that.
It would have been perfectly acceptable, IMO, for the newspaper to print a news story (not a letter to the editor) saying that she said these things, and printing some or all of the post. That would even get them a stronger "fair use" defense since it's criticism/commentary.
Compare this to the Michael Richards example. He can't un-call people the n-word, no matter how much apologizing he may have done, and the fact that he said it in a comedy club doesn't mean it isn't relevant to people who weren't there.
The only things wrong here were that the newspaper misrepresented the girl (by falsely publishing it as a letter to the paper), and that the publisher doesn't review his paper before releasing them (ours did when I was on the board of my university's student paper).
- RG>
You know, normally I'd be morally opposed to publishing such a person's contact info to unleash the /. mob on them, but in this case that's exactly what he did to the girl.
- RG>
But you're still looking only at the relationship between the car and the driver. Your model of sustainability does not take into account the vast infrastructure required to support it. Whether it runs on gasoline or pixie dust, a car is still a car. It still occupies the same amount of space on the roads, in driveways, and in parking lots. It still weighs as much, and therefore requires as much energy (wherever it may come from) to propel.
When you upgrade to a new, more fuel-efficient car, what happens to your old one? Unless you destroy/retire it, it probably gets driven by somebody else, and the result is that where there was a single less-efficient car, there is now a less-efficient car AND a more-efficient car on the road, consuming more resources and creating more pollution than the less-efficient car on its own. On top of this the same amount of roads must accommodate two vehicles where it previously only needed to carry one. Roads must be not only maintained, but expanded, using more fuel and resources. This isn't practical in built up areas (e.g. downtowns) with no room for streets to expand, and causes gridlock. Recent articles on Slashdot about states having to turn their asphalt roads to rubble suggest that we can't afford it.
A model of environmentalism that accepts the idea of more cars is simply NOT sustainable.
- RG>
Where's the article? I clicked on the link, and it's barely longer than the summary.
There's so much they could have elaborated on, like the "years of research", and what the hell they mean by "those were the only non-letter keys that Lenovo hasn't made any bigger." (Because I highly doubt they've made PrintScreen any bigger)
- RG>
FTA:
[AT&T] hasn't exactly been garnering positive reactions from its legions of Twitter-using members.
I'd say. If their customer service is anything like cell phone companies up here, it probably takes more than 140 characters to navigate their phone tree to talk to a human!
- RG>
he then set up a porn site on my university account as a prank.
Strangely enough, the last I heard from him, he was becoming a Mormon missionary...
Man, he must be setting up for a really elaborate prank--let us know how it goes!
- RG>
Do it surreptitiously so as to avoid the Streisand effect and you may actually succeed, depending on the specific literary work in question.
Yeah, but when have you ever heard of that happening?
- RG>
I'm a bit curious that the real numbers would exist anywhere. I mean, if you're going to make up the results, why go to all the bother of actually counting the votes? (Not to mention the risk that the real results are leaked)
- RG>
If they implement this they become the State Based Terrorists that they themselves fear!
The only thing they fear about crime and terrorism is if it were to go away, because they'd have no more scapegoat to inflate their power.
Hence whey the Conservatives always introduce so-called "tough-on-crime" legislation at the end of the session, or at other times where it will be voted down or die on the order paper, so that they can claim they tried to fight crime, but the Liberals prevented them and therefore they need a majority government to protect us from all the Bad People.
- RG>
Clearly, the EFF is infringing my patent on "a method to detect and bust illegitimate patents."
They will be hearing from my other Slashdot alias, which claims to be a lawyer.
- RG>
Atheism isn't a religion any more than black is a colour, or cold is an additive property.
- RG>
Religion can try to tell you whether or not creating such a bomb is a good idea.
Ah, so as an Atheist, I have license to blow shit up because I don't have a god to know any better?
- RG>
Bah, if Betelgeuse was going to supernova, it would have happened hundreds of years ago!
- RG>
Someone in my family had self-diagnosed Alzheimer's disease, but I can't remember who.
- RG>
I really like Futurama; I have all four DVD sets and the four movies. However, I think this series should rest in peace. It's over.
Look, if you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. For example, I haven't seen the H2G2 movie because I don't want it to spoil the way I remember H2G2.
But don't deprive the rest of us from seeing what we want to see. It might turn out to be really good, and I think that's a good chance to take.
- RG>
Just tell them you upgraded from ME to Vista; anybody able to tell the difference will know not to take a look for fear of being turned to stone.
- RG>
Why does it take Comedy Central to re-animate the corpses of great shows?
It's easier in this case, because they just have to reanimate the head and put it in a jar.
- RG>
Wrong-sounding Muppets where no picnic, either (to paraphrase Family Guy).
So, to follow Family Guy... Mila Kunis as Leela, then?
- RG>
They're certainly taking "vaporware" to a whole new level!
- RG>
Funny, I was always taught that programs and computers should be designed to make things easier for the user, not harder.
What is your goal: make it easier to type, or easier to type accurately?
Solving one does not necessarily solve the other.
- RG>
And what if students forget their iPhone at home?
- RG>
Why does it take a company with 10,000 engineers 5 years to make a 20 year old communications protocol stable?
Because the company's name is derived from "googol"?
- RG>
(for the lazy mods who blindly modded the parent up)
The real question, is what is the real question for which 42 is the answer?
And that is why *this* computer's answer would be interesting, because it's designed for Jeopardy, where answers must be in the form of a question.
I suggest we build a planet, who's sole purpose is to calculate that question...
The Earth, in the Douglas Adams universe, was NOT a planet; it was an organic supercomputer frequently mistaken for one.
- RG>
Hm... one of the categories could be "Cats", you say...
That must be why IBM didn't want the machine to search the Internet!
- RG>
I'm Canadian, and I do have may 25th on my calendar.
I'm Canadian too, but let's not get too caught up in ourselves: Unless it's a rare 364-day misprint, I think it's safe to say May 25th is on all (Western) calendars.
- RG>