True, but he's a pretty bad film director. They converted the Nikopol trilogy into the film Immortal, which was singularly memorable as a piece of terrible scripting and bad CG. What's worse is that they converted the three comics into the one film essentially by overlaying the plots simultaneously... which naturally ruined any sense of coherent narrative progression that occurs in the comic series.
It's not a case of truth in this instance, it's the fact that the website has been gagged. There was a court injunction against Siemer from 2005 that simply told him to take his website down. The fact that he's resisted this is why he is facing a court battle. The comments' truth has not been an issue so far.
I think you should tone your language down, you're getting quite offensive. Anyway, as you noted, it's people like yourself and me that would serve on a jury to decide the results of a guilt of a party... and then leave it to a judge to decide sentencing.
if someone wears scantly cladded clothes - what does it say about the individual
I'd hesitantly say that that would indicate they're wearing less clothing than me. Just because someone has a short skirt, or is wearing a crop-top, doesn't mean that they want to be raped.
Furthermore, the judges have denied Mr. Siemer the right to a jury trial. The original article has been slashdotted, so I'm going to have to link it here for you to read. So, yes, in this case it is purely a judge that decides innocence or guilt, and thus also the sentence for Mr. Siemer.
Unh, I'm not studying law, and also, I'm not raging against the system. Furthermore, if someone is scantily clad, no matter what they've done, their dress sense shouldn't be the basis for deciding a court case. You're way off topic - grow up, and stop over-signifying the content of people's discussions.
There is however, a right to freedom of expression, but it is superceded by several other laws. Interestingly enough, an individual's right to silence in court was publicly questioned in the media late last year in New Zealand. Two young babies were beaten to death in January 2007, during a domestic incident, but the entire family stayed silent when the case went to court, thus witholding potential evidence. The representation in the media was suggested that this should be a right to be overturned in the future.
True, although I think that he's aware that what he has done is illegal. I think the purpose of his continuted breach of the gag order is possibly a form of protest over the attempted censorship of his website's content. The issue relates to an insolvency lawyer falsely declaring a company bankrupt in order to obtain control over the company's assets, and Seimer revealing this data on his website.
Some judges in New Zealand are corrupt, and others are so narrow-minded that they're damaging to people. The first year law paper at my university includes a portion on various judges' responses to rape cases, of which the most memorable response was that of "if you were wearing clothes like that, then you were asking for it." Not the most uplifting thing to know about your country's legal system.
Freedom of speech is not a positively enforced inalienable right in New Zealand. If he thinks his right to freedom of expression has been breached, it's possbily correct, but there are other laws which supercede it. He'll be glad to know however, that the maximum period of imprisonment without parole in New Zealand is ten years. No matter what, he can still attempt parole in 2018...
Laws are meant to protect corporate and government interests. To whit I would point out that corporate and government interests are to keep placated people placated.
I'd agree with you completely, and also add that the study doesn't really measure long term effects, which would really be necessary for this study to mean anything. As I read it, it just tests people's creativity based on a subjective scale, on very short term periods of time.
The logic in this statement is totally lacking, as people just now discovered the value of these crystals. It should be obvious that I do not believe that the crystals have been the reason for the animals success up to now; that is why my statement is not targeting the historical development of the beetles, and instead speaks in the present tense about the current interest in the crystals. There's no point in launching into the fundamentals of Darwinian evolutionary theory in/. - it's been done a thousand times before - but if you can't understand my point and want me to elaborate, I would say that the crystals have, until now, not prevented the genetic meme from reproducing, and it is now possibly increasing their reproductive rates due to the fact that another species is interested in keeping that genetic sequence alive. Conceptually, it's no different than any other mutualistic symbiotic relationship extant in nature. The fundamental point here being that simply because human beings have become involved doesn't mean that evolutionary principles do not apply, and I was making that point to the parent post which was implying that evolutionary theory wasn't applicable in this situation. Also, the term you're looking for isn't 'psychic evolution', it's 'deterministic evolution', and is in either way a moot point as it is not what I was attempting to describe.
In furtherance to this point, there's also the fact that the ability to grow photonic crystals on one's back benefits this species of weevil through its ability to enter into a mutualistic relationship with homo sapiens. Thus, through the interest garnered by the crystals, human beings will attempt to keep the species alive at least as long as it takes to see if they're useful.
Not to be a jerk, but truly "significant scientific achievements" end up on the cover of Science Magazine or Nature Magazine, not Wired. Or in a peer-reviewed journal, if it's actually an achievement as opposed to a curiosity.
The article does actually detail that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. What the article details is that DNA's survival can be explained through natural selection.
He started by noting that simply defining life is as much of a philosophical question as a biological one. He settled on the following: "a self replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution," and focused on getting from naturally forming chemicals to that point. To do so, Ellington developed three different themes.
I don't think that it should be considered a bad thing for countries or big business to be held accountable for their actions. In the argument you seem to be giving, then Saddam Hussein's government should never have been toppled, the Vietnam War should never have involved troops that were not Vietnamese, Cuba's political position should be irrelevant to any embargos, and North Korea should be left to its own devices. I think that human rights violations in certain countries should be confronted and stopped, and it's not going to happen from within those countries. Organisations like Wikileaks helps people to know information about countries and organisations that they would otherwise not know. While I don't think it is a perfect system at all, I still think it's a very important site for collecting leaked information about illegal or inhumane practices.
Also, in response to your question, "Are we not oozing towards a single world government?", I doubt it. Given the effective power of international organisations like the UN (having nearly no money or resources) and the fact that there is an increasing social distance between different parts of the world due to political, religious, and ideological differences, there's really no indication that global government is happening -- unless you count the somewhat unified interests of international corporate enterprises.
In essence, this article is a scientific test of the philosophical concept of Heidegger's hammer, which is something the author might have been aware of, given their example that they use in the opening paragraph. As far as this theory goes, you are right to say that your computer is an extension of your body, especially to an external observer over a network (a la the Turing test). When you see people during day-to-day life, you're not seeing a homo sapiens pure and simple, you're seeing a human clad in technology - i.e. in clothing. People treat their clothing as an extension of their body, and a computer is theoretically no different, just a semantic technicality. Indeed, this relationship would effectively describe a cyborg.
This is what is described as the post-human condition, and N. Katherine Hayles suggests that this is a result of an increase in post-modernist liberal thought, where an individual's body is less important than their mind's existence itself, which relegates the body to just another form of technology to be exploited by the mind. It's worth noting that Heidegger's work regarding this was produced in 1950-something, and Hayle's was done in the late 1990s, if you're interested.
To add to your comment, it is more fallacious to assume that the arthropod in question is going to have a body with disproportionate limb sizes based on the current evolution of a few species in a different subphylum. Fiddler crabs and the like are anomalous instances within the crustacean subphylum, and comparable instances in other arthropod groups aren't regular enough to assume that odd proportions are normative, especially considering that crustaceans and euriptids are seperated into different clades within the arthropod phylum.
Sorry, I just guessed at the number of albums off the top of my head. I know that Kid A debuted at #1 in the States, and, yes, Thom released a non-RIAA album. However, Thom's solo projects aren't part of Radiohead's contractual agreement so I don't see quite what you're getting at. Also, Radiohead have had 4 albums at #1 in the UK, as opposed to this single one in the states. Anyway, that's beside the point, since I was just notifying those who didn't know that Radiohead are now outside of their contractual agreements to the EMI, and, due to another member's concern regarding the RIAA, they are outside their relationship with their US distributor, Capitol, which is an RIAA member.
Radiohead have finished their recording contract with their publisher (I forget who it is), and as such are basically responsible for their own publishing henceforth. As a band that's released 7 studio albums, is pretty big in a number of countries outside the US (UK, Australia, NZ, Japan), and remembered for more than just "Creep" in those countries, they're going to do quite well as individuals, capable of naming their own price. They've probably decided to outsource their publish, and distribute themselves in the UK and internationally, that way they can be outside conventional distribution control. While I'll admit that my guess is just that: a guess, Radiohead is a pretty socially conscious band, and probably like the idea of working with the RIAA as much as you or I do.
What facebook produces is a social networking space, where users are convinced to enter information about themselves into a gigantic, glossy, friendly-looking, panoptic database. Those of us who are facebook users become the product - specifically, our attention for advertising becomes the product - and that is sold to advertisers. It's a reversal of traditional commodity based modes of consumption: rather than commodities being sold by a corporation, through a middle man to a consumer, the consumer's personal information and advertising potentialities are instead sold by a middle man to the corporation.
It kind of is for people who have never heard of wikipedia before, or who don't really understand it.
Thus pointless on slashdot...
In all seriousness though, it's another reminder that wikipedia is at least nominally moderated by individuals interested in maintaining the status quo. I'm sure more intrenched vandilism has become more difficult to properly remove, but at least between semi-vigilant editors, the requirements for citation, and an attempt to obtain a neutral point of view maintain its pseudo-validity as a general knowledge information source.
I wake up at 7am, and look at the empty space in the double bed next to me cry for half an hour. I kick slowly while softly calling out "mother" before popping a double dose of Thorazine and heading out to work in the dirty clothes from yesterday. On weekends, I begin with a cold coffee.
I still haven't figured out why Monsanto-using farmers do not get sued by their downwind neighbours.
That's because their downwind neighbours get sued for copyright infringement of Monsanto products. You can see a bunch of cases of this at the following places:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
http://www.monsantowatch.org/
Slashdot Mirror
True, but he's a pretty bad film director. They converted the Nikopol trilogy into the film Immortal, which was singularly memorable as a piece of terrible scripting and bad CG. What's worse is that they converted the three comics into the one film essentially by overlaying the plots simultaneously... which naturally ruined any sense of coherent narrative progression that occurs in the comic series.
Probably just the people from Alice Springs.
Yeah, I doubt Penelope is looking much better 3 millenia down the track...
It's not a case of truth in this instance, it's the fact that the website has been gagged. There was a court injunction against Siemer from 2005 that simply told him to take his website down. The fact that he's resisted this is why he is facing a court battle. The comments' truth has not been an issue so far.
I'd hesitantly say that that would indicate they're wearing less clothing than me. Just because someone has a short skirt, or is wearing a crop-top, doesn't mean that they want to be raped.
Furthermore, the judges have denied Mr. Siemer the right to a jury trial. The original article has been slashdotted, so I'm going to have to link it here for you to read. So, yes, in this case it is purely a judge that decides innocence or guilt, and thus also the sentence for Mr. Siemer.
Unh, I'm not studying law, and also, I'm not raging against the system. Furthermore, if someone is scantily clad, no matter what they've done, their dress sense shouldn't be the basis for deciding a court case. You're way off topic - grow up, and stop over-signifying the content of people's discussions.
There is however, a right to freedom of expression, but it is superceded by several other laws. Interestingly enough, an individual's right to silence in court was publicly questioned in the media late last year in New Zealand. Two young babies were beaten to death in January 2007, during a domestic incident, but the entire family stayed silent when the case went to court, thus witholding potential evidence. The representation in the media was suggested that this should be a right to be overturned in the future.
True, although I think that he's aware that what he has done is illegal. I think the purpose of his continuted breach of the gag order is possibly a form of protest over the attempted censorship of his website's content. The issue relates to an insolvency lawyer falsely declaring a company bankrupt in order to obtain control over the company's assets, and Seimer revealing this data on his website.
Some judges in New Zealand are corrupt, and others are so narrow-minded that they're damaging to people. The first year law paper at my university includes a portion on various judges' responses to rape cases, of which the most memorable response was that of "if you were wearing clothes like that, then you were asking for it." Not the most uplifting thing to know about your country's legal system.
Freedom of speech is not a positively enforced inalienable right in New Zealand. If he thinks his right to freedom of expression has been breached, it's possbily correct, but there are other laws which supercede it. He'll be glad to know however, that the maximum period of imprisonment without parole in New Zealand is ten years. No matter what, he can still attempt parole in 2018...
1. expend thousands of man-hours on creating MMORPG 2. give MMORPG to NASA 3. ??? 4. !profit
I'd agree with you completely, and also add that the study doesn't really measure long term effects, which would really be necessary for this study to mean anything. As I read it, it just tests people's creativity based on a subjective scale, on very short term periods of time.
In furtherance to this point, there's also the fact that the ability to grow photonic crystals on one's back benefits this species of weevil through its ability to enter into a mutualistic relationship with homo sapiens. Thus, through the interest garnered by the crystals, human beings will attempt to keep the species alive at least as long as it takes to see if they're useful.
Or in a peer-reviewed journal, if it's actually an achievement as opposed to a curiosity.
He started by noting that simply defining life is as much of a philosophical question as a biological one. He settled on the following: "a self replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution," and focused on getting from naturally forming chemicals to that point. To do so, Ellington developed three different themes.
I don't think that it should be considered a bad thing for countries or big business to be held accountable for their actions. In the argument you seem to be giving, then Saddam Hussein's government should never have been toppled, the Vietnam War should never have involved troops that were not Vietnamese, Cuba's political position should be irrelevant to any embargos, and North Korea should be left to its own devices. I think that human rights violations in certain countries should be confronted and stopped, and it's not going to happen from within those countries. Organisations like Wikileaks helps people to know information about countries and organisations that they would otherwise not know. While I don't think it is a perfect system at all, I still think it's a very important site for collecting leaked information about illegal or inhumane practices.
Also, in response to your question, "Are we not oozing towards a single world government?", I doubt it. Given the effective power of international organisations like the UN (having nearly no money or resources) and the fact that there is an increasing social distance between different parts of the world due to political, religious, and ideological differences, there's really no indication that global government is happening -- unless you count the somewhat unified interests of international corporate enterprises.
In essence, this article is a scientific test of the philosophical concept of Heidegger's hammer, which is something the author might have been aware of, given their example that they use in the opening paragraph. As far as this theory goes, you are right to say that your computer is an extension of your body, especially to an external observer over a network (a la the Turing test). When you see people during day-to-day life, you're not seeing a homo sapiens pure and simple, you're seeing a human clad in technology - i.e. in clothing. People treat their clothing as an extension of their body, and a computer is theoretically no different, just a semantic technicality. Indeed, this relationship would effectively describe a cyborg.
This is what is described as the post-human condition, and N. Katherine Hayles suggests that this is a result of an increase in post-modernist liberal thought, where an individual's body is less important than their mind's existence itself, which relegates the body to just another form of technology to be exploited by the mind. It's worth noting that Heidegger's work regarding this was produced in 1950-something, and Hayle's was done in the late 1990s, if you're interested.
To add to your comment, it is more fallacious to assume that the arthropod in question is going to have a body with disproportionate limb sizes based on the current evolution of a few species in a different subphylum. Fiddler crabs and the like are anomalous instances within the crustacean subphylum, and comparable instances in other arthropod groups aren't regular enough to assume that odd proportions are normative, especially considering that crustaceans and euriptids are seperated into different clades within the arthropod phylum.
Sorry, I just guessed at the number of albums off the top of my head. I know that Kid A debuted at #1 in the States, and, yes, Thom released a non-RIAA album. However, Thom's solo projects aren't part of Radiohead's contractual agreement so I don't see quite what you're getting at. Also, Radiohead have had 4 albums at #1 in the UK, as opposed to this single one in the states. Anyway, that's beside the point, since I was just notifying those who didn't know that Radiohead are now outside of their contractual agreements to the EMI, and, due to another member's concern regarding the RIAA, they are outside their relationship with their US distributor, Capitol, which is an RIAA member.
Radiohead have finished their recording contract with their publisher (I forget who it is), and as such are basically responsible for their own publishing henceforth. As a band that's released 7 studio albums, is pretty big in a number of countries outside the US (UK, Australia, NZ, Japan), and remembered for more than just "Creep" in those countries, they're going to do quite well as individuals, capable of naming their own price. They've probably decided to outsource their publish, and distribute themselves in the UK and internationally, that way they can be outside conventional distribution control. While I'll admit that my guess is just that: a guess, Radiohead is a pretty socially conscious band, and probably like the idea of working with the RIAA as much as you or I do.
What facebook produces is a social networking space, where users are convinced to enter information about themselves into a gigantic, glossy, friendly-looking, panoptic database. Those of us who are facebook users become the product - specifically, our attention for advertising becomes the product - and that is sold to advertisers. It's a reversal of traditional commodity based modes of consumption: rather than commodities being sold by a corporation, through a middle man to a consumer, the consumer's personal information and advertising potentialities are instead sold by a middle man to the corporation.
Simple.
Thus pointless on slashdot...
In all seriousness though, it's another reminder that wikipedia is at least nominally moderated by individuals interested in maintaining the status quo. I'm sure more intrenched vandilism has become more difficult to properly remove, but at least between semi-vigilant editors, the requirements for citation, and an attempt to obtain a neutral point of view maintain its pseudo-validity as a general knowledge information source.
I wake up at 7am, and look at the empty space in the double bed next to me cry for half an hour. I kick slowly while softly calling out "mother" before popping a double dose of Thorazine and heading out to work in the dirty clothes from yesterday. On weekends, I begin with a cold coffee.
That's because their downwind neighbours get sued for copyright infringement of Monsanto products. You can see a bunch of cases of this at the following places:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
http://www.monsantowatch.org/