'publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery'
Wasn't there a case reported here a while ago in which a law firm tried to prevent this by copyrighting their cease-and-desist order, thereby making it an offense to reproduce it?
This tactic was in response to a large number of bloggers attempting to ridicule take-down notices by publishing all correspondence.
Congratulations on telling us something we learned in third-grade biology, Sherlock.
It's a well-known fact that after a serial killer dispatches a victim, they return to their hive.
They then perform a dance to indicate to the other serial killers where they killed their victim, and where the best serial-killer victims may be found.
Scientists can easily identify a serial killer by the characteristic dance they perform.
It seems a bit odd to me that you get a reduced sentence by locating the body, despite having plead "Not Guilty".
I suppose in legal terms the plea could be seen as a challenge to the prosecution to prove their case, but it still feels a bit like Reiser just admitted to lying to the court.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that Reiser is/was rich.
I read an interview with him about a year before his wife's disappearance. He claimed to have made nothing at all out of ReiserFS, and to be heavily in debt.
I totally agree with your criticisms of Social Darwinism, which, you don't seem to have noticed, I actually made myself (albeit briefly).
Social Darwinism is obviously the Naturalistic Fallacy all over again. I said that the Liberals saw Evolutionary theory as a way of attacking Conservatism with its theocratic hierarchy. But in doing so, they didn't want a completely mobile society - they wanted a new type of hierarchy, analogous to the Food Chain. It just happened that they saw this new hierarchy as one they would benefit from.
I said that Social Darwinism is not a misuse of Darwinism overall, in the sense that the original Darwinists fully intended this application of Darwinism.
Don't confuse Social Darwinism with Biological Darwinism.
Unfortunately, it was the Darwinists themselves who started this confusion (See the Desmond and Moore biography). Part of the appeal of evolutionary theory in the nineteenth century was that it appeared to challenge conservative social orthodoxy, showing that everything was in a state of flux. Evolution was a substantial plank in Liberal ideology.
Of course, it still isn't a valid inference. The fact that organisms might be competitive overall does not mean that humans are, any more than individual ants compete with each other.
All the same, it's not accurate to say that Social Darwinism is an abuse of the theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there a case reported here a while ago in which a law firm tried to prevent this by copyrighting their cease-and-desist order, thereby making it an offense to reproduce it?
This tactic was in response to a large number of bloggers attempting to ridicule take-down notices by publishing all correspondence.
I can't recall if it was successful.
Because it's "hard" to see "ware" it's related, silly.
I think the problem is that if you threw a dart into it, it would go spurting all over the sky.
I've heard that hamsters do this.
Is it possible there's some sort of link?
If you read the book to be disappointed, maybe you're going to have a good laugh.
which way the Dodo would have gone if it had used GPS ...
Do they drink their milkshake?
you have to wonder if it could have been used to predict our current economic difficulties
Only if it sprung a leak.
There's one on the far side of our sun.
It's exactly the same as our world, except everything is a mirror image.
These ISOs are not relevant to my interests.
Congratulations on telling us something we learned in third-grade biology, Sherlock.
It's a well-known fact that after a serial killer dispatches a victim, they return to their hive.
They then perform a dance to indicate to the other serial killers where they killed their victim, and where the best serial-killer victims may be found.
Scientists can easily identify a serial killer by the characteristic dance they perform.
Phishers
1. Think ...
2. Act
3.
4. Profit!!
I'm sure you writen other posts describing stories as weirdly familiar.
You post seems weirdly familiar.
Oh the big silly ...
Those are Leprechauns.
He also claimed Roswell is real.
I know for a fact it is. A friend of mine went there.
You can only start it during a severe thunderstorm on a remote mountaintop somewhere in Transylvania.
When it starts, you get this strange compulsion to maniacally yell, "It's ALIVE!!, It's ALIVE!!!".
It seems a bit odd to me that you get a reduced sentence by locating the body, despite having plead "Not Guilty".
I suppose in legal terms the plea could be seen as a challenge to the prosecution to prove their case, but it still feels a bit like Reiser just admitted to lying to the court.
the world's supply of Illudium Phosdex holds out.
this shit isn't bananas?
I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that Reiser is/was rich.
I read an interview with him about a year before his wife's disappearance. He claimed to have made nothing at all out of ReiserFS, and to be heavily in debt.
In Soviet Union, RIAA sue you.
...
Oh wait, they do that here too
It absolutely definitely is.
...
No it's not, Alex. You ignored my post
I totally agree with your criticisms of Social Darwinism, which, you don't seem to have noticed, I actually made myself (albeit briefly).
Social Darwinism is obviously the Naturalistic Fallacy all over again. I said that the Liberals saw Evolutionary theory as a way of attacking Conservatism with its theocratic hierarchy. But in doing so, they didn't want a completely mobile society - they wanted a new type of hierarchy, analogous to the Food Chain. It just happened that they saw this new hierarchy as one they would benefit from.
I said that Social Darwinism is not a misuse of Darwinism overall, in the sense that the original Darwinists fully intended this application of Darwinism.
Don't confuse Social Darwinism with Biological Darwinism.
Unfortunately, it was the Darwinists themselves who started this confusion (See the Desmond and Moore biography). Part of the appeal of evolutionary theory in the nineteenth century was that it appeared to challenge conservative social orthodoxy, showing that everything was in a state of flux. Evolution was a substantial plank in Liberal ideology.
Of course, it still isn't a valid inference. The fact that organisms might be competitive overall does not mean that humans are, any more than individual ants compete with each other.
All the same, it's not accurate to say that Social Darwinism is an abuse of the theory.
I imagined Amazons battling the Prince of Darkness ...
I think it's referring to the link in one of the replies.