Introduce a FLAT $$$ tax - not even a percentage of one's income, just a flat $$$ amount, and call it that.
Right, so the person making $12,000 a year, who needs every single penny of their paycheck can pay exactly the same amount of tax that Bill Gates pays?
And what of people who have no income? Shall we drag them into jail for not paying their taxes, because they have absolutely no way to pay for it?
On second thought, your plan succeeds extraordinarily well in making being poor illegal; in fact, way much better than any of the numerous laws (like vagrancy) that local governments pass to making being homeless illegal. And then, once all the poor people are in jail, they'll never be able to afford paying their taxes then, so we can just keep them locked up eternally... or maybe we could just kill them all, since they're never going to get out of the grave we've already dug for them anyways. Then, maybe we could just make a protein paste out of them. You are absolutely a brilliant person, you are.
Your whole argument is based on "7 of what number is 11" is grammatically incorrect. It is however not. It is a perfectly valid English expression. That it uses "deep syntax" that English tends to be eschewing in favor of "flat syntax" is beside the point.
The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.
True, but beware sweeping generalizations. There was a complicated MVC that resulted in an overturned SUV in my metro area. Bystanders called 911 before attempting assist (as per proper protocol), but the ambient gasoline caught fire while the 911 call was live. The background of the tape includes the trapped passengers screaming as they burned to death with the 911 dispatcher asking if the bystander could do anything to help, to which he replied, "No, ma'am, not anymore." No survivors.
This is a scenario that demonstrates that it is difficult to have appropriate, hard-and-fast rules that the general populace can internalize. Obviously in your case it was best that you were left untouched. However, in this other case it is possible that some of the occupants could have survived if a bystander had risked extricating them in the first few minutes.
Well, more specifically in my case, since I was on a motorcycle, the motorcycle actually landed about 25 feet or so away from where I ended up. No one was really in any danger if the bike caught fire.
You are correct though, that there are cases where gasoline can catch fire, and people should be removed (there was a case just recently here in Albuquerque, where a police officer pulled a guy out of a burning cab), but there is rarely a risk of EXPLOSION, I guess is the distinction that should be made. Rather, don't RUSH to move people out because "zOMG IT'S GONNA BLOW!!!" but rather "let's make sure the person is safe, and if not, let's move him." The whole notion of "zOMG EXPLODE!!!" tends to put panic into people, which is we can pretty much always guarantee is the wrong response.
No, they were asking "7 / x = 11%" which yes, is mathematically identical to your phrasing, but when one literally translates the divide and equal sign to English one gets "seven of what number is 11%"
The problem isn't you, and it isn't them; English just sucks in general for expressing mathematics.
So you believe that out of 350+ known expressions, the chimp chose the one appropriate response... by chance?
Does "arbitrary" mean "by chance"? No. It doesn't. The sign itself is arbitrary. Yes, Washoe chose an appropriate sign, that's hardly surprising, animals have emotions, too, and some can even impart that information to humans. (We know when dogs are angry, and happy. So, duh, animals have emotions.)
My point, and whole objection to the quote was the author noting that chimps do not produce tears when sad. Well, who fucking cares if chimps don't produce tears when sad/crying. Humans do, and that's what the sign is. The chimp was simply expressing a sign, regardless of if her physiology supports it or not. She's not going to sign "RED" any different, just because her lips aren't red. The signs themselves are arbitrary choices, and Washoe was constrained by the signs as they are already established, they're not going to invent new ones just to suit chimp physiology.
On the other hand, it might not have had as much to do with respect for evidence as i would like to think, and more to do with growing up and out of the preconceived notions I'd held on to so dearly as a teen.
Fair enough, and it may be that OP is young enough to have that excuse (her.sig certainly lends weight to that hypothesis.) But there are plenty of people who are more than old enough to know better who insist on holding on to such beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary. This is a problem not limited to questions of animal intelligence, of course.
Hudurrr.... she said animals don't use syntax, that means she thinks animals can't think.
My response was two part: "it doesn't matter that chimps don't produce tears for crying. Humans do, that's what the sign for crying is." If they had been talking about a red car, I don't doubt that Washoe would have pointed to her lips, because that's the sign for "red" even though chimp lips aren't red like human lips are. It's an arbitrary sign, and the original author was mistaking signs for pantomimes. "She's signing a tear falling, but they don't have tears!" v_v you're doing it wrong.
Next, my comment made the point that animals don't have syntax. That doesn't mean that they can't think. I've personally witnessed one of my cats experiment with water, attempting to understand it. She was an insanely intelligent animal, and could totally think. She could not however use syntax. And no other ape except humans has demonstrated an ability to use syntax. They can think, and they do express emotions and thoughts, but they lack syntax. Not thought, SYNTAX.
Of course, you're already preconceived to read my comment as "zOMG ANIMALS DON'T THINK!!!" because you're already primed to read it as such, because you're so used to dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge that animals do think. But rather, in the future, maybe you could... you know, actually READ what point(s) a person is trying to make, before hoisting a strawman upon them?
Animals live in a different sensual world than ours. These rely on scent like we rely on sight. While they may not be able to ponder the state of things, they comprehend pregnancy, childbirth, and lineage, as those things actually DO matter to them as much as eating, drinking, and the smell of poop. Animals can smell the sadness on a person through pheromone output. They can also smell the hormonal imbalance of a miscarriage. In fact, I would challenge you to find a dog that DIDN'T offer its sympathies to an owner that just had a miscarriage.
Right... so the animal didn't respond to the person TELLING the animal that they had a miscarriage. I didn't say that the animal couldn't be aware of a miscarriage, I was saying that there are people who would think their dog/cat can understand language when they told their pet that they miscarried.
You're lucky you didn't get sued. What were you thinking? What if you injured him while "just trying to help"? You're setting yourself up for major liability, unless you manage to successfully hide behind a "Good Samaritan" law. It's safest to stay out of it. Walk on by, sit back and take some video, but for god sake don't get involved.
If I'm in an accident, I hope bystanders have the good sense to mind their own business and keep their hands off of me unless they're a doctor or EMT.
More specifically, the best thing a bystander can usually do is call the police, or whatever other emergency personnel they can. The people who are used to dealing with emergencies can help you out.
"zOMG! THE SUV WAS LEAKING PETROL ONTO THE TARMAC!!!" When I crashed my motorcycle really bad, a bunch of people were all "omg! GAS!!!" and this is the most stupid response ever, which is a result of everyone watching movies and internalizing that as common sense. Gas will not explode, it will hardly even catch fire. The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.
Same crash for me as above, the bystanders came running up, called the police, and told me not to move. They were good bystanders... well, except for freaking out about the gas thing. I wanted to yell at them, but I figured I were better to not yell at people and just wait patiently for medical care. (Turns out, beyond some road rash, nothing was wrong, but better safe than sorry.)
No, chimps don't produce tears, but humans do, and the ASL sign is a mimic of a tear coming down the face. The arbitrary nature of the sign means that Washoe would have signed a fake tear no matter what the capabilities of her species is, because otherwise she wouldn't have been signing the sign for "CRY".
Also, no chimp has learned syntax of language. Yes, they learn some signs, and can then express some limited ideas, but they put them in random orders until their desires are met. "TICKLE ME ME ME TICKLE TICKLE TICKLE ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME ME." is one particular expression that I'm reminded about reading that they would make.
I don't doubt that there are people who told their dog/cat that they had a miscarriage, and project a response from the dog that makes them believe that the dog/cat actually understood what happened.
Oh no, I'm cool with renewable energy, which is fine. But the article I was reading was talking about how Germany will have to supplement their power with coal and oil power plants when the nuclear power plants go offline, because renewable energy can't pick up enough slack yet.
So, this is more like "zOMG! These cars kill people! Ok, so we can either put in seat belts, and save lives, or we can go back to horse and buggies and wait for automated-driver cars that won't get in accidents.... all in favor of the later, say AYE!"
It's a common assumption that people make about me from time to time. I am however not actually German... I am however as German as someone can get, while only having lived about a month in Germany... (I am actually American.)
Keeping a consistent "years worth of food" is actually significantly more work than one would think it is. Canned food does eventually expire, and when my dad actually cleaned the pantry out once, all of the canned food had expired two years earlier. We even had some cans from when we moved into the house in 1984-ish.
Having a years worth of food is not as good of a plan as many people make it out to be. First of all, if supply lines or such are cut off for about a year, then there are bigger things to deal with than a year supply of food. What I mean is that if things are that bad that you're having to use a year-supply of food without going to a store, shit has seriously hit the fan, and you're going to have a sucky time whether you have a year supply of food or not.
Next up, if money becomes more or less worthless through hyperinflation (Weimar Germany in '23), sure, fine you have food... now what about water? what about heating? What about all the other myriad needs that humans have? Food is only one small part of the necessities of life, and while hugely important, also not as big a deal as some other things.
And imagine how much water you would have to have to have a years supply of that for a family of 5...
I rarely mod up ACs, but damnit, if I had the points, parent post would get one.
Unless you're a gynecologist, and/or the act is consensual, that kind of behavior should damned sure be considered to be rape.
If they were that damned worries about a woman stuffing something up in there, they have enough x-ray machinery to determine for certain.
Every time my gynecologist has gone to take a look at me, there has always been a nurse in the room as well. They wouldn't start an examination without a witness in the room. Sure, it's CYA for them, but their CYA eliminates the chances that they're going to do anything wrong to me.
I suppose this lesson in how to do laws in a truly federal system should serve as a wake-up call to myself about how retardedly backwater the US really is...
That being said, there is a fair amount of uniformity in the US states as well, but likely nowhere near as much as any other federal government system. And of course, our right-wing keeps pushing more and more for a strong-decentralized government, and a desire to turn this country back into a confederacy, rather than a federation, but hey, that's what is so wonderfully sad about the US...
People who don't understand and don't want to will view it as ample reason to oppose every new nuclear plant for *another* 40 years.
Or worse, in a country that gets a significant part of their energy from nuclear power already, will backpedal, and close down all their nuclear plants and become "nuclear-free"!
Sounds like my dad. It wasn't until I started living on my own that I realized it wasn't normal to have a year's stock of canned foods that no one ever eats in the pantry.
My dad actually told my mom that he didn't want to recarpet the house, but that "if we're still here after 2012, we'll look into it then."
Needless to say, my dad is a nutjob. (Just part of the reason I don't talk to him anymore.)
No, I'm just pointing out that you made a false assumption - that US law was some sort of canonical reference point or universal frame of reference when it's not. BTW: Here's your answer. Enjoy:-)
Right, and Canada is one singular jurisdiction, where all the exact same laws in Quebec apply in British Columbia? You know, like it is here in the US among the several states... (*sarcasm*)
Truth is, I made no such assumption that US law were a canonical reference point or universal frame of reference. Rather, I'm pretty sure that I just made the assumption that you live in the US. (Looking back on my comments... and yes, indeed that is the wrong assumption that I made.) In fact, I kind of explicitly noted that the laws are different in every state; so I imagine that if one extrapolates my comment to national laws, it should apply even more accurately. And indeed it does!
For instance, in Germany, and other Civil law traditions, there is no distinction at all between equitable remedies and legal remedies, as they never experienced that same arbitrary classification that was a part of the Common law tradition.
So quite apart from me assuming that US law is some sort of reference point that can apply to the rest of the world, I completely understand that not only do other nations have different laws, some of them have wildly different legal traditions even!
So, yeah, I assumed that you were an American, because you were on slashdot... sue me. 90% of the people on here assume that I'm a guy, because I'm on slashdot. But I'll ask you not to claim that I made some sort of idiot argument that US law is the only law that matters, when I explicitly was stating in the very same post that each state can have wildly different laws, and thus "US law" is a complete misnomer, because while there are a lot of similarities between states, there are still vast differences as well.
You know what also would have pointed out that I made a false assumption, and probably have done it better? Saying, "Actually, I don't live in any US state, I live in the Canadian province of XY". Because I don't know if you are aware of this matter at all, but so I heard, there's no such thing as a single unitary "Canadian law" any more than there is a single unitary "US law".
The U.S. represents less than 5% of the worlds' population:-)
Right, so rather than answer the question of "what jurisdiction are you even talking about?", you chose to snarkily deride me, and provide me with no better clue as to what the hell set of laws dictate the workings of your local area. Good job.
Where I am, businesses of 5 people or less are allowed to use the small-claims courts.
And which state is this? Since the rules are different for each state. For instance, I have a friend I spoke to about this, who practices law in Illinois, and he pointed out 704 ILCS 220/1 (from Ch. 32, par. 411), "It shall be unlawful for a corporation to practice law or appear as attorney at law for any reason in any court in this state or before any judicial body". This almost definitively excludes a corporation from appearing without a lawyer.
Reading a short article on New York state, apparently in "commercial" small claims, a corporation can appear without a lawyer when defending or prosecuting, but in regular (non-"commerical") small claims, they can only appear without a lawyer in order to defend against a suit.
Really, the point is, I suppose, in order to know if your corporation can appear in court without a lawyer there are two questions to ask: 1) is it small claims, if it is not, there is not a single jurisdiction that allows them to appear without a lawyer (apparently, in Florida, even trying to do so outside of Small Claims will result in a default judgement against the corporation), and 2) what does our lawyer say about our ability to represent ourselves in small claims court?
Because really, there is no one universal answer. The only good answer can come from someone who knows the law, which is a lawyer. Going out on your own to try and figure it out may jeopardize your chances at even having your side of the story heard.
Also, equitable relieve IS a legal remedy, just not a statutory one.
I do realize that the "equity" vs "law" distinction has been lost since common law courts and chancery courts have been thoroughly merged, but the distinction is still applied as a classification system. Therefore, if a small claims court is limited to "legal remedies", then they cannot grant any equitable remedies, and can grant only monetary damages. Even if technically they're applied by the same courts, and in exactly the same methods, the categorization system still holds that the specific term "legal remedy" applies only to awarding damages. (Which is often why pleas will have "and grant any such remedies legal, or equitable that the court deem appropriate." So that any ambiguous reading of "only monetary damages, but no equitable damages" cannot be made.)
I'm read only in Washington State law, but as an example of a state that denies equitable remedies to small claims courts, RCW 12.40.010 limits the jurisdiction of small claims courts to be "case for the recovery of money only if the amount claimed not exceed five thousand dollars." (emphasis mine) However, unlike Washington State, apparently my Illinois lawyer friend told me that Illinois makes no distinction between any types of remedies, and thus small claims courts can provide injunctions, and other equitable remedies.
Thus, your tactic of using small claims courts to sue for the injunction to remove the domain name could work in Illinois, but not Washington state. But even in your state, a corporation of more than 5 persons still could not do so without a lawyer. And the second a lawyer is involved, the costs will easily and readily exceed whatever this domain registrar is asking for proactive trademark protection.
But even then, even if the state you're in allows your corporation to bring such an action in small claims courts without a lawyer, if the accused infringing party is outside of the state, and has no significant connections to that state, then they could argue a lack of personal jurisdiction and get the case dismissed before you even get a chance to make your arguments. Then you're left to either let the purported infringement continue, or refile your action in a Federal court with proper jurisdiction. And guess what? There's no federal court where a corporation can appear without a lawyer.
There are two methods of dispute resolution here: file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, (for a corporation, this cannot be done without a lawyer, "but small claim", you made that argument, it is addressed below) or file with a dispute-resolution service provider. The later is an arbitration process, and so, yeah, it's possible they might not demand a lawyer for representation. But really, who is Disney likely to send to an arbitration session?
Additionally, ICANN recognizes judgments from courts - including small claims courts. Just get a judgement from one of them for less than $100.
You do realize that small claims courts cannot grant equity, (they can only provide legal remedies) and thus cannot return an order stating that the defendant must forfeit their domain registration, right? Also, in some jurisdictions, corporations still must obtain a lawyer if they are bringing a small claims suit. You know, because corporations as legal persons do not actually exist, and thus cannot actually represent themselves pro se... you know, kind of by definition.
And the first thing I would do, if someone brought me to small claims court for a trademark infringement, would be to remove the case to Federal courts, as trademarks are Federal law, and not state law. Also, for reasons that have been previously mentioned, because the damages sought by the plaintiff cannot be adequately satisfied in that venue. (No amount of money could adequately restore someone to the state prior to a purported infringement. Rather, the only remedy appropriate for trademark infringement is for someone to stop using the offending mark. Otherwise saying, "yeah, $100 would cover my damages for you using the offending mark" is almost a bit like saying "it's ok if you keep using the offending mark in the future." Congratulations, welcome to trademark forfeiture.)
Once the case was moved to Federal court, there isn't any corporation in the US that would be able to represent itself pro se then.
. silly us, there's actually three kinds. (vellus hair, and two types of terminal hair: on the head, and "axillary hair", which is vellus hair that turns to terminal hair under exposure to testosterone.)
Interesting... so which type is the hair that women have under their armpits and around their pussy? Obviously not vellus (it's to thick for that), not head hair (it's preferred by pubic lice rather than by head lice), and not "axillary hair" (where would the needed testosterone come from?)
As someone else already noted, it is axillary hair. Women have some testosterone in their systems, but not enough to usually activate axillary hair beyond the pubic area, and armpits. However, since each "axillary hair patch" has a different level of response to testosterone, pubic hair being highly sensitive, and chest hair being quite low sensitivity, women tend to get pubic hair, but not chest hair.
Women with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome... and no, there are no men with CAIS) actually have limited if even any pubic hair, because their whole body lacks sensitivity to androgens regardless of the location on their body. It's one of the first traits that one should use to suspect CAIS: "does she have surprisingly low amounts of body hair regardless of being well into puberty?"
Oddly, in some cases, women may have medical conditions that require a treatment with testosterone. They usually can expect increased terminal hair as a side-effect of the treatment. Namely, the mustache is usually the next axillary hair growth area and may even activate into terminal hair growth even under only natural testosterone levels.
The idea that many of our biological traits are as drastically different as our genitalia has little evidence to support it, and is actually counter to almost the entire evidence available. Functionally, men and women are nearly identical, and use testosterone and estrogen equally, and both tend to respond each to the other just as much as a person of the other gender at the same age. But when we hear, "men use androgens, and women use estrogens", we are naturally drawn by our common sense to assume that this means that those traits are exclusive traits, but they are not. Beyond the state of the gonads (testicle vs ovary), almost nothing is exclusive to only one sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Introduce a FLAT $$$ tax - not even a percentage of one's income, just a flat $$$ amount, and call it that.
Right, so the person making $12,000 a year, who needs every single penny of their paycheck can pay exactly the same amount of tax that Bill Gates pays?
And what of people who have no income? Shall we drag them into jail for not paying their taxes, because they have absolutely no way to pay for it?
On second thought, your plan succeeds extraordinarily well in making being poor illegal; in fact, way much better than any of the numerous laws (like vagrancy) that local governments pass to making being homeless illegal. And then, once all the poor people are in jail, they'll never be able to afford paying their taxes then, so we can just keep them locked up eternally... or maybe we could just kill them all, since they're never going to get out of the grave we've already dug for them anyways. Then, maybe we could just make a protein paste out of them. You are absolutely a brilliant person, you are.
Your whole argument is based on "7 of what number is 11" is grammatically incorrect. It is however not. It is a perfectly valid English expression. That it uses "deep syntax" that English tends to be eschewing in favor of "flat syntax" is beside the point.
The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.
True, but beware sweeping generalizations. There was a complicated MVC that resulted in an overturned SUV in my metro area. Bystanders called 911 before attempting assist (as per proper protocol), but the ambient gasoline caught fire while the 911 call was live. The background of the tape includes the trapped passengers screaming as they burned to death with the 911 dispatcher asking if the bystander could do anything to help, to which he replied, "No, ma'am, not anymore." No survivors.
This is a scenario that demonstrates that it is difficult to have appropriate, hard-and-fast rules that the general populace can internalize. Obviously in your case it was best that you were left untouched. However, in this other case it is possible that some of the occupants could have survived if a bystander had risked extricating them in the first few minutes.
Well, more specifically in my case, since I was on a motorcycle, the motorcycle actually landed about 25 feet or so away from where I ended up. No one was really in any danger if the bike caught fire.
You are correct though, that there are cases where gasoline can catch fire, and people should be removed (there was a case just recently here in Albuquerque, where a police officer pulled a guy out of a burning cab), but there is rarely a risk of EXPLOSION, I guess is the distinction that should be made. Rather, don't RUSH to move people out because "zOMG IT'S GONNA BLOW!!!" but rather "let's make sure the person is safe, and if not, let's move him." The whole notion of "zOMG EXPLODE!!!" tends to put panic into people, which is we can pretty much always guarantee is the wrong response.
No, they were asking "7 / x = 11%" which yes, is mathematically identical to your phrasing, but when one literally translates the divide and equal sign to English one gets "seven of what number is 11%"
The problem isn't you, and it isn't them; English just sucks in general for expressing mathematics.
So you believe that out of 350+ known expressions, the chimp chose the one appropriate response... by chance?
Does "arbitrary" mean "by chance"? No. It doesn't. The sign itself is arbitrary. Yes, Washoe chose an appropriate sign, that's hardly surprising, animals have emotions, too, and some can even impart that information to humans. (We know when dogs are angry, and happy. So, duh, animals have emotions.)
My point, and whole objection to the quote was the author noting that chimps do not produce tears when sad. Well, who fucking cares if chimps don't produce tears when sad/crying. Humans do, and that's what the sign is. The chimp was simply expressing a sign, regardless of if her physiology supports it or not. She's not going to sign "RED" any different, just because her lips aren't red. The signs themselves are arbitrary choices, and Washoe was constrained by the signs as they are already established, they're not going to invent new ones just to suit chimp physiology.
On the other hand, it might not have had as much to do with respect for evidence as i would like to think, and more to do with growing up and out of the preconceived notions I'd held on to so dearly as a teen.
Fair enough, and it may be that OP is young enough to have that excuse (her .sig certainly lends weight to that hypothesis.) But there are plenty of people who are more than old enough to know better who insist on holding on to such beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary. This is a problem not limited to questions of animal intelligence, of course.
Hudurrr.... she said animals don't use syntax, that means she thinks animals can't think.
My response was two part: "it doesn't matter that chimps don't produce tears for crying. Humans do, that's what the sign for crying is." If they had been talking about a red car, I don't doubt that Washoe would have pointed to her lips, because that's the sign for "red" even though chimp lips aren't red like human lips are. It's an arbitrary sign, and the original author was mistaking signs for pantomimes. "She's signing a tear falling, but they don't have tears!" v_v you're doing it wrong.
Next, my comment made the point that animals don't have syntax. That doesn't mean that they can't think. I've personally witnessed one of my cats experiment with water, attempting to understand it. She was an insanely intelligent animal, and could totally think. She could not however use syntax. And no other ape except humans has demonstrated an ability to use syntax. They can think, and they do express emotions and thoughts, but they lack syntax. Not thought, SYNTAX.
Of course, you're already preconceived to read my comment as "zOMG ANIMALS DON'T THINK!!!" because you're already primed to read it as such, because you're so used to dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge that animals do think. But rather, in the future, maybe you could... you know, actually READ what point(s) a person is trying to make, before hoisting a strawman upon them?
Animals live in a different sensual world than ours. These rely on scent like we rely on sight. While they may not be able to ponder the state of things, they comprehend pregnancy, childbirth, and lineage, as those things actually DO matter to them as much as eating, drinking, and the smell of poop. Animals can smell the sadness on a person through pheromone output. They can also smell the hormonal imbalance of a miscarriage. In fact, I would challenge you to find a dog that DIDN'T offer its sympathies to an owner that just had a miscarriage.
Right... so the animal didn't respond to the person TELLING the animal that they had a miscarriage. I didn't say that the animal couldn't be aware of a miscarriage, I was saying that there are people who would think their dog/cat can understand language when they told their pet that they miscarried.
You're lucky you didn't get sued. What were you thinking? What if you injured him while "just trying to help"? You're setting yourself up for major liability, unless you manage to successfully hide behind a "Good Samaritan" law. It's safest to stay out of it. Walk on by, sit back and take some video, but for god sake don't get involved.
If I'm in an accident, I hope bystanders have the good sense to mind their own business and keep their hands off of me unless they're a doctor or EMT.
More specifically, the best thing a bystander can usually do is call the police, or whatever other emergency personnel they can. The people who are used to dealing with emergencies can help you out.
"zOMG! THE SUV WAS LEAKING PETROL ONTO THE TARMAC!!!" When I crashed my motorcycle really bad, a bunch of people were all "omg! GAS!!!" and this is the most stupid response ever, which is a result of everyone watching movies and internalizing that as common sense. Gas will not explode, it will hardly even catch fire. The person was in no greater danger from the leaking gas than from some bystander attempting to move him out of the car and making a fractured neck worse.
Same crash for me as above, the bystanders came running up, called the police, and told me not to move. They were good bystanders... well, except for freaking out about the gas thing. I wanted to yell at them, but I figured I were better to not yell at people and just wait patiently for medical care. (Turns out, beyond some road rash, nothing was wrong, but better safe than sorry.)
No, chimps don't produce tears, but humans do, and the ASL sign is a mimic of a tear coming down the face. The arbitrary nature of the sign means that Washoe would have signed a fake tear no matter what the capabilities of her species is, because otherwise she wouldn't have been signing the sign for "CRY".
Also, no chimp has learned syntax of language. Yes, they learn some signs, and can then express some limited ideas, but they put them in random orders until their desires are met. "TICKLE ME ME ME TICKLE TICKLE TICKLE ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME ME." is one particular expression that I'm reminded about reading that they would make.
I don't doubt that there are people who told their dog/cat that they had a miscarriage, and project a response from the dog that makes them believe that the dog/cat actually understood what happened.
No, I had never heard of Troll Tuesdays...
Oh no, I'm cool with renewable energy, which is fine. But the article I was reading was talking about how Germany will have to supplement their power with coal and oil power plants when the nuclear power plants go offline, because renewable energy can't pick up enough slack yet.
So, this is more like "zOMG! These cars kill people! Ok, so we can either put in seat belts, and save lives, or we can go back to horse and buggies and wait for automated-driver cars that won't get in accidents.... all in favor of the later, say AYE!"
I didn't realize you were German snowgirl....
It's a common assumption that people make about me from time to time. I am however not actually German... I am however as German as someone can get, while only having lived about a month in Germany... (I am actually American.)
Keeping a consistent "years worth of food" is actually significantly more work than one would think it is. Canned food does eventually expire, and when my dad actually cleaned the pantry out once, all of the canned food had expired two years earlier. We even had some cans from when we moved into the house in 1984-ish.
Having a years worth of food is not as good of a plan as many people make it out to be. First of all, if supply lines or such are cut off for about a year, then there are bigger things to deal with than a year supply of food. What I mean is that if things are that bad that you're having to use a year-supply of food without going to a store, shit has seriously hit the fan, and you're going to have a sucky time whether you have a year supply of food or not.
Next up, if money becomes more or less worthless through hyperinflation (Weimar Germany in '23), sure, fine you have food... now what about water? what about heating? What about all the other myriad needs that humans have? Food is only one small part of the necessities of life, and while hugely important, also not as big a deal as some other things.
And imagine how much water you would have to have to have a years supply of that for a family of 5...
I rarely mod up ACs, but damnit, if I had the points, parent post would get one.
Unless you're a gynecologist, and/or the act is consensual, that kind of behavior should damned sure be considered to be rape.
If they were that damned worries about a woman stuffing something up in there, they have enough x-ray machinery to determine for certain.
Every time my gynecologist has gone to take a look at me, there has always been a nurse in the room as well. They wouldn't start an examination without a witness in the room. Sure, it's CYA for them, but their CYA eliminates the chances that they're going to do anything wrong to me.
It can come in handy on Tuesdays :-) (see my profile)
I'm confused about the special nature of Tuesdays that would make it more handy or not?
I suppose this lesson in how to do laws in a truly federal system should serve as a wake-up call to myself about how retardedly backwater the US really is...
That being said, there is a fair amount of uniformity in the US states as well, but likely nowhere near as much as any other federal government system. And of course, our right-wing keeps pushing more and more for a strong-decentralized government, and a desire to turn this country back into a confederacy, rather than a federation, but hey, that's what is so wonderfully sad about the US...
People who don't understand and don't want to will view it as ample reason to oppose every new nuclear plant for *another* 40 years.
Or worse, in a country that gets a significant part of their energy from nuclear power already, will backpedal, and close down all their nuclear plants and become "nuclear-free"!
If humanity is to survive, we must pledge to eliminate all carbon dioxide from our atmosphere by 2030
Do you have a citation for that asshat statement, or did you come up with it all by yourself ?
Poe's Law at work... if we removed all CO2 from the atmosphere, then all the plants would die. Obviously, the author was not being serious.
Sounds like my dad. It wasn't until I started living on my own that I realized it wasn't normal to have a year's stock of canned foods that no one ever eats in the pantry.
My dad actually told my mom that he didn't want to recarpet the house, but that "if we're still here after 2012, we'll look into it then."
Needless to say, my dad is a nutjob. (Just part of the reason I don't talk to him anymore.)
No, I'm just pointing out that you made a false assumption - that US law was some sort of canonical reference point or universal frame of reference when it's not. BTW: Here's your answer. Enjoy :-)
Right, and Canada is one singular jurisdiction, where all the exact same laws in Quebec apply in British Columbia? You know, like it is here in the US among the several states... (*sarcasm*)
Truth is, I made no such assumption that US law were a canonical reference point or universal frame of reference. Rather, I'm pretty sure that I just made the assumption that you live in the US. (Looking back on my comments... and yes, indeed that is the wrong assumption that I made.) In fact, I kind of explicitly noted that the laws are different in every state; so I imagine that if one extrapolates my comment to national laws, it should apply even more accurately. And indeed it does!
For instance, in Germany, and other Civil law traditions, there is no distinction at all between equitable remedies and legal remedies, as they never experienced that same arbitrary classification that was a part of the Common law tradition.
So quite apart from me assuming that US law is some sort of reference point that can apply to the rest of the world, I completely understand that not only do other nations have different laws, some of them have wildly different legal traditions even!
So, yeah, I assumed that you were an American, because you were on slashdot... sue me. 90% of the people on here assume that I'm a guy, because I'm on slashdot. But I'll ask you not to claim that I made some sort of idiot argument that US law is the only law that matters, when I explicitly was stating in the very same post that each state can have wildly different laws, and thus "US law" is a complete misnomer, because while there are a lot of similarities between states, there are still vast differences as well.
You know what also would have pointed out that I made a false assumption, and probably have done it better? Saying, "Actually, I don't live in any US state, I live in the Canadian province of XY". Because I don't know if you are aware of this matter at all, but so I heard, there's no such thing as a single unitary "Canadian law" any more than there is a single unitary "US law".
The U.S. represents less than 5% of the worlds' population :-)
Right, so rather than answer the question of "what jurisdiction are you even talking about?", you chose to snarkily deride me, and provide me with no better clue as to what the hell set of laws dictate the workings of your local area. Good job.
Where I am, businesses of 5 people or less are allowed to use the small-claims courts.
And which state is this? Since the rules are different for each state. For instance, I have a friend I spoke to about this, who practices law in Illinois, and he pointed out 704 ILCS 220/1 (from Ch. 32, par. 411), "It shall be unlawful for a corporation to practice law or appear as attorney at law for any reason in any court in this state or before any judicial body". This almost definitively excludes a corporation from appearing without a lawyer.
Reading a short article on New York state, apparently in "commercial" small claims, a corporation can appear without a lawyer when defending or prosecuting, but in regular (non-"commerical") small claims, they can only appear without a lawyer in order to defend against a suit.
Really, the point is, I suppose, in order to know if your corporation can appear in court without a lawyer there are two questions to ask: 1) is it small claims, if it is not, there is not a single jurisdiction that allows them to appear without a lawyer (apparently, in Florida, even trying to do so outside of Small Claims will result in a default judgement against the corporation), and 2) what does our lawyer say about our ability to represent ourselves in small claims court?
Because really, there is no one universal answer. The only good answer can come from someone who knows the law, which is a lawyer. Going out on your own to try and figure it out may jeopardize your chances at even having your side of the story heard.
Also, equitable relieve IS a legal remedy, just not a statutory one.
I do realize that the "equity" vs "law" distinction has been lost since common law courts and chancery courts have been thoroughly merged, but the distinction is still applied as a classification system. Therefore, if a small claims court is limited to "legal remedies", then they cannot grant any equitable remedies, and can grant only monetary damages. Even if technically they're applied by the same courts, and in exactly the same methods, the categorization system still holds that the specific term "legal remedy" applies only to awarding damages. (Which is often why pleas will have "and grant any such remedies legal, or equitable that the court deem appropriate." So that any ambiguous reading of "only monetary damages, but no equitable damages" cannot be made.)
I'm read only in Washington State law, but as an example of a state that denies equitable remedies to small claims courts, RCW 12.40.010 limits the jurisdiction of small claims courts to be "case for the recovery of money only if the amount claimed not exceed five thousand dollars." (emphasis mine) However, unlike Washington State, apparently my Illinois lawyer friend told me that Illinois makes no distinction between any types of remedies, and thus small claims courts can provide injunctions, and other equitable remedies.
Thus, your tactic of using small claims courts to sue for the injunction to remove the domain name could work in Illinois, but not Washington state. But even in your state, a corporation of more than 5 persons still could not do so without a lawyer. And the second a lawyer is involved, the costs will easily and readily exceed whatever this domain registrar is asking for proactive trademark protection.
But even then, even if the state you're in allows your corporation to bring such an action in small claims courts without a lawyer, if the accused infringing party is outside of the state, and has no significant connections to that state, then they could argue a lack of personal jurisdiction and get the case dismissed before you even get a chance to make your arguments. Then you're left to either let the purported infringement continue, or refile your action in a Federal court with proper jurisdiction. And guess what? There's no federal court where a corporation can appear without a lawyer.
Then again, I
Issuing a correction: some states allow small-claims courts to provide equitable remedies.
Bullcrap.
Oh really?
The UDNDRP can be done without a lawyer.
There are two methods of dispute resolution here: file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, (for a corporation, this cannot be done without a lawyer, "but small claim", you made that argument, it is addressed below) or file with a dispute-resolution service provider. The later is an arbitration process, and so, yeah, it's possible they might not demand a lawyer for representation. But really, who is Disney likely to send to an arbitration session?
Additionally, ICANN recognizes judgments from courts - including small claims courts. Just get a judgement from one of them for less than $100.
You do realize that small claims courts cannot grant equity, (they can only provide legal remedies) and thus cannot return an order stating that the defendant must forfeit their domain registration, right? Also, in some jurisdictions, corporations still must obtain a lawyer if they are bringing a small claims suit. You know, because corporations as legal persons do not actually exist, and thus cannot actually represent themselves pro se... you know, kind of by definition.
And the first thing I would do, if someone brought me to small claims court for a trademark infringement, would be to remove the case to Federal courts, as trademarks are Federal law, and not state law. Also, for reasons that have been previously mentioned, because the damages sought by the plaintiff cannot be adequately satisfied in that venue. (No amount of money could adequately restore someone to the state prior to a purported infringement. Rather, the only remedy appropriate for trademark infringement is for someone to stop using the offending mark. Otherwise saying, "yeah, $100 would cover my damages for you using the offending mark" is almost a bit like saying "it's ok if you keep using the offending mark in the future." Congratulations, welcome to trademark forfeiture.)
Once the case was moved to Federal court, there isn't any corporation in the US that would be able to represent itself pro se then.
. silly us, there's actually three kinds. (vellus hair, and two types of terminal hair: on the head, and "axillary hair", which is vellus hair that turns to terminal hair under exposure to testosterone.)
Interesting... so which type is the hair that women have under their armpits and around their pussy? Obviously not vellus (it's to thick for that), not head hair (it's preferred by pubic lice rather than by head lice), and not "axillary hair" (where would the needed testosterone come from?)
As someone else already noted, it is axillary hair. Women have some testosterone in their systems, but not enough to usually activate axillary hair beyond the pubic area, and armpits. However, since each "axillary hair patch" has a different level of response to testosterone, pubic hair being highly sensitive, and chest hair being quite low sensitivity, women tend to get pubic hair, but not chest hair.
Women with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome... and no, there are no men with CAIS) actually have limited if even any pubic hair, because their whole body lacks sensitivity to androgens regardless of the location on their body. It's one of the first traits that one should use to suspect CAIS: "does she have surprisingly low amounts of body hair regardless of being well into puberty?"
Oddly, in some cases, women may have medical conditions that require a treatment with testosterone. They usually can expect increased terminal hair as a side-effect of the treatment. Namely, the mustache is usually the next axillary hair growth area and may even activate into terminal hair growth even under only natural testosterone levels.
The idea that many of our biological traits are as drastically different as our genitalia has little evidence to support it, and is actually counter to almost the entire evidence available. Functionally, men and women are nearly identical, and use testosterone and estrogen equally, and both tend to respond each to the other just as much as a person of the other gender at the same age. But when we hear, "men use androgens, and women use estrogens", we are naturally drawn by our common sense to assume that this means that those traits are exclusive traits, but they are not. Beyond the state of the gonads (testicle vs ovary), almost nothing is exclusive to only one sex.