It would appear that this is nothing new, and that one single company is burning through names and complaints like hotcakes, but still manages to stay in business.
1:25 PM ---
Long story short, "Lopez" isn't the owner and this company has no board of directors.
I was thinking of something similar, only with more blatant fixing. when 100% of the vote totals go to the communist party in every state, America will go back to paper ballots in no time flat.
Big deal. In the 80s you could achieve a similar effect by leaving your green mono monitor on, pulling up the graphic of choice, and leaving it on for a few hours. Granted, it was on the wrong side...
Jack Thompson threatens to sue lots of people, but I've never actually seen him pull through. Isn't that barratry? Why hasn't this assclown been disbarred yet?
W2K3 still has BSOD issues. I've run into enough of them to know. Getting back on topic, W2K is more stable than 2K3 on purely anecdotal evidence, but the very huge MS company for whom I've maintained both OSs bears it out.
True (I've always maintained that there was a good chance I could have AVOIDED the accident by assuming that she wasn't going to stop for the red), and true that no one without the full story knows whether this woman is right, but my point was that having the truth on your side does not neccessarily make you more likely to win in court.
"If the woman in the story wrote things that were demonstrably untrue, and if reasonable people can be persuaded that she wrote these things to intentionally harm the plaintiff's reputation, then she may well be in for a great deal of trouble and expense, and still might lose."
It's not that simple. If she wrote something along the lines of "I saw construction workers dumping gasoline on the ground," she might have a hard time defending herself against a libel charge unless she happened to get documentary evidence or has witnesses.
I lost in court last year defending myself against a traffic ticket for "failure to yield," simply because I had no witnesses to testify that the lady who hit me had, in fact, run a red light. The cop who cited me lied on the stand, refuting my account of how the light at that intersection behaved (long story short, he said *none* of the lights in the city he had worked in for 11 years behaved the way I described, although it was fairly well-known that they did, and I took a picture of that intersection doing what he said it couldn't do the very next day). If you have no witnesses or documentation, the truth won't necessarily help you.
We're a hop, skip and jump from this to having the computer just write the music itself. Now all we need are some barely legal girls with breast implants to "sing" the output. Actually, let's just skip the music.
I think you should pull your head out of your ass.
atheism n.
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I think "it is possible that there is a god" the exact same way as I think it's possible there's an Easter Bunny. Since neither is likely to ever be proven, they're both ridiculous concepts that I don't spend time worrying about.
"Neither is it the sense a die hard atheits denies God. It is the way an agnostic uses the word."
Counterexample: I, a die-hard atheist, has been using that definition for years.
"If by 'deny' you mean 'make a scientifically valid statement that something cannot possibly exist', you would be wrong, but it seems that's not what you mean."
I was under the impression that I had just spent the past 5 or 6 posts defining it for you.
I guess you didn't read your own post. Let me quote you:
"The inner nature of God, if he exists, is rarely touched upon by (successful) religions, and that is of course a clever trick. However, it is equally silly, when the die hard atheist denies "God" without defining what he denies."
I see no problem at all in denying a ficticious idea for which believers offer no evidence. Let me break this down further for you:
Believer: "I think a supernatural being created the universe and everything in it."
Atheist: "What's your proof?"
Believer: "I don't have any, but I was personally affected and so I have faith."
Atheist: "You've given me no reason to believe you, so I'll keep assuming there is no such supernatural being."
In other words, why should I have to define a nebulous concept to deny it? The burden of proof is *still* on the believers, and they haven't done a good job of it in the last couple of thousand years.
I'm going to refer you back to my original reply, in which I said it's irrelevant whether the statement "God doesn't exist" is falsifiable. Of course it isn't. It is, however, a completely useless argument to make because (again, as I already mentioned) by default we don't need to start assuming there is a designer unless believers show evidence. The burden of proof is still on them. This is how science works.
"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."
Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.
Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:
The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?
"The statement 'God exists' is not supported by any scientific facts, but neither is 'God doesn't exist' a falsifiable scientific truth."
That's irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the people who claim existence. No proof, no existence, by default. Welcome to the wonderful world of science.
You say you're a "physicist by education," then you go on to completely ruin the definition of "Occam's razor." Of course, my favorite part had to be: "Never let one limit the other!"
I guess you didn't get much education in the history of science at...where was it you were educated, again? The University of Wal-Mart? Science has had a rich history of being fucked over by religious authorities in the name of ignorance.
"I'm seriously wondering where we manage to get so much money from in order to just waste it on dumb research."
This is why unimaginative people wouldn't be good scientists. From the writeup:
"This can be a potential model for investigating how brain chemistry works during learning."
The study isn't about putting on an all-mouse musical, it's about animal behavior, which has all sorts of other applications. Just because you can't imagine what those might be doesn't make it useless research.
"carriers make money on advertising or transaction fees"
This is kind of vague, and the article goes into zero detail.
So per-minute charges will disappear, but I'll have to pay everytime I connect to someone else's phone? That's what that says to me.
As for advertising, I'd rather just keep taking it in the ass each month from Qworst than listen to one second of some asshole telling me how his company makes the world better by selling me shit I don't want.
I'd like to see an ultraviolent game in which your character decides to take revenge on a loudmouthed personal injury lawyer named Tom Jackson. There would be several endings to choose from, ranging from your character pissing on the lawyer's bludgeoned brains to decapitation.
I can't afford to give $10K to charity for such a game, but I can say I will!
Slashdot Mirror
From the comments:
. aspx?id=1026
& page=1&pp=10
---
Anonymous said...
ANONYMOUS... WOW... what can I say?
Anyone researching this? LOOK AT THIS LINK that 'anonymous' gave...
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default
Add it to an example like THIS from July...
http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=8783
It would appear that this is nothing new, and that one single company is burning through names and complaints like hotcakes, but still manages to stay in business.
1:25 PM
---
Long story short, "Lopez" isn't the owner and this company has no board of directors.
"Yet again we see a slashdot article that mentions something neat that people did with a PC with a general purpose operating system."
This story was better when it appeared on digg.com last week, too.
I was thinking of something similar, only with more blatant fixing. when 100% of the vote totals go to the communist party in every state, America will go back to paper ballots in no time flat.
Big deal. In the 80s you could achieve a similar effect by leaving your green mono monitor on, pulling up the graphic of choice, and leaving it on for a few hours. Granted, it was on the wrong side...
I had considered that myself, but then how hard is it to believe Jack Thompson has threatened to sue someone (in vague terms)?
Jack Thompson threatens to sue lots of people, but I've never actually seen him pull through. Isn't that barratry? Why hasn't this assclown been disbarred yet?
W2K3 still has BSOD issues. I've run into enough of them to know. Getting back on topic, W2K is more stable than 2K3 on purely anecdotal evidence, but the very huge MS company for whom I've maintained both OSs bears it out.
Imagine my surprise when I thought this was going to be an article about Counterstrike cheating and found myself reading about AOL sucking again.
True (I've always maintained that there was a good chance I could have AVOIDED the accident by assuming that she wasn't going to stop for the red), and true that no one without the full story knows whether this woman is right, but my point was that having the truth on your side does not neccessarily make you more likely to win in court.
"If the woman in the story wrote things that were demonstrably untrue, and if reasonable people can be persuaded that she wrote these things to intentionally harm the plaintiff's reputation, then she may well be in for a great deal of trouble and expense, and still might lose."
It's not that simple. If she wrote something along the lines of "I saw construction workers dumping gasoline on the ground," she might have a hard time defending herself against a libel charge unless she happened to get documentary evidence or has witnesses.
I lost in court last year defending myself against a traffic ticket for "failure to yield," simply because I had no witnesses to testify that the lady who hit me had, in fact, run a red light. The cop who cited me lied on the stand, refuting my account of how the light at that intersection behaved (long story short, he said *none* of the lights in the city he had worked in for 11 years behaved the way I described, although it was fairly well-known that they did, and I took a picture of that intersection doing what he said it couldn't do the very next day). If you have no witnesses or documentation, the truth won't necessarily help you.
We're a hop, skip and jump from this to having the computer just write the music itself. Now all we need are some barely legal girls with breast implants to "sing" the output. Actually, let's just skip the music.
Nice pun.
Your search for "where's waldo" around this map area did not match any locations.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
"I think the discussion should end there."
I think you should pull your head out of your ass.
atheism
n.
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I think "it is possible that there is a god" the exact same way as I think it's possible there's an Easter Bunny. Since neither is likely to ever be proven, they're both ridiculous concepts that I don't spend time worrying about.
"Neither is it the sense a die hard atheits denies God. It is the way an agnostic uses the word."
Counterexample: I, a die-hard atheist, has been using that definition for years.
"If by 'deny' you mean 'make a scientifically valid statement that something cannot possibly exist', you would be wrong, but it seems that's not what you mean."
I was under the impression that I had just spent the past 5 or 6 posts defining it for you.
I guess you didn't read your own post. Let me quote you:
"The inner nature of God, if he exists, is rarely touched upon by (successful) religions, and that is of course a clever trick. However, it is equally silly, when the die hard atheist denies "God" without defining what he denies."
I see no problem at all in denying a ficticious idea for which believers offer no evidence. Let me break this down further for you:
Believer: "I think a supernatural being created the universe and everything in it."
Atheist: "What's your proof?"
Believer: "I don't have any, but I was personally affected and so I have faith."
Atheist: "You've given me no reason to believe you, so I'll keep assuming there is no such supernatural being."
In other words, why should I have to define a nebulous concept to deny it? The burden of proof is *still* on the believers, and they haven't done a good job of it in the last couple of thousand years.
I'm going to refer you back to my original reply, in which I said it's irrelevant whether the statement "God doesn't exist" is falsifiable. Of course it isn't. It is, however, a completely useless argument to make because (again, as I already mentioned) by default we don't need to start assuming there is a designer unless believers show evidence. The burden of proof is still on them. This is how science works.
You don't know much about science, do you?
"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."
e rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139
c =127
e rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141
e rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29
e rtylist.cfm?c=142
Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.
Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:
ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLib
Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&
City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLib
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLib
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLib
The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?
"The statement 'God exists' is not supported by any scientific facts, but neither is 'God doesn't exist' a falsifiable scientific truth."
That's irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the people who claim existence. No proof, no existence, by default. Welcome to the wonderful world of science.
You say you're a "physicist by education," then you go on to completely ruin the definition of "Occam's razor." Of course, my favorite part had to be: "Never let one limit the other!"
I guess you didn't get much education in the history of science at...where was it you were educated, again? The University of Wal-Mart? Science has had a rich history of being fucked over by religious authorities in the name of ignorance.
He sure sucks it like he does, anyway.
"I'm seriously wondering where we manage to get so much money from in order to just waste it on dumb research."
This is why unimaginative people wouldn't be good scientists. From the writeup:
"This can be a potential model for investigating how brain chemistry works during learning."
The study isn't about putting on an all-mouse musical, it's about animal behavior, which has all sorts of other applications. Just because you can't imagine what those might be doesn't make it useless research.
"carriers make money on advertising or transaction fees"
This is kind of vague, and the article goes into zero detail.
So per-minute charges will disappear, but I'll have to pay everytime I connect to someone else's phone? That's what that says to me.
As for advertising, I'd rather just keep taking it in the ass each month from Qworst than listen to one second of some asshole telling me how his company makes the world better by selling me shit I don't want.
I'd like to see an ultraviolent game in which your character decides to take revenge on a loudmouthed personal injury lawyer named Tom Jackson. There would be several endings to choose from, ranging from your character pissing on the lawyer's bludgeoned brains to decapitation.
I can't afford to give $10K to charity for such a game, but I can say I will!