You're willfully ignoring the obvious difference between building a computer and making a child through intercourse -- in the latter, you aren't directly wiring the central circuitry or designing the systems. Just because you can grow it doesn't mean you have to know why it grows, or how it works.
I know you are a nerd
This is the only part you got right, really -- it's obvious that you aren't a nerd. Why don't you go chase a football and drool on your shirt some more.
I don't live in no damn city, never plan on moving to one
But pretty soon you'll have to -- at the rate all of you backwater hicks breed, eventually we'll all have to live in skyscrapers just to make room for all of your borderline-illiterate offspring.
Maybe you should all just start being homosexual now, and spare us both the trouble, eh?
I'm not scrambling for footing. This is not a pissing contest, stop treating it like one. I'm scrambling to point out the source of our miscommunication.
I attempted to define the "discomfort" as a tort -- I.E., a tort is what would bring on punitive damages. You responded by saying that the case itself was a tort, and that "discomfort" was defined as punitive damages. Now, my interpretation of this lead me to believe that you were mislead about the definition of a tort. Hence, I provided the link to the definition, because of your obfuscating response. Now, this did lead to your further explication, which after reading, caused me to admit fault.
Of course, that wasn't enough for you, you felt compelled to continue making derisive remarks. This is what prompted my desire to clear up our miscommunication, by telling you exactly what you had said that confused me.
Now, instead of gracefully admitting that it was initially poorly worded, or going on to further explain yourself, you just keep repeating "the suit is a tort," and thinking of new and clever ways to insult me. That doesn't seem very productive. I'd rather like to know why the suit is a civil wrong.
I'm not trying to debunk your analysis. That should be pretty obvious, considering that I've already retracted my statements.
If the suit were a tort, then it would seem to follow that, given the definition of tort, I could sue you for your tortious act of filing suit.
A tort is not a classification of lawsuit. It is a civil wrong. A lawsuit is not a civil wrong.
So where's my epic logical flaw here? Is there some alternative usage of the word "tort" that I am simply ignorant of?
The "cause and effect" rhetoric was an attempt to illustrate the difference using another set of terms, since we're clearly not communicating efficiently.
And no, I'm not obsessed with being right somewhere, I'm just pointing out the statement you made that prompted me to get off on defining tort, as I read "the entire case is a tort" to mean that "these legal proceedings may be referred to as a tort," which I knew not to be correct.
You should try to keep your blood pressure down, it'd be tragic if you got so pissed at the internet that it caused you to go into cardiac arrest.
It's only illegal not to accept legal tender as payment for a debt. I.E., if you already owe me $800, I can't refuse payment in cash. However, if I want to sell you my car for $800, I can accept or not accept whatever form of payment I damn well please.
Does the headline strike anyone else as a headline that could easily be used over and over and over, far into the future? I mean, I'd imagine that such-and-such years ago, a megabyte RAM stick was "amazing memory density."
The tort is breach of contract; it is not discomfort, or emotional distress, or pain and suffering, or, good grief, negligence.
You know, I only used the word "negligence" there because I'm so used to using it in regard to civil cases. I didn't mean to imply that this particular case was an act of negligence -- it was clearly intentional. However, negligence can be a tort.
I took a second look at the definitions and the wording of the sentence I was responding to, and you're correct. My analysis was superficial -- I saw reference to harm in a civil case, and my go-to word was "Tort." I had never considered that the word may not apply to the rationale for punitive damages.
You are most definitely not a lawyer.
I think I cleared that up already. No need to be a snide prick.
No, it wouldn't. The whole case is a tort. The legal term would be damages, punitive damages in particular, and they're not awarded here because it's a contract issue.
Damages are what one is awarded to compensate for the harm caused by a Tort.
Please consider the quotation I was responding to: to compensate for the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get my point).
I was NOT responding to this: and possibly some small bonus on top of that
Yes, the "small bonus" would be punitive damages. The negligence itself, leading to the "discomfort," is a Tort. The entire case is a civil suit.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, why did the neoliberal cross the road.
Don't tase me bro!
In not totally-unrelated news you can download the Mjolnir mix of the Halo theme for play on GHIII, free, today.
That has about, oh, NOTHING to do with the article. Thanks for using slashdot to plug your website, wanker.
we'd stimulate the living hell out of the world's economy.
But that wouldn't stimulate it at all. The opportunity costs would be massive. See the "broken window" fallacy.
The first title refreshed the already-tired World War II setting by added a gripping gameplay-based narrative
The minor typographical error here aside, does anyone really think that a "gripping gameplay-based narrative" is an innovation?
This whole process of bloated operating systems (OSes) driving purchases of even more excessive amounts of hardware is a damned waste of money.
I don't know about you guys, but GAMING is what's driving my purchases of even more excessive amounts of hardware.
We don't understand computers
We built them. Are you daft?
umm... sex?
You're willfully ignoring the obvious difference between building a computer and making a child through intercourse -- in the latter, you aren't directly wiring the central circuitry or designing the systems. Just because you can grow it doesn't mean you have to know why it grows, or how it works.
I know you are a nerd
This is the only part you got right, really -- it's obvious that you aren't a nerd. Why don't you go chase a football and drool on your shirt some more.
I don't live in no damn city, never plan on moving to one
But pretty soon you'll have to -- at the rate all of you backwater hicks breed, eventually we'll all have to live in skyscrapers just to make room for all of your borderline-illiterate offspring.
Maybe you should all just start being homosexual now, and spare us both the trouble, eh?
Three plaintiffs were each seeking 69,000 euros ($100,000) in damages for invasion of their privacy after their homosexuality was revealed
So, I haven't RTFA'd yet, but at first glance, it seems like they may have had their three-way homosexual relationship revealed.
Wouldn't that be hilarious?
In Oregon we have mail-in ballots; you just register to vote, and all of the materials show up in your mailbox.
Everybody who publishes makes elementary mistakes and makes a fool of himself sometimes; one should respond kindly and gracefully.
Amen. Let's eat!
Well, then the FCC can just step in again and divide the company in two.
... which factory worker got a free hard drive in exchange for six ceramic bathroom tiles?
I'm not scrambling for footing. This is not a pissing contest, stop treating it like one. I'm scrambling to point out the source of our miscommunication.
I attempted to define the "discomfort" as a tort -- I.E., a tort is what would bring on punitive damages. You responded by saying that the case itself was a tort, and that "discomfort" was defined as punitive damages. Now, my interpretation of this lead me to believe that you were mislead about the definition of a tort. Hence, I provided the link to the definition, because of your obfuscating response. Now, this did lead to your further explication, which after reading, caused me to admit fault.
Of course, that wasn't enough for you, you felt compelled to continue making derisive remarks. This is what prompted my desire to clear up our miscommunication, by telling you exactly what you had said that confused me.
Now, instead of gracefully admitting that it was initially poorly worded, or going on to further explain yourself, you just keep repeating "the suit is a tort," and thinking of new and clever ways to insult me. That doesn't seem very productive. I'd rather like to know why the suit is a civil wrong.
I'm not trying to debunk your analysis. That should be pretty obvious, considering that I've already retracted my statements.
If the suit were a tort, then it would seem to follow that, given the definition of tort, I could sue you for your tortious act of filing suit.
A tort is not a classification of lawsuit. It is a civil wrong. A lawsuit is not a civil wrong.
So where's my epic logical flaw here? Is there some alternative usage of the word "tort" that I am simply ignorant of?
The "cause and effect" rhetoric was an attempt to illustrate the difference using another set of terms, since we're clearly not communicating efficiently.
And no, I'm not obsessed with being right somewhere, I'm just pointing out the statement you made that prompted me to get off on defining tort, as I read "the entire case is a tort" to mean that "these legal proceedings may be referred to as a tort," which I knew not to be correct.
You should try to keep your blood pressure down, it'd be tragic if you got so pissed at the internet that it caused you to go into cardiac arrest.
Where do you get off on saying that the cause is synonymous with the effect? The lawsuit isn't a tort. The tort is what brought on the lawsuit.
It's only illegal not to accept legal tender as payment for a debt. I.E., if you already owe me $800, I can't refuse payment in cash. However, if I want to sell you my car for $800, I can accept or not accept whatever form of payment I damn well please.
Does the headline strike anyone else as a headline that could easily be used over and over and over, far into the future? I mean, I'd imagine that such-and-such years ago, a megabyte RAM stick was "amazing memory density."
P.S. The action is the lawsuit. The tort is the cause of the action.
and save yourself further embarrassment.
There you go again ...
It's a component of the lawsuit, as opposed to being a synonym for lawsuit?
a superior elaboration
Saying that the "entire case" is a tort is definitely not literally accurate, and someone could easily misinterpret it.
The tort is breach of contract; it is not discomfort, or emotional distress, or pain and suffering, or, good grief, negligence.
You know, I only used the word "negligence" there because I'm so used to using it in regard to civil cases. I didn't mean to imply that this particular case was an act of negligence -- it was clearly intentional. However, negligence can be a tort.
I took a second look at the definitions and the wording of the sentence I was responding to, and you're correct. My analysis was superficial -- I saw reference to harm in a civil case, and my go-to word was "Tort." I had never considered that the word may not apply to the rationale for punitive damages.
You are most definitely not a lawyer.
I think I cleared that up already. No need to be a snide prick.
its kinda hard to buy a new computer without a copy of Vista
If you don't build it yourself, that is.
No, it wouldn't. The whole case is a tort. The legal term would be damages, punitive damages in particular, and they're not awarded here because it's a contract issue.
Damages are what one is awarded to compensate for the harm caused by a Tort.
Please consider the quotation I was responding to: to compensate for the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get my point).
I was NOT responding to this: and possibly some small bonus on top of that
Yes, the "small bonus" would be punitive damages. The negligence itself, leading to the "discomfort," is a Tort. The entire case is a civil suit.