EPT4
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 387
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
4 | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 19 2016 21:03 SoSexy wrote: Do you think my flatmates (not roommates: flatmates) will get mad if I bring my mechanical keyboard with me? It's a waste to leave it at home  taktaktaktaktaktaktaktaktak Depends on the quality of your room's sound absorption I guess? A mechanical keyboard doesn't make a bassy sound, I think within a closed room it should be fine edit : also depends on how intensively you type ofc | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 23 2016 02:33 ThomasjServo wrote: Pretty much the same because the apple thing was just an anecdote Newton would shill was my understanding. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On January 23 2016 02:24 Epishade wrote: How different would the world be if Newton sat under a bowling ball tree instead of an apple tree? Any world with (natural) bowling ball trees would be quite different from ours I assume. Chances are bowling balls do not fall from a bowling ball tree, but simply fly away when ripe to move with their siblings to better hunting grounds. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On January 23 2016 17:59 Oshuy wrote: Any world with (natural) bowling ball trees would be quite different from ours I assume. Chances are bowling balls do not fall from a bowling ball tree, but simply fly away when ripe to move with their siblings to better hunting grounds. They might try to float, much like coconuts, to a nurturing spot in the swamps of Sqornshellous Zeta. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
Until i realized that we already live in a world with Bowling Ball trees. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18291 Posts
On January 23 2016 18:20 Simberto wrote: I started thinking about what kind of evolutionary pressure would lead to Bowling Ball trees developing. Until i realized that we already live in a world with Bowling Ball trees. Lucky for us and the theory of gravity, coconut palms don't do very well in cold and rainy England (or alternatively: good thing Newton was English and not Brazilian or Indonesian). | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 23 2016 21:42 Acrofales wrote: Lucky for us and the theory of gravity, coconut palms don't do very well in cold and rainy England (or alternatively: good thing Newton was English and not Brazilian or Indonesian). Maybe Rodrieges in South America would have come up with the same things 10 years before Newton, if he hadn't been killed by the coconut that hit his head? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
You guys may have heard that some idiot Canadian guy tweeted at some feminist ladies, they considered it harassment and they sued him or something, even though they could have blocked him. The courts wisely found out that being an asshole on the internet is not a crime (thankfully for at least one of the twitter ladies who herself apparently would bully people on the webs herself). The story is much more complicated than that but essentially it lasted 3 years and cost the guy $100,000 in legal fees, he lost his job and he's unemployable because his name was dragged through the mud since he was formally accused of harassing people on the webs, etc. My question basically is, how do you go and recuperate the legal fees you paid to defend yourself from frivolous litigation? It seems like if you're out there you're at risk of being hammered down by the law, and even if you win, you lose. Those women who went after him, they lost their case, surely they lost some money but it was their decision. And he won, but at the end of the day his life is ruined. How can you trust a legal system which has outcomes like this? | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On January 24 2016 02:39 Djzapz wrote: So I feel like I should know this but maybe one of you can help me to understand. You guys may have heard that some idiot Canadian guy tweeted at some feminist ladies, they considered it harassment and they sued him or something, even though they could have blocked him. The courts wisely found out that being an asshole on the internet is not a crime (thankfully for at least one of the twitter ladies who herself apparently would bully people on the webs herself). The story is much more complicated than that but essentially it lasted 3 years and cost the guy $100,000 in legal fees, he lost his job and he's unemployable because his name was dragged through the mud since he was formally accused of harassing people on the webs, etc. My question basically is, how do you go and recuperate the legal fees you paid to defend yourself from frivolous litigation? It seems like if you're out there you're at risk of being hammered down by the law, and even if you win, you lose. Those women who went after him, they lost their case, surely they lost some money but it was their decision. And he won, but at the end of the day his life is ruined. How can you trust a legal system which has outcomes like this? If it becomes a larger problem people should buy legal defence insurance. As it is I'm happy with the result. The man had the right to defend himself and he did so and he won. That defence is like any other purchase, he could have spent less on it and got a worse defence or more and gotten a better defence. It's also worth noting that he was targeting them. What the court found was that he was not threatening them and that they had no reason to feel threatened and that his actions fell under free speech. I could go through the post history of people I disagree with on reddit and downvote all their posts and that would be targeting them online. If people don't wish to hire him because of his notoriety that's just a consequence of him being an asshole online, albeit not one he could reasonably have foreseen. In the last few days we've seen a Taco Bell exec and a neurologist resident lose their positions after going crazy at an Uber driver who put them on youtube. The fact that this guy was found not guilty of anything criminal does not mean that people have to hire him. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 24 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote: If it becomes a larger problem people should buy legal defence insurance. As it is I'm happy with the result. The man had the right to defend himself and he did so and he won. That defence is like any other purchase, he could have spent less on it and got a worse defence or more and gotten a better defence. It's also worth noting that he was targeting them. What the court found was that he was not threatening them and that they had no reason to feel threatened and that his actions fell under free speech. I could go through the post history of people I disagree with on reddit and downvote all their posts and that would be targeting them online. If people don't wish to hire him because of his notoriety that's just a consequence of him being an asshole online, albeit not one he could reasonably have foreseen. In the last few days we've seen a Taco Bell exec and a neurologist resident lose their positions after going crazy at an Uber driver who put them on youtube. The fact that this guy was found not guilty of anything criminal does not mean that people have to hire him. He didn't really win, he came out of the scuffle heavily beat up. At the end of the day he lost. If I get accused to doing something I didn't do or that wasn't against the law, why should I have to suffer the consequences of that? The job thing I'm fine with, but if you go after someone and lose, you can still have the upper hand. I think you'd be much less happy about the same situation if it was about a corporation bullying a private citizen because they don't care if they lose the lawsuit, it means nothing to them, and the guy who'll win will end up either broke or completely drained because it takes time and effort to carry these things through. Being accused of something you're ultimately not guilty of seems like a pretty fucking shitty thing to go through. As for the neurologist resident, she straight up assaulted the uber driver. On January 24 2016 03:17 Simberto wrote: Isn't it often the case that in the case of a frivolous lawsuit, the person filing the suit has to cover the defendants bill? I have never actually been in contact with the law, but that is how i assumed it worked, because anything else is ridiculous and would allow people with money to destroy people with less money just by constantly filing suits against them. I don't know that the lawsuit was found to be frivolous, they just determined that the guy had a right to be an asshole on the internet. I thought the defendant would still be covered but instead it's being crowdfunded because this was mediatized and it's now a precedent/jurisprudence for "free speech" on twitter. I don't have that much sympathy for the guy either, by the way. But I'll admit that it concerns me that arguing on the internet can land people in court at which point the outcome is that you're screwed either way. I hope the courts will have the good sense to just toss those cases outright. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On a different note, I've never understood the "on the internet" defence. How is being an asshole on a webpage any different from publishing it in a newspaper? How is a PM on a website different from a SMS or phone call? People don't seem to I feel it's similar to the "i was drunk" defence in a way, where people try to argue that it's not as bad to be demeaning, rude or even violent because you were drunk. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:23 Cascade wrote: Again, no sympathy for the guy, but if you successfully defend, you still have to pay?? :o wtf? So a rich person can in practice jail or bankrupt or both a poor person by just going after them with all kinds of random actions? That can't be... Right?? :o On a different note, I've never understood the "on the internet" defence. How is being an asshole on a webpage any different from publishing it in a newspaper? How is a PM on a website different from a SMS or phone call? People don't seem to I feel it's similar to the "i was drunk" defence in a way, where people try to argue that it's not as bad to be demeaning, rude or even violent because you were drunk. "On the internet" was not a defense. I think the defense was simply that it didn't constitute harassment or anything illegal. Being an asshole is legal. Harassment is probably defined somehow in the law and repeatedly saying stupid shit to them on twitter (where you can be blocked) doesn't constitute harassment. | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:41 Sent. wrote: If you win in court you should get your court expenses covered by the losing party. Here where I live, all you need to do is to demand that compensation before the case is finished (don't know why it isn't automatical but thats irrelevant). I don't know how it is in America but I doubt it's much different. Maybe the guy didn't win completely or messed something up in the process. My understanding is that you can sue to recoup the expenses but it does have to be filed as well, there is also legal expense insurance (found out about that while searching about suing to get your money back) which I can't imagine is a pleasant thing to get to pay out. Things like this, as shit as it is that he has an uphill fight to get the money back as the person being sued, are decent reminders that even though you have free speech there are real consequences. There is a cop on the Saint Paul Police force who is in a shit storm for posting on Facebook about driving through Black Lives Matter protesters who were blocking the street and how if done correctly legal consequences would be minimal if not non-existent. Can he say that? Sure, but there can be consequences for saying your piece. Another man was fired from a private company after posting racist comments online in Minnesota as well, directly to the Black Lives Matter Minnesota Facebook. Obviously someone reported it to his employer, but if you're willing to spout off the mouth about something I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a push back. | ||
| ||
