I forgot nukes didn't have any long-term radiation poisoning.
The mammoth are extinct for more than 3.5 THOUSAND years. I seriously doubt there were any mammoth alive in the early 1800s. You're off by approximately one Jesus Christ as they went extinct in 1700 BEFORE JC.
While I agree that the change we witness in the climate is most likely to be blamed on industrialization, I think it's overzealous to instantly draw conclusions as to what exactly this change will do on the planet. And ecologists are the people we should blame for that. They've been claiming for decades that if we don't do anything the sea will rise by 25m in two decades.... But it's been two decades already and nothing visible has happened. In the eyes of many, they've lost most of their credibility. Especially since they advocate extreme measures that would really drain our economies and (most of them) don't even follow the first of their advice.
If you want people to believe you, you must be credible. Even more so if you want them to change. And ecologists are anything but credible. It's been the third political party over here in Europe and all politicians that were kicked out of the regular parties ended up there. Saying bullshit all day long.
There is no win in the short term unless some common voice can emerge from the brouhaha. I'm not holding my breath.
Welcome, brother, grab a cowl and toss your razor in the bin on your right. Is it state the obvious Friday already, or is this just another opportunity for an argument about human impact on the climate?
Nobody is citing climate change and all the animals they cite in TFS were extinct well before humanity is supposed to have had an impact on the planet's climate. So I guess it's the former if your two choices are the only ones I've got.
But then again, I had no idea we were supposedly responsible for the extinction of mammoth.
64K = -209.15 degrees Celsius = -344.47 degrees Fahrenheit
This because the much loved
Jusy like phones, right?
Why don't you just autodefenestrate instead?
I'm on the ground floor...
The judge is a human being, the law is subject to interpretation, and a trial is a time-boxed event. Those three things make your argument in court quite important. If you come forward with a very good argument and no rebuttal is done on the other side, it naturally skews the results, especially in a tech-related subject where the judge is most likely a bit lost. It's just how life is.
You can have a lawyer for free. Granted, it's maybe not the best one because (s)he is overworked, but it's a heck of a lot better than defending yourself.
You are so smarter than I am, I think I will spend my next month reading all your
I refer to your trolling because you answered my "There was a point to go to court with this" with "So by French law, making it a title makes it a presentation as a fact?".
These two statements may be equivalent in your view, but they are not in mine.
Additionally, not all judges are tech savvy and I can see why seeing this as the second result of a Google search with the name of the restaurant may push a judge to settle this matter in a court of law. This does not set the law, it merely indicates that a judge was convinced by ONE party to investigate further.
Maybe where you live there are no stupid trials when technology comes into play. If so, please tell me where it is, I am interested. We don't live in a perfect world and France most assuredly do not lead the pack on that front. Again, I am interested in the name of your country where no mistakes are made and every trial is exactly 100% what every parties thought it would be at the beginning.
Trolling much, eh?
As I said, she most likely lost because she was not represented. The fact that this went to trial is not all that surprising though, which was my point.
It is to be questioned, actually. We have defamation laws in France (and there are some flavor of them about all over the place) and when you make a review you should always either sustain your claim and present it as fact (to avoid defamation) or present it as your own opinion (in there you have free speech). The limit is often blurry, but you cannot call the president (or anyone for that matter) a thief unless you have proof. You can however say that you think he is a thief. Of course, there is context that helps quite a bunch here.
In this case, the title of the article was presented as a fact (The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino) and in the search results page it was completely out of context.
So all in all, I think there was at least reasonable doubt and the trial doesn't surprise me all that much. The claim of the restaurant was even very limited: removing its name from the title.
Now, if you want to live in a place with "real" free speech, good luck with that. But whenever someone Google-Bomb you with accusation of pedophilia, well, good luck.
French here. The lady owner of the blog did not choose to lawyer up and went there to defend herself. The restaurant just wanted her to change the title of the blog post which was along the line of "The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino" (where Cap-Ferret is the name of the town the restaurant is in). They just wanted the name of the restaurant removed from the title because it was 2nd place on Google and was starting to be detrimental to their business. She removed the blog post entirely on her own. It appears she doesn't intend to counter sue.
It pretty much looks like something that would not have happened if the defendant was properly represented.