> Selecting criminals could be based on internationally accessible periodicals that plausibly every human has access to, such as the New York Times, and deaths could be delayed by months or years to broaden the possibilities as to where the Kira learned of the victim (TV? books? the Internet?) and avoiding issues like killing a criminal only publicized on one obscure Japanese public television channel. And so on.
If the cost of most things went up then you'd have a good case for saying the value of the dollar went down, if it's mostly gold (or the general category of assets that gold is a part of) then not so much.
The blogger who wrote the linked post is a white supremacist who explicitly supports eugenics. His stock in trade is pseudoscience. This particular post is an attempt to get people thinking he’s clever before they get to the racist bits — look at the cool dental things we learned! It is not surprising that he was shoddy here; he’s always shoddy.
This is somewhat blunt but like a lot of these schmucks, he relies on people being polite. I see no reason to play along.
Read the requirements for a takedown notice. The only thing a DMCA notice needs to claim under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to enforce the copyright that you are claiming. The report from the copyright office on the linked page states:
> Senders of both takedown notices and counter-notices are liable for damages if they make knowing material misrepresentations regarding whether the material to be taken down is infringing, or has been removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification. Courts have appropriately interpreted this provision by requiring actual knowledge or willful blindness of falsity, not merely negligent or unreasonable misrepresentation.
"Knowing" does a lot of heavy lifting here. Courts have determined that someone who uses an automated system to identify infringing content and submits takedown notices against all of that content does not "knowingly" misrepresent anything.
Furthermore, even in the case where there is bad faith, there's no statutory penalty, it relies on the targeted party suing and in court proving BOTH bad faith, and damages.
If you don't want to use the touchscreen (I'm in the same boat, totally get it) you need to avoid their "lifestyle" ranges (Venu, Vivoactive, etc) and stick to the "outdoors"/"sport" ranges (Forerunner being the most entry-level of these), these have 5 side buttons (3 left/2 right) and the UI is designed around button-only use.
> it is possible that the type I fibers of subjects were underdeveloped in comparison with the type II fibers as a result of training methodologies. The type I fibers therefore may have had a greater potential for growth compared with the type II fibers
Maybe a mix of both types of training would be best then?
You don't need to disprove an underpowered study. You can just default to ignoring it. Especially in a field as notorious for replication issues as fitness and nutrition.
And nothing says they weren't thinking about the problem when it happened.
I've had a lot of "aha" moments not sitting by my desk, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't thinking of the problem. When people say they had an idea in the shower, I suspect it's precisely because they were undistracted enough to focus on the problem.
> Selecting criminals could be based on internationally accessible periodicals that plausibly every human has access to, such as the New York Times, and deaths could be delayed by months or years to broaden the possibilities as to where the Kira learned of the victim (TV? books? the Internet?) and avoiding issues like killing a criminal only publicized on one obscure Japanese public television channel. And so on.
reply