The climate does nothing but change. The debate is always about which direction it is going. Long-term ice records indicate it should be cooling. CO2 theorists say it should be warming. ! Could we be heading into a period of climate stability as trends cancel???
Uhm, perhaps there's a bit of humour impairment you need treated? Note the parent was modded "funny." That would be as in absurd. There's no possible way that taking a picture from anywhere let alone from space could be equated with stealing a CD. The silly NOAA act being made fun of is largely to insure that no one takes high-res images of Israel from space. They don't want you to know what REALLY goes on in some of those kibbutzes (and yes, that was humorous in intent).
Libertarians do support the same liberties the Republicans do. BUT, they also support the same liberties Democrats do. What they don't support are the interventions the parties call for, e.g. they don't support gun control and they don't support criminalizing drug use. If you look at both parties and you consider their attitude toward the various sections of the Bill of Rights, its clear that between them, we had have no rights left. Neither side for instance supports the first amendment very whole heartedly and the 1st is arguably nore important than the 2nd, since the 2nd is only necessary if the first fails.
Get rid of them all? I am not fond of any governance solution advanced so far. Democracy is no more innocuous than any of the alternatives. It was democracy that passed the hemlock to Socrates and it was democracy that Franklin described as two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch. Libertarianism is perhaps marginally better, but even there you have issues regarding where one's arm ends and another's chin begins. Anarchism might work once the shooting stopped.
The human race has successfully raised children for millenia, risks and all. The idea has always been to see them to adulthood, whenever that happens to roll around culturally, and then see them out the door. If this happens, you have successfully passed your Darwinian challenge course. If they learned enough from you in the process that they succeed in punting your grandkids out the door, the formula has continued to demonstrate its adaptive suitability. "Protecting" children - and even adults from miniscule risks, you know, terrorists for example, or guns even, is scarcely beneficial except to the nuerotic. Consider that the US homicide rate last year was 5.5/100K. The automobile related death rate is nearly three times that, and guns and cars are our favorite risks supposedly. The birthrate, at an all time low, is still one hundred times that. Violent USians haven't even nipped a dent their birthrate. The conclusion is that "protections" for such miserably minor risks do not make any sense demographically or economically. The only sense they DO make is within a society where media defines "social problems" - animal rights, disabled access, child risks, lead based paint, asbestos, ect. - and politicians act to look as if they are earning pay.
It's rather hard to separate the two issues. If you kick it around a little, it seems reasonable that some of the "issues" are not issues at all. You might consider "living" matter as displaying a hypertrophied set of tropisms that center around energy sources. Survival of the more "efficient" tropisms that maintain the reaction is evolution. "Living" reactions could well have kicked off in puddles well before there were cells for instance. Cells are an efficiency feature that maintains the stability of "living" reactions for longer periods during adverse conditions. Animal and plant forms are packages of cells and can be seen as packages of packages, that is larger life forms offer increased efficiencies in maintaining the integrity of the living reactions. They offer more survivability than single cells. In the end, you could reasonably argue that "evolving matter" is living matter. That is, evolutionary capability IS life. No ability to adapt, no evidence of life. Evolution and life then are synonyms.
You've made this statement a couple of times. Why? I don't see the relevance.
Think about it. It is pretty clear what he's suggesting. Nina is apparently not only a doctor, but also may be into BDSM. On top of that, she ALSO has motive for an attack on Reiser. In divorce, motive doesn't generally incline in one direction only. So, a physician, presumptively capable of blood draws, and not afraid of personal pain, disappears and - WOW - blood is found in her ex's garage and car. Could be murder, could be a frame. This is admittedly more complicated than the stupid criminal hypothesis, which assumes that the simplest idea the police come up with is the best, and generally is. However, merely because it is simplest, doesn't make it the correct one. Both hypotheses can account for all the case's facts. That is often the problem with circumstantial evidence, the circumstance is the fact, everything else is supposition and speculation. Nina could be back in Russia and it is unlikely that anyone here would ever know.
I can foresee a real problem with this. The issue has already become politicized, which can be nothing but detrimental to science (political science is an oxymoron). If the science was actually taught, then the students need to be exposed to the entire argument, both pro and con. If one really thinks an hypothesis is mistaken, the reasons why need to be addressed at a level that takes in more than a "you're wrong. Yeah , and so are you!" level of childish dispute. At the same time they will need to gain a working knowledge of what climate is, including the sad truth that the climate does nothing BUT change, that for hundreds of millions of years the planet has warmed and cooled dramatically, often within generational time spans. They will have to learn that contrary to political rhetoric, science does not operate on the basis of "consensus." A scientific consensus is meaningless in the face of one well supported contrary. Worse, once exposed to the pros and cons of a hypothesis they'll have to accept that some will accept the idea of anthrogenic climate change, others will reject it, while still others may find it a reasonable but unproven hypothesis. It would be a great curriculum taught properly, but educators and politicians would certainly get in the way of such program.
For the record I'm a member of the third group, that consider the hypothesis empirically reasonable, but badly supported (if at all). Most proponents of the "proven" view fail to adequately discuss critical data acquisition issues like how and where atmospheric concentrations are measured to name just one glaring fault. Another problem is the failure to consider climate on a long enough temporal base. Data selection has often censored periods that would "obscure" the conclusions of the analyst - believers debate the Medieval warm spell or the mid-Holocene event for example, using very poor arguments that ignore empirical facts. There are very clear geological and archaeological data records associated with both those events that "climatic" arguments to the contrary can neither explain nor deny.
Proponents of the "not real" tend to see human activity as ineffectual, not worth considering, ignoring the clear evidence from many different parts of the world that we are very much a part of what determines the "natural" environment at any given time and that civilizations may have more of an effect than tribal societies. So called "native " California grasslands vanished when autumnal burning was suppressed allowing the more quickly growing annual grass species that came in the coats of Spanish sheep to spread. The native grasses relied on human environmental effects. With curtailment of that human effect, the perennial grasses lost the environmental advantage. They were no more "natural" than the present state of affairs. In Britain a butterfly population was recently reported recovering after it was determined that they were dependent upon an ant, that in turn was dependent upon warm soil temperatures, that in turn were dependent upon grazing keeping grass short. The butterfly is DEPENDENT upon a human effect in the environment. We are very much a part of the environment and given our numbers and resource demands, we really should be interested in our interactions with it.
Regardless of what the religious lot think, marriage is essentially an economic arrangement. It's achieved via different ceremonies but still does the same thing - establish potential social and economic alliances between families. There have been decades of anthropological work done all over the world and one of the social commonalities is the economic nature of marriage. There is rarely any "love" involved. The parents tell the child who they'll marry. Divorce is frowned upon because of the economic disarrangments it causes. Any valuta exchanged usually has to be returned and because the arrangement is generally between the parents, guess who is really put out? In this society the economic burden of failed marriages tends to be more spread out. And as far as gay marriages are concerned, failure in a gay marriage would actually be far less burdensome socially. So there aren't any real arguments against it. Religion is not an argument.
What bugs me about the GP is is the "eugenics" view embedded in the idea as expressed. Evolution and "eugenics" antithetical concepts though most people would not know why.
...just because its English doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing...
I believe it was George Bernard Shaw that described the UK and the US as two nations separated by a common language.
Of course, even within the US, generations may differ as to understood meanings. Language was once upon a time a received cultural tool passed along from generation to generation. However, with modern society change occurs so fast that generations are inventing their own dialects. I encountered this with my daughter who enjoined me not to swear. I explained that the expletive I had use was an obscenity and not an oath, and that in fact I never swore. I pointed out that there are obscenities, oaths, invocations and curses, as well as characterizations that are none of the above (.e.g "twit") and that they are all quite different. It made her so mad she's now getting "A"s in linguistics in college and has apparently found a career.
Not being a UK citizen, could you define "devolution" please? As an anthropologist, I'm sure I'm not understanding your meaning. My own post was simply a bit of intended humour. My parents were COE and Catholic, you see, and consequently I lived the Ballad of the Orange and the Green.
It's hard for older people to take them not seriously. They've seen too many real terrorists and serious threats to give some kids messing around any slack.
As one of those older types, I call "baloney." The "threat" of getting hit by a car is far more serious than anything that has ever been posed by "terrorists" - other than the type usually called "the government, the IRS, etc." - especially the Islamic brand. "Suicide bombers" are a self-solving problem through evolutionary selection. In fact recent news suggests that they've already begun running out of the terminally stupid "angry young men" and are now attempting to use children and the other "distrust challenged" subsets of the population. Certainly it would be bad to run into a genuine terrorist, but the odds are against that in most parts of the world.
XP is OK. I preferred 2000 (of the Windows releases). Hardware trouble can be no end of problems when XP has to be reinstalled multiple times. After you run out of "permitted" reinstalls you have to call MS and explain each time. Vista would be worse. Your publisher sounds like they might using Word for Desktop publishing. You could point out that there are really useful free DTPs around for Linux and BSD (which should mean OSX too, I would think). Good luck.
*.txt?? As far as I know, Word embeds printer info in the file, so unless the document is generic (as in RTF or txt), it's a problem. The font names are tossed in too. One thing you might try is forcing the fonts to a Windows standard rather permitting the printer fonts to be embedded. Another possibility is to shoot it to postscript, if you can. I'm surprised the publisher has problems though. Do they actually require the author to do all the grunt work of layout and pagination? Maybe you want another publisher.
The problem is, there are writers, and there are people who write, and then there are people who look at a page of text and either drop it or say "ooh, pretty!!!" Word went downhill steadily from about Word for Windows 2.0 on. Word was in competition (well so were Wordperfect and a number of other extinct word processors so-called) with desktop publishing programs. Writers don't NEED the features that Word, or WordPerfect, or Open Office provide. They typically are constrained by very specific formatting rules - things like "type face - Courier," "two spaces after a period," "page numbers at upper right," "single tab at beginning of paragraph," etc. Effectively all they need IS a glorified typewriter (no more carbon paper, no more white-out, and cut and paste no longer demands scissors and paste). Publishers have very, very explicit requirements and all the menus, pop-ups, drop-downs, and general eye-candy just get in the way of a writer. So less is really better - honestly, WordStar was a great tool. Now, if your documents are the product of a one-man band, self-published (because no publisher will touch your manuscripts in fear that the crazed air you exude is contagious), then yeah, you need a word processor like Word - and a really big stapler. Or, indeed, if your employer never actually reads your reports or memos, and your income and raises depend on his appreciation of the "professional, polished appearance of your memo [about excess use of coffee by other staff]," then yeah, again you might be able to use Word effectively. But, for a writer, a scientist, or a real analyst, content is king and all that's really necessary is that lower case "L"s can't be confused with the numeral "1" by the reader, and the publisher will accept the manuscript without comments like, "type it over, correctly, and we'll see."
What about the bleeding idiot that served as Thomas' lawyer? He or she or it should have been objecting madly to the question and climbed the RIAA lawyer's frame about that "mispoken" statment on cross examination. Thomas's lawyer should be looking at a lawsuit on grounds of a lack of competence and probably for sleeping through the trial.
There is a profound and very serious distinction between piracy and the petty theft that the RIAA calls "piracy." Try sailing through Indonesia, or along the east coast of Africa in an unarmed merchant man or a small vessel, THEN talk about piracy. Pirates cause crews to disappear, or if they're lucky will hold them for ransom. The RIAA claims a smaller profit - not a loss - and certainly not a loss of life.
So, in answer to your question, when it is petty theft described by histrionic maroons.
I am scientist and have been for many years. So, professional, technical writing issues of proper credit and citation are not an alien experience by any means. The CI used the entire work except the voice overlays, not a small part of it, and changed the text to represent a different view from that of the originator's. They did not claim a "satire" right and in fact by leaving out any reference to the real authors and originators precluded themselves from doing so. Besides, since there's no humour in it. Also, since they used a very large chunk of the video, they can't claim "fair use" under US Copyright, which limits the extent of permissible copying, and in any case certainly doesn't permit "limited plagiarism." It is not a technicality. Pulling a stunt like that in any profession venue would have minimally resulted in professional censure and possibly a lawsuit. The fact that the venue where the talk was presented was small, doesn't excuse the behaviour, nor does the fact that the theft was outed by unauthorized recording. The CI took someone else's work, without credit, recast it, and claimed it as their own. There is no profession where this is considered acceptable and in the US it is also illegal. Under the J-C mores the CI lays claim to it is also immoral as a theft and a lie. It may be excusable under some views. It is still contemptible.
You want air to circulate through the net. Shoot at something that open and the results are awful. The bullet shreds as it passes through the screen openings and acts like a shotgun load, or at least.22 cal. snake shot.
When you look at it, SCOX brought a lawsuit based upon suppositions, assumptions, and a profound lack of substantive evidence of any sort to support their claims. They didn't even make clear what the lawsuit was about. Initially IBM was accused of transferring proprietary material to the linux code base. THAT evaporated when a few thousand coders analyzed the code and demonstrated unequivocally that there was NO unix in linux. The whole copyright imbroglio is similar. Copyright requires a signed transfer under law. SCOX knew they didn't have one and regardless of what the CEO's might assume, the lawyers who negotiated the deal, excluded the copyrights for very good reasons. Thanks to the Berkeley-ATT lawsuit and its outcome - whatever that really might have been - it wasn't clear that anyone had copyrights to a large part of unix. Better not to create adverse conditions by selling what might not be saleable. Then of course there is the delaying, there lying, the apparent deliberate "misunderstanding" of court orders. SO, on the face of it, Judge Kimball failed to toss the lawyers and executives of SCOX in the can for contempt, bring an unfounded suit, and general mopert and dopery. Yeah, it was unfair, wasn't it?
The DI stole someone else's work, "tweaked" it a bit and passed the entirety off as their own. Theft is the issue, not evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The climate does nothing but change. The debate is always about which direction it is going. Long-term ice records indicate it should be cooling. CO2 theorists say it should be warming. ! Could we be heading into a period of climate stability as trends cancel???
Uhm, perhaps there's a bit of humour impairment you need treated? Note the parent was modded "funny." That would be as in absurd. There's no possible way that taking a picture from anywhere let alone from space could be equated with stealing a CD. The silly NOAA act being made fun of is largely to insure that no one takes high-res images of Israel from space. They don't want you to know what REALLY goes on in some of those kibbutzes (and yes, that was humorous in intent).
Lori Drew is 48 ys old, not some hormonal teenager. Still, the application of the law being used is a very poor precedent.
Libertarians do support the same liberties the Republicans do. BUT, they also support the same liberties Democrats do. What they don't support are the interventions the parties call for, e.g. they don't support gun control and they don't support criminalizing drug use. If you look at both parties and you consider their attitude toward the various sections of the Bill of Rights, its clear that between them, we had have no rights left. Neither side for instance supports the first amendment very whole heartedly and the 1st is arguably nore important than the 2nd, since the 2nd is only necessary if the first fails.
Get rid of them all? I am not fond of any governance solution advanced so far. Democracy is no more innocuous than any of the alternatives. It was democracy that passed the hemlock to Socrates and it was democracy that Franklin described as two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch. Libertarianism is perhaps marginally better, but even there you have issues regarding where one's arm ends and another's chin begins. Anarchism might work once the shooting stopped.
The human race has successfully raised children for millenia, risks and all. The idea has always been to see them to adulthood, whenever that happens to roll around culturally, and then see them out the door. If this happens, you have successfully passed your Darwinian challenge course. If they learned enough from you in the process that they succeed in punting your grandkids out the door, the formula has continued to demonstrate its adaptive suitability. "Protecting" children - and even adults from miniscule risks, you know, terrorists for example, or guns even, is scarcely beneficial except to the nuerotic. Consider that the US homicide rate last year was 5.5/100K. The automobile related death rate is nearly three times that, and guns and cars are our favorite risks supposedly. The birthrate, at an all time low, is still one hundred times that. Violent USians haven't even nipped a dent their birthrate. The conclusion is that "protections" for such miserably minor risks do not make any sense demographically or economically. The only sense they DO make is within a society where media defines "social problems" - animal rights, disabled access, child risks, lead based paint, asbestos, ect. - and politicians act to look as if they are earning pay.
It's rather hard to separate the two issues. If you kick it around a little, it seems reasonable that some of the "issues" are not issues at all. You might consider "living" matter as displaying a hypertrophied set of tropisms that center around energy sources. Survival of the more "efficient" tropisms that maintain the reaction is evolution. "Living" reactions could well have kicked off in puddles well before there were cells for instance. Cells are an efficiency feature that maintains the stability of "living" reactions for longer periods during adverse conditions. Animal and plant forms are packages of cells and can be seen as packages of packages, that is larger life forms offer increased efficiencies in maintaining the integrity of the living reactions. They offer more survivability than single cells. In the end, you could reasonably argue that "evolving matter" is living matter. That is, evolutionary capability IS life. No ability to adapt, no evidence of life. Evolution and life then are synonyms.
Think about it. It is pretty clear what he's suggesting. Nina is apparently not only a doctor, but also may be into BDSM. On top of that, she ALSO has motive for an attack on Reiser. In divorce, motive doesn't generally incline in one direction only. So, a physician, presumptively capable of blood draws, and not afraid of personal pain, disappears and - WOW - blood is found in her ex's garage and car. Could be murder, could be a frame. This is admittedly more complicated than the stupid criminal hypothesis, which assumes that the simplest idea the police come up with is the best, and generally is. However, merely because it is simplest, doesn't make it the correct one. Both hypotheses can account for all the case's facts. That is often the problem with circumstantial evidence, the circumstance is the fact, everything else is supposition and speculation. Nina could be back in Russia and it is unlikely that anyone here would ever know.
I can foresee a real problem with this. The issue has already become politicized, which can be nothing but detrimental to science (political science is an oxymoron). If the science was actually taught, then the students need to be exposed to the entire argument, both pro and con. If one really thinks an hypothesis is mistaken, the reasons why need to be addressed at a level that takes in more than a "you're wrong. Yeah , and so are you!" level of childish dispute. At the same time they will need to gain a working knowledge of what climate is, including the sad truth that the climate does nothing BUT change, that for hundreds of millions of years the planet has warmed and cooled dramatically, often within generational time spans. They will have to learn that contrary to political rhetoric, science does not operate on the basis of "consensus." A scientific consensus is meaningless in the face of one well supported contrary. Worse, once exposed to the pros and cons of a hypothesis they'll have to accept that some will accept the idea of anthrogenic climate change, others will reject it, while still others may find it a reasonable but unproven hypothesis. It would be a great curriculum taught properly, but educators and politicians would certainly get in the way of such program.
For the record I'm a member of the third group, that consider the hypothesis empirically reasonable, but badly supported (if at all). Most proponents of the "proven" view fail to adequately discuss critical data acquisition issues like how and where atmospheric concentrations are measured to name just one glaring fault. Another problem is the failure to consider climate on a long enough temporal base. Data selection has often censored periods that would "obscure" the conclusions of the analyst - believers debate the Medieval warm spell or the mid-Holocene event for example, using very poor arguments that ignore empirical facts. There are very clear geological and archaeological data records associated with both those events that "climatic" arguments to the contrary can neither explain nor deny.
Proponents of the "not real" tend to see human activity as ineffectual, not worth considering, ignoring the clear evidence from many different parts of the world that we are very much a part of what determines the "natural" environment at any given time and that civilizations may have more of an effect than tribal societies. So called "native " California grasslands vanished when autumnal burning was suppressed allowing the more quickly growing annual grass species that came in the coats of Spanish sheep to spread. The native grasses relied on human environmental effects. With curtailment of that human effect, the perennial grasses lost the environmental advantage. They were no more "natural" than the present state of affairs. In Britain a butterfly population was recently reported recovering after it was determined that they were dependent upon an ant, that in turn was dependent upon warm soil temperatures, that in turn were dependent upon grazing keeping grass short. The butterfly is DEPENDENT upon a human effect in the environment. We are very much a part of the environment and given our numbers and resource demands, we really should be interested in our interactions with it.
Regardless of what the religious lot think, marriage is essentially an economic arrangement. It's achieved via different ceremonies but still does the same thing - establish potential social and economic alliances between families. There have been decades of anthropological work done all over the world and one of the social commonalities is the economic nature of marriage. There is rarely any "love" involved. The parents tell the child who they'll marry. Divorce is frowned upon because of the economic disarrangments it causes. Any valuta exchanged usually has to be returned and because the arrangement is generally between the parents, guess who is really put out? In this society the economic burden of failed marriages tends to be more spread out. And as far as gay marriages are concerned, failure in a gay marriage would actually be far less burdensome socially. So there aren't any real arguments against it. Religion is not an argument.
What bugs me about the GP is is the "eugenics" view embedded in the idea as expressed. Evolution and "eugenics" antithetical concepts though most people would not know why.
...just because its English doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing... I believe it was George Bernard Shaw that described the UK and the US as two nations separated by a common language. Of course, even within the US, generations may differ as to understood meanings. Language was once upon a time a received cultural tool passed along from generation to generation. However, with modern society change occurs so fast that generations are inventing their own dialects. I encountered this with my daughter who enjoined me not to swear. I explained that the expletive I had use was an obscenity and not an oath, and that in fact I never swore. I pointed out that there are obscenities, oaths, invocations and curses, as well as characterizations that are none of the above (.e.g "twit") and that they are all quite different. It made her so mad she's now getting "A"s in linguistics in college and has apparently found a career.
Not being a UK citizen, could you define "devolution" please? As an anthropologist, I'm sure I'm not understanding your meaning. My own post was simply a bit of intended humour. My parents were COE and Catholic, you see, and consequently I lived the Ballad of the Orange and the Green.
It's hard for older people to take them not seriously. They've seen too many real terrorists and serious threats to give some kids messing around any slack.
As one of those older types, I call "baloney." The "threat" of getting hit by a car is far more serious than anything that has ever been posed by "terrorists" - other than the type usually called "the government, the IRS, etc." - especially the Islamic brand. "Suicide bombers" are a self-solving problem through evolutionary selection. In fact recent news suggests that they've already begun running out of the terminally stupid "angry young men" and are now attempting to use children and the other "distrust challenged" subsets of the population. Certainly it would be bad to run into a genuine terrorist, but the odds are against that in most parts of the world.
The Irish are a stubborn lot.
Clearly guns don't kill harddrives. People kill harddrives. Obviously this is a clear case for gun control.
XP is OK. I preferred 2000 (of the Windows releases). Hardware trouble can be no end of problems when XP has to be reinstalled multiple times. After you run out of "permitted" reinstalls you have to call MS and explain each time. Vista would be worse. Your publisher sounds like they might using Word for Desktop publishing. You could point out that there are really useful free DTPs around for Linux and BSD (which should mean OSX too, I would think). Good luck.
*.txt?? As far as I know, Word embeds printer info in the file, so unless the document is generic (as in RTF or txt), it's a problem. The font names are tossed in too. One thing you might try is forcing the fonts to a Windows standard rather permitting the printer fonts to be embedded. Another possibility is to shoot it to postscript, if you can. I'm surprised the publisher has problems though. Do they actually require the author to do all the grunt work of layout and pagination? Maybe you want another publisher.
The problem is, there are writers, and there are people who write, and then there are people who look at a page of text and either drop it or say "ooh, pretty!!!" Word went downhill steadily from about Word for Windows 2.0 on. Word was in competition (well so were Wordperfect and a number of other extinct word processors so-called) with desktop publishing programs. Writers don't NEED the features that Word, or WordPerfect, or Open Office provide. They typically are constrained by very specific formatting rules - things like "type face - Courier," "two spaces after a period," "page numbers at upper right," "single tab at beginning of paragraph," etc. Effectively all they need IS a glorified typewriter (no more carbon paper, no more white-out, and cut and paste no longer demands scissors and paste). Publishers have very, very explicit requirements and all the menus, pop-ups, drop-downs, and general eye-candy just get in the way of a writer. So less is really better - honestly, WordStar was a great tool. Now, if your documents are the product of a one-man band, self-published (because no publisher will touch your manuscripts in fear that the crazed air you exude is contagious), then yeah, you need a word processor like Word - and a really big stapler. Or, indeed, if your employer never actually reads your reports or memos, and your income and raises depend on his appreciation of the "professional, polished appearance of your memo [about excess use of coffee by other staff]," then yeah, again you might be able to use Word effectively. But, for a writer, a scientist, or a real analyst, content is king and all that's really necessary is that lower case "L"s can't be confused with the numeral "1" by the reader, and the publisher will accept the manuscript without comments like, "type it over, correctly, and we'll see."
What about the bleeding idiot that served as Thomas' lawyer? He or she or it should have been objecting madly to the question and climbed the RIAA lawyer's frame about that "mispoken" statment on cross examination. Thomas's lawyer should be looking at a lawsuit on grounds of a lack of competence and probably for sleeping through the trial.
But, of course! What else could they deprecate?
When is piracy not bad?
There is a profound and very serious distinction between piracy and the petty theft that the RIAA calls "piracy." Try sailing through Indonesia, or along the east coast of Africa in an unarmed merchant man or a small vessel, THEN talk about piracy. Pirates cause crews to disappear, or if they're lucky will hold them for ransom. The RIAA claims a smaller profit - not a loss - and certainly not a loss of life.
So, in answer to your question, when it is petty theft described by histrionic maroons.
I am scientist and have been for many years. So, professional, technical writing issues of proper credit and citation are not an alien experience by any means. The CI used the entire work except the voice overlays, not a small part of it, and changed the text to represent a different view from that of the originator's. They did not claim a "satire" right and in fact by leaving out any reference to the real authors and originators precluded themselves from doing so. Besides, since there's no humour in it. Also, since they used a very large chunk of the video, they can't claim "fair use" under US Copyright, which limits the extent of permissible copying, and in any case certainly doesn't permit "limited plagiarism." It is not a technicality. Pulling a stunt like that in any profession venue would have minimally resulted in professional censure and possibly a lawsuit. The fact that the venue where the talk was presented was small, doesn't excuse the behaviour, nor does the fact that the theft was outed by unauthorized recording. The CI took someone else's work, without credit, recast it, and claimed it as their own. There is no profession where this is considered acceptable and in the US it is also illegal. Under the J-C mores the CI lays claim to it is also immoral as a theft and a lie. It may be excusable under some views. It is still contemptible.
You want air to circulate through the net. Shoot at something that open and the results are awful. The bullet shreds as it passes through the screen openings and acts like a shotgun load, or at least .22 cal. snake shot.
When you look at it, SCOX brought a lawsuit based upon suppositions, assumptions, and a profound lack of substantive evidence of any sort to support their claims. They didn't even make clear what the lawsuit was about. Initially IBM was accused of transferring proprietary material to the linux code base. THAT evaporated when a few thousand coders analyzed the code and demonstrated unequivocally that there was NO unix in linux. The whole copyright imbroglio is similar. Copyright requires a signed transfer under law. SCOX knew they didn't have one and regardless of what the CEO's might assume, the lawyers who negotiated the deal, excluded the copyrights for very good reasons. Thanks to the Berkeley-ATT lawsuit and its outcome - whatever that really might have been - it wasn't clear that anyone had copyrights to a large part of unix. Better not to create adverse conditions by selling what might not be saleable. Then of course there is the delaying, there lying, the apparent deliberate "misunderstanding" of court orders. SO, on the face of it, Judge Kimball failed to toss the lawyers and executives of SCOX in the can for contempt, bring an unfounded suit, and general mopert and dopery. Yeah, it was unfair, wasn't it?
The DI stole someone else's work, "tweaked" it a bit and passed the entirety off as their own. Theft is the issue, not evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.