The way you see it, calling someone who only reads the ingredients list on the back of food packages is like calling someone who plays Candy Crush a gamer.
The way you see it, calling someone who sings the Star Spangled banner at the start of a ball game a music fan is like calling someone who plays Candy Crush a gamer.
Etc.
"Gamer" does not mean "someone who plays a game" in the same way that "reader" doesn't mean "someone that reads something".
Nobody would read that headline and believe that whales are really doing the same thing as people with engineering degrees. The literal interpretation is so obviously impossible that everyone can see that it's an exaggeration and should not be taken literally.
The literal interpretation of "women outnumber boys in gaming" is not impossible in the same way that whales having engineering degrees is. It's just incorrect.
People want cheap and get cheap because it's easy to tell what something's price is. f you have to choose between a cheap laptop and a more expensive laptop that has the same specs but might fall apart faster, it's really hard to get figures on how fast the laptops fall apart such that you can determine that the money you save is not worth it. Hiding laptop failure rates is easy, but you can't hide the price, so consumers buy based on it.
This may be better in the case of repeat customers, but honestly, how often do you buy laptops?
Islamic countries in the Middle East generally work on a tribal culture which is heavily based around people gaining status through family connections. In other words, even you just kill the actual terrorists, you're *still* making someone angry because you killed his family.
Also, if anyone holds a political opinion that isn't subject to change when faced with new evidence or arguments, while I admit that happens a lot, that's a problem.
But that's a different sense of "change". Evidence can change it, but you can't just change it by saying I choose not to have this belief because people with it are subject to prejudice".
I am skeptical that someone can honestly think, for instance, that farm subsidies are good, then say "I choose to believe that farm subsidies are bad", and tomorrow honestly believe that farm subsidies are bad. I'm not even convinced that "choosing to believe X" is a coherent concept.
But even supposing that someone has a messed up belief process such that they can do this, intelligent people who use reasoning won't to be that way. Congratulations: you've just decided that prejudice against people with the wrong politics is "different" from prejudice against gays when its only different for people who you don't want on your forum anyway.
(Or you could just say "well, anyone who disagrees with my political side is stupid and doesn't use reasoning". But I hope you can see what's wrong with that.)
It says that the heir has the same rights as an authorized user. An authorized user who lost the password in this situation would not be able to get it by asking the company, so the heirs would not be able to ask the company either. On the other hand, if the heirs do get the password (maybe the deceased left it in a safety deposit box), it would stop the company terminating the account for TOS violation.
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change.
Being a capitalist, conservative, liberal, etc. is ultimately a description of your beliefs. You can't choose or change your beliefs--you didn't arrive at your beliefs by suddenly saying "I choose to believe in farm subsidies", you figured out that farm subsidies are good or bad. Even though people with opposite beliefs could argue that you made a mistake when figuring it out, you still figured it out to the best of your ability and can't just change that by force of will.
Beliefs are not like rooting for a football team.
(Of course, you could still change your actions--you can't choose to believe in capitalism, but you could choose to buy stocks or speak about capitalism--but that applies to homosexuality too. You could choose to have gay sex, to express pride in being gay, etc.)
If the deceased had things on paper, or on their computer at home, they would certainly be able to learn things about the deceased. How is this different?
Do you want to prevent people from inheriting paper documents from the deceased so relatives can't find out about their gay love letters or whatever?
Some people have already replied that you might not be able to trust everyone with your password, but that's only one of the problems. The other problem is that although your heirs may be able to physically read the password from your sealed envelope and type it in, just typing in the password won't make your access authorized. Trying to download the deceased's ebooks, music, or apps would be piracy, and even just revealing that you accessed the account (by trying to use the information in it in a billing dispute, or to take it to the press if it is whistleblowing in nature, for instance) could subject you to a selectively prosecuted hacking charge in court to get you to shut up.
And even if you don't actually get in legal trouble for accessing the account, companies could use the illegal nature of the access to refuse to do things that they would do upon request of the account owner, such as closing the account (if you want it closed), leaving the account open (if you want to keep paying for it), or restoring or sending you a backup.
By that reasoning ithe subject of the game doesn't have to be war. If the kids play Fruit Ninja the dad should take them to a poverty-striken third world country that is having a food shortage, so they no longer want to trivialize the act of destroying food. As you said, starvation is something that Westerners are normally shielded from. "You're teaching people that life cannot be compared to the boom and splat of video games".
I think that every American should have to take a trip to the war zone to see what our tax dollars go to supporting.
First of all, that reasoning has nothing to do with whether anyone played war in a video game, but the dad took the kids to the war zone *specifically* because of the video game. I'm pretty sure that if the kid was playing Phoenix Wright, the father wouldn't take the kid to a real court room to show him how video games don't accurately describe the justice system.
Second, our tax dollars go to lots of things. Our tax dollars support courts, firefighters, police, farm subsidies, NPR, and a whole lot of other things, but nobody says "every American should take a trip to National Public Radio to see what our tax dollars go to support". It's a double standard which is supposedly because our tax dollars support it but never gets said of anything else which our tax dollars support.
The company that refuses to hire you because you stole a candy bar 10 years ago isn't going to give you a rejection letter saying so. They'll make up some BS excuse. There's no way to prove that the company did this short of doing a statistical analysis on hundreds of companyes and determining that people who stole a candy bar 10 years ago have some reduced chance of getting jobs, and even then you're not going to be able to prove any single company did it when that company has too few applicants who stole candy bars to calculate meaningful statistics. So no, you can't just boycott the company.
Besides, it may not be possible to boycott a company for something like this since it would get lost in the noise--which is worse, a company rejecting one job applicant unfairly, or a company overcharging millions of people some small amount? The first is worse if you're the one individual, the second is worse if you average out the one person affected really bad and the many other unaffected people. Boycotts would be based on the average badness of the company, so the first category is not subject to useful boycotts.
According to http://www.scotusblog.com/stat... the Supreme Court recently affirmed 27% of lower court decisions and reversed 73%. This means that if you guess that the Supreme Court reverses the lower court every time, you'll be 73% accurate. 70% accuracy is ridiculously low if you can get 73% accuracy *without* taking into consideration the records of each justice or any other kind of details.
The problem is specific to open source because of the motivations of open source developers. People write documentation when they are paid to do so, but people don't generally write documentation for fun, nor do they write documentation when they need to modify a program in order to get something done.
"Why do you hate freedom" is a phrase which, at least on Slashdot, is used only ironically. It means "this is the kind of thing which is pushed on the basis that everyone who hates it hates freedom". It doesn't mean that the person writing those words himself makes that claim.
By that reasoning if the restaurant supply reclamation company instead found equipment contaminated with bacteria, and sold the equipment, and people got sick and died from it, they likewise wouldn't have any responsibility. Equipment that poses a threat to people because it spreads private data is not really all that different from equipment that poses a threat because it spreads disease.
(Which is not to say that it's legally the same, of course.)
Microsoft takes advantage of network effects, Windows is more useful if lots of other people have Windows, because if lots of other people have Windows, most of the available software will be for Windows, so you'll need to buy Windows in order to be able to use it. Books don't work that way.
That one was hiring people with low scores, not people with high scores. Hiring people with low scores won't be seen as discriminating against blacks (who on the average get lower scores), so would be permitted.
Slashdot Mirror
The way you see it, calling someone who only reads the ingredients list on the back of food packages is like calling someone who plays Candy Crush a gamer.
The way you see it, calling someone who sings the Star Spangled banner at the start of a ball game a music fan is like calling someone who plays Candy Crush a gamer.
Etc.
"Gamer" does not mean "someone who plays a game" in the same way that "reader" doesn't mean "someone that reads something".
Nobody would read that headline and believe that whales are really doing the same thing as people with engineering degrees. The literal interpretation is so obviously impossible that everyone can see that it's an exaggeration and should not be taken literally.
The literal interpretation of "women outnumber boys in gaming" is not impossible in the same way that whales having engineering degrees is. It's just incorrect.
Because 9 million miles is no more newsworthy than 8 million or 10.
I'm reminded of the old joke:
"What famous event happened in 1732?"
"George Washington was born."
"Very good. Now what famous event happened in 1743?'
"George Washington became 11 years old."
People want cheap and get cheap because it's easy to tell what something's price is. f you have to choose between a cheap laptop and a more expensive laptop that has the same specs but might fall apart faster, it's really hard to get figures on how fast the laptops fall apart such that you can determine that the money you save is not worth it. Hiding laptop failure rates is easy, but you can't hide the price, so consumers buy based on it.
This may be better in the case of repeat customers, but honestly, how often do you buy laptops?
Islamic countries in the Middle East generally work on a tribal culture which is heavily based around people gaining status through family connections. In other words, even you just kill the actual terrorists, you're *still* making someone angry because you killed his family.
Asking your carrier to cut off your network access doesn't prevent you from taking pictures and videos with the phone.
Spoken like a man who has never heard of the term "false positive".
If you don't matter, but they think you matter, they can make life hell for you.
But that's a different sense of "change". Evidence can change it, but you can't just change it by saying I choose not to have this belief because people with it are subject to prejudice".
I am skeptical that someone can honestly think, for instance, that farm subsidies are good, then say "I choose to believe that farm subsidies are bad", and tomorrow honestly believe that farm subsidies are bad. I'm not even convinced that "choosing to believe X" is a coherent concept.
But even supposing that someone has a messed up belief process such that they can do this, intelligent people who use reasoning won't to be that way. Congratulations: you've just decided that prejudice against people with the wrong politics is "different" from prejudice against gays when its only different for people who you don't want on your forum anyway.
(Or you could just say "well, anyone who disagrees with my political side is stupid and doesn't use reasoning". But I hope you can see what's wrong with that.)
It says that the heir has the same rights as an authorized user. An authorized user who lost the password in this situation would not be able to get it by asking the company, so the heirs would not be able to ask the company either. On the other hand, if the heirs do get the password (maybe the deceased left it in a safety deposit box), it would stop the company terminating the account for TOS violation.
Being a capitalist, conservative, liberal, etc. is ultimately a description of your beliefs. You can't choose or change your beliefs--you didn't arrive at your beliefs by suddenly saying "I choose to believe in farm subsidies", you figured out that farm subsidies are good or bad. Even though people with opposite beliefs could argue that you made a mistake when figuring it out, you still figured it out to the best of your ability and can't just change that by force of will.
Beliefs are not like rooting for a football team.
(Of course, you could still change your actions--you can't choose to believe in capitalism, but you could choose to buy stocks or speak about capitalism--but that applies to homosexuality too. You could choose to have gay sex, to express pride in being gay, etc.)
If the deceased had things on paper, or on their computer at home, they would certainly be able to learn things about the deceased. How is this different?
Do you want to prevent people from inheriting paper documents from the deceased so relatives can't find out about their gay love letters or whatever?
Some people have already replied that you might not be able to trust everyone with your password, but that's only one of the problems. The other problem is that although your heirs may be able to physically read the password from your sealed envelope and type it in, just typing in the password won't make your access authorized. Trying to download the deceased's ebooks, music, or apps would be piracy, and even just revealing that you accessed the account (by trying to use the information in it in a billing dispute, or to take it to the press if it is whistleblowing in nature, for instance) could subject you to a selectively prosecuted hacking charge in court to get you to shut up.
And even if you don't actually get in legal trouble for accessing the account, companies could use the illegal nature of the access to refuse to do things that they would do upon request of the account owner, such as closing the account (if you want it closed), leaving the account open (if you want to keep paying for it), or restoring or sending you a backup.
By that reasoning ithe subject of the game doesn't have to be war. If the kids play Fruit Ninja the dad should take them to a poverty-striken third world country that is having a food shortage, so they no longer want to trivialize the act of destroying food. As you said, starvation is something that Westerners are normally shielded from. "You're teaching people that life cannot be compared to the boom and splat of video games".
Yet it would be obviously ludicrous to do that.
First of all, that reasoning has nothing to do with whether anyone played war in a video game, but the dad took the kids to the war zone *specifically* because of the video game. I'm pretty sure that if the kid was playing Phoenix Wright, the father wouldn't take the kid to a real court room to show him how video games don't accurately describe the justice system.
Second, our tax dollars go to lots of things. Our tax dollars support courts, firefighters, police, farm subsidies, NPR, and a whole lot of other things, but nobody says "every American should take a trip to National Public Radio to see what our tax dollars go to support". It's a double standard which is supposedly because our tax dollars support it but never gets said of anything else which our tax dollars support.
The company that refuses to hire you because you stole a candy bar 10 years ago isn't going to give you a rejection letter saying so. They'll make up some BS excuse. There's no way to prove that the company did this short of doing a statistical analysis on hundreds of companyes and determining that people who stole a candy bar 10 years ago have some reduced chance of getting jobs, and even then you're not going to be able to prove any single company did it when that company has too few applicants who stole candy bars to calculate meaningful statistics. So no, you can't just boycott the company.
Besides, it may not be possible to boycott a company for something like this since it would get lost in the noise--which is worse, a company rejecting one job applicant unfairly, or a company overcharging millions of people some small amount? The first is worse if you're the one individual, the second is worse if you average out the one person affected really bad and the many other unaffected people. Boycotts would be based on the average badness of the company, so the first category is not subject to useful boycotts.
Betteridge's Law applies to actual headlines, not to sentences which people write up trying to sound like headlines that no article is really using.
According to http://www.scotusblog.com/stat... the Supreme Court recently affirmed 27% of lower court decisions and reversed 73%. This means that if you guess that the Supreme Court reverses the lower court every time, you'll be 73% accurate. 70% accuracy is ridiculously low if you can get 73% accuracy *without* taking into consideration the records of each justice or any other kind of details.
The problem is specific to open source because of the motivations of open source developers. People write documentation when they are paid to do so, but people don't generally write documentation for fun, nor do they write documentation when they need to modify a program in order to get something done.
Whoosh.
"Why do you hate freedom" is a phrase which, at least on Slashdot, is used only ironically. It means "this is the kind of thing which is pushed on the basis that everyone who hates it hates freedom". It doesn't mean that the person writing those words himself makes that claim.
You *do* know what the purpose of an army is, right?
What other choices would you prefer? The army shouldn't kill people? The army should kill people inefficiently?
By that reasoning if the restaurant supply reclamation company instead found equipment contaminated with bacteria, and sold the equipment, and people got sick and died from it, they likewise wouldn't have any responsibility. Equipment that poses a threat to people because it spreads private data is not really all that different from equipment that poses a threat because it spreads disease.
(Which is not to say that it's legally the same, of course.)
Microsoft takes advantage of network effects, Windows is more useful if lots of other people have Windows, because if lots of other people have Windows, most of the available software will be for Windows, so you'll need to buy Windows in order to be able to use it. Books don't work that way.
That one was hiring people with low scores, not people with high scores. Hiring people with low scores won't be seen as discriminating against blacks (who on the average get lower scores), so would be permitted.
You do realize that a logo is a trademark issue, not copyright, and trademarks don't expire as long as they are in use?