But if you happen to be making an assumption on something that hasn't been demonstrated (or worse, is false), then you can rationally conclude anything you want.
For example, assuming that API's are copyrightable, to the best of my understanding at this point, then cows have wings and my cat shit gold.
You see? Completely irrellevant, and in fact blatantly false things can be shown to be true when you start by assuming something that isn't.
At first I thought that we had slashdotted facebook, but thinking about it further it seems that facebook has already taken the page most likely to be offensive and problematic offline.
Either that, or the submitter typed the wrong URL.
I must admit I was perhaps guilty of some morbid curiousity to see what sort of naming and shaming was going on.
Off topic, almost certainly. Idiotic, without a doubt.... but not actually inappropriate or offensive unless a person is offended by people who sound nuts.
Because this is problematic if one's login password on a mac happens to be their login password for everything else inside of one company.
Odds are that firewalls will protect outsiders from being able to snoop, but what's to stop somebody on the inside from doing a little covert snooping to discover the administrator's password, and using that to his own advantage in some way?
I would rather hope that Apple addresses this issue before the work day commences tomorrow, because now that this vulnerability is publicly known, it's a shoo-in that it is going to be exploited.
There is not a single reason not to use Gamemaker.
I might suggest that your endorsement might have given several people a reasonably compelling reason not to use it.
If you sincerely are advocating that product, you may want to consider altering your sales pitch so that you don't sound so much like a snake-oil sales vendor. Otherwise, you just sound like a raving lunatic.
Of course... if that was your intent. Carry on. Expect to be downmodded, however.
... from here.... shows significant use of fallacy #1, with a hint of #4 and #5 in there as well. Also, although not listed on ethical fallacy sheet... I notice that he also uses a hand-me-down from the all-too-common conspiracy theory fallacy, when he accuses people who support his termination of actually having an ulterior motive for doing so without substantiating that position with even a single argument.
Really, if you have to use fallacies to support your position, is your position actually really a sustainable one?
Nah, totally unnecessary, because the cost of operation is so much lower
Which is more than completely offset by the difference in price between electric cars and gasoline powered cars. One must face making a compromise when getting an EV right now, which is sacrificing some of the mobility freedom that gasoline powered cars currently offer. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that this compromise should come at some sort of price and that EV's should be less expensive than a gasoline vehicle, since they do not offer a similar level of convenience. The lower cost of operation is a valid consideration, but as that is amortized over the life of the vehicle, it is generally less of a financial concern than that of simply owning the car in the first place. Something more is needed...either EV's must be more economical to PURCHASE than gasoline cars, or they must offer increased driving range comparable to a gasoline car before they are likely to be widely accepted.
I'm not suggesting that families don't own multiple cars... I'm saying that the expense of an additional car that they do not regularly need is simply not worth it for most people. There are some people that have additional vehicles purely for recreational usage, but by no means are these the majority. This means that such households either buy cars they can use both for commuting and long trips, or else they relegate themselves to owning vehicles suitable only for commuting. Most people choose the former.
And consider also that EV's cost more than you're likely to spend on gasoline on a car that you own for almost the entire life of the car. Coupled with the fact that the electricity isn't free either, the economics of owning an EV just don't add up.
If EV's were half, or even better, a quarter the cost of a regular automobile, you'd see a lot more people being willing to own them in addition to their other cars. Of couse, that's not likely to happen until more people start buying them that the savings of mass production can bring their cost down. The only escape from this otherwise catch-22 is to increase the EV's range.
People like the convenience of a vehicle with range
This line of reasoning always reduces down to: Electrics aren't a 100% solution, therefore they may as well not exist.
No... it reduces down to: electrics aren't viable for most people because they desire the convenience of being able to go wherever they want, even if this ability is not exercised frequently (and yes, I'm aware this is a purely psychological phenomenon), and they don't want to have to own an additional car on top of the one they use for commuting (this is not purely psychological... there are significant financial factors involved).
Everyone fancies himself as taking 300 mile road trips all the time, but the driving statistics (have a look at the University of George study) conclusively demonstrate that most people don't.
You're right that most people don't, but most people also want to at least have that as an option - even if only ever used less than half a dozen times in a year... without having to own both commuting vehicles for getting to and from work *AND* owing an additional recreational vehicle for when they do want to take road trips (not all of which may be planned far enough in advance for alternatives such as renting to be as amenable to people). People like the convenience of a vehicle with range, and I don't imagine them being willing to give it up anytime soon.
Not trolling... just saying the truth. Google copied the Java API. They apparently even admit as such.
The amount of copying that they did, IMO, would be well beyond any allowance of fair use, were copyright applicable. I don't think that copyright should be applicable to a language API, however.
There are some people that should not ever be seen naked.
I am one of them.
The TSA does so at their own psychological peril when they watch the monitor as I pass through a scanner. Although I must admit have not ever heard any audible screams, I am nonetheless confident that if they dared to actually look, their brain would threaten to go on strike if it was asked to recollect that imagery for any purpose whatsoever.
I do not think anyone would be inclined to think that other people might want to see such pictures of me unless they are some sort of depraved scientist wanting to discover the effects of mass numbers of people being exposed to visually objectionable material.
Instead of asking them to assume that the API was copyrighted as a factor in their decision, the jury should have simply been asked to come to a decision about whether Google copied the API or no. Whether it is copyrighted or not is superfluous to whether or not they copied it... it is only relevant to the issue of copyright infringement. Whether they copied it or not is superfluous to whether or not the API should be subject to copyright. Either way, it's a non-sequitor.
It's bad... practiced on a global scale it could very easily be the end of civilization as we know it.... but it wouldn't spell the complete end of the world. Not even if every nuke in the world was set off.
There are also consequences if google win, which many people ignore completely.
What are those consequences, exactly? I've asked that question before, What, exactly, are the consequences if Google wins? I've asked it before, but never got a straight answer. What would it mean for Google? What would it mean for Oracle? What would it mean for Java? For other languages?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it takes one down an avenue that is wholly irrelevant (and a waste of time) if the hypothetical scenario is false. The biggest danger with this line of thinking is that if you start by assuming that it was copyrightable, then deciding that they did copy it, you've set up a framework for possibly biasing your own decision in favor of concluding that it *WAS* copyrightable, instead of making an unbiased decision.
For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to say that yes... Google copied the Java API.
I never said I am responsible for all activities in my house.... I said I am responsible for the activities of people who, with my permission, use the services that I have within in my house.
If they do so without permission, then they are breaking another law already anyways.
How would you clone one of my mac addresses without having access to my devices? How would you profile my usage without having access to my network in the first place, unless you work for my ISP (who doesn't know my devices' mac addresses either, since they are all behind a hard wired router, whose mac address my ISP could know)? How would you even know the name of my access point? How would you know what encryption to utilize? How would you crack the password?
Granted... I'm prepared to admit that the level of security I have is probably somewhat beyond the sixty or so seconds that it takes to teach somebody's grandmother to secure their wireless router (I've done this, by the way... and it barely took a minute), but it's still not really that hard to learn for anybody who values their privacy.
The indirection layer of a human employee is a valid indirection
I'm not so sure... why should a human employee be a vlaid indirection, but an automated service that performs the same task not be?
Humans are, after all, little but some reasonably sophisticated learning software running on massively parallel meat-based computers, with assorted peripherals to interact physically with the world around them. If humans are somehow a valid layer between the client and a GPL program, why can't another piece of software be?
I don't have contempt for them... I just am not likely to have any sympathy for them if they end up having to defend themselves against accusations that are based from an IP address that they are supposedly responsible for.
Really... is it that much to expect that adults actually be responsible for the choices they make and the things that they do?
If somebody steals my car, that's a criminal offense right there.
If somebody breaks into my computer network without my authorization, that's also against the law right there. Full stop.
No... obviously I should not be responsible for what somebody else does with my property if they have broken the law to get to the point of using it in the first place. But I'd file a police report (bearing in mind that it is criminal to file a false one), and be cooperating with the police to whatever extent they requested to discover who it was, if it was possible.
If I lend somebody my car... I'm taking a calculated risk that they aren't going to do something really stupid with it that they aren't likely going to be held accountable for. If I don't trust them to not do something that stupid, I won't lend them my car. Simple. Ditto for access to my wifi.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, assuming that API's are copyrightable, to the best of my understanding at this point, then cows have wings and my cat shit gold.
You see? Completely irrellevant, and in fact blatantly false things can be shown to be true when you start by assuming something that isn't.
At first I thought that we had slashdotted facebook, but thinking about it further it seems that facebook has already taken the page most likely to be offensive and problematic offline.
Either that, or the submitter typed the wrong URL.
I must admit I was perhaps guilty of some morbid curiousity to see what sort of naming and shaming was going on.
Off topic, almost certainly. Idiotic, without a doubt.... but not actually inappropriate or offensive unless a person is offended by people who sound nuts.
Because this is problematic if one's login password on a mac happens to be their login password for everything else inside of one company.
Odds are that firewalls will protect outsiders from being able to snoop, but what's to stop somebody on the inside from doing a little covert snooping to discover the administrator's password, and using that to his own advantage in some way?
I would rather hope that Apple addresses this issue before the work day commences tomorrow, because now that this vulnerability is publicly known, it's a shoo-in that it is going to be exploited.
I might suggest that your endorsement might have given several people a reasonably compelling reason not to use it.
If you sincerely are advocating that product, you may want to consider altering your sales pitch so that you don't sound so much like a snake-oil sales vendor. Otherwise, you just sound like a raving lunatic.
Of course... if that was your intent. Carry on. Expect to be downmodded, however.
Really, if you have to use fallacies to support your position, is your position actually really a sustainable one?
Which is more than completely offset by the difference in price between electric cars and gasoline powered cars. One must face making a compromise when getting an EV right now, which is sacrificing some of the mobility freedom that gasoline powered cars currently offer. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that this compromise should come at some sort of price and that EV's should be less expensive than a gasoline vehicle, since they do not offer a similar level of convenience. The lower cost of operation is a valid consideration, but as that is amortized over the life of the vehicle, it is generally less of a financial concern than that of simply owning the car in the first place. Something more is needed...either EV's must be more economical to PURCHASE than gasoline cars, or they must offer increased driving range comparable to a gasoline car before they are likely to be widely accepted.
I'm not suggesting that families don't own multiple cars... I'm saying that the expense of an additional car that they do not regularly need is simply not worth it for most people. There are some people that have additional vehicles purely for recreational usage, but by no means are these the majority. This means that such households either buy cars they can use both for commuting and long trips, or else they relegate themselves to owning vehicles suitable only for commuting. Most people choose the former.
And consider also that EV's cost more than you're likely to spend on gasoline on a car that you own for almost the entire life of the car. Coupled with the fact that the electricity isn't free either, the economics of owning an EV just don't add up.
If EV's were half, or even better, a quarter the cost of a regular automobile, you'd see a lot more people being willing to own them in addition to their other cars. Of couse, that's not likely to happen until more people start buying them that the savings of mass production can bring their cost down. The only escape from this otherwise catch-22 is to increase the EV's range.
No... it reduces down to: electrics aren't viable for most people because they desire the convenience of being able to go wherever they want, even if this ability is not exercised frequently (and yes, I'm aware this is a purely psychological phenomenon), and they don't want to have to own an additional car on top of the one they use for commuting (this is not purely psychological... there are significant financial factors involved).
You're right that most people don't, but most people also want to at least have that as an option - even if only ever used less than half a dozen times in a year... without having to own both commuting vehicles for getting to and from work *AND* owing an additional recreational vehicle for when they do want to take road trips (not all of which may be planned far enough in advance for alternatives such as renting to be as amenable to people). People like the convenience of a vehicle with range, and I don't imagine them being willing to give it up anytime soon.
Not trolling... just saying the truth. Google copied the Java API. They apparently even admit as such.
The amount of copying that they did, IMO, would be well beyond any allowance of fair use, were copyright applicable. I don't think that copyright should be applicable to a language API, however.
There are some people that should not ever be seen naked.
I am one of them.
The TSA does so at their own psychological peril when they watch the monitor as I pass through a scanner. Although I must admit have not ever heard any audible screams, I am nonetheless confident that if they dared to actually look, their brain would threaten to go on strike if it was asked to recollect that imagery for any purpose whatsoever.
I do not think anyone would be inclined to think that other people might want to see such pictures of me unless they are some sort of depraved scientist wanting to discover the effects of mass numbers of people being exposed to visually objectionable material.
If something is copyrighted, it's pretty hard to consider copying it 100% verbatim as "fair use"
Instead of asking them to assume that the API was copyrighted as a factor in their decision, the jury should have simply been asked to come to a decision about whether Google copied the API or no. Whether it is copyrighted or not is superfluous to whether or not they copied it... it is only relevant to the issue of copyright infringement. Whether they copied it or not is superfluous to whether or not the API should be subject to copyright. Either way, it's a non-sequitor.
I would think the scanner would be less invasive, since nothing else physically touches your body
Nuclear war is not world destruction.
It's bad... practiced on a global scale it could very easily be the end of civilization as we know it.... but it wouldn't spell the complete end of the world. Not even if every nuke in the world was set off.
Oh fer crissake...
The man lied. Nothing more to it than that
"wrongly claimed"... give me a break.
What are those consequences, exactly? I've asked that question before, What, exactly, are the consequences if Google wins? I've asked it before, but never got a straight answer. What would it mean for Google? What would it mean for Oracle? What would it mean for Java? For other languages?
If that question is not in dispute, then why is a judge asking a jury to decide it?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it takes one down an avenue that is wholly irrelevant (and a waste of time) if the hypothetical scenario is false. The biggest danger with this line of thinking is that if you start by assuming that it was copyrightable, then deciding that they did copy it, you've set up a framework for possibly biasing your own decision in favor of concluding that it *WAS* copyrightable, instead of making an unbiased decision.
For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to say that yes... Google copied the Java API.
I never said I am responsible for all activities in my house.... I said I am responsible for the activities of people who, with my permission, use the services that I have within in my house.
If they do so without permission, then they are breaking another law already anyways.
How would you clone one of my mac addresses without having access to my devices? How would you profile my usage without having access to my network in the first place, unless you work for my ISP (who doesn't know my devices' mac addresses either, since they are all behind a hard wired router, whose mac address my ISP could know)? How would you even know the name of my access point? How would you know what encryption to utilize? How would you crack the password?
Granted... I'm prepared to admit that the level of security I have is probably somewhat beyond the sixty or so seconds that it takes to teach somebody's grandmother to secure their wireless router (I've done this, by the way... and it barely took a minute), but it's still not really that hard to learn for anybody who values their privacy.
I'm not so sure... why should a human employee be a vlaid indirection, but an automated service that performs the same task not be?
Humans are, after all, little but some reasonably sophisticated learning software running on massively parallel meat-based computers, with assorted peripherals to interact physically with the world around them. If humans are somehow a valid layer between the client and a GPL program, why can't another piece of software be?
I don't have contempt for them... I just am not likely to have any sympathy for them if they end up having to defend themselves against accusations that are based from an IP address that they are supposedly responsible for.
Really... is it that much to expect that adults actually be responsible for the choices they make and the things that they do?
If somebody steals my car, that's a criminal offense right there.
If somebody breaks into my computer network without my authorization, that's also against the law right there. Full stop.
No... obviously I should not be responsible for what somebody else does with my property if they have broken the law to get to the point of using it in the first place. But I'd file a police report (bearing in mind that it is criminal to file a false one), and be cooperating with the police to whatever extent they requested to discover who it was, if it was possible.
If I lend somebody my car... I'm taking a calculated risk that they aren't going to do something really stupid with it that they aren't likely going to be held accountable for. If I don't trust them to not do something that stupid, I won't lend them my car. Simple. Ditto for access to my wifi.