Science is generally in a much more nascent stage than most scientists are willing to admit
If you actually bother to talk to any scientists, they will freely and enthusiastically discuss the limits of their field of study. Knowing what you don't know is the most important part of being a scientist.
It's not a "law of no jailbreaking" it's a "law of no copyright infringement". Making a copy of Apple's bootloader and modifying it is copyright infringement. If you want to wipe your device and build an OS for it from the ground up, you are absolutely free to do so.
This is simply because the guitar is a superior instrument to any sampler. If I want to hear people make beats, I'll listen to a drummer. At least then it takes some skill to keep time.
Lots of people know how to make incredibly toxic gases with household ingredients. Would you then say it's perfectly fine to show a step by step guide telling you how on a prime time TV show?
Yes, of course, absolutely, without question. What possible argument could you make against it? Anyone who wants to hurt people can figure it out on their own. The only effect airing it on TV would have is to make normal people more aware.
Most of these people aren't doing it because it's lucrative. They do it because they have no legitimate options. The lowest rungs of any criminal enterprise gets paid shit wages just like any business. 200 people at 20k a year is 4 million for payroll. That leaves over 20 million for the boss.
There have been a number of studies on how video games can improve skills. For instance, surgeons who play video games are better at laparoscopic surgery than those that don't.
No, I'm right because historically this is how the term has been used. If you want to be right, you'll have to come up with a better argument than "uh, that's old and no one cares about it anymore".
Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course.
This is a good point. You do have to target the language to your audience. I just expect that the/. audience is educated enough, or at least interested enough, about things like logic that they would care about using correct terms.
First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.
I don't dispute your argument, it's irrelevant. When we use "begging the question" we mean begging in the actual standard dictionary definition sense.
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
I have etymology on my side.
Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect it's related to the above irrelevant point.
Should we require that everyone use the definition of theory that's accepted within the scientific community?
I don't know that we should require it, but we should certainly encourage it.
Also, we're talking about a phrase where "beg" is substituted for "dodge" in the proper representation
No, we're not. "begging" in this case means that you're asking to take for granted a proposition. "begging the question" means that that proposition is essentially equivalent to the question under discussion. You are literally asking the other person to give you something, their agreement. This is begging.
This access was authorized, as AT&T never requested any authorization.
So is copyright infringement for financial gain
What copyrighted data is relevant in this case? The list of emails? That's factual, and cannot be copyrighted any more than you can copyright the phone book.
The point in question is "Rule 20, which Judge Collyer referenced in her order, plaintiffs may only join defendants in a lawsuit if:
* They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
* Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action."
If the value could not differ by an arbitrarily large amount, we could put a value on that limit that would not be arbitrary. So saying it differs by an arbitrarily large amount has meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is generally in a much more nascent stage than most scientists are willing to admit
If you actually bother to talk to any scientists, they will freely and enthusiastically discuss the limits of their field of study. Knowing what you don't know is the most important part of being a scientist.
If it were illegal why have those not been taken down by Apple?
Because it's not illegal to teach people how to do illegal things.
It's not a "law of no jailbreaking" it's a "law of no copyright infringement". Making a copy of Apple's bootloader and modifying it is copyright infringement. If you want to wipe your device and build an OS for it from the ground up, you are absolutely free to do so.
It simply installs a different bootloader
It installs a modified copy of Apple's bootloader, the creation of which violates Apple's copyright.
Nope. At least 66% of my thoughts are pornographic. I'm a little disturbed that I'm raunchier than the internet.
But 'keeping in time' is not the only important skill in music. Neither is singing perfectly in tune.
But they are important skills. If you don't have them, don't cover them up. Compensate with what you're good at. e.g. Bob Dylan.
you'd be shocked by the number of top live bands that use click tracks and autotune.
You'd be shocked by the number of top live bands that suck. How can you improvise with a click track?
This is simply because the guitar is a superior instrument to any sampler. If I want to hear people make beats, I'll listen to a drummer. At least then it takes some skill to keep time.
I don't think that will work with, e.g., The Daily Show streams from Comedy Central.
Lots of people know how to make incredibly toxic gases with household ingredients. Would you then say it's perfectly fine to show a step by step guide telling you how on a prime time TV show?
Yes, of course, absolutely, without question. What possible argument could you make against it? Anyone who wants to hurt people can figure it out on their own. The only effect airing it on TV would have is to make normal people more aware.
The sooner I know there's a bug, the sooner I can turn off the affected service and the safer I'll be. Ormandy did the public a favor.
Perhaps their conscience feels better stealing from credit card companies instead of average taxpayers.
Most of these people aren't doing it because it's lucrative. They do it because they have no legitimate options. The lowest rungs of any criminal enterprise gets paid shit wages just like any business. 200 people at 20k a year is 4 million for payroll. That leaves over 20 million for the boss.
Rivalrous is an economics term. Zero-sum is a game theory term. Different, but related fields of study may use different terms for similar concepts.
There have been a number of studies on how video games can improve skills. For instance, surgeons who play video games are better at laparoscopic surgery than those that don't.
No, I'm right because historically this is how the term has been used. If you want to be right, you'll have to come up with a better argument than "uh, that's old and no one cares about it anymore".
Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course.
This is a good point. You do have to target the language to your audience. I just expect that the /. audience is educated enough, or at least interested enough, about things like logic that they would care about using correct terms.
First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.
I don't dispute your argument, it's irrelevant. When we use "begging the question" we mean begging in the actual standard dictionary definition sense.
Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.
I have etymology on my side.
Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect it's related to the above irrelevant point.
Should we require that everyone use the definition of theory that's accepted within the scientific community?
I don't know that we should require it, but we should certainly encourage it.
Also, we're talking about a phrase where "beg" is substituted for "dodge" in the proper representation
No, we're not. "begging" in this case means that you're asking to take for granted a proposition. "begging the question" means that that proposition is essentially equivalent to the question under discussion. You are literally asking the other person to give you something, their agreement. This is begging.
Dodging the question is something else entirely.
Unauthorized access to a computer is a felony.
This access was authorized, as AT&T never requested any authorization.
So is copyright infringement for financial gain
What copyrighted data is relevant in this case? The list of emails? That's factual, and cannot be copyrighted any more than you can copyright the phone book.
Yeah, Rule 34 was what I was going for. Guess it got crossed in my mind with Wolfram's Rule 30. I fail.
I don't think any of these cases have actually been thrown out yet, so perhaps the poster should have used the future tense.
Let's play "who's a bigger threat to society"
On the one hand, we have internet pirates. They click buttons in the privacy of their own homes, and watch movies for free.
On the other hand, we have you, who seems to think getting raped in the ass is a just consequence for copying bits.
So, America. Who would you feel safer living next to?
The point in question is "Rule 20, which Judge Collyer referenced in her order, plaintiffs may only join defendants in a lawsuit if:
* They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
* Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action."
I'm just glad they haven't needed Rule 30 yet.
If the value could not differ by an arbitrarily large amount, we could put a value on that limit that would not be arbitrary. So saying it differs by an arbitrarily large amount has meaning.
I had not heard of any of this latest batch of lawsuits being thrown out. Where's the link to that story?