I've heard it referred to as "mirror image fallacy", mostly, but I don't know if that's a formal term. Looking at wikipedia's list of fallacies, it seems most like a subset of Hasty Generalization (generalizing, in this case, from a sample of 1).
I wouldn't mind that, but that much wall space is pricey. (Add in the wall space for framed posters and such and we're getting into 'need a fractal house' territory:)
Only if you can _prove_ bad faith. Or that the submitter is not actually representing a rightsholder, but if you do that, it's the submitter on the hook, not Comcast.
His theory is that because of no engine the energy absorbing elements in the front end will be more spread out and while that's good for a full-front test, there will be less of them for a partial-front impact. He neglects the possibility that the improvement in full-front results is from simply adding more energy absorbing elements (like the floor, which most cars don't have under the engine). Until there's corroboration from either design docs or test results, I'm not worrying about it.
Netflix has software for embedded linux (several flavors), just not for desktop/laptop linux. Being embedded in hardware designed to avoid letting the bits out easily is considered 'adequate' by the content owners.
I would agree but for one thing: netflix through the PS3 has a higher wife acceptance factor than the HTPC. I'm working on it, in my copious spare time...
Nope. Asserting that the targeted content is infringing is under a "good faith belief" standard, which is nigh impossible to disprove; the only part of the takedown request that has a perjury penalty is the assertion that the person filing the takedown is working for someone who owns a copyright that is alleged to be infringing. That is, if you were to file a takedown request and claim that it's for Viacom's benefit, that would be subject to perjury. (Unless you really do work for Viacom, of course.) But if you did work for Viacom, you could safely file a takedown against whitehouse.gov if you had any reason to believe it infringed (say, your automated content scanner said so. Not very smart scanner, but no reason to improve it...)
Your house is not part of my culture. Your song is (assuming it's widespread enough to be substantially profitable for you in your 70s). You may feel you have a right to profit from it, but how long do you intend to extort the rest of us instead of writing another one and living off that for a while?
and (c) me, who might be able to find a reprint of some of the stuff I read as a kid (35 years ago) if it wasn't gatekeepered by a publisher whose goal is to maximize profit. I recognize that a lot of that stuff isn't popular enough to compete for the publisher's energy, but does that mean it deserves to be erased from history as the original printings wear out? 28 years would work for me, and probably for the authors whose works are getting made into movies. (How many movies are based on books that are more than 28 years old but not public domain?)
The problem is that it takes a very large value of "you" for this to work. Barring a cultural shift where failure to keep abreast of politics is considered idiocy on the scale of forgetting to wear pants, I don't see it happening.
Which is a shame. Design patterns seem like exactly the kind of thing that would be good to teach in computer science. (Or maybe my definition of 'computer science' is a little warped:)
I wonder, though... does that indicate that you're only calling HR or that the only reference they can come up with is HR? If the first, I'm not surprised. If the second... well, not being able to find anyone who's willing to say you were good would indeed be indicative, imho...
*shrug* It's no less (or more) a client screwup than requests that get 404 or 410. I realize 3xx, 4xx, 5xx are usually tagged as redirect, client error, server error but they're better described as "I can't do it but talk to Fred", "I can't do that and I'm not prepared to tell you if someone else can", and "Ow, my spleen!"
The meaning is almost exactly the same as a 410, no? Or maybe 423. I don't see enough difference to warrant pushing it out of 4xx. I think the larger difficulty with using 451 is that there's already a 451 code, even if it is MS Exchange specific.
true, but while that's certainly a local optimum, I'm not sure whether "vote for who you want" is stable. That is, currently there's no trigger to move there, but if everyone was there, would they stay there or shift back to "vote against who you don't want"? I don't know game theory well enough to say.
They could if we could make everyone magically forget all the habits and beliefs they've assembled about the party system over the last couple of hundred years, so that they would vote for who they want (after actually thinking about who they want) instead of against who they don't want. As things are now, that isn't going to happen, because nobody's going to believe that enough other people will do it too for it to be worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard it referred to as "mirror image fallacy", mostly, but I don't know if that's a formal term. Looking at wikipedia's list of fallacies, it seems most like a subset of Hasty Generalization (generalizing, in this case, from a sample of 1).
I wouldn't mind that, but that much wall space is pricey. (Add in the wall space for framed posters and such and we're getting into 'need a fractal house' territory :)
You hope. I bet some were "written" by low-paid contractors who just ported windows driver code.
how does one both eliminate carbs and eat sugar?
no, it's because DDT worked really well against bedbugs while it was legal. It's taken a while for the survivors to repopulate.
Only if you can _prove_ bad faith. Or that the submitter is not actually representing a rightsholder, but if you do that, it's the submitter on the hook, not Comcast.
His theory is that because of no engine the energy absorbing elements in the front end will be more spread out and while that's good for a full-front test, there will be less of them for a partial-front impact. He neglects the possibility that the improvement in full-front results is from simply adding more energy absorbing elements (like the floor, which most cars don't have under the engine). Until there's corroboration from either design docs or test results, I'm not worrying about it.
so they'll need a snorkel? Sounds doable.
Netflix has software for embedded linux (several flavors), just not for desktop/laptop linux. Being embedded in hardware designed to avoid letting the bits out easily is considered 'adequate' by the content owners.
I would agree but for one thing: netflix through the PS3 has a higher wife acceptance factor than the HTPC. I'm working on it, in my copious spare time...
shouldn't that be "RPN Win the for"?
Nope. Asserting that the targeted content is infringing is under a "good faith belief" standard, which is nigh impossible to disprove; the only part of the takedown request that has a perjury penalty is the assertion that the person filing the takedown is working for someone who owns a copyright that is alleged to be infringing. That is, if you were to file a takedown request and claim that it's for Viacom's benefit, that would be subject to perjury. (Unless you really do work for Viacom, of course.) But if you did work for Viacom, you could safely file a takedown against whitehouse.gov if you had any reason to believe it infringed (say, your automated content scanner said so. Not very smart scanner, but no reason to improve it...)
Your house is not part of my culture. Your song is (assuming it's widespread enough to be substantially profitable for you in your 70s). You may feel you have a right to profit from it, but how long do you intend to extort the rest of us instead of writing another one and living off that for a while?
and (c) me, who might be able to find a reprint of some of the stuff I read as a kid (35 years ago) if it wasn't gatekeepered by a publisher whose goal is to maximize profit. I recognize that a lot of that stuff isn't popular enough to compete for the publisher's energy, but does that mean it deserves to be erased from history as the original printings wear out? 28 years would work for me, and probably for the authors whose works are getting made into movies. (How many movies are based on books that are more than 28 years old but not public domain?)
or perhaps because having a gun can give a feeling of power, and they like folks to feel powerless so they'll make less trouble?
The problem is that it takes a very large value of "you" for this to work. Barring a cultural shift where failure to keep abreast of politics is considered idiocy on the scale of forgetting to wear pants, I don't see it happening.
Which is a shame. Design patterns seem like exactly the kind of thing that would be good to teach in computer science. (Or maybe my definition of 'computer science' is a little warped :)
I wonder, though... does that indicate that you're only calling HR or that the only reference they can come up with is HR? If the first, I'm not surprised. If the second... well, not being able to find anyone who's willing to say you were good would indeed be indicative, imho...
requests to not-resolved-in-DNS get rerouted by the ISP already, in many cases; easy enough to reroute these too.
*shrug* It's no less (or more) a client screwup than requests that get 404 or 410. I realize 3xx, 4xx, 5xx are usually tagged as redirect, client error, server error but they're better described as "I can't do it but talk to Fred", "I can't do that and I'm not prepared to tell you if someone else can", and "Ow, my spleen!"
The meaning is almost exactly the same as a 410, no? Or maybe 423. I don't see enough difference to warrant pushing it out of 4xx. I think the larger difficulty with using 451 is that there's already a 451 code, even if it is MS Exchange specific.
Those are usually for "tell me about this person", not so often for "block this website", so far as I've heard...
true, but while that's certainly a local optimum, I'm not sure whether "vote for who you want" is stable. That is, currently there's no trigger to move there, but if everyone was there, would they stay there or shift back to "vote against who you don't want"? I don't know game theory well enough to say.
The problem with game theory is that it never admits to the possibility of changing the game, and frankly, this one sucks.
They could if we could make everyone magically forget all the habits and beliefs they've assembled about the party system over the last couple of hundred years, so that they would vote for who they want (after actually thinking about who they want) instead of against who they don't want. As things are now, that isn't going to happen, because nobody's going to believe that enough other people will do it too for it to be worthwhile.