But in the USA you do something like that you end up in court.
"But your honor, I was only trying to help them."
"Your honor, he has no RIGHT to help us!"
But seriously it would be a great clause in the copyright scheme that if a copyrighted work is taken out of distribution it should automatically go public domain. Otherwise publishers can simply delete history like those old racist Warner Brothers videos they keep taking down from Youtube.
Disney would never let it happen. A big part of their revenue is based on burying beloved moves so that they do not end up in Walmart's $5 bin, and they can demand full price for the anniversary edition of a thirty year old movie. Apparently, creating artificial shortages is good for business.
We're talking about journalists here... to be fair Carol Lieberman was probably referring to the fact that as time goes on people get raped but they don't get unraped. Thus rapes increase over time...
It's easier to make sense of these political degenerates when you know they're lying and misleading from the start.
So, her logic is:
1. Rapes happen. They did last year. 2. This game is coming out. 3. Fewer rapes happened this year. How do you explain that rapes happened this year? 4. It must be the game.
I don't see the connection. Every gang bang I've been involved in has been 100% consensual.
If you don't have the self-control to see the words on screen without doing it, then you probably have trouble getting consent. With that in mind, let's try an experiment:
<narrator's voice>
Go to school. Get a job. Hygene is awesome! Call your parents. Give to charity. Read a book. Pay someone an honest compliment. Do all these things and the learn self control!
Actually, the reason the facebook case turned out the way it did is because we have labor laws that prevent companies from firing people for forming labor unions. If employees are fired for criticizing their employer, then labor unions are effectively crushed.
So the facebook woman won because her coworkers joined in. The problem is, how do you objectively distinguish between a group of bitchy co-workers airing their opinions, and a small labor union?
As for an individual, I can see your point. I was playing devil's advocate, because I see plenty of people who ask "is the government good or bad", and then conclude the liberals are inconsistent because they aren't always government apologists, or because they don't always distinguish between threats from the government and threats from the private sector.
Not to mention that presidents have blatantly disregarded the law before. I'm not going to name names, because my memory is more selective than it should be, but when a high level official tells his underlings "do this" the typical response is several months of compliance, followed by something that may stop it, such as bad PR or lawsuits. The justice system is slow, and the media's attitude is "pictures or it didn't happen".
But, you can't trademark your birth name, such things are eponymous. I'm always a bit shocked at the lack of competence in some of these trademark applications. Even with a trademark, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com would still be referencing Glenn Beck and ought to be permissible under trademark law. A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
These are people who get paid to despise and remain ignorant of our legal system. To answer your question, the site was a parody of Glen Beck's way of avoiding libel prosecutions, himself. We will sometimes spread conspiracy theories, and rather than to own up to the claim he is making he will say something like "Is so-and-so planning to do such-and-such? I'm just asking questions", while presenting poor logic to back up the assertion. So this site was filled with text like "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a young girl in 1990? I don't know. I'm just asking questions."
Ah, a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Catholics are Christians, but they are not the only ones who accept evolution.
Your policy is to make fun of creationists? Wow your an enlightened individual.
Well, my tweed smoking vest caught fire, so I got kicked out of the Ivory tower. But, yes, I do make fun of them, because they cling to an antiquated view, despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary.
We share 60% of our DNA with a banana. Did chimps maybe evolve from bananas and we evolved from chimps? We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages. We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
And you ask why I make fun of creationists!
I would carry on but you probably wouldn't get the point my beliefs have been documented for thousands of years yours for a little over a hundred.
By that logic, the non-existence of airplanes is more accurate than the existence of airplanes. After all, the belief in airplanes has only been popular for a little over a century, but the non-belief in airplanes existed for tens of thousands of years. Or, to use another example, germs don't exist because people have believed in them for less than 50% of recorded history.
I don't have to make fun of evolutionists they do a good job making fun of themselves with their crazy ideas. Like how did the first single celled organism form from amino acids without DNA in the first place?
Of course, you are playing a game that most two year-olds learn. Keep asking questions until you find one that someone can't answer. The difference between a creationist and a scientist is that a creationist thinks that an unanswered question is proof of a god. This is known as an argument from ignorance, and it can be very harmful. After all, once you have assumed an answer, you have no reason to keep looking. This view stops all progress in its tracks. Scientists see an unanswered question for what it is; an opportunity to learn more about the world.
Actually, I'm not a scientist, but I see your point. I agree that the methodology will continue to be unaffected, and that true scientists* care more about the truth than politics, but, where will those true scientists come from if schools aren't teaching it correctly?
* True Scientist - I don't think this is a "no true scottsman" fallacy, because I am not redefining the word.
Nobody said Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, and plenty of Islamic and Jewish creationists.
P.S.
My policy on Islam: Treat them like individuals. Do not let them enforce their form of Sharia. My policy on Terrorists: Capture them, try them in a court, and treat them like the criminals they are. My policy on Christians: Treat them like individuals. Do not let them enforce their form of Sharia. My policy on Creationists: Make fun of them, point out why they're wrong, and hope that people on the fence will get the point.
This is what the majority wants. I keep hearing about how in the business of politics, whenever the majority gets what they want, "society" wins, including the people who lost. Is this not true anymore? After all, if "society" decides that government should spend tax money on (for example) intelligent design, then everything is working as planned, right?
It depends. People want "intelligent design", but they also want a good education system. Which would they prefer? Do they even know that the two are in conflict? Call me an elitist, but I do not believe everybody should vote. I believe that a democracy only works when everybody has the option to vote, and everybody who does is well-versed on the issues. In the US, we tend to have problems with that second part.
1. God exists outside the universe, and is therefore free from restraints that we only know to apply in our universe. If those constraints do not exist for a god, then they do not exist for any other explanation. Therefore, a god explains nothing.
But the notion that God exists and made everything is really the best explanation I've ever seen
2. Doesn't matter. You have no evidence, so it is no "better" than any other explanation anyone could possibly make up.
"Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at least to some extent."
Practical and prudent Ambitious and disciplined Patient and careful Humorous and reserved Pessimistic and fatalistic Miserly and grudging
African Americans are:
Adventurous and energetic Pioneering and courageous Enthusiastic and confident Dynamic and quick-witted Selfish and quick-tempered Impulsive and impatient Foolhardy and daredevil
Jews are:
Patient and reliable Warmhearted and loving Persistent and determined Placid and security loving Jealous and possessive Resentful and inflexible Self-indulgent and greedy
All of these description are pulled from this site. Of course, I replaced signs of the zodiac with races, religions, or ethnicities. My point is that astrology will not destroy the world, but it is a nonsensical way of categorizing and stereotyping people.
I also agree with GP, who seemed to be arguing that if we let India redefine science to include unproven horoscopes, then we have no right to argue when people want to redefine it to include things like "faith healing", "homeopathy", and other forms of bunk. The scientific method goes from "required" to "just another opinion/ivory tower bullshit".
Not an iPad owner, but I know that Amazon has some free public domain books in their library. So, under this rule, would Amazon be required to give 30% of $0.00 to Apple, or would they be required to start charging?
Slashdot Mirror
But in the USA you do something like that you end up in court.
"But your honor, I was only trying to help them."
"Your honor, he has no RIGHT to help us!"
But seriously it would be a great clause in the copyright scheme that if a copyrighted work is taken out of distribution it should automatically go public domain. Otherwise publishers can simply delete history like those old racist Warner Brothers videos they keep taking down from Youtube.
Disney would never let it happen. A big part of their revenue is based on burying beloved moves so that they do not end up in Walmart's $5 bin, and they can demand full price for the anniversary edition of a thirty year old movie. Apparently, creating artificial shortages is good for business.
We're talking about journalists here... to be fair Carol Lieberman was probably referring to the fact that as time goes on people get raped but they don't get unraped. Thus rapes increase over time...
It's easier to make sense of these political degenerates when you know they're lying and misleading from the start.
So, her logic is:
1. Rapes happen. They did last year.
2. This game is coming out.
3. Fewer rapes happened this year. How do you explain that rapes happened this year?
4. It must be the game.
Wow. Just Wow.
I don't see the connection. Every gang bang I've been involved in has been 100% consensual.
If you don't have the self-control to see the words on screen without doing it, then you probably have trouble getting consent. With that in mind, let's try an experiment:
<narrator's voice>
Go to school. Get a job. Hygene is awesome! Call your parents. Give to charity. Read a book. Pay someone an honest compliment. Do all these things and the learn self control!
</narrator's voice>
Actually, the reason the facebook case turned out the way it did is because we have labor laws that prevent companies from firing people for forming labor unions. If employees are fired for criticizing their employer, then labor unions are effectively crushed.
So the facebook woman won because her coworkers joined in. The problem is, how do you objectively distinguish between a group of bitchy co-workers airing their opinions, and a small labor union?
As for an individual, I can see your point. I was playing devil's advocate, because I see plenty of people who ask "is the government good or bad", and then conclude the liberals are inconsistent because they aren't always government apologists, or because they don't always distinguish between threats from the government and threats from the private sector.
I honestly thought this was going to be an article about buzzwords.
Could I recomend one*?
* Warning NSFW
Not to mention that presidents have blatantly disregarded the law before. I'm not going to name names, because my memory is more selective than it should be, but when a high level official tells his underlings "do this" the typical response is several months of compliance, followed by something that may stop it, such as bad PR or lawsuits. The justice system is slow, and the media's attitude is "pictures or it didn't happen".
Shh...He's right behind you.
my employer is mean to me when I post derogatory things about him on Facebook. Then I want my Big Government Mommy to come in and save me!
Small government for me, big government for you!
So we have two scenarios:
1. The Government protecting our rights against itself.
2. The government protecting our rights against the private sector.
How is it contradictory to believe in both? Oh, I forgot. It should be rephrased as:
1. Government bad. Did bad thing.
2. Government good. Did good thing.
I see the contradiction now.
So the solution to health care is to give the government greater control over health care?
No. It is to provide oversight to check the power that insurance companies already have over our medical system.
fusk?
f-suck?
So you are angry because you assume that this group will raise taxes without the authority to do so?
But, you can't trademark your birth name, such things are eponymous. I'm always a bit shocked at the lack of competence in some of these trademark applications. Even with a trademark, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com would still be referencing Glenn Beck and ought to be permissible under trademark law. A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
These are people who get paid to despise and remain ignorant of our legal system. To answer your question, the site was a parody of Glen Beck's way of avoiding libel prosecutions, himself. We will sometimes spread conspiracy theories, and rather than to own up to the claim he is making he will say something like "Is so-and-so planning to do such-and-such? I'm just asking questions", while presenting poor logic to back up the assertion. So this site was filled with text like "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a young girl in 1990? I don't know. I'm just asking questions."
Catholics believe in evolution not Christians.
Ah, a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Catholics are Christians, but they are not the only ones who accept evolution.
Your policy is to make fun of creationists? Wow your an enlightened individual.
Well, my tweed smoking vest caught fire, so I got kicked out of the Ivory tower. But, yes, I do make fun of them, because they cling to an antiquated view, despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary.
We share 60% of our DNA with a banana. Did chimps maybe evolve from bananas and we evolved from chimps?
We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
And you ask why I make fun of creationists!
I would carry on but you probably wouldn't get the point my beliefs have been documented for thousands of years yours for a little over a hundred.
By that logic, the non-existence of airplanes is more accurate than the existence of airplanes. After all, the belief in airplanes has only been popular for a little over a century, but the non-belief in airplanes existed for tens of thousands of years. Or, to use another example, germs don't exist because people have believed in them for less than 50% of recorded history.
I don't have to make fun of evolutionists they do a good job making fun of themselves with their crazy ideas. Like how did the first single celled organism form from amino acids without DNA in the first place?
Let me Google that for you.
Of course, you are playing a game that most two year-olds learn. Keep asking questions until you find one that someone can't answer. The difference between a creationist and a scientist is that a creationist thinks that an unanswered question is proof of a god. This is known as an argument from ignorance, and it can be very harmful. After all, once you have assumed an answer, you have no reason to keep looking. This view stops all progress in its tracks. Scientists see an unanswered question for what it is; an opportunity to learn more about the world.
How did the flagellum motor evolve?
again!
Actually, I'm not a scientist, but I see your point. I agree that the methodology will continue to be unaffected, and that true scientists* care more about the truth than politics, but, where will those true scientists come from if schools aren't teaching it correctly?
* True Scientist - I don't think this is a "no true scottsman" fallacy, because I am not redefining the word.
Nobody said Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, and plenty of Islamic and Jewish creationists.
P.S.
My policy on Islam: Treat them like individuals. Do not let them enforce their form of Sharia.
My policy on Terrorists: Capture them, try them in a court, and treat them like the criminals they are.
My policy on Christians: Treat them like individuals. Do not let them enforce their form of Sharia.
My policy on Creationists: Make fun of them, point out why they're wrong, and hope that people on the fence will get the point.
It isn't persecution.
How can any of these countries possibly be trusted with nuclear weapons? What if the stars happen to align themselves in just the right way? GOODBYE!
Luckily Venus has never been in the house of Duke Nukem
This is what the majority wants. I keep hearing about how in the business of politics, whenever the majority gets what they want, "society" wins, including the people who lost. Is this not true anymore? After all, if "society" decides that government should spend tax money on (for example) intelligent design, then everything is working as planned, right?
It depends. People want "intelligent design", but they also want a good education system. Which would they prefer? Do they even know that the two are in conflict? Call me an elitist, but I do not believe everybody should vote. I believe that a democracy only works when everybody has the option to vote, and everybody who does is well-versed on the issues. In the US, we tend to have problems with that second part.
Two problems:
1. God exists outside the universe, and is therefore free from restraints that we only know to apply in our universe. If those constraints do not exist for a god, then they do not exist for any other explanation. Therefore, a god explains nothing.
But the notion that God exists and made everything is really the best explanation I've ever seen
2. Doesn't matter. You have no evidence, so it is no "better" than any other explanation anyone could possibly make up.
"Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at least to some extent."
Couldn't the same be said for Star Trek?
Indians are:
Practical and prudent
Ambitious and disciplined
Patient and careful
Humorous and reserved
Pessimistic and fatalistic
Miserly and grudging
African Americans are:
Adventurous and energetic
Pioneering and courageous
Enthusiastic and confident
Dynamic and quick-witted
Selfish and quick-tempered
Impulsive and impatient
Foolhardy and daredevil
Jews are:
Patient and reliable
Warmhearted and loving
Persistent and determined
Placid and security loving
Jealous and possessive
Resentful and inflexible
Self-indulgent and greedy
All of these description are pulled from this site. Of course, I replaced signs of the zodiac with races, religions, or ethnicities. My point is that astrology will not destroy the world, but it is a nonsensical way of categorizing and stereotyping people.
I also agree with GP, who seemed to be arguing that if we let India redefine science to include unproven horoscopes, then we have no right to argue when people want to redefine it to include things like "faith healing", "homeopathy", and other forms of bunk. The scientific method goes from "required" to "just another opinion/ivory tower bullshit".
This quickly went from "sad sick kid", to "inspiring story of overcoming adversity", to "anime porn"...Funny how all roads lead to that end.
last i checked 30% of 0 is still 0
You must not be a corporate accountant then. :)
I think you meant unthinkable ways to stifle innovations.
Watch them patent "newspaper on a networked portable computer with display" - then use it to suppress all news reporting on the Internet.
Wouldn't it be more like "means of transmitting content from one or more centralized network devices to another network device"?
Not trying to troll, but those patent applications are so vaguely worded that my example may seem precise by comparison.
Not an iPad owner, but I know that Amazon has some free public domain books in their library. So, under this rule, would Amazon be required to give 30% of $0.00 to Apple, or would they be required to start charging?