So, the title "Month of Apple Bugs" doesn't imply anything? Yes, you could take it to mean "bugs that infect applications developed for use on the operating system running on most computers made by Apple," but that's just not as sexy, is it? If a similar project were called "Month of Microsoft Bugs" and mostly targeted 3rd party apps, I wager people would more quickly see the problem.
Since you seem incapable of not reading, I'm compelled to taunt you some more, especially by insisting on the point that you find so "disgusting." You claim there can be no analogy between the public penis-swarming and a rape, on what grounds? that one is legal and the other is not. Bravo! You've recognized that for two things to be analogous, they have to be different. Have I ever claimed otherwise? No, I haven't. However, here's a news flash (news to you, that is): two things different in one respect can be the same in another. This claim is what you find so "disgusting" that you can't respond substantively to it? I patiently tried to explain to you just what the issue is, and you insist on not getting it. It's kind of like the stupid debates people get into about the analogies between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. (The question is not stupid, but the way people deal with it is, one side shouting "they're totally not the same" and the other "they totally are.")
You seem particularly enraged by my little (TM) comment, so let's talk about that some more, too! You claim that I responded that you "forgot the/. tradition of 'TM' after Real Life": I did no such thing. I'm not aware of any such tradition. My only (snarky) point was that you treated the ordinary phrase "real life" as if it were a trademark by capitalizing it. You keep fulminating about this, as though I were some kind of Slashdot pedant, policing people's posts for proper procedure. Not so. I still don't know what you're talking about. Hope you enjoyed your tiny spittle-flecked, back-arching ragegasm.
Finally (unless you respond with more abusive illiteracy, moral and otherwise), let me say that you missed the point about my picking out the word "illegal" in your euphemistic and pleonastic "illegal sexual assault against a person": that it was a pleonasm. You seemed to recognize the problem earlier, but now have forgotten it again. So sad.
P.S. The "charitable" reading I offered relied not only on the words of yours that you helpfully reproduce, but also on your incoherent vitriol against VRML, whatever that is.
A difference of opinion you misidentified. You don't get to declare the conversation over after falsely imputing a belief to me and then continuing in the face of evidence to the contrary to claim that it is somehow true. You seem to think the flying penises in the video are absurd in the sense of being funny. You don't appear to wish to defend that claim.
You're right that we disagree about the absurd, but more about how to apply the term than about what value to give it. "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was absurd, and funny. "Family Guy" is a string of unfunny non-sequiturs, probably written by manatees. Do you think the penis-assault was funny? Absurd? Please explain. Why penises?
If you didn't give a shit, you wouldn't respond. I guess that makes you self-refuting.
There was no substantive point to your post, only an assertion that there was no analogy. Unless "jesus fucking christ" is some new form of inference or evidence I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't know what VRML means, and I don't care. An extremely charitable reading of your earlier post would be that you think there can be no analogy between what happens in real life and in a virtual world. If that were true, if what happens there had no meaning, then it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. Plainly, from the amount of time and money people spend on these things, they think they count for something. On the other hand, you'd be right to think that people can't and shouldn't be prosecuted for virtual "acts" as if they were the same as their real-world analogues.
I raised the issue of posting videos of an actual rape to test the waters on what people thought should or shouldn't be posted on sites like YouTube. Not "legally allowed," or "constitutionally protected" or anything like that. I think whoever posted these videos (and whoever pulled the stunt in the first place) is a major ass. I'd like to know this person's name so I can photoshop some bukkakke videos of their real-life face and post them on the internet. But I'm not sure that's a moral impulse. Oh, what a dilemma!
Barring that, I think a publicly televised beating about the face with a big floppy rubber dildo would be a just punishment for this person, but we don't live in a just world.
So, exactly what aspects of this person were being "poked fun at" by having a stream of giant wiggling penises hurled at her again? Being a woman? Wow, that's really good satire right there. Stupid woman. Going around in public being a woman. Hi-fucking-larious. That'll teach her.
Somebody get these folks a job writing for "Family Guy" right away. They'd probably fit right in.
Speaking of power, do you think there's a difference between George W. Bush as a target of satire and others with less power? Or is it all the same?
That too, that age alone can produce wisdom, is also an assumption.
To you maybe, but not to one to whom it is an observation. This is not surprising, since your use of the word "also" implies that you think "strawman" and "assumption" mean the same.
No. I stand by the analogy, though people still seem to have difficulty distinguishing between an analogy and moral equivalence.
Here's how the two situations are similar: rapists use sexual vulnerability as the particular medium in which they express their power; the folks who staged this sophomoric prank (note the vast difference in moral weight I am acknolwedging) also chose to use inappropriate crossing of sexual boundaries to express their dislike of this person. This is why it's bad faith for people to claim both that she got what she deserved (to be made to look weak/bad/stupid by being forced to be associated with penises while she was trying to speak/appear in public) and that it has "nothing at all to do" with rape.
Either the prank is funny (ha-ha, flying pee-pees!) and it's like (but not equivalent to) rape, or it means nothing and thus is not funny.
I'm not sure what the word "equivalent" is doing in quotes, but I do know you're wrong: a better analogy would be if I went to your mom's place of work and pasted the whole place with a photoshopped picture of her holding a penis the size of a trombone. Actually, that kind of sounds like a good idea. Where does she work?
If there's an opposite fallacy to "slippery slope," I think you've committed it. I'd call it "The World is Flat" if that wasn't already the title of a shitty book.
I know too little about SL's terms of service, etc. to have an opinion about this censoring of videos, but I have a hypothetical question about an analogous situation.
What would people think if YouTube or its ilk featured videos of actual rapes?
If you have not "set up your life around a lie," then you won't mind having the answers to all these questions made public under your own name with the full knowledge of all of your family, friends, co-workers, enemies, and the public at large:
Have you ever told a lie? What was it and when and to whom did you tell it? Have you ever digitally stimulated your own anus? Did you enjoy it? How about anal insertion of foreign objects? Which kinds and for how long? Privately or with others present or assisting? Have you ever fantasized about having an underage person perform sexual favors for you? Which favors? By whom? A family member?
Tell us, please, for the sake of truth. What harm could possibly come of it?
That's the soft and fuzzy feel good theory promoted by sociologists. But what we see in the real world is parents taking care of their children (which makes sense, because they are active enough to teach and oversee).
If by "in the real world," you mean, "in industrialized countries in the past 50 years." Not the best time-frame if you want to make claims about evolution.
The assumption that being an elder automagically provides them with 'wisdom' is equally unfounded.
It's not an assumption that age will produce wisdom, but that it alone can.
Actually, this suit is more analagous to GM saying that a third-party manufacturer can't stamp the phrase "Genuine GM" on their parts. I think most people would agree that it is reasonable for GM to have an interest in preventing that
Actually, this is more like saying that a third-party manufacturer can't stamp the words "compatible with General Motors cars" on the oil filters they want to sell. While GM might well have an interest in that (if, say, they themselves produce oil-filters), that's no reason to suppose that interest should be legally protected.
I happen to agree. I think I inadvertently tossed some flamebait out there. A better question would be whether people will be put off using this service on their websites by the branding.
So, skimming the Google AJAX Search API example code pages, it looks like a big part of this is to attach Google's name and image to everything your web page or web app does with the data Google provides. Does that seem to anyone else like a fair assessment? If so, is it a fair practice?
Slashdot Mirror
So, the title "Month of Apple Bugs" doesn't imply anything? Yes, you could take it to mean "bugs that infect applications developed for use on the operating system running on most computers made by Apple," but that's just not as sexy, is it? If a similar project were called "Month of Microsoft Bugs" and mostly targeted 3rd party apps, I wager people would more quickly see the problem.
Ever heard of plaster casting? It's pretty cheap.
More importantly, can you print your own scrith?
It's the same mindset that blames "a few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib for the abuses there.
Since you seem incapable of not reading, I'm compelled to taunt you some more, especially by insisting on the point that you find so "disgusting." You claim there can be no analogy between the public penis-swarming and a rape, on what grounds? that one is legal and the other is not. Bravo! You've recognized that for two things to be analogous, they have to be different. Have I ever claimed otherwise? No, I haven't. However, here's a news flash (news to you, that is): two things different in one respect can be the same in another. This claim is what you find so "disgusting" that you can't respond substantively to it? I patiently tried to explain to you just what the issue is, and you insist on not getting it. It's kind of like the stupid debates people get into about the analogies between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. (The question is not stupid, but the way people deal with it is, one side shouting "they're totally not the same" and the other "they totally are.") You seem particularly enraged by my little (TM) comment, so let's talk about that some more, too! You claim that I responded that you "forgot the /. tradition of 'TM' after Real Life": I did no such thing. I'm not aware of any such tradition. My only (snarky) point was that you treated the ordinary phrase "real life" as if it were a trademark by capitalizing it. You keep fulminating about this, as though I were some kind of Slashdot pedant, policing people's posts for proper procedure. Not so. I still don't know what you're talking about. Hope you enjoyed your tiny spittle-flecked, back-arching ragegasm.
Finally (unless you respond with more abusive illiteracy, moral and otherwise), let me say that you missed the point about my picking out the word "illegal" in your euphemistic and pleonastic "illegal sexual assault against a person": that it was a pleonasm. You seemed to recognize the problem earlier, but now have forgotten it again. So sad.
P.S. The "charitable" reading I offered relied not only on the words of yours that you helpfully reproduce, but also on your incoherent vitriol against VRML, whatever that is.
A difference of opinion you misidentified. You don't get to declare the conversation over after falsely imputing a belief to me and then continuing in the face of evidence to the contrary to claim that it is somehow true. You seem to think the flying penises in the video are absurd in the sense of being funny. You don't appear to wish to defend that claim.
You're right that we disagree about the absurd, but more about how to apply the term than about what value to give it. "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was absurd, and funny. "Family Guy" is a string of unfunny non-sequiturs, probably written by manatees. Do you think the penis-assault was funny? Absurd? Please explain. Why penises?
If you didn't give a shit, you wouldn't respond. I guess that makes you self-refuting.
There was no substantive point to your post, only an assertion that there was no analogy. Unless "jesus fucking christ" is some new form of inference or evidence I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't know what VRML means, and I don't care. An extremely charitable reading of your earlier post would be that you think there can be no analogy between what happens in real life and in a virtual world. If that were true, if what happens there had no meaning, then it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. Plainly, from the amount of time and money people spend on these things, they think they count for something. On the other hand, you'd be right to think that people can't and shouldn't be prosecuted for virtual "acts" as if they were the same as their real-world analogues.
I raised the issue of posting videos of an actual rape to test the waters on what people thought should or shouldn't be posted on sites like YouTube. Not "legally allowed," or "constitutionally protected" or anything like that. I think whoever posted these videos (and whoever pulled the stunt in the first place) is a major ass. I'd like to know this person's name so I can photoshop some bukkakke videos of their real-life face and post them on the internet. But I'm not sure that's a moral impulse. Oh, what a dilemma!
Barring that, I think a publicly televised beating about the face with a big floppy rubber dildo would be a just punishment for this person, but we don't live in a just world.
So, exactly what aspects of this person were being "poked fun at" by having a stream of giant wiggling penises hurled at her again? Being a woman? Wow, that's really good satire right there. Stupid woman. Going around in public being a woman. Hi-fucking-larious. That'll teach her.
Somebody get these folks a job writing for "Family Guy" right away. They'd probably fit right in.
Speaking of power, do you think there's a difference between George W. Bush as a target of satire and others with less power? Or is it all the same?
anything that she (anonymously) made public
Your incoherence is staggering.
Does this concept of "anonymously making something public" cover all of your e-mail correspondence and phone calls? Why not?
So "poking fun at" and "exerting power over" have nothing to do with one another? I don't know what world you inhabit.
That too, that age alone can produce wisdom, is also an assumption.
To you maybe, but not to one to whom it is an observation. This is not surprising, since your use of the word "also" implies that you think "strawman" and "assumption" mean the same.
No. I stand by the analogy, though people still seem to have difficulty distinguishing between an analogy and moral equivalence.
Here's how the two situations are similar: rapists use sexual vulnerability as the particular medium in which they express their power; the folks who staged this sophomoric prank (note the vast difference in moral weight I am acknolwedging) also chose to use inappropriate crossing of sexual boundaries to express their dislike of this person. This is why it's bad faith for people to claim both that she got what she deserved (to be made to look weak/bad/stupid by being forced to be associated with penises while she was trying to speak/appear in public) and that it has "nothing at all to do" with rape.
Either the prank is funny (ha-ha, flying pee-pees!) and it's like (but not equivalent to) rape, or it means nothing and thus is not funny.
I'm not sure what the word "equivalent" is doing in quotes, but I do know you're wrong: a better analogy would be if I went to your mom's place of work and pasted the whole place with a photoshopped picture of her holding a penis the size of a trombone. Actually, that kind of sounds like a good idea. Where does she work?
not even remotely analogous to a Real Life illegal sexual assault on a person
You forgot the (TM) after "Real Life." Also, is there such a thing as a legal sexual assault? Assmunch. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
So, calling two things "analogous" is equating them? There's an analogy between analogy and equation, but not an equation! ;-)
Flying penis interruption is not rape
That's why I called it an analogous situation.
not even close
If there's an opposite fallacy to "slippery slope," I think you've committed it. I'd call it "The World is Flat" if that wasn't already the title of a shitty book.
I know too little about SL's terms of service, etc. to have an opinion about this censoring of videos, but I have a hypothetical question about an analogous situation.
What would people think if YouTube or its ilk featured videos of actual rapes?
If you have not "set up your life around a lie," then you won't mind having the answers to all these questions made public under your own name with the full knowledge of all of your family, friends, co-workers, enemies, and the public at large:
Have you ever told a lie? What was it and when and to whom did you tell it? Have you ever digitally stimulated your own anus? Did you enjoy it? How about anal insertion of foreign objects? Which kinds and for how long? Privately or with others present or assisting? Have you ever fantasized about having an underage person perform sexual favors for you? Which favors? By whom? A family member?
Tell us, please, for the sake of truth. What harm could possibly come of it?
That's the soft and fuzzy feel good theory promoted by sociologists. But what we see in the real world is parents taking care of their children (which makes sense, because they are active enough to teach and oversee).
If by "in the real world," you mean, "in industrialized countries in the past 50 years." Not the best time-frame if you want to make claims about evolution.
The assumption that being an elder automagically provides them with 'wisdom' is equally unfounded.
It's not an assumption that age will produce wisdom, but that it alone can.
For anyone who is interested in finding out about a third possibility, I have two words: non-reductive physicalism.
Actually, this suit is more analagous to GM saying that a third-party manufacturer can't stamp the phrase "Genuine GM" on their parts. I think most people would agree that it is reasonable for GM to have an interest in preventing that
Actually, this is more like saying that a third-party manufacturer can't stamp the words "compatible with General Motors cars" on the oil filters they want to sell. While GM might well have an interest in that (if, say, they themselves produce oil-filters), that's no reason to suppose that interest should be legally protected.
I happen to agree. I think I inadvertently tossed some flamebait out there. A better question would be whether people will be put off using this service on their websites by the branding.
So, skimming the Google AJAX Search API example code pages, it looks like a big part of this is to attach Google's name and image to everything your web page or web app does with the data Google provides. Does that seem to anyone else like a fair assessment? If so, is it a fair practice?
Yes, it could be "more fair"
You mean, if the "developers" (who "made" the product) get "paid more" for it? Or have I "missed the point"?