The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.
Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?
This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.
Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.
How would the meta-reviewers know who wrote the review they are reviewing?
First of all, the moderation system in./, the system you want to emulate, isn't done by "meta reviewers". People get mod points. They sometimes use those mod points against people they don't like. Sometimes it is just they don't agree with them. This is not a system we want to bring into academic publishing.
The "meta reviewer" job in academic publishing is done by the editor, and if you don't think he knows who wrote a review, you don't understand the system. The "meta reviewer" system in/. doesn't change the moderation of the articles that are reviewed, so an article that has been maliciously moderated out of view is still out of view.
And third, in many academic disciplines, the person who wrote the article knows who the reviewer is even if the name isn't on the review when he sees it. Who is most likely to be a reviewer for an article on your subject, and who is most likely to shoot you down?
I've never said anything like that. Where have I said anything like that?
You did, when you said you wanted to get away from paying for the work, and moving to a/. moderation system. Here:
Why not treat all papers individually? You don't need to get them shoved to you, researchers simply publish online and the rest of the community then reviews the things that have been published.
"Simply publish online and the rest of the community then reviews..." Does away with the job of the editor if the AUTHOR publishes and then everyone else is expected to review.
BTW, could you point me, as an non-academic outsider, to any sources describing the current editorial practice?
Editorial practice is, I believe, determined by the journal, and something you learn when you become one. Perhaps the publications guidelines might talk some about it, and those you'll find at the publisher's website or in a copy of the journal. Just one of those fiddly bits that someone is paid to take care of so there is some continuity and conformity.
How much does it cost to subscribe to all the journals? How many editors could you hire with that money?
Certainly not more than one in any field. But you've forgotten all the non-editor work. Who is going to do all that? All those people who are sitting around playing solitaire all day today, right?
â"the mandate is not to publish everything that is submitted regardless of its quality, as you and the guy you're arguing with seem to think.
I responded to what someone said he wanted. The mandate was in his statement, I simply replied saying what that was a very very bad idea.
He wants academics to move away from the traditional journals and publish via new journals (or their electronic equivalent) that allow free access to everything they publish.
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. We all wish for free stuff, even when we know that someone has to be paid to do the work to produce that free stuff.
He mentioned "editorial excellence", do you really need that to weed out outright crap?
Yes. You need an editor that has some knowledge of the field so he can be the front line filter. To reject things that aren't formatted correctly, contain extraneous material, etc.
You don't need to get them shoved to you, researchers simply publish online and the rest of the community then reviews the things that have been published.
That pushes an awful lot of work out onto an awful lot of people, most of whom are not qualified to do it. You want me to be a reviewer for your work? Ok. I have neither the time to do it correctly nor the temperament to deal with nonsense. Send me your article, I'll shoot the review right back to you.
Something like Slashdot comments, only more thorough.
Right. We want a system where mod stalkers moderate everything that some people say down until it is hidden. That's the best way to produce really good science. Absolutely. And every reader of your./ journal has the time to read at -1 to pick out the good things that were modded incorrectly or maliciously.
And more important, every reader of the./ journal has the ability to determine which articles at -1 have been modded correctly and which have not. Nobody is there trying to learn new things, they're all there looking for old stuff they already know.
I guess the real problem is the automated logic that would select appropriate reviewers for the respective articles in an unbiased, yet meaningful way.
You mean like the job of the EDITOR that you want to do away with?
There's a reason why Wikipedia articles don't count towards tenure. It's not because they are easy to produce, but because anyone can edit them to say anything, and there is no real method to determine who is qualified in a topic to vet the material. Would you want your name on a Wiki article that half a dozen nitwits with no understanding of the topic and a hardon for putting you in your place have edited? I don't think so. Even the current review system has times when reviewers aren't fair or unbiased. Keeping that from being a regular occurrence is one of the jobs of the editor. Knowing who's who well enough to know who not to send something to is just as important as knowing who it should be sent to.
and don't seem to realize the huge research support infrastructure that exists in universities and funding agencies.
No, I just work there. You're right. Everyone here is hired to support the production of a multitude of respected journals and not do any research for stuff to put in them. My bad.
I work in a large college. We have three people on staff to deal with publishing. That's it. That includes the web presence and assisting everyone they can with getting articles into a dozen or more existing journals. Then add on a half a dozen or more large conferences where they assist with papers and posters. Yes, they have lots of time to take over full production of a journal. As long as you only want one issue per year, and don't expect it to come out in the fall (large conference), winter (another large conference), spring (conferences), or summer (yes, more conferences.) And guess what? All the other colleges in my discipline go to the same conferences and have the same crush for materials for them. Which college is going to say "we don't go to conferences anymore, we just do journals?"
The infrastructure and people are already there.
Right. They come out of the trees at night like the Keebler elves and right now they're making cookies, but they could just as easily produce highly respected free academic journals. Or maybe they're stealing underwear, so putting them to productive use will save us all on our clothing bill.
For instance, some univerity or department within a university decides to be responsible for a journal. The only coordination necessary is for other universities to not create the same journal.
Where do they get the money to hire the people to do this job? Oh, I forgot, it won't cost anything because we'll just have all the people who aren't doing anything now do it.
Now, explain to me again why a university that wants the prestige of a respected free academic journal, and obviously has so many people sitting idle just waiting for the chance to produce one, would not create their own prestigious journal instead of letting some other university hog all the glory. It will cost them nothing, remember? Explain to me how there wouldn't be a bias introduced in that journal towards the work done at that university. Of course, the faculty that you expect to do all the work of producing a journal won't be in the least biased against theories or work done by people at other universities, especially when the granting agencies like seeing CV with publication lists, and money is getting even tighter.
I work in a University. I know for a fact that there aren't enough people without anything to do that they could be redirected into producing even a medium quality journal, much less a high quality one. It would cost a bundle to hire the right people with the right skills, and hard finding someone to pay for it.
And the sad part is that there is already a large infrastructure in universities that could do most of the "boring" work: libraries and librarians themselves. They know what to do and mostly know and how to do it.
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Being a librarian does not mean someone knows what articles should be accepted, who should referee them, how to format them, or most of the other things a professional publishing house does.
If you look at the mastheads for many of the respected journals, the editors are not librarians (except maybe for journals in library "science"), they are people in the field. Otherwise, you'd be feeding reviewers absolutely unfiltered junk and forcing them to waste their time doing the editor's job of preselection.
Pooling among different universities would drop the publication costs to nearly zero.
Pooling would create a more expensive job of coordinating, and of course, put a lot more people on the taxpayer-funded payroll as many people would have to be hired to do this new job. Where you get the idea that this would cut the costs to nearly zero, I cannot understand. Maybe you think that the existing librarians just sit around reading books all day and have lots of free time they could use to run a respected academic journal. Not the librarians I know, and the ones I know wouldn't be able to do the job in the first place.
But if the government mandated that all research that is even partially funded by the federal government must be in open journals, those journals would become the prestigous ones overnight.
No, you just explained why they would NOT. As soon as the government is mandating that a journal publish "all research that is even partially funded by the federal government", then you make it a lower class medium. Sure, good articles from good researchers will appear there, but so will a plethora of junk from everyone who is fulfilling the government mandate. Respected journals are respected because they don't publish everything they get, they publish what passes peer review and contains content.
I used to browse some of the free publishers for ebooks. I got so tired of seeing absolute crap and having to spend time looking for the occasional gem that I just gave up. I know someone who is self-publishing via Amazon and actually selling their books for a reasonable price (for a book). I took a look at a couple of their books ('look inside') and what I found was a severe case of comma-itis, to the point that the sentences actually made no sense at all unless you simply ignored all the commas. Misspelled words. Things that a real publisher would never have let past the proof stage.
We do NOT want academic journals to go that direction. Not at all. Putting government mandates on them is one way of pushing them over the cliff.
I think you'd find very few people who would object to the phone lines being used by "credit services" being shut down. Your humorous analogy isn't as silly as it sounds.
changing the DNS doesn't help, the IP address is blocked at ISP level. The usual workaround is to google alternative web addresses that point to the same final IP. for instance:- if "www.thepiratebay.org" is blocked by your UK ISP, you'll probably find that "http://thepiratebay.ee/" will get you to the same place and not be blocked. I hope that helps.
If an IP address or range is blocked at the router, it won't matter what you name it, it will be blocked. If www.tpb.org and tpb.ee go to the same place, then a block on that IP address will take both of them out.
The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.
It's interesting to see this as a comment in a forum where taking a copy of something is usually considered legal and ethical. I'm sure they didn't actually hold the Secretary down and extract all the DNA out of him, they obtained a copy of his DNA from some sloughed off cellular material, or a hair from his comb. It was just one of many copies, and of course, the Secretary suffered no commercial loss because the people who "stole" the DNA wouldn't have bought it anyway. They just wanted the information it contained, and information should be free.
Why did you include "drunkenly"?
Why wasn't it enough that he hit another car and caused loss of life?
Because when it is done in a drunken condition it is the result of an illegal and knowingly reckless act. It was a death caused by a deliberate action taken in violation of the law.
So when he hits someone while sober, what's the difference?
Because it is possible to hit someone while sober and not be acting in a reckless manner. For example, if you are proceeding through a green traffic signal and someone runs the red light at a high rate of speed, you could t-bone them and a death could result.
That just establishes intent to make the documents public.
That was the criminal act. Just as DUII was the criminal act that makes the death of the accident victim manslaughter at the very least.
Lets throw the book at the wanton criminal ambulance driver. Right?
Did he break the law, or are you just pretending he did to make some point? If he did exceed the posted speed in a reckless manner, it would be correct to say he did this deliberately. That reckless operation would, indeed, be used in court to determine guilt and sentencing for any injuries, and that reckless act would, in most cases, invalidate his immunity from prosecution.
The difference between your analogy and real life is that going faster than the speed limit is a known and authorized action for the ambulance driver when dealing with emergency transport and his training covers his actions; releasing classified documents was not in Manning's job description nor was he authorized or trained to do so.
Making classified documents public does not equate to an intention to aid the enemy. And in this case it was, if anything, the opposite, it was an intent to bring to light what he perceived to immoral and illegal activities by our own government.
Do you really not understand that attacking your own government is just one means of aiding the enemies of that government? This is the same kind of epic fail that supporters of Jane Fonda demonstrate. That people who break the law and travel to Cuba to support that government can't fathom.
Do you want to live in a world where something you do unintentially that enables a terrorist to maybe derive some sort of vague advancement of his cause will lead you to being convicted of treason?
So leaking all those classified documents was unintentional?
No, I think it's spot on. Saying that someone didn't actually say "those words, in that order" implies that the misquote is not an issue because the real intent of the speaker was how he was misquoted. He didn't say what it is claimed he said. Period. Continuing to claim that he did is a lie.
Anyway, the important part of my post is the part you didn't quote:
I quote what I feel is significant, and admitting that word order wasn't as quoted was the important part. Word order is significant, as I proved. And I did reply to what you think is significant, which is that your assumption about his intent is just your assumption, while a deliberate misquote is much clearer and, since it is much easier to avoid, just as egregious.
Now, please, enough with the pedantry, it detracts from the conversation.
And deliberately misquoting others, or editing their quotes to change the meaning, does not?
I merely saw an opportunity to rip on federal prosecutors, and I took it.
You took an opportunity to change the meaning of what someone else had said, when you had no significant rebuttal to his comment, pretend he had said something he did not, and then use it for your personal agenda. Yes, I see what you did there.
I see what you did there. You cut a quote so that instead of a statement about what action out of a list doesn't need to be proven, you turned it into a statement that nothing needs to be proven at all.
Very good. Point, set, match. Goes very well with your admission that Bush didn't actually say something using words "in that order" but that's still proof of his meaning what you wanted him to say.
If he was attempting to aid the enemy he would have leaked them straight to the enemy.
And it is obvious that the enemy doesn't read the New York Times or Wikileaks, so it is inconceivable that those could be the medium used to communicate.
Aiding the enemy doesn't have to be a deliberate choice. You don't have to say "today I will aid the enemy."
So that leaves you with... he wasn't trying to aid the enemy with the leaks, and he didn't incidentally aid them either.
So what you are arguing is that the material he released was so meaningless that it makes no difference to anyone. His valiant bravery in releasing documents that seriously compromise US diplomatic efforts didn't actually have any effect on anything at all...
You are correct - Bush never actually said those words, in that order.
You are never correct - Bush actually said those words, in that order.
Somehow I think a statement that someone didn't use a certain set of words "in that order" is an admission that the claim that the words are being quoted is a lie. And the intent of those who quote the words "out of order" is much clearer than the intent of the person who is being misquoted.
Sentence fragment. As long as you don't download a piece of copyrighted material and then start distributing it yourself. Yes. The determination of copyright infringement requires someone actually obtaining from you a copy of something that is being distributed in violation of copyright. The key words are "obtaining from you". Just as you cannot determine who else is downloading what from the server you are getting your copies of movies from, neither can the *AA. They only know what you are serving.
Oh yeah. that reminds me. That guy down the street with the telescope and the parabolic dish-mounted microphones aimed into my windows with the 24x7 recorder, is that ok?
Of course not. Did you even read what I wrote? Or what the process involves? The guy with a camcorder recording you standing on your front porch saying "come get your free movies from me" is ok, both legally and ethically. That's what it will take to be identified for notice.
Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?
No, it's more like you putting a webcam in your house with an open feed to the outside, and then being worried that someone you don' t like may look at it.
The determination of copyright infringement comes from an industry agent who has obtained material from a peer-to-peer server and determined that it is in violation of copyright. So, you'd have to not only copy a file from somewhere else but then turn around and act as a server for that file. If you don't do the latter, then the industry spies won't get anything from you and can't tell your ISP.
Wha'ts wrong with it? How is this different from selling the family house after the parents are deceased?
I think the objection is not to the sale itself, but to the alleged motive for the sale. Selling one's inheritance is not objectionable, unless you do it under the pretense of funding a philanthropic institute with "part of the proceeds" to get the sales price higher.
You're right, in the search results for "mtm special ops" Amazon does not state anywhere that it didn't find the exact phrase that was searched for.
You're wrong. It repeats the search words at the top of the page, but at the bottom is shows you (well, it shows ME) the words it actually used, and "mtm" is lined out.
Two of the 7 watches have one of the words in the title ("special" and "ops"). While 7 of the nine search results are watches, two are books. Amazon's search engine is no different than Google, where the results are based on an "any" search, not an "all."
If I walk into a Honda dealer and ask to see a Camry, are they going to just tell you to go to the Toyota dealer, or are they going to suggest that I might be interested in an Accord?
Once, a very long time ago, I walked into a fast food joint and asked for "An All American Meal". This was when that phrase was a trademark for one of the major chains. I, of course, was in the wrong chain. They promptly escorted me out the door and warned me not to use those words on their property again. An eavesdropping lawyer notified the correct chain and I was sued in federal court for trademark infringement and fraud. I'm now penniless and destitute.
No, of course not. They sold me their version of the same thing, and we all had a chuckle about it.
To me it isn't. Can you go into a retail store and see a sign that says "Apple products" with nothing underneath them, and then a big arrow pointing to Samsung,
Amazon didn't have a sign saying "MTM Special Ops" with an arrow pointing to something else. The website visitor TYPED IN THAT STRING, and Amazon's search engine shows the search string and the results. It's a typical search engine, in that it doesn't even care if all the words match. My search returned not only watches. The "ops" matched a Luminox watch based on "ops" in the name as top result, which then gave the search engine the hint that I was looking for watches that matched that description. I also got hits for movies and games.
This is essentially what Amazon is doing by routing searches to competitor's products. Arguably with the retail logic above, the retailer (Amazon) would need to use a generic like "laptops/tablets" instead of the leading mark (ie, Apple).
How is Amazon's search engine supposed to limit visitors to typing in only approved and authorized words for their searches? "I'm sorry, I cannot search for MTM in the categories 'watches' or 'television' or 'movies'. Try something else, please."
Of course Amazon cannot have a category for "MTM Special Ops Watches", but that's not what happened here.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
This is not a good time to be a retail book seller... Barnes and Noble will soon be displaced by Walmart and their ilk; Stores that only sell books won't be around for much longer if they're publicly traded...
And yet, B&N closed their online store (Fictionwise), which was the one of the few places with DRM-free multiformat offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.
Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?
This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.
Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.
How would the meta-reviewers know who wrote the review they are reviewing?
First of all, the moderation system in ./, the system you want to emulate, isn't done by "meta reviewers". People get mod points. They sometimes use those mod points against people they don't like. Sometimes it is just they don't agree with them. This is not a system we want to bring into academic publishing.
The "meta reviewer" job in academic publishing is done by the editor, and if you don't think he knows who wrote a review, you don't understand the system. The "meta reviewer" system in /. doesn't change the moderation of the articles that are reviewed, so an article that has been maliciously moderated out of view is still out of view.
And third, in many academic disciplines, the person who wrote the article knows who the reviewer is even if the name isn't on the review when he sees it. Who is most likely to be a reviewer for an article on your subject, and who is most likely to shoot you down?
I've never said anything like that. Where have I said anything like that?
You did, when you said you wanted to get away from paying for the work, and moving to a /. moderation system. Here:
"Simply publish online and the rest of the community then reviews..." Does away with the job of the editor if the AUTHOR publishes and then everyone else is expected to review.
BTW, could you point me, as an non-academic outsider, to any sources describing the current editorial practice?
Editorial practice is, I believe, determined by the journal, and something you learn when you become one. Perhaps the publications guidelines might talk some about it, and those you'll find at the publisher's website or in a copy of the journal. Just one of those fiddly bits that someone is paid to take care of so there is some continuity and conformity.
How much does it cost to subscribe to all the journals? How many editors could you hire with that money?
Certainly not more than one in any field. But you've forgotten all the non-editor work. Who is going to do all that? All those people who are sitting around playing solitaire all day today, right?
â"the mandate is not to publish everything that is submitted regardless of its quality, as you and the guy you're arguing with seem to think.
I responded to what someone said he wanted. The mandate was in his statement, I simply replied saying what that was a very very bad idea.
He wants academics to move away from the traditional journals and publish via new journals (or their electronic equivalent) that allow free access to everything they publish.
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. We all wish for free stuff, even when we know that someone has to be paid to do the work to produce that free stuff.
He mentioned "editorial excellence", do you really need that to weed out outright crap?
Yes. You need an editor that has some knowledge of the field so he can be the front line filter. To reject things that aren't formatted correctly, contain extraneous material, etc.
You don't need to get them shoved to you, researchers simply publish online and the rest of the community then reviews the things that have been published.
That pushes an awful lot of work out onto an awful lot of people, most of whom are not qualified to do it. You want me to be a reviewer for your work? Ok. I have neither the time to do it correctly nor the temperament to deal with nonsense. Send me your article, I'll shoot the review right back to you.
Something like Slashdot comments, only more thorough.
Right. We want a system where mod stalkers moderate everything that some people say down until it is hidden. That's the best way to produce really good science. Absolutely. And every reader of your ./ journal has the time to read at -1 to pick out the good things that were modded incorrectly or maliciously.
And more important, every reader of the ./ journal has the ability to determine which articles at -1 have been modded correctly and which have not. Nobody is there trying to learn new things, they're all there looking for old stuff they already know.
I guess the real problem is the automated logic that would select appropriate reviewers for the respective articles in an unbiased, yet meaningful way.
You mean like the job of the EDITOR that you want to do away with?
There's a reason why Wikipedia articles don't count towards tenure. It's not because they are easy to produce, but because anyone can edit them to say anything, and there is no real method to determine who is qualified in a topic to vet the material. Would you want your name on a Wiki article that half a dozen nitwits with no understanding of the topic and a hardon for putting you in your place have edited? I don't think so. Even the current review system has times when reviewers aren't fair or unbiased. Keeping that from being a regular occurrence is one of the jobs of the editor. Knowing who's who well enough to know who not to send something to is just as important as knowing who it should be sent to.
and don't seem to realize the huge research support infrastructure that exists in universities and funding agencies.
No, I just work there. You're right. Everyone here is hired to support the production of a multitude of respected journals and not do any research for stuff to put in them. My bad.
I work in a large college. We have three people on staff to deal with publishing. That's it. That includes the web presence and assisting everyone they can with getting articles into a dozen or more existing journals. Then add on a half a dozen or more large conferences where they assist with papers and posters. Yes, they have lots of time to take over full production of a journal. As long as you only want one issue per year, and don't expect it to come out in the fall (large conference), winter (another large conference), spring (conferences), or summer (yes, more conferences.) And guess what? All the other colleges in my discipline go to the same conferences and have the same crush for materials for them. Which college is going to say "we don't go to conferences anymore, we just do journals?"
The infrastructure and people are already there.
Right. They come out of the trees at night like the Keebler elves and right now they're making cookies, but they could just as easily produce highly respected free academic journals. Or maybe they're stealing underwear, so putting them to productive use will save us all on our clothing bill.
For instance, some univerity or department within a university decides to be responsible for a journal. The only coordination necessary is for other universities to not create the same journal.
Where do they get the money to hire the people to do this job? Oh, I forgot, it won't cost anything because we'll just have all the people who aren't doing anything now do it.
Now, explain to me again why a university that wants the prestige of a respected free academic journal, and obviously has so many people sitting idle just waiting for the chance to produce one, would not create their own prestigious journal instead of letting some other university hog all the glory. It will cost them nothing, remember? Explain to me how there wouldn't be a bias introduced in that journal towards the work done at that university. Of course, the faculty that you expect to do all the work of producing a journal won't be in the least biased against theories or work done by people at other universities, especially when the granting agencies like seeing CV with publication lists, and money is getting even tighter.
I work in a University. I know for a fact that there aren't enough people without anything to do that they could be redirected into producing even a medium quality journal, much less a high quality one. It would cost a bundle to hire the right people with the right skills, and hard finding someone to pay for it.
And the sad part is that there is already a large infrastructure in universities that could do most of the "boring" work: libraries and librarians themselves. They know what to do and mostly know and how to do it.
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Being a librarian does not mean someone knows what articles should be accepted, who should referee them, how to format them, or most of the other things a professional publishing house does.
If you look at the mastheads for many of the respected journals, the editors are not librarians (except maybe for journals in library "science"), they are people in the field. Otherwise, you'd be feeding reviewers absolutely unfiltered junk and forcing them to waste their time doing the editor's job of preselection.
Pooling among different universities would drop the publication costs to nearly zero.
Pooling would create a more expensive job of coordinating, and of course, put a lot more people on the taxpayer-funded payroll as many people would have to be hired to do this new job. Where you get the idea that this would cut the costs to nearly zero, I cannot understand. Maybe you think that the existing librarians just sit around reading books all day and have lots of free time they could use to run a respected academic journal. Not the librarians I know, and the ones I know wouldn't be able to do the job in the first place.
But if the government mandated that all research that is even partially funded by the federal government must be in open journals, those journals would become the prestigous ones overnight.
No, you just explained why they would NOT. As soon as the government is mandating that a journal publish "all research that is even partially funded by the federal government", then you make it a lower class medium. Sure, good articles from good researchers will appear there, but so will a plethora of junk from everyone who is fulfilling the government mandate. Respected journals are respected because they don't publish everything they get, they publish what passes peer review and contains content.
I used to browse some of the free publishers for ebooks. I got so tired of seeing absolute crap and having to spend time looking for the occasional gem that I just gave up. I know someone who is self-publishing via Amazon and actually selling their books for a reasonable price (for a book). I took a look at a couple of their books ('look inside') and what I found was a severe case of comma-itis, to the point that the sentences actually made no sense at all unless you simply ignored all the commas. Misspelled words. Things that a real publisher would never have let past the proof stage.
We do NOT want academic journals to go that direction. Not at all. Putting government mandates on them is one way of pushing them over the cliff.
I think you'd find very few people who would object to the phone lines being used by "credit services" being shut down. Your humorous analogy isn't as silly as it sounds.
changing the DNS doesn't help, the IP address is blocked at ISP level. The usual workaround is to google alternative web addresses that point to the same final IP. for instance :- if "www.thepiratebay.org" is blocked by your UK ISP, you'll probably find that "http://thepiratebay.ee/" will get you to the same place and not be blocked. I hope that helps.
If an IP address or range is blocked at the router, it won't matter what you name it, it will be blocked. If www.tpb.org and tpb.ee go to the same place, then a block on that IP address will take both of them out.
The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.
It's interesting to see this as a comment in a forum where taking a copy of something is usually considered legal and ethical. I'm sure they didn't actually hold the Secretary down and extract all the DNA out of him, they obtained a copy of his DNA from some sloughed off cellular material, or a hair from his comb. It was just one of many copies, and of course, the Secretary suffered no commercial loss because the people who "stole" the DNA wouldn't have bought it anyway. They just wanted the information it contained, and information should be free.
Why did you include "drunkenly"? Why wasn't it enough that he hit another car and caused loss of life?
Because when it is done in a drunken condition it is the result of an illegal and knowingly reckless act. It was a death caused by a deliberate action taken in violation of the law.
So when he hits someone while sober, what's the difference?
Because it is possible to hit someone while sober and not be acting in a reckless manner. For example, if you are proceeding through a green traffic signal and someone runs the red light at a high rate of speed, you could t-bone them and a death could result.
That just establishes intent to make the documents public.
That was the criminal act. Just as DUII was the criminal act that makes the death of the accident victim manslaughter at the very least.
Lets throw the book at the wanton criminal ambulance driver. Right?
Did he break the law, or are you just pretending he did to make some point? If he did exceed the posted speed in a reckless manner, it would be correct to say he did this deliberately. That reckless operation would, indeed, be used in court to determine guilt and sentencing for any injuries, and that reckless act would, in most cases, invalidate his immunity from prosecution.
The difference between your analogy and real life is that going faster than the speed limit is a known and authorized action for the ambulance driver when dealing with emergency transport and his training covers his actions; releasing classified documents was not in Manning's job description nor was he authorized or trained to do so.
Making classified documents public does not equate to an intention to aid the enemy. And in this case it was, if anything, the opposite, it was an intent to bring to light what he perceived to immoral and illegal activities by our own government.
Do you really not understand that attacking your own government is just one means of aiding the enemies of that government? This is the same kind of epic fail that supporters of Jane Fonda demonstrate. That people who break the law and travel to Cuba to support that government can't fathom.
Do you want to live in a world where something you do unintentially that enables a terrorist to maybe derive some sort of vague advancement of his cause will lead you to being convicted of treason?
So leaking all those classified documents was unintentional?
You think wrong.
No, I think it's spot on. Saying that someone didn't actually say "those words, in that order" implies that the misquote is not an issue because the real intent of the speaker was how he was misquoted. He didn't say what it is claimed he said. Period. Continuing to claim that he did is a lie.
Anyway, the important part of my post is the part you didn't quote:
I quote what I feel is significant, and admitting that word order wasn't as quoted was the important part. Word order is significant, as I proved. And I did reply to what you think is significant, which is that your assumption about his intent is just your assumption, while a deliberate misquote is much clearer and, since it is much easier to avoid, just as egregious.
Now, please, enough with the pedantry, it detracts from the conversation.
And deliberately misquoting others, or editing their quotes to change the meaning, does not?
I merely saw an opportunity to rip on federal prosecutors, and I took it.
You took an opportunity to change the meaning of what someone else had said, when you had no significant rebuttal to his comment, pretend he had said something he did not, and then use it for your personal agenda. Yes, I see what you did there.
Very good. Point, set, match. Goes very well with your admission that Bush didn't actually say something using words "in that order" but that's still proof of his meaning what you wanted him to say.
If he was attempting to aid the enemy he would have leaked them straight to the enemy.
And it is obvious that the enemy doesn't read the New York Times or Wikileaks, so it is inconceivable that those could be the medium used to communicate.
Aiding the enemy doesn't have to be a deliberate choice. You don't have to say "today I will aid the enemy."
So that leaves you with... he wasn't trying to aid the enemy with the leaks, and he didn't incidentally aid them either.
So what you are arguing is that the material he released was so meaningless that it makes no difference to anyone. His valiant bravery in releasing documents that seriously compromise US diplomatic efforts didn't actually have any effect on anything at all ...
You are correct - Bush never actually said those words, in that order.
You are never correct - Bush actually said those words, in that order.
Somehow I think a statement that someone didn't use a certain set of words "in that order" is an admission that the claim that the words are being quoted is a lie. And the intent of those who quote the words "out of order" is much clearer than the intent of the person who is being misquoted.
as long as I don't do anything wrong.
Sentence fragment. As long as you don't download a piece of copyrighted material and then start distributing it yourself. Yes. The determination of copyright infringement requires someone actually obtaining from you a copy of something that is being distributed in violation of copyright. The key words are "obtaining from you". Just as you cannot determine who else is downloading what from the server you are getting your copies of movies from, neither can the *AA. They only know what you are serving.
Oh yeah. that reminds me. That guy down the street with the telescope and the parabolic dish-mounted microphones aimed into my windows with the 24x7 recorder, is that ok?
Of course not. Did you even read what I wrote? Or what the process involves? The guy with a camcorder recording you standing on your front porch saying "come get your free movies from me" is ok, both legally and ethically. That's what it will take to be identified for notice.
Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?
No, it's more like you putting a webcam in your house with an open feed to the outside, and then being worried that someone you don' t like may look at it.
The determination of copyright infringement comes from an industry agent who has obtained material from a peer-to-peer server and determined that it is in violation of copyright. So, you'd have to not only copy a file from somewhere else but then turn around and act as a server for that file. If you don't do the latter, then the industry spies won't get anything from you and can't tell your ISP.
Wha'ts wrong with it? How is this different from selling the family house after the parents are deceased?
I think the objection is not to the sale itself, but to the alleged motive for the sale. Selling one's inheritance is not objectionable, unless you do it under the pretense of funding a philanthropic institute with "part of the proceeds" to get the sales price higher.
You're right, in the search results for "mtm special ops" Amazon does not state anywhere that it didn't find the exact phrase that was searched for.
You're wrong. It repeats the search words at the top of the page, but at the bottom is shows you (well, it shows ME) the words it actually used, and "mtm" is lined out.
Two of the 7 watches have one of the words in the title ("special" and "ops"). While 7 of the nine search results are watches, two are books. Amazon's search engine is no different than Google, where the results are based on an "any" search, not an "all."
If I walk into a Honda dealer and ask to see a Camry, are they going to just tell you to go to the Toyota dealer, or are they going to suggest that I might be interested in an Accord?
Once, a very long time ago, I walked into a fast food joint and asked for "An All American Meal". This was when that phrase was a trademark for one of the major chains. I, of course, was in the wrong chain. They promptly escorted me out the door and warned me not to use those words on their property again. An eavesdropping lawyer notified the correct chain and I was sued in federal court for trademark infringement and fraud. I'm now penniless and destitute.
No, of course not. They sold me their version of the same thing, and we all had a chuckle about it.
To me it isn't. Can you go into a retail store and see a sign that says "Apple products" with nothing underneath them, and then a big arrow pointing to Samsung,
Amazon didn't have a sign saying "MTM Special Ops" with an arrow pointing to something else. The website visitor TYPED IN THAT STRING, and Amazon's search engine shows the search string and the results. It's a typical search engine, in that it doesn't even care if all the words match. My search returned not only watches. The "ops" matched a Luminox watch based on "ops" in the name as top result, which then gave the search engine the hint that I was looking for watches that matched that description. I also got hits for movies and games.
This is essentially what Amazon is doing by routing searches to competitor's products. Arguably with the retail logic above, the retailer (Amazon) would need to use a generic like "laptops/tablets" instead of the leading mark (ie, Apple).
How is Amazon's search engine supposed to limit visitors to typing in only approved and authorized words for their searches? "I'm sorry, I cannot search for MTM in the categories 'watches' or 'television' or 'movies'. Try something else, please."
Of course Amazon cannot have a category for "MTM Special Ops Watches", but that's not what happened here.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
This is not a good time to be a retail book seller... Barnes and Noble will soon be displaced by Walmart and their ilk; Stores that only sell books won't be around for much longer if they're publicly traded...
And yet, B&N closed their online store (Fictionwise), which was the one of the few places with DRM-free multiformat offerings.