Should have made = potential sales, which is handwaving puffery; it does not exist. Liek the poster above said, posting a bad review of a product causes a loss of sales; should they be sued for loss of "potential sales"?
"If person B copied the App from person A, person B' actions cause me to have 5 shells instead of 10." This is true only if person B was going to otherwise buy the app; you have no idea if he would do so. You are assuming he would, but you can't base a definition of stealing around what COULD have happened in this alternate universe of yours.
You have 5 shells less than you should have only if person B was going to otherwise buy the item. Perhaps he just wanted to demo the app to see if he wanted to purchase it.
If you copy my car keys, you have copied my car keys, and I still have my car keys. You have not STOLEN my car keys (unless you take the car keys, copy them, and then don't give them back.).
But when you take my car, you have stolen the car.
Imagine if you could somehow copy my car, say with a 3d printer. Would I say that you have stolen my car if you make a copy of my car and drive off with it? Of course not; that would be ludicrous.
It's not taking. It's copying. Copying is not taking.
The point about small children is that at a base level, the vast majority of people around the world understand that the two are not the same. Copying is not taking. Taking implies a LOSS from the person who had what was taken; copying does not.
That's why a very large percentage of Americans have copied music, for example, and have no ethical qualms about doing so, while a very small percentage of people would ever walk into a store and walk out with something without paying for it. They KNOW that there is a difference between the two.
IP lawyers try to blur the lines so that people will think they are the same, but people just aren't having it.
I think it might be called fair use; but whatever it is, it's not stealing.
I point out the examples of small children understanding this because it really is very simple. IP lawyers have tried to make a simple concept seem complicated by equating the two, but the vast majority of Americans know that making a copy of a cassette tape or CD just is simply, fundamentally not the same as walking into a supermarket and ripping off a candy bar, no matter how they try to spin it.
It's about what is on the plastic disc, and if I copy why is on the disc, the owner has not LOST what was on the plastic disk.
This idea of potential sales is stupid; it exists only in your imagination. It's handwaving puffery.
If you take my car, I no longer have a car. The car has been stolen from me. If I create a song, and you copy it without paying for it, I still have the song. I have lost nothing.
Again, small children understand this distinction; apparently you do not.
Is this really true? I had never head the numbers about whether or not most pirates in the 18th century were actual "privateers". I wonder what the actual percentages really are.
I believe typically the fees include your very soul, the souls of your children and significant others, your very hopes, dreams and aspirations, with an airtight guarantee of a certain % of all future occurrences of personal satisfaction. I believe that is fairly typical; some lawyers charge more. It varies.
One of the interesting things about this is the amount of money spent to create this logo. It probably runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Internally, they probably went through multiple design revisions, followed by multiple meetings on how the logo should look and what the brand "evokes", followed by multiple meetings at the very top of the company to confirm these findings. And that's if it was done internally; if they hired an agency to do this it could easily have cost them millions.
All for something I could have done with Powerpoint.
Jesus Christ in a chicken basket, READ THE FRIKKIN VERSE!
"28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and SEIZES her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
What in the heck do you think SEIZES means? It means rape. This is not the description of a man who runs into a hottie at a bar and they go home for a hookup. It is specifically referring to rape of a virgin; a virgin was considered hot property because men could only marry vigins, and since her "usefulness" as property was now lessened, the only thing to do is to marry her off to her rapist. that is what that verse means.
The proof that this is what was meant is that this practice is still in place EVEN TODAY.
But not in v.28, a verse people often conveniently overlook. In that verse, if the attacker rapes an unengaged virgin, he is commanded to marry her and pay her father.
This "holy book", the "Word of God" essentially commands that a woman who is raped is must be further victimized by being forced to wed her raper. In essence, this condemns an innocent woman to the horror of a relationship where she will likely be violated, at whim, for the rest of her life.
And you wonder why women in Afghanistan set themselves on fire in some of these situations...it's to get out of hellholes that books like this put forward as laws.
The section you quote above does not equate rape with murder if the woman is not bethrothed. In fact, it's a perfect example of what is so screwed up with those laws.
reread V. 28. The punishment to the rapist, in this case, is to MARRY his victim and pay her father.
The woman, who has just been victimized, is further commanded, by the laws of this stupid holy book, to be victimized yet again by being forced to marry her rapist.
And yet nothing in your exampled about how the rape offends the woman. It's about how it offends the men in her life. Again, a mysogynistic culture, that has carried down through the ages. It has only been recently in modern history that rape has been viewed for what is primarily is: a crime against WOMEN. Not men. WOMEN.
And the reason it has taken so long is because people have espoused views just like the ones you have mentioned.
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments. They are an icon. They are placed all over the country in churches, and occasionally courtroomas and schools before the ACLU threatens lawsuits.
The Ten Commandments are notable for their SIMPLICITY. In other words, God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
Modern Christianity today is based partly on the assumption that the rules God set down are IMMUTABLE, valid for all time, and the Ten Commandments are part and parcel of that. Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments. It's the one thing from the Old testament that Christians today believe still hold sway.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
But there's no issues applying other verses to modern life. The Ten Commandments are notable for their simplicity and unabiguousness. Why would god need footnotes for rape? Why would he have some verses seemingly allowing it in some circumstances later unless the god of the Bible had no problem with it?
I've still not seen an answer from a religious person...why does God never explicitly outlaw rape?
Religious folks, when you hear atheists such as myself and others criticizing your religion for being mysogynistic, before you answer those criticisms, please have a good answer for this question. Why does god not explicitly command people not to rape?
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED. Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.
It's pretty straightforward.
It's this use of ambiguous weasel words throughout history in almost all religious texts. If God wanted people to not do something, really really not do them, he would have made it unambiguous.
Commandment 11: Thou Shalt Not Rape. Ever. For real.
There, see, that wasn't so hard.
But the Christian God presented in the Bible chose not to do that.
That's why I wrote "...the God presented in the Bible." While I don't believe in God, this fictional character is presented in the Bible outlawing all sorts of things...just not rape.
Slashdot Mirror
Should have made = potential sales, which is handwaving puffery; it does not exist. Liek the poster above said, posting a bad review of a product causes a loss of sales; should they be sued for loss of "potential sales"?
"If person B copied the App from person A, person B' actions cause me to have 5 shells instead of 10."
This is true only if person B was going to otherwise buy the app; you have no idea if he would do so. You are assuming he would, but you can't base a definition of stealing around what COULD have happened in this alternate universe of yours.
You have 5 shells less than you should have only if person B was going to otherwise buy the item. Perhaps he just wanted to demo the app to see if he wanted to purchase it.
Nono, silly person.
If you copy my car keys, you have copied my car keys, and I still have my car keys. You have not STOLEN my car keys (unless you take the car keys, copy them, and then don't give them back.).
But when you take my car, you have stolen the car.
Imagine if you could somehow copy my car, say with a 3d printer. Would I say that you have stolen my car if you make a copy of my car and drive off with it? Of course not; that would be ludicrous.
Actually, I believe the term is not fair use, but copyright infringement.
It's not taking. It's copying. Copying is not taking.
The point about small children is that at a base level, the vast majority of people around the world understand that the two are not the same. Copying is not taking. Taking implies a LOSS from the person who had what was taken; copying does not.
That's why a very large percentage of Americans have copied music, for example, and have no ethical qualms about doing so, while a very small percentage of people would ever walk into a store and walk out with something without paying for it. They KNOW that there is a difference between the two.
IP lawyers try to blur the lines so that people will think they are the same, but people just aren't having it.
I think it might be called fair use; but whatever it is, it's not stealing.
I point out the examples of small children understanding this because it really is very simple. IP lawyers have tried to make a simple concept seem complicated by equating the two, but the vast majority of Americans know that making a copy of a cassette tape or CD just is simply, fundamentally not the same as walking into a supermarket and ripping off a candy bar, no matter how they try to spin it.
It's about what is on the plastic disc, and if I copy why is on the disc, the owner has not LOST what was on the plastic disk.
This idea of potential sales is stupid; it exists only in your imagination. It's handwaving puffery.
If you take my car, I no longer have a car. The car has been stolen from me.
If I create a song, and you copy it without paying for it, I still have the song. I have lost nothing.
Again, small children understand this distinction; apparently you do not.
Is this really true? I had never head the numbers about whether or not most pirates in the 18th century were actual "privateers". I wonder what the actual percentages really are.
If I have an orange in my hand and you take it from me, I no longer have the orange. I now have one orange LESS than I had before. That is stealing.
If I have a cd in my hand and you copy that CD, I still have the CD in my hand. I do NOT have one LESS cd than I had before.
Small children can detect the difference between these two scenarios; but to some people they are equivalent. I have no clue why that that is.
I believe typically the fees include your very soul, the souls of your children and significant others, your very hopes, dreams and aspirations, with an airtight guarantee of a certain % of all future occurrences of personal satisfaction. I believe that is fairly typical; some lawyers charge more. It varies.
You don't know the lawyers I know.
I guess I better get ready to pony up to Apple for those brownies with rounded, beveled edges I made last night.
sigh. :-(
nice.
One of the interesting things about this is the amount of money spent to create this logo. It probably runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Internally, they probably went through multiple design revisions, followed by multiple meetings on how the logo should look and what the brand "evokes", followed by multiple meetings at the very top of the company to confirm these findings. And that's if it was done internally; if they hired an agency to do this it could easily have cost them millions.
All for something I could have done with Powerpoint.
1) Hide in the Ecuadorean embassy.
2) Hire a lawyer.
Jesus Christ in a chicken basket, READ THE FRIKKIN VERSE!
"28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and SEIZES her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
What in the heck do you think SEIZES means? It means rape. This is not the description of a man who runs into a hottie at a bar and they go home for a hookup. It is specifically referring to rape of a virgin; a virgin was considered hot property because men could only marry vigins, and since her "usefulness" as property was now lessened, the only thing to do is to marry her off to her rapist. that is what that verse means.
The proof that this is what was meant is that this practice is still in place EVEN TODAY.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114884/Moroccan-girl-16-kills-judge-forced-marry-man-RAPED-her.html#ixzz1pFe4Rdzh
I understand the context; you appear to not know how to read.
But not in v.28, a verse people often conveniently overlook. In that verse, if the attacker rapes an unengaged virgin, he is commanded to marry her and pay her father.
This "holy book", the "Word of God" essentially commands that a woman who is raped is must be further victimized by being forced to wed her raper. In essence, this condemns an innocent woman to the horror of a relationship where she will likely be violated, at whim, for the rest of her life.
And you wonder why women in Afghanistan set themselves on fire in some of these situations...it's to get out of hellholes that books like this put forward as laws.
The section you quote above does not equate rape with murder if the woman is not bethrothed. In fact, it's a perfect example of what is so screwed up with those laws.
reread V. 28. The punishment to the rapist, in this case, is to MARRY his victim and pay her father.
The woman, who has just been victimized, is further commanded, by the laws of this stupid holy book, to be victimized yet again by being forced to marry her rapist.
technically, one can fornicate or commit adultery without committing the act of rape, so no, I don't think it's covered.
And yet nothing in your exampled about how the rape offends the woman. It's about how it offends the men in her life. Again, a mysogynistic culture, that has carried down through the ages. It has only been recently in modern history that rape has been viewed for what is primarily is: a crime against WOMEN. Not men. WOMEN.
And the reason it has taken so long is because people have espoused views just like the ones you have mentioned.
I'm curious...how is it a subset? Is it explicitly outlawed, or is there ambiguity in the law?
What could be less ambiguous than "Thou shalt not rape"?
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments. They are an icon. They are placed all over the country in churches, and occasionally courtroomas and schools before the ACLU threatens lawsuits.
The Ten Commandments are notable for their SIMPLICITY. In other words, God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
Modern Christianity today is based partly on the assumption that the rules God set down are IMMUTABLE, valid for all time, and the Ten Commandments are part and parcel of that. Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments. It's the one thing from the Old testament that Christians today believe still hold sway.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
This irks me.
But there's no issues applying other verses to modern life. The Ten Commandments are notable for their simplicity and unabiguousness. Why would god need footnotes for rape? Why would he have some verses seemingly allowing it in some circumstances later unless the god of the Bible had no problem with it?
I've still not seen an answer from a religious person...why does God never explicitly outlaw rape?
Religious folks, when you hear atheists such as myself and others criticizing your religion for being mysogynistic, before you answer those criticisms, please have a good answer for this question. Why does god not explicitly command people not to rape?
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED.
Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.
It's pretty straightforward.
It's this use of ambiguous weasel words throughout history in almost all religious texts. If God wanted people to not do something, really really not do them, he would have made it unambiguous.
Commandment 11: Thou Shalt Not Rape. Ever. For real.
There, see, that wasn't so hard.
But the Christian God presented in the Bible chose not to do that.
That's why I wrote "...the God presented in the Bible." While I don't believe in God, this fictional character is presented in the Bible outlawing all sorts of things...just not rape.
Since "Football" is not a sentient being, I have no idea what news would be pertinent to "Football."
"Football News" would be more appropriate, or"News for People Who Like Football" or "News for Sports Geeks" would be better.
This comment brought to you by "News For Pedants."