This is a problem with our multiple points of taxation, and our ever-growing list of regulations.
Yes, taxes need to be collected and things need to be paid for. And we so need laws to be sure that we don't infringe on each other's rights.
But we've gotten to the point where the average joe can't even keep track of all the regulations, and there are many he would never guess existed. In many cases, you wouldn't even know where to look for relevant laws even if you expected any existed.
Most people aren't really aware they pay a fuel tax. It's invisible - included in the cost of gas. If you made a vehicle that ran on steam, or solar, or anything else, would YOU suspect that you had to go out and find a tax to pay?? I sure wouldn't.
Another thing that amazes me is that people on/. are always so concerned about privacy. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that many taxes (especially income) involve privacy invasion. It may be minor, but I don't want to be bothered by cops who have the right to randomly check out my vehicle for untaxed fuels. Shouldn't there be a way to collect the taxes we need that doesn't involve such invasions?
I've seen a lot of constructive solutions on here for dealing with these bottom-feeders. So here's my $.02
Maybe it would make sense to make domain names non-transferable. When you're done with it, it goes back in the pool, period. No transfer to another entity allowed.
Wouldn't do much for typosquatters or ad farms, but It would make it pointless to buy a bunch of domains and sit on them, knowing you have no way of transferring them to a buyer.
We had two, actually. The first was in the 1780's, and established the right of a free thinking people to spearate themselves from a government that they felt no longer represented them.
The second one in the 1860's revoked that right.
They can have it. Honestly, I'd love to see them pull off something like this.
I have so many people ask me for help with their older machines - both for support and OS installation. And most of the time it's a copy of Windows that they got from someone. (Granted, the machine probably originally sold with Windows, so it's morally gray if still illegal). And I always remind them of the legal status of their actions, and that there are legit alternatives. And nobody wants to hear it.
Just once I'd like to be able to tell them that no - there is no way to install that copy. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE $250 FOR IT! Either they'll be interested in trying Linux, or I'll be taking home a free used computer that they just pitched. I win either way.
> I made the mistake of buying a DVD recently and had to sit through that annoying
> anti piracy clip. You know... "You wouldn't steal a car would you?"
That's one thing that bothers me - the gall of specifying in the format that they MUST be able to FORCE the customer to watch certain things. Add macrovision to that (my TV has no RCA inputs, so I have to play through the VCR), and you get a product that's unwatchable or incredibly annoying UNLESS you copy it.
I got my first dvd player for a Star Wars movie. I was forced to make a copy without the macrovision flag just so I could view it. The irony is, I thought it sucked and would not have bothered copying it after watching it. Oh well....
Theoretically, yes. In practical application, it only goes one way.
When there are more potential workers than jobs, the CEOs profit from decreased labor costs.
When there are more jobs than potential workers, the CEOs cry to the Feds - who then open up more H1B visas and further liberalize import restrictions to increase the labor pool until there are more workers than jobs again.
In other words, we seldom see the upside, and when we do it doesn't last for long.
I'm all for capitalism. But this economy is becoming so manipulated that it's getting harder to call it capitalism. I'm also for trade, but trade has to be on roughly equal terms.
Would it not be vastly simpler to put a tax on fuel?
A tax on emissions discourages emissions.
A tax on fuel discourages fuel consumption.
They are two entirely different things. Because gas prices are high right now, there is already somewhat of a consumer push toward fuel efficient cars. What is generally missed is that fuel efficient and low emission are not necessarily the same things.
You can generally get better performance and better gas mileage by removing emissions controls from a vehicle: plugging the EGR, punching out the converter, etc. That would be encouraged by a gas tax, but not by an emissions tax.
So we prevent people from doing these things with emissions testing. Well, as long as we have the gas taxes and the emissions inspections anyway, why not combine them into an emissions tax? It could have the consumers putting pressure on the auto makers to produce better emissions as well as better mileage.
I've seen alot of interesting ideas on here for cutting emissions. I've come up with something by combining several of them. How about this:
1. When you register your car each year, you get an emissions test.
2. They average this year's and last year's readings to guesstimate what you dumped into the air over the last year.
3. You then get billed for total emissions (rate x miles driven). You have to pay the bill to re-register.
The system could have a sliding scale so that "reasonable" driving is relatively cheap, while driving a 69 Ford pickup across the state everyday is fairly expensive. It could also allow you to withhold estimates from your paycheck, just like they do with state taxes.
It seems this would be simple and cheap to operate, and still allow people the freedom to do as they please so long as they pay for it. You can take your classic car out cruising on rare occasion, so long as you can pay for it. (Otherwise, the car is off the road.) People have monetary incentive to maintain their emissions systems, and to buy cars that are down in the "reasonable" emissions range. Auto makers would have consumer demand for low emission cars, instead of fighting laws that mandate they make them.
I've probably had about 14-16 run-ins with police in my life (mostly when I was under 21), with a cumulative criminal record of 1 speeding ticket (at about age 25). The rest of the incidents were simply harassment. I've always been extremely polite, figuring it was the best way to get them to move on quickly.
Out of those encounters, 2 officers acted like human beings. The rest were all assholes with attitudes. I've had some real notable experiences - having a car searched over a burnt out turn signal (yes, I know - but it's quicker just to let them look) and being hauled in for violating curfew half an hour before it ended at age 13 (I guess the sack of papers was not enough evidence that I was the real paperboy?). Once I called the police when I saw a man beating a woman across the street. The pig showed up an hour after the couple left and threatened to haul me in for a false complaint.
It's been years since I've had a problem, but I still avoid cops like the plague. If one comes in an establishment, I leave (as casually as possible). If I see trouble somewhere, I don't call - I leave. I have a (legal) gun to protect me - let someone else deal with the pigs.
> Riding without a helmet?... the Insurance Company has to cover it.
There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.
The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).
We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
> but if you own forest beyond your back yard, you can't prevent people from using it.
Doesn't that sort of ruin the value of the land? I mean, why would anyone plunk down a bunch of moola for the right to maintain and pay taxes on a piece of land if they can just go use it for free?
Is there some nefarious entity flooding the P2P networks with garbage disguised as those files above?
Yes, there are. They are marketers, spammers, and trolls.
I've downloaded plenty of video, pictures, and document files that claimed to be something interesting and legal, but were really promos for (usually porn) pay-for websites, or gay / kiddie porn trolls.
If you'd actually tried to use P2P for legit files, you wouldn't have to ask.
What?! Did George W. Bush really intend to dismantle and thus reduce nuclear weapons himself... let's go up a few grade levels in English class?"
No, Bush didn't say he was taking the initiative in doing that. He said he was working towards it.
But since you're obviously a condescending, partisan little troll who can't analyze something without political bias, lets try this with a Republican president and see if you can follow me.
"Read my lips - no new taxes".
Obviously Bush Sr wanted convey the image to his supporters to believe he would never raise taxes, without actually saying it. Later, his staff tried the "go back and check the actual wording of your contract" defense. He hadn't introduced new taxes - he raised old ones.
That didn't fly either.
Bush wanted you to hear "I won't raise taxes" without saying it.
Gore wanted you to hear "I gave you the Internet" without saying it.
As soon as I saw the headline, I knew it was coming. Scores of 'invented the Internet' jokes, and twice as many 'he never said that' defenses.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that he actually said 'took the initiative in creating'. No argument there. And Gore supported legislation that helped the Internet grow. No argument there either.
If you Gore-defenders really cannot understand why this mis-quote continues to stick, contemplate Gore's actual words for a few minutes and consider the impression that they were meant to convey. 'took the initiative in creating' is very vague wording - meant to imply something without specifically stating it. Much like 'No controlling legal authority' was meant to sound like 'it's legal', but really means 'there is no one who can prosecute'.
While this sort of language works well in legalistic environments, it doesn't fly with the public. You can nitpick the actual wording of a contract in court, but once you've conveyed an idea to the masses, you're stuck with it. They won't listen to you later when you try to tell them your words meant something else.
Certain people are responsible for SCO's incorrect business philosophy. Let the focus be on them
Precisely the point. This is exactly what so many on this forum are complaining about - there is no focus on the people responsible.
You can't jail a corporation. The best you can do is fine it. The worst thing the managers and executives making the decisions are usually looking at is usually termination with a nice severance package. Even if they get a fine or a few months (rare), they still come out far better off than they went in.
As long as the corporation takes the hit and the individual takes the rewards, there will always be incentives for fraud and abuse.
I guarantee you that the folks at SCO who concocted this scheme thought about the potential gains and potential consequences - on a personal level. They are counting on gaining personally, while most of the consequences hit the corporate liability 'shield'.
"Any applicant found to have done so will not be admitted to this school."
And rightly so. After all, this is Harvard, not MIT.
These people understand how to submit form data. They might be geeks trying to sneak their way in to the Pointy-Haired Boss's club. These are the future corporate leaders of America, after all
Can you imagine a CEO who can use a mouse? and navigate the "interweb"? Someone like that might even be able to learn what his company does. It could upset the entire system of American capitalism as we know it.
If no one can use ebay, it gets very hard to buy and sell things that not everyone wants to buy and impossible to run ebay scams.
If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.
If the criminals obey these laws, then no one will get hurt.
These laws are based on the same fantasy - that we can stop people from breaking one law by passing another.
You might as well pass a law that says that scammers and murderers must come to the police station and turn themselves in. They're not going to do that either.
Someone else downloads the exact same ten thousand images and saves a different set of one hundred deleting the rest, and somehow he has commited a criminal act?
Who said that, because you deleted them right away, it was not criminal for you to download them?
I have also unintentionally downloaded many of those mixed in with large batches of legal images. I always use one of those "file wipers" for the paranoid to overwrite them before deleting them. I also no longer batch download when I'm not available to review the download right away. The problem is that posession of that data is illegal, and we both "posessed" the data before we even knew what it was.
So we were both in the position where we were technically felons, and at the discretion of the police / magistrate to decide intent. This is not a position I want to be in, especially given the paranoia of the general populace when with regard to pedophiles.
Just like the drug laws, I can understand laws against the manufacture and trafficking. But posession laws are a little too broad and can be used to make an instant felon out of anyone.
At what point will they finally abandon the rhetoric of "freedom?"
Never. It's the veil they use to cover their activities.
I recently went on a flight for the first time in 20 years. When I got to the security checkpoint, there were dozens of people there going through metal detectors, having their luggage x-rayed and sniffed, and holding their hands up while guards waved those silly wands all over them.
Overhead were giant homeland security banners with pictures of soaring eagles that said "Freedom!". Wished I'd have had my camera.
It's poverty insurance. Congratulations! You're covered..... Insurance is an expense. Get used to it.... And if you want out of the contract move to Argentina, asshole....You want to live here, pay your fair share and stop bitching.... By the way, I'm rich... I'm also undertaxed.
How does this condescending little commie rant get modded insightful?
Fvck you and the horse you rode in on. Some of us don't want arrogant twats like you stealing our money and using it to turn this country into a giant padded playpen for the rest of us. We'd rather live and die on our own terms. Its a concept called individual freedom. It's what made this country. And the erosion of that freedom is whats killing it.
You told the previous poster to move if he doesn't like your views. The problem is, many people moved here to get away from socialists like you. But it never works. You follow us around, trying to turn everywhere we go into one of your little socialist Utopias.
Why don't you move? There are a dozen western countries with the kind of cradle-to-grave social contract you crave. It doesn't matter where we move. As soon as we make a success of it, morons like you will start crawling out of the woodwork again.
As for being undertaxed - it's your fvcking money for crying out loud!!! If you want it spent on social good, there are an unlimited supply of charities available. You don't need the government to take it from you. Your problem isn't that you feel you are undertaxed. It's that you don't feel enough is being forcibly taken from everyone else.
You also need to do a bit more research into copyright - it doesn't just deal with public performance...
Of course it deals with more than public performance. You are wandering off here again.
The original analogy that you were trying to prove a point with referred to buying a CD and taking it to a radio station. That is public performance, and does (as you pointed out) require a license.
Playing 10 seconds of one or two songs from that CD in a critique of the album is fair use. That does not require a license. That is my point, and that is where your analogy breaks.
I'm not disputing that taking an entire work and handing out copies, or running around playing/performing that work for the masses, runs afoul of copyright. But traditionally, taking a small portion of the work to prove a point about that work has been protected as fair use.
Probably a good thing for us that the mods don't have a "-1: Horse already deceased."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, taxes need to be collected and things need to be paid for. And we so need laws to be sure that we don't infringe on each other's rights.
But we've gotten to the point where the average joe can't even keep track of all the regulations, and there are many he would never guess existed. In many cases, you wouldn't even know where to look for relevant laws even if you expected any existed.
Most people aren't really aware they pay a fuel tax. It's invisible - included in the cost of gas. If you made a vehicle that ran on steam, or solar, or anything else, would YOU suspect that you had to go out and find a tax to pay?? I sure wouldn't.
Another thing that amazes me is that people on /. are always so concerned about privacy. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that many taxes (especially income) involve privacy invasion. It may be minor, but I don't want to be bothered by cops who have the right to randomly check out my vehicle for untaxed fuels. Shouldn't there be a way to collect the taxes we need that doesn't involve such invasions?
I've seen a lot of constructive solutions on here for dealing with these bottom-feeders. So here's my $.02 Maybe it would make sense to make domain names non-transferable. When you're done with it, it goes back in the pool, period. No transfer to another entity allowed. Wouldn't do much for typosquatters or ad farms, but It would make it pointless to buy a bunch of domains and sit on them, knowing you have no way of transferring them to a buyer.
I call it the "Big Burrito" theory.
Details forthcoming after lunch....
We had two, actually. The first was in the 1780's, and established the right of a free thinking people to spearate themselves from a government that they felt no longer represented them. The second one in the 1860's revoked that right.
I have so many people ask me for help with their older machines - both for support and OS installation. And most of the time it's a copy of Windows that they got from someone. (Granted, the machine probably originally sold with Windows, so it's morally gray if still illegal). And I always remind them of the legal status of their actions, and that there are legit alternatives. And nobody wants to hear it.
Just once I'd like to be able to tell them that no - there is no way to install that copy. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE $250 FOR IT! Either they'll be interested in trying Linux, or I'll be taking home a free used computer that they just pitched. I win either way.
> anti piracy clip. You know... "You wouldn't steal a car would you?"
That's one thing that bothers me - the gall of specifying in the format that they MUST be able to FORCE the customer to watch certain things. Add macrovision to that (my TV has no RCA inputs, so I have to play through the VCR), and you get a product that's unwatchable or incredibly annoying UNLESS you copy it.
I got my first dvd player for a Star Wars movie. I was forced to make a copy without the macrovision flag just so I could view it. The irony is, I thought it sucked and would not have bothered copying it after watching it. Oh well....
Theoretically, yes. In practical application, it only goes one way.
When there are more potential workers than jobs, the CEOs profit from decreased labor costs.
When there are more jobs than potential workers, the CEOs cry to the Feds - who then open up more H1B visas and further liberalize import restrictions to increase the labor pool until there are more workers than jobs again.
In other words, we seldom see the upside, and when we do it doesn't last for long.
I'm all for capitalism. But this economy is becoming so manipulated that it's getting harder to call it capitalism. I'm also for trade, but trade has to be on roughly equal terms.
A tax on emissions discourages emissions.
A tax on fuel discourages fuel consumption.
They are two entirely different things. Because gas prices are high right now, there is already somewhat of a consumer push toward fuel efficient cars. What is generally missed is that fuel efficient and low emission are not necessarily the same things.
You can generally get better performance and better gas mileage by removing emissions controls from a vehicle: plugging the EGR, punching out the converter, etc. That would be encouraged by a gas tax, but not by an emissions tax.
So we prevent people from doing these things with emissions testing. Well, as long as we have the gas taxes and the emissions inspections anyway, why not combine them into an emissions tax? It could have the consumers putting pressure on the auto makers to produce better emissions as well as better mileage.
1. When you register your car each year, you get an emissions test.
2. They average this year's and last year's readings to guesstimate what you dumped into the air over the last year.
3. You then get billed for total emissions (rate x miles driven). You have to pay the bill to re-register.
The system could have a sliding scale so that "reasonable" driving is relatively cheap, while driving a 69 Ford pickup across the state everyday is fairly expensive. It could also allow you to withhold estimates from your paycheck, just like they do with state taxes.
It seems this would be simple and cheap to operate, and still allow people the freedom to do as they please so long as they pay for it. You can take your classic car out cruising on rare occasion, so long as you can pay for it. (Otherwise, the car is off the road.) People have monetary incentive to maintain their emissions systems, and to buy cars that are down in the "reasonable" emissions range. Auto makers would have consumer demand for low emission cars, instead of fighting laws that mandate they make them.
Any thoughts?
I don't have a card. I always tell them that I forgot it, and they run the store card for me. So I can have my privacy AND my discount too.
I've probably had about 14-16 run-ins with police in my life (mostly when I was under 21), with a cumulative criminal record of 1 speeding ticket (at about age 25). The rest of the incidents were simply harassment. I've always been extremely polite, figuring it was the best way to get them to move on quickly.
Out of those encounters, 2 officers acted like human beings. The rest were all assholes with attitudes. I've had some real notable experiences - having a car searched over a burnt out turn signal (yes, I know - but it's quicker just to let them look) and being hauled in for violating curfew half an hour before it ended at age 13 (I guess the sack of papers was not enough evidence that I was the real paperboy?). Once I called the police when I saw a man beating a woman across the street. The pig showed up an hour after the couple left and threatened to haul me in for a false complaint.
It's been years since I've had a problem, but I still avoid cops like the plague. If one comes in an establishment, I leave (as casually as possible). If I see trouble somewhere, I don't call - I leave. I have a (legal) gun to protect me - let someone else deal with the pigs.
FWIW - I'm white too.
There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.
The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).
We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
> but if you own forest beyond your back yard, you can't prevent people from using it.
Doesn't that sort of ruin the value of the land? I mean, why would anyone plunk down a bunch of moola for the right to maintain and pay taxes on a piece of land if they can just go use it for free?
1 4M 4 133T H4X0R D00D3Z !!!!
Yes, there are. They are marketers, spammers, and trolls.
I've downloaded plenty of video, pictures, and document files that claimed to be something interesting and legal, but were really promos for (usually porn) pay-for websites, or gay / kiddie porn trolls.
If you'd actually tried to use P2P for legit files, you wouldn't have to ask.
I checked Google, and couldn't find any ClickDefense Ads.
If anyone sees an Ad for ClickDefense, please post a link here!
let's go up a few grade levels in English class?"
No, Bush didn't say he was taking the initiative in doing that. He said he was working towards it.
But since you're obviously a condescending, partisan little troll who can't analyze something without political bias, lets try this with a Republican president and see if you can follow me.
"Read my lips - no new taxes".
Obviously Bush Sr wanted convey the image to his supporters to believe he would never raise taxes, without actually saying it. Later, his staff tried the "go back and check the actual wording of your contract" defense. He hadn't introduced new taxes - he raised old ones.
That didn't fly either.
Bush wanted you to hear "I won't raise taxes" without saying it.
Gore wanted you to hear "I gave you the Internet" without saying it.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that he actually said 'took the initiative in creating'. No argument there. And Gore supported legislation that helped the Internet grow. No argument there either.
If you Gore-defenders really cannot understand why this mis-quote continues to stick, contemplate Gore's actual words for a few minutes and consider the impression that they were meant to convey. 'took the initiative in creating' is very vague wording - meant to imply something without specifically stating it. Much like 'No controlling legal authority' was meant to sound like 'it's legal', but really means 'there is no one who can prosecute'.
While this sort of language works well in legalistic environments, it doesn't fly with the public. You can nitpick the actual wording of a contract in court, but once you've conveyed an idea to the masses, you're stuck with it. They won't listen to you later when you try to tell them your words meant something else.
Precisely the point. This is exactly what so many on this forum are complaining about - there is no focus on the people responsible.
You can't jail a corporation. The best you can do is fine it. The worst thing the managers and executives making the decisions are usually looking at is usually termination with a nice severance package. Even if they get a fine or a few months (rare), they still come out far better off than they went in. As long as the corporation takes the hit and the individual takes the rewards, there will always be incentives for fraud and abuse.
I guarantee you that the folks at SCO who concocted this scheme thought about the potential gains and potential consequences - on a personal level. They are counting on gaining personally, while most of the consequences hit the corporate liability 'shield'.
And rightly so. After all, this is Harvard, not MIT.
These people understand how to submit form data. They might be geeks trying to sneak their way in to the Pointy-Haired Boss's club. These are the future corporate leaders of America, after all
Can you imagine a CEO who can use a mouse? and navigate the "interweb"? Someone like that might even be able to learn what his company does. It could upset the entire system of American capitalism as we know it.
If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.
If the criminals obey these laws, then no one will get hurt.
These laws are based on the same fantasy - that we can stop people from breaking one law by passing another.
You might as well pass a law that says that scammers and murderers must come to the police station and turn themselves in. They're not going to do that either.
Who said that, because you deleted them right away, it was not criminal for you to download them?
I have also unintentionally downloaded many of those mixed in with large batches of legal images. I always use one of those "file wipers" for the paranoid to overwrite them before deleting them. I also no longer batch download when I'm not available to review the download right away. The problem is that posession of that data is illegal, and we both "posessed" the data before we even knew what it was.
So we were both in the position where we were technically felons, and at the discretion of the police / magistrate to decide intent. This is not a position I want to be in, especially given the paranoia of the general populace when with regard to pedophiles.
Just like the drug laws, I can understand laws against the manufacture and trafficking. But posession laws are a little too broad and can be used to make an instant felon out of anyone.
Never. It's the veil they use to cover their activities.
I recently went on a flight for the first time in 20 years. When I got to the security checkpoint, there were dozens of people there going through metal detectors, having their luggage x-rayed and sniffed, and holding their hands up while guards waved those silly wands all over them.
Overhead were giant homeland security banners with pictures of soaring eagles that said "Freedom!". Wished I'd have had my camera.
Insurance is an expense. Get used to it....
And if you want out of the contract move to Argentina, asshole....You want to live here, pay your fair share and stop bitching....
By the way, I'm rich... I'm also undertaxed.
How does this condescending little commie rant get modded insightful?
Fvck you and the horse you rode in on. Some of us don't want arrogant twats like you stealing our money and using it to turn this country into a giant padded playpen for the rest of us. We'd rather live and die on our own terms. Its a concept called individual freedom. It's what made this country. And the erosion of that freedom is whats killing it.
You told the previous poster to move if he doesn't like your views. The problem is, many people moved here to get away from socialists like you. But it never works. You follow us around, trying to turn everywhere we go into one of your little socialist Utopias.
Why don't you move? There are a dozen western countries with the kind of cradle-to-grave social contract you crave. It doesn't matter where we move. As soon as we make a success of it, morons like you will start crawling out of the woodwork again.
As for being undertaxed - it's your fvcking money for crying out loud!!! If you want it spent on social good, there are an unlimited supply of charities available. You don't need the government to take it from you. Your problem isn't that you feel you are undertaxed. It's that you don't feel enough is being forcibly taken from everyone else.
Of course it deals with more than public performance. You are wandering off here again.
The original analogy that you were trying to prove a point with referred to buying a CD and taking it to a radio station. That is public performance, and does (as you pointed out) require a license.
Playing 10 seconds of one or two songs from that CD in a critique of the album is fair use. That does not require a license. That is my point, and that is where your analogy breaks.
I'm not disputing that taking an entire work and handing out copies, or running around playing/performing that work for the masses, runs afoul of copyright. But traditionally, taking a small portion of the work to prove a point about that work has been protected as fair use.
Probably a good thing for us that the mods don't have a "-1: Horse already deceased."