You're glad he got fired for writing an article you disagree with?
Don't be an ass. I'm glad he got fired for writing an article promoting dehumanization. It isn't like he said peanut butter tastes better than chocolate and it certainly isn't like he was sent to prison for it.
You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary. You'll get more results if you are clearer about what you want.
Ok then. Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
I wasn't aware of "The Talk" before reading about it in the summary.
Me neither. Reading about it made my blood fucking boil. What that Derbyshire character wrote was nothing new, typical run of the mill racism. While I'm glad he got his comeuppance, I don't think it was particularly news-worthy.
But reading those articles that he referenced about the real "Talk" was an eye-opener. I've heard the occasional reference to how a black man needs to be careful about how he moves and carries himself, but I had no clue just how widespread a problem it was - made me feel disgusted in our society and kind of impotent to do anything about it.
what happened with the Hindenberg was/not/ that airships were fixed, but that they were abandoned.
Let's try for a different kind of moment, perhaps?
No, let us not. Abandoning the use of centralized databases is the only fix - airgapping just protects against remote attacks. It does not protect against abuse by insiders, be it in violation of the rules, or the creation of new rules that encourages official misuse of the data.
The solution is to decentralize. Let everyone hold their own data. Be it on a portable device like a pda/smartphone or on some sort of dropbox-like system with account-specific encryption. The idea being to maintain as much useful functionality of electronic records on a case by case basis, but to design in barriers that make wholesale misuse extremely difficult.
The first flaw is that it is, in your analogy, the end user applying a technical means to exercise their right to not view/hear certain forms of content.
And when they signed up to use the wifi service that is exactly what they signed up for as well. Both are "just in time censorship" - removal and replacement of content as it is viewed.
The second flaw is that you attempt to make an analogy between the deletion of trivial content to the wholesale substitution and or addition of independent copyrightable creative work.
So you are arguing that because the new ads are also creative work that it is somehow more of a violation of the copyright on the original than not adding any additional creative works? So if I pirate a song wholesale that is less of an infringement than if I mix my own voice into the song before copying it. Really? That's your reasoning here?
Why are you contradicting yourself? If a cut list isn't a derivative work by itself, then nor is it a derivative work in combination with a movie.
So. If I write and record my own completely original song, that is not a derivative work and then I mash it up with Stairway to heaven the result is not a derivative work either? Lol. You are so far lost.
suggesting that any human interaction makes a work creative according to copyright law definitions.
No, YOU keep trying to force "human interaction" into equalling creativity. A human is just as capable of doing rote work as a computer is. But a computer is NOT capable of doing creative work - hence my use of the word determination which is not a synonym for interaction. If you can't wrap your head around the difference you aren't capable of making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
A cut-list does not contain any element at all of the original work, and is as much derivative of a movie as a frame is of a painting.
Lol, I never said it did. I said the movie + cut list equals a derivative work.
That's all irrelevant, however, as there's absolutely no stipulation in copyright law that requires human interaction or intervention to make a work derivative.
I never used the word interaction nor did I imply it through the use of a related other term. I used the words "rote" and "creative" which are orthogonal to the concept of human interaction.
You've gone from arguing against yourself to arguing against ghosts. I don't think many rational people will find either approach persuasive.
You are arguing in circles - alteration or not, all proxies send the website to the end user and "send" equals distribution while "alter" does not.
To make it more clear - if I give a copy of an mp3 to a friend I have distributed it and that is just as much distribution as if I had recorded an introduction, mixed it into the opening of the song and gave that new mp3 to my friend.
You can block whatever you want to block, and blocking specific parts of a movie is no more "derivative" than skipping ahead five minutes with your remote.
Seems to me you are arguing counter to your own point. In order to legally qualify as a derivative work any changes must be creative and not rote. The cut-list is a creative work in and of itself as it requires a human to make a determination as to what does and what does not qualify for censorship. But the automatic insertation of ads is a completely rote operation, almost by definition, since it is done on the fly by a computer.
Incorrect. An unauthorized change is an unlicensed derivative work.
I think you are going to have about zero chance of proving that. I'll even one up you - look at those DVD players which censor the movies they play back based on a list of cut-points from a 3rd party. Hollywood threatened to go to court over those, but they never won. Sure congress made it moot by passing a law explicitly authorizing those players, but most people thought hollywood would lose in court anyway.
The goal of the redistributer, is to make profit, so I think that would be ilegal.
I don't think profit is really relevant, we aren't talking a fair-use defense here, I am saying that no redistribution - in the legal sense - is occuring. For example, see these guys who are one of many such services that makes copies for profit but they aren't infringing because it is not legally considered redistribution.
Wouldn't this be copyright infringement? The web page as you intended is your creative work, they are altering and distributing your work. I don't think you are allowed to do that.
I don't think so. Alteration by itself is not infringement. Redistribution by itself is infringement. So take the derivative work part out of the equation and you have what every caching proxy in the world does and that does not appear to be considered infringement.
Right. Because WBC is representative of all anti-gay religiosity. I suspect I know more aobout them than you - for example, Fred Phelps is a civil rights lawyer.
We may disagree with you about social issues and government assistance, but you'd better believe we're your brothers in fucking arms when it comes to the overreach of Hollywood and big government censorship.
Don't confuse being the "party of no" with being anti-MAFIAA.
Take, for example Orrin Hatch former republican senator from Utah and RIAA bitch.
Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
The big thing in the anti-gay religious circles is "hate the sin, love the sinner." I'm sure you've heard that before and it sounds terribly hypocritical. But what it translates to in their own lives is that it is OK to be gay as long as you are celibate. That is probably setting themselves up for long-term psychosis, but at least it is internally consistent...
How about because one has a significant other who actually dislikes always having the blinds closed?
There are plenty of window treatments that are essentialy "one-way" during daylight hours - they let in ~50% of the light and you can see outside but its basically impossible for people to see inside because the sun is so much brighter than any light source inside the building. At night it goes the other way and you can't see outside but everybody can see inside, but that's when you pull down the regular blinds.
Such AR would also enable something Google might be interested in: overlaying billboards with their own ads. Of course you could use it as a RL adblock, and remove the ads altogether (someone called this "diminished reality").
Oh that so rocks. I was getting all annoyed by the idea of real-life <blink> tags, but real-life ad-block is freaking genius.
I can even imagine a crowd-sourced library of "behind" photos - so that billboards and other uglies would be replaced with images of the actual skyline that they currently block out.
+1 These sorts of events are the inevitable result of dehumanization. Be it the DHS's war on diginity or racism. It is easier to assume the worst about people because we have been persuaded that because of the subhumnan actions of a tiny minority of a group, that every member of that group is subhuman.
The reporting on this issue has been pretty crappy.
What I want to see:
1) Rates of sales decline for the previous couple of years 2) Rates of sales decline for neighboring countries or otherwise similar markets
Without information like that, we can't even begin to have a meaningful discussion as to whether or not HADOPI is "working" or not. So far its all just been hand-waving over half of an equation.
So, yes, it's reasonable to rule out that it was Zimmerman, in fact, it's more reliable at excluding people than at matching them.
That seems very plausible. It is generally a lot easier to prove that two things are not the same. However, I would like to know how reliable those voice charactertistics are when someone is screaming in fear. It seems like if there was one condition where those characteristics would be distorted it is when someone is screaming rather than speaking normally.
Slashdot Mirror
You're glad he got fired for writing an article you disagree with?
Don't be an ass. I'm glad he got fired for writing an article promoting dehumanization. It isn't like he said peanut butter tastes better than chocolate and it certainly isn't like he was sent to prison for it.
You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary. You'll get more results if you are clearer about what you want.
Ok then. Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
I wasn't aware of "The Talk" before reading about it in the summary.
Me neither. Reading about it made my blood fucking boil. What that Derbyshire character wrote was nothing new, typical run of the mill racism. While I'm glad he got his comeuppance, I don't think it was particularly news-worthy.
But reading those articles that he referenced about the real "Talk" was an eye-opener. I've heard the occasional reference to how a black man needs to be careful about how he moves and carries himself, but I had no clue just how widespread a problem it was - made me feel disgusted in our society and kind of impotent to do anything about it.
what happened with the Hindenberg was /not/ that airships were fixed, but that they were abandoned.
Let's try for a different kind of moment, perhaps?
No, let us not. Abandoning the use of centralized databases is the only fix - airgapping just protects against remote attacks. It does not protect against abuse by insiders, be it in violation of the rules, or the creation of new rules that encourages official misuse of the data.
The solution is to decentralize. Let everyone hold their own data. Be it on a portable device like a pda/smartphone or on some sort of dropbox-like system with account-specific encryption. The idea being to maintain as much useful functionality of electronic records on a case by case basis, but to design in barriers that make wholesale misuse extremely difficult.
The first flaw is that it is, in your analogy, the end user applying a technical means to exercise their right to not view/hear certain forms of content.
And when they signed up to use the wifi service that is exactly what they signed up for as well. Both are "just in time censorship" - removal and replacement of content as it is viewed.
The second flaw is that you attempt to make an analogy between the deletion of trivial content to the wholesale substitution and or addition of independent copyrightable creative work.
So you are arguing that because the new ads are also creative work that it is somehow more of a violation of the copyright on the original than not adding any additional creative works? So if I pirate a song wholesale that is less of an infringement than if I mix my own voice into the song before copying it. Really? That's your reasoning here?
Why are you contradicting yourself? If a cut list isn't a derivative work by itself, then nor is it a derivative work in combination with a movie.
So. If I write and record my own completely original song, that is not a derivative work and then I mash it up with Stairway to heaven the result is not a derivative work either? Lol. You are so far lost.
suggesting that any human interaction makes a work creative according to copyright law definitions.
No, YOU keep trying to force "human interaction" into equalling creativity. A human is just as capable of doing rote work as a computer is. But a computer is NOT capable of doing creative work - hence my use of the word determination which is not a synonym for interaction. If you can't wrap your head around the difference you aren't capable of making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
A cut-list does not contain any element at all of the original work, and is as much derivative of a movie as a frame is of a painting.
Lol, I never said it did. I said the movie + cut list equals a derivative work.
That's all irrelevant, however, as there's absolutely no stipulation in copyright law that requires human interaction or intervention to make a work derivative.
I never used the word interaction nor did I imply it through the use of a related other term. I used the words "rote" and "creative" which are orthogonal to the concept of human interaction.
You've gone from arguing against yourself to arguing against ghosts. I don't think many rational people will find either approach persuasive.
You are arguing in circles - alteration or not, all proxies send the website to the end user and "send" equals distribution while "alter" does not.
To make it more clear - if I give a copy of an mp3 to a friend I have distributed it and that is just as much distribution as if I had recorded an introduction, mixed it into the opening of the song and gave that new mp3 to my friend.
You can block whatever you want to block, and blocking specific parts of a movie is no more "derivative" than skipping ahead five minutes with your remote.
Seems to me you are arguing counter to your own point. In order to legally qualify as a derivative work any changes must be creative and not rote. The cut-list is a creative work in and of itself as it requires a human to make a determination as to what does and what does not qualify for censorship. But the automatic insertation of ads is a completely rote operation, almost by definition, since it is done on the fly by a computer.
Incorrect. An unauthorized change is an unlicensed derivative work.
I think you are going to have about zero chance of proving that. I'll even one up you - look at those DVD players which censor the movies they play back based on a list of cut-points from a 3rd party. Hollywood threatened to go to court over those, but they never won. Sure congress made it moot by passing a law explicitly authorizing those players, but most people thought hollywood would lose in court anyway.
It's being redistributed, and this ads.
I don't understand your point.
The goal of the redistributer, is to make profit, so I think that would be ilegal.
I don't think profit is really relevant, we aren't talking a fair-use defense here, I am saying that no redistribution - in the legal sense - is occuring. For example, see these guys who are one of many such services that makes copies for profit but they aren't infringing because it is not legally considered redistribution.
Wouldn't this be copyright infringement? The web page as you intended is your creative work, they are altering and distributing your work. I don't think you are allowed to do that.
I don't think so. Alteration by itself is not infringement. Redistribution by itself is infringement. So take the derivative work part out of the equation and you have what every caching proxy in the world does and that does not appear to be considered infringement.
I never said they were representative of all
If it make syou feel better to ignore the context of your own post, then you go girl.
Try virtual identity for thunderbird. I've found it to do everything I need for handling the hundreds of identities I use with my domains.
Right. Because WBC is representative of all anti-gay religiosity.
I suspect I know more aobout them than you - for example, Fred Phelps is a civil rights lawyer.
Make that current senator from Utah and still a RIAA bitch.
We may disagree with you about social issues and government assistance, but you'd better believe we're your brothers in fucking arms when it comes to the overreach of Hollywood and big government censorship.
Don't confuse being the "party of no" with being anti-MAFIAA.
Take, for example Orrin Hatch former republican senator from Utah and RIAA bitch.
Carly Fiorina has not been the CEO of anything in years, yet she is still considered an business executive more than a politician.
To be fair, if you haven't actually held office, are you really a politician or just a candidate?
Always include a transcript.
Give us chance to skim the content in 10 seconds and decide if we want to spend the 3+ minutes to watch it in real-time.
Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
The big thing in the anti-gay religious circles is "hate the sin, love the sinner." I'm sure you've heard that before and it sounds terribly hypocritical. But what it translates to in their own lives is that it is OK to be gay as long as you are celibate. That is probably setting themselves up for long-term psychosis, but at least it is internally consistent...
How about because one has a significant other who actually dislikes always having the blinds closed?
There are plenty of window treatments that are essentialy "one-way" during daylight hours - they let in ~50% of the light and you can see outside but its basically impossible for people to see inside because the sun is so much brighter than any light source inside the building. At night it goes the other way and you can't see outside but everybody can see inside, but that's when you pull down the regular blinds.
Such AR would also enable something Google might be interested in: overlaying billboards with their own ads. Of course you could use it as a RL adblock, and remove the ads altogether (someone called this "diminished reality").
Oh that so rocks. I was getting all annoyed by the idea of real-life <blink> tags, but real-life ad-block is freaking genius.
I can even imagine a crowd-sourced library of "behind" photos - so that billboards and other uglies would be replaced with images of the actual skyline that they currently block out.
+1
These sorts of events are the inevitable result of dehumanization. Be it the DHS's war on diginity or racism. It is easier to assume the worst about people because we have been persuaded that because of the subhumnan actions of a tiny minority of a group, that every member of that group is subhuman.
The reporting on this issue has been pretty crappy.
What I want to see:
1) Rates of sales decline for the previous couple of years
2) Rates of sales decline for neighboring countries or otherwise similar markets
Without information like that, we can't even begin to have a meaningful discussion as to whether or not HADOPI is "working" or not. So far its all just been hand-waving over half of an equation.
So, yes, it's reasonable to rule out that it was Zimmerman, in fact, it's more reliable at excluding people than at matching them.
That seems very plausible. It is generally a lot easier to prove that two things are not the same. However, I would like to know how reliable those voice charactertistics are when someone is screaming in fear. It seems like if there was one condition where those characteristics would be distorted it is when someone is screaming rather than speaking normally.