"He stole my idea" is an entirely valid english phrase. The language is defined by the people that speak it, and intellectual thievery has been included under the umbrella of 'stealing' in common usage since at least the 1700s. The distinction between IP violation and theft amounts to a specialized dialect, or jargon if you will, of the legal field. I don't chastise people when they use 'power' and 'force' interchangeably, even though the two concepts are quite distinct in the jargon of my field. Nor do I demand that people clarify wether they mean a lb-f or a lb-m when they say 'pound'. In return, I ask that people not get overly excited when I use 'stealing' to describe things that the word has been used to describe for 300 years, even though it is not the most technically accurate description of what's going on in the vocabulary of a two-decade old legal field.
Nah, the remote control was invented when the family structure started breaking down and a bunch of engineers lost their children, who had formerly filled the function.
Copyright violation is, legally, an entirely different crime from theft. However, in common speech, 'stealing' can be applied to any number of things that don't conform to the strict legal definition of the word. Since the base of the conflict here is at a level of personal belief on who has authority over language (the governing body of a particular naiton or the billion or so people scattered across the globe that use the language as a means of communication) the conflict is inherently unresolvable. This gives people an excuse to yell at each other without accomplishing anything, which is why the relevant debate surfaces so often on/.
So, to answer your question, there really ain't any. It's a base assumption argument, not a logical one.
So, wait, every time something bad happens I'm supposed to remove anything that might remind anyone of it from my action set? Given how long history's been going on, I think the GP poster's only choice is to find a really original way to commit suicide. After all, he's breathing, and when Robbespiere instigated violent uprisings with his speeches, they involved a lot of breathing.
I usually dig up an old short story I wrote, answer the question in context of a side character, write down the name of the character somewhere for future reference, and then delete the story. It would probably be easier to use a random letter generator to answer any of the secret question things i've filled out, even on sites I never went to again in my life.
Man, now I just need to stop using "Passw0rd" as my password, and I'll be set!
The police hire criminals all the time. It's not really a bad gig, hijacking cars/robbing banks, retiring, and taking a consulting job with law enforcement once the statute of limitations is finished. Not so much with murderers, though, the lack of a statute of limitations and the fact that it takes barely over the IQ of a doorknob to kill someone (so why bother consulting people when you can figure it out yourself?) means there is no supply and no demand on that front.
Especially since 'hundred yards' has the same number of syllables as 'football fields'. And the latter has an extra letter. The point of subsitutions is supposed to be to let me be lazier, dammit!
So you mean that soldiers who play too many videogames won't be able to shoot, because all of their 'killing people' abilities are tied to their 'hey, this is fantasy' sense?
Yeah, I'm thinking you don't quite have a grasp on how the brain works. Increasing one set of associations doesn't decrease another, necessarily.
Yeah, Europe has just enough tolerance of censorship that all of the most violent, greedy bastards can be given slots in the government and the rest can be silenced. In the US, we have a bit of overflow, since majority parties aren't allowed to supress their competition just because it's competition.
No, such legislation would never come from conservatives. It might, however, come from republicans or democrats. Wether it could come from liberals or not depends on which definition of liberal you're using. If you're using 'guy that wants to change things' then yeah, sure. If you're suing 'guy that wants to increase liberty', then no, not so much.
The fact that you think first amendment rights require a distributor of information to give a reason why he's distributing that information before he's allowed to do so indicates to me that not only have you never heard of the USA before, but that you're probably from a place completely out of light-wave contact with the planet Earth.
Congratulations on finally getting that internet line strung up to the dark side of the moon, bud.
Either that or they're GOOD parents. I had a couple of those once, it was cool. And my mother complains that "people who buy their kids violent stuff and then complain about it" are idiots, and she does so on a fairly regular basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting her comments. After spending a decade of her life organizing volunteer work at elementary schools, I assume she knows what she's talking about.
So, sorry, the ad-hominem attack is not only irrelevant but incorrect. Your other point seems solid enough from the little i know of the industry, and saying that any bill is a bad bill is usually a fairly good bet, though, so I'll give you a B- for a solid effort overall.
The only way NK would benefit from a preemptive nuclear strike would be if they took out all of our launch sites. The only way they could get the information to pull that off (putting capability aside for the moment) would be to get it from a friendly country with good intelligence. The only real friend of NK at the moment in such a position is China, and do you really think China is going to give NK information that could result in a possibly failed attempt to attack a country that has huge numbers of nukes and a tendency to miss their target by a country or two when declaring war? Yeah, I'm thinking "no" on that one. NK's nukes are going to be deterrent only, most likely.
Eh, plenty of people wish death on every citizen of the US, the place the fairy tale falls apart is them having the real means to do so, which is generally a prerequisite for the whole 'preemptive' thing.
Wait, you're suggesting that no weapons should ever be put under the control of an army or government? Actually, that might not be too bad an idea... Private nukes only form now on! WOOOOOO!
1) You should know better than to attempt to refute an analysis of the Islamic faith by someone who can't spell "Mohammed", even the archaic form. Stop feeding the trolls.
2) In all honesty, you don't seem to know any more about what's past the end of your nose than the grandparent post.
3) You use far, far too much canned rhetoric and silly catchphrases. Stop it, that kind of thing only annoys everyone else.
4) While I would initially have said your points have a slightly better slant on them than GP, you blew it by running headfirst into Godwin's extended law. I'm sorry, but you lose.
Wait, if we lose, then utterly obliterate our enemy, then... uh... we didn't lose. Unless we had some sort of policy goal that involved leaving the enemy military intact... which would make for an interesting war, and account for us almost losing in the first place, I suppose.
And what is this cheating nonsense? War is almost by definition a thing that only happens when the rules break down completely, cheating is not really an issue at that point. And knocking your enemies off by having the superior tech has pretty much been the guiding principle of modern warfare since warfare became modern.
Um, the point of weapons is to have more and bigger than the other guy. Trying to prevent other people from being as well-armed is not hypocritical in the slightest. Just so you know. Elitist, perhaps, but not hypocritical. When you insult someone, at least use the correct word.
Slashdot Mirror
---------Joke------->
/|\ You
0
/ \
"He stole my idea" is an entirely valid english phrase. The language is defined by the people that speak it, and intellectual thievery has been included under the umbrella of 'stealing' in common usage since at least the 1700s. The distinction between IP violation and theft amounts to a specialized dialect, or jargon if you will, of the legal field. I don't chastise people when they use 'power' and 'force' interchangeably, even though the two concepts are quite distinct in the jargon of my field. Nor do I demand that people clarify wether they mean a lb-f or a lb-m when they say 'pound'. In return, I ask that people not get overly excited when I use 'stealing' to describe things that the word has been used to describe for 300 years, even though it is not the most technically accurate description of what's going on in the vocabulary of a two-decade old legal field.
So you can use your brain as an analysis tool instead of a spell-checker. Still ends in better essays/stories.
Nah, the remote control was invented when the family structure started breaking down and a bunch of engineers lost their children, who had formerly filled the function.
youre = your. Finger slipped and hit e, thus making me look like an idiot.
Uh, GP = grandparent post = step up two tiers from the current post. You stepped up three instead, reading the great-grandparent post.
I'm pretty sure that's how the system is supposed to work, anyhow. Grandparent meant a two-generation gap when I was a kid, eh.
Or maybe youre mod filter is set higher than mine, and you just skipped a post accidentally.
Copyright violation is, legally, an entirely different crime from theft. However, in common speech, 'stealing' can be applied to any number of things that don't conform to the strict legal definition of the word. Since the base of the conflict here is at a level of personal belief on who has authority over language (the governing body of a particular naiton or the billion or so people scattered across the globe that use the language as a means of communication) the conflict is inherently unresolvable. This gives people an excuse to yell at each other without accomplishing anything, which is why the relevant debate surfaces so often on /.
So, to answer your question, there really ain't any. It's a base assumption argument, not a logical one.
So, wait, every time something bad happens I'm supposed to remove anything that might remind anyone of it from my action set? Given how long history's been going on, I think the GP poster's only choice is to find a really original way to commit suicide. After all, he's breathing, and when Robbespiere instigated violent uprisings with his speeches, they involved a lot of breathing.
I usually dig up an old short story I wrote, answer the question in context of a side character, write down the name of the character somewhere for future reference, and then delete the story. It would probably be easier to use a random letter generator to answer any of the secret question things i've filled out, even on sites I never went to again in my life.
Man, now I just need to stop using "Passw0rd" as my password, and I'll be set!
The police hire criminals all the time. It's not really a bad gig, hijacking cars/robbing banks, retiring, and taking a consulting job with law enforcement once the statute of limitations is finished. Not so much with murderers, though, the lack of a statute of limitations and the fact that it takes barely over the IQ of a doorknob to kill someone (so why bother consulting people when you can figure it out yourself?) means there is no supply and no demand on that front.
Especially since 'hundred yards' has the same number of syllables as 'football fields'. And the latter has an extra letter. The point of subsitutions is supposed to be to let me be lazier, dammit!
According to a fellow a few posts up, the UK trademark applications still have google owning the trademark first, by about 4 months.
So you mean that soldiers who play too many videogames won't be able to shoot, because all of their 'killing people' abilities are tied to their 'hey, this is fantasy' sense?
Yeah, I'm thinking you don't quite have a grasp on how the brain works. Increasing one set of associations doesn't decrease another, necessarily.
Yeah, Europe has just enough tolerance of censorship that all of the most violent, greedy bastards can be given slots in the government and the rest can be silenced. In the US, we have a bit of overflow, since majority parties aren't allowed to supress their competition just because it's competition.
Which society is better? Take your pick.
Wow, my: punctuation i's ... awfu?l
No, such legislation would never come from conservatives. It might, however, come from republicans or democrats. Wether it could come from liberals or not depends on which definition of liberal you're using. If you're using 'guy that wants to change things' then yeah, sure. If you're suing 'guy that wants to increase liberty', then no, not so much.
Good point, though.
The fact that you think first amendment rights require a distributor of information to give a reason why he's distributing that information before he's allowed to do so indicates to me that not only have you never heard of the USA before, but that you're probably from a place completely out of light-wave contact with the planet Earth.
Congratulations on finally getting that internet line strung up to the dark side of the moon, bud.
Either that or they're GOOD parents. I had a couple of those once, it was cool. And my mother complains that "people who buy their kids violent stuff and then complain about it" are idiots, and she does so on a fairly regular basis, so I'm pretty sure I'm not misinterpreting her comments. After spending a decade of her life organizing volunteer work at elementary schools, I assume she knows what she's talking about.
So, sorry, the ad-hominem attack is not only irrelevant but incorrect. Your other point seems solid enough from the little i know of the industry, and saying that any bill is a bad bill is usually a fairly good bet, though, so I'll give you a B- for a solid effort overall.
The only way NK would benefit from a preemptive nuclear strike would be if they took out all of our launch sites. The only way they could get the information to pull that off (putting capability aside for the moment) would be to get it from a friendly country with good intelligence. The only real friend of NK at the moment in such a position is China, and do you really think China is going to give NK information that could result in a possibly failed attempt to attack a country that has huge numbers of nukes and a tendency to miss their target by a country or two when declaring war? Yeah, I'm thinking "no" on that one. NK's nukes are going to be deterrent only, most likely.
Eh, plenty of people wish death on every citizen of the US, the place the fairy tale falls apart is them having the real means to do so, which is generally a prerequisite for the whole 'preemptive' thing.
Wait, you're suggesting that no weapons should ever be put under the control of an army or government? Actually, that might not be too bad an idea... Private nukes only form now on! WOOOOOO!
1) You should know better than to attempt to refute an analysis of the Islamic faith by someone who can't spell "Mohammed", even the archaic form. Stop feeding the trolls.
2) In all honesty, you don't seem to know any more about what's past the end of your nose than the grandparent post.
3) You use far, far too much canned rhetoric and silly catchphrases. Stop it, that kind of thing only annoys everyone else.
4) While I would initially have said your points have a slightly better slant on them than GP, you blew it by running headfirst into Godwin's extended law. I'm sorry, but you lose.
(/bait)
Wait, if we lose, then utterly obliterate our enemy, then... uh... we didn't lose. Unless we had some sort of policy goal that involved leaving the enemy military intact... which would make for an interesting war, and account for us almost losing in the first place, I suppose.
And what is this cheating nonsense? War is almost by definition a thing that only happens when the rules break down completely, cheating is not really an issue at that point. And knocking your enemies off by having the superior tech has pretty much been the guiding principle of modern warfare since warfare became modern.
Um, the point of weapons is to have more and bigger than the other guy. Trying to prevent other people from being as well-armed is not hypocritical in the slightest. Just so you know. Elitist, perhaps, but not hypocritical. When you insult someone, at least use the correct word.
This word "pre-emptive"... I do not think it means what you think it means.