You raise an interesting point of grammar. Personally, I'd be inclined to say "an RIAA," because unless you say "reeya," RIAA starts with a vowel sound - "ar."
The wikipedia article for English indefinite articles states that "an" is "now used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter." However, there is also no citation given for that statement.
On the other hand, a brief Google search turns up 55,000 results for "an RIAA" and 61,000 for "a RIAA."
For me, the website in question already shows "TM" after the word CyberLaw. It's also the fifth hit on Google. If all they've done is apply for the trademark, are they still allowed to used the "TM" mark?
You hit the nail on the head. In some cases, though, I can't tell if the candidate is lying to win votes, or if he really is that stupid (e.g., Huckabee's "FairTax").
"Take off those burdens [read: fuel economy standards] and let's show them how fast a Mustang will actually go." - Mitt Romney
This is the exact situation my parents (and thus me, when I visit them) are in. They are currently on dial-up, with an average connection speed of around 26 kbps for $10/mo. That is abysmally slow, but satellite access is significantly more expensive. I've heard rumors of long-range wireless becoming available in their area, but again, the price is steep. DSL and cable are not available; they've lived there for 11 years, and it doesn't look as if the situation is going to change.
On the other hand, with a properly mounted antenna, they get less than a dozen TV channels. Here's hoping that all that empty space can be put to use.
Ridiculing unscientific belief is not the same as 'condemning'. I'll admit that atheists often ridicule (even mock) unscientific beliefs because the basis of their atheism is often scientific. They are free to do so, but it's almost the exact opposite of evangelism (or is it like a Christian saying, "what you believe will send you to Hell," some form of evangelism? Maybe I'm confused).
For clarification, I used the word "evangelism" in a broad sense (OED: "Zealous advocacy of a cause or doctrine, proselytizing zeal"); some people seem to think it can only refer to Christianity or religion. Furthermore, I'm not calling the ridicule of unscientific beliefs evangelism; what I'm saying is, all of us hold philosophical and epistemological beliefs that are unscientific (not in the sense that they conflict with science, but in the sense that science cannot validate them). Many atheists in the popular press seem to conflate their positions on scientific matters, which are usually well-grounded, with their positions on philosophical and epistemological matters. Then, when someone disagrees with them on the latter (on questions where there's often room for disagreement), they call them an idiot. That's undeserved.
On the other hand, if someone disagrees on questions of the former and tries to argue that the world is 6000 years old, and fossils are put there by God to test our "faith," they deserve to be called an idiot.
Ok... I don't really have a problem with what you've said. I've actually studying Greek, and I know what "evangelize" means (eu + angelion, "good news"; the English word "gospel", god + spel, is an Old English literal translation, also meaning "good news"). You'll note that nowhere in this discussion have I called atheism a religion. I don't think it is. I do think that "popular atheism" goes beyond science into the philosophical and epistemological, where all arguments are much fuzzier.
Religion is about believing things in the face of hard evidence (faith).
I think you give a very good assessment of Dawkins. However, I think you (and much of/.) have a curious definition of faith. I just referred to the OED, and nowhere in the many definitions given do I find anything talking about belief in the face of evidence or facts. I suppose this idea is a result of religious people who call their belief in young earth creationism "faith."
Obviously, I don't think that example does the word justice. Sadly, being a descriptivist, I have little choice but to accept their appropriation of the word.:-)
I guess I don't understand your point. People are ignorant? That's really nothing new, and doesn't add much to the discussion.
My point is, I don't consider Dawkins a spokesperson for scientists, as you implied.
There's one guy who's gotten a lot of press lately. The press likes to cover anything that can attract eyeballs, so do publishers. Your implication is this is some kind of national movement. I guess I haven't seen this myself. One guy on TV isn't a movement
Dawkins has been writing books for the past twenty years. They're not all like The God Delusion, but his views haven't exactly been expressed only "lately." Furthermore, it's not only "one guy on TV" - you've also got Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, to name a few. In another post, I mentioned the title of a book: "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist." On the other hand, you have people like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who try and defend intelligent design. There's more substance to this than you seem willing to admit.
Not really. I just don't sit around and waste my time listening to conservative christians though. They tend to poison the mind with dumb ideas that atheism is a religion, or Richard Dawkins represents some kind of movement.
I'm tiring of your incessant misrepresentation of my posts. Nowhere did I claim that atheism is a religion, or that Dawkins represents a movement.
Who hasn't tried to convince someone else of a political belief? Is advocating a political belief now a religion because you're trying to "convert" others to your belief? It sounds like you're trying to tell me atheists are fine, just as long as they stay nice and quiet and don't challenge anyones beliefs.
Once again, you're conflating what I've mentioned with what I believe. What the sort of atheists in question propose isn't political, it's more philosophical: epistemological claims that can have no basis in science, for example.
Point taken; however, if you're curious, I looked up the actual title of the book: "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist." I think that title might be a bit harder to defend.
Huh? Saying some is a "spokesperson for scientists" is like saying Linus Torvalds is a "spokesperson for software developers". It's just incredibly inaccurate. Frankly I don't really care if peoples perception is "warranted". I'm sure lots of evil crap that goes down in the world is "warranted". What I care about is if right or wrong, and clearly it's wrong.
I never said it was accurate, and I tend to agree with your Torvalds analogy. Dawkins is merely one scientist among thousands, and certainly does not speak for scientists. That said, if you ask the average person to name a living scientist, I'm willing to bet Dawkins' name would come up quite often. He's a well-known public figure. People look to the well-known figures in a group, and extrapolate to the entire group. It might be wrong, you might not like it, but it's true.
Religious people feel threatened by science because many of them have built a religion on the gaps of knowledge. As those gaps are filled in, it threatens their belief structure. Dawkins has really little to do with it. It's not like this whole science/religion schism just developed in the last several years.
You're quite right about the "God of the gaps" idea. However, Dawkins and other militant atheists seem to go beyond science, and imply that science somehow "disproves" God. In fact, I was in Barnes & Noble the other day, browsing the science section, when I saw a book entitled "How Science Disproves God," or something equally preposterous. So while science and religion have been in conflict for ages, it seems to me that militant atheism (and for that matter, young earth creationism and related hogwash) is a fairly modern phenomenon.
Who are all these people? You? This is honestly the first time I've ever heard someone try to call atheism.. the lack of belief in a deity.. a religion. It's just amazing to me that anyone takes this kind of thing seriously.
If this is the first time you've heard someone call atheism a religion, you must have had your head in the sand for the past decade or so. It's quite common to hear that sort of response from conservative Christians who are trying to fight what they perceive as a state-sponsored religion of atheism from encroaching upon every aspect of public life. Contrary to your implication, I don't believe the lack of belief in God is a religion; however, many atheists go beyond simply not having belief in a god (or having belief that there is no god, take your pick), and attempt to convert others to that view (evangelize), and label as an idiot anyone who disagrees (condemn). In that case, the analogy to religion isn't totally off the wall.
Let us also remember that the Government cannot grant us Rights. All of us have Rights naturally. The government can only protect them. They can infringe on our Rights, but they can never take them away.
I won't comment on the legal portion of your post, since I'm not well-informed in that area. This part, however, I must take issue with. The government can indeed grant rights - e.g., copyright! What you're talking about are natural rights (or "certain inalienable rights").
First, fair use is simply the principle that where an otherwise-infringing act is nevertheless fair, and in line with the overall goals of copyright, it is not infringing. I cannot imagine for the life of me what we would need to change about that.
By change, I meant that what we would traditionally consider fair use should probably be expanded. That's not really changing the doctrine itself, just our understanding of what falls into the category, I suppose.
Second, fair use has never been "hashed out." It's an amazingly vague bit of law and it evolves all the time in response to new developments in society.
By "hashed out," I didn't mean explicitly defined - I simply meant the various cases that refer to it. As you say, it "evolves." I agree, and was saying that perhaps it ought to evolve to a point where more things are considered fair use than are now.
Sorry to reply again, but this might be of interest:
5. Is Fair Use a Right or Merely a Defense?
Lawyers disagree about the conceptual nature of fair use. Some lawyers claim that fair use is merely a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Although fair use is often raised as a defense, many lawyers argue that fair use can also be viewed as having a broader scope than this. If fair use is viewed as a limitation on the exclusive rights of copyright holders, fair use can be seen as a scope of positive freedom available to users of copyrighted material. On this view, fair use is the space which the U.S. copyright system recognizes between the rights granted to copyright holders and the rights reserved to the public, where uses of works may or may not be subject to copyright protection. Copyright law gives the decision about whether copyright law applies to a particular use in this space to a Federal Court judge, to decide after weighing up all relevant factors and the underlying policies of copyright law.
Well, the truth lies somewhere between, I think. From what I understand, fair use is an "affirmative defense." Sure, you can be charged with murder, but if it's found to be self-defense, you won't be guilty of murder. On the other hand, as I understand it, to invoke fair use, you have to admit to copyright infringement - thus the "affirmative" part. You are saying you ARE guilty, but you should be granted an exception. Self-defense is disputing the charge that you are guilty of anything in the first place.
There is no difference in Fair Use rights in the "Digital Age". It's the same as it's always been. It's only because of the misinformation campaigns by the RIAA and MPAA that we have a society that's confused about the rights they have had for quite some time.
Someone didn't read the article:-) To quote Rick Cotton (the bad guy):
Fair use in the digital age is the same as fair use in the non-digital age.
First of all, as Mr. Cotton duly notes, and as we often hear here on/., there is no such thing as a fair use "right." It's only a defense against infringement. To respond to your point, I'd argue that since the technology has changed so drastically, not only for enabling infringement, but also for enforcing copyright, the laws ought to be looked at again. What wasn't even on the map when fair use was being hashed out in various cases is now commonplace. It's time to reevaluate. Fair use should change as a result.
The public perception in many places is that Richard Dawkins is a spokesperson for scientists (with a position like Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, perhaps the perception is warranted). When such a well-known public figure rags on religion as much as he does, it's no wonder that religious people feel threatened by science. In a very real sense, Dawkins does evangelize for atheism. This is one reason why people have started calling it a "religion."
On the other hand, many extremely accomplished scientists (Stephen Jay Gould, to name one off the top of my head) have a view of religion that is fundamentally different from Dawkin's view, and not nearly as antagonistic.
The brief quotes Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, making a statement that both sides are using for their own purposes. I'm willing to bet Peters (who has admitted to not owning a personal computer) isn't real clear on the distinction between "making available" and "uploading." Colloquial use of "upload" isn't very specific. Here's the quote:
Making a work available in this context [i.e., uploading to a peer-to-peer network]
constitutes an infringement of the exclusive distribution right, as well as the
reproduction right (where the work is uploaded without the authorization of the
copyright holder.)
After all, very few P2P networks these days actually upload the files to a central location. That sounds more like an FTP warez site.
the EFF claims that since the RIAA doesn't know what other people did or didn't do (downloading the files), he's not at fault.
If you'd read the brief, you'd know that this is not exactly what the EFF is claiming. They are very specifically attacking the idea that "making available" without actual dissemination of the work constitutes infringement (an idea that has ramifications that go far beyond file-sharing - e.g., Google search results, etc.). As for the rest of the case, this is what they have to say:
EFF expresses no view regarding the merits of Plaintiffs' remaining claims for infringement of
the reproduction right, nor on any fair use or other defenses that Mr. and Mrs. Howell may have
with respect to those reproduction claims.
That's all well and good, but you have to realize that many religious people actually do believe that God is speaking directly to them. And when they've convinced themselves of that, you can see why it's hard to trump - God talking to you beats pretty much anything else you might hear or see on earth.
Laws don't and should not be the only guiding factor in the actions of people or corporations.
Heh, reminds me of a sign I saw in a Wal-Mart. "Buying tobacco for minors: It's not just wrong, it's illegal." As if being wrong isn't a good enough reason not to do it?
Slashdot Mirror
You raise an interesting point of grammar. Personally, I'd be inclined to say "an RIAA," because unless you say "reeya," RIAA starts with a vowel sound - "ar."
The wikipedia article for English indefinite articles states that "an" is "now used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter." However, there is also no citation given for that statement.
On the other hand, a brief Google search turns up 55,000 results for "an RIAA" and 61,000 for "a RIAA."
For me, the website in question already shows "TM" after the word CyberLaw. It's also the fifth hit on Google. If all they've done is apply for the trademark, are they still allowed to used the "TM" mark?
You hit the nail on the head. In some cases, though, I can't tell if the candidate is lying to win votes, or if he really is that stupid (e.g., Huckabee's "FairTax").
"Take off those burdens [read: fuel economy standards] and let's show them how fast a Mustang will actually go." - Mitt Romney
This is the exact situation my parents (and thus me, when I visit them) are in. They are currently on dial-up, with an average connection speed of around 26 kbps for $10/mo. That is abysmally slow, but satellite access is significantly more expensive. I've heard rumors of long-range wireless becoming available in their area, but again, the price is steep. DSL and cable are not available; they've lived there for 11 years, and it doesn't look as if the situation is going to change.
On the other hand, with a properly mounted antenna, they get less than a dozen TV channels. Here's hoping that all that empty space can be put to use.
It was called Second Chances. Gotta love wikis.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
I'll also refer you to this post where I discuss the issue further.
For clarification, I used the word "evangelism" in a broad sense (OED: "Zealous advocacy of a cause or doctrine, proselytizing zeal"); some people seem to think it can only refer to Christianity or religion. Furthermore, I'm not calling the ridicule of unscientific beliefs evangelism; what I'm saying is, all of us hold philosophical and epistemological beliefs that are unscientific (not in the sense that they conflict with science, but in the sense that science cannot validate them). Many atheists in the popular press seem to conflate their positions on scientific matters, which are usually well-grounded, with their positions on philosophical and epistemological matters. Then, when someone disagrees with them on the latter (on questions where there's often room for disagreement), they call them an idiot. That's undeserved.
On the other hand, if someone disagrees on questions of the former and tries to argue that the world is 6000 years old, and fossils are put there by God to test our "faith," they deserve to be called an idiot.
Ok... I don't really have a problem with what you've said. I've actually studying Greek, and I know what "evangelize" means (eu + angelion, "good news"; the English word "gospel", god + spel, is an Old English literal translation, also meaning "good news"). You'll note that nowhere in this discussion have I called atheism a religion. I don't think it is. I do think that "popular atheism" goes beyond science into the philosophical and epistemological, where all arguments are much fuzzier.
I think you give a very good assessment of Dawkins. However, I think you (and much of /.) have a curious definition of faith. I just referred to the OED, and nowhere in the many definitions given do I find anything talking about belief in the face of evidence or facts. I suppose this idea is a result of religious people who call their belief in young earth creationism "faith."
Obviously, I don't think that example does the word justice. Sadly, being a descriptivist, I have little choice but to accept their appropriation of the word. :-)
My point is, I don't consider Dawkins a spokesperson for scientists, as you implied.
Dawkins has been writing books for the past twenty years. They're not all like The God Delusion, but his views haven't exactly been expressed only "lately." Furthermore, it's not only "one guy on TV" - you've also got Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, to name a few. In another post, I mentioned the title of a book: "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist." On the other hand, you have people like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who try and defend intelligent design. There's more substance to this than you seem willing to admit.
I'm tiring of your incessant misrepresentation of my posts. Nowhere did I claim that atheism is a religion, or that Dawkins represents a movement.
Once again, you're conflating what I've mentioned with what I believe. What the sort of atheists in question propose isn't political, it's more philosophical: epistemological claims that can have no basis in science, for example.
Point taken; however, if you're curious, I looked up the actual title of the book: "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist." I think that title might be a bit harder to defend.
I never said it was accurate, and I tend to agree with your Torvalds analogy. Dawkins is merely one scientist among thousands, and certainly does not speak for scientists. That said, if you ask the average person to name a living scientist, I'm willing to bet Dawkins' name would come up quite often. He's a well-known public figure. People look to the well-known figures in a group, and extrapolate to the entire group. It might be wrong, you might not like it, but it's true.
You're quite right about the "God of the gaps" idea. However, Dawkins and other militant atheists seem to go beyond science, and imply that science somehow "disproves" God. In fact, I was in Barnes & Noble the other day, browsing the science section, when I saw a book entitled "How Science Disproves God," or something equally preposterous. So while science and religion have been in conflict for ages, it seems to me that militant atheism (and for that matter, young earth creationism and related hogwash) is a fairly modern phenomenon.
If this is the first time you've heard someone call atheism a religion, you must have had your head in the sand for the past decade or so. It's quite common to hear that sort of response from conservative Christians who are trying to fight what they perceive as a state-sponsored religion of atheism from encroaching upon every aspect of public life. Contrary to your implication, I don't believe the lack of belief in God is a religion; however, many atheists go beyond simply not having belief in a god (or having belief that there is no god, take your pick), and attempt to convert others to that view (evangelize), and label as an idiot anyone who disagrees (condemn). In that case, the analogy to religion isn't totally off the wall.
I won't comment on the legal portion of your post, since I'm not well-informed in that area. This part, however, I must take issue with. The government can indeed grant rights - e.g., copyright! What you're talking about are natural rights (or "certain inalienable rights").
By change, I meant that what we would traditionally consider fair use should probably be expanded. That's not really changing the doctrine itself, just our understanding of what falls into the category, I suppose.
By "hashed out," I didn't mean explicitly defined - I simply meant the various cases that refer to it. As you say, it "evolves." I agree, and was saying that perhaps it ought to evolve to a point where more things are considered fair use than are now.
Sorry to reply again, but this might be of interest:
Well, the truth lies somewhere between, I think. From what I understand, fair use is an "affirmative defense." Sure, you can be charged with murder, but if it's found to be self-defense, you won't be guilty of murder. On the other hand, as I understand it, to invoke fair use, you have to admit to copyright infringement - thus the "affirmative" part. You are saying you ARE guilty, but you should be granted an exception. Self-defense is disputing the charge that you are guilty of anything in the first place.
Someone didn't read the article :-) To quote Rick Cotton (the bad guy):
First of all, as Mr. Cotton duly notes, and as we often hear here on /., there is no such thing as a fair use "right." It's only a defense against infringement. To respond to your point, I'd argue that since the technology has changed so drastically, not only for enabling infringement, but also for enforcing copyright, the laws ought to be looked at again. What wasn't even on the map when fair use was being hashed out in various cases is now commonplace. It's time to reevaluate. Fair use should change as a result.
The public perception in many places is that Richard Dawkins is a spokesperson for scientists (with a position like Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, perhaps the perception is warranted). When such a well-known public figure rags on religion as much as he does, it's no wonder that religious people feel threatened by science. In a very real sense, Dawkins does evangelize for atheism. This is one reason why people have started calling it a "religion."
On the other hand, many extremely accomplished scientists (Stephen Jay Gould, to name one off the top of my head) have a view of religion that is fundamentally different from Dawkin's view, and not nearly as antagonistic.
The brief quotes Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, making a statement that both sides are using for their own purposes. I'm willing to bet Peters (who has admitted to not owning a personal computer) isn't real clear on the distinction between "making available" and "uploading." Colloquial use of "upload" isn't very specific. Here's the quote:
After all, very few P2P networks these days actually upload the files to a central location. That sounds more like an FTP warez site.
If you'd read the brief, you'd know that this is not exactly what the EFF is claiming. They are very specifically attacking the idea that "making available" without actual dissemination of the work constitutes infringement (an idea that has ramifications that go far beyond file-sharing - e.g., Google search results, etc.). As for the rest of the case, this is what they have to say:
Clearly, you missed the joke. And, I do follow XKCD, and am well aware of the exploits it often spawns, many of which are covered here.
Don't be rediculous.
That's all well and good, but you have to realize that many religious people actually do believe that God is speaking directly to them. And when they've convinced themselves of that, you can see why it's hard to trump - God talking to you beats pretty much anything else you might hear or see on earth.
How's the weather on Ferenginar these days?
Heh, reminds me of a sign I saw in a Wal-Mart. "Buying tobacco for minors: It's not just wrong, it's illegal." As if being wrong isn't a good enough reason not to do it?