No one even thinks it's offensive, just see your previous post if you disagree.
You've completely missed the point. Let me try again.
Every ethnic group has been the target of pejorative language. You seem to think the Irish are unique in this respect; they are not.
Most of the other items in the list which you find so "amusing" are just as offensive to other ethnic groups as "paddy wagon" is to you. They would be just as irritated by your failure to perceive those slurs as offensive. If you can't understand this, then you are a hypocrite.
"Paddywagon", hows that. If any other nationality or group was inserted into that term there would be a fucking riot.
When was the last time you actually heard anyone use that term, though? I don't see what makes it so much more riot-worthy than any of the other phrases in this list.
I agree, this is an unusual move, and opt-in would not be a problem. But Google argues that for older books (which are the only ones they are focusing on scanning right now), it's prohibitively difficult to figure out whose permission you need. In many cases, the original publisher no longer exists, and it's very time-consuming and sometimes futile to try to figure out who actually owns the copyright today.
1. Most TV news is available over public airwaves, web content is available at privately owned websites.
Ah, but web content often passes through public networks to get from the server to you.
2. Watching campaign ads via television is a pretty passive experience. I'm watching a show, and suddenly I'm unexpectedly watching a commercial about how Senator So-And-So eats babies and burns down orphanages. That's fine, comes with the territory, but it's not like I asked to be shown a political ad. On the internet, however, if I'm reading a story about Senator So-And-So's views on an issue, it's really likely that I went looking for that information on my own.
You might have had a point about 10 years ago, before banner ads, pop-ups, and flash ads existed. Internet advertising is becoming increasingly passive as time goes on. Just yesterday I visited a site which started playing a commercial -- an actual made-for-TV commercial, audio and all -- in flash form in the corner of the screen. Completely unsolicited by me, and completely unrelated to the content of the page I was trying to view.
The internet is becoming more and more like TV every day (and vice versa, to some extent). I think it's entirely appropriate that they be treated similarly.
On the other hand, to say "Ou has a well-documented history of writing negative articles on the subject of open-source software" is to state a fact, not to make an attack; and to continue, "therefore it is likely that his approach to the subject will be biased, his evidence selective, and his conclusions unreliable", is perfectly reasonable.
No. You've simply retreated into fuzzy inductive territory. This does not make it any less of a fallacy; it simply shows that there is sometimes a difference between formal logic and what we might call common sense.
The US has decided that it wants a hands-off approach on religious institutions, which is actually rather smart, since most people would not want churches making demands of the government since they are paying taxes.
Since when has their tax-exempt status stopped churches from making demands of the government?
For the same reason that other organizations don't get taxed, neither do churches for the donations they receive.
Don't be dense. If it were for the "same reasons," then all charitable organizations, religious or otherwise, would apply for tax-exempt status under the same rules, and the words "church" and "religious" would not appear in the tax code. Churches get special treatment, and don't need to provide any reason why they deserve to be tax-exempt.
If a group of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. wanted tax-exempt status, first of all, they would be required to apply for it. Churches get it automatically. Furthermore, the atheist group could lose their tax-exempt status for, say, endorsing or opposing a political candidate. This has never happened to a church in U.S. history. (Although it has been illegal since 1954 for nonprofits to endorse or oppose political candidates, even if you revoke a church's IRS letter ruling [which has happened exactly once in 51 years], the special rules for churches render this a purely symbolic gesture; they are still a church, and therefore ipso facto untaxable). The special rules for churches in the tax code clearly favor theism over nontheism, and are therefore unconstitutional.
"thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK?"
That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.
Whoa, put down the crack pipe there, son. "Efficiency of production" does not mean "hijacking someone else's R&D." There's nothing wrong with undercutting your competition if you come up with a better product or if you find your own way to produce it more cheaply. But that's not what the GP was talking about. He's talking about the situation where person A spends valuable time and money on research and development (cf. writing and recording a song), and then person B comes along and starts using that information to produce an identical (or fundamentally similar) product. Person A and person B now have the same product on the market, but person A had to pay a higher cost to get it there. Person B has not innovated anything; he hasn't made a better product, nor has he found a cheaper way to produce it on his own, yet he has an advantage because he has no R&D costs to repay. This is exactly the opposite of the way things ought to be. It shouldn't be hard to see how allowing this situation to occur would stifle innovation. Why pay for R&D when you can simply wait around to piggyback off of someone else's hard work? This is why we have intellectual property laws.
Since music and art have existed for all of human history, I can feel pretty comfortable that it will exist long after the demise of the *AA's.
Equivocation. Yes, music and art have existed for all of human history. But SOUND RECORDINGS have not. Copyright predates sound recordings.
More to the point, the only reason that copyright exists in the first place is because technology made it faster, easier, and cheaper for unscrupulous types to make accurate copies of creative works (books, at first). This has not changed; in fact, copying is easier than ever. This is an argument for copyright, not against it.
"In United States law, chilling effects refer to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First Amendment."
Look, quit changing the subject. You said, and this is a direct quote, "You can keep anything you record forever if you so desire." This is not true. Among other things, you cannot keep a PPV show forever. Therefore, you were wrong. End of story.
Furthermore, how can you call me a liar when I am expressing my experience with the unit?
Firstly, I didn't call you a liar. I am sure that you are accurately describing YOUR OWN experience with the unit. I'm simply saying that your experience is not all-encompassing.
I do have a Tivo and have never experienced the inability to record a regular program.
Good for you. You have never recorded a red-flagged show. I HAVE. On ABC primetime. Get it?
Slashdot Mirror
FOREHEAD *L*
That is all.
It's a catch-22. The very fact that it is considered worthwhile to make a clone would tend to prove that the property still has some value.
Missed the dot-com bubble, did you?
Wonderful. Just like Kudzu, this is sure to work perfectly, with no unintended consequences.
I can only assume you were trying to make fun of top 40 music, but the phrase "copyrighted music" is just a tiny bit broader than that.
It has to do with culture, which is something I'm guessing you know nothing about.
You've completely missed the point. Let me try again.
Every ethnic group has been the target of pejorative language. You seem to think the Irish are unique in this respect; they are not.
Most of the other items in the list which you find so "amusing" are just as offensive to other ethnic groups as "paddy wagon" is to you. They would be just as irritated by your failure to perceive those slurs as offensive. If you can't understand this, then you are a hypocrite.
When was the last time you actually heard anyone use that term, though? I don't see what makes it so much more riot-worthy than any of the other phrases in this list.
(I'm half Irish, and proud of it, BTW.)
So what you're saying is that it never happens, because you haven't seen it happen recently... except for the times when you have?
Obviously, opt-in is the safest route. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying: Providing an opt-out is better than NOT providing an opt-out.
I agree, this is an unusual move, and opt-in would not be a problem. But Google argues that for older books (which are the only ones they are focusing on scanning right now), it's prohibitively difficult to figure out whose permission you need. In many cases, the original publisher no longer exists, and it's very time-consuming and sometimes futile to try to figure out who actually owns the copyright today.
Sometimes I can't believe how short-sighted people are when it comes to this topic.
Ah, but web content often passes through public networks to get from the server to you.
2. Watching campaign ads via television is a pretty passive experience. I'm watching a show, and suddenly I'm unexpectedly watching a commercial about how Senator So-And-So eats babies and burns down orphanages. That's fine, comes with the territory, but it's not like I asked to be shown a political ad. On the internet, however, if I'm reading a story about Senator So-And-So's views on an issue, it's really likely that I went looking for that information on my own.
You might have had a point about 10 years ago, before banner ads, pop-ups, and flash ads existed. Internet advertising is becoming increasingly passive as time goes on. Just yesterday I visited a site which started playing a commercial -- an actual made-for-TV commercial, audio and all -- in flash form in the corner of the screen. Completely unsolicited by me, and completely unrelated to the content of the page I was trying to view.
The internet is becoming more and more like TV every day (and vice versa, to some extent). I think it's entirely appropriate that they be treated similarly.
Knock it off.
It's even worse than that. For the most part, Google doesn't even own the books they're copying in the first place. They're scouring libraries.
On the other hand, they are giving publishers a way to opt out, so it's perhaps not as bad as you make it seem.
No, he had a subtle sense of humor. That's not a flaw.
No. You've simply retreated into fuzzy inductive territory. This does not make it any less of a fallacy; it simply shows that there is sometimes a difference between formal logic and what we might call common sense.
Since when has their tax-exempt status stopped churches from making demands of the government?
For the same reason that other organizations don't get taxed, neither do churches for the donations they receive.
Don't be dense. If it were for the "same reasons," then all charitable organizations, religious or otherwise, would apply for tax-exempt status under the same rules, and the words "church" and "religious" would not appear in the tax code. Churches get special treatment, and don't need to provide any reason why they deserve to be tax-exempt.
If a group of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. wanted tax-exempt status, first of all, they would be required to apply for it. Churches get it automatically. Furthermore, the atheist group could lose their tax-exempt status for, say, endorsing or opposing a political candidate. This has never happened to a church in U.S. history. (Although it has been illegal since 1954 for nonprofits to endorse or oppose political candidates, even if you revoke a church's IRS letter ruling [which has happened exactly once in 51 years], the special rules for churches render this a purely symbolic gesture; they are still a church, and therefore ipso facto untaxable). The special rules for churches in the tax code clearly favor theism over nontheism, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Equivocation. Yes, music and art have existed for all of human history. But SOUND RECORDINGS have not. Copyright predates sound recordings.
More to the point, the only reason that copyright exists in the first place is because technology made it faster, easier, and cheaper for unscrupulous types to make accurate copies of creative works (books, at first). This has not changed; in fact, copying is easier than ever. This is an argument for copyright, not against it.
"In United States law, chilling effects refer to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First Amendment."
My emphasis.
Alarm clock: Beep.
Me: *pulls plug*
Furthermore, how can you call me a liar when I am expressing my experience with the unit?
Firstly, I didn't call you a liar. I am sure that you are accurately describing YOUR OWN experience with the unit. I'm simply saying that your experience is not all-encompassing.
I do have a Tivo and have never experienced the inability to record a regular program.
Good for you. You have never recorded a red-flagged show. I HAVE. On ABC primetime. Get it?
This is slashdot. Everybody knows that 2005 means Jan. 1, 1970, 00:33:25