"They associated the term with characters other than Marvel and DC's before they even filed."
Well, it was filed several decades ago, so I'm not sure how you can declare this so certainly.
"They trademarked a commonly used term; therefore, their trademark should not be valid."
They trademarked a term that decribes a genre that one of them appears to have invented (DC with Superman, save the arguments, it's pretty much accepted and I don't care what you think otherwise) and didn't become common until well after it was used by them first.
It appears your objections are unrelated to what actually happened.
I've grown tired of this exchange, but I'll say this and then end it.
Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not.
Bringing up his motivation for making those statements is the ad hominem. Whether you beleive tham is not the consideration. I think that is where your confusion comes from. I'll say that again, it doesn't matter if you denounce/endorse the author's statements, because that is not the ad hominem, the act of bringing up the author's bias is the ad hominem.
I've said this as many ways, and as many times as I care to. Educate yourself or not, I'm finished with it.
And his opinion is either accurate or it is not. His funding doesn't change that.
I make no attempt to confuse anything, only to remove ignorance. If you'd like to clarify exactly what I'm confusing (since I never gave my opinon about any of the statements in the article) I'd be interested in hearing it.
Or was that a not so subtle attempt to slander me as well?
"I haven't made any statements, pro or anti, about the opinions Mr Zuck expressed."
I neve claimed you did, and I know you didn't. That said, it still doesn't matter.
His statements are either accurate or they are not. ALL other considerations are irrelvant, because they do not change the accuracy. Even if he were the most biased individual on the planet, his statements are either accurate or they are not.
You seem to think that your endorsement/denunciation is what matters. It does not. By simply bringing up the idea that the authors bias may influence the accuracy of his statements, you are committing ad hominem.
You must judge the accuracy of the statements based on their accuracy alone. Whyhe holds those opinions is completely irrelevant to whether those opinions are accurate. You are considering something that has no bearing on the veracity of the author's statements.
Continuing to insist that you are correct does not make you so. But, just because you like wikipedia, here's your refutation.
"2. Accountability makes sense if you're handing someone cash. If you're a search engine giving a cheritable website hits, all you have to do is look at the friggin website to do your due diligence - which you are going to do in any case."
So, looking at a website constitutes due diligence to you? Perhaps you should reconsider this statement.
"It was proven already that sets of genetic differences correlate with "race".
Basically they take a swab and can tell you white or black you are with very high accuracy (actually, they can even tell you which province your ancestors came from) "
Every bit of information I've read indicates the contrary. I'll decide if you're a troll or not as soon as you post a link to what you believe has been proven.
It's nice to know that a post composed primarily of logically flawed, inaccurate arguments still gets +5.
Without disagreeing with you, what part of your argument refutes the idea that the concept of race is not supported by genetics?
All you've done is give examples of genetic anomalies that are present in populations. Those genetice anomalies are a response to environment, and have nothing to do with the race of the individual.
To explain it to you so you understand, if you moved groups of different "races" around, they would eventually develop similar genetic anomalies.
I think you're trying to wedge a social argument into a discusiion of genetics, but none of what you say is supported by fact.
My point is censorship in the military is sometimes necessary for safety.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're trying to make an argument taht somehow in some vague way refutes what I've said. I was talking about censorship. You aren't, so what are you talking about?
You can check it now if you want, but the information is accurate.
Does putting your words in bold, or random words off of a some strange website you found, make you think people will feel they are more legitimate?
Was that really necessary? If you wanted a link, all you had to do was ask for it. What have you added to the discussion apart from animosity and ill will?
Yes it does apply to soldiers, just not how you think.
Does the u.s. constitution apply to military personnel?
Sort of, but not exactly the way it does in civilian life. While military personnel are not excluded from the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
As a practical matter, most civilian Constitutional rights are afforded to military personnel - although with some differences to fit the military situation. In some areas, such as right to counsel and rights (Miranda) warnings, military personnel have broader protections than those contained in the Constitution. In other areas such as search and seizure, they have reduced expectations of privacy and fewer protections.
Military appellate courts tend to interpret military law as being consistent with Constitutional protections so far as is possible.
I know that's not the answer you wanted, but the military is not civilian life, and the rules are very different.
censorship, regardless of the reason(s), is fucked up
Nice with the ad hominem, but what's the point of name calling when I can prove you're off base.
Soldiers routinely engage in maneuvers that are closely guarded in their specifics. Inadvertently releasing those specifics could give the enemy information, which can cost lives.
While I undertsand your... zeal to protect freedom of speech, you're abusing yours. All you've done is call names and make disparaging remarks, but what have you proven apart from your inability to have an adult conversation.
And none of what you've said changes the fact that in the military if you fuck up, people die.
I'm sure the rules are different in the military...soldiers would question and/or think about their duty and hesitate, and get people killed. I understand that you have the freedom to be idealistic, but reality on the battlefield in an entirely different matter, one you apparently are not equipped to understand (or debate intelligently without name calling and over the top rhetoric).
isn't this the same thing that they bitch about China doing?
First, it may not be true, and second, no, it's not.
If one of the basic tenants of our "democracy" (representitive republic) is "Freedom of Speech", how is it that the military blocks websites?
First, it may not be true, and second, the rules are different in the military. You see, the consequences in the military are much more serious when you screw up, so there is the idea that greater control is needed. If you think this violates any of the tenets of free speech in the United States, you have a flawed understanding.
And, in particular, websites of people with political opinions pertaining to getting the troops out of another failed war?
And there's no other reason they may be censored? Air america is censored where I work, but that's because they offer streaming media.
The military censors stuff. It always has. That isn't news. And frankly, when it means lives in a very real way, it's not wrong either.
Slashdot Mirror
"From the German, it literally translates to "Super" "Person"."
No, that is not the "literal" translation. Literally it translates as "Overman" with the over part meaning "greater than, more gifted than".
The idea is similar, but it is not "literally" "super" "person" as you conclude.
"No! Its clearly a derived work coming from Nietzsche's concept of "Übermensch" [wikipedia.org] :)"
I would agree if "Übermensch" translated as "superman" but it doesn't.
"They associated the term with characters other than Marvel and DC's before they even filed."
Well, it was filed several decades ago, so I'm not sure how you can declare this so certainly.
"They trademarked a commonly used term; therefore, their trademark should not be valid."
They trademarked a term that decribes a genre that one of them appears to have invented (DC with Superman, save the arguments, it's pretty much accepted and I don't care what you think otherwise) and didn't become common until well after it was used by them first.
It appears your objections are unrelated to what actually happened.
Isn't appointing a czar what ineffective beauracracies do in response to a problem they don't have an answer for?
Have there been any successful czars for anything?
"I did not try to "slander" you -- I was correcting you."
But I wasn't wrong. I'm not wrong now either. You simply misunderstand the fallacy you claim to understand.
I encourage you to read the links I've provided. You'll see why you're off base here.
Please don't assume because you think you're right that you are. You've made a mistake, learn from it.
And you get the honor of being the very last resonse for me in this thread.
Or refutes the facts I have posted. I appreciate your attempts to clarify the situation, but introducing more logical fallcies doesn't help.
Gowen committed ad hominem. Your post changes the subject, but not that original fact.
And now, because this has descended into uselessness, I'll go now.
I've grown tired of this exchange, but I'll say this and then end it.
Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not.
Bringing up his motivation for making those statements is the ad hominem. Whether you beleive tham is not the consideration. I think that is where your confusion comes from. I'll say that again, it doesn't matter if you denounce/endorse the author's statements, because that is not the ad hominem, the act of bringing up the author's bias is the ad hominem.
I've said this as many ways, and as many times as I care to. Educate yourself or not, I'm finished with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
And his opinion is either accurate or it is not. His funding doesn't change that.
I make no attempt to confuse anything, only to remove ignorance. If you'd like to clarify exactly what I'm confusing (since I never gave my opinon about any of the statements in the article) I'd be interested in hearing it.
Or was that a not so subtle attempt to slander me as well?
"I haven't made any statements, pro or anti, about the opinions Mr Zuck expressed."
I neve claimed you did, and I know you didn't. That said, it still doesn't matter.
His statements are either accurate or they are not. ALL other considerations are irrelvant, because they do not change the accuracy. Even if he were the most biased individual on the planet, his statements are either accurate or they are not.
You seem to think that your endorsement/denunciation is what matters. It does not. By simply bringing up the idea that the authors bias may influence the accuracy of his statements, you are committing ad hominem.
You must judge the accuracy of the statements based on their accuracy alone. Whyhe holds those opinions is completely irrelevant to whether those opinions are accurate. You are considering something that has no bearing on the veracity of the author's statements.
Continuing to insist that you are correct does not make you so. But, just because you like wikipedia, here's your refutation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I understand that you want it to matter. I understand that you feel strongly, but you're wrong.
It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion
Which is factually incorrect. That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.
You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct. The source of funding doesn't change this.
I realize yours is a widely held belief, but it's wrong.
"2. Accountability makes sense if you're handing someone cash. If you're a search engine giving a cheritable website hits, all you have to do is look at the friggin website to do your due diligence - which you are going to do in any case."
So, looking at a website constitutes due diligence to you? Perhaps you should reconsider this statement.
From wiki
In physics and chemistry, a plasma is an ionized gas
"It was proven already that sets of genetic differences correlate with "race".
Basically they take a swab and can tell you white or black you are with very high accuracy (actually, they can even tell you which province your ancestors came from) "
Every bit of information I've read indicates the contrary. I'll decide if you're a troll or not as soon as you post a link to what you believe has been proven.
It's nice to know that a post composed primarily of logically flawed, inaccurate arguments still gets +5.
Without disagreeing with you, what part of your argument refutes the idea that the concept of race is not supported by genetics?
All you've done is give examples of genetic anomalies that are present in populations. Those genetice anomalies are a response to environment, and have nothing to do with the race of the individual.
To explain it to you so you understand, if you moved groups of different "races" around, they would eventually develop similar genetic anomalies.
I think you're trying to wedge a social argument into a discusiion of genetics, but none of what you say is supported by fact.
I did preview, and I did close the tag.
I doubt that would be possible.
Yes I know, but apparently, you don't. Funny though how my sarcasm turned into reality...
And, in regards to your last paragraph, eat me. Is that intelligent enough for you?
Let's just say it's consistent, and about what I expected.
Please dumb down your next intellectual rant so my feeble immature mind can understand it, you fuck.
I doubt that would be possible.
And?
My point is censorship in the military is sometimes necessary for safety.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're trying to make an argument taht somehow in some vague way refutes what I've said. I was talking about censorship. You aren't, so what are you talking about?
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_ law/military_us_constitution.htm
You can check it now if you want, but the information is accurate.
Does putting your words in bold, or random words off of a some strange website you found, make you think people will feel they are more legitimate?
Was that really necessary? If you wanted a link, all you had to do was ask for it. What have you added to the discussion apart from animosity and ill will?
Yes it does apply to soldiers, just not how you think.
Does the u.s. constitution apply to military personnel?
Sort of, but not exactly the way it does in civilian life. While military personnel are not excluded from the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
As a practical matter, most civilian Constitutional rights are afforded to military personnel - although with some differences to fit the military situation. In some areas, such as right to counsel and rights (Miranda) warnings, military personnel have broader protections than those contained in the Constitution. In other areas such as search and seizure, they have reduced expectations of privacy and fewer protections.
Military appellate courts tend to interpret military law as being consistent with Constitutional protections so far as is possible.
I know that's not the answer you wanted, but the military is not civilian life, and the rules are very different.
censorship, regardless of the reason(s), is fucked up
Nice with the ad hominem, but what's the point of name calling when I can prove you're off base.
Soldiers routinely engage in maneuvers that are closely guarded in their specifics. Inadvertently releasing those specifics could give the enemy information, which can cost lives.
While I undertsand your... zeal to protect freedom of speech, you're abusing yours. All you've done is call names and make disparaging remarks, but what have you proven apart from your inability to have an adult conversation.
And none of what you've said changes the fact that in the military if you fuck up, people die.
I'm sure the rules are different in the military...soldiers would question and/or think about their duty and hesitate, and get people killed. I understand that you have the freedom to be idealistic, but reality on the battlefield in an entirely different matter, one you apparently are not equipped to understand (or debate intelligently without name calling and over the top rhetoric).
isn't this the same thing that they bitch about China doing?
First, it may not be true, and second, no, it's not.
If one of the basic tenants of our "democracy" (representitive republic) is "Freedom of Speech", how is it that the military blocks websites?
First, it may not be true, and second, the rules are different in the military. You see, the consequences in the military are much more serious when you screw up, so there is the idea that greater control is needed. If you think this violates any of the tenets of free speech in the United States, you have a flawed understanding.
And, in particular, websites of people with political opinions pertaining to getting the troops out of another failed war?
And there's no other reason they may be censored? Air america is censored where I work, but that's because they offer streaming media.
The military censors stuff. It always has. That isn't news. And frankly, when it means lives in a very real way, it's not wrong either.
You honestly can't think of a single reason to filter traffic other than censorship?