You're the kind of shitstain that thinks the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are discriminatory.
A program for a particular group isn't actively discriminating.
Discrimination requires unjust or prejudicial screening. This is an outreach group. They aren't not accepting straight white dudes because they think we're stupid fucks, they're not accepting straight white dudes because their mission goal is to get other *actually discriminated against* classes involved.
Same. It really pisses me the fuck off when outreach programs for underrepresented and historically persecuted minorities are represented as racism or discrimination.
Whether or not you support outreach programs to change the status quo (affirmative action), to call it discrimination is a bullshit tactic to smear any attempt at correcting the balance of power.
I'm sorry, straight white dudes aren't the smartest fuckers on the planet. Yet we are vastly overrepresented. Is it because A) Since we've already pwned the battleground, we are the barrier to entry for people who don't look, smell, and fuck like us, and we're all just a little racist inside, or is it B) because we're really superior ubermenschen, or because other classes just can't hack our l33t coding skillz?
If you chose B) you're prejudiced. You might not outwardly know you are, but you are. Seek help awakening yourself so that you can fix yourself, and we can live in a better world.
That is some *really* bad logic, chief.
This is the problem people like you often have, you Bell Curvers-
Your data isn't wrong, but your data doesn't really support your conclusion better than any of the other side's conclusions- that massive systemic discrimination exists. And frankly, they have more evidence for their conclusion than you have for yours.
You aren't just cherry picking data, you're cherry picking logic processes applied to the data. Trying to pretend like you're half-stupid to make your point, but you're not. And I suspect that somewhere, deep down inside, you *know* you're wrong. You just think you can bullshit other people by being clever.
Same. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was just a dude producing copies of freely available content (even though technically in violation of the law) than someone who was trying to make perfect replicas of a good that carries an assumption of authenticity with it.
I am not. But I suspect I understand copyright, and you don't. Also, English.
You're arguing that since the code did not have a key, it was not covered under copyright.
Person who replied to you is arguing that copyright exists, whether or not you can use the copy.
He's right, you're wrong. It's pretty simple really. Your reaction is making it clear who has the mental deficit here.
First sale doctrine only comes into play if the 80,000 disks he sold were purchased by him with a legitimate license to have that copyrighted material.
The right of first sale does not give you the right to make 80,000 copies of something you had a license to use.
If copyright is being protected by serial keys or DMCA-protected encryption, then copying the media without bypassing those copyright protection mechanisms isn't copyright infringement.
This is completely fucking false. You literally made it the fuck up. What is wrong with you?
CDs with licensed data on them. He was not authorized to re-license the copies of that copyright dated to other recipients. He did so regardless. He then also violated trademark law, and committed fraud. He was fucked 5 ways from sunday. I don't get why people are trying to defend him.
That's hardly relevant... The software is provided for free by the copyright holder under the condition that they not distribute it (particularly using disks fraudulently depicted as theirs)
Your snark only veils ignorance in this instance.
Dislike it all you want, but MS was the copyright holder, and they have the right to determine how *every* *copy* of their software is made and distributed, fair nose notwithstanding, and this quite clearly wasn't that.
While I'm totally sympathetic to the defendant...
Who are you to say that? They hold the copyright of that software. Maybe it can't be used without a license, but you don't get to say whether the value is in the license, or the copyrighted material he breached copyright on.
What if that was your software?
Also, you can go only so far with your antioxidants, since people have an oxidizing metabolism. People thought melatonin was a miracle drug a decade ago. It definitely helps with sleep, but didn't work any miracles regarding the rest.
This isn't wrong, and I didn't argue it.
Missing a critical antioxidant the body has evolved to be there is however problematic.
You *can* supplement it, as you said. And in which cases, I suspect your increased risk for cancer drops dramatically. As does not exposing yourself to high-temp light in the evening if you stay up late.
No. An analogue is never meant to compare the original object and the analogue to it, but it's to compare *the reasoning* behind it. So I'm not equating normal aging with cancer proliferation. At all. I'm saying the reasoning behind your counterargument that 'the body is dying' is an unsatisfactory argument, since all bodies are dying.
Person A: This person is dying. We need to give them palliative end-of-life care.
Person B: All people are dying. We need to give them palliative end-of-life care.
Yes, you conflated them. Yes, it was stupid. Your analogue was broken. It didn't attack the argument, it attacked the use of 'dying'. Seriously, are you done, McDonalds?
As said numerous times by now: you're changing the basic premise by automatically including and excluding different factors and variables after the facts
No, I'm not. The original premise stands-
There are circumstances where you cannot measure an effect, even if it exists.
An aspirin a day, may very well statistically increase lifespan. Measuring that effect among stage 4 cancer patients isn't going to register a result, period.
This isn't hard, and it's hardly controversial.
You study your claimed effect against a representative population.
If you claim it makes everyone healthier, you study everyone.
If you think it improves cancer outcomes, you study cancer patients.
The study of 'everyone' will include cancer patients, and they will wash out in the statistics.
You're all caught up on the word everyone, and you cling to it desperately trying to worm your way out of a bad argument. Stop it.
I had a feeling you'd go this route.
Now you're conflating normal aging with metastatic cancer proliferation throughout the body.
Isn't it time for you to go clock in at McDonalds?
I imagine it's because of limited space on the keyboard.
While I can't argue that space on a keyboard isn't limited, you can't really argue limited space is why a key encoding that glyph isn't included.
More keys, functions, and oddities are added to keyboards all the time.
I'm not justifying slashdot's lack of unicode support, only the idiocy behind replacement of standard ASCII code points with unicode semi-equivalents.
How much code must be changed to match anything that could be considered a quotation mark, instead of... just a quotation mark, for the purpose of interpreting input?
Will we get start and end back-ticks next? Start and end single quotes? Can I get a distinction between floating points/commas and periods/commas?
This discussion almost makes me think slashdot *shouldn't* support unicode.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the kind of shitstain that thinks the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are discriminatory.
A program for a particular group isn't actively discriminating.
Discrimination requires unjust or prejudicial screening. This is an outreach group. They aren't not accepting straight white dudes because they think we're stupid fucks, they're not accepting straight white dudes because their mission goal is to get other *actually discriminated against* classes involved.
Fuck you.
Same. It really pisses me the fuck off when outreach programs for underrepresented and historically persecuted minorities are represented as racism or discrimination.
Whether or not you support outreach programs to change the status quo (affirmative action), to call it discrimination is a bullshit tactic to smear any attempt at correcting the balance of power.
I'm sorry, straight white dudes aren't the smartest fuckers on the planet. Yet we are vastly overrepresented. Is it because A) Since we've already pwned the battleground, we are the barrier to entry for people who don't look, smell, and fuck like us, and we're all just a little racist inside, or is it B) because we're really superior ubermenschen, or because other classes just can't hack our l33t coding skillz?
If you chose B) you're prejudiced. You might not outwardly know you are, but you are. Seek help awakening yourself so that you can fix yourself, and we can live in a better world.
Just because someone reasonably rejects to an insane overbearing code of conduct requiring people
And yours is Begging the question
I'm not sure which is worse.
That is some *really* bad logic, chief.
This is the problem people like you often have, you Bell Curvers-
Your data isn't wrong, but your data doesn't really support your conclusion better than any of the other side's conclusions- that massive systemic discrimination exists. And frankly, they have more evidence for their conclusion than you have for yours.
You aren't just cherry picking data, you're cherry picking logic processes applied to the data. Trying to pretend like you're half-stupid to make your point, but you're not. And I suspect that somewhere, deep down inside, you *know* you're wrong. You just think you can bullshit other people by being clever.
Same. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was just a dude producing copies of freely available content (even though technically in violation of the law) than someone who was trying to make perfect replicas of a good that carries an assumption of authenticity with it.
They weren't discs produced by the claimed producer. Why are you being obtuse?
Is it an arguing tactic?
I am not. But I suspect I understand copyright, and you don't. Also, English.
You're arguing that since the code did not have a key, it was not covered under copyright.
Person who replied to you is arguing that copyright exists, whether or not you can use the copy.
He's right, you're wrong. It's pretty simple really. Your reaction is making it clear who has the mental deficit here.
First sale doctrine only comes into play if the 80,000 disks he sold were purchased by him with a legitimate license to have that copyrighted material.
The right of first sale does not give you the right to make 80,000 copies of something you had a license to use.
Very true. But the copyleft license provided with Linux, and your (licensed) right to redistribute it, is enforced by the laws in play here.
If copyright is being protected by serial keys or DMCA-protected encryption, then copying the media without bypassing those copyright protection mechanisms isn't copyright infringement.
This is completely fucking false. You literally made it the fuck up. What is wrong with you?
Perfect example, actually.
The software is entirely complete without the license, you simply can't use it.
CDs with licensed data on them. He was not authorized to re-license the copies of that copyright dated to other recipients. He did so regardless. He then also violated trademark law, and committed fraud. He was fucked 5 ways from sunday. I don't get why people are trying to defend him.
*fair use
That's hardly relevant... The software is provided for free by the copyright holder under the condition that they not distribute it (particularly using disks fraudulently depicted as theirs)
Your snark only veils ignorance in this instance.
Dislike it all you want, but MS was the copyright holder, and they have the right to determine how *every* *copy* of their software is made and distributed, fair nose notwithstanding, and this quite clearly wasn't that.
I don't understand why he didn't use his own branding
You don't? To defraud the people receiving the discs... He literally admits to it in the emails.
The disks were absolutely 0% Genuine. You could argue that the content on them was Genuine, however.
The software had no value without a licence.
While I'm totally sympathetic to the defendant...
Who are you to say that? They hold the copyright of that software. Maybe it can't be used without a license, but you don't get to say whether the value is in the license, or the copyrighted material he breached copyright on.
What if that was your software?
The one problem I always had with that legend was... what other OS would they be pirating?
$65?
Yes it does?
One could argue it wouldn't even pay for itself in the time it took to become obsolete...
They still spinnin!
Also, you can go only so far with your antioxidants, since people have an oxidizing metabolism. People thought melatonin was a miracle drug a decade ago. It definitely helps with sleep, but didn't work any miracles regarding the rest.
This isn't wrong, and I didn't argue it.
Missing a critical antioxidant the body has evolved to be there is however problematic.
You *can* supplement it, as you said. And in which cases, I suspect your increased risk for cancer drops dramatically. As does not exposing yourself to high-temp light in the evening if you stay up late.
No. An analogue is never meant to compare the original object and the analogue to it, but it's to compare *the reasoning* behind it. So I'm not equating normal aging with cancer proliferation. At all. I'm saying the reasoning behind your counterargument that 'the body is dying' is an unsatisfactory argument, since all bodies are dying.
Person A: This person is dying. We need to give them palliative end-of-life care.
Person B: All people are dying. We need to give them palliative end-of-life care.
Yes, you conflated them. Yes, it was stupid. Your analogue was broken. It didn't attack the argument, it attacked the use of 'dying'. Seriously, are you done, McDonalds?
As said numerous times by now: you're changing the basic premise by automatically including and excluding different factors and variables after the facts
No, I'm not. The original premise stands-
There are circumstances where you cannot measure an effect, even if it exists.
An aspirin a day, may very well statistically increase lifespan. Measuring that effect among stage 4 cancer patients isn't going to register a result, period.
This isn't hard, and it's hardly controversial.
You study your claimed effect against a representative population.
If you claim it makes everyone healthier, you study everyone.
If you think it improves cancer outcomes, you study cancer patients.
The study of 'everyone' will include cancer patients, and they will wash out in the statistics.
You're all caught up on the word everyone, and you cling to it desperately trying to worm your way out of a bad argument. Stop it.
After all, ALL our bodies are actively dying,
I had a feeling you'd go this route.
Now you're conflating normal aging with metastatic cancer proliferation throughout the body.
Isn't it time for you to go clock in at McDonalds?
I imagine it's because of limited space on the keyboard.
While I can't argue that space on a keyboard isn't limited, you can't really argue limited space is why a key encoding that glyph isn't included.
More keys, functions, and oddities are added to keyboards all the time.
I'm not justifying slashdot's lack of unicode support, only the idiocy behind replacement of standard ASCII code points with unicode semi-equivalents.
How much code must be changed to match anything that could be considered a quotation mark, instead of... just a quotation mark, for the purpose of interpreting input?
Will we get start and end back-ticks next? Start and end single quotes? Can I get a distinction between floating points/commas and periods/commas?
This discussion almost makes me think slashdot *shouldn't* support unicode.