Nowhere does the article say he issued a "verdict," just that he had "sided with the media companies." In this case, he sided with them against a challenge to the legitimacy of their complaint, ruling that if Cox wants to get out of this they're going to have to go with a different defense.
A preliminary ruling like this can be very helpful to both parties involved. The judge has basically told Cox's legal team, "Based on the information I have available to me right now, here is how I would rule, and why." That gives them the opportunity to build their case based on how the judge is leaning.
Judge's are not the same as jurors. They aren't sequestered, and there's no requirement that they only consider information presented at trial. At this point, the judge has read tons of material about the case. If he said he had no opinion at this time, I'd assume he was lying. Better to know where he stands, so that all parties involved can form meaningful legal strategies.
They do when you call someone a traitor against a country, as in "a traitor of the USA." One of the official definitions of "traitor" is "one who commits treason." It's reasonable to apply that definition when dealing with nations, as that is the most common meaning in those situations.
If the poster had wanted to be clear that they weren't implying treason, they could have said something like "a traitor to the principles of the USA."
Not that everyone has a 4K res TV but you do have built in longevity with those devices.
I used to feel the same way, especially when I was buying my first media devices. Back then it wasn't 4K, but there were still concerns with "the Wii doesn't have HDMI support" and the like. But then I realized that I generally keep the same TV for much longer than I keep the boxes that attach to it, and even after I upgrade my TV there are usually workarounds that allow me to keep using those devices until I'm ready to upgrade them.
Besides, at the moment I would say that network speeds and content availability are a bigger reason to wait on including 4K than the number of 4K TVs out there.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't think anything you wrote above sounds like buzzwords and jargon. The implications may not be immediately clear to me, but the facts you've communicated certainly are.
Your advisor was mis-applying the philosophy behind "say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you just said." It's valid in certain contexts, primarily when you are writing to educate, which is different than conveying information. In education, you have to repeat yourself because your audience might have trouble keeping up, or their attention might drift. A big challenge with educational writing and speaking is the reality that at least part of your audience doesn't care or want to be reading/hearing what you have to say, so you have to emphasize and re-emphasize the most important points.
By contrast, academic papers are about, as you said, conveying information. People read them because they want to understand what you are saying. If they miss it the first time, they will read it again. The burden should not be on the writer to make sure that the reader stays focused.
Of course, none of that matters to someone that hasn't learned anything about writing since their high school teacher told them the formula for a five-paragraph essay.
Targeting science journalists is a good middle ground between targeting only experts in your field and trying to target absolutely everyone. Like the parent said, "explain less common jargon / terms once," and you can figure that a journalist worth their salt will already know or be able to look up the more common terms.
Doing this has the added bonus that if your work happens to be newsworthy, it's much more likely that it will be explained correctly in the mainstream media.
why would GamerGate harass a convention right after fighting for the right to speak at it?
That's just what happened, though. A rabble of angry, anti-SJW folks who failed reading comprehension couldn't abide the existence of a panel that they perceived as pro-SJW. They either didn't know or didn't care about the other panel, and their strategy for shutting down the other panel was threats of violence.
If you can acknowledge that GamerGate isn't an organized, centralized movement, you should be able to acknowledge that some of its "members" are acting as a far-right hate mob that aren't satisfied with having their own panel because their goal is to shut down the conversation.
When it comes to the tools we use to do our jobs, it can be valuable to look up from what we've always used and see what else is available. It may be that one of the competing options has a game-changing feature that fits your needs perfectly while your current solution is stagnant.
There is always a cost to switching, but everyone has their own threshold where that cost is lower than the cost of sticking with an antiquated system.
It's the same logic that gives us headlines like "Some tech company [usually Apple] misses projections in earnings call". No, they didn't miss a damn thing. If a projection fails to match what actually ends up happening, that's the fault of the projection.
I was surprised to learn that @sandbagger is right: Rotten Tomatoes has been a subsidiary of Flixster since 2010, which was in turn purchased by Warner Bros. in 2011.
I never had much reason to question their weighting formula, though, mostly because Rotten Tomatoes has a good distribution of ratings from 0% to 100%, and because there is not much fine-grained scoring on each review, just "positive" or "negative".
I don't think the comment is silly at all. I have never had a criminal deprive me of my rights.
You have never had a criminal deprive you of your rights because you live in an ordered society with basic protections against the strong tyrannizing the weak. Those protections are provided by the government.
Your argument is similar to an anti-vaccination argument: "I don't know anyone who has had the measles, but I believe that the measles vaccine is harmful. Therefore, we should discontinue the vaccine."
After all, theatre employees are so highly paid that movie pirates would *never* be able to bribe one to look the other way with their night vision goggles.
Are you insane? Are you suggesting that most people would approve of the uncontrolled distribution of pharmaceuticals on a mass scale?
Of *course* we shouldn't allow that! Not only is it tremendously dangerous to allow just anyone with a 3D printer in their garage to sell drugs, it also would bankrupt the pharmaceutical companies. That might not sound so bad, given their reputation for greed and heartlessness, but they are also known as "the place that new drugs come from." They could stand to be taken down a peg, but we need at least some of them to survive.
In short, it would be MUCH, MUCH worse to allow free distribution of Soliris than it is to allow copyright infringement of movies.
Companies that have enacted longer term maternity and paternity leave have reported that they have had little to no disruption in the work force.
Perhaps, but this is a sample with selection bias. The only companies that would be voluntarily try such a policy are those that have reason to think it would be good for their business, or at least neutral.
What were the sizes of these companies? I can see how giving paid time off for one or two out of hundreds or thousands of employees might not be disruptive, but what if you only have five employees at your business? There is no way around the fact that losing one of them for several months is going to seriously affect business, especially when you have to keep paying them *and* can't replace them with a permanent employee.
For the record, I am strongly in favor of increased parental leave. I just don't think it's as simple as some would suggest.
Because I might hurt the feelings of the pedophiles? No. Here is where I draw the line. I will never self-censor to protect the feelings of people who are sexually attracted to young children. I pity them, I wish them the best in their attempts to fight their urges, but I will NOT care about their *feelings.*
Lolicon is an interesting case because it doesn't have a non-consenting party, but that does not automatically mean that it harms no one. It serves no purpose other than to enflame desires that can and must never be acted upon.
Lolicon could be considered "obscene," according to the terms established by the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically in that it depicts sexual behavior that is illegal and that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Whether you agree with the necessity of obscenity laws or not, they do exist. It is not a bold claim to suggest that they be applied in this case, and thus the burden of proof you refer to returns to those who would argue either that lolicon is not obscene or that obscenity laws ought to be abolished entirely.
I've heard of some of those studies. I can't comment on their specifics not having read them, so let's just accept their conclusions for the sake of argument. What then? Is it true of all harmful impulses, or it it specific to pornography? How does it affect pedophiles vs. those with a sexual response to violence? The same? Different? What about people who fantasize about violence in a non-sexual way? Are people in a fat-shaming community more or less likely to fat-shame a person to their face than before they joined the community?
Just because the idea sounds sensible on its face doesn't mean that it is true, or that the truth might not be the exact opposite in some cases. Bold claims require strong evidence, and it doesn't seem like there is enough evidence for this hypothesis to justify making policy decisions based upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord!
How did you figure that out?
I got 145, but I have no doubt I missed some.
Nowhere does the article say he issued a "verdict," just that he had "sided with the media companies." In this case, he sided with them against a challenge to the legitimacy of their complaint, ruling that if Cox wants to get out of this they're going to have to go with a different defense.
A preliminary ruling like this can be very helpful to both parties involved. The judge has basically told Cox's legal team, "Based on the information I have available to me right now, here is how I would rule, and why." That gives them the opportunity to build their case based on how the judge is leaning.
Judge's are not the same as jurors. They aren't sequestered, and there's no requirement that they only consider information presented at trial. At this point, the judge has read tons of material about the case. If he said he had no opinion at this time, I'd assume he was lying. Better to know where he stands, so that all parties involved can form meaningful legal strategies.
They do when you call someone a traitor against a country, as in "a traitor of the USA."
One of the official definitions of "traitor" is "one who commits treason." It's reasonable to apply that definition when dealing with nations, as that is the most common meaning in those situations.
If the poster had wanted to be clear that they weren't implying treason, they could have said something like "a traitor to the principles of the USA."
Has anyone confirmed the previously leaked text against this official one? Do I need to re-read it if I already read it when it was leaked?
Prepare to be shocked:
https://blog.plex.tv/2015/11/0...
Not that everyone has a 4K res TV but you do have built in longevity with those devices.
I used to feel the same way, especially when I was buying my first media devices. Back then it wasn't 4K, but there were still concerns with "the Wii doesn't have HDMI support" and the like. But then I realized that I generally keep the same TV for much longer than I keep the boxes that attach to it, and even after I upgrade my TV there are usually workarounds that allow me to keep using those devices until I'm ready to upgrade them.
Besides, at the moment I would say that network speeds and content availability are a bigger reason to wait on including 4K than the number of 4K TVs out there.
Being a passive racist is not the same as joining a racist organization.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't think anything you wrote above sounds like buzzwords and jargon. The implications may not be immediately clear to me, but the facts you've communicated certainly are.
Your advisor was mis-applying the philosophy behind "say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you just said." It's valid in certain contexts, primarily when you are writing to educate, which is different than conveying information. In education, you have to repeat yourself because your audience might have trouble keeping up, or their attention might drift. A big challenge with educational writing and speaking is the reality that at least part of your audience doesn't care or want to be reading/hearing what you have to say, so you have to emphasize and re-emphasize the most important points.
By contrast, academic papers are about, as you said, conveying information. People read them because they want to understand what you are saying. If they miss it the first time, they will read it again. The burden should not be on the writer to make sure that the reader stays focused.
Of course, none of that matters to someone that hasn't learned anything about writing since their high school teacher told them the formula for a five-paragraph essay.
I'm commenting to express approval for your comment, and to counteract the useless negative comment that an AC already posted to it.
Targeting science journalists is a good middle ground between targeting only experts in your field and trying to target absolutely everyone. Like the parent said, "explain less common jargon / terms once," and you can figure that a journalist worth their salt will already know or be able to look up the more common terms.
Doing this has the added bonus that if your work happens to be newsworthy, it's much more likely that it will be explained correctly in the mainstream media.
why would GamerGate harass a convention right after fighting for the right to speak at it?
That's just what happened, though. A rabble of angry, anti-SJW folks who failed reading comprehension couldn't abide the existence of a panel that they perceived as pro-SJW. They either didn't know or didn't care about the other panel, and their strategy for shutting down the other panel was threats of violence.
If you can acknowledge that GamerGate isn't an organized, centralized movement, you should be able to acknowledge that some of its "members" are acting as a far-right hate mob that aren't satisfied with having their own panel because their goal is to shut down the conversation.
Source?
When it comes to the tools we use to do our jobs, it can be valuable to look up from what we've always used and see what else is available. It may be that one of the competing options has a game-changing feature that fits your needs perfectly while your current solution is stagnant.
There is always a cost to switching, but everyone has their own threshold where that cost is lower than the cost of sticking with an antiquated system.
It's the same logic that gives us headlines like "Some tech company [usually Apple] misses projections in earnings call". No, they didn't miss a damn thing. If a projection fails to match what actually ends up happening, that's the fault of the projection.
I was surprised to learn that @sandbagger is right: Rotten Tomatoes has been a subsidiary of Flixster since 2010, which was in turn purchased by Warner Bros. in 2011.
I never had much reason to question their weighting formula, though, mostly because Rotten Tomatoes has a good distribution of ratings from 0% to 100%, and because there is not much fine-grained scoring on each review, just "positive" or "negative".
I don't think the comment is silly at all. I have never had a criminal deprive me of my rights.
You have never had a criminal deprive you of your rights because you live in an ordered society with basic protections against the strong tyrannizing the weak. Those protections are provided by the government.
Your argument is similar to an anti-vaccination argument: "I don't know anyone who has had the measles, but I believe that the measles vaccine is harmful. Therefore, we should discontinue the vaccine."
After all, theatre employees are so highly paid that movie pirates would *never* be able to bribe one to look the other way with their night vision goggles.
Are you insane? Are you suggesting that most people would approve of the uncontrolled distribution of pharmaceuticals on a mass scale?
Of *course* we shouldn't allow that! Not only is it tremendously dangerous to allow just anyone with a 3D printer in their garage to sell drugs, it also would bankrupt the pharmaceutical companies. That might not sound so bad, given their reputation for greed and heartlessness, but they are also known as "the place that new drugs come from." They could stand to be taken down a peg, but we need at least some of them to survive.
In short, it would be MUCH, MUCH worse to allow free distribution of Soliris than it is to allow copyright infringement of movies.
Companies that have enacted longer term maternity and paternity leave have reported that they have had little to no disruption in the work force.
Perhaps, but this is a sample with selection bias. The only companies that would be voluntarily try such a policy are those that have reason to think it would be good for their business, or at least neutral.
What were the sizes of these companies? I can see how giving paid time off for one or two out of hundreds or thousands of employees might not be disruptive, but what if you only have five employees at your business? There is no way around the fact that losing one of them for several months is going to seriously affect business, especially when you have to keep paying them *and* can't replace them with a permanent employee.
For the record, I am strongly in favor of increased parental leave. I just don't think it's as simple as some would suggest.
Exactly my thought. That is cheating. That's like not owning a car, and then riding in taxis the exact amount you'd have driven.
Which he does. Well, he uses Uber instead of taxis, but the idea is the same.
Because I might hurt the feelings of the pedophiles?
No. Here is where I draw the line. I will never self-censor to protect the feelings of people who are sexually attracted to young children. I pity them, I wish them the best in their attempts to fight their urges, but I will NOT care about their *feelings.*
A fair argument, I'll grant you.
Lolicon is an interesting case because it doesn't have a non-consenting party, but that does not automatically mean that it harms no one. It serves no purpose other than to enflame desires that can and must never be acted upon.
Lolicon could be considered "obscene," according to the terms established by the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically in that it depicts sexual behavior that is illegal and that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Whether you agree with the necessity of obscenity laws or not, they do exist. It is not a bold claim to suggest that they be applied in this case, and thus the burden of proof you refer to returns to those who would argue either that lolicon is not obscene or that obscenity laws ought to be abolished entirely.
I've heard of some of those studies. I can't comment on their specifics not having read them, so let's just accept their conclusions for the sake of argument. What then? Is it true of all harmful impulses, or it it specific to pornography? How does it affect pedophiles vs. those with a sexual response to violence? The same? Different? What about people who fantasize about violence in a non-sexual way? Are people in a fat-shaming community more or less likely to fat-shame a person to their face than before they joined the community?
Just because the idea sounds sensible on its face doesn't mean that it is true, or that the truth might not be the exact opposite in some cases. Bold claims require strong evidence, and it doesn't seem like there is enough evidence for this hypothesis to justify making policy decisions based upon it.