Respect indeed must be earned, and no, it cannot be earned just by being born a human being.
Everyone deserves courtesy until they show they don't deserve it, but no one deserves respect until they show they do deserve it.
More than that: Just because you've earned the respect of one person, that doesn't mean you've earned the respect of anyone else. If you want to be respected by multiple people, you have to earn the respect of each of those people individually - and each person's criteria and/or thresholds for what they consider worthy of respect can be different.
I suspect this is a disagreement about what the word "respect" actually means, but unfortunately, in this case I don't have a good attempt at a definition of what I understand it to mean. If anyone wants to offer one, I can try to explain what I disagree with about it, and we might be able to narrow down our positions by going back and forth that way...
I'm pretty sure the underlying idea here is that the preparation and presentation of the food is a work of art - and that the chef, as the artist, has a copyright interest in the resulting work of art. (Just as with ephemeral works of art such as ice sculpture, or even - to tie in food directly - cheese sculpture.)
Doesn't mean they're right or that it would hold up in court, of course, but I think if we want to either understand the claims here or effectively argue against them we need to do it from that angle.
I think you read him wrong. Applying missing punctuation and capitalization, what he said is "If China can't do it, how can the UK do it?". I think you missed the "t" in "can't".
In other words, I think he's asking "If even China - who are applying much more in the way of resources to this, even proportionally - can't successfully filter their citizens' Internet access, how can we believe the UK is going to be able to do so?".
The only reason an AT&T employee or other representative should be uncomfortable at the sight of this logo is if they actually agree with, or otherwise support, the policies, principles, and attitudes which the logo is trying to call out.
If they disagree with those policies, and agree with the ideas behind the logo, then there's no reason they should feel uncomfortable, and no reason discussion should be in any way inhibited.
If they do agree with those policies, then making them uncomfortable helps put pressure on them to change their minds, and thereby to increase opposition to those policies - which is exactly what the logo is all about.
I read the "five places" as being four pants pockets (two front, two back) and one shirt pocket. And some pants have more; I keep my cell phone in an extra pocket on the right leg of my pants.
That's not even counting the possibilities in coat pockets and inside pockets and so on, of course. Or clipping something on to your belt (even if just a belt pouch), or "wearable computing" devices such as Google Glass, or...
For the record, in case someone finds this discussion later on:
This is apparently only for when the "most visited sites" tiles haven't been populated yet. The reasoning is that pre-chosen tiles are more likely to be useful, or otherwise desirable, than blank, empty tiles. People who already have enough "most visited sites" data to have populated all of the tiles shouldn't see any change.
Even for new users, it will reportedly replace the default tiles (including the sponsored ones) with your "most visited sites" once you've used the browser long enough that the internal calculation that judges what sites are "most visited" has enough data to do its work. I'd intuitively expect this to be a dynamic, every-time-you-use-the-program, ongoing calculation, but instead it apparently happens only after 30 days.
"Opt-out" versus "opt-in" is a matter of which choice is the default, the one you get if you don't pay enough attention to make a conscious choice.
The described setup configuration process will put the filters in place if you just say "yes" to everything. Unless "yes" is not the default (e.g. if it's radio buttons and a "Next" button, and the "no" radio button is selected by default), then someone clicking through without paying attention will get the filters - and that means the filters are the default, which makes this an "opt-out" scenario.
Not to mention that, as others have stated, it seems that opting out only affects whether the filters will actually be applied to your traffic - not whether your traffic will pass through the filtering software.
If they can ensure that the only place to get genuine merchandise is the official store, then all merchandise available through other channels will be counterfeit, and thus illegitimate. That way, anyone who sees merchandise claiming to be theirs that isn't sold through their official store will know it's guaranteed to be counterfeit.
If people resell the genuine merchandise through other channels, then some of the merchandise available through those other channels will in fact be genuine, and that guarantee won't be there.
That only works if they can keep the 100% lockdown on resale, though... and it's questionable and potentially scummy even then.
There's no logical way to end up at VeriSign (whose only way to take down the offending link might well be to take down the entirety of .com), you're right about that.
But there's no logical way to end up at the registrar (whose only way to take down the offending link was to take down the whole domain), either - and yet that's where this already ended up. So why shouldn't we now consider the scenario where the other illogical thing might happen?
Perhaps what is needed is a requirement that the laws must be written in a form the average citizen can understand.
The trouble with that is the people who will go looking for loopholes.
In order to avoid leaving loopholes to be exploited and abused, or at least to be very clear about where those loopholes are and are not, it is necessary to word the law very precisely - well beyond the limits of the precision used in ordinary day-to-day discourse.
Phrasing things precisely very quickly comes to involve phrasing them in ways which are complex, abstruse, and otherwise hard to understand - and there we have the roots of what is called "legalese".
(Try it sometime; try to phrase something so that there is no possible way that anyone could misinterpret it, or take it - or part of it - out of context to mean something else. It's far harder than you might think, beyond a few relatively simple cases, and the resulting phraseology bears a striking resemblance to legalese.)
And then people start intentionally extending legalese to obfuscate things further for their own purposes, which is indeed abusive and should be avoided, and things snowball from there. Everything before that point, however, is not only not an inherently bad thing, but is in fact necessary to avoid other bad things.
The real issue is that many who support net neutrality forget to mention that many of the discussions for sponsored services are OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOU ALREADY GET. That is to say that, as an example, it would be extra over your current transfer limits, or faster service than you are currently getting, usually by setting up a direct peer with your ISP or preferential routing.
It would still mean that any newcomers, who can't afford to pay for the "sponsored services" treatment, would be at a disadvantage compared to the established players; it would raise the barrier to entry, thus reducing competition and (potentially disruptive) innovation.
There are other problems with this line of argument as well, but that's the most obvious and probably most important.
There's another category, with a population of at least one (that being me): people who don't particularly want to rule, but who don't trust anyone else to get it right.
Whether fortunately or otherwise, if I'm any example, such people would have no chance of actually getting elected.
What he means by "actual democracy" is probably what is also referred to as "direct democracy", i.e., the people themselves vote directly on the actual issues rather than (s)electing people to vote as their representatives.
Each application under this section shall include a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation
(Cutting off there not to obscure anything, but because there's no reasonable stopping point without including the entire subsection, which means I need to cut off somewhere.)
If you want to argue that this does not require that the things sought actually be relevant, only that there are reasonable grounds to believe such, you might be able to support that - although based on Sensenbrenner's comments, it seems very likely that the law was not intended to allow such an interpretation. Claiming that the word does not appear in the law, however, is simply ignoring the facts.
I initially misread that link as meaning "An online pedophile sting with full retirement benefits caught the rewards officer of a a police department"...
The actual interpretation makes more sense, though of course it's highly objectionable.
On the post: Student Points Finger Like Gun, Gets Suspended Under Zero Tolerance Rules
Re: Re: Re: Confusion
Everyone deserves courtesy until they show they don't deserve it, but no one deserves respect until they show they do deserve it.
More than that: Just because you've earned the respect of one person, that doesn't mean you've earned the respect of anyone else. If you want to be respected by multiple people, you have to earn the respect of each of those people individually - and each person's criteria and/or thresholds for what they consider worthy of respect can be different.
I suspect this is a disagreement about what the word "respect" actually means, but unfortunately, in this case I don't have a good attempt at a definition of what I understand it to mean. If anyone wants to offer one, I can try to explain what I disagree with about it, and we might be able to narrow down our positions by going back and forth that way...
On the post: Some Chefs Still Insisting That Photographing Meals Steals Some Of Their Intellectual Property
Re: A question needs asking...
Doesn't mean they're right or that it would hold up in court, of course, but I think if we want to either understand the claims here or effectively argue against them we need to do it from that angle.
On the post: UK Porn Filter Architect Arrested On Child Porn Charges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, I think he's asking "If even China - who are applying much more in the way of resources to this, even proportionally - can't successfully filter their citizens' Internet access, how can we believe the UK is going to be able to do so?".
On the post: AT&T Exec Claims EFF's Mocking NSA Logo Creates A 'Chilling Effect'
Re:
The only reason an AT&T employee or other representative should be uncomfortable at the sight of this logo is if they actually agree with, or otherwise support, the policies, principles, and attitudes which the logo is trying to call out.
If they disagree with those policies, and agree with the ideas behind the logo, then there's no reason they should feel uncomfortable, and no reason discussion should be in any way inhibited.
If they do agree with those policies, then making them uncomfortable helps put pressure on them to change their minds, and thereby to increase opposition to those policies - which is exactly what the logo is all about.
On the post: DHS Suffers Moment Of Clarity, Shuts Down Plans To Build A Nationwide License Plate Database
Re: Re:
On the post: Spike Jonze Being Sued For 'Her' Over Generic Plot Similarities
Re: Gross images
That's not even counting the possibilities in coat pockets and inside pockets and so on, of course. Or clipping something on to your belt (even if just a belt pouch), or "wearable computing" devices such as Google Glass, or...
On the post: Mozilla Pretends New Firefox Ads Aren't Ads, Will Somehow Revolutionize Browsing
Re: Re:
This is apparently only for when the "most visited sites" tiles haven't been populated yet. The reasoning is that pre-chosen tiles are more likely to be useful, or otherwise desirable, than blank, empty tiles. People who already have enough "most visited sites" data to have populated all of the tiles shouldn't see any change.
Even for new users, it will reportedly replace the default tiles (including the sponsored ones) with your "most visited sites" once you've used the browser long enough that the internal calculation that judges what sites are "most visited" has enough data to do its work. I'd intuitively expect this to be a dynamic, every-time-you-use-the-program, ongoing calculation, but instead it apparently happens only after 30 days.
On the post: With Porn Filters Going Oh So Well, UK Roars Ahead In Expanding Them To Include 'Extremist' Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The described setup configuration process will put the filters in place if you just say "yes" to everything. Unless "yes" is not the default (e.g. if it's radio buttons and a "Next" button, and the "no" radio button is selected by default), then someone clicking through without paying attention will get the filters - and that means the filters are the default, which makes this an "opt-out" scenario.
Not to mention that, as others have stated, it seems that opting out only affects whether the filters will actually be applied to your traffic - not whether your traffic will pass through the filtering software.
On the post: Lululemon: If You Can't Beat Your Customers, Ban Your Customers
Re: Re:
If they can ensure that the only place to get genuine merchandise is the official store, then all merchandise available through other channels will be counterfeit, and thus illegitimate. That way, anyone who sees merchandise claiming to be theirs that isn't sold through their official store will know it's guaranteed to be counterfeit.
If people resell the genuine merchandise through other channels, then some of the merchandise available through those other channels will in fact be genuine, and that guarantee won't be there.
That only works if they can keep the 100% lockdown on resale, though... and it's questionable and potentially scummy even then.
On the post: Dangerous Ruling In Germany Makes Domain Registrar Liable For Copyright Infringement On Website It Registered
Re: moronic
But there's no logical way to end up at the registrar (whose only way to take down the offending link was to take down the whole domain), either - and yet that's where this already ended up. So why shouldn't we now consider the scenario where the other illogical thing might happen?
On the post: Found Him: This Has To Be THE Dumbest Criminal
Re: Re: i STILL LIKE THIS ONE BETTER.
On the post: Orwell Would Be Proud: NSA Defender Explains How Even Though NSA Spies On Americans, It's OK To Say They Don't
Re:
The trouble with that is the people who will go looking for loopholes.
In order to avoid leaving loopholes to be exploited and abused, or at least to be very clear about where those loopholes are and are not, it is necessary to word the law very precisely - well beyond the limits of the precision used in ordinary day-to-day discourse.
Phrasing things precisely very quickly comes to involve phrasing them in ways which are complex, abstruse, and otherwise hard to understand - and there we have the roots of what is called "legalese".
(Try it sometime; try to phrase something so that there is no possible way that anyone could misinterpret it, or take it - or part of it - out of context to mean something else. It's far harder than you might think, beyond a few relatively simple cases, and the resulting phraseology bears a striking resemblance to legalese.)
And then people start intentionally extending legalese to obfuscate things further for their own purposes, which is indeed abusive and should be avoided, and things snowball from there. Everything before that point, however, is not only not an inherently bad thing, but is in fact necessary to avoid other bad things.
On the post: Most Transparent White House? No, NYT Exec Editor Says It's The Most Secretive
Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation And Our Better Future Depend On Preserving Net Neutrality
Re: another amusing guest post
It would still mean that any newcomers, who can't afford to pay for the "sponsored services" treatment, would be at a disadvantage compared to the established players; it would raise the barrier to entry, thus reducing competition and (potentially disruptive) innovation.
There are other problems with this line of argument as well, but that's the most obvious and probably most important.
On the post: USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'
Re: Re: News at 6
Whether fortunately or otherwise, if I'm any example, such people would have no chance of actually getting elected.
On the post: USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'
Re: Re: News at 6
On the post: Dr. Matthew Rimmer Takes A Closer Look At Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't give them away, that's true - but that doesn't mean you can't give them at all.
For a partial analogy, consider diseases. If you have the flu, you can give it to someone else, but that doesn't mean you don't have it anymore.
On the post: Almost Everything About The Bulk Collection Of Phone Data Is Illegal
Re: reading fail
The word "relevant" appears in 50 USC 1861 (b) (2) (A):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861
(Cutting off there not to obscure anything, but because there's no reasonable stopping point without including the entire subsection, which means I need to cut off somewhere.)
If you want to argue that this does not require that the things sought actually be relevant, only that there are reasonable grounds to believe such, you might be able to support that - although based on Sensenbrenner's comments, it seems very likely that the law was not intended to allow such an interpretation. Claiming that the word does not appear in the law, however, is simply ignoring the facts.
On the post: Purdue Cops Throw Student Journalist To Ground, Seize His Camera And Detain Him For Three Hours
Re: Re: Stop trespassing.
The actual interpretation makes more sense, though of course it's highly objectionable.
On the post: MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie
Re: Re:
Next >>