Dang it. Apparently we had the same thought, but it takes me way too long to type on the PS3's on-screen keyboard. (Must pick up batteries for wireless keyboard tonight.)
At some clubs, the strippers PAY the club for the right to dance. They give customers a "reason to buy" through paying more attention to better tippers and the general understanding that without tips these people won't continue stripping.
The line about "blood type was changed after receiving a bone marrow transplant" is very misleading. It actually makes the article sound stupid, because it is no big deal for this to occur. The big deal is that it happened with a LIVER transplant.
Re: Re: Censorship is not copyright, they both start with C but after that they are different
Mike, it's really semantics, but copyright is kind of a form of censorship (arguably). For the sake of more clearly making your point, I would suggest better adjectives. Instead of labeling this as "blatant" censorship, I would suggest using the words "unreasonable", "unacceptable", "unconstitutional", etc.
Not every time, but just here and there to clarify that some censorship (i.e. restriction) is okay, but this is not. I understand language, and how it is common to use "censorship" to mean specifically the bad kind of restriction, but it isn't universal. Using these other words could drive your point home more effectively.
Personally, however, I find it quite simple to understand the difference between SPECIFIC censorship (which can be constitutional) and the BROAD censorship in question here (which is clearly unconstitutional).
It's not stupid if you understand it. You are censored from freely yelling "FIRE" in the theater if you know there is none. But the censorship is reasonable and legal.
Again, you are wrong. The government can censor you from falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it can censor you from displaying child porn, it can censor you from distributing copyrighted material, etc.
Freedom of speech and expression goes far here, but it is not - nor should it be - absolute.
I'm reminded of how someone once flipped out on me when I said they needed to provide a good reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage - he snapped at me for "calling [him] a bigot". I had to point out to him that discrimination is discrimination, but we accept it if there is a good reason for it. You're not a "bigot" for discriminating against children getting married, but it's still discrimination.
Same thing with "censorship" here. As you say, "plain and simple", it is being done. That isn't up for debate. The debate is whether or not it is acceptable.
I swear this has come up here before with a different company, doing basic moderation but not losing their safe harbor protection. I can't figure out what to search for to find it, however.
This is actually a three stage distinction in my book:
1. Market dominance (e.g. Google)
2. Dominant market CONTROL (e.g. Microsoft)
3. ABUSE of that dominant control (i.e. anti-trust issues)
So, in my opinion, Google is not a monopoly (though any size company can still act anti-competitively in an illegal manner). Microsoft is a monopoly (more or less), but that doesn't matter until they abuse that position.
You know the database at turnitin.com must have all kinds of these unattributed Wikipedia quotes in its papers. Heck, I wonder how often students are accused of plagiarism by them just for quoting the same wiki article as someone else.
Seems to me that they need to open up their database or their business is illegal.
I would consider any "lock in" of existing US [case] law as a "change" to the law. It is important to not mice words in issues like this. Call it as it is: it may not change laws, but it CALLS for CHANGES in the law.
Please stop. Schizophrenia is NOT dissociative identity disorder. It involves hallucinations and delusions, NOT the switching between two or more self-entities.
On the post: Rick Reilly's Advice To Journalism Students: Please Don't Compete With Me And Undercut My Salary
Re: Strippers
On the post: Rick Reilly's Advice To Journalism Students: Please Don't Compete With Me And Undercut My Salary
Stripper tips
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
so old
On the post: Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber
old news
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Medical Curiosities
Misleading link title
On the post: US Copyright Czar: Expect More Domain Censorship
Re: Re: Censorship is not copyright, they both start with C but after that they are different
Not every time, but just here and there to clarify that some censorship (i.e. restriction) is okay, but this is not. I understand language, and how it is common to use "censorship" to mean specifically the bad kind of restriction, but it isn't universal. Using these other words could drive your point home more effectively.
Personally, however, I find it quite simple to understand the difference between SPECIFIC censorship (which can be constitutional) and the BROAD censorship in question here (which is clearly unconstitutional).
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship + no due process
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re:
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re: What words mean
Freedom of speech and expression goes far here, but it is not - nor should it be - absolute.
On the post: TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts
Re:
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
What words mean
Same thing with "censorship" here. As you say, "plain and simple", it is being done. That isn't up for debate. The debate is whether or not it is acceptable.
On the post: Oddities: Apple Doesn't Use DMCA Safe Harbors In Response To iBird Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wait, Can Anyone Explain Why Google Should Promote Other Search Engines?
Success vs. monopoly
1. Market dominance (e.g. Google)
2. Dominant market CONTROL (e.g. Microsoft)
3. ABUSE of that dominant control (i.e. anti-trust issues)
So, in my opinion, Google is not a monopoly (though any size company can still act anti-competitively in an illegal manner). Microsoft is a monopoly (more or less), but that doesn't matter until they abuse that position.
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
funding
They wouldn't let him fish for a living, because they wanted to make him a terrorist. (Not that this excuses his actions at all.)
On the post: FBI Celebrates That It Prevented FBI's Own Bomb Plot
1993 WTC bombing
On the post: French Author Plagiarizes Wikipedia; Does That Mean His Entire Book Is Now CC Licensed?
Turnitin
Seems to me that they need to open up their database or their business is illegal.
;)
On the post: Looking At The Details Of The
ReleasedLeaked ACTA Draft"lock in"
On the post: FCC Ignores Criticism Over Lack Of Transparency; Negotiates Net Neutrality Behind Closed Doors With Industry Execs
Deep packet inspection
On the post: Newspaper Publishes Totally Made Up List Of 'Disorders' Associated With Text Messaging
Re: textaphrenia
Next >>