An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
Funny, the correct response should be, "Yes, we really want you to go back to Armonk and find seven patents we do infringe, and in the meanwhile to sodomize yourselves with the set you brought."
Sorry, Paul, if someone calls you a morally bankrupt scamming loser -- that would be an ad hominem attack.
No, it wouldn't. If somebody said, "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's arguments because he's a lawyer" or even "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's argument because he has (insert color here) eyes," those would be ad hominem attacks. Which is to say, those would be arguments that make the ad hominem fallacy of invalidating his arguments based on an irrelevant facts.
Calling Paul Hansmeier a morally bankrupt scamming loser is merely a(n apt) personal attack aimed at him and not an example of argumentum ad hominem.
Hey, ST, great post, but there's one major issue with it:
Calling for a group of people to commit an act of violence for the sole purpose of silencing a critic who said something you disagree with doesn’t sound like due process.
That sounds like an incitement to violence.
Last I checked, that didn’t fall under the protections of the First Amendment, so maybe you might get a lesson in due process soon enough.
[S]peech can only be prohibited as incitement when it satisfies the Brandenburg test — when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That's an outgrowth of the famous "clear and present danger" test.
horse with no name, above, expressed a prayer that disgruntled artists and producers would beat you up. This is a rhetorical flourish, and seems unlikely to be intended to actually incite a group of artists and producers to "beat you to a bloody pulp," and is thus not actionable incitement. Read Ken's article for a more thorough examination of a line similar to this.
In such a fantastic post, I wanted to correct you on a small matter of free speech. Horse's speech was protected, as idiotic as it was. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Miranda has won some sort of injunction that prohibits the UK govt from looking at any of his seized data except insofar as it relates to national security.
Given how loose the definition of national security, that's quite an exception.
On the post: USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's because they haven't been published! We can only see the ones that are leaked to Wikileaks.
On the post: Disappointing: Twitter Gives In To IBM's Patent Shakedown
Funny, the correct response should be, "Yes, we really want you to go back to Armonk and find seven patents we do infringe, and in the meanwhile to sodomize yourselves with the set you brought."
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Hopeful Wishes A 'Holocaust And Gas Chambers' On CopBlock.org's Writers And Readers
Re: Devil's ...advocate?
On the post: RIAA's Boss Thinks He Knows Better Than Google How To Build A Search Engine
Re: Re:
Or have you not read any of the massive number of stories about Google or YouTube taking down legitimate content?
On the post: Comcast And AT&T Want Their Cut From Prenda Too
No, it wouldn't. If somebody said, "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's arguments because he's a lawyer" or even "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's argument because he has (insert color here) eyes," those would be ad hominem attacks. Which is to say, those would be arguments that make the ad hominem fallacy of invalidating his arguments based on an irrelevant facts.
Calling Paul Hansmeier a morally bankrupt scamming loser is merely a(n apt) personal attack aimed at him and not an example of argumentum ad hominem.
On the post: Major Media Bias Towards NSA Defenders
Re: You are slowly re-capitulating the good parts of 1980's conservatism.
You raise a really good point here. Why do you read techdirt?
On the post: Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement
Re: Re:
As Ken White notes in this Popehat article:
horse with no name, above, expressed a prayer that disgruntled artists and producers would beat you up. This is a rhetorical flourish, and seems unlikely to be intended to actually incite a group of artists and producers to "beat you to a bloody pulp," and is thus not actionable incitement. Read Ken's article for a more thorough examination of a line similar to this.
In such a fantastic post, I wanted to correct you on a small matter of free speech. Horse's speech was protected, as idiotic as it was. I wouldn't have it any other way.
On the post: Infamous Viral 'Goblin Toppler' Video Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Video BAD
Thanks!
On the post: James Clapper Says They're Just Trying To 'Understand' Tor To Keep Terrorists From Killing You
Re: Re: Re:
Also, a website admin checking his own traffic is not the same as a government spying on all communications over a proxy network. I see no hypocrisy.
On the post: Cracked Shows How To Respond To Someone Infringing On Their Work
Re: It could be worse...it could be Matt Inman vs. Charles Cameron
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Told Miranda He'd Go To Jail If He Didn't Reveal His Email, Social Media Passwords
Re: David Miranda injunction
Given how loose the definition of national security, that's quite an exception.
On the post: Simple Question: How Could President Obama Not Know That Ed Snowden Had The IG Report That Showed Widespread NSA Abuse?
Re: Lesson from Clapper
On the post: Latest Leak: NSA Abused Rules To Spy On Americans 'Thousands Of Times Each Year'
Re: Quit your bitching....
On the post: Latest Leak Shows NSA Can Collect Nearly Any Internet Activity Worldwide Without Prior Authorization
Re: Lying with facts
Artists use lies to tell the truth. Politicians use the truth to tell lies.
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not
On the post: Prenda, Prenda, Prenda, Prenda, Prenda
Re: InfoGraphic Please
On the post: Judge's Random, Unrelated Rant Against Facebook Leads To Child Porn Sentence Being Overturned
Re:
On the post: Deep Dive: Prenda Law Is Dead
Re:
Next >>