Re: Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
But, it's not lazy. They capitalize acronyms mid-sentence! Laziness would mean throwing capitals to the wind altogether. It's an affectation, a la e. e. cummings, just for the "arty" affect. I can grudgingly admit that cummings use was valid (he was a friggin' poet :-), but here it just looks, I don't know, millenial, or something just as goofy.
I'm just curious if anyone knows where it came from and what, if any, event precipitated it. I've seen it happening everywhere in recent years, not just in this case. I'm wondering if it's the logical extreme of CamelCase variable names run amok.
Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
and then there is the usual RIAA tactic ...
Can anyone tell me where this practice comes from? There's capital letters embedded in the sentence, yet not one sentence begins with a capitalized word. They can do it, yet for whatever reason, they won't. Where does this phenomenon come from? Is this just e. e. cummings mashing up against instant messaging laziness, or is this something Jobs (or whoever) came up with and it's an homage to their greatness?
I was taught that composition skills are to enhance the possibility that readers might want to read what you write. Looking at stuff like this looks like an insult to the reader, at least it does to me. It's very pathetically "arty" for no apparent purpose or value that I can think of.
The idea that snippets are "just enough" not to be infringing is completely arbitrary.
The judgement comes down pretty hard on the side of copyright's ultimate purpose to be encouraging authors to write in order to enrich the public, and only secondarily to encourage authors to write by enriching them. Hence, the court will want to stretch the former as far as defensibly possible. Copyright is an artificial monopoly which we grudgingly allow as the public ultimately benefits from it. That's not arbitrary. That's a clear statement of where the court's priorities lie, on the side of the public.
I also think this's an interesting situation with regards to the "on a computer" thing in patent law. Here, it makes a great deal of sense that digitizing books enabling the power of computers to be leveraged on the data is very transformative. Enabling deep data searching and analysis does something that is very different from anything that's come before.
I couldn't see this case progressing the way it did without a high profile defendant like Google.
Don't get me started on how fouled up the legal system is these days. Thank $DEITY that Google exists, and is as powerful as it is, and that their interests coincide with the public's interest enough for them to want to pursue this. For many reasons, I don't use Google and question many of their practices, but in situations like this, I'm glad they're on our side if even as a "frienemy."
The authors' guild has been insane in its pursuit of this bizarre interpretation of theirs.
Unless they're absolute idiots, who gets there news from twitter posts.
Reporters working for news organizations, apparently. See the story about the guy who was bombarded with tweets asking to use his pics of a plane burning on the tarmac recently.
The lawyers representing Viacom counseling suing YouTube should face sanctions for their attempt to abuse the legal system as their gravy train at the expense of their client and society as a whole. Filling their wallets is not why the legal system exists.
Come on all you lawyers out there. Don't suffer the existence of barratrous weasels in your midst tarring all those practicing your profession with their atrocious conduct. Up your game by deep sixing them to the bottom of the ocean with the other ten thousand!
For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. It's time the legal profession came up to speed on Newtonian physics.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide proof that only the material universe exists.
So, you admit the Easter Bunny exists? No-one's yet proved it doesn't. Ditto Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Vampires, Zombies, and the religious' supernatural sky fairies. No, I do not have to prove gods don't exist.
So, my question to you is this:- Who created your creator?
The question is irrelevant. Existence exists. It's an axiom. You don't need any more knowledge of the situation to go forward and continue productively.
If you are a product of evolution, there can be no evil, it just that things happen.
You don't need gods to tell you what is good or evil. For humans, evil is anti-life. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were evil for thinking only their twisted versions of reality mattered to them and they needn't consider their victims' point of view. Their way of thinking was broken or twisted and they should have been locked up or destroyed long before they could hurt anyone else.
In point of fact, why exist if you haven't any progeny or if your progeny has reach reproductive age and you no longer provide a purpose for the survival of the gene pool?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the gene pool. However, lots of people have done great things long after their teenage rutting years. Having children is not the only way to contribute. It's just the only way to make your mark on the gene pool, about which I don't care. I think we're pretty good as is and have pretty much all we need to go forward. Our command of technology is all we really need to go forward from here.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to give up their religious beliefs. I pity them for having them. We all should have outgrown the need for them centuries ago. What I'm doing is simply standing up on my hind legs and refusing to accept bullshit because it's bullshit. I praise the good and condemn what's bad, as everyone should.
You do what you want, as will I, and we both accept the consequences of our actions. I think religion is evil as it twists the perception of objective reality in destructive ways leading weak minds to prey on others weaker than themselves, just as Dahmer and Bundy did.
Marriage has been for millennia a religious activity ...
Yes, and which is now used fully by the state in determination of taxable income, among many other things.
If the state wishes to define various civil unions of whatever kinds (how soon will whatever jump in), they are entitled to do so.
Yes, but they're not willing to extend married benefits to civil unions.
Even atheists and secularists are religious people.
That is the silliest trope the religious have ever come up with, other than their religions in the first place. The religious posit that something exists which the non-religious deny. It's up to the religious to offer proof of that existence if they want to be taken seriously. The non-religious are under no obligation to prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist.
Other than that, it's pretty obvious that the original commentary is pretty slanted.
No it's not. Read again the two courts' opinions on the matters. I thought the original commentary was pretty deadpan, as in "Nothing novel to see here. Happens all the time. Move along." Where I live (Canada; no 4th Amendment), it's estimated it takes five minutes to get a warrant, and that's too burdensome for the police. They want that odious requirement eliminated.
All of that's true, but there's another reason as well. Who, in your opinion, came out looking the worst in this story? People like Harrell should be given all the rope they want, the better to hang themselves with. He's his own worst advertising. He's just gone to the max showing all the world what a malicious twit he is. Threatening to release scandalous videos which don't even exist? What an imbecile.
A Chicken Foot Eatin' Victory is one [of] the great, all-time tales in Georgia.
As in, "There's no there there?" I wouldn't expect anyone to find much meat on a chicken's foot. They're essentially skin covering bones, aren't they? I suppose it's too much to expect him to have heard of Pyrrhic Victory ("Any more such victories and we'll have lost the war").
Android is "free" from what multi-national mega-corporation?
First, it's not free. Presumably you paid money for that device and its OS was included to make it work. Second, what's that got to do with anything here, other than you smelled Google so your Pavlov's Dog reflex kicked in?
How much do they pay you to slander Google at every opportunity, if I may ask?
I don't see how anyone (with technical knowledge) could believe that, any more than an IP address or a licence plate is PII (which they're not). If your unsecured wifi router is used by war-drivers, or your wife or kid borrows your cell-phone or vehicle, you can't be personally fingered for what they do with it.
when technical incompetence can't be used to obstruct or when it isn't spewed out in public as a matter of pride.
You appear to have greatly misunderstood how politics and gov't work. Just to start you on your way, when they say "public servant", you're not who they're thinking of serving. Pretty much all of what we think of as dysfunctional gov't has been standard practice for millenia.
Davis appears to have learned a lot about politics during, or from, those multiple failed marriages she's slogged through. How she can suggest she's qualified to say who deserves to get a licence is a mystery. Those who voted her into office, I can understand. They're ignorant bible belt hicks who never learned any better. They'll always vote for whichever candidate is the louder of the bible belt hicks on offer.
I was teenaged in the sixties and I know what it's like to grow up hearing that word used as "in league with the devil", but the Cold War is over now, and we don't have to worry about the Red Threat anymore (Russia's no longer a communist threat, Cuba's even being welcomed back), so is "socialist" really devilish, or just Cold War propaganda?
The phrase "We The People" is "socialist", you know?
A program used to convict and possibly kill a man must be open to examination by the defense experts.
In fact, that program if used, ought to be developed and controlled and owned by the gov't for use by the justice system. NIST, maybe? No defence lawyer should have to defend against, "'Cause we said so, so there." That's the opposite of blind justice. It's divine right of kings.
Where a company is refusing to allow inspection of source code when confidentiality is ensued, the safe assumption is that the source code is in embarrassingly bad shape.
Or, just basically flawed from the get go. Intel was selling processors for years which couldn't do floating point arithmetic correctly. Microsoft's calculator app, ditto.
This sounds a lot like the abysmally flawed voting machine debacle. However with your life potentially on the line, the response in this case is nonsensical. I wonder if in ten years we'll hear of a class action lawsuit by the wrongfully convicted (or their heirs) suing this company into oblivion.
Well, not all humans are seen as rational agents who value fact over superstition and reason over emotion.
FTFY. Not to mention, we are far from that possible ideal. How did this question even become a gender issue? Most people I see are clueless, ignorant idiots who're satisfied to be that way. Alternatives actually scare them. Just look at the US' political system. They wouldn't have it any other way.
... and the Matthew Keys verdict is just yet another reminder that Congress needs to do something.
Sorry. I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect the US Congress to do anything useful nowadays; "useful" for "The People" at least. They consider their full time job grandstanding and raising campaign finance funding. "Governing" as their electors would hope them to do is the least of their considerations. They, along with most entities in power today (just as through most of the rest of our history), have no effective oversight.
Our governments today are no better than the Roman Empire's, and every bit as compromisable by deep pocketed power hungry wannabe tyrants. We have what we have because they allow us to have it, as that's useful for them.
Thus it's only natural people ceased to respect it regularly.
Isn't it interesting that those enacting/buying legislation proscribing copyright infringement are driving more and more towards copyright infringement as their preferred mode of acquisition of content? It's almost like the lawyers and bought politicians are actively working against those bribing them.
Curious. The lawyers and politicians must be giggling their heads off in private.
It seems to me that performing yoga is similar in principle to performing music. Yet, copyright applies to performing music but not yoga?
One of Richard Feynman's famous quotes (about quantum mechanics) goes like, "Yes, I agree, it makes no sense, but this is how it appears to work."
Hundreds of years ago, politicians invented this artificial thing that could be written into law and used to make money and constrain others' actions by lawyers who spend decades learning its machinations, yet it carries on today into the 21st Century. Why? So the lawyers' current employers could get out of the stagecoach robbing and snakeoil sales businesses maybe (just my theory)? It's bizarre that we allow this to go on, apparently only to enrich a small portion of the legal profession and their clients, to the detriment of everyone else involved in any way.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The RIAA's Lawsuit Over Aurous, Shouldn't We Be Concerned That It's Pretending SOPA Is Law?
Re: Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
I'm just curious if anyone knows where it came from and what, if any, event precipitated it. I've seen it happening everywhere in recent years, not just in this case. I'm wondering if it's the logical extreme of CamelCase variable names run amok.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The RIAA's Lawsuit Over Aurous, Shouldn't We Be Concerned That It's Pretending SOPA Is Law?
Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
Can anyone tell me where this practice comes from? There's capital letters embedded in the sentence, yet not one sentence begins with a capitalized word. They can do it, yet for whatever reason, they won't. Where does this phenomenon come from? Is this just e. e. cummings mashing up against instant messaging laziness, or is this something Jobs (or whoever) came up with and it's an homage to their greatness?
I was taught that composition skills are to enhance the possibility that readers might want to read what you write. Looking at stuff like this looks like an insult to the reader, at least it does to me. It's very pathetically "arty" for no apparent purpose or value that I can think of.
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Google A Clear And Total Fair Use Win On Book Scanning
Re:
The judgement comes down pretty hard on the side of copyright's ultimate purpose to be encouraging authors to write in order to enrich the public, and only secondarily to encourage authors to write by enriching them. Hence, the court will want to stretch the former as far as defensibly possible. Copyright is an artificial monopoly which we grudgingly allow as the public ultimately benefits from it. That's not arbitrary. That's a clear statement of where the court's priorities lie, on the side of the public.
I also think this's an interesting situation with regards to the "on a computer" thing in patent law. Here, it makes a great deal of sense that digitizing books enabling the power of computers to be leveraged on the data is very transformative. Enabling deep data searching and analysis does something that is very different from anything that's come before.
Don't get me started on how fouled up the legal system is these days. Thank $DEITY that Google exists, and is as powerful as it is, and that their interests coincide with the public's interest enough for them to want to pursue this. For many reasons, I don't use Google and question many of their practices, but in situations like this, I'm glad they're on our side if even as a "frienemy."
The authors' guild has been insane in its pursuit of this bizarre interpretation of theirs.
On the post: Call Of Duty Tries To Pull An Orson Welles And Gets Backlash Instead Of Panic
Re: It's not real... it's make-believe...
Reporters working for news organizations, apparently. See the story about the guy who was bombarded with tweets asking to use his pics of a plane burning on the tarmac recently.
On the post: Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
The solution is obvious.
Come on all you lawyers out there. Don't suffer the existence of barratrous weasels in your midst tarring all those practicing your profession with their atrocious conduct. Up your game by deep sixing them to the bottom of the ocean with the other ten thousand!
For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. It's time the legal profession came up to speed on Newtonian physics.
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state
So, you admit the Easter Bunny exists? No-one's yet proved it doesn't. Ditto Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Vampires, Zombies, and the religious' supernatural sky fairies. No, I do not have to prove gods don't exist.
The question is irrelevant. Existence exists. It's an axiom. You don't need any more knowledge of the situation to go forward and continue productively.
You don't need gods to tell you what is good or evil. For humans, evil is anti-life. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were evil for thinking only their twisted versions of reality mattered to them and they needn't consider their victims' point of view. Their way of thinking was broken or twisted and they should have been locked up or destroyed long before they could hurt anyone else.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the gene pool. However, lots of people have done great things long after their teenage rutting years. Having children is not the only way to contribute. It's just the only way to make your mark on the gene pool, about which I don't care. I think we're pretty good as is and have pretty much all we need to go forward. Our command of technology is all we really need to go forward from here.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to give up their religious beliefs. I pity them for having them. We all should have outgrown the need for them centuries ago. What I'm doing is simply standing up on my hind legs and refusing to accept bullshit because it's bullshit. I praise the good and condemn what's bad, as everyone should.
You do what you want, as will I, and we both accept the consequences of our actions. I think religion is evil as it twists the perception of objective reality in destructive ways leading weak minds to prey on others weaker than themselves, just as Dahmer and Bundy did.
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: Separation of Church and state
Yes, and which is now used fully by the state in determination of taxable income, among many other things.
Yes, but they're not willing to extend married benefits to civil unions.
That is the silliest trope the religious have ever come up with, other than their religions in the first place. The religious posit that something exists which the non-religious deny. It's up to the religious to offer proof of that existence if they want to be taken seriously. The non-religious are under no obligation to prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist.
On the post: Law Enforcement And The Ongoing Inconvenience Of The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re:
No it's not. Read again the two courts' opinions on the matters. I thought the original commentary was pretty deadpan, as in "Nothing novel to see here. Happens all the time. Move along." Where I live (Canada; no 4th Amendment), it's estimated it takes five minutes to get a warrant, and that's too burdensome for the police. They want that odious requirement eliminated.
On the post: Threat Charges Overturned After Some Threats Deemed Impossible To Carry Out And Others Left No One Feeling Threatened
Re: Horrible people have rights too.
On the post: Threat Charges Overturned After Some Threats Deemed Impossible To Carry Out And Others Left No One Feeling Threatened
Re: Chicken Foot
As in, "There's no there there?" I wouldn't expect anyone to find much meat on a chicken's foot. They're essentially skin covering bones, aren't they? I suppose it's too much to expect him to have heard of Pyrrhic Victory ("Any more such victories and we'll have lost the war").
On the post: Appeals Court Says Downloading And Using A Free App Doesn't Make You A 'Subscriber'
Re: Ding. Woof, woof! Grrr ...
First, it's not free. Presumably you paid money for that device and its OS was included to make it work. Second, what's that got to do with anything here, other than you smelled Google so your Pavlov's Dog reflex kicked in?
How much do they pay you to slander Google at every opportunity, if I may ask?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Downloading And Using A Free App Doesn't Make You A 'Subscriber'
Re: PII
I don't see how anyone (with technical knowledge) could believe that, any more than an IP address or a licence plate is PII (which they're not). If your unsecured wifi router is used by war-drivers, or your wife or kid borrows your cell-phone or vehicle, you can't be personally fingered for what they do with it.
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: I hope for a better tomorrow....
You appear to have greatly misunderstood how politics and gov't work. Just to start you on your way, when they say "public servant", you're not who they're thinking of serving. Pretty much all of what we think of as dysfunctional gov't has been standard practice for millenia.
Davis appears to have learned a lot about politics during, or from, those multiple failed marriages she's slogged through. How she can suggest she's qualified to say who deserves to get a licence is a mystery. Those who voted her into office, I can understand. They're ignorant bible belt hicks who never learned any better. They'll always vote for whichever candidate is the louder of the bible belt hicks on offer.
On the post: The Coming Collision Between EU Privacy Regulation And American Free Speech
Re: Europe Cesspool
I was teenaged in the sixties and I know what it's like to grow up hearing that word used as "in league with the devil", but the Cold War is over now, and we don't have to worry about the Red Threat anymore (Russia's no longer a communist threat, Cuba's even being welcomed back), so is "socialist" really devilish, or just Cold War propaganda?
The phrase "We The People" is "socialist", you know?
On the post: Locked Out Of The Sixth Amendment By Proprietary Forensic Software
Re:
In fact, that program if used, ought to be developed and controlled and owned by the gov't for use by the justice system. NIST, maybe? No defence lawyer should have to defend against, "'Cause we said so, so there." That's the opposite of blind justice. It's divine right of kings.
On the post: Locked Out Of The Sixth Amendment By Proprietary Forensic Software
Re: In cases like this
Or, just basically flawed from the get go. Intel was selling processors for years which couldn't do floating point arithmetic correctly. Microsoft's calculator app, ditto.
This sounds a lot like the abysmally flawed voting machine debacle. However with your life potentially on the line, the response in this case is nonsensical. I wonder if in ten years we'll hear of a class action lawsuit by the wrongfully convicted (or their heirs) suing this company into oblivion.
On the post: The Coming Collision Between EU Privacy Regulation And American Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY. Not to mention, we are far from that possible ideal. How did this question even become a gender issue? Most people I see are clueless, ignorant idiots who're satisfied to be that way. Alternatives actually scare them. Just look at the US' political system. They wouldn't have it any other way.
On the post: Matthew Keys Found Guilty Of Criminal 'Hacking' For Sharing News Company Login
Ha, haa, ha, ha, haaa ...
Sorry. I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect the US Congress to do anything useful nowadays; "useful" for "The People" at least. They consider their full time job grandstanding and raising campaign finance funding. "Governing" as their electors would hope them to do is the least of their considerations. They, along with most entities in power today (just as through most of the rest of our history), have no effective oversight.
Our governments today are no better than the Roman Empire's, and every bit as compromisable by deep pocketed power hungry wannabe tyrants. We have what we have because they allow us to have it, as that's useful for them.
On the post: New Zealand Confirms That TPP Would Extend Copyright Terms In Many Countries, Block US Plans To Reduce Terms
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't it interesting that those enacting/buying legislation proscribing copyright infringement are driving more and more towards copyright infringement as their preferred mode of acquisition of content? It's almost like the lawyers and bought politicians are actively working against those bribing them.
Curious. The lawyers and politicians must be giggling their heads off in private.
On the post: Appeals Court: No You Can't Copyright Yoga
Re: Yoga vs Music
One of Richard Feynman's famous quotes (about quantum mechanics) goes like, "Yes, I agree, it makes no sense, but this is how it appears to work."
Hundreds of years ago, politicians invented this artificial thing that could be written into law and used to make money and constrain others' actions by lawyers who spend decades learning its machinations, yet it carries on today into the 21st Century. Why? So the lawyers' current employers could get out of the stagecoach robbing and snakeoil sales businesses maybe (just my theory)? It's bizarre that we allow this to go on, apparently only to enrich a small portion of the legal profession and their clients, to the detriment of everyone else involved in any way.
Next >>