Show me the line in the Constitution where it effectively says "Any copying of any material that may possibly be covered by copyright is automatically infringing"...
Fair use butthurts copyright maniacs. And no, this could be out of fair use - but you refuse to even countenance it unless it's you 'infringing'.
Well, if you wish to say that you can reproduce a similar effect (note: I haven't been able to see either) a lot simpler and cheaper (which NYT might well be interested in for their own purposes), then using a selection of the original content may well be seen to be more useful.
Of course, some lorem ipsum might be safer, if less good as an illustration, especially if your point is precisely "we can generate this for 1% of the resources, why are you paying those cowboys?".
And I'll sympathise more with papers the day they pay people who feature in their stories for the stories they write. (Which of course would be wrong in many cases.)
You were actually being quite reasonable until that last unnecessary dig.
We could just as equally say "calling the cops and making harmless fun an arrestable offence is just the kind of overreach that content controllors and copywrong maximalists and patent trolls buy laws for".
Re: Zero tolerance is the result of the 60's not cured by it
Oh, and Conservative "Respect my authoritah!" attitudes are so much better. Along with turning a blind eye on any bullying of anyone darker than a light sun-tan, of anyone who isn't a jock, of anyone who isn't hetero-male-overcompensating, of anyone 'different'. Because the world was so much a better place 30-60 years ago, and nothing's improved.
Yes people go too far with political correctness. But there is still so far to go. It's just getting the balance right.
Then they complain that on the one hand kids aren't like kids of old and only spend time on their computers, then complain that the kids go and spend all their time on 'violent' video games
Slightly context-free quote? And true, war was 'forced' on Hitler in 1939 - *after* he'd started invading half of Europe and broken most of the Treaty of Versailles.
You would only capitalise 'Judge' at the start of a sentence, when addressing one directly, or when naming a specific one. It is perfectly correct to say "The presiding judge on the case was Judge Judy".
I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
Re: Re: Einstein didn't publish a theory of relativity
The very simple difference is that science makes predictions that CAN BE TESTED and is falsifiable. No religion can do that. Claiming that people 'believing' in science, no matter how strongly, qualifies any science as 'a religion' is seriously moving the goalposts. So little children have the 'Santa religion'? What about 'Tooth-fairyism' and 'The Grand Church of the Easter Bunny'?
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
You really have an f***ed up system there. Why not take a leaf out of the NRA playbook and arm all doctors and nurses too, so they keep a steady supply of 'customers'? Maybe the medical industry is bankrolling the NRA?
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
On the post: New York Times Tells Startup It Can't Even Mention The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Fair use butthurts copyright maniacs. And no, this could be out of fair use - but you refuse to even countenance it unless it's you 'infringing'.
On the post: New York Times Tells Startup It Can't Even Mention The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Of course, some lorem ipsum might be safer, if less good as an illustration, especially if your point is precisely "we can generate this for 1% of the resources, why are you paying those cowboys?".
And I'll sympathise more with papers the day they pay people who feature in their stories for the stories they write. (Which of course would be wrong in many cases.)
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: It funny to read all of this
We could just as equally say "calling the cops and making harmless fun an arrestable offence is just the kind of overreach that content controllors and copywrong maximalists and patent trolls buy laws for".
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: Zero tolerance is the result of the 60's not cured by it
Yes people go too far with political correctness. But there is still so far to go. It's just getting the balance right.
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: Re:
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re:
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: just love you command of english
On the post: Quack Professor Releases Dumbest Violent Video Game Theory Ever
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over 100C!!!
On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?
Re: It's not that hard
Just try to keep the warhead level down.
And remember, if it gets one inch out of your yard, your neighbour might deploy his Super-Targetted Anti-Random Whack-A-Robot System.
On the post: NYC Says Renting Out Your Place Via Airbnb Is Running An Illegal Hotel
Re: Re: Re:
I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: No Nutella for me
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
On the post: DailyDirt: Crackpots Versus Real Scientists
Re: Re: Einstein didn't publish a theory of relativity
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
On the post: DailyDirt: Crackpots Versus Real Scientists
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Even Good Hospitals And Doctors Are An Obstacle To Better, Cheaper Healthcare
Dr LaPierre calling...
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
On the post: Chicago Blackhawks Fire Reporter Over Silly Old YouTube Videos
Re: Still
On the post: Major Hollywood Studios All Sent Bogus DMCA Takedowns Concerning The Pirate Bay Documentary
Re: Re: Said it once, will say it again....
Next >>