I heard about this on the radio this morning. Someone was making the case that a lot of scientific progress is incremental improvements on existing things, rather than entirely new things. That is true, of course. But that doesn't excuse the cynical practice of making trivial changes to existing products as a legal ploy; that's not innovation.
The Vatican actually funds a lot of science. Also the Vatican is an independent nation, so it's not clear that scientists working for the Vatican could be persecuted under the dumb Italian legal system.
Agree. Unity is dreadful and I would gladly pay to see it buried forever, but I doubt that's something they'd let you pay for.
I do scientific work on my machine, and I need stability and functionality, not uncustomizable unintuitive crap in gaudy colours. I have a computer, not a glorified mobile phone, so I've moved on from Ubuntu and probably won't be back.
But since this typosquatting affects the intended recipient as much as the sender, the intended recipient is being punished for the mistakes of others. If I'm expecting an email from someone and they mistype the email address, that is not my fault. So you actually agree that this kind of typosquatting is not OK.
Seems to me to be a great way of punishing people who are not jerks at all, just unpopular through no real fault of their own. These would include young people, people who do not have English as their first language, people with unfashionable political or religious opinions, etc. That is, the same kinds of people who get rubbished unfairly on every other internet community in the world. What will inevitably happen is the development of a powerful clique of high profile users who will enforce conformity through financial disincentives.
When you consider the copyright maximalist position of the German government, an amalgam of the words "verbatim" and "verboten" seems somehow appropriate.
Oh, I agree. Some of the GMO producers (eg. Monsanto) aren't doing themselves any favours with their unscrupulous behaviour. But this is part of the problem. If you're justified in attacking a company over its unethical business practices you feel more able to attack it over other things as well- such as the science, where your justification may not be as strong.
Look at the case of "big pharma" for example. People have a go at them for their greed and shameless profiteering, and rightly so. But then some turn around and say that if "big pharma" are willing to do this then obviously all their drugs are going to just make people sick and keep them sick rather than healing them because all they care about is money and not about people. And so you get dangerous idiots like the antivax movement, faith healers, and homeopaths cashing in on people's ill-informed mistrust of the evil scary corporations. I don't really see the fear of GMO food as being any different.
I can dislike a company's practices without being paranoid of the science.
I heard about this on the radio this morning. Someone was making the case that a lot of scientific progress is incremental improvements on existing things, rather than entirely new things. That is true, of course. But that doesn't excuse the cynical practice of making trivial changes to existing products as a legal ploy; that's not innovation.
Re:
Actually, that's not as ridiculous as it sounds.
The Vatican actually funds a lot of science. Also the Vatican is an independent nation, so it's not clear that scientists working for the Vatican could be persecuted under the dumb Italian legal system.
Re:
Agree. Unity is dreadful and I would gladly pay to see it buried forever, but I doubt that's something they'd let you pay for.
I do scientific work on my machine, and I need stability and functionality, not uncustomizable unintuitive crap in gaudy colours. I have a computer, not a glorified mobile phone, so I've moved on from Ubuntu and probably won't be back.
Re: Re:
Public pressure like this is a big reason why SOPA died, and ACTA is dying.
Mr. Anonymous Shill knows this, and is terrified.
Re:
He's probably working for Hollywood in his current position.
Re: Re:
Isn't this just using the spectre of potential future abuses of the law to justify current ones?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kenzie is not a legitimate entity. That's the difference.
Re: Re: Re:
But since this typosquatting affects the intended recipient as much as the sender, the intended recipient is being punished for the mistakes of others. If I'm expecting an email from someone and they mistype the email address, that is not my fault. So you actually agree that this kind of typosquatting is not OK.
Re: Re: Re: I take exception to something you said
If you die, the hooker doesn't start screwing your family.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be glad Mr Immaturity didn't giggle at you for writing "i snot".
Re: Here's a better amendment!
...and 4) No riders!
No more bills like "Fight pedophilia (and extend copyright terms until the heat death of the universe)"
Seems to me to be a great way of punishing people who are not jerks at all, just unpopular through no real fault of their own. These would include young people, people who do not have English as their first language, people with unfashionable political or religious opinions, etc. That is, the same kinds of people who get rubbished unfairly on every other internet community in the world. What will inevitably happen is the development of a powerful clique of high profile users who will enforce conformity through financial disincentives.
what dafuq did I just watch?
Re: Re: Re:
When you consider the copyright maximalist position of the German government, an amalgam of the words "verbatim" and "verboten" seems somehow appropriate.
If the facts don't agree with your political ideology, then too bad for your political ideology.
Re: Re:
Insightful times Aleph-Zero.
Re:
Yes, well, didn't the guy who killed Michael Jackson get a lesser sentence than someone who downloaded some of his music?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I agree. Some of the GMO producers (eg. Monsanto) aren't doing themselves any favours with their unscrupulous behaviour. But this is part of the problem. If you're justified in attacking a company over its unethical business practices you feel more able to attack it over other things as well- such as the science, where your justification may not be as strong.
Look at the case of "big pharma" for example. People have a go at them for their greed and shameless profiteering, and rightly so. But then some turn around and say that if "big pharma" are willing to do this then obviously all their drugs are going to just make people sick and keep them sick rather than healing them because all they care about is money and not about people. And so you get dangerous idiots like the antivax movement, faith healers, and homeopaths cashing in on people's ill-informed mistrust of the evil scary corporations. I don't really see the fear of GMO food as being any different.
I can dislike a company's practices without being paranoid of the science.
Re: Re:
"In fact, if GMOs are so great, presumably you'd be proud to sell labeled GMO foodstuffs."
That's difficult, considering the amount of fearmongering and misinformation spread by the opponents of GMO food.
Re:
Doesn't this petition go some way towards doing that?