ttbek

I mean... I'm sure it can be done badly when done accidentally, but the dragon example sounds like it would be intentional.

Violating parallel structure isn't inherently problematic though. It is generally meant to convey the same level of importance between the ideas. That's really not the case in the question example a) though. Dragons eating people is certainly not meant to be given the same weight as them being green. I think we need more context for the examples to really say if they're objectionable. The problem is more that they may be separate ideas and should be split into more sentences, but playing on the pseudo-parallel structure can be humorous, giving them similar weight tongue in cheek.

Dangle a carrot in front? Is that not how we make a faster horse? :P More seriously though, I'm surprised no answer so far has covered plain old selective breeding.

@MichaelHarvey Ah, I just meant that I'm not aware of the word association implying luck, fortune, or fate per se in the case of 7. Six, perhaps, but the association is looser in the west, in the sense that people with sixes in their phone number don't expect to 'get lucky,' because of it. It's a bit different than something like 4 in Japan. Or here in the Middle East, people will pay exorbitant prices for license plates with the right numbers.

@AdamPřenosil It may not have to do with an associated word, but the idea isn't totally absent in the west. E.g. lucky number 7. If I were to hazard a guess on the origin, it is the most likely result when rolling two die. I don't know your culture in particular, but 7 is certainly auspicious in the US and UK even if it isn't as strong of a cultural touchstone (that is, most people wouldn't go out of their way to have more 7s in their phone number, plate number, or store name).

@DavidA.Craven It's more complicated than that, because they apparently hadn't handed it back in yet... so you've found them plastered opening the car door but they haven't actually driven anywhere yet. Considering the time pressures of exams I don't think it would unexpected even for a highly moral student to work with what they were given and then raise issues at the end, but apparently they were interrupted before that time. Especially because it was proctored so they likely didn't believe the proctor would have any quick answer. It also doesn't take that much time to just copy answers.

Anyway, those 60 pages are a good read, it was fun reading them today, very informative. I'm calling it a night, have a good day.

Fair use cannot be said to be broken or not on that basis, it is decided case by case and doesn't endorse as clear cut of a line as that. This law provides substantial additional protection in that narrow scenario that fair use may not.

That is incorrect.

Oh, sorry, I misread what you said.

Why do you seem to think I'm trying to argue for Napster or something?

Exactly

It doesn't resolve the question conclusively because it is narrow (only with those devices, not with any device).

No, it applies to the consumer doing the copying when they use that equipment to do so.

Come on, you're not even trying, it has it's own heading, "Exemption from infringement actions"

And that act is sometimes interpreted a bit more broadly.

There are some exceptions though, e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

I stated already now that I had missed that when I answered, in that scenario they could. I had not been under the impression that that was the scenario under discussion.

Wait... so you're saying that they could raid for a legally purchased VHS tape that is not in copyright violation? How do you get that interpretation?

Didn't catch that we were talking about a context that included copyright violation.

Sorry, I didn't catch all of this comment earlier, "actually, Disney could possibly raid your house for the VHS, if they found you violating the license by making copies of the tape. Also, that wasn't a "binary" in the same sense as it means today, by even AV definitions. You might be able resell the original license, meaning you can't use the software anymore, but it doesn't mean you can duplicate the license for others."

@computercarguy No such copy or reproduction was made in this instance except by Disney themselves, whom sold that copy to me. And from the first sale principle... they cannot turn around and magically convert the sale to be only a temporary license of use. Other cases may be more complicated, here is some interesting reading for you: digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/… Do recall that VHS is analog, but some digital transactions do qualify as sales... it can be complicated. An intent to license doesn't always do that legally.

@computercarguy Disney does NOT have that option. They could prevent public use or commercial use, but they cannot prevent private use of sold VHS tapes in that manner even you invited them to take a look around. It would be property theft of a physical sold good. Edit: and the same for artists generally. As far as I'm aware... or is there a case you would like to cite where an artist reclaimed a sold print from private use?

@computercarguy I'm aware of the distinction, "It is interesting to note that the Adobe court's holding is consistent with European Union directives and decisions. Under European Union law, a lump-sum license to use software for an indefinite period of time is deemed to be a sale of goods, in which case the software vendors' restrictions on transfer of physical copies of that software will not be enforced." wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/…

@user1937198 Indeed, and I might need to look it up again, but I think in Germany for an EULA to be enforceable it needs to be presented prior to purchase (though I guess they have cleverly done that here by getting users to agree to the EULA when they get Battle.net before they "purchase" the license for a game through Battle.net).

@computercarguy Yes, and indefinite and practically irrevocable license to use that came on a physical disc in my physical possession. Just like when you buy a print of an artwork you don't get the copyright, but the artist has no right to come in your house and take away the print they sold you. Disney doesn't get to raid my basement for the VHS tape I bought ages ago, etc... So in a sense you were actually buying a copy of the binary, sure, not ownership of the intellectual property, but you did get to keep your copy and remotely disabling it would almost certainly not have flown.

@jwenting He wasn't being as pedantic. Games were often not released with source code, but they were certainly released with artwork (just not the copyright or license to redistribute further) and included the binaries to host your own server (as part of the main executable usually), traditionally on your LAN, but also over the Internet in many cases. E.g. Age of Empires, Starcraft (the original and Brood War expansion), CounterStrike, Warcraft and Warcraft II. A number of Blizzard games were among these. There was a fair amount of controversy when SCII was released and didn't support LAN.

@computercarguy No such copy or reproduction was made in this instance except by Disney themselves, whom sold that copy to me. And from the first sale principle... they cannot turn around and magically convert the sale to be only a temporary license of use. Other cases may be more complicated, here is some interesting reading for you: digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/… Do recall that VHS is analog, but some digital transactions do qualify as sales... it can be complicated. An intent to license doesn't always do that legally.

@computercarguy Disney does NOT have that option. They could prevent public use or commercial use, but they cannot prevent private use of sold VHS tapes in that manner even you invited them to take a look around. It would be property theft of a physical sold good. Edit: and the same for artists generally. As far as I'm aware... or is there a case you would like to cite where an artist reclaimed a sold print from private use?

@computercarguy I'm aware of the distinction, "It is interesting to note that the Adobe court's holding is consistent with European Union directives and decisions. Under European Union law, a lump-sum license to use software for an indefinite period of time is deemed to be a sale of goods, in which case the software vendors' restrictions on transfer of physical copies of that software will not be enforced." wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/…

@user1937198 Indeed, and I might need to look it up again, but I think in Germany for an EULA to be enforceable it needs to be presented prior to purchase (though I guess they have cleverly done that here by getting users to agree to the EULA when they get Battle.net before they "purchase" the license for a game through Battle.net).

@computercarguy Yes, and indefinite and practically irrevocable license to use that came on a physical disc in my physical possession. Just like when you buy a print of an artwork you don't get the copyright, but the artist has no right to come in your house and take away the print they sold you. Disney doesn't get to raid my basement for the VHS tape I bought ages ago, etc... So in a sense you were actually buying a copy of the binary, sure, not ownership of the intellectual property, but you did get to keep your copy and remotely disabling it would almost certainly not have flown.

@jwenting He wasn't being as pedantic. Games were often not released with source code, but they were certainly released with artwork (just not the copyright or license to redistribute further) and included the binaries to host your own server (as part of the main executable usually), traditionally on your LAN, but also over the Internet in many cases. E.g. Age of Empires, Starcraft (the original and Brood War expansion), CounterStrike, Warcraft and Warcraft II. A number of Blizzard games were among these. There was a fair amount of controversy when SCII was released and didn't support LAN.

@Thern Sniper fire on civilian protesters and the press quite far off on the other side of the security fences to quash any aspiration of protest whatsoever? One couldn't ask for a more literally precise example. There is no plausible deniability left. They do kill civilians on purpose.

@user4012 They are not necessarily "stationed" among civilians, they arguably are civilians. It certainly isn't the fundamental difference between the Dutch resistance during WWII and say Hamas, but usually one of those groups is called terrorist and the other isn't. That's a damn weak excuse for Israeli terrorism. Some of the things even in generally good documents like the Geneva convention were written with some dubious intent.

@JAB Not to say that there aren't places that are genuinely more egalitarian than the US average, but in most of those places things like racial bias are definitely not fringe concepts. We could be pedantic and try to quantify all of this, but I'm also not involved in research in the social sciences.

@JAB In the general sense, I would agree. I would disagree if you're speaking of a particular instance of bias, it will not exist more or less or change in expression retroactively based on the culture and environment. That is, one often can observe many examples of that same acts that are considered biased in the US in other places (e.g. Russia) but there seems to be more of them claiming it is a uniquely US problem and doesn't happen in Russia even as they partake in it, it just isn't considered biased in their narrative. Rather, they consider it being pointed out to be the problem.

@Servaes They may be "fringe concepts" in many places, but I'm extremely skeptical that there is significantly less racial bias. Rather, such biases are just more likely to be considered acceptable, which is really not a better state of affairs. As others have mentioned though, whether or not there is real bias here is a difficult thing to prove or show in either direction. The opinions of the remaining two group members may carry significant weight in this situation, were they treated significantly differently and if so, was it because of race or their contributions...

Obviously I'm not making an airtight legal case or the like, but restaurants need to understand that for a lot of people serving the wrong thing can be seriously disgusting. Omnivores don't need to live in constant fear of being served up roaches in their steak (at least food safety inspectors try to prevent it and there are serious consequences). Of course I understand that mistakes do happen, e.g. ordered a spicy paneer whopper not long ago and was accidentally served a regular spicy whopper. I didn't notice they misheard and it was on the receipt as a normal spicy whopper, so I let that go.

Suppose I make 80$ an hour and due to this mental trauma I now check through all my food myself at every restaurant I eat at before taking a bite. Suppose it takes 3 minutes to check thoroughly and I eat out twice a day. This goes on for the remaining 30 years of my life. That's arguably ~$87600 in damages right there without even getting near therapy level issues. This is a reality for many vegans and vegetarians due to this kind of negligence. Some places are even worse, they will intentionally tell you an item is vegan that isn't in order to up-sell it to you.

@Andrew T. There are sources for it being haram in particular contexts, not across the board.

Also.... why? If that is really what you believe Islam says then why do you want to not appear religious? You are religious, are you ashamed to be?

Music is NOT haram in Islam generally speaking. That you believe it is suggests that you may be subscribing yourself to a particularly conservative and literal sect. I would encourage you to note the CONTEXT of the material regarding music in Islam because everything is subject to a certain amount of interpretation just as with any religion. I don't think your current interpretation will bring good to others, nor even yourself. You have already contemplated lying about it and seem willing to oppress others over it. To do that would violate far more serious aspects of Islam.