511–520 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not actually be correct if nobody who has access to the beta website has actually requested the code.
They had the mastodon logo shown at some point appear in one of the pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values . So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they…
That's bullshit and you must know it. If, say, Donald Trump were to use the software to save puppies, the steering committee would find a reason that this is actually worse than Hitler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world? The road to hell ... something something ... good intentions. Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means (a strange term if you really think about it), and why would you think they would get that definition right?
> Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means The software creators, which seems very reasonable to me. This isn't some arbitrary judge deeming what is marginalizing or not. This is the creators of the software saying "We don't want to build something that complete dickweeds can use for evil." Don't like their definition of "dickweeds" or "evil"? Fine, build your own shit then.
Sure. Do what you want but don't try to claim that this is a good license. It's the opposite of a good license. It's ambiguous, capricious, and arbitrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If both-side-ism makes you feel better than everyone else. It didn't start collapsing in 2017. This has been brewing for a long time, one could argue since the 90s, when political discourse and bipartisanship started degrading. Donald Trump was just the catalyst needed to accelerate the final collapse. And by collapse I mean "collapse". American democracy is not surviving the next 20 years. As an aside, it it really…
Every generation thinks their problems are the worst. It’s just more of the same political fighting where one side demonizes the other to try to get people on their side. The world moves on until the next time they need to demonize someone and nothing of importance really happened. There is no collapse, just on to the next candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it isn't actually how the law works and we should stop giving them a pass. That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it. Yes, big corps probably are more aggressive than the law requires, but it’s a pretty fuzzy, not super well defined, line.
> That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it. Do you have some actual examples of this? Trademarks which were cancelled not for lack of use (a real reason) but for lack of enforcement ? I don't think that's a thing, which is why I'm asking. It's true that genericisation is at least a potential threat, although I thin…
It's a good question, and I don't specifically. I've heard this advise from lawyers in various different fields (not specifically Trademark lawyers), but when I go digging for examples, or the specific legislative history, most of my searching ends with "there's no a clear, definitive case on this topic".
So, in a lot of ways, I think you're right to challenge this assertion. It seems more like a recommendation that comes from "an abundance of caution" rather than a clear legal ruling, but I think I was wrong when I definitely stated that "trademark law does require active policing and enforcement". It seems like it might be more accurate to say: "some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly disagree. You have to remember democratic politics is about turning a massive ship in a new direction. Unless you’re willing to start shooting people democracy moves in increments. I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media [Trump’s antagonism exposed just how partisan it is across the board], 2) the US strategy with regards to China [Biden seems to be quietly…
> I would say the US drastically changed a few ways: 1) the public’s perception of the media, 2) the US strategy with regards to China, 3) a significant adjustment of tax strategy and offshoring of profits, 4) healthcare regulations. These are ephemeral changes, the type that flap back and forth frequently with presidential changes. That's why things like ACA are far more monumental - they're codified, much harder to…
You don't repeal laws, you nullify them. The ACA is small potatoes in that regard. They're not coming for the ACA, they're coming for the whole union.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s not accurate. Trademark law does require active policing and enforcement, and failure to enforce a trademark can be grounds for losing it. Do you have some actual examples of this? Trademarks which were cancelled not for lack of use (a real reason) but for lack of enforcement ? I don't think that's a thing, which is why I'm asking. It's true that genericisation is at least a potential threat, although I thin…
> Do you have some actual examples of this? It's a good question, and I don't specifically. I've heard this advise from lawyers in various different fields (not specifically Trademark lawyers), but when I go digging for examples, or the specific legislative history, most of my searching ends with "there's no a clear, definitive case on this topic". So, in a lot of ways, I think you're right to challenge this assertio…
> some lawyers believe trademark law may require active policing and enforcement
That's definitely true. Of course we might observe that it sure is convenient that Trademark lawyers believe you should hire more Trademark lawyers... If this is their honest belief then even if it wasn't true they aren't committing fraud since fraud requires dishonesty. So that's nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a tu quoque fallacy. In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.
This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.
You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue.
I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy.
>For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat
In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that he is purging neocons, and it seems you want to construe it as being all about election issues and that he was okay with them before that.
Your contention is that Trump is purging people like GA Gov Kemp because he is a neocon not because of his statements that the election was not stolen? That's a puzzling position given Trump's many, many statements mentioning Kemp and the election but none that I've seen mention neocon.
He often says 'RINO' or 'the swamp'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> exclusive rights ... Generally called a monopoly, yes. (The original Copyright Act 1710 had a hard upper limit of 28 years on the duration, the modern near-eternal copyright is a recent thing; patents are around 20 years max even today, or using the LAME codec would still be illegal.) While I don’t think I called it a price tag (if anything, it’s only the right to set one if desired), note that the practice of copy…
> ... Generally called a monopoly, yes. No, it really is not and this assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Keep in mind that a monopoly refers to a single company or person selling something in a market being the only supplier of said thing. As it is easy to understand, monopolies have absolutely zero to do with this. This is a fundamental author's rights issue, where the author of any intellectual work has th…
You're talking about an entity that has a monopoly (generally in a market). Perhaps confusingly, monopoly is also the word we use to describe such an entity.