andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker

Date: 2011-06-21 11:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] channelpenguin.livejournal.com
re: religion essential - guess I am an alien then. No news there, then....

Date: 2011-06-21 11:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] channelpenguin.livejournal.com
You don't understand something until you think it's obvious: Rings very true on all points!!!

Date: 2011-06-21 11:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] philmophlegm.livejournal.com
I was starting to feel angry about that religion-essential-to-being-a-human story, but then I saw who the president of the British Humanist Association was and I just felt dirty.

Date: 2011-06-21 11:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bart-calendar.livejournal.com
I'm impressed at how closely the writer was able to match Lewis Carrol's style of writing.

Date: 2011-06-21 12:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Indeed, I don't know, but nowadays I suspect Tortoise-and-Achilles dialogues to be homaging Douglas Hofstadter's homage to Lewis Carrol :)

Date: 2011-06-21 01:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lpetrazickis.livejournal.com
Does the Righthaven decision set any precedent for, say, a case where an author writes a single paragraph story and a popular website reposts it whole without authorization?

Date: 2011-06-21 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randomchris.livejournal.com
No, the judge specifically ruled that out:

"The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.

“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”"

Date: 2011-06-21 01:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ipslore.livejournal.com
That's not an infinite piece of string, though; that's an infinite number of pieces of string.

Date: 2011-06-21 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randomchris.livejournal.com
The case of an infinite piece of string being shorter than two inches is quite simple, though: just tie one end to the other :)

Date: 2011-06-21 03:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Except for the earlier agreement that an infinite number of connected pieces of string, no matter how small, would be an infinite piece of string. Which is a not-very-good definition, but it's the one that Achilles agreed to at the start.

Date: 2011-06-21 06:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ipslore.livejournal.com
Ah, I missed that bit.

But yeah, Achilles and Laurie are just wrong about that. They even have a counterexample right there in front of them, supplied by Tortoise himself!

Date: 2011-06-21 02:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com
Hernando de Soto is always worth paying attention.

A minor hero of mine.

Date: 2011-06-21 07:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] henriksdal.livejournal.com
yes but when the f*&k do the transmitters go to full power? I want Film4! (UK Free TV is a wonderfully geeky site on telly transmitters)

Date: 2011-06-21 07:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] henriksdal.livejournal.com
what? hurray! how did I miss that?

May 2026

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3 45 6 7 8 9
10 11 1213 141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 14th, 2026 01:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios