la_barba

What is the basis of judging this program as satisfactory?

"Conversely, continuous CR has also been associated with depleted circulating leukocytes, immunosuppression, and reduced bone density (Devlin et al., 2010; Ritz et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2016; Villareal et al., 2016)."

(CR = caloric restriction)

I already addressed this in the previous comment. You might have missed it.

>> Amazon provides a service of its own volition, and he took advantage of that service.

>If the action that Amazon took could be proven to be "just as easily" done by the end user, then perhaps Amazons acting on behalf of the end user could be considered equivalent to the end user themselves performing that action.

>For e.g. If these is a fair use exemption for making a copy of a CD for a personal backup, then if I told my neighbors kid to do it for me, I think it could be considered equivalent as me doing it myself. Copying a CD is at present, ubiquitous enough, that assisting someone is probably on safe legal ground.

>If Amazon added an animation to the existing audiobook content - making it a video - and then added captions would that be OK?

AFAIK, they would have to obtain prior permission from the copyright owner before re-distributing a modified version of the copyrighted work.

EULAs and those kinds of agreements have their own legal problems with how they can be enforced, so its best not to complicate things here !

>I should mention this looks like an extremely vague distinction, and it's not even mutually exclusive.

I don't agree with your opinion that its vague.

> Amazon provides a service of its own volition, and he took advantage of that service.

If the action that Amazon took could be proven to be "just as easily" done by the end user, then perhaps Amazons acting on behalf of the end user could be considered equivalent to the end user themselves performing that action.

For e.g. If these is a fair use exemption for making a copy of a CD for a personal backup, then if I told my neighbors kid to do it for me, I think it could be considered equivalent as me doing it myself. Copying a CD is at present, ubiquitous enough, that assisting someone is probably on safe legal ground.

>If Amazon provisions the AWS VM for me, and runs the same software there, and then transmits the results back to my device for my own use, is that fair use?

Did Amazon do it out of their own volition, or did you instruct them to do it? Also what you're considering fair use, may or may not be fair use. Fair use is a specific exemption made in a specific context. You cannot reapply that exemption in an SaaS context and call it equivalent. You'll have to first demonstrate the legal basis for your claim that the two contexts are equivalent.

Also I do recognize that all of us here are non-experts giving our two cents, so any disagreement we have is TBH inconsequential to what the law actually says and how its actually interpreted! :)

The difference is that audio-books is a separate product category with its own pricing. Embedding text in a video is quite different IMHO...

>The cheaters and liars need to be penalized.

You want Google to adjudicate on more things?! Now you're going to need an appeals process for when they get it wrong here as well.

Its not that people don't respect it, its that they don't appreciate it. And the reason they don't appreciate it is that those things are invisible to the end user.

How much extra money would you pay for an electrician or a mechanic who does the equivalent of what you're suggesting with code? 1.5x? 2x? Most people I know always complain that their garage overcharges them or that they got ripped off by some contractor or the other...

But why would you want anyone to have to pay anything? Google is one of the richest companies. This should be simply the cost of doing business. Google wants to make money by removing humans completely. They should have to pony up the expenses for when their system fails...

Hmm.. has anyone ever been sued for adding captions? I don't see how they would.. as far as the end user is concerned, the captions are embedded into the video, are not a separate performance or a product. Not exactly analogous to audiobook vs ebook.

You are conflating agency of action with the means of action.

Not to mention all the CPU time that JS scripts eat up. The eco-impact of disabling JS world-wide will be significant...

> You don't value their product enough to actually pay for it. It's available on TPB? Well, sure I'll watch it, why not. No torrent? Too bad, I'll just watch something else.

I don't buy that argument. Its analogous to saying if Windows was not available on pirate platforms people would "just" switch to Linux.

People making content are very very good at keeping people hooked. It partially explains all the people who binge watch on Netflix..

If you want to break the law, then of course anything is possible. In any case, all you are doing by pirating is telling the media companies how badly you want their product. That is going to tell them to fight harder against piracy. The only ethical option IMHO is to crowd-fund and pay people directly to create content.

Sorry, I don't wish to continue this pointless discussion. Goodbye and have a nice day.

I have no "position", what are you even talking about? You introduced a claim in this conversation. It would be nice to have the data to back it up, but sure, you can feel or think whatever you want. If you don't care to defend your opinion or views, then it doesn't matter at all, and this thread is not really going to be productive for either of us.

>I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. One the one hand it's a podcast targeted toward men, which I'm fine with. On the other hand, his whole thing is about open-mindedness so it doesn't seem quite right for him to almost exclusively hear the views of men on his show.

What are you not sure of exactly? Also, his guests are also picked via audience polls, someone writing in, or via random twitter interactions, etc.

In any case my point was that if you say "this lacks diversity" its you who has to actually bring the data. Expecting someone else to dig up the data to prove your point would be a bit odd.

Have you done that?

That is just psychology. You can deny it, but its still there. You can try to shape it, and cover it up with prim and proper etiquette, but its still there. A thousand years of civilization has nothing on a hundred thousand years of caveman tendencies. Being able to fight is part of the male baser drive, much like competing/winning/chasing women. Its what got us to where we are. Also explains rugby, boxing, NFL.. soccer hooliganism, hockey fights, action movies, desire to ride motorcycles, self-flagellation/insisting on using Emacs, etc :P

In total, how many people have been on his show and what are the stats? Do you happen to have that data?

Other than assuming his accusations are flawed, how else would one "take into account" his motivations?

Um, you can do the same with a memory card. Ask someone who knows.

(Also, you can buy tires online)

Which social media company would you believe regarding privacy?

Which part are you having trouble with? Seems very simple and straight forward to me. Your "ordinary people" comment doesn't mean much TBH. It is no different than buying a tire, you have your speed rating, section width, load index, maximum inflation pressure, wheel diameter, etc, etc. Wow.. so many crazy numbers !! How do "ordinary people" ever buy a tire.. :)

I wonder if Google will start banning accounts if you sent an email with offensive words..

Fair enough :)

Well, you were the one who said it was a cop-out. Are you not of that opinion any more?

IMO, the culpability of the manufacturer should be zero for general purpose tools. For things like guns/weapons, which were invented solely for killing living things, you can make an argument for regulation...

>The fact is some people think use/trading of certain financial tools should be illegal and that those who caused problems with them should be held responsible.

I don't think its right to base any argument simply on what "some people" think. Why not instead, list the pros and cons of the tool, and what you would change?

Without using a bias or metric, there is no way to filter a list of items. The only other option is randomness, and there is a notion of fairness to it, at least mathematically. Maybe the list could be 5 options chosen randomly. As long as number of users is several orders of magnitude over the number of choices, it could be considered as somewhat fair.

Computers aren't "just tools", you can use them to stalk people online, harass them, hack into computers, etc, etc. Maybe Dell should be checking your mental history, criminal history before selling you a computer too? Just because you can list all the bad things people can do with any object, doesn't give any credence to your argument.