Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

gangler52 t1_j61ktv5 wrote

I'm gonna blow your mind here.

There's a difference between not being able to prove something because it's untrue, and being unable to prove something something because it's a negative statement.

Going back to the analogy, you can prove that somebody beats their wife, people do that all the time, but if they don't beat their wife then that's a pretty significant obstacle to that undertaking, and it's not because you're making a statement that would require you have every moment of this dude's life recorded from birth to present day in order to come to a definite conclusion.

You can't prove that unicorns don't exist because the data required for that would be too comprehensive. We haven't observed all of existence. But you can't prove that unicorns do exist, because they don't. You can prove that squirrels exist, by looking out your window, and pointing at the squirrel. Proving the existence of something isn't inherently an impossible achievement.

Proving that something exists and is "one" would obviously need some further work to define what qualities being "one" describes, but that's provable, but only if it's true, as opposed to the reverse, which is fundamentally unprovable without completely unfeasible amounts of evidence.

7

Able_Buffalo t1_j61gzet wrote

I bought 6 chicks for $4.99 ea at the beginning of the pandemic. 3 years later we're averaging 3 to 5 eggs a day when they're not molting. Kids love the experience. The eggs are delicious. A 50 lb. bag of feed lasts a month and only costs $15. It lasts even longer during the warm months. So my cost is less than 50 cents a day. Great investment, they're all Plymouth Barred Rock hens from Tractor Supply

11

SomebodyInNevada t1_j612gzq wrote

> That was scheduled to happen last Thursday and was interrupted by various people," said Johnston, "So they stopped on Thursday."

It sounds like activists or the homeless managed to disrupt the clearance one day and somehow magically thought that meant it wouldn't continue. And it's not like someone wouldn't be aware of heavy machinery use--this pretty much has to be willful blindness to get scooped up.

1

PythonProtocol t1_j60z4ga wrote

Yeah I definitely get the intended purpose, I just think there's going to have to be societal shift for it to have the effect that it is supposed to have. The people who think that renaming things is dumb are going to continue to use the old terminology and continue to be negative and the people who choose to use the new terminology were probably already respectful anyways.

Either way, I appreciate the time that you spent to explain it. Just wish that we had better results in practice.

2

dragonbird t1_j60ys3c wrote

But it does matter. The key thing here is that the law is designed to protect both intellectual property AND free speech rights, and in general it does a good job at it. So any individual lawsuit, like this one, shouldn't be condemned for a precedent reason, it should be judged on its own merits. It doesn't in itself damage future scenarios.

The Garbage Pail Kids lawsuit was for trademark violation, not copyright, which means different laws applies. Parody didn't enter into it, it was a straight commercial issue. Uri Geller lost in California, I believe, and the decision made by Nintendo was to avoid possibly losing in other countries. It may or may not have been a "good" decision, but it didn't set precedent.

Comedians doing a parody would probably be safe under fair use, even if it was commercial. Comedy skits parodying movies would definitely be safe because they're transformative - it's a totally different kind of parody. So yes, there are legitimate cases where you can make money off it.

If the courts decide it was sufficiently transformative, then Black Eyes Peas will lose. Leave it to them to decide.

0