We arrive at meanings through the words we use, and choice of words is very important. That our vocabularies don't line up points to a difference in understanding what in reality is going on.
Orthodox will reject that icon veneration is idolatry, or that icons are gods to be worshipped, not just out of choice of words, but out of a difference in theological stance and orientation. We don't think it's just semantics.
BTW, I wasn't trying to say that everyone talks to their grandmothers through photos. But it's an example that people can relate to. When you say, "I miss you grandma" looking at her photo, you're definitely not talking to the photo itself.
I totally agree. If people just start looking at each others data instead of verifying it, a lot of mistakes (or fraudulent data) will never be caught.
Also, I have to wonder what the timeline for releasing data is. My research is funded with government money (NIH and NSF) but it can take years to get enough data to make a worthwhile paper. If I have to release my data before then it will hurt my ability to publish papers without getting scooped. You could end up with a whole closet industry of people just data mining the data others have had to disclose. And, here's the main catch, if you don't have to release results you haven't yet reported on, the problem isn't solved at all because I could just choose to "not yet publish" any results that don't agree with what I want to say. Nothing says I ever have to publish results I get, so why wouldn't I just sit on them?
Not that sitting on data just because it doesn't agree is a good thing, but it happens. And plenty of good data goes unpublished (experiments fail, uninteresting results happen, journals don't publish negative results very often etc) so what about that data? Overall this law isn't going to help anything, and will just cause issues.
...so that automatically makes Bob Saget's wise saying to be null and void, because he later did something bad? I mean, as if the truth of his statements have anything to do with his alleged moral turpitude.
How is "payola" fraud? It is no different than paying to have advertisements run on the radio. It is paying for an advertising service.
It's a fraud perpetuated on the public. And it is quite clearly different than paid advertising on the radio, because paid advertising is legal while payola was made a crime 50 years ago.
Thanks, but no thanks. "Gunpal" just doesn't sound all that professional, and I don't think I want to give my money to an organisation affiliated with the National Rifle Association. Worse, the CEO is a gun distributor.
At least PayPal doesn't pretend to have ethics and morals.
Personally, I use FastSpring because although they charge 9%, they also eat the chargeback risk of the transactions so long as my business is on the straight and level.
> I might even have failed to notice the small print which said that an Internet connection was needed in order to play it. I certainly wouldn't have expected that to be a requirement.
Without knowing how obvious the technology makes it, I wonder if some people didn't even realise it had this sort of DRM until the servers went down...
The clothes have no emperor. -- C.A.R. Hoare, commenting on ADA.