Alternatively, Google et al could highlight Tibet (imperial pink, perhaps?) and tell Hu Da Fuk and all his friends where to get off.
Anyone who even slightly agrees with this measure is a pawn of the fascists, and would be better off sharing a forum with Gordon Brown and Georgie boy.
You and I probably share a rational outlook, but your assertion that an embryo is alive is dishonest.
An embryo requires the support of a womb and placenta to arrive at (minimal) self sufficiency - I would argue that to qualify as 'alive', an organism should be self-sufficient at the very least.
Not really - the Web's founding principle was to provide a way for information to be shared.
I don't think Berners-Lee had commercial usage in mind when he invented the Web - I may be wrong, but commercial considerations probably aren't top of the list at CERN.
OK, so the Pirate Bay facilitates copyright infringement, but they make their money by selling advertising, not by infringing copyright.
There's a market demand for free digitised content, and it was a failure of imagination on the part of the content providers not to realise that by digitising their content they would themselves facilitate the free exchange of such content.
They obviously still make millions off their product - the moot point is whether they would make much more if the freeloaders could not get free content.
Personally I doubt they would - your view may differ.
How does Pirate Bay make money from other peoples work?
If by that you mean they sell advertising space because they are a popular indexing site, then how is that 'making money from other peoples work'?
It isn't, any more than Google providing a search service then selling advertising space is.
What strikes me is that the target market in the Pirate Bay's case is (according to the **AA spin) a bunch of freeloaders and pirates who won't pay for anything, so why would advertisers pay good money to access that market?
Obviously the users of the service must have some interest in purchasing whatever is advertised there - so there's a message for the **AA there somewhere:o).
The reviewer specifically mentions Pipes as an 'expert' - he's an expert on terrorism as much as I'm an expert on crocheting.
Pipes is transparently biased and as such should never, ever be taken seriously.
His favourite country, Israel, was after all founded by terrorists, but his writings would never consider the Stern Gang, Rosh Haganah or Irgun as such, since that would expose him for the hypocritical little shit he is.
Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws.
Yes - but not to copyright, and especially not to the sort of insane copyright law that allows a $110 million fine for facilitating the sharing of a few pieces of entertainment, ffs.
Now if this topic were about manufacturing patents, you may have a valid point, but copyright as currently constructed is seriously broken, and your argument is seriously flawed.
Re:Smells like standard record company BS
on
ISP Sued By Irish RIAA
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
we will never see deep packet inspection inside providers, as this is absolutely expensive to do an no provider would do it without coercion
I wouldn't be too sure - the infrastructure needed for Phorm's 'targeted advertising' could easily be adapted to inspect more of the data - it already intercepts HTTP requests, and it's not a great step from there to data inspection (though the lookups are going to cost a lot of latency).
Once the ISPs allow themselves to be corrupted by Phorm, expect to see packet inspection proliferate massively.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who even slightly agrees with this measure is a pawn of the fascists, and would be better off sharing a forum with Gordon Brown and Georgie boy.
No, no, no!
Their opinions have the right to be heard as much as anyone elses, but the matter of value is totally separate.
If their opinions are stupid and backwards, why should we give them the same value as rational, progressive opinions?
Any argument invoking the FSM or any other noodly deity should be immediately ignored.
You and I probably share a rational outlook, but your assertion that an embryo is alive is dishonest.
An embryo requires the support of a womb and placenta to arrive at (minimal) self sufficiency - I would argue that to qualify as 'alive', an organism should be self-sufficient at the very least.
Fuck off, Kermitt
I don't think Berners-Lee had commercial usage in mind when he invented the Web - I may be wrong, but commercial considerations probably aren't top of the list at CERN.
OK, so the Pirate Bay facilitates copyright infringement, but they make their money by selling advertising, not by infringing copyright.
There's a market demand for free digitised content, and it was a failure of imagination on the part of the content providers not to realise that by digitising their content they would themselves facilitate the free exchange of such content.
They obviously still make millions off their product - the moot point is whether they would make much more if the freeloaders could not get free content.
Personally I doubt they would - your view may differ.
That's a hell of a wait for a post-coital cigarette :P
If by that you mean they sell advertising space because they are a popular indexing site, then how is that 'making money from other peoples work'?
It isn't, any more than Google providing a search service then selling advertising space is.
What strikes me is that the target market in the Pirate Bay's case is (according to the **AA spin) a bunch of freeloaders and pirates who won't pay for anything, so why would advertisers pay good money to access that market?
Obviously the users of the service must have some interest in purchasing whatever is advertised there - so there's a message for the **AA there somewhere :o).
I for one welcome our new Rachmanite landlords :P
I wouldn't - if I was in Tel Aviv, I'd know I was surrounded by terrorists, all sporting the Star of David.
Pipes is transparently biased and as such should never, ever be taken seriously.
His favourite country, Israel, was after all founded by terrorists, but his writings would never consider the Stern Gang, Rosh Haganah or Irgun as such, since that would expose him for the hypocritical little shit he is.
Yes - but not to copyright, and especially not to the sort of insane copyright law that allows a $110 million fine for facilitating the sharing of a few pieces of entertainment, ffs.
Now if this topic were about manufacturing patents, you may have a valid point, but copyright as currently constructed is seriously broken, and your argument is seriously flawed.
If you've got fscking aids, stop fscking the wrong partition!
I think you meant that:
On Windows the majority of tools who think they are developers are moving away from C++.
I'm sure a diet would help :P
If it's Gentoo, it's more likely 'evolve', on a geological timescale ;o)
Answer: the person with the cutthroat razor from the barber shop.
So compiling on Gentoo would lead to a nuclear winter?
It's your own fault - you should have used curses ;o)
Romanes eunt domus, you Latin pedant :P
And don't forget to write a neat FS while you're at it :o)
They're just biased against Catholics :P
I wouldn't be too sure - the infrastructure needed for Phorm's 'targeted advertising' could easily be adapted to inspect more of the data - it already intercepts HTTP requests, and it's not a great step from there to data inspection (though the lookups are going to cost a lot of latency).
Once the ISPs allow themselves to be corrupted by Phorm, expect to see packet inspection proliferate massively.
Probably his Thetan :o)
Freudian slip, or intentional humour?
Either way, I salute you :o)