Oh good, you took everything out of context to prove your point. Usage in that sense came from the actual "pirate at sea stealing things" sense.
And in every example you have given except for 1996, these are the "traditional" meanings of piracy. Even the 1996 entry probably relates to selling counterfeit software, which is common in poor parts of Asia. A physical good is either copied mechanically or reproduced on another medium. Of course the 1654 quote is not long enough to tell if it involves ships.
I don't see any evidence that anyone but the BSA / MAFIAA and media printing MAFIAA quotes have brought "unauthorized use" into the common usage of the word "piracy" until the pre-BSA did in the 1970's. The very concept of copying without using a physical medium did not exist until the digital age.
Copying a disc and selling the disc, whether it's music or software, or movie, meets the pre-MAFIAA definition. But it does not meet the "downloading without paying for it" definition from the 1970's, and I draw a clear line between monetary gain and gainless copying.
Piracy is a subset of copyright infringement which downloading is not a part of, and this overloaded usage equates violently storming a ship at see and plundering its booty with clicking a link and having something without paying for it.
I believe in the evolution of language, but this is not an acceptable overload of the word. We should not accept such usage.
In US law, which is what the MAFIAA follow and what we are discussing for SOPA/PIPA, Piracy is almost always either accompanied by "profiteering" in the sense of counterfeit or otherwise copied tangible items, or specifically qualified as in "Cyberpiracy" such as 15 USC 1129.
The RIAA website answers the "Piracy" question with specifics using "copyright infringement" and "unauthorized", not "piracy"
"What if it was you/your family" is an appeal to emotion. I'm afraid people have berated you for suggesting gp be modded down for expressing an opinion, but no one seems to have pointed out this fallacy.
My family would have been proud to see me dedicate my life to what is essentially science and discovery for the good of all people. They wouldn't focus so much on the dead part, they would focus on the benefit to people part.
Knowing what little has been made public of the families of astronauts, I would say they are proud of their families as well, and knew there was some risk involved.
And, although in hindsight Boisjoly was correct, there was no way to know that at the time, in enough certainty to delay the launch. Previous launches with the same design and same problem had held together. This was the only real evidence they had, and no one could quantify how much colder it had to get for the blow-by to get past the second seal.
If you want to base your opinion on hindsight, I fault Boisjoly for not having experimented on the effects of different temperatures for the entire year after the previous flight. In fact, a lot of discussion and testing occurred, and it was deemed to be within safety tolerances. Against the data, he was the boy who cried wolf.
Taking emotion out of the argument, he was wrong. but in hindsight, when you investigate everything already knowing what the outcome was, he happened to be right. He very well could have ended up being that annoying guy who was wrong, based on the Rogers report. This covers items 3 and 6 mostly, of the findings, and the only thing that supports your assertion that it could have been avoided is finding 5 and part of 4. NASA were made aware and continued anyway, because everything pointed towards it not being a problem. Until you review every bit of data, again in hindsight. Finding 4, insufficient tracking, would have made this stand out as an issue to investigate, and would have supported his argument, had it been properly implemented. Not having that, he was pissing in the wind.
In other words, they did a lot to try to avoid a disaster, and like every other person on the planet, they are subject to mistakes both in individual actions and collective procedures. Assuming you can't tell the future, and can't change the past, I don't see any way this could have gone in any other direction. They made the right choices based on badly implemented procedures, and it ended badly, as expected.
I think it is an old-school problem, and can be solved in an old-school way. Write everything in Notepad for a month. No IDE, no auto-complete, no projects. JavaScript will instantly make sense, or at least more so than it does now.
I think it's the Java that spoils the fun. Going C/C++ to JavaScript was not an issue for me, but that's because I do a lot of editing outside of an IDE anyway. But that's just my experience.
Write a basic HTML page, seed it with expected data, then write your script around it. Load it locally and run it in IE/FireFox/whatever. Then take your functions and put them in your project. Advantage - you only need a few more unexpected data points to make it into a unit test page.
Yes write more code, but do it differently. Solve a non-javascript problem in javascript, just because it's there. Make a random dice tossing page that actually shows dice that look like dice. But do it in a simple text editor. Get used to the language, how it "feels" to type it, how it looks when it's correct and when it's not.
Or in the student newspaper. Or the local newspaper. It's in a pretty big city, it may have more than one paper. Or pretty much anywhere else that someone might give a damn about it. Here, not so much.
Or submit it to a news aggregator site, so people who like to read random news can read about it, or ignore it, and people who like their news cheery picked and hand fed can remain blissfully ignorant.
Here's the thing about censorship. If someone wants to cover something up, you have to try at least that hard to keep it moving. Harder if you want it to spread. Looks like the ASU student body either didn't know or didn't care, or didn't try hard enough.
In this specific case, maybe sending you a mail directly would have been good, but they would have to have known your name and your history. The people who want news out there have to know who to go to. and in most cases, they don't care until something affects them, and then they don't know where to start.
Exactly like finding a doctor for the first time, or a mechanic, or plumber. so I guess you should make a category for Censorship on Angie's list, and make sure you're listed there.
I guess it comes down to your outlook on Turing's pardon
No. It comes down to *your* outlook on the current government apparently, and perhaps society as a whole. Nothing will be gained by this pardon. If actually executed, according to your own statements about public officials being ignorant bigots, it will mean nothing whatsoever. I actually think the official reply is better than a pardon, since it points to current laws which clearly says it was not right, it was cruel and absurd. And the law has changed.
There are lots of other ways to fight bigots, this doesn't seem like a big win to me. Best to put your effort where it will make a difference.
A pardon is symbolic confirmation that current government no longer supports the ideology behind what they are pardoning.
That does not sound right at all. A pardon is removing a conviction from someone's record. People get pardoned all the time, of all kinds of things that they still enforce. Someone cleared of murder would be pardoned of murder. It would not be a symbolic confirmation of anything, it just expunges the conviction from the person's record.
I think you're looking for "official apology". As you noted below, a pardon is a formal procedure, not symbolic.
The government has already disowned the viewpoint, it is clearly not legal to do the same thing these days. I think you may have an emotional investment in this argument, and it is clouding your argument. If you take a step back and think this through, and read all the comments, I think you'll see a pardon is unnecessary. And the official reply is legitimate - we can't go around pardoning people of things that were illegal at the time, and singling out one person for one crime is an affront to everyone who was considered guilty but not pardoned. Every person for every now-legal crime is not "a trivial act" so we just let it stand. Makes perfect sense, again unless you have a personal investment in this case.
Blue may be the true color, but not producing the pigment is a mutation. A normal non-mutant eye is brown. This mutation happened before, and the first guy with it was probably very successful with the ladies (after getting past the whole "it's a devil baby" phase, I assume). No reason it can't happen again.
Their position is mostly based on rejecting filtering. And it specifically targets children, for which most filtering technologies are proposed.
If someone had said this guy's porn watching prevents me from exercising my right to determine my child's access to library materials, none of what you posted would have mattered. A good argument should not fall apart so easily. According to the article, that has happened in other instances, meaning the library just invalidated your entire post.
It would have been perfectly consistent for a librarian to simply ask him to relocate himself. He would have had access to the information, no censorship, and everyone's happy. That's what we do in polite society. As long as no one is any worse off, small accommodations are not unreasonable. If the man had refused, the librarian would have had to make a stand. I'm not saying establish a separate porn viewing area, simply making a reasonable judgement call in a specific situation.
As opposed to sending individual people with little or no access to legal defense letters demanding money or they will face expensive lawsuits with public defenders? That puts justice out of reach of everyone but the MAFIAA. which is the way they'd like it to be.
With.NET Reflection, you essentially have the entire source code available already.
A better analogy, I think, is the whole Windows platform. While there were questions about hidden APIs, it was largely well documented a long time ago on MSDN, in Petzold before that, and if you had any sort of compiler it almost certainly had either a help file (win32.hlp being the most popular) or other resource.
But Microsoft provides a public symbol server, in case you are debugging kernel components or low level drivers or such and need to figure out why.
Disassembling with a tool that downloads the symbols is essentially a well commented disassembly. A few plugin types can automatically make sense of most of the rest of the code. No manual work involved.
So the only thing preventing you from doing it is that you don't actually have to do it.
I'm not sure Daniel Strain is reading, you might want to comment on the article directly, or send Daniel a message on how to improve as an author, as well as choosing more interesting topics to write about.
"Natural materials" and "tissues and organic materials" seem to be different things. Going by dictionary meanings might lead you in one direction, but the context of the quote suggests Ferris was not talking about "anything [natural] made of matter."
I wouldn't consider a salamander tail to be a "natural material", nor would I consider skin nor cells nor plants as a whole. You could maybe make an argument for bark and hemp fiber, but I think that still qualifies as "highly unusual among natural materials."
I like your argument. But it would not be precedent. Further, only those people who bought the specific disc advertised with this wording, and who want to re-sell it but cannot, would have standing to use this. If I bought it on disc and went to a used movie place and sold it, they would legally be able to buy and resell it, and I would not be hampered in any way.
If you purchase a digital copy (or license), this wording is irrelevant. You could make the argument, but it would as I understand it not hold water.
How does the download size make any sense to mention? The last time I unpacked Firefox installer to troubleshoot an installation issue, it was multiply packed in such a ridiculous way it made my head numb. They go through a lot of trouble, or at least did for 3.x, to make it small.
Chrome apparently requires javascript to install, so I didn't even take a peek at its installer to see how it is packaged.
The only time it makes sense to compare download sizes is when something is likely packaged the same way, like version 4 and 5 of software, or from the same company. Or something like a game add-on which is probably going to be stored compressed anyway (like a WAD or PAK file for doom/quake).
Sort of. Extremely targeted advertising. They know not just your e-mail contents like GMail, or search terms like a Web/Image search.
They don't just know everything you've ever put in a status, like "eating chimichangas tonight with the hubby!!!11!1eleventy11!" They know who your friends are, what your friends like. You can also follow politicians, entertainers, product pages... the possibilities are endless.
This is the holy grail of what Google has been trying to piece together for years. Finally Google realized this and created Google+ but it doesn't have anywhere near the user base. And that doesn't include an incredibly addictive gaming platform that is hugely popular.
Someone above mentioned s $250 million or so NET profit on revenues of $1.5 BILLION. That doesn't seem very good, they should be higher margin than that. I don't know where their money is going, but if they can cut the costs they will be sitting on a gold mine. If they can't figure out how this will be an epic disaster.
You're using the wrong method of getting things done, and expecting it to work because he's at the top. This is not how government works, not even remotely.
If I knew the mayor of the city, I could maybe get him to stick his nose in a parking ticket I got. If.0081 percent of the city's population who don't know the mayor personally asked him to look into my parking ticket, nothing would get done. Especially not via a "request" website where it specifically states multiple times that it will not comment on any actual or potential investigation.
Keep asking the wrong people to do things, the wrong way, and keep complaining when nothing happens. Let me know how your life turns out.
There is a huge difference between when it was written and now. With NDAA and Patriot act and countless other things it will not be possible to have a revolution. I disagree about the watch list part, but this whole "lock and load" mentality is going to get a bunch of people killed and that's it.
The government has enshrined itself and is not going anywhere. It has to be replaced from the inside. Unfortunately the people most qualified to lead a new government want nothing to do with it. Until that changes, you will see nothing happen but angry mobs and indefinite detention.
I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.
Good luck with that. I have a comfortable life and don't have any reason to join you. I will not enjoy watching you get killed by the superior military technology. Even if 90% of the military revolts you're not going to get the heavy guns, and you will be bringing a match to a gun fight. You will be dead, and I will sip my wine and say that's so sad.
I feel a revolution is in order, but you're going to have to put together a lot more than a bunch of people with guns to accomplish anything but dying for little reason other than publicity. Forget OWS, it will be Occupy Wooden Coffin, and then the Kardashians will sell their new perfume, and Vanna will spin the wheel and life will go on.
Oh good. A petition website, which requires the President to do absolutely nothing, is now the best way to report crime? Or the only way? A petition system which has repeatedly been shown to 1) not work and 2) not say or do anything specifically related to criminal investigations is enough to get the President to order his people around?
Seriously, I would like answers to these, if you and the 3 or more people who modded you up think gp is an apologist. Don't you think using the existing ways of reporting crime are better than something that doesn't work? Or is that being an apologist?
Prosecute one guy for what? Which law has he broken? He threatened not to make campaign donations, and presumably on behalf of part of the MAFIAA. Is not contributing to a campaign illegal? Is it illegal to ask your representatives to do what you voted them in office to do?
Even if you ignore Citizens United, this was blatant idiocy at best, and at worst a childish tantrum.
So what do we prosecute him for exactly? And yes, I signed the petition. My reasons are obviously not the same as most peoples'.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh good, you took everything out of context to prove your point. Usage in that sense came from the actual "pirate at sea stealing things" sense.
And in every example you have given except for 1996, these are the "traditional" meanings of piracy. Even the 1996 entry probably relates to selling counterfeit software, which is common in poor parts of Asia. A physical good is either copied mechanically or reproduced on another medium. Of course the 1654 quote is not long enough to tell if it involves ships.
I don't see any evidence that anyone but the BSA / MAFIAA and media printing MAFIAA quotes have brought "unauthorized use" into the common usage of the word "piracy" until the pre-BSA did in the 1970's. The very concept of copying without using a physical medium did not exist until the digital age.
Copying a disc and selling the disc, whether it's music or software, or movie, meets the pre-MAFIAA definition. But it does not meet the "downloading without paying for it" definition from the 1970's, and I draw a clear line between monetary gain and gainless copying.
Piracy is a subset of copyright infringement which downloading is not a part of, and this overloaded usage equates violently storming a ship at see and plundering its booty with clicking a link and having something without paying for it.
I believe in the evolution of language, but this is not an acceptable overload of the word. We should not accept such usage.
In US law, which is what the MAFIAA follow and what we are discussing for SOPA/PIPA, Piracy is almost always either accompanied by "profiteering" in the sense of counterfeit or otherwise copied tangible items, or specifically qualified as in "Cyberpiracy" such as 15 USC 1129.
The RIAA website answers the "Piracy" question with specifics using "copyright infringement" and "unauthorized", not "piracy"
http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law
A report to Congress summarizes the usage of the term "piracy", and software/music/movies are not mentioned.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00009.htm
It has only caught on in sound bites from MAFIAA, therefore I don't accept the redefinition.
"What if it was you/your family" is an appeal to emotion. I'm afraid people have berated you for suggesting gp be modded down for expressing an opinion, but no one seems to have pointed out this fallacy.
My family would have been proud to see me dedicate my life to what is essentially science and discovery for the good of all people. They wouldn't focus so much on the dead part, they would focus on the benefit to people part.
Knowing what little has been made public of the families of astronauts, I would say they are proud of their families as well, and knew there was some risk involved.
And, although in hindsight Boisjoly was correct, there was no way to know that at the time, in enough certainty to delay the launch. Previous launches with the same design and same problem had held together. This was the only real evidence they had, and no one could quantify how much colder it had to get for the blow-by to get past the second seal.
If you want to base your opinion on hindsight, I fault Boisjoly for not having experimented on the effects of different temperatures for the entire year after the previous flight. In fact, a lot of discussion and testing occurred, and it was deemed to be within safety tolerances. Against the data, he was the boy who cried wolf.
Taking emotion out of the argument, he was wrong. but in hindsight, when you investigate everything already knowing what the outcome was, he happened to be right. He very well could have ended up being that annoying guy who was wrong, based on the Rogers report. This covers items 3 and 6 mostly, of the findings, and the only thing that supports your assertion that it could have been avoided is finding 5 and part of 4. NASA were made aware and continued anyway, because everything pointed towards it not being a problem. Until you review every bit of data, again in hindsight. Finding 4, insufficient tracking, would have made this stand out as an issue to investigate, and would have supported his argument, had it been properly implemented. Not having that, he was pissing in the wind.
In other words, they did a lot to try to avoid a disaster, and like every other person on the planet, they are subject to mistakes both in individual actions and collective procedures. Assuming you can't tell the future, and can't change the past, I don't see any way this could have gone in any other direction. They made the right choices based on badly implemented procedures, and it ended badly, as expected.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm
I think it is an old-school problem, and can be solved in an old-school way. Write everything in Notepad for a month. No IDE, no auto-complete, no projects. JavaScript will instantly make sense, or at least more so than it does now.
I think it's the Java that spoils the fun. Going C/C++ to JavaScript was not an issue for me, but that's because I do a lot of editing outside of an IDE anyway. But that's just my experience.
Write a basic HTML page, seed it with expected data, then write your script around it. Load it locally and run it in IE/FireFox/whatever. Then take your functions and put them in your project. Advantage - you only need a few more unexpected data points to make it into a unit test page.
Yes write more code, but do it differently. Solve a non-javascript problem in javascript, just because it's there. Make a random dice tossing page that actually shows dice that look like dice. But do it in a simple text editor. Get used to the language, how it "feels" to type it, how it looks when it's correct and when it's not.
Or in the student newspaper. Or the local newspaper. It's in a pretty big city, it may have more than one paper. Or pretty much anywhere else that someone might give a damn about it. Here, not so much.
Or submit it to a news aggregator site, so people who like to read random news can read about it, or ignore it, and people who like their news cheery picked and hand fed can remain blissfully ignorant.
Here's the thing about censorship. If someone wants to cover something up, you have to try at least that hard to keep it moving. Harder if you want it to spread. Looks like the ASU student body either didn't know or didn't care, or didn't try hard enough.
In this specific case, maybe sending you a mail directly would have been good, but they would have to have known your name and your history. The people who want news out there have to know who to go to. and in most cases, they don't care until something affects them, and then they don't know where to start.
Exactly like finding a doctor for the first time, or a mechanic, or plumber. so I guess you should make a category for Censorship on Angie's list, and make sure you're listed there.
No. It comes down to *your* outlook on the current government apparently, and perhaps society as a whole. Nothing will be gained by this pardon. If actually executed, according to your own statements about public officials being ignorant bigots, it will mean nothing whatsoever. I actually think the official reply is better than a pardon, since it points to current laws which clearly says it was not right, it was cruel and absurd. And the law has changed.
There are lots of other ways to fight bigots, this doesn't seem like a big win to me. Best to put your effort where it will make a difference.
That does not sound right at all. A pardon is removing a conviction from someone's record. People get pardoned all the time, of all kinds of things that they still enforce. Someone cleared of murder would be pardoned of murder. It would not be a symbolic confirmation of anything, it just expunges the conviction from the person's record.
I think you're looking for "official apology". As you noted below, a pardon is a formal procedure, not symbolic.
The government has already disowned the viewpoint, it is clearly not legal to do the same thing these days. I think you may have an emotional investment in this argument, and it is clouding your argument. If you take a step back and think this through, and read all the comments, I think you'll see a pardon is unnecessary. And the official reply is legitimate - we can't go around pardoning people of things that were illegal at the time, and singling out one person for one crime is an affront to everyone who was considered guilty but not pardoned. Every person for every now-legal crime is not "a trivial act" so we just let it stand. Makes perfect sense, again unless you have a personal investment in this case.
Blue may be the true color, but not producing the pigment is a mutation. A normal non-mutant eye is brown. This mutation happened before, and the first guy with it was probably very successful with the ladies (after getting past the whole "it's a devil baby" phase, I assume). No reason it can't happen again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
At the same time, I call BS on most of the story. I've seen too many hoaxes fall apart after they hit the international news scene.
Their position is mostly based on rejecting filtering. And it specifically targets children, for which most filtering technologies are proposed.
If someone had said this guy's porn watching prevents me from exercising my right to determine my child's access to library materials, none of what you posted would have mattered. A good argument should not fall apart so easily. According to the article, that has happened in other instances, meaning the library just invalidated your entire post.
It would have been perfectly consistent for a librarian to simply ask him to relocate himself. He would have had access to the information, no censorship, and everyone's happy. That's what we do in polite society. As long as no one is any worse off, small accommodations are not unreasonable. If the man had refused, the librarian would have had to make a stand. I'm not saying establish a separate porn viewing area, simply making a reasonable judgement call in a specific situation.
As opposed to sending individual people with little or no access to legal defense letters demanding money or they will face expensive lawsuits with public defenders? That puts justice out of reach of everyone but the MAFIAA. which is the way they'd like it to be.
With .NET Reflection, you essentially have the entire source code available already.
A better analogy, I think, is the whole Windows platform. While there were questions about hidden APIs, it was largely well documented a long time ago on MSDN, in Petzold before that, and if you had any sort of compiler it almost certainly had either a help file (win32.hlp being the most popular) or other resource.
If API = open source, Windows is as well.
But Microsoft provides a public symbol server, in case you are debugging kernel components or low level drivers or such and need to figure out why.
Disassembling with a tool that downloads the symbols is essentially a well commented disassembly. A few plugin types can automatically make sense of most of the rest of the code. No manual work involved.
So the only thing preventing you from doing it is that you don't actually have to do it.
As well as anyone who left a cake out in the rain, I have heard.
I'm not sure Daniel Strain is reading, you might want to comment on the article directly, or send Daniel a message on how to improve as an author, as well as choosing more interesting topics to write about.
"Natural materials" and "tissues and organic materials" seem to be different things. Going by dictionary meanings might lead you in one direction, but the context of the quote suggests Ferris was not talking about "anything [natural] made of matter."
I wouldn't consider a salamander tail to be a "natural material", nor would I consider skin nor cells nor plants as a whole. You could maybe make an argument for bark and hemp fiber, but I think that still qualifies as "highly unusual among natural materials."
Might have been one, but it's dead now, Jim.
I like your argument. But it would not be precedent. Further, only those people who bought the specific disc advertised with this wording, and who want to re-sell it but cannot, would have standing to use this. If I bought it on disc and went to a used movie place and sold it, they would legally be able to buy and resell it, and I would not be hampered in any way.
If you purchase a digital copy (or license), this wording is irrelevant. You could make the argument, but it would as I understand it not hold water.
How does the download size make any sense to mention? The last time I unpacked Firefox installer to troubleshoot an installation issue, it was multiply packed in such a ridiculous way it made my head numb. They go through a lot of trouble, or at least did for 3.x, to make it small.
Chrome apparently requires javascript to install, so I didn't even take a peek at its installer to see how it is packaged.
The only time it makes sense to compare download sizes is when something is likely packaged the same way, like version 4 and 5 of software, or from the same company. Or something like a game add-on which is probably going to be stored compressed anyway (like a WAD or PAK file for doom/quake).
I should know better than to trust a slashdot poster. If this is legit, it's a lot better.
First 9 months of 2011:
Revenue: $2.5 billion
Operating income: $1.2 billion
Net income: $714 million
http://gawker.com/5866291/source-reveals-facebook-is-gushing-cash
Sort of. Extremely targeted advertising. They know not just your e-mail contents like GMail, or search terms like a Web/Image search.
They don't just know everything you've ever put in a status, like "eating chimichangas tonight with the hubby!!!11!1eleventy11!" They know who your friends are, what your friends like. You can also follow politicians, entertainers, product pages... the possibilities are endless.
This is the holy grail of what Google has been trying to piece together for years. Finally Google realized this and created Google+ but it doesn't have anywhere near the user base. And that doesn't include an incredibly addictive gaming platform that is hugely popular.
Someone above mentioned s $250 million or so NET profit on revenues of $1.5 BILLION. That doesn't seem very good, they should be higher margin than that. I don't know where their money is going, but if they can cut the costs they will be sitting on a gold mine. If they can't figure out how this will be an epic disaster.
http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2011/12/29/2011%E2%80%99s-most-popular-facebook-games-by-genre-arcade-casino-and-hidden-object-games-dominate-strategy-shows-strong/
You're using the wrong method of getting things done, and expecting it to work because he's at the top. This is not how government works, not even remotely.
If I knew the mayor of the city, I could maybe get him to stick his nose in a parking ticket I got. If .0081 percent of the city's population who don't know the mayor personally asked him to look into my parking ticket, nothing would get done. Especially not via a "request" website where it specifically states multiple times that it will not comment on any actual or potential investigation.
Keep asking the wrong people to do things, the wrong way, and keep complaining when nothing happens. Let me know how your life turns out.
There is a huge difference between when it was written and now. With NDAA and Patriot act and countless other things it will not be possible to have a revolution. I disagree about the watch list part, but this whole "lock and load" mentality is going to get a bunch of people killed and that's it.
The government has enshrined itself and is not going anywhere. It has to be replaced from the inside. Unfortunately the people most qualified to lead a new government want nothing to do with it. Until that changes, you will see nothing happen but angry mobs and indefinite detention.
Good luck with that. I have a comfortable life and don't have any reason to join you. I will not enjoy watching you get killed by the superior military technology. Even if 90% of the military revolts you're not going to get the heavy guns, and you will be bringing a match to a gun fight. You will be dead, and I will sip my wine and say that's so sad.
I feel a revolution is in order, but you're going to have to put together a lot more than a bunch of people with guns to accomplish anything but dying for little reason other than publicity. Forget OWS, it will be Occupy Wooden Coffin, and then the Kardashians will sell their new perfume, and Vanna will spin the wheel and life will go on.
Oh good. A petition website, which requires the President to do absolutely nothing, is now the best way to report crime? Or the only way? A petition system which has repeatedly been shown to 1) not work and 2) not say or do anything specifically related to criminal investigations is enough to get the President to order his people around?
Seriously, I would like answers to these, if you and the 3 or more people who modded you up think gp is an apologist. Don't you think using the existing ways of reporting crime are better than something that doesn't work? Or is that being an apologist?
Prosecute one guy for what? Which law has he broken? He threatened not to make campaign donations, and presumably on behalf of part of the MAFIAA. Is not contributing to a campaign illegal? Is it illegal to ask your representatives to do what you voted them in office to do?
Even if you ignore Citizens United, this was blatant idiocy at best, and at worst a childish tantrum.
So what do we prosecute him for exactly? And yes, I signed the petition. My reasons are obviously not the same as most peoples'.
Not as far as any info I've been able to find. Writing and performing are two different copyrights, this guy seems to hold the wrong one.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2647101&cid=38881893