I believe that's the part that comes after being elected - and the name "The Pirate Party" certainly seems to be wholly designed for the purpose of getting attention and garnering votes.
I only wish I'd thought of it!
It may be getting attention, which is the only thing its good for, but not getting votes.
In the way the democratic system is structered in the west, you can't get elected if you only have one point on the agenta - since people only get one vote, it would be a wasted vote to vote a such a party.
Question is, do they want/have to be taken seriously by established politics? Maybe all they want is to raise public awareness of the matter, and as far as I can tell, they sure dobr>
In which case the real question is: Is there anyone who does not know this already?;)
Piracy is not what the party is about, it's a name they picked to be noticable.
Its also a stupid name which means they will never be take seriously by anyone but warez kiddies. Its like calling a political party "The terrorist party" - you just don't do that if you are serious what you try to do. The consumer rights party would be a stupid name, as it would infer some capitalist values and the party does not take a stance in questions like that.
No, it would be a good name - you may not have the ability to see it, but that would cause them to be taken seriously. Regardless of what their goal is.
The party is here to counter the police state we are turning into with Bodström giving the lobbying organisations whatever they want, and to put a stop to the silliness of patents and eternal copyright.
And as long as they can't even pick a sensible name there isn't a chance in hell of them being able to effect such change.
Quite right - its funny so many produce lousy games and then complain that the only reason they are not selling is because they must have been pirated.
The day they introduced CSS was the day it became a lot harder for me to read it - because most people who design websites (are idiots) who try make a WYSIWYG website and lock font sizes in small unreadable sizes - and MSIE (for once) follows standards and doesn't allow you to scale them. But then most people are selfish, so shouldn't surprise.
However, if you read further into the article, you will see where the BBC points out that adult stem cells are produced by the body's major organs to repair the organs. So, instead of coaxing an embryonic stem cell to turn into a liver cell, you could just use an already existing liver stem cell.
No, you are twisting their words. Scientists say adults cells are not as good as embryonic. The article further explains the benefit of this by pointing out as it says the "huge" benefit of adult stem cell therapies and that is in the rejection problem (or lack thereof) from using adult stem cells from one's own body.
Outright lie on your part, they don't say adults stem cells have huge benefit - their headline says stemcells in general have huge benefit.
The third issue it points out, is that so far, anyway, they can't control the growth of embryonic stem cells and they quickly turn into cancer cells in the body
No, they mention that some people belive that it might happen. Funny how you accept theories when they suit you and belittem them when they don't.
I don't know if you are a religious freak or just a general idiot - but your line just ran out with me. Plonk.
Of course, since this research used adult stem cells, it would be totally legit in the United States. So, the real question is how many lives or cures are lost chasing the holy grail of fetal stem cell cures when to date all of the research, world-wide, points to adult stem cells holding the best promise.
Except it isn't. This has been explained to you countles times,
No. It hasn't been explained even ONCE - a bunch of hysterical badly behaved children have been yelling their opinion all the time. This is not explaning, this is not documenting, that is just nonsense. When the fact is nobody knows how the courts would rule, many lawers say it most likely IS illegal. Sweden changed their implementation of the copyright laws just last year, and their law in general doesn't allow for people to help others comit crime.
And what the hell kind of gutter were you born in! Calling me moron and making up stuff i never wrote! Grow the hell up and learn to talk politely to your elders!
I've already made it clear I don't agree - and for the reasons given.
Yes, I heard your opnion and does not agree.
So simply restating erroneous assertions doesn't advance your argument in any way.
You are the one stating erroneous assertions - it is a fact to the world that Google is not in it for crime, the pirates are - if you know otherwise you could have proven it.
If its just different opniones and we have different ones why do you continue to repeat them?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that's the part that comes after being elected - and the name "The Pirate Party" certainly seems to be wholly designed for the purpose of getting attention and garnering votes.
I only wish I'd thought of it!
It may be getting attention, which is the only thing its good for, but not getting votes.
In the way the democratic system is structered in the west, you can't get elected if you only have one point on the agenta - since people only get one vote, it would be a wasted vote to vote a such a party.
I don't think they're after votes from other politicians, though.
Well if you want to make change you have to work with other politicians - if you just want to make noise that's clearly not required of course *g*
Question is, do they want/have to be taken seriously by established politics? Maybe all they want is to raise public awareness of the matter, and as far as I can tell, they sure dobr>
;)
In which case the real question is: Is there anyone who does not know this already?
Grrrr.
Its just that they don't want to read it in Guantanamo on some trumpet up charge.
But it is copyright infringement.
The Pirate Party" is concise, provoking (to some), and easily remembered.
And easily dismissed as not being serious by real politicians.
Piracy is not what the party is about, it's a name they picked to be noticable.
Its also a stupid name which means they will never be take seriously by anyone but warez kiddies. Its like calling a political party "The terrorist party" - you just don't do that if you are serious what you try to do.
The consumer rights party would be a stupid name, as it would infer some capitalist values and the party does not take a stance in questions like that.
No, it would be a good name - you may not have the ability to see it, but that would cause them to be taken seriously. Regardless of what their goal is.
The party is here to counter the police state we are turning into with Bodström giving the lobbying organisations whatever they want, and to put a stop to the silliness of patents and eternal copyright.
And as long as they can't even pick a sensible name there isn't a chance in hell of them being able to effect such change.
God, I hate apathetic people.....
;)
But you don't do anything about it
"Do you honestly beleive that other search engines do not save the searches you type into THEIR server?"
Aggregate information sure - but if its tied to a specific user its against european law at least.
"They're providing a free servivce to you, if you don't want them to know what you're searching for, don't use the service."
No, if they are being immoral they have no place on the net and can get the hell of - free or not.
That's just a foolish comment.
"They don't sell because they are crap."
Quite right - its funny so many produce lousy games and then complain that the only reason they are not selling is because they must have been pirated.
They don't sell because they are crap.
In general to flash - spoiling websites for a decade now..
The day they introduced CSS was the day it became a lot harder for me to read it - because most people who design websites (are idiots) who try make a WYSIWYG website and lock font sizes in small unreadable sizes - and MSIE (for once) follows standards and doesn't allow you to scale them.
But then most people are selfish, so shouldn't surprise.
The can't find the manuals!
And I'd bet that if MSFT offered you $$$$ for whatever you were making, and a fat paycheck with good bonuses - you'd be a fool to not take it...
;-)
Sure, because we are all a corrupt bunch
However, if you read further into the article, you will see where the BBC points out that adult stem cells are produced by the body's major organs to repair the organs. So, instead of coaxing an embryonic stem cell to turn into a liver cell, you could just use an already existing liver stem cell.
No, you are twisting their words. Scientists say adults cells are not as good as embryonic.
The article further explains the benefit of this by pointing out as it says the "huge" benefit of adult stem cell therapies and that is in the rejection problem (or lack thereof) from using adult stem cells from one's own body.
Outright lie on your part, they don't say adults stem cells have huge benefit - their headline says stemcells in general have huge benefit.
The third issue it points out, is that so far, anyway, they can't control the growth of embryonic stem cells and they quickly turn into cancer cells in the body
No, they mention that some people belive that it might happen. Funny how you accept theories when they suit you and belittem them when they don't.
I don't know if you are a religious freak or just a general idiot - but your line just ran out with me. Plonk.
I'll give it a month before it refreshes to microsoft.com...
So when the the BBC writes Scientists believe the most useful stem cells come from the tissue of embyros. they are just lying bastards?
I'll believe them.
..you run XP from a FAT32 partition? (But might have NTFS partitions)
What proof are you asking for?
Proof as in proof. Since all scientists in the media i've ever heard says fetal are better.
Of course, since this research used adult stem cells, it would be totally legit in the United States. So, the real question is how many lives or cures are lost chasing the holy grail of fetal stem cell cures when to date all of the research, world-wide, points to adult stem cells holding the best promise.
And your proof of that postulate is?
Except it isn't. This has been explained to you countles times,
No. It hasn't been explained even ONCE - a bunch of hysterical badly behaved children have been yelling their opinion all the time. This is not explaning, this is not documenting, that is just nonsense. When the fact is nobody knows how the courts would rule, many lawers say it most likely IS illegal. Sweden changed their implementation of the copyright laws just last year, and their law in general doesn't allow for people to help others comit crime.
And what the hell kind of gutter were you born in! Calling me moron and making up stuff i never wrote! Grow the hell up and learn to talk politely to your elders!
EOD
I've already made it clear I don't agree - and for the reasons given.
Yes, I heard your opnion and does not agree.
So simply restating erroneous assertions doesn't advance your argument in any way.
You are the one stating erroneous assertions - it is a fact to the world that Google is not in it for crime, the pirates are - if you know otherwise you could have proven it.
If its just different opniones and we have different ones why do you continue to repeat them?