You know that they (SSN's) are American, right? Since we're talking about South Korea citizens and purportedly mainland China crackers WTF are we talking about?
Korean ID numbers? Well, alright then, let's say so.
> It's all the restrictions of twitter that prevent it from being > a nuisance that made it stick.
I dunno, I'm not feeling you not feeling the article mentioned; I can see that you did not read it. But then again, I'm not feeling the OPs reference' logic: babe! tv did not kill radio, it thrived addressing a different purpose.
However, tv-then could not change its stripes. G+ can, and will do it more so over time: 3rd party APIs, apps, concision apps---ya know, twitter like shiz---and fill-in-the-blank approaches heretofore undreamed.
If I had to wager, as Twitter founders did in rejecting Google's high takeover bid a couple years ago going it solo, my money I'd pass on twitter stock.
False dilemma. Copyright, trademark/dress, patents---all intellectual property is not alike---?architecture? usurpation. Or. Lose jobs at home---and whose home? The USA,
In this interconnected, low barriers, porous trade borders, fluid capital flows era either you are there OR they are there. Whom? Germany. Singapore, France, Holland, Denmark, that's who.
Why give them your secret sauce? Hey, you don't have to. But if you are spending billions, upon billions, into trillions of their dollars on their wares they have a aright to say: Don't think you are going to roll in and colonize me. Since I'm paying I am going to see what's in the kitchen, learn to cook, cook with you, and hire my people to cook under your tutelage. Don't like it? Step aside, my next appointment is here.
How do they intend to compete with their new students? They intend to take their present leads and spend faster, create brighter, grow bigger, and toil, toil, toil. VW, and GE will tell you so.
> I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically > protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.
The Bill of Rights and the SCOTUS would beg to differ. I would hazard the guess that you are under 29 and haven't heard this "privilege" phrase before. You also have no constitutional right to privacy, did you not know that too?
> Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, > automobiles), is a natural right.:-) Is it also your natural right to drive a Ferrari, and date supermodels?
"and that I will obey the [LAWFUL] orders of the President of the United States"
Whilst not as poetic, and with a rare degree of confidence, morality, ethics required that is the content of that phrase.
Otherwise. I vas following orders might in the cards at The Hague for you.
The summary feels like an indigenous to Sina shill, bashing Google in the process. Hightailed? Ran came back? Left the PRC went to HK's Two System's One Nation: anyone, anyone? "Those dumb Americans wont know that, dew neh!" Indeed.
You are thinking of a 'transformative act' on a work, public domain or not. Scilicet, operating on said work and poof! voila! it is copyrighted again. Yes it can happen, but it is tough work. Case in point.
Charade (1963 film), featuring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn fell out of copyright into the public domain do to lack of copyright notice requirements in the film prints---that is why most times you catch on TV it is a gadawful grainy, dusty, out-of-focus subpar mess. They're using reused-abused prints and not preserved-protected prints.
However, The Criterion Collection has taken the time, effort and expense to take one of those prints and restore, improve Charade to a mint film---that is copyrighted---again.
Bullshit. I live in NYC, and several weeks ago on another idiotic point of Weiner I wrote him off as an idiot. Period. UBL's dead, so give the (taxpayers') reward money to the "victims" of the Twin Towers. Enough. When you get hit by a bus the US does not give your kin and kilth free money, even if they're desperate for it. That's what savings and insurance are for. We all die eventually. T. McVeigh's Oklahoma victims did not get any money! Enough coddling.
To your point. Innocent persons in these circumstances walk, whilst a _guiltless_ politician _RUNS_ to the police to report harm. Harm to their personal reputation, their family's reputation, their political party's reputation, their institution's reputation, their professional reputation. Righteously, one, anyone will even report this as societal harm. You might say it's overly noble, but Weiner's supposedly a fighter, pugnacious, right?
He's guilty of this sin. He just does not want to get burned when an official investigation pries into his dark life---whilst placed under oath.
> But when they attack an organization I have lots of > respect for, it's only then where I feel that they've crossed > a line.
Michelle Martin on Nipper, ya know, en pi ar, oh yeah, NPR, had a great, sophisticated, lucid view on supporting a cause or not. Paraphrasing:
>>>>> I hate it when people offer as an argument for support that they like what we do, or our cause! As if you didn't like it therefore it, we must be bad. Only supporting that which you like and doesn't challenge leads to very boring thing, product. Most of what we learned, made us, makes us valuable, thoughtful, metropolitan, sophisticated, well versed, comes from unknown ideas and concepts. Hu! Now. How about that? Can you get with that? Can you support that?
Right, left, center, sideways; but is it thoughtful?! Support that! Not just because you like us.
> Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are > left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat > we faced before.
*sigh* If you followed the news, or read the papers, or a book, or knew history, or were alive on 09/12/2001 (you don't seem like you are nine years old, so that's one less excuse) or on October or November 2001 you would, at _least since then_ known that this war was known, is known to last several generations. That's 20 to 40 years, babe. *ummk* You know, like the Cold War.
Slashdot Mirror
> social security numbers
You know that they (SSN's) are American, right? Since we're talking about South Korea citizens and purportedly mainland China crackers WTF are we talking about?
Korean ID numbers? Well, alright then, let's say so.
hate to tell you this but this is a dupe from like 6 months ago. Next time search the /'s archive.
> It's all the restrictions of twitter that prevent it from being
> a nuisance that made it stick.
I dunno, I'm not feeling you not feeling the article mentioned; I can see that you did not read it. But then again, I'm not feeling the OPs reference' logic: babe! tv did not kill radio, it thrived addressing a different purpose.
However, tv-then could not change its stripes. G+ can, and will do it more so over time: 3rd party APIs, apps, concision apps---ya know, twitter like shiz---and fill-in-the-blank approaches heretofore undreamed.
If I had to wager, as Twitter founders did in rejecting Google's high takeover bid a couple years ago going it solo, my money I'd pass on twitter stock.
False dilemma. Copyright, trademark/dress, patents---all intellectual property is not alike---?architecture? usurpation. Or. Lose jobs at home---and whose home? The USA,
In this interconnected, low barriers, porous trade borders, fluid capital flows era either you are there OR they are there. Whom? Germany. Singapore, France, Holland, Denmark, that's who.
Why give them your secret sauce? Hey, you don't have to. But if you are spending billions, upon billions, into trillions of their dollars on their wares they have a aright to say: Don't think you are going to roll in and colonize me. Since I'm paying I am going to see what's in the kitchen, learn to cook, cook with you, and hire my people to cook under your tutelage. Don't like it? Step aside, my next appointment is here.
How do they intend to compete with their new students? They intend to take their present leads and spend faster, create brighter, grow bigger, and toil, toil, toil. VW, and GE will tell you so.
> I disagree. Just because something isn't specifically
> protected by the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.
The Bill of Rights and the SCOTUS would beg to differ. I would hazard the guess that you are under 29 and haven't heard this "privilege" phrase before. You also have no constitutional right to privacy, did you not know that too?
> Travel by the standard means of the time (in this case, :-) Is it also your natural right to drive a Ferrari, and date supermodels?
> automobiles), is a natural right.
"and that I will obey the [LAWFUL] orders of the President of the United States" Whilst not as poetic, and with a rare degree of confidence, morality, ethics required that is the content of that phrase. Otherwise. I vas following orders might in the cards at The Hague for you.
The summary feels like an indigenous to Sina shill, bashing Google in the process. Hightailed? Ran came back? Left the PRC went to HK's Two System's One Nation: anyone, anyone? "Those dumb Americans wont know that, dew neh!" Indeed.
If you don't mind, I'd love an invite.
com.unixen@2011
Thanks.
Sorry to bother you, but the Buzz and din on Plus seems to be !hellacious! If you don't mind, I'd love an invite.
com.unixen@2011
Thanks.
To GP:
You are thinking of a 'transformative act' on a work, public domain or not. Scilicet, operating on said work and poof! voila! it is copyrighted again. Yes it can happen, but it is tough work. Case in point.
Charade (1963 film), featuring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn fell out of copyright into the public domain do to lack of copyright notice requirements in the film prints---that is why most times you catch on TV it is a gadawful grainy, dusty, out-of-focus subpar mess. They're using reused-abused prints and not preserved-protected prints.
However, The Criterion Collection has taken the time, effort and expense to take one of those prints and restore, improve Charade to a mint film---that is copyrighted---again.
> a patent that had been used in another case. This patent
> was granted in 1994 â" three years before Sun filed its
> Java patent application.
Doesn't, wouldn't this arm that 1994 patent holder? Now that pre-Oracle patent guy can sue for monies. No?
"Internet Libertarian Warrior mode engaged!"
`Holier than thou-OMG! Ponies an rainbows' mode perspective blinders on: *plonk*
> _Taxpayer_ funded research should not be behind pay
> walls or restricted
Dear Jintao, want a free ride? Hop on my back. Want my research? Become a _Taxpayer_.
is opt-in. You know like in Labs. What an !advantage.
> _TSA_ didn't even catch her. It was the Miami PD
What, are you NYPD > PANYNJ them? *chiiet*
> game-changing items
What does that even mean?
A knob? A hand dolly? A TV remote? 5, my ass. *sigh*
> It wasn't him.
Bullshit. I live in NYC, and several weeks ago on another idiotic point of Weiner I wrote him off as an idiot. Period. UBL's dead, so give the (taxpayers') reward money to the "victims" of the Twin Towers. Enough. When you get hit by a bus the US does not give your kin and kilth free money, even if they're desperate for it. That's what savings and insurance are for. We all die eventually. T. McVeigh's Oklahoma victims did not get any money! Enough coddling.
To your point. Innocent persons in these circumstances walk, whilst a _guiltless_ politician _RUNS_ to the police to report harm. Harm to their personal reputation, their family's reputation, their political party's reputation, their institution's reputation, their professional reputation. Righteously, one, anyone will even report this as societal harm. You might say it's overly noble, but Weiner's supposedly a fighter, pugnacious, right?
He's guilty of this sin. He just does not want to get burned when an official investigation pries into his dark life---whilst placed under oath.
> But when they attack an organization I have lots of
> respect for, it's only then where I feel that they've crossed
> a line.
Michelle Martin on Nipper, ya know, en pi ar, oh yeah, NPR, had a great, sophisticated, lucid view on supporting a cause or not. Paraphrasing:
>>>>>
I hate it when people offer as an argument for support that they like what we do, or our cause! As if you didn't like it therefore it, we must be bad. Only supporting that which you like and doesn't challenge leads to very boring thing, product. Most of what we learned, made us, makes us valuable, thoughtful, metropolitan, sophisticated, well versed, comes from unknown ideas and concepts. Hu! Now. How about that? Can you get with that? Can you support that?
Right, left, center, sideways; but is it thoughtful?! Support that! Not just because you like us.
> I'd be inclined to say "a plague on both your houses"
aaaa!bullshit! Apparently you need Letitia Baldrige to reacquaint you with the maxim, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
> "What To Do When the Raptors Come?"
YOU HAVE ME LAUGHING OUT LOUD. Seriously, thanks, man. *G*
Come on you knee-jerk nigas, say it witme, correlationisnotcausation, What! Am I's suddenly wrong! Lighten up.
keyword: itworldadclicktroll
> flooded usenet but
Not for nothing, dood, but it's Usenet---netnews if you're majuscule averse. But, rockon!
> license-in-perpetuity
So I get to live forever? Alright! I am an Immortal.
> Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are
> left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat
> we faced before.
*sigh* If you followed the news, or read the papers, or a book, or knew history, or were alive on 09/12/2001 (you don't seem like you are nine years old, so that's one less excuse) or on October or November 2001 you would, at _least since then_ known that this war was known, is known to last several generations. That's 20 to 40 years, babe. *ummk* You know, like the Cold War.