An article is to a link to said article as a house is to an address for said house.
When you share on facebook, etc., you are sharing the address, not the house itself as you do not own the house.
When you click on "Share this article" you are sharing a link to the article and not the actual text of the article. The article remains available only from the server pointed to by the link and any income generated by individuals viewing the article remains with the copyright holder.
When you host a copy of the article, you are creating an unauthorized copy of the article and any income generated does not go to the copyright holder, but rather to you. You are profiting from someone else's work without compensating them, which is both immoral and unethical. And, if you are hosting the article without advertising, your traffic decreases the income from the original article.
A report in the Moscow Times quotes a KGB veteran as saying that there was, in fact, a natural gas pipeline explosion in 1982, but it was near Tobolsk on a pipeline connecting the Urengoy gas field to the city of Chelyabinsk, and it was caused by poor construction rather than sabotage. According to him no one was killed in the explosion and the damage was repaired within one day.
And, the very first part of the article states that it was an alleged incident.
Perhaps you should not be using unproven allegations which have been denied by the alleged victim as proof of anything.
Whoever wrote Stuxnet knew the make,model, and configuration of the PLCs and associated equipment for the target system. This argues for an inside job rather than and external agent. I would put my money on Russian hackers, possibly with ties to the Russian mob, with a mole in the company.
I wonder if it is possible for this worm, once inside the controller, to adjust the operating parameters in such a way to ensure a catastrophic failure (i.e. meltdown) occurs?
Well, that depends on what the controller does, what kind of reactor it is, and what kind of safety controls they have.
As many reactors are made with mechanical pressure release valves, a pressure loop explosion is unlikely.
Assuming a dual loop pressurized water reactor, if the controllers are on the main primary loop valves, it is possible to disable or force them shut. This would result in a possible reactor vessel explosion.
If the controllers are on the reactor control rod controllers, it is possible that the controller could be made to pull the rods out, which would be a very dangerous condition. This could lead to a meltdown. But, then you have the problem of making sure the rods are, in fact being pulled. Get it backwards, and you just shut the plant down for a while.
I could go on, but there is one big whole in the theory: whoever designed this attack had intimate knowledge of the reactor and it's control systems. They know the make, model, and configuration of the PLCs and associated equipment. This argues for an inside job of some sort.
Or, it could be Russian hackers looking to blackmail a company.
Or even Iranian hackers who were careless and infected their own infrastructure and then had the worm bleed back up to the parent and then down to other countries.
So, it is OK to copy information as long as you don't use the information.
But, when you make a copy of information, you use the copy repeatedly.
And, it is not defrauding. It is correcting an artificial scarcity using YOUR assets. Just like you claim you are correcting an artificial scarcity using SOMEONE ELSE'S assets
No, they won't. The politicians are much more concerned with the primary things most people care about. Things like foreign policy, immigration controls, terrorism, deficit spending and national debt, unemployment rates, etc. For a vast majority of the voters, this issue is way down the list if it is even on the list at all.
You want your information to be free? Great for you, go ahead and post all your personal information on line for us to look at. I like to keep mine under wraps, so I won't be voting for a party that wants "Free Information".
for many left-handed, using tools in their right hands is as unpleasant a thought as engaging in homosexuality (or for homosexuals, I presume, heterosexuality).
Any lefty who feels that way needs to see a psychiatrist. Maybe you and your ilk should go buy some land in, say, Africa and start your own lefty land.
had we in 1861 the technology to change one's color, would we encourage blacks to become white? Would that have been just?
This is a fail. There were, and are, plenty of "black" people who look white. They have light skin, "good" hair, even blue eyes. They were, and still are, considered black. And, they were still discriminated against unless they managed to go somewhere to re-invent themselves as a "white" person. This was known as "passing". Look it up.
You are just making a fool of yourself. This is not a civil rights issue unless you want to consider being left handed a handicap. Instead of whining like a little bitch, start a company specializing in left-handed devices.
Nobody forced Saddam Hussein and his government to invade Kuwait.
Or, are you denying that Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Or, are you just ignorant of the First Gulf War?
Oh, so Saddam Hussein's forces didn't invade Kuwait and start a war? And, he wasn't in violation of the cease fire agreement which stated Iraq would allow inspectors full and unfettered access?
No, you tax dollars are paying for illegal aliens to get health care. My tax dollars are going to fight the war, which is not military murders.
Also, your post shows that you don't actually care about the people who are dying but rather you only care about your narrow, ignorant dogma. You are just another fundy.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost all of the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are killed by IDEs, car bombs, suicide bombers, and militias. In fact, look at the last three months and tell me how many civilians were killed by the military and how many by terrorist attacks listed above.
Why is it you only count those killed by the military and not those killed insurgents, terrorists, and local militias?
If he believed that the safety and lives of others were less important than releasing these documents he deserves to be in prison. He is, in fact, a traitor to his country and guilty of espionage and providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war.
Under the UCMJ, he could have received the death penalty. He is lucky to be in prison.
Yes, you are wrong. If Wikileaks believed that these documents should have been released in "a more safe way", then Wikileaks should have released them in that "safe way" instead of releasing them in a way that can get people killed.
The president did not tell him to stop. The president condemned the act and said he should not to do it. Seeing as you got that wrong in the very first sentence, it is not surprising that the rest of your post is a bit paranoid and stupid.
You mean like Saudi Arabia did in 2005, and not just one bible but hundreds?
Like what was in done Gaza where churches were ransacked and bibles and crosses burned?
Like was done in Melbourne Australia at an Islamic University, where two students spit and pissed on a bible?
How about in Pakistan in December 2008 where Muslims left a note telling the Christians to convert to Islam?
Have you got a clue now? Can you see the hypocrisy? Or, is it only wrong to burn the Quran?
Yes, it is acceptable for a web host to only host Christian, or Linux, or non-profit pages. That is the beauty of freedom.
Being free means one is free to do say "I only want to host websites that support my views and that I like".
Businesses have the right to refuse to do business with groups they believe will hurt the business including hurting the businesses reputation. This is also why politically biased newspapers and websites don't have to host opposing views.
To turn your your own phrase against you
there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for promoting Republican ideals" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"
Slashdot Mirror
An article is to a link to said article as a house is to an address for said house.
When you share on facebook, etc., you are sharing the address, not the house itself as you do not own the house.
When you click on "Share this article" you are sharing a link to the article and not the actual text of the article. The article remains available only from the server pointed to by the link and any income generated by individuals viewing the article remains with the copyright holder.
When you host a copy of the article, you are creating an unauthorized copy of the article and any income generated does not go to the copyright holder, but rather to you. You are profiting from someone else's work without compensating them, which is both immoral and unethical. And, if you are hosting the article without advertising, your traffic decreases the income from the original article.
From your own link:
A report in the Moscow Times quotes a KGB veteran as saying that there was, in fact, a natural gas pipeline explosion in 1982, but it was near Tobolsk on a pipeline connecting the Urengoy gas field to the city of Chelyabinsk, and it was caused by poor construction rather than sabotage. According to him no one was killed in the explosion and the damage was repaired within one day.
And, the very first part of the article states that it was an alleged incident.
Perhaps you should not be using unproven allegations which have been denied by the alleged victim as proof of anything.
Whoever wrote Stuxnet knew the make,model, and configuration of the PLCs and associated equipment for the target system. This argues for an inside job rather than and external agent. I would put my money on Russian hackers, possibly with ties to the Russian mob, with a mole in the company.
Well, that depends on what the controller does, what kind of reactor it is, and what kind of safety controls they have.
As many reactors are made with mechanical pressure release valves, a pressure loop explosion is unlikely.
Assuming a dual loop pressurized water reactor, if the controllers are on the main primary loop valves, it is possible to disable or force them shut. This would result in a possible reactor vessel explosion.
If the controllers are on the reactor control rod controllers, it is possible that the controller could be made to pull the rods out, which would be a very dangerous condition. This could lead to a meltdown. But, then you have the problem of making sure the rods are, in fact being pulled. Get it backwards, and you just shut the plant down for a while.
I could go on, but there is one big whole in the theory: whoever designed this attack had intimate knowledge of the reactor and it's control systems. They know the make, model, and configuration of the PLCs and associated equipment. This argues for an inside job of some sort.
Or, it could be Russian hackers looking to blackmail a company. Or even Iranian hackers who were careless and infected their own infrastructure and then had the worm bleed back up to the parent and then down to other countries.
So, it is OK to copy information as long as you don't use the information.
But, when you make a copy of information, you use the copy repeatedly.
And, it is not defrauding. It is correcting an artificial scarcity using YOUR assets. Just like you claim you are correcting an artificial scarcity using SOMEONE ELSE'S assets
No, they won't. The politicians are much more concerned with the primary things most people care about. Things like foreign policy, immigration controls, terrorism, deficit spending and national debt, unemployment rates, etc. For a vast majority of the voters, this issue is way down the list if it is even on the list at all.
So, it is only wrong to use copied information when one breaks the law? Does that include copyright law?
You want your information to be free? Great for you, go ahead and post all your personal information on line for us to look at. I like to keep mine under wraps, so I won't be voting for a party that wants "Free Information".
There was a fair and valid vote. They didn't win. That doesn't mean democracy didn't work. That means more people didn't support them than did.
If they really believe that they must "reconquer democracy" because they lost in the election, then they want a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Any lefty who feels that way needs to see a psychiatrist. Maybe you and your ilk should go buy some land in, say, Africa and start your own lefty land.
This is a fail. There were, and are, plenty of "black" people who look white. They have light skin, "good" hair, even blue eyes. They were, and still are, considered black. And, they were still discriminated against unless they managed to go somewhere to re-invent themselves as a "white" person. This was known as "passing". Look it up.
You are just making a fool of yourself. This is not a civil rights issue unless you want to consider being left handed a handicap. Instead of whining like a little bitch, start a company specializing in left-handed devices.
The game developer probably decided it wasn't worth the effort to support the 10% of gamers who are left handed.
How is this a troll?
Nobody forced Saddam Hussein and his government to invade Kuwait. Or, are you denying that Iraq invaded Kuwait? Or, are you just ignorant of the First Gulf War?
Oh, so Saddam Hussein's forces didn't invade Kuwait and start a war? And, he wasn't in violation of the cease fire agreement which stated Iraq would allow inspectors full and unfettered access?
No, you tax dollars are paying for illegal aliens to get health care. My tax dollars are going to fight the war, which is not military murders.
Also, your post shows that you don't actually care about the people who are dying but rather you only care about your narrow, ignorant dogma. You are just another fundy.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but almost all of the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are killed by IDEs, car bombs, suicide bombers, and militias. In fact, look at the last three months and tell me how many civilians were killed by the military and how many by terrorist attacks listed above.
Why is it you only count those killed by the military and not those killed insurgents, terrorists, and local militias?
If he believed that the safety and lives of others were less important than releasing these documents he deserves to be in prison. He is, in fact, a traitor to his country and guilty of espionage and providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war.
Under the UCMJ, he could have received the death penalty. He is lucky to be in prison.
Yes, you are wrong. If Wikileaks believed that these documents should have been released in "a more safe way", then Wikileaks should have released them in that "safe way" instead of releasing them in a way that can get people killed.
Please read the cease fire documents from the First Gulf War and get back to us.
And, I hope that attack kills hundreds and can be directly linked to the leaked documents on Wikileaks.
The president did not tell him to stop. The president condemned the act and said he should not to do it. Seeing as you got that wrong in the very first sentence, it is not surprising that the rest of your post is a bit paranoid and stupid.
You mean like Saudi Arabia did in 2005, and not just one bible but hundreds?
Like what was in done Gaza where churches were ransacked and bibles and crosses burned?
Like was done in Melbourne Australia at an Islamic University, where two students spit and pissed on a bible?
How about in Pakistan in December 2008 where Muslims left a note telling the Christians to convert to Islam?
Have you got a clue now? Can you see the hypocrisy? Or, is it only wrong to burn the Quran?
Yes, it is acceptable for a web host to only host Christian, or Linux, or non-profit pages. That is the beauty of freedom.
Being free means one is free to do say "I only want to host websites that support my views and that I like".
Businesses have the right to refuse to do business with groups they believe will hurt the business including hurting the businesses reputation. This is also why politically biased newspapers and websites don't have to host opposing views.
To turn your your own phrase against you