>>>That's not how the DMCA works. You need to provide literally no proof that the content is infringing your copyright.
You don't need any proof to get your content restored either except to say, "This does not infringe upon copyright," and have it restored in mere hours. So there is NO punishment involved by the artist making the claim..... just as there was no punishment against Professor Gates when he was taken to the police station. They dropped the charge and freed him.
And again I ask you to read my signature. You probably think the photgographer should have his work ripped-off without any way to get it back off the net. You sided with then piece-of-shits who took his photo and are now trying to sue the photograpehr. Bastards.
>>>Fox News, of course, pushed a story that only referenced the part of the study that found that climate change "skeptics" scored higher (by one point, 51 to 50) on a test of general scientific literacy, proving once (and for Fox) that the "skeptics" know more about science than climate change "alarmists >>>
Here's what the foxnews.com article ACTUALLY say you worthless piece-of-shit liar: "Global warming skeptics AS KNOWLEDGEABLE about science as climate change believers". Not smarter or know more.
>>>A few tweaks like subjecting incomes higher than $110,000 to the FICA tax would bring collections closer to expenditures. It's really a matter of priorities. We have plenty of money, it's a matter of how we choose to spend it >>> Congress would just hand-out bigger checks. That's how they operate. Like Greek politicians..... which have bankrupted their country with an SSI program that starts at age 55.
No "anti-war" means following our first president's advice not to involve ourselves in other nation's spats. "Rest assured while Europe is at war, we shall remain at peace here in United States." (No that's not an exact quote... I'm quoting from memory.) That president did not involve himself in the ongoing war between Britiain and France.... or any other wars.
THAT'S the kind of president we need now. That's the kind of president both Bush and Obama claimed they would be, but failed to do because they were lying through their teeth.
>>>How many U.S. casualties? Zero.
And 5000 Libyans killed by our bombs. It's funny how you don't seem to care about them. The videos of their dead corpses, including a girl with a blown-off jaw crying in extreme pain, are on youtube.
>>>We wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 had we focused on Bin Laden like President Clinton advised Bush to do.
We wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 if Presidents Bush (senior) and Clinton had not starved 1 million Iraqis through blocking their ports and/or attacking them with Tomahawk missiles in the 90s. The attack on 9/11 was in direct retailiation for our initial actions..... just like Pearl Harbor was an attack in retaliation for our bombings of Japanese soldiers in southern China during the 1930s and 1940.
Learn. History. These things don't "just happen". They are directly related to our own stupidity of attacking others first.
>>>So I search for "I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it" [
The VIDEO is on that famous video site. What's it called? Tubeyou? Youtuber? Something like that. (DUH... where else would you look for a campaign video except on youtube.) I would give you the link but being at work, I can't search youtube (it's blocked). Just search "Obama bank on it".
>>>The increase is due almost entirely to additional spending
So then we agree. Obama's federal spending went UP. Way up. And stimulus? He didn't need to spend 800 billion on that (and then another stimulus bill for 300 billion). That was as stupid as the 700 billion Bush wasted on TARP. If you want to cut spending, then you cut spending. Clearly Obama has NO intention of cutting spending, and still doesn't, since he submitted a new budget with $1.6 trillion deficit... the largest so far.
And finally: Blaming the housing bubble & collapse on Bush is pretty damn silly. The root cause of the bubble goes back to the announcement by the 1998 HUD secretary that nobody would be turned-down for a mortgage loan. Hence: The creation of a bubble.
I think it's impossible to be "unbiased". Even when I was editing articles about HD Radio or DRM radio, I discovered both articles were heavily-biased (against HDR and for DRM). I tried to remove the bias, but now I suspect it's biased the opposite way. This is why I think reporters who claim to be "unbiased" are foolish. The bias sneaks in, even if it's just through omission of relevant stories (such as supposedly unbiased CNN showing a republican primary poll with 2nd place mysteriously missing; the 2nd place person was Ron Paul).
Since Julian is not a UK citizen, those caveats don't apply. There's nothing to stop the Swedes from handing-over Julian to the United Soviet States as soon as they get him into a prison.
Frankly I'm surprised Obama didn't just order him assasinated. He's done it before with other criminals (including American citizens and a 16-year-old boy).
He is not being charged with rape. He is being charged with "not wearing a condom" during *consensual* sex. You would know that if you bothered to pull your head out of your schving-schving, learn to read the article, and educate yourself on the situation.
Let's set the record straight: He is accused of not wearing a condom. What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
BTW Julian has a television show on RT News. You might want to check it out sometime, to see if he's an asshole or not.
"Rape" in Sweden is not the same as rape elsewhere.
What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
I don't even know how you're supposed to prove such a thing. How do you prove the guy, over a year ago, had sex without a condom? You can't go by the two women's word, because they could be lying. It's an unprovable case.
Wow you're a dumbass. Obama added almost 6 trillion to the national debt in four years. Even Jackass Bush never accomplished that (he added 2.5 trillion during his first four years, during the dot-com recession). Obama not only broke the record, but almost doubled it! Of course the REAL reason I hate Obama is pretty much identical to why I hated Fucker Bush --- Passage of anti-freedom laws and treating people like cattle as they get poked/prodded by the TSA/VIPR teams.
I have zero respect for a president that does not honor his oath to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They should both have been impeached and I supported Democrat Dennis Kucinich (ya know... a guy from your team) when he offered-up impeachment articles to the Congress.
>>>So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed?
I'm not voting for either of these two banker/corporate puppets (Romney, Obama). I didn't vote for Bush or Clinton either. I would be an idiot to do so..... are you voting for Obama? Even after you've seen him in action? Wow. I hope he wins reelection, just so the next four years reveal TO YOU how bad he is. Maybe when he starts rounding-up Americans under the NDAA, or signs the CISPA, or has the TSA randomly stopping us on the street for patdowns (as they are already doing in Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, Miami, etc) you will finally WAKE up.
Then again maybe not. A lot of people still loved Corporatist Mussolini even as he killed their neighbors. (No I'm not saying Obama will start killing Americans..... though he did assassinate 3 of them in Africa.)
>>>Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.
"If our troops are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the time I take office, I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it!" - Candidate Obama. So that would be the end of 2009.
Iraq actually ended two years after the promised date, and only because of a treaty that Dubya Bush had already signed. Meanwhile Obama tried to negotiate an extension to the war to keep troops over there, but the Iraq government said "get the soldiers out". So Obama had to leave against his will. (And even in the present time there are still ~100,000 armed "advisors" occupying Iraq.)
- And of course Afghanistan did not end in 2009. PLUS the man went and involved us in NEW wars (Yemen, Libya, and drone attacks on Pakistan). I fully-expect he'll start bombing Iran after he win reelection. He is not anti-war. Watch his ACTIONS and his broken promises, not his current rhetoric.
>>>Obama is pro bill-of-rights.
Is that why he signed the NDAA after saying he would veto it? Is that why he asked Congress to add the two sentences taking-away a right to trial for suspected terrorists? Is that why he signed the pro-censorship ACTA treaty? Is that why he expanded the power of the TSA to grope our bodies (or nude bodyscan us) from airports to train terminals to bus depots to along interstate highways to post office, malls, and just this past weekend, a music festival in Detroit? Is that why he remains silent while elderly are strip-searched, urine/colostomy bags are spilled, women's breasts are groped, and other nursing mom are forced to stand in glass jails?
He does not care about our rights.
>>>Obama is anti deficit spending.
Then how come his new budget submitted to Congress increased from 1.2 trillion to 1.6 trillion? ALSO stop blaming the republicans. The Democrats had full control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. If Obama really & truly wanted to eliminate the deficit, he and his Democrat Congress would have done it in 2009 or 10.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff about me (forum posts) is not eraseable. It's there forever. That's why I learned a decade ago to start using fake names when publicly posting..... it looks like I used the net from 1988 to 2002 and then quit. (I wish there was a way to erase all those 90s-era messages.)
"A voter who has indicated an interest in a candidate and then views a video on YouTube is likely to see a 15- or 30-second campaign ad, called a pre-roll, pop up. A box will appear after 5 seconds asking if the person wants to continue viewing the ad. Campaigns only pay for ads the viewer watches through to completion."
I think I've found a way to hurt Romney financially. Sweet.
Are you anti-war, pro-bill of rights, and anti-deficit spending? If not then you're not getting any dollars from me Romney or Obama.
But I guess you already knew that from my web surf history. "Running-up 2 trillion in debt is unpatriotic!" Yeah. I agree Candidate Obama. You ran up almost 3x that amount; Romney looks set to do the same.
Maybe 1920x1080 eliminates the hassle of downconverting HD video to some lower value?
326 pixels per inch for this screen versus "For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 Cycles per degree" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#cite_note-30). Whatever that means.
(eh) I'll just keep using my e-ink kindle. Looks like paper with dots smaller then I can see.
>>>Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.
SEEMS is the keyword. The EU is actually very restrictive. Just search youtube for MEP Nigel Farage and listen to his persuasive comments about how the U.S. enjoys more freedom than his own home the EU. (Also take a listen to other UKIP members.)
>>>Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
ISPs could control this very easily by imposing data caps, and charging extra when you go over them. That would force the leechers to cut back on their downloads, and thus free-up space for people to make Skype calls. (They could also try installing an extra parallel cable, thus doubling the available bandwidth.)
As for jittery video, the internet is less-prone to jitter than broadcast television. The wind blows, a tree blocks the antenna, and the sound drops out (the reporter sounds like he's stuttering). Or lightning strikes in a nearby storm and the picture freezes, so you miss 1-2 seconds of video. Internet video is FAR more reliable, thanks to buffering.
>>>Not before marijuana gets legalized by EU directive.
It is more likely marijuana will be OUTLAWED by EU directive, as happened in that other union known as the U.S. What was once illegal in a some states is now illegal across a whole continent.
Therefore I advise you not to be so quick to give up individual sovereignty of the states (aka States' Rights)...... because central control is likely to be less liberty-oriented and more tyranny. Plus central control is less apt to hear the voices of the People it falsely-claims to represent.
It's funny you bring that up (champagne). A few months ago the E.U. regulators forced wine-growers in England to stop calling it wine.
Instead it must be labled "alcoholic beverage containing fermented juice". It was done to protect the wine industries of the mainland Europe, rather than any desire to protect consumers. i.e. It was done by bought-and-paid-for technocrats... similar to how it operates in the U.S. with the FCC and other bureaucrats getting sweet post-government jobs with megacorps.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>That's not how the DMCA works. You need to provide literally no proof that the content is infringing your copyright.
You don't need any proof to get your content restored either except to say, "This does not infringe upon copyright," and have it restored in mere hours. So there is NO punishment involved by the artist making the claim..... just as there was no punishment against Professor Gates when he was taken to the police station. They dropped the charge and freed him.
And again I ask you to read my signature. You probably think the photgographer should have his work ripped-off without any way to get it back off the net. You sided with then piece-of-shits who took his photo and are now trying to sue the photograpehr. Bastards.
>>>Fox News, of course, pushed a story that only referenced the part of the study that found that climate change "skeptics" scored higher (by one point, 51 to 50) on a test of general scientific literacy, proving once (and for Fox) that the "skeptics" know more about science than climate change "alarmists
>>>
Here's what the foxnews.com article ACTUALLY say you worthless piece-of-shit liar: "Global warming skeptics AS KNOWLEDGEABLE about science as climate change believers". Not smarter or know more.
>>>A few tweaks like subjecting incomes higher than $110,000 to the FICA tax would bring collections closer to expenditures. It's really a matter of priorities. We have plenty of money, it's a matter of how we choose to spend it
>>>
Congress would just hand-out bigger checks. That's how they operate. Like Greek politicians..... which have bankrupted their country with an SSI program that starts at age 55.
No "anti-war" means following our first president's advice not to involve ourselves in other nation's spats. "Rest assured while Europe is at war, we shall remain at peace here in United States." (No that's not an exact quote... I'm quoting from memory.) That president did not involve himself in the ongoing war between Britiain and France.... or any other wars.
THAT'S the kind of president we need now. That's the kind of president both Bush and Obama claimed they would be, but failed to do because they were lying through their teeth.
>>>How many U.S. casualties? Zero.
And 5000 Libyans killed by our bombs. It's funny how you don't seem to care about them. The videos of their dead corpses, including a girl with a blown-off jaw crying in extreme pain, are on youtube.
>>>We wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 had we focused on Bin Laden like President Clinton advised Bush to do.
We wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 if Presidents Bush (senior) and Clinton had not starved 1 million Iraqis through blocking their ports and/or attacking them with Tomahawk missiles in the 90s. The attack on 9/11 was in direct retailiation for our initial actions..... just like Pearl Harbor was an attack in retaliation for our bombings of Japanese soldiers in southern China during the 1930s and 1940.
Learn. History. These things don't "just happen". They are directly related to our own stupidity of attacking others first.
>>>So I search for "I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it" [
The VIDEO is on that famous video site. What's it called? Tubeyou? Youtuber? Something like that. (DUH... where else would you look for a campaign video except on youtube.) I would give you the link but being at work, I can't search youtube (it's blocked). Just search "Obama bank on it".
>>>The increase is due almost entirely to additional spending
So then we agree. Obama's federal spending went UP. Way up. And stimulus? He didn't need to spend 800 billion on that (and then another stimulus bill for 300 billion). That was as stupid as the 700 billion Bush wasted on TARP. If you want to cut spending, then you cut spending. Clearly Obama has NO intention of cutting spending, and still doesn't, since he submitted a new budget with $1.6 trillion deficit... the largest so far.
And finally:
Blaming the housing bubble & collapse on Bush is pretty damn silly. The root cause of the bubble goes back to the announcement by the 1998 HUD secretary that nobody would be turned-down for a mortgage loan. Hence: The creation of a bubble.
I think it's impossible to be "unbiased". Even when I was editing articles about HD Radio or DRM radio, I discovered both articles were heavily-biased (against HDR and for DRM). I tried to remove the bias, but now I suspect it's biased the opposite way. This is why I think reporters who claim to be "unbiased" are foolish. The bias sneaks in, even if it's just through omission of relevant stories (such as supposedly unbiased CNN showing a republican primary poll with 2nd place mysteriously missing; the 2nd place person was Ron Paul).
Since Julian is not a UK citizen, those caveats don't apply. There's nothing to stop the Swedes from handing-over Julian to the United Soviet States as soon as they get him into a prison.
Frankly I'm surprised Obama didn't just order him assasinated. He's done it before with other criminals (including American citizens and a 16-year-old boy).
>>>rape apologetics
He is not being charged with rape. He is being charged with "not wearing a condom" during *consensual* sex. You would know that if you bothered to pull your head out of your schving-schving, learn to read the article, and educate yourself on the situation.
>>>He is accused of Rape.
Let's set the record straight: He is accused of not wearing a condom. What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
BTW Julian has a television show on RT News. You might want to check it out sometime, to see if he's an asshole or not.
"Rape" in Sweden is not the same as rape elsewhere.
What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
I don't even know how you're supposed to prove such a thing. How do you prove the guy, over a year ago, had sex without a condom? You can't go by the two women's word, because they could be lying. It's an unprovable case.
Isn't selling your vote illegal?
Wow you're a dumbass. Obama added almost 6 trillion to the national debt in four years. Even Jackass Bush never accomplished that (he added 2.5 trillion during his first four years, during the dot-com recession). Obama not only broke the record, but almost doubled it! Of course the REAL reason I hate Obama is pretty much identical to why I hated Fucker Bush --- Passage of anti-freedom laws and treating people like cattle as they get poked/prodded by the TSA/VIPR teams.
I have zero respect for a president that does not honor his oath to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They should both have been impeached and I supported Democrat Dennis Kucinich (ya know... a guy from your team) when he offered-up impeachment articles to the Congress.
>>>So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed?
I'm not voting for either of these two banker/corporate puppets (Romney, Obama). I didn't vote for Bush or Clinton either. I would be an idiot to do so..... are you voting for Obama? Even after you've seen him in action? Wow. I hope he wins reelection, just so the next four years reveal TO YOU how bad he is. Maybe when he starts rounding-up Americans under the NDAA, or signs the CISPA, or has the TSA randomly stopping us on the street for patdowns (as they are already doing in Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, Miami, etc) you will finally WAKE up.
Then again maybe not. A lot of people still loved Corporatist Mussolini even as he killed their neighbors. (No I'm not saying Obama will start killing Americans..... though he did assassinate 3 of them in Africa.)
>>>Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.
"If our troops are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the time I take office, I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it!" - Candidate Obama. So that would be the end of 2009.
Iraq actually ended two years after the promised date, and only because of a treaty that Dubya Bush had already signed. Meanwhile Obama tried to negotiate an extension to the war to keep troops over there, but the Iraq government said "get the soldiers out". So Obama had to leave against his will. (And even in the present time there are still ~100,000 armed "advisors" occupying Iraq.)
- And of course Afghanistan did not end in 2009.
PLUS the man went and involved us in NEW wars (Yemen, Libya, and drone attacks on Pakistan). I fully-expect he'll start bombing Iran after he win reelection. He is not anti-war. Watch his ACTIONS and his broken promises, not his current rhetoric.
>>>Obama is pro bill-of-rights.
Is that why he signed the NDAA after saying he would veto it? Is that why he asked Congress to add the two sentences taking-away a right to trial for suspected terrorists? Is that why he signed the pro-censorship ACTA treaty? Is that why he expanded the power of the TSA to grope our bodies (or nude bodyscan us) from airports to train terminals to bus depots to along interstate highways to post office, malls, and just this past weekend, a music festival in Detroit? Is that why he remains silent while elderly are strip-searched, urine/colostomy bags are spilled, women's breasts are groped, and other nursing mom are forced to stand in glass jails?
He does not care about our rights.
>>>Obama is anti deficit spending.
Then how come his new budget submitted to Congress increased from 1.2 trillion to 1.6 trillion? ALSO stop blaming the republicans. The Democrats had full control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. If Obama really & truly wanted to eliminate the deficit, he and his Democrat Congress would have done it in 2009 or 10.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff about me (forum posts) is not eraseable. It's there forever. That's why I learned a decade ago to start using fake names when publicly posting..... it looks like I used the net from 1988 to 2002 and then quit. (I wish there was a way to erase all those 90s-era messages.)
"A voter who has indicated an interest in a candidate and then views a video on YouTube is likely to see a 15- or 30-second campaign ad, called a pre-roll, pop up. A box will appear after 5 seconds asking if the person wants to continue viewing the ad. Campaigns only pay for ads the viewer watches through to completion."
I think I've found a way to hurt Romney financially.
Sweet.
Are you anti-war, pro-bill of rights, and anti-deficit spending? If not then you're not getting any dollars from me Romney or Obama.
But I guess you already knew that from my web surf history. "Running-up 2 trillion in debt is unpatriotic!" Yeah. I agree Candidate Obama. You ran up almost 3x that amount; Romney looks set to do the same.
Hmmm..... can browsers be programmed to reject single-pizel sized images?
Maybe 1920x1080 eliminates the hassle of downconverting HD video to some lower value?
326 pixels per inch for this screen versus "For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 Cycles per degree" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#cite_note-30). Whatever that means.
(eh) I'll just keep using my e-ink kindle. Looks like paper with dots smaller then I can see.
>>>Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.
SEEMS is the keyword. The EU is actually very restrictive. Just search youtube for MEP Nigel Farage and listen to his persuasive comments about how the U.S. enjoys more freedom than his own home the EU. (Also take a listen to other UKIP members.)
>>>Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.
ISPs could control this very easily by imposing data caps, and charging extra when you go over them. That would force the leechers to cut back on their downloads, and thus free-up space for people to make Skype calls. (They could also try installing an extra parallel cable, thus doubling the available bandwidth.)
As for jittery video, the internet is less-prone to jitter than broadcast television. The wind blows, a tree blocks the antenna, and the sound drops out (the reporter sounds like he's stuttering). Or lightning strikes in a nearby storm and the picture freezes, so you miss 1-2 seconds of video. Internet video is FAR more reliable, thanks to buffering.
>>>Not before marijuana gets legalized by EU directive.
It is more likely marijuana will be OUTLAWED by EU directive, as happened in that other union known as the U.S. What was once illegal in a some states is now illegal across a whole continent.
Therefore I advise you not to be so quick to give up individual sovereignty of the states (aka States' Rights)...... because central control is likely to be less liberty-oriented and more tyranny. Plus central control is less apt to hear the voices of the People it falsely-claims to represent.
It's funny you bring that up (champagne). A few months ago the E.U. regulators forced wine-growers in England to stop calling it wine.
Instead it must be labled "alcoholic beverage containing fermented juice". It was done to protect the wine industries of the mainland Europe, rather than any desire to protect consumers. i.e. It was done by bought-and-paid-for technocrats... similar to how it operates in the U.S. with the FCC and other bureaucrats getting sweet post-government jobs with megacorps.
"You cannot block any website...... except pornography. Or bittorrent sites. Those you can block and in fact, we DEMAND you block them."