And I am sure you are idiot who is just talking out of his ass. Does he advocate violence or the violent overthrow of the government? Does advocate blowing up checkpoints and/or shooting the officers at the location? I didn't think so, so he is not an extremist.
He is, however, an dumbass who doesn't know the law or that the checkpoints have been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. So, the government might rightly consider him a whacko, I seriously doubt they would consider him an extremist unless he were advocating violence.
If you are built merely for survival and not by design, you cannot trust your own thoughts.
Prove that that statement or admit you pulled it out of your ass.
Now, what for me is the fun part. I can prove that if creationism is true, one can not trust one's own thoughts, nor can one trust in causality or anything else. By definition, God is all knowing and all powerful. Anything that happens has, at the very least, the tacit approval of God. After all, if God did not want it to happen, then it would not happen because God knows everything and can do anything. God can't "not know" something is occurring or God is not all knowing. If God doesn't want something to happen, then it can't, or God is not all powerful. So, every thought and action one takes, every action and reaction, every disaster and atrocity is a direct result of what God wants. We also can not trust God to keep His word, because he claims to be a benevolent, loving, father-like God, but His actions show otherwise. He will burn one in a lake of fire forever for disobeying Him. He allows children, the innocent and vulnerable, to be tortured, raped, and murdered even as they pray for help. He ignores their cries for help and mercy. What kind of benevolent, loving, father does such things? One can not trust one's own thoughts because God can determine what one's thoughts are. One can not trust that for every action there is a reaction because God can simply will the reaction not to occur. One can not trust the sun to rise in the East, things to fall to the ground, or pigs not to fly because all God has to do is will it so and it will happen.
If creationism is correct, then one can not trust one's own thought, feelings, or experiences. If
It is not about a site. It is about an actual book. Rowling had no problem with the site. It was when he took verbatim parts of the books and compiled them into a book he wanted to publish without adding any new content that Rowling took exception.
There are other books that Rowling has no problem with because those books have original content and don't just repackage her content for someone else's profit.
You kind of gloss over the fact that he "created" his lexicon by taking Rowling's words from Rowling's books and putting them in his book and saying it was original work.
There are other similar books out there and the authors are not being sued because the authors actually contributed something and didn't just copy the work of someone else.
As part of the case, Rowling sat on the stand and read from the Lexicon and from the books. It was demonstrated in court how much was original and how much was copied.
No, actually. There are other similar products that have not been sued. The problem with the Harry Potter lexicon is that the person basically copied things directly from the books with no additional content.
Reasonableness does not enter into the discussion. They are not required to provide other people with a license to make and sell copies of works to which they hold the copyright.
You may as well say demanding a unicorn in payment for a house you don't want to sell is unreasonable however, by demanding an exorbitant price for something one does not wish to sell, one is unlikely to get a buyer.
any attempt to build a digital music site that sells music copyrighted by a major, and many minor, record labels is doomed from the outset.
Not only can a band sell it's music online but a company can make contracts with independent bands to sell said band's music online.
The very concept that I have to get permission from some organization that doesn't actually produce the product, in order to sell that product, is absurd.
The "organization" you refer to pays the person or group that "actually produce the product" to produce said product for the "organization" as a "work for hire". Therefore, you find the idea of "work created for hire" to be absurd. Perhaps you would prefer a world where "work created for hire" did not exist. Let us take a look at that world.
If one had professional portraits taken, one could not make copies to give away.
If one had someone write a resume, one could not make copies of that resume.
If one had someone write a program module, one could not include said module in code without the author's expressed written permission.
If one had a mural done in one's home, one could not take pictures of said mural for an ad when one sold the home.
If one got a tattoo, could not take pictures of said tattoos and send it to a friend because the tattoo is a "work created for hire".
Most programming job would cease to exist overnight because those jobs create "work for hire" copyrighted products, even if they are just used in-house. When I write a script at work, the copyright belongs to the company because it is "work created for hire". Otherwise, if my employer wanted to use the script on another server for whatever reason, I could demand more money, even if I didn't work for the company anymore.
Many independent design and programming companies would cease to exist because many websites, programs, brochures, logos, etc are "work created for hire".
You have a very limited understanding of how copyright law works.
Your contention fails because there is a fundamental difference between the two activities: one is not making a copy of a book when one checks out a book from the library.
The fundamental differences between libraries, illegal file copying/trading, and online music vendors is that there is a single copy in play in the library, no copies are sold and no copies are produced. The basic tenet of copyright is that the copyright owner holds an exclusive right to make copies. The production of copies, whether for sale or not or for profit or not, is solely the right of the copyright holder and said right can be licensed to anyone under whatever terms the copyright holder demands.
Re:If EA is reading this
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, ok. What about disposable cell phones? And, how much data is that going to be? And, how are you going to store it? And, how long are you going to keep that data?
I work for a cellular intercarrier company. On one system, we support some subscribers for some carriers. Yesterday in the text log on that system, there were 113,525,640 transactions recorded. Each transaction is one line. It took almost 20 minutes to run "gzcat logfile*20080908.gz|wc -l" on that data. And, that is only a minority of subscribers on some carriers.
Imagine the data for all subscribers on all systems for all the time. After a week, the amount of data would be daunting to sort through.
. When you find one person who was in the same place as the reporter for a half hour the day before the story broke, chances are you've identified the whistleblower to retaliate against.
Yeah. Unless that one person is supposed to be in the same place as that reporter. You know, press conferences, etc. What if more than one person's path crosses that reporter? What if the paths cross at a popular bar or restaurant? What if their paths cross just long enough to pass off a package, or file? What if no one's path crosses the reporter's path because they are using a dead drop? Or even just using FedEx? What if they are using disposable cell phones? No crossing paths. What if they decide to meet at night and one leaves his cell phone at home? No crossing paths.
That is not how I meant that, so let me clarify for you.
Chances are the NSA does not care about you and what you are doing because you are completely uninteresting. They are not snooping on you, tracking you, or anything else. They are not invading your rights. They are too busy with real dangers to the United States to bother with the likes of you or me.
I just thought of even more overhead. Assuming everything in my previous post is overcome, the government still has to process that 14PB of data. If you don't think it would need to be processed, imagine finding a website about something you just heard about on the web without using a search engine or asking someone where to find information.
Using the numbers in the GPP, the government would capture 33,556,957 hours of voice data a day which will have to be transcribed and indexed and loaded into some sort of search engine. The data would have to be indexed by telephone number, subscriber, and key words. And, both the transcribing and indexing would have to be checked for quality control, which means someone listening to each conversation while checking the transcription and indexing results.
Storing the data is not an issue. Gathering and interpreting the data is both financially and technically infeasible.
That has to be one of the stupider comments I have read. The only time one needs to worry about one's privacy is when someone else cares what one is doing. Even then, one only has to worry when the other person's interest exceeds the difficulty of gathering the data.
If you feel you have to be an amateur cryptographer to have some privacy, you are either paranoid, delusional, or a megalomaniac. Your privacy is in much more danger from your parents, husband/wife, boy/girlfriend, next door neighbor, etc than from the government because unless you are a major criminal, the government just don't care.
High speed data connections to every data center of every cell phone service provider. We are talking OC3s at a minimum. Paying the network admins, sysadmins, production support analysts, managers, accountants, and executives of every company, even after they leave the company and/or industry. Oh, and some of those people will have to falsify financial reports, SOX compliance, etc. which can get them sent to jail, so it won't be cheap.
Everyone always forgets that the difficulty of keeping a secret increases exponentially by the number of people keeping the secret.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the Earth First, ELF, PETA, and ALF videos.
And the so-called anarchists videos.
And I am sure you are idiot who is just talking out of his ass. Does he advocate violence or the violent overthrow of the government? Does advocate blowing up checkpoints and/or shooting the officers at the location? I didn't think so, so he is not an extremist.
He is, however, an dumbass who doesn't know the law or that the checkpoints have been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. So, the government might rightly consider him a whacko, I seriously doubt they would consider him an extremist unless he were advocating violence.
Have you priced disk arrays lately?
OMG! John McCain is on /.!
I did not say the line of inquiry was bullshit. I said your post was bullshit, and it is. It makes unsupported claims and offers no proof or evidence.
Big difference.
Prove that that statement or admit you pulled it out of your ass.
Now, what for me is the fun part. I can prove that if creationism is true, one can not trust one's own thoughts, nor can one trust in causality or anything else.
By definition, God is all knowing and all powerful.
Anything that happens has, at the very least, the tacit approval of God. After all, if God did not want it to happen, then it would not happen because God knows everything and can do anything. God can't "not know" something is occurring or God is not all knowing. If God doesn't want something to happen, then it can't, or God is not all powerful. So, every thought and action one takes, every action and reaction, every disaster and atrocity is a direct result of what God wants.
We also can not trust God to keep His word, because he claims to be a benevolent, loving, father-like God, but His actions show otherwise. He will burn one in a lake of fire forever for disobeying Him. He allows children, the innocent and vulnerable, to be tortured, raped, and murdered even as they pray for help. He ignores their cries for help and mercy. What kind of benevolent, loving, father does such things?
One can not trust one's own thoughts because God can determine what one's thoughts are.
One can not trust that for every action there is a reaction because God can simply will the reaction not to occur.
One can not trust the sun to rise in the East, things to fall to the ground, or pigs not to fly because all God has to do is will it so and it will happen.
If creationism is correct, then one can not trust one's own thought, feelings, or experiences.
If
Religion is obsolete because it is foolish and encourages ignorance and delusional behavior.
Please describe in detail the particulars of your study.
Please demonstrate that such a force has any effect on the development of the brain and, more importantly, the development of personality.
Your post is just a bunch of bullshit.
It is not about a site. It is about an actual book. Rowling had no problem with the site. It was when he took verbatim parts of the books and compiled them into a book he wanted to publish without adding any new content that Rowling took exception.
There are other books that Rowling has no problem with because those books have original content and don't just repackage her content for someone else's profit.
So, in other words your book is completely different from the book in question.
So, in other words, your publisher didn't understand the decision and you are blaming the decision instead of your publisher.
You kind of gloss over the fact that he "created" his lexicon by taking Rowling's words from Rowling's books and putting them in his book and saying it was original work.
There are other similar books out there and the authors are not being sued because the authors actually contributed something and didn't just copy the work of someone else.
As part of the case, Rowling sat on the stand and read from the Lexicon and from the books. It was demonstrated in court how much was original and how much was copied.
No, actually. There are other similar products that have not been sued. The problem with the Harry Potter lexicon is that the person basically copied things directly from the books with no additional content.
Please show a business model that the record industry can use to make money using MP3s and P2P.
Reasonableness does not enter into the discussion. They are not required to provide other people with a license to make and sell copies of works to which they hold the copyright.
You may as well say demanding a unicorn in payment for a house you don't want to sell is unreasonable however, by demanding an exorbitant price for something one does not wish to sell, one is unlikely to get a buyer.
Even that is not correct.
Not only can a band sell it's music online but a company can make contracts with independent bands to sell said band's music online.
The "organization" you refer to pays the person or group that "actually produce the product" to produce said product for the "organization" as a "work for hire". Therefore, you find the idea of "work created for hire" to be absurd.
Perhaps you would prefer a world where "work created for hire" did not exist. Let us take a look at that world.
You have a very limited understanding of how copyright law works.
Your contention fails because there is a fundamental difference between the two activities: one is not making a copy of a book when one checks out a book from the library.
The fundamental differences between libraries, illegal file copying/trading, and online music vendors is that there is a single copy in play in the library, no copies are sold and no copies are produced. The basic tenet of copyright is that the copyright owner holds an exclusive right to make copies. The production of copies, whether for sale or not or for profit or not, is solely the right of the copyright holder and said right can be licensed to anyone under whatever terms the copyright holder demands.
Here is a neat idea: Don't play the game at all.
Yeah, ok. What about disposable cell phones? And, how much data is that going to be? And, how are you going to store it? And, how long are you going to keep that data?
I work for a cellular intercarrier company. On one system, we support some subscribers for some carriers. Yesterday in the text log on that system, there were 113,525,640 transactions recorded. Each transaction is one line. It took almost 20 minutes to run "gzcat logfile*20080908.gz|wc -l" on that data. And, that is only a minority of subscribers on some carriers.
Imagine the data for all subscribers on all systems for all the time. After a week, the amount of data would be daunting to sort through.
Yeah. Unless that one person is supposed to be in the same place as that reporter. You know, press conferences, etc.
What if more than one person's path crosses that reporter?
What if the paths cross at a popular bar or restaurant?
What if their paths cross just long enough to pass off a package, or file?
What if no one's path crosses the reporter's path because they are using a dead drop? Or even just using FedEx?
What if they are using disposable cell phones? No crossing paths.
What if they decide to meet at night and one leaves his cell phone at home? No crossing paths.
You supposition is, at best, naive.
That is not how I meant that, so let me clarify for you.
Chances are the NSA does not care about you and what you are doing because you are completely uninteresting. They are not snooping on you, tracking you, or anything else. They are not invading your rights. They are too busy with real dangers to the United States to bother with the likes of you or me.
I just thought of even more overhead. Assuming everything in my previous post is overcome, the government still has to process that 14PB of data. If you don't think it would need to be processed, imagine finding a website about something you just heard about on the web without using a search engine or asking someone where to find information.
Using the numbers in the GPP, the government would capture 33,556,957 hours of voice data a day which will have to be transcribed and indexed and loaded into some sort of search engine. The data would have to be indexed by telephone number, subscriber, and key words. And, both the transcribing and indexing would have to be checked for quality control, which means someone listening to each conversation while checking the transcription and indexing results.
Storing the data is not an issue. Gathering and interpreting the data is both financially and technically infeasible.
Chances are, the NSA doesn't care about you either.
That has to be one of the stupider comments I have read. The only time one needs to worry about one's privacy is when someone else cares what one is doing. Even then, one only has to worry when the other person's interest exceeds the difficulty of gathering the data.
If you feel you have to be an amateur cryptographer to have some privacy, you are either paranoid, delusional, or a megalomaniac. Your privacy is in much more danger from your parents, husband/wife, boy/girlfriend, next door neighbor, etc than from the government because unless you are a major criminal, the government just don't care.
Yes, let us look at that overhead.
High speed data connections to every data center of every cell phone service provider. We are talking OC3s at a minimum.
Paying the network admins, sysadmins, production support analysts, managers, accountants, and executives of every company, even after they leave the company and/or industry. Oh, and some of those people will have to falsify financial reports, SOX compliance, etc. which can get them sent to jail, so it won't be cheap.
Everyone always forgets that the difficulty of keeping a secret increases exponentially by the number of people keeping the secret.
Why is this kind of non-news blogspam being allowed on /.?
"Well, they could do it...." is only acceptable when there is some evidence that "they" are actually doing it.
After all, the author of the blog post could be a child rapists and murder, but there is no evidence he actual is.