The places were most people like living are at or near sea level. That is why there are so many sunken civilizations.
If the water level was 15 meters higher, guess where people would like to live. I will give you a hint as to how to find out: Figure out what land will be at or near sea level.
I have watched them tear up republican campaign signs. I have listened to them talk about things they can do, such as making fake campaign calls.
No, you fucking idiot, my posts on slashdot are being modded down by young assholes who don't like it when I point out the holes in their arguments and statements and ask for proof of what they say. They are probably not at my local university. Maybe you should learn to read, or is it that you are trying to twist my words?
The OP is correct in general. I can't count the number of young liberals I've know who have grown up to be moderates or conservatives. It is really amazing how quickly their minds change when it is they get out into the real world and it is their livelihoods, lives, families, and money on the line.
I live next to a major university and am a part of slashdot. I see plenty of young people who believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments.
You were marked +5 informative by a group most whose members advocate violating copyright when it suits them and their wants. There are plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable comments that are modded into oblivion because said comments defend copyright law by showing where +5 comments are misstating the facts and law. Perhaps you should meditate on that.
Then stop playing the game by stop violating copyright and not buying copyrighted works or seeing copyrighted shows.
A copyright lawsuit is a tort and many lawyers will sue for a portion of the award.
Please stop your "there are two sets of rules" whining. There is one set of rules, you just don't like the rules or want to play by them and feel sorry for the people who play the game and get caught breaking the rules.
She distributed the material which is a) still against the law. And, you may not consider "1.5M for a couple of Brittney songs" bullshit, but the jury did not. What makes your singular opinion greater than the group opinion of the jury? Are you so arrogant that you believe your uninformed opinion is worth more than that of 8 informed men and women?
Yes, you are not a lawyer and you have not bothered to read the law in question. Go read the law and see what it actually says. And, it does not matter that the printed 10,000 magazines. What matters is how many were distributed, i.e. sold to customers.
You really should educate yourself on a topic before you start spouting off on it.
Plenty of ways to monetize content? Really? Please list them along with the average income generated by each. Don't forget to link to your sources. Remember, the money made must be enough to generate a large enough profit to allow the content producers to live a decent life. You know, a place to live, food for themselves and their families
Why charge for your work when you can make money working for free?
No, that is how you see that "rules" becuase you don't know how to play the game. Instead of learning to play the game, you whine about how unfair it all is.
The author of the article in question could and should sue the publisher of the magazine, as is her right and her responsibility if she wishes to enforce her copyright. You know, just like the **AA does.
The fact that the "little guy" either doesn't bother to learnor doesn't want to play by the rules doesn't make the rules unfair.
It is funny, you are justifying violating the copyright of the "big guys" by pointing to the legal action brought by the big guys over other people violating the copyrights of the big guys. Do you see the problem with that? The big guys would not be able to sue anyone if people were not violating copyright to being with.
Ah, so it is OK for you to violate someone else's copyright as long as you don't do it for commercial use. Do you expect people to make content for you and everyone else for free? Would you spend millions of dollars to make a movie just to lose all that money?
But, the battle cry of the so-called "file sharers", who are in fact copyright infringers just like the magazine in question, is just "information wants to be free".
So, if copyright applies in this case, why doesn't it apply to movies and music being "shared" on the internet?
The magazine didn't sue Thomas, so waht is your point? In fact, the magazine in question has done pretty much the same thing as Thomas, so why aren't you defending the magazine with the same zeal as you defend Thomas?
I disagree. Those things exist because "we" are using HTTP to do things for which it should not be used. "We" have a hammer and we would rather treat everything as a nail rather than get a screwdriver.
Almost every framework for web-based development has session support that largely relies on cookies.
This is why one should not use a connectionless protocol like HTTP for something that requires a connection.
Give me something more secure that works as easily and I will be using it right away.
Are you a developer? If so, maybe you should get on that. I understand there lots of tools for creating encrypted TCP connections. You might want to start there.
On Wikipedia, the person or people who determine what is valid is the one who has the most time and is most invested in the content of the article, regardless of cold, hard logic.
Your analogy fails to support your contention because it actually describes how Wikipedia operates: Anyone can make edits, but the edits will only stay if the support the opinion of the Wikipedia cliques and admins.
There are always multiple possibilities, but most, if not all, of those possibilities are not equally valid.
What I often see on Wikipedia is someone becoming emotionally invested in the contents of an article and refusing to allow edits that contradict his personal opinion. It does not matter if the contradictory information has valid citations or is even accepted truth. If it goes against the guard dog's opinions, then they pounce.
All valid views? Who determines what is valid? Which view is more valid? The truth is not relative and the idea that there is more than one valid view implies that what is true depends on what one's view is. Two diametrically opposed views can not both be true.
Because the Wikipedia article can be changed. You would trust Wikipedia over NBC, but would you trust it over a peer reviewed science journal? The whole point of my comment was that main stream media should not be using Wikipedia as a primary source. Sure, they can go to Wikipedia as a starting point, but they should then go to the material sited in the Wikipedia article as well as other more trustworthy sources and site THOSE.
Hey, if the news media can cite Wikipedia as a reliable source of information all the time
Just because a dying profession uses Wikipedia in a way that is irresponsible, it does not validate Wikipedia as a primary source of information. So, I hope your post is sarcasm.
It may be that Sweden does not tell others why people have been denied residence for matters of privacy. Perhaps Assange should ask and then tell the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The places were most people like living are at or near sea level. That is why there are so many sunken civilizations.
If the water level was 15 meters higher, guess where people would like to live. I will give you a hint as to how to find out: Figure out what land will be at or near sea level.
I have watched them tear up republican campaign signs. I have listened to them talk about things they can do, such as making fake campaign calls.
No, you fucking idiot, my posts on slashdot are being modded down by young assholes who don't like it when I point out the holes in their arguments and statements and ask for proof of what they say. They are probably not at my local university. Maybe you should learn to read, or is it that you are trying to twist my words?
The OP is correct in general. I can't count the number of young liberals I've know who have grown up to be moderates or conservatives. It is really amazing how quickly their minds change when it is they get out into the real world and it is their livelihoods, lives, families, and money on the line.
I live next to a major university and am a part of slashdot. I see plenty of young people who believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments.
I am a victim of them, just read my sig.
You were marked +5 informative by a group most whose members advocate violating copyright when it suits them and their wants. There are plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable comments that are modded into oblivion because said comments defend copyright law by showing where +5 comments are misstating the facts and law. Perhaps you should meditate on that.
Perhaps you should read your own posts in context and figure out what YOU are trying to say.
Then stop playing the game by stop violating copyright and not buying copyrighted works or seeing copyrighted shows.
A copyright lawsuit is a tort and many lawyers will sue for a portion of the award.
Please stop your "there are two sets of rules" whining. There is one set of rules, you just don't like the rules or want to play by them and feel sorry for the people who play the game and get caught breaking the rules.
She distributed the material which is a) still against the law. And, you may not consider "1.5M for a couple of Brittney songs" bullshit, but the jury did not. What makes your singular opinion greater than the group opinion of the jury? Are you so arrogant that you believe your uninformed opinion is worth more than that of 8 informed men and women?
Yes, you are not a lawyer and you have not bothered to read the law in question. Go read the law and see what it actually says. And, it does not matter that the printed 10,000 magazines. What matters is how many were distributed, i.e. sold to customers.
You really should educate yourself on a topic before you start spouting off on it.
You are missing the point. The OP is not responding to the original quote but rather to what the "file sharers" say.
Plenty of ways to monetize content? Really? Please list them along with the average income generated by each. Don't forget to link to your sources. Remember, the money made must be enough to generate a large enough profit to allow the content producers to live a decent life. You know, a place to live, food for themselves and their families
Why charge for your work when you can make money working for free?
No, that is how you see that "rules" becuase you don't know how to play the game. Instead of learning to play the game, you whine about how unfair it all is.
The author of the article in question could and should sue the publisher of the magazine, as is her right and her responsibility if she wishes to enforce her copyright. You know, just like the **AA does.
The fact that the "little guy" either doesn't bother to learnor doesn't want to play by the rules doesn't make the rules unfair.
It is funny, you are justifying violating the copyright of the "big guys" by pointing to the legal action brought by the big guys over other people violating the copyrights of the big guys. Do you see the problem with that? The big guys would not be able to sue anyone if people were not violating copyright to being with.
Ah, so it is OK for you to violate someone else's copyright as long as you don't do it for commercial use. Do you expect people to make content for you and everyone else for free? Would you spend millions of dollars to make a movie just to lose all that money?
But, the battle cry of the so-called "file sharers", who are in fact copyright infringers just like the magazine in question, is just "information wants to be free".
So, if copyright applies in this case, why doesn't it apply to movies and music being "shared" on the internet?
The magazine didn't sue Thomas, so waht is your point? In fact, the magazine in question has done pretty much the same thing as Thomas, so why aren't you defending the magazine with the same zeal as you defend Thomas?
I disagree. Those things exist because "we" are using HTTP to do things for which it should not be used. "We" have a hammer and we would rather treat everything as a nail rather than get a screwdriver.
This is why one should not use a connectionless protocol like HTTP for something that requires a connection.
Are you a developer? If so, maybe you should get on that. I understand there lots of tools for creating encrypted TCP connections. You might want to start there.
On Wikipedia, the person or people who determine what is valid is the one who has the most time and is most invested in the content of the article, regardless of cold, hard logic.
Your analogy fails to support your contention because it actually describes how Wikipedia operates: Anyone can make edits, but the edits will only stay if the support the opinion of the Wikipedia cliques and admins.
There are always multiple possibilities, but most, if not all, of those possibilities are not equally valid.
What I often see on Wikipedia is someone becoming emotionally invested in the contents of an article and refusing to allow edits that contradict his personal opinion. It does not matter if the contradictory information has valid citations or is even accepted truth. If it goes against the guard dog's opinions, then they pounce.
No, Wikipedia has cliques and admins.
Hmmm, that sounds a lot like the Wikipedia I have experienced.
All valid views? Who determines what is valid? Which view is more valid? The truth is not relative and the idea that there is more than one valid view implies that what is true depends on what one's view is. Two diametrically opposed views can not both be true.
Funny, but it sounds like the rest of the internet to me. It also sounds like every other clique-laden environment I have ever seen or heard of.
Because the Wikipedia article can be changed. You would trust Wikipedia over NBC, but would you trust it over a peer reviewed science journal? The whole point of my comment was that main stream media should not be using Wikipedia as a primary source. Sure, they can go to Wikipedia as a starting point, but they should then go to the material sited in the Wikipedia article as well as other more trustworthy sources and site THOSE.
No, mate, I am not a coward like so many on here.
Just because a dying profession uses Wikipedia in a way that is irresponsible, it does not validate Wikipedia as a primary source of information. So, I hope your post is sarcasm.
It may be that Sweden does not tell others why people have been denied residence for matters of privacy. Perhaps Assange should ask and then tell the world.
Nope, it is not. It is marketing.