A large portion of them are in fact funded by the government. Most raw research is done with at least some if not a majority of government funding. No raw research doesn't produce direct results but it lays the ground work.
Of course we can just cut it now and wonder why we keep on sliding down the international food chain.
Anonymous is a collection of individuals who like to post things anonymously (or at least so they think) and make claims. Anonymous is a group of people who like to use bandwagon rhetoric to claim greater support for their ideas than actually exists. Anonymous is largely annoying, fairly mundane and mostly boring.
Uhm no my logic does not in fact follow that there is no group called "Anonymous."
No. Everyone is not a member of anonymous, please let some air out of the over-inflated ego. By claiming everyone is a member you are also claiming that everyone on some level agrees with you. It is an old rhetorical trick.
No I won't think about the ending sequence as I have not seen that movie nor do I particularly feel any need to see it.
Yes it is. You may even be able to see proof from Scottland yard in the somewhat near future.
Also it is an informed opinion given on a website forum and not a scientific hypothesis in an academic setting; so there are different standards of rigor.
The thing is Anonymous isn't as random as they like to claim. It is basically a group of more or less the same individuals, a large pool if you will. Dis-organised, or unorganized if you prefer, but defiantly not random. It is basically an internet based multi-national political party by another name.
Much of the "You don't understand us. We are x, y and z." stuff is just tiresome hype.
I'd like to clarify, and well alter my previous statement.
I DO agree that copyright in its basic form is a boon to scientists and artists.
However, I also have serious objections to the current form it takes and the manner and methods of its enforcement.
Furthermore, I don't think that copyright is the only way to ensure scientists and artists benefit from there work, or that any such way is strictly necessary for a free and just society.
Copyright is a means to an end. It is not a natural right, if any such exist, but instead is a derived solution from the needs of society. It may not be, and probably isn't the only solution for those needs.
Indeed this is very true. Most people adamantly in favor of current copyright tend to talk about them as natural rights never seeing that they are derived.
I think the real problem is poor enforcement of current rules and the over-extension of copyright to 70 years after author's death.
The law right now isn't enforced to protect the consumer side only the owner side of the copyright equation. There should be stiff penalties for sending false DMCA notices but there never are.
Slashdot Mirror
No just rich.
Being in the right helps and sometimes it even wins against any amount of money, but short of those situations rich always wins, at least in the US.
We have the best legal system money has bought.
Aye well many Americans claim the US prison system isn't hard enough on the inmates.
No our prison system is indeed violent and racist to what can be categorized as an astonishing degree.
Our prisons are violent relative to others in first world nations with more reported incidents per capita.
Our prisons do indeed have gangs split on racial lines and are havens to a certain extent for racism.
I thought that depended on the country?
A large portion of them are in fact funded by the government. Most raw research is done with at least some if not a majority of government funding. No raw research doesn't produce direct results but it lays the ground work.
Of course we can just cut it now and wonder why we keep on sliding down the international food chain.
Don't forget extending unpaid tax cuts!
We don't have to raise taxes! Just cut out things the rich don't need like the American public.
Eh there are a lot of damn good movies.
I just have others on my list.
I wonder why can't you create an OS where only part of it boots up for websurfing like Chrome OS and you can fire up more to get more features?
No I am not.
Anonymous is a collection of individuals who like to post things anonymously (or at least so they think) and make claims.
Anonymous is a group of people who like to use bandwagon rhetoric to claim greater support for their ideas than actually exists.
Anonymous is largely annoying, fairly mundane and mostly boring.
See I can do it too.
Uhm no my logic does not in fact follow that there is no group called "Anonymous."
No. Everyone is not a member of anonymous, please let some air out of the over-inflated ego. By claiming everyone is a member you are also claiming that everyone on some level agrees with you. It is an old rhetorical trick.
No I won't think about the ending sequence as I have not seen that movie nor do I particularly feel any need to see it.
Yes it is. You may even be able to see proof from Scottland yard in the somewhat near future.
Also it is an informed opinion given on a website forum and not a scientific hypothesis in an academic setting; so there are different standards of rigor.
Please just because you use the title "anonymous" doesn't automatically connect you to any and all other anonymous political efforts.
Oh there is a top. It isn't a specified, well defined top but there are the big fish and the little fish in Anon just like anyone else.
No I'm not a member, and not part of the group, but if Anon is what it says it is should that matter?
aye. Press release done in MS WORD without even bothering to scrub it of basic metadata, anyone?
The thing is Anonymous isn't as random as they like to claim. It is basically a group of more or less the same individuals, a large pool if you will. Dis-organised, or unorganized if you prefer, but defiantly not random. It is basically an internet based multi-national political party by another name.
Much of the "You don't understand us. We are x, y and z." stuff is just tiresome hype.
Begin what?
They'll be just as corrupt when they reach high office.
No but they are very questionably correct.
That's not second amendment.
The second amendment lets you keep and bear arms, own and carry; it says nothing about having a right to use them on anything or anybody.
Ok.
I'd like to clarify, and well alter my previous statement.
I DO agree that copyright in its basic form is a boon to scientists and artists.
However, I also have serious objections to the current form it takes and the manner and methods of its enforcement.
Furthermore, I don't think that copyright is the only way to ensure scientists and artists benefit from there work, or that any such way is strictly necessary for a free and just society.
Copyright is a means to an end. It is not a natural right, if any such exist, but instead is a derived solution from the needs of society. It may not be, and probably isn't the only solution for those needs.
So? Didn't the candybar company pay similar costs when it first came up with the delicious confection? What about those costs of development?
There is a difference, just look at the difference in legal charges and penalties.
One crime is theft the other is copyright infringement.
One is a criminal case and one is a civil case.
They are NOT the same just because you equate them.
Indeed this is very true. Most people adamantly in favor of current copyright tend to talk about them as natural rights never seeing that they are derived.
I think the real problem is poor enforcement of current rules and the over-extension of copyright to 70 years after author's death.
The law right now isn't enforced to protect the consumer side only the owner side of the copyright equation. There should be stiff penalties for sending false DMCA notices but there never are.
No they do not refer to the same concept.
Democracy is rule by the people.
Republic is rule by a select portion of the people.
Exactly! Just like slavery and segregation!