He is saying they wouldn't be able to charge in the absence of such subtitles... Subtitles are required to sell movies in places that do not have English as their main language.
Thank you for helping with my case. Accordingly to the very definition you quoted it is obvious copyright infringement is not theft. You can't "take" the intellectual property of anyone (unless you are the government). Now you can apologize for being wrong and stubborn and leave us alone.
Then you are an idiot. Copyright infringement may be illegal, but it is not "stealing" by any remotely logic definition of the word, and it certainly is not stealing by the legal definition of the term in any country in this world.
Legal it is obviously not. Moral is another story. It is your prerogative to think copyright infringement is immoral, but it is an absurd idea all the same.
In your head only. There is nothing even remotely associated to murder here. He has every legal right to walk away from his car and to defend himself if his life was threatened, even if he knew for sure that his life would be threatened beforehand. "Choosing to escalate" is not a crime, and much less the equivalent to murder.
Amazing that you apply that to Zimmerman but not to Martin. Also, I'm pretty willing to bet that if Zimmerman had been chasing a teenage girl around that way instead of a boy and had been arrested, you'd be calling him a moron rather than defending him.
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
In the end accordingly to the law it is irrelevant what Martin thought, even if he thought Zimmerman was going to pull a gun and attack him (which he should have taken as a clue to run away), if Zimmerman didn't really pull the gun first, legally he didn't initiate anything and was within his rights to defend himself when he was attacked.
Oh, and you can rest assured a teenage girl wouldn't try to beat a guy to death and therefore wouldn't ever create a similar situation of self-defense, but if one pulled a gun and got shot as consequence I wouldn't be defending her.
No it is not. He had the legal right to ignore the 911 operator and get out of his vehicle. Even if it may be considered a stupid move it was still within his rights.
If someone has a gun and you don't, attacking him is the last thing you will do, unless you are corned and cannot run away. Unless Zimmerman actually pulled his gun at Martin and put him in a situation where he couldn't possibly escape, or escape were unlikely, before firing at him, Martin had no logical reason to attack him if he knew he had a gun. More likely than not Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was unaware he had a gun and if Zimmerman didn't had a gun he could easily be the one dead or at least severely injured.
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
Those people will keep doing what they did before and whatever happens in Google news is of little difference for them. On the other hand the people who used Google News and which are the target of this maneuver won't likely abandon Google News for the other news sites, as they think it will happen.
When the "plan" is a social conduct classified as goodly and just by God himself, that is imposed upon men so they can go to paradise I damn expect it not to change, at least drastically, unless it is perceived that it is not working. By definition an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot be wrong, though. That is just one of the countless paradoxes of omnipotence.
And please your geometric analogies are ridiculous. I suggest you refrain from using them in the future.
"Low entropy" counts as evidence for absolutely anything of the sorts, whatever "low" may mean for you. "Entropy" is merely an abstract concept created by humans to measure the difference in relative states of a system, much like energy. It has only meaning when comparing two or more states. So "Low entropy" is a meaningless expression, "low" compared to what? To the theoretical thermodynamic death of the universe which we don't even know if will come? And even if it comes what does it prove? Maybe that the universe is a dynamic system and that its current state allows life to exist, but that does not in any why implies the existence of a supernatural entity that placed the universe in such state.
Truth is you don't have even the most remotely clue about what is "entropy" and even less clue about probabilistic analysis. Still you feel in the right of spilling nonsense about something you don't know in the hopes of convincing people who know better than you that your invisible unicorn exists.
Regarding your second paragraph. There is absolutely no proof that things need to be created to exist. Actually there is a lack of evidence which points into the opposite direction. Nobody has ever observed anything being created in our universe. So if you have never seen something being created why the hell should you presume that things need to be created to exist?
Then in his omniscience and omnipotence, God decided his previous ideas were wrong and decided to change his approach from maniac genocidal to hippie (at least until the Inquisition). Interesting...
Pseudo-physics is not exactly a good basis for any argument, at least not among educated people. Although you would be probably successful in a convention of ignorant creationists, you will find little sympathy here.
There is absolutely no relation between thermodynamics laws and the need of an external entity. There is no guarantee that the universe is eternal and not even that it had a beginning, but even if any of these concepts could be proved it wouldn't still imply in the existence of any external factor.
Your limited understanding of physics makes you jump into conclusions that just aren't there. The Anthropic Principle, for example has absolutely no implication regarding the existence of a God.
Oh, and citing Spitzer as a valuable reference is a joke. Spitzer has written nothing of value in his whole career. He is just a mediocre philosopher who naively tries to interpret complex physical theories of which he has absolutely no understanding with the predictable result of reaching absurd conclusions, much like you did here. It is no surprise you like him so much.
No private entity should have police power. Giving police power to a private entity is actually a good sign that a regimen has dived into authoritarianism.
You do it yourself when you choose your career. Schools are not there to specialize you. Everything you learn in basic and high school is very general and superficial. It is there to allow you to understand the world and your choices better.before you choose what you are going to devote yourself to.
Math can be from very basic and easy to grasp in the beginning to something the best minds in our world struggle to understand and fail most of the time at its vanguard. Therefore, yes, math can be very hard.
Everything in the face of the planet stands in a "grey area". In today's complex law system there is no person or entity that is totally innocent. Truth is your government, whichever it may be, can put you in jail for something already. It just needs to want to do it badly enough to take the trouble.
If you want to make a point use the right words. Semantics are not optional and much less irrelevant. If you are not even able to be precise in your arguments you should and will be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
He is saying they wouldn't be able to charge in the absence of such subtitles... Subtitles are required to sell movies in places that do not have English as their main language.
Thank you for helping with my case. Accordingly to the very definition you quoted it is obvious copyright infringement is not theft. You can't "take" the intellectual property of anyone (unless you are the government). Now you can apologize for being wrong and stubborn and leave us alone.
Then you are an idiot. Copyright infringement may be illegal, but it is not "stealing" by any remotely logic definition of the word, and it certainly is not stealing by the legal definition of the term in any country in this world.
Legal it is obviously not. Moral is another story. It is your prerogative to think copyright infringement is immoral, but it is an absurd idea all the same.
In your head only. There is nothing even remotely associated to murder here. He has every legal right to walk away from his car and to defend himself if his life was threatened, even if he knew for sure that his life would be threatened beforehand. "Choosing to escalate" is not a crime, and much less the equivalent to murder.
Amazing that you apply that to Zimmerman but not to Martin. Also, I'm pretty willing to bet that if Zimmerman had been chasing a teenage girl around that way instead of a boy and had been arrested, you'd be calling him a moron rather than defending him.
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
In the end accordingly to the law it is irrelevant what Martin thought, even if he thought Zimmerman was going to pull a gun and attack him (which he should have taken as a clue to run away), if Zimmerman didn't really pull the gun first, legally he didn't initiate anything and was within his rights to defend himself when he was attacked.
Oh, and you can rest assured a teenage girl wouldn't try to beat a guy to death and therefore wouldn't ever create a similar situation of self-defense, but if one pulled a gun and got shot as consequence I wouldn't be defending her.
No it is not. He had the legal right to ignore the 911 operator and get out of his vehicle. Even if it may be considered a stupid move it was still within his rights.
If someone has a gun and you don't, attacking him is the last thing you will do, unless you are corned and cannot run away. Unless Zimmerman actually pulled his gun at Martin and put him in a situation where he couldn't possibly escape, or escape were unlikely, before firing at him, Martin had no logical reason to attack him if he knew he had a gun. More likely than not Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was unaware he had a gun and if Zimmerman didn't had a gun he could easily be the one dead or at least severely injured.
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
On the contrary. It is not meaningless. It means that you love to say catch phrases and have little content to add to any discussion.
Which means that the term, as any term that is so widely defined, means absolutely nothing.
Most likely.
Then there is absolutely no motive for the News agencies to boycott it, it being so insignificant and all.
Yes there were a few games designed for Windows 3.1, but they were very few and even most of those got new versions done for win9x, like Myst.
Those people will keep doing what they did before and whatever happens in Google news is of little difference for them. On the other hand the people who used Google News and which are the target of this maneuver won't likely abandon Google News for the other news sites, as they think it will happen.
When the "plan" is a social conduct classified as goodly and just by God himself, that is imposed upon men so they can go to paradise I damn expect it not to change, at least drastically, unless it is perceived that it is not working. By definition an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot be wrong, though. That is just one of the countless paradoxes of omnipotence.
And please your geometric analogies are ridiculous. I suggest you refrain from using them in the future.
"Low entropy" counts as evidence for absolutely anything of the sorts, whatever "low" may mean for you. "Entropy" is merely an abstract concept created by humans to measure the difference in relative states of a system, much like energy. It has only meaning when comparing two or more states. So "Low entropy" is a meaningless expression, "low" compared to what? To the theoretical thermodynamic death of the universe which we don't even know if will come? And even if it comes what does it prove? Maybe that the universe is a dynamic system and that its current state allows life to exist, but that does not in any why implies the existence of a supernatural entity that placed the universe in such state.
Truth is you don't have even the most remotely clue about what is "entropy" and even less clue about probabilistic analysis. Still you feel in the right of spilling nonsense about something you don't know in the hopes of convincing people who know better than you that your invisible unicorn exists.
Regarding your second paragraph. There is absolutely no proof that things need to be created to exist. Actually there is a lack of evidence which points into the opposite direction. Nobody has ever observed anything being created in our universe. So if you have never seen something being created why the hell should you presume that things need to be created to exist?
Then in his omniscience and omnipotence, God decided his previous ideas were wrong and decided to change his approach from maniac genocidal to hippie (at least until the Inquisition). Interesting...
Pseudo-physics is not exactly a good basis for any argument, at least not among educated people. Although you would be probably successful in a convention of ignorant creationists, you will find little sympathy here.
There is absolutely no relation between thermodynamics laws and the need of an external entity. There is no guarantee that the universe is eternal and not even that it had a beginning, but even if any of these concepts could be proved it wouldn't still imply in the existence of any external factor.
Your limited understanding of physics makes you jump into conclusions that just aren't there. The Anthropic Principle, for example has absolutely no implication regarding the existence of a God.
Oh, and citing Spitzer as a valuable reference is a joke. Spitzer has written nothing of value in his whole career. He is just a mediocre philosopher who naively tries to interpret complex physical theories of which he has absolutely no understanding with the predictable result of reaching absurd conclusions, much like you did here. It is no surprise you like him so much.
As all traffic is encrypted I doubt most of them know they are hosting piratebay servers.
No private entity should have police power. Giving police power to a private entity is actually a good sign that a regimen has dived into authoritarianism.
You do it yourself when you choose your career. Schools are not there to specialize you. Everything you learn in basic and high school is very general and superficial. It is there to allow you to understand the world and your choices better.before you choose what you are going to devote yourself to.
Math can be from very basic and easy to grasp in the beginning to something the best minds in our world struggle to understand and fail most of the time at its vanguard. Therefore, yes, math can be very hard.
Everything in the face of the planet stands in a "grey area". In today's complex law system there is no person or entity that is totally innocent. Truth is your government, whichever it may be, can put you in jail for something already. It just needs to want to do it badly enough to take the trouble.
If you want to make a point use the right words. Semantics are not optional and much less irrelevant. If you are not even able to be precise in your arguments you should and will be ignored.
Good for you. It is a healthy position to have nowadays, but it has very little to do with the subject of my post.