All you need to know about the truth behind the clams becomes painfully obvious when one takes a brief tour through the revision history of that wiki article.
Man, talk about your revisionist history.
If common sense was indeed common, Scientology certainly wouldn't exist.
Google links to publicly accessible content hosted on publicly accessible websites, period.
AFP posts content to their publicly accessible website, and lo and behold it's linked to.
If AFP doesn't like the way they're doing business, then they should change it. I think they'd be hard pressed to be a successful news service though if they refused access to all of their news.
As has already been aluded to, this is so SCO it's not even funny. There is no case.
Now, even given that, maybe the best thing Google could do is abide by the AFP's request. Give them what they wish for. I probably won't even notice their stories disappearing from Google News, but I'm sure they'd notice their disappearing readership.
What I'm getting at is, have you ever signed an NDA at a previous job? If so, how could one legally sign away IP rights to all previous work done, when they don't even have the rights to the previous work they've done? Just signing the contract, it seems to me, would basically be breach of your previous contracts.
You need to decide what your life's been worth up to this point. I'd suggest that it'd better be an extremely well compensated and desirable job to be worth that, but nobody can make that decision but you.
That's giving up a heck of a lot. Laying claim to a persons entire life worth of thought.
I know that there is NO job or compensation package that could ever be put together that would allow me to make that decision.
My gut feeling on this is that this should be entirely illegal anyways. We live in a society dictated by capitalizm however, and thus one can sign away just about whatever they want for whatever price they want.
Again, think long and hard. A lawyer isn't going to help you with this part. Might be prudent if you decide it's worth it to you, but the underlying decision is a personal one that no lawyer can help with, nor should really.
I'm sorry, but if you sign a contract that states it'll cost $99 to cancel before a year is up, tough titty said the kitty...
Read your contracts people. If it's BS, don't sign it. Get your service elsewhere.
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
I have the right to a jury of my peers. Why can't I have a right to legislation by my peers as well?
You do. It's called voting.
You really think it would be in the best interest of your country to hand over international trade agreement negotiations to people that haven't been involved in politics for more than 4 years or so? It might not work out so bad if that's what every nation were doing, but that just isn't going to happen.
Personally, I'd rather we figure out how to build a society that has no place for politics. (Or lawyers for that matter)
Never suggested I expected anything from it. He got it for Christmas, and I happened to be there when he watched it for the first, and probably only time.
Besides, I don't really blame bad Jim Carey movies on Jim really, he is what he is. When he's put in the right role/movie, it works. The rest of the time...ick.
You have now stooped to directly accusing me of theft. (Not to mention name calling)
I honestly know, because it is a fact, that P2P can, and is, used for things other than piracy. I've never pirated ANYTHING using P2P, and yet I do occasionally use P2P, fuck you very much.
I do pay artists for their work, quite regularly actually. I purchase artistic works in many different formats from many different channels. I do use P2P on occasion. I have never used it illegally. I am thus quite insulted.
You spout a lot of hearsay, but no facts and sources. Based on that I am to accept that all of a sudden I am a criminal? Wow.
Kindly take a long walk off a short pier, you'd be doing all of society a big favor.
OK, to believe the words from the horses mouth, knowing that they should likely be taken with a grain of salt given who it is and what's being written, or to believe...who are you? What's you're credibility here?
I'm not sure what's being proclaimed as 'know all' anyways.
If you don't care, then don't. You obviously do care though. Given that I'd have to call you the bigger idiot here.
Fortunately however, it was so incredibly bad and so far off the mark that it made absolutely no impact on my impression of the real thing.
Sheesh, my nephew I watched it with whom was 10 felt the same way and never watched the remake again.
Re:This book is nothing but lies
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
At least there is some credibility to his statements given that there is actually a name behind them.
It also happens to be a name we know to belong to a human being, a human being that we know has flaws just like all of us.
Most people wouldn't be so anal as to take all of those anecdotal stories as cold hard fact, and would realize that any human reflecting back on a 20 some odd year carreer will probably get tonnes of details wrong, but would still not be lying.
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
There's never an answer that solves all of the problems. I can't imagine that only allowing someone to be in politics for a set number of years would help anything in the long run. Our politicians would always be green, learning the ropes. Think about it.
Politics is a career, and rightly so. It takes a politician to succeed in politics.
Besides, I'd rather keep all the politicians somewhere where I can see them;)
Re:Our Fearless Leaders at Work
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(1) Baseball is exempt from some anti-trust laws. For example, Major League Baseball (MLB) gets to decide how many teams there are and more importantly, where those teams are located. There are very densely populated parts of this country that have no chance in getting a baseball team because MLB says no. No one can override MLB's decision because MLB is free to run their shop and determine the economical competitiveness of their own decisions without worrying about someone else stepping in to compete. They are a congressionally protected monopoly.
What? You're on crack. MLB is a business entity. MLB does most certainly NOT control all of baseball. You are more than welcome to start up a competing league and put teams wherever the hell you choose.
For more info on this, I strongly encourage you to read up on the history of the MLB itself. There were at one time two professional leagues in North America.
How congress has anything to do with this I don't know...maybe if I had my tin foil hat on...
(2) Tax payer dollars have subsidized something like 1/2 of the current major league stadiums. Yes it can bring revenue into the area, but MLB and team owners are the ones to most benefit from these added tax dollars because it reduces the financial burden on team owners.
Your point being? Subsidization to entice business is part of business as usual my friend. Who cares if LA foots half the bill for the Dodgers. Don't like your tax dollars spent that way? Vote differently then or move somewhere where they don't spend tax dollars on this kind of subsidization.
MLB is big business. It looks like big business, acts like it, walks and talks like it...go figure, it's treated like it too.
Doesn't change the fact that as with any business, if there is no demand for it, it won't exist for long. Obviously some people like baseball.
Re:Not to mention Canseco is an idiot.
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
He's an idiot. He's rich and famous.
Is he an idiot? Seems to have gotten what he wants out of life.
You are talking about the morality involved in creating a tool that could be used for immoral uses. I was talking about the tool itself. There is an important difference here. A stone can be a tool. It could be used to hammer a nail into a piece of wood, or to bludgeon someone with. The tool here has no morality associated with it.
Now lets look at the gun briefly: It could easily be debated whether the creator of the first gun had just morals or not. Same with all users of guns since. However, since the gun does in fact now exist, is it's very existence immoral? Or is it just a tool to be used?
Lets make this sane again and bring it back around to the topic at hand: P2P exists, it is a tool. Can it really be legitimately argued that that tool itself should be illegal because it _can_ be used for illegal purposes?
Not to make things too grey, but to bring this really into reality, why are we even discussing the legality of P2P when Guns are legal? Guns have only one purpose: To kill. Morally, most would agree, this is wrong no matter what. Yet there it is. Guns are legal. On the other hand P2P has many many legitimate uses. P2P tools might not be legal for long.
Where to start...even though I shouldn't I know...
Do you know of a way to divorce the messages from the messenger? Especially a "messenger" explicitly designed to prevent any kind of seperation from the message.
The messages in question here have been around for one hell of a lot longer than the messenger in question. Also, there are at this point in time numerous differing messenger options for said messages. You are obviously on crack.
As an analogy I propse that all legal structures be shut down because they don't stop all crime.
Or I propose that since one can't stop crimminals from breaking into computers, all security measures should be abandoned.
Now do you see the fallacy of your position?
Back to earth my friend, I wasn't discussing legal structures at all. Care to try again? I also wasn't arguing any position, I'm asking for other parties to first explain their position, and then defend it.
*There's also something else people are forgetting here. If "moral outrage" is the justificaion for piracy against the MPAA/RIAA? Then how do you explain the much wider problem of piracy against game companies, "dead tree" publishers, and even web-sites. How about "counterfeit" goods?
Will anyone ever admit that the problem is much bigger than just "MPAA/RIAA" and is a general collapse of societies moral, and ethical structures?
Again, what does the 'thing' have to do with the 'system'. Fuck damned man. You HAVE to work for the RIAA or something don't you? Just because I choose to like a particular artist, and want to support that artist, I'm obliged to like all systems involved? To get specific here, just what the FUCK does the RIAA have to do with the music that a given artist creates?
See, I know you must work for the RIAA because you a) Assume me to be immediately guilty of theft and then b) use contrived circular logic to show that I was actually stealing from you.
Now, if you'd like to try again while keeping the content issue separate from the communication issue then go ahead, but until then I have to say kindly fuck off.
Why must you constantly attack the messenger when it's the messages that are the problem?
In this case, P2P channels are the messenger, and whatever content is being sent over those channels are the messages.
Let me give a brief analogy to the current situation: I propose that Bell and all the worlds Telcos MUST be shut down IMMEDIATELY because they allow conspiracy's to commit crime. If criminals couldn't talk over a phone, there would be no crime.
Now, as a further thought process, lets pretend all P2P channels have successfully been stopped, and all telephone communications have successfully been stopped.
Are you really going to sit there and suggest that the problems of piracy and crime will disappear?
Now for another followup question: Why do you believe that we should pay you exorbitant amounts of money when you are just going to keep most of it, and do absolutely nothing for me in return other than treat me like a potential criminal?
Please keep your less than factual corrections to your self next time. There's enough disinformation out there without correcting it with more disinformation.
So then, our governments are actually killing smokers? I've always suspected them of adding the most dangerous shit into cigarettes, but making them kill us simply by telling us it will...Genious!
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm? They discuss this quite extensively.
All you need to know about the truth behind the clams becomes painfully obvious when one takes a brief tour through the revision history of that wiki article.
Man, talk about your revisionist history.
If common sense was indeed common, Scientology certainly wouldn't exist.
None of that matters a shit.
Google links to publicly accessible content hosted on publicly accessible websites, period.
AFP posts content to their publicly accessible website, and lo and behold it's linked to.
If AFP doesn't like the way they're doing business, then they should change it. I think they'd be hard pressed to be a successful news service though if they refused access to all of their news.
As has already been aluded to, this is so SCO it's not even funny. There is no case.
Now, even given that, maybe the best thing Google could do is abide by the AFP's request. Give them what they wish for. I probably won't even notice their stories disappearing from Google News, but I'm sure they'd notice their disappearing readership.
Something else to think about as well:
Can you even legally sign that?
What I'm getting at is, have you ever signed an NDA at a previous job? If so, how could one legally sign away IP rights to all previous work done, when they don't even have the rights to the previous work they've done? Just signing the contract, it seems to me, would basically be breach of your previous contracts.
We bow down before you, oh great King Fuckstain!
Your ways are just and correct.
There is no other way.
You obviously see through our lame existences to the core of who we really are.
Praise and glory, oh great King Fuckstain!
You need to decide what your life's been worth up to this point. I'd suggest that it'd better be an extremely well compensated and desirable job to be worth that, but nobody can make that decision but you.
That's giving up a heck of a lot.
Laying claim to a persons entire life worth of thought.
I know that there is NO job or compensation package that could ever be put together that would allow me to make that decision.
My gut feeling on this is that this should be entirely illegal anyways. We live in a society dictated by capitalizm however, and thus one can sign away just about whatever they want for whatever price they want.
Again, think long and hard. A lawyer isn't going to help you with this part. Might be prudent if you decide it's worth it to you, but the underlying decision is a personal one that no lawyer can help with, nor should really.
I'm sorry, but if you sign a contract that states it'll cost $99 to cancel before a year is up, tough titty said the kitty...
Read your contracts people. If it's BS, don't sign it. Get your service elsewhere.
You do. It's called voting.
You really think it would be in the best interest of your country to hand over international trade agreement negotiations to people that haven't been involved in politics for more than 4 years or so? It might not work out so bad if that's what every nation were doing, but that just isn't going to happen.
Personally, I'd rather we figure out how to build a society that has no place for politics. (Or lawyers for that matter)
Never suggested I expected anything from it.
He got it for Christmas, and I happened to be there when he watched it for the first, and probably only time.
Besides, I don't really blame bad Jim Carey movies on Jim really, he is what he is. When he's put in the right role/movie, it works. The rest of the time...ick.
You have now stooped to directly accusing me of theft. (Not to mention name calling)
I honestly know, because it is a fact, that P2P can, and is, used for things other than piracy. I've never pirated ANYTHING using P2P, and yet I do occasionally use P2P, fuck you very much.
I do pay artists for their work, quite regularly actually. I purchase artistic works in many different formats from many different channels. I do use P2P on occasion. I have never used it illegally.
I am thus quite insulted.
You spout a lot of hearsay, but no facts and sources. Based on that I am to accept that all of a sudden I am a criminal? Wow.
Kindly take a long walk off a short pier, you'd be doing all of society a big favor.
OK, to believe the words from the horses mouth, knowing that they should likely be taken with a grain of salt given who it is and what's being written, or to believe...who are you? What's you're credibility here?
I'm not sure what's being proclaimed as 'know all' anyways.
If you don't care, then don't. You obviously do care though. Given that I'd have to call you the bigger idiot here.
I unfortunately did watch the remake.
Fortunately however, it was so incredibly bad and so far off the mark that it made absolutely no impact on my impression of the real thing.
Sheesh, my nephew I watched it with whom was 10 felt the same way and never watched the remake again.
At least there is some credibility to his statements given that there is actually a name behind them.
It also happens to be a name we know to belong to a human being, a human being that we know has flaws just like all of us.
Most people wouldn't be so anal as to take all of those anecdotal stories as cold hard fact, and would realize that any human reflecting back on a 20 some odd year carreer will probably get tonnes of details wrong, but would still not be lying.
There's never an answer that solves all of the problems. I can't imagine that only allowing someone to be in politics for a set number of years would help anything in the long run. Our politicians would always be green, learning the ropes. Think about it.
;)
Politics is a career, and rightly so.
It takes a politician to succeed in politics.
Besides, I'd rather keep all the politicians somewhere where I can see them
What? You're on crack. MLB is a business entity. MLB does most certainly NOT control all of baseball. You are more than welcome to start up a competing league and put teams wherever the hell you choose.
For more info on this, I strongly encourage you to read up on the history of the MLB itself. There were at one time two professional leagues in North America.
How congress has anything to do with this I don't know...maybe if I had my tin foil hat on...
Your point being? Subsidization to entice business is part of business as usual my friend. Who cares if LA foots half the bill for the Dodgers. Don't like your tax dollars spent that way? Vote differently then or move somewhere where they don't spend tax dollars on this kind of subsidization.
MLB is big business. It looks like big business, acts like it, walks and talks like it...go figure, it's treated like it too.
Doesn't change the fact that as with any business, if there is no demand for it, it won't exist for long. Obviously some people like baseball.
He's an idiot.
He's rich and famous.
Is he an idiot?
Seems to have gotten what he wants out of life.
You are talking about the morality involved in creating a tool that could be used for immoral uses. I was talking about the tool itself. There is an important difference here. A stone can be a tool. It could be used to hammer a nail into a piece of wood, or to bludgeon someone with. The tool here has no morality associated with it.
Now lets look at the gun briefly: It could easily be debated whether the creator of the first gun had just morals or not. Same with all users of guns since. However, since the gun does in fact now exist, is it's very existence immoral? Or is it just a tool to be used?
Lets make this sane again and bring it back around to the topic at hand: P2P exists, it is a tool. Can it really be legitimately argued that that tool itself should be illegal because it _can_ be used for illegal purposes?
Not to make things too grey, but to bring this really into reality, why are we even discussing the legality of P2P when Guns are legal? Guns have only one purpose: To kill. Morally, most would agree, this is wrong no matter what. Yet there it is. Guns are legal. On the other hand P2P has many many legitimate uses. P2P tools might not be legal for long.
They're freaking tools, there are no morals involved.
Morals are involved with the use and application of tools.
It's quite obvious that our society is seriously messed up when this is a heavily debatable issue.
It's you again isn't it?
How many of these obvious flames are you going to post as AC here?
Wait a second, Hillary, is that actually you in person? Wow, I'd have expected some minimum wage flunkie for sure, but the queen bitch herself?
You're starting to sound a wee bit desperate.
Where to start...even though I shouldn't I know...
The messages in question here have been around for one hell of a lot longer than the messenger in question. Also, there are at this point in time numerous differing messenger options for said messages. You are obviously on crack.
Back to earth my friend, I wasn't discussing legal structures at all. Care to try again? I also wasn't arguing any position, I'm asking for other parties to first explain their position, and then defend it.
Again, what does the 'thing' have to do with the 'system'. Fuck damned man. You HAVE to work for the RIAA or something don't you? Just because I choose to like a particular artist, and want to support that artist, I'm obliged to like all systems involved? To get specific here, just what the FUCK does the RIAA have to do with the music that a given artist creates?
See, I know you must work for the RIAA because you a) Assume me to be immediately guilty of theft and then b) use contrived circular logic to show that I was actually stealing from you.
Now, if you'd like to try again while keeping the content issue separate from the communication issue then go ahead, but until then I have to say kindly fuck off.
Why must you constantly attack the messenger when it's the messages that are the problem?
In this case, P2P channels are the messenger, and whatever content is being sent over those channels are the messages.
Let me give a brief analogy to the current situation: I propose that Bell and all the worlds Telcos MUST be shut down IMMEDIATELY because they allow conspiracy's to commit crime. If criminals couldn't talk over a phone, there would be no crime.
Now, as a further thought process, lets pretend all P2P channels have successfully been stopped, and all telephone communications have successfully been stopped.
Are you really going to sit there and suggest that the problems of piracy and crime will disappear?
Now for another followup question:
Why do you believe that we should pay you exorbitant amounts of money when you are just going to keep most of it, and do absolutely nothing for me in return other than treat me like a potential criminal?
People are whacked man.
I had a chick dump _me_ once because I refused to hit her. Suffice to say, that was just fine with me.
-1 hasn't got a clue.
Please keep your less than factual corrections to your self next time. There's enough disinformation out there without correcting it with more disinformation.
So then, our governments are actually killing smokers? I've always suspected them of adding the most dangerous shit into cigarettes, but making them kill us simply by telling us it will...Genious!
;)
I've got to get a new tin-foil hat
No, they most certainly would not approve it as that would be fraud.
You go and try getting sugar pills approved as a wonder cure for cancer, or for anything else for that matter and see how you do.