the fact that it is on a "private" road. Google's images demonstrate how little that is really worth So in other words, they're angry at Google for pointing out their own stupidity?
I am pretty sure if you spell it out as policy against such actions, that the company would divert *.aa to the actual user that comitted the infraction. What color is the sky in your world?!?!
Lets see.. the RIAA could do two things here:
1. Threaten and harrass a single employee, and get a couple of thousand dollars.
or
2. Threaten a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the entire company for engaging in criminal for-profit copyright infringement, call in the sherriff to seize all computers effectively making the company grind to a halt, while they extort a few million dollars from them.
the corporation would not be vulnerable to such a case ("You're wasting my money!") in court. I thought that in the US, anyone could sue anyone else (even a corporation) for anything anyway.
So what, exactly, are they being protected from again?
Sounds like they're just using the "oh, we could be sued by our shareholders if we don't throw these kittens into this woodchipper" as an excuse.
Just because what is said is distributed openly to all attending, we are not allowed to re-distribute that information outside the company. What does that have to do with copyright?
You are so wrong on so many levels it's hart to know where to begin correcting you.
First of all, what is said in a meeting is not subject to copyright - if you write down your interpretation, that written transcript (if it's subject to copyright at all - see below) is copyrighted by you (unless you have a clause in your employment contract stating that your employer owns all creative works you produce during working hours - however you could just write it down after work and be safe.)
Second, facts (which would cover 99.9% of what was said at such a meeting) are not subject to copyright, so copyright wouldn't apply there either.
Now, if what is said in the meeting is a trade secret, then you might be forbidden from disclosing it, but copyright *still* wouldn't be applicable. Also, if what is said pertains to your company's stock, it might be considered insider information, which might also forbid you from profiting from it - but there is still nothing regarding copyright that would stop you.
Copyright covers *copying* - not facts someone tells you. It's not "fact-right" or "information-right", it's copyright.
get their document format adopted as an ISO standard--something which will yield them little to no gain I guess you haven't really been following along, but there is *MASSIVE*benefit to getting MS's proprietarystandard declared "open".
But I'm sure you'll counter with the absurd assertion that MS doesn't need to maintain lock-in, because they already have a monopoly, right?
I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
you make it sound like Anonymous is some sort of Captain Planet or some stupid shit Care to point out exactly where I made this comparison - because it's not there.
I like that you're only looking at it from the side that you want to believe in. So you're claiming to be psychic now? Why don't you tell me exactly what I *want* to believe, and I'll tell you if you're right.
I like that you're completely ignoring the rest of my post, but I guess if you had an actual argument, you would have presented it.
Why are you asking the AC? Why aren't you asking Rendeder of Evil?
You are implying "they" is Anonymous, but Anonymous is not the only group attacking Scientology. But Anonymous is the only group mentioned in the summary.
Anonymous has been romanticized as a morally driven vigilante group. This, and the fact that you're posting as an AC made me wonder if you're a cult member.
Anonymous taking on Scientology is more akin to [...] spray painting a swastika on a Jewish community center. This made me sure of it.
It isn't. I have followed various/b/ and/i/ boards for a long time. This is a clear debunking of the rationale present in this post.
If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game".
Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors.
that lawsuit came about because BNETD's servers didn't discriminate over CD-KEYs Pure, unmitigated bullshit.
The bnetd authors fell over themselves trying to compromise with Blizzard, up to and including publically saying that they would incorporate key checking if they could.
Blizzard refused, and proceeded with the most trumped-up lawsuit they could.
If the GP thinks *THIS* is bad, what about claiming copyright infringements of Battle.net server code, based soley on "well, it has a similar bug", instead of just looking at the bnetd code (that's the beauty of open source - you can see the code.)
US corps act in their own interest exclusively, with no concern for "fairness". That's even a legal requirement of the directors and officers of a corp. Except that this isn't a "corp", it's the fscking US Government
It's hypocritical for representatives of the US government to lambaste other countries for WTO "violations", when the US Government turns a blind eye to infringement happening in their own country.
Either the US government is for strict interpretation and enforcement or it's not. Pick one.
A few years ago, I started getting phone calls from people asking for "Leanne". Turns out "Leanne" had recently moved, and was giving out my number (mistakenly) to her friends. The calls started coming at all hours of the day and night.
I started telling the callers to tell "Leanne" that she was giving out the wrong number, and to let her friends know about it, but the calls kept coming.
One day at about 4AM, I got woken up with asking if "Leanne" was home. I had an epiphany, and told them "no, she died today." The caller was dumbstruck. I told him that she got hit by a bus on the way home. The caller asked the obligatory "is there anything I can do?" and I said "Yes - can you call all of her friends and let them know the funeral is on Tuesday?"
...how can PCs beat that for the time being? Why should they? Hi there, I'd like to introduce you to this thing called the article. Perhaps you might like to read at least the summary, so that you can partake in this discussion without looking like a complete and utter moron.
So he voted against some feel-goodly named bills. There are often things unrelated to say, "clean air," in such a bill. Which I note that you decline to specify.
You say there are often things that are unrelated. But you didn't bother to actually name anything in those specific bills, which were.
Got anything other than vague innuendo to post about?
I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement. Uh, no.
It's been demonstrated that the recovering of "damages" is their primary goal. They set up a fscking Settlement Support Center as a for-profit corporation to streamline their extortion. If they're just trying to scare people, why do they need a new corporation (which has it's own army of lawyers) to process the payments?
Scaring people is just a happy side-effect. The "settlements" are revenue-generating.
I don't think that anyone ever claimed that movie piracy was set effect box office takings Youthinkwrong.
They've been crying for years that camcorded copies are reducing box-office take.
Seriously, if you're gonna post complete and utter bullshit, you should make sure that it's not to an audience that knows it's complete and utter bullshit.
storing a special kind of vacuum -- a "squeezed vacuum" -- in a puff of gas and then retrieving it a split second later Actually, it sounds to me like they just (re)discovered magic smoke!
The Amiga may have been well-documented, but it was a far more complex machine and being fairly new would have meant that people were still finding their way around it. I started with a vic-20, the to the C64, then to the Amiga. The Amiga had more complex hardware, but the archetecture was *much* easier to code for - and the documentation made it a breeze to move from one to the other.
Having a dictionary doesn't make you an expert in the English language. This is completely irrelevant. You don't need to be an expert in the English language to be able write a story.
the specs etc for the various API's? The guy was talking about assembly programming, so that wouldn't be applicable here. If you believe this, then you have absolutely *NO* idea what the Amiga documentation consisted of. I programmed the Amiga in assembly (right off the bat), and the "Includes and Autodocs" were indispensible. To say that they "wouldn't be applicable" just shows that not only are have you never read them, but that you don't really know what you're spouting on about.
It really is not such a ridiculous idea. When my wife dragged me back to Japan with her, I knew I might not be returning to the States, for instance. Yes it is such a ridiculous idea, and the fact that the only comparison you can come up with is so "apples-to-oranges" proves it.
When you went to Japan, you knew there were *OTHER PEOPLE* there.
When you went to Japan, you knew there would be ample food there - enough to last your entire life, even if a disaster happened.
When you went to Japan, you were *WITH YOUR WIFE* - you weren't going alone.
When you went to Japan, you knew you *MIGHT NOT* be returning - you weren't going knowing you'd never return.
The differences between the two situations are much, much more significant than the similarities.
3 minutes ain't too bad, but still, just having to wait and stare at the clock before someone can answer, for 3 long minutes, while thoughts fly across outer space, at the speed of light Except it's not 3 minutes, it's 6 minutes - you have to wait for them to receive your signal, then you wait for their reply. And that's the minimum - for a day or so every 25 months. At the other end of the extreme, the delay gets up over 42 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
That looks like a proxy request. I'd guess that they're checking to see if you're posting through an open proxy.
Lets see.. the RIAA could do two things here:
1. Threaten and harrass a single employee, and get a couple of thousand dollars.
or
2. Threaten a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the entire company for engaging in criminal for-profit copyright infringement, call in the sherriff to seize all computers effectively making the company grind to a halt, while they extort a few million dollars from them.
or
3. Both.
Guess which one the RIAA is liable to take?
So what, exactly, are they being protected from again?
Sounds like they're just using the "oh, we could be sued by our shareholders if we don't throw these kittens into this woodchipper" as an excuse.
You are so wrong on so many levels it's hart to know where to begin correcting you.
First of all, what is said in a meeting is not subject to copyright - if you write down your interpretation, that written transcript (if it's subject to copyright at all - see below) is copyrighted by you (unless you have a clause in your employment contract stating that your employer owns all creative works you produce during working hours - however you could just write it down after work and be safe.)
Second, facts (which would cover 99.9% of what was said at such a meeting) are not subject to copyright, so copyright wouldn't apply there either.
Now, if what is said in the meeting is a trade secret, then you might be forbidden from disclosing it, but copyright *still* wouldn't be applicable. Also, if what is said pertains to your company's stock, it might be considered insider information, which might also forbid you from profiting from it - but there is still nothing regarding copyright that would stop you.
Copyright covers *copying* - not facts someone tells you. It's not "fact-right" or "information-right", it's copyright.
The fact that he didn't pay for porn, but had his life ruined anyway kinda disproves your point, dontchathink?
But I'm sure you'll counter with the absurd assertion that MS doesn't need to maintain lock-in, because they already have a monopoly, right?
I like that you're completely ignoring the rest of my post, but I guess if you had an actual argument, you would have presented it.
Why are you asking the AC? Why aren't you asking Rendeder of Evil? You are implying "they" is Anonymous, but Anonymous is not the only group attacking Scientology. But Anonymous is the only group mentioned in the summary.
Or hadn't you noticed?
If you know anything about the cult, you know about "Fair Game".
Considering the amount of AC posts here (like yours) that are pro-cult, it's pretty obvious that this is a *VERY* lame attempt at framing their detractors.
The bnetd authors fell over themselves trying to compromise with Blizzard, up to and including publically saying that they would incorporate key checking if they could.
Blizzard refused, and proceeded with the most trumped-up lawsuit they could.
If the GP thinks *THIS* is bad, what about claiming copyright infringements of Battle.net server code, based soley on "well, it has a similar bug", instead of just looking at the bnetd code (that's the beauty of open source - you can see the code.)
It's hypocritical for representatives of the US government to lambaste other countries for WTO "violations", when the US Government turns a blind eye to infringement happening in their own country.
Either the US government is for strict interpretation and enforcement or it's not. Pick one.
If you're willing to give the Koran the benefit of the doubt, why wouldn't you extend the film the same courtesy?
A few years ago, I started getting phone calls from people asking for "Leanne". Turns out "Leanne" had recently moved, and was giving out my number (mistakenly) to her friends. The calls started coming at all hours of the day and night.
I started telling the callers to tell "Leanne" that she was giving out the wrong number, and to let her friends know about it, but the calls kept coming.
One day at about 4AM, I got woken up with asking if "Leanne" was home. I had an epiphany, and told them "no, she died today." The caller was dumbstruck. I told him that she got hit by a bus on the way home. The caller asked the obligatory "is there anything I can do?" and I said "Yes - can you call all of her friends and let them know the funeral is on Tuesday?"
That was the last call for "Leanne" I ever got.
...how can PCs beat that for the time being? Why should they? Hi there, I'd like to introduce you to this thing called the article. Perhaps you might like to read at least the summary, so that you can partake in this discussion without looking like a complete and utter moron.You say there are often things that are unrelated. But you didn't bother to actually name anything in those specific bills, which were.
Got anything other than vague innuendo to post about?
It's been demonstrated that the recovering of "damages" is their primary goal. They set up a fscking Settlement Support Center as a for-profit corporation to streamline their extortion. If they're just trying to scare people, why do they need a new corporation (which has it's own army of lawyers) to process the payments?
Scaring people is just a happy side-effect. The "settlements" are revenue-generating.
They've been crying for years that camcorded copies are reducing box-office take.
Seriously, if you're gonna post complete and utter bullshit, you should make sure that it's not to an audience that knows it's complete and utter bullshit.
In my Amiga 3000. Was pretty cool, at the time.
When you went to Japan, you knew there were *OTHER PEOPLE* there.
When you went to Japan, you knew there would be ample food there - enough to last your entire life, even if a disaster happened.
When you went to Japan, you were *WITH YOUR WIFE* - you weren't going alone.
When you went to Japan, you knew you *MIGHT NOT* be returning - you weren't going knowing you'd never return.
The differences between the two situations are much, much more significant than the similarities.