Only the last piece of copypasta is relevant to the issue at hand here.
Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 15
So... a governor (not part of the administration), business partners (not part of the administration) and Webster Hubbell (not convicted of malfeasance in the course of his official duties).
Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5 Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4 Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
I like how "investigated under Clinton" is subtly equivalent to "jailed in Teapot Dome". And how, for instance, Caspar Weinberger being indicted (then last-minute pardoned by Bush 41) is equivalent to investigations against Clinton cabinet members that went nowhere. Very clever. Congratulate your thinktank.
Dems didn't cry that the election was stolen because of the popular vote or the electoral college. Dems cried that the election was stolen because of Katherine Harris's involvement with the scrub list, and that the state-mandated manual recount wasn't carried out in several counties.
And as for the uranium documents being "100% true"---the documents were forged. The Defense Intelligence Agency, back in 2002, considered the scenario unlikely. The Administration itself has called the use of the uranium claim a mistake.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." [on Polish TV, 5/29/03]
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." [6/5/03]
"I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops." [11/04/04]
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." [2004 election season]
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." [09/01/05]
"We do not torture." [Nov. 7, 2005]
"By the year 2042, the entire [Social Security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." [2005 State of the Union]
A bitterly-contested election totally excuses six years of poorly-planned, incompetently-run war, insane deficits, tax cuts for his buddies and claims to kingly power. Oh, and some bloggers talked smack about him. How terrible. My heart, it bleeds.
That was really a cheesy question. Fat and easy, pitched right over the plate. It was there to let John Yoo look good. And he waffles, and hedges, and says that our sweet, sweet gonads persist in an uncrushed state at the sufferance of our Dear Leader.
Gets me every time.
I wish someone would ask these people what they would consider going too far. What's something the President can't do? What's something that you'd say, "whoa, whoa, going too far now" about?
This may be hard for you to understand, so I'll go over it slowly.
People living in sparsely populated areas tend to vote Republican, while urbanites lean Democrat. Because of this, vast tracts of farmland look red on the map, while dense hives of citizens look like small blue dots. Consider the 2000 election map, helpfully linked to from that page. While the blue team won the popular vote, the map is still overwhelmingly red. This is because maps show land, not people, which, as you know, does not vote. If the map is scaled so that areas with equal population cover equal area, it looks more like this.
I've seen that map on t-shirts, and it looks real impressive until you give it a bit of thought. Does it still seem impressive to you? Do you manage to suppress critical thought, or do you convince yourself that the map's apparent implications are "fake but accurate"?
I've been seeing a lot of the "we'd kick their ass in a civil war!" talk coming from the right. What's up with that? Worried you won't win an election, so you're pretending we're in middle school again, and "I'll kick your ass!" is a cogent and meaningful form of debate?
No. Bob Barr, no friend of the Clintons, had the GAO investigate allegations of vandalism. Nothing incriminating was found. The allegations didn't pan out. Or maybe they did---it's still "common knowledge" for people like you.
This was known over five years ago. Have you honestly gone five years without paying attention? Are you going to pretend that you never saw this report, and spout this tired crap again next week? Magic 8-ball says "signs point to yes"...
Clinton was the benificiary of a system of legal theory holding that he had the power to ignore the law when he saw fit, for as long as he saw fit? Clinton had his Office of Legal Counsel tell him that he could, if he thought it necessary, crush some kid's testicles for magical reasons known only to him? Or that the President doesn't have to deal with those inconvenient checks and balances when he's involved in a conveniently open-ended war?
Or perhaps you're referring to the scads of Clinton administration officials convicted for malfeasance or corruption in the performance of their official duties. Or even indicted? You should be able to rattle off a half-dozen or so. Go ahead.
What, exactly, does this provide that email does not, save a place to throw money away and a vector for fraud and identity theft? How is this not the worst business model since the:CueCat?
Maybe you should start whining about privocrats, too. I mean, how dare people try to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, right?
But to really drive your point home, you need to bring in the other "Horsement of the Infocalypse"---terrorists, money launderers and drug dealers. Now, if you tell us all that we're in bed with the terrorists, money launderers and drug dealers, why, then we'll be certain to joyfully welcome the cops to whatever they'd like to seize.
Oh. My. Pants. I saw that oo.org bug referred to in one of those posts that you link to.
Paraphrasing:
User: If you use the KDE save dialog, oo.org doesn't check before clobbering your files. Here's a simple three-line method to reproduce a bug that can cause users to lose data. Developer: Works for me if I use the GTK or oo.org dialogs. *closes bug* User: I said the *KDE* dialogs. Developer: But oo.org uses its own dialogs. That's KDE's problem. *closes bug* User: There's an option for using native dialogs! Right here! Also, no other KDE app has this problem. You're not using the filepicker correctly. User 2: I can confirm this. Something's definitely up with the code interfacing with KDE's filepicker. [five months pass] Developer 2: Have you tried a newer version? Maybe it's fixed in the point release. Re-open if you're still having the problem. *closes bug*
Shit, that's depressing. Remember those halcyon days when we few, we happy few, we band of dorks touted our Linux desktops as rock-solid, with uptimes measured in months and sometimes years? When we mercilessly mocked Windows for its constant restarts, for reaching a level of baroque complexity so fearsome that all a user could do when something failed was to reboot the whole megillah?
So, nowadays, in the Linux desktop's most popular web browser, what's the first step one is to take when diagnosing any problem, in order for the developers to give you the time of day?
Sign out, and you'll see a captcha when you try to post. (I think it's once per IP, but I could be wrong.) Also, when you sign up for a new account, I think there's a captcha as well.
As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication. So I can't, say, go in to ProQuest Historical Newspapers and download everything and host it providing free access. Further reproduction is prohibited. (But how you can prove you took *their* republished text is another issue I suppose.)
If you agree to some license to access the information, all bets are off. But if you, for instance, come across a reproduction of a public-domain painting (but not a sculpture, as photographing a sculpture is creative, and scanning a painting is not) in a copyrighted book, you're free to scan that and republish it to your heart's content.
Frequently, publishers lie about this. But despite what they'd like, they can't magically renew the copyright on some content by reprinting it.
It's why a search for "Alice in Wonderland" in Google Books gets you only a few pages, while Project Gutenberg delivers the whole text. The books in Google (for the copyright-free text) are for copyrighted books (or presentations, rather).
Google has plenty of pre-1923 books in snippet view as well. It doesn't mean they're copyrighted. However, the actual page images (if the book has been re-typeset) are copyrightable. If it's just a reproduction of the original (a lot of older works are republished this way), the actual text doesn't get a new copyright on it. Furthermore, even if the book was re-typeset, if you scan and OCR it, you only need to contend with the original copyright on the text itself.
Reproductions are not eligible for copyright. Period. See Bridgeman v. Corel. Just because it was difficult to put together doesn't make it copyrightable. See Feist v. Rural.
An arrangement or indexing of public domain works can be copyrighted. But if you take those public domain works and make your own index, you're not infringing on anyone. On the other hand, if there's an agreement or license you must accept to get to the content, they can include clauses like "you may not download this", blah blah blah. There was a huge collection of scanned art that my school had access to, which had draconian restrictions on the use of its scans.
Just for that, I think I'm going to go to the local university library and scan in some of their out-of-copyright sheet music, on general principle. I wonder if there's some place to send page images to, since my lilypond skills are laughable.
It's kind of like television. You are not the networks' customer. The ad companies are the customer; you are the product that is sold to them. Everything else is just flim-flam designed to keep you in front of the tube.
Wait, the cops captured Mitnick, who had encrypted his disk... he turned over the key, they didn't find what they were looking for... is that what happened? I confess a lack of familiarity with the case.
Slashdot Mirror
So... a governor (not part of the administration), business partners (not part of the administration) and Webster Hubbell (not convicted of malfeasance in the course of his official duties).
I like how "investigated under Clinton" is subtly equivalent to "jailed in Teapot Dome". And how, for instance, Caspar Weinberger being indicted (then last-minute pardoned by Bush 41) is equivalent to investigations against Clinton cabinet members that went nowhere. Very clever. Congratulate your thinktank.
Dems didn't cry that the election was stolen because of the popular vote or the electoral college. Dems cried that the election was stolen because of Katherine Harris's involvement with the scrub list, and that the state-mandated manual recount wasn't carried out in several counties.
And as for the uranium documents being "100% true"---the documents were forged. The Defense Intelligence Agency, back in 2002, considered the scenario unlikely. The Administration itself has called the use of the uranium claim a mistake.
This, by you, is "100% true"?
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." [on Polish TV, 5/29/03]
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." [6/5/03]
"I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops." [11/04/04]
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." [2004 election season]
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." [09/01/05]
"We do not torture." [Nov. 7, 2005]
"By the year 2042, the entire [Social Security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." [2005 State of the Union]
There's plenty more where that came from.
A bitterly-contested election totally excuses six years of poorly-planned, incompetently-run war, insane deficits, tax cuts for his buddies and claims to kingly power. Oh, and some bloggers talked smack about him. How terrible. My heart, it bleeds.
That was really a cheesy question. Fat and easy, pitched right over the plate. It was there to let John Yoo look good. And he waffles, and hedges, and says that our sweet, sweet gonads persist in an uncrushed state at the sufferance of our Dear Leader.
Gets me every time.
I wish someone would ask these people what they would consider going too far. What's something the President can't do? What's something that you'd say, "whoa, whoa, going too far now" about?
Just the crazy ones.
Wow, that would be really, really impressive.
If land voted.
This may be hard for you to understand, so I'll go over it slowly.
People living in sparsely populated areas tend to vote Republican, while urbanites lean Democrat. Because of this, vast tracts of farmland look red on the map, while dense hives of citizens look like small blue dots. Consider the 2000 election map, helpfully linked to from that page. While the blue team won the popular vote, the map is still overwhelmingly red. This is because maps show land, not people, which, as you know, does not vote. If the map is scaled so that areas with equal population cover equal area, it looks more like this.
I've seen that map on t-shirts, and it looks real impressive until you give it a bit of thought. Does it still seem impressive to you? Do you manage to suppress critical thought, or do you convince yourself that the map's apparent implications are "fake but accurate"?
I've been seeing a lot of the "we'd kick their ass in a civil war!" talk coming from the right. What's up with that? Worried you won't win an election, so you're pretending we're in middle school again, and "I'll kick your ass!" is a cogent and meaningful form of debate?
This was known over five years ago. Have you honestly gone five years without paying attention? Are you going to pretend that you never saw this report, and spout this tired crap again next week? Magic 8-ball says "signs point to yes"...
Clinton was the benificiary of a system of legal theory holding that he had the power to ignore the law when he saw fit, for as long as he saw fit? Clinton had his Office of Legal Counsel tell him that he could, if he thought it necessary, crush some kid's testicles for magical reasons known only to him? Or that the President doesn't have to deal with those inconvenient checks and balances when he's involved in a conveniently open-ended war?
Or perhaps you're referring to the scads of Clinton administration officials convicted for malfeasance or corruption in the performance of their official duties. Or even indicted? You should be able to rattle off a half-dozen or so. Go ahead.
What, exactly, does this provide that email does not, save a place to throw money away and a vector for fraud and identity theft? How is this not the worst business model since the :CueCat?
Maybe you should start whining about privocrats, too. I mean, how dare people try to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, right?
But to really drive your point home, you need to bring in the other "Horsement of the Infocalypse"---terrorists, money launderers and drug dealers. Now, if you tell us all that we're in bed with the terrorists, money launderers and drug dealers, why, then we'll be certain to joyfully welcome the cops to whatever they'd like to seize.
Oh. My. Pants. I saw that oo.org bug referred to in one of those posts that you link to.
Paraphrasing:
User: If you use the KDE save dialog, oo.org doesn't check before clobbering your files. Here's a simple three-line method to reproduce a bug that can cause users to lose data.
Developer: Works for me if I use the GTK or oo.org dialogs. *closes bug*
User: I said the *KDE* dialogs.
Developer: But oo.org uses its own dialogs. That's KDE's problem. *closes bug*
User: There's an option for using native dialogs! Right here! Also, no other KDE app has this problem. You're not using the filepicker correctly.
User 2: I can confirm this. Something's definitely up with the code interfacing with KDE's filepicker.
[five months pass]
Developer 2: Have you tried a newer version? Maybe it's fixed in the point release. Re-open if you're still having the problem. *closes bug*
I have to laugh, to keep from crying.
Shit, that's depressing. Remember those halcyon days when we few, we happy few, we band of dorks touted our Linux desktops as rock-solid, with uptimes measured in months and sometimes years? When we mercilessly mocked Windows for its constant restarts, for reaching a level of baroque complexity so fearsome that all a user could do when something failed was to reboot the whole megillah?
So, nowadays, in the Linux desktop's most popular web browser, what's the first step one is to take when diagnosing any problem, in order for the developers to give you the time of day?
Restart the box.
Thanks, Firefox. Thanks a lot.
Sign out, and you'll see a captcha when you try to post. (I think it's once per IP, but I could be wrong.) Also, when you sign up for a new account, I think there's a captcha as well.
I learned on SPARC; I thought everybody else did too...
If you agree to some license to access the information, all bets are off. But if you, for instance, come across a reproduction of a public-domain painting (but not a sculpture, as photographing a sculpture is creative, and scanning a painting is not) in a copyrighted book, you're free to scan that and republish it to your heart's content.
Frequently, publishers lie about this. But despite what they'd like, they can't magically renew the copyright on some content by reprinting it.
Google has plenty of pre-1923 books in snippet view as well. It doesn't mean they're copyrighted. However, the actual page images (if the book has been re-typeset) are copyrightable. If it's just a reproduction of the original (a lot of older works are republished this way), the actual text doesn't get a new copyright on it. Furthermore, even if the book was re-typeset, if you scan and OCR it, you only need to contend with the original copyright on the text itself.
Reproductions are not eligible for copyright. Period. See Bridgeman v. Corel . Just because it was difficult to put together doesn't make it copyrightable. See Feist v. Rural .
An arrangement or indexing of public domain works can be copyrighted. But if you take those public domain works and make your own index, you're not infringing on anyone. On the other hand, if there's an agreement or license you must accept to get to the content, they can include clauses like "you may not download this", blah blah blah. There was a huge collection of scanned art that my school had access to, which had draconian restrictions on the use of its scans.
Just for that, I think I'm going to go to the local university library and scan in some of their out-of-copyright sheet music, on general principle. I wonder if there's some place to send page images to, since my lilypond skills are laughable.
It's kind of like television. You are not the networks' customer. The ad companies are the customer; you are the product that is sold to them. Everything else is just flim-flam designed to keep you in front of the tube.
I thought it was a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory that got bombed, not an Iraqi one.
What kind of IT shop talks about sports?
Wait, the cops captured Mitnick, who had encrypted his disk... he turned over the key, they didn't find what they were looking for... is that what happened? I confess a lack of familiarity with the case.