of course i don't support some assholes opening their own sandwich shop called McDonalds across from a real McDonalds. this is valid intellectual property law. this is a core concern. but we have gone FAR FAR away from this example:
you don't admit that with 70 year copyright extensions, and a completely unrelated use of a common word, that things in the world of intellectual property are a complete farce, only useful to litigious rent seeking parasites?
false monopolies and rent-seeking parasites are an anti-capitalist force, do you not see that? you don't admit that this is completely ridiculous that this unrelated use of a common abstract word, "metro", even by a large company with plenty of lawyers and well-versed on their own bullying intellectual property shenanigans, even they can be bullied into submission here?
admit it: intellectual property law has become a destructive absurd force. far, far overreaching it's original intent, and no longer having to with protecting creators, and just emboldening litigious trolls that do not create anything
you talk of capitalists and creators making money from their labor? ok, well here we have a case of a creator having difficulty making money from their labor: due to an intellectual property troll forcing them to retool the name of their project
do i avoid the Subway sandwich chain if there is a subway crash in New York? how about avoiding Target the retailer because the USA missed the archery target in the Olympics. how about avoiding Sears the retailer because the local paper wrote that it is so hot outside it is searing. can Subway sue the NYC transit authority? can Target sue the Olympics? Can Sears sue the local paper?
ridiculous nonsense
German Metro has no moral leg to stand on
yes, they have a legal leg to stand on, and that's the real problem here
intellectual property law is a scam by rent seeking litigious parasites. it does nothing for creators. it is a pox on our societies and must be utterly abolished as a philosophical concept. as a philosophical concept, it is completely flawed. that makes it immoral. that makes anyone's defiance of intellectual property law a valid act of civil disobedience against a corrupt legal status quo. of course, the flow of cash in our politics means it will be a long time to change. the concept of intellectual property is stupid and evil. defy it, undermine it, destroy it. this will be what is written in the history books about this century: the downfall of intellectual property
a bunch of transit authorities use the word, there's metroPCS, some library consortium, a few other government entities, etc.
clearly, the word is common and abstract enough that anyone can claim it's usage
trademark law, copyright law, intellectual property: it is such an absurd, useless pox on civilization. i foresee and fervently hope that history will write of this century about how the whole concept of intellectual property law became abolished. it's such useless wasteful, lawyer mongering nonsense by trolls
we really need to just lose the entire concept of intellectual property from our societies. it is utterly destructive to the free flow of culture and ideas and does NOT do what it purports to do: protect creators. no, it empowers litigious rent-seeking parasites. so much wasted money energy and time
there's a certain segment of society that listens to faux news and reads the drudge report and faithfully accepts the propaganda from the oligopolies who want to retain their rent-seeking parasite status on our societies. why these people's minds are so beholden to the corporate propaganda and the well-paid demagogues is beyond my understanding. some people retain open minds, other minds close up and never think critically again, and are forever more enthralled to the propaganda channels that, for some reason, they dutifully accept without any resistance. it's a strange world
no, raven's are often constipated. it's such a sad sight to see the other birds happily chirping and swooshing around the forest while the raven sits on a low obscure branch, red faced and straining the whole morning
solidraven is a good description of the poster's problem, colonically and mentally
and will also oftentimes find that the bad system continues to exist the way it does precisely because of efforts by the bad actors. such as professional groups and business consortia giving money to politicians
The possibility of transmission of disease through human bites must be considered. Human bites have been shown to transmit hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes simplex virus (HSV), syphilis, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, and tetanus. Evidence suggests that it is biologically possible to transmit the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through human bites, although this is quite unlikely. (SeePathophysiology, Presentation, and Workup.)
A shark is considerate and will masticate and shred you into edible pieces in the course of minutes, you will be out of your misery in no time.
But what you are proposing dooms the shark to die a slow miserable death due to the load of nasty diseases you carry in your mouth as a member of diseased lecherous species, homo sapiens.
are you telling me Mikko Hypponen has some trustworthy independent means to verify the email actually came from aeoi.org.ir?
or are you telling me aeoi.org.ir is using some verification scheme when sending emails to random Western audiences, or that such an infrastructure even exists/ is trustworthy?
"Last month, F-Secure's chief research officer, Mikko Hypponen, was sent an email that appeared to be from a scientist working at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), claiming nuclear systems had been targeted by cyber attackers."
yeah, "appears"
either I must be a complete idiot and not getting something here, because Mikko knows a heck of a lot more about email security than me, but "was sent an email that appeared to be from" sounds like somebody at Langley VA or Tel Aviv or just some warmongering kiddie in a basement somewhere
is this a hyped nonstory? or am i not understanding obvious here?
Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
So its a nice fable, the righteous vigilante, it makes for great Clint Eastwood movies or Batman movie. But its a fantasy. In reality, its more often about a deranged fool doing a lot worse than any cop force and judiciary.
1. cheetos stains are ok on an underling's t-shirt, but as a manager, when you wipe your cheetos hands on your shirt, it should blend in, so you appear professional. therefore, ultraviolet orange is the only shirt color you can wear from now on
2. you should not wear the same jeans more than 3 days in a row. it is ok to set them out and allow the bacterial mass to age for a day or two, and then wear them another day later
3. when you take your shoes off, the sock odor whiff from the cubicle next door should not exceed 220 ppm particulates of fungal matter. this level for managerial positions is more strict than 660 ppm particulates of fungal matter for underlings. so socks must be changed at least weekly. if you have a your own office now, then by all means, you do not have to change your sock policy, private offices are allowed mushroom growth
(* you are asking slashdot for clothing advice. SLASHDOT. what do you expect?)
yes, i know where you are coming from, i know there are worse retards than the faux news propagandized tools: the clueless socially malformed shut ins who think obama and romney are the same thing
Romney doesn't need any more money, he has tons more cash than Obama as he is bankrolled by the plutocracy.
although you are right, i forgot the great legion of American idiots, who would give this man money and vote for him, even though he is part of the corporate culture that fired the unemployed American idiot to move his job to a country with less workers rights and cheaper slave like labor. but don't worry, his kind will reemploy the American idiots again, just as soon as all "evil socialist" worker's rights are destroyed and we desperately need the walmart greeter job at one tenth the salary
The NRA does not represent the second amendment, the NRA uses the second amendment, warps it's real meaning, gets a bunch of idiots in agreement with a lot of one dimensional low iq rhetoric ("guns don't kill people... if guns are outlawed, only..." stupid simpleton propaganda), and keeps the GUN MANUFACTURERS churning them out.
A silly printer will of course appeal to the gun loving second amendment reinterpretters, but not the manufacturers and their profits. So when the NRA stands against 3D printing and initiates the collusion in Washington to make it illegal, watch the idiots go "I don't understand..."
Yeah, you don't understand much, gun loving idiots.
no: if you make an online threat of violence, at the very least, your privacy and anonymity should be immediately violated. simply as insurance against the possibility you may carry through on your threat
i do not and can not understand championing the completely valid and important notions of anonymity and privacy, that also protects the kind of a**hole that would threaten real world violence. complete failure of common sense
anonymity and privacy are to protect us from authority goons. correct? well not all goons are in authority. plenty of hate-filled douchebags and completely insane people also walk this earth. and when they make threats, they should be investigated. will this catch false threats? sure. but what the hell is anyone doing making threats of violence online? make a threat of violence online and you should learn that it is serious by having your privacy and anonymity removed. then maybe you won't do something so stupid anymore
unless you actually believe there are situations where threats of real world violence are valid? do you believe that? if no, then why would disagree with any of this?
What is a credible threat? We assume all anonymous threats are not credible and then find out they are credible after the fact of the committing of the crime?
No, we should assume all threats are credible until proven otherwise. And how do you prove it otherwise? We all have the ability to get in a car or subway, walk up to the person, and hurt them. So how do you ever say a threat is not credible?
If you are in the business of threatening people online with violence, then you deserve your privacy violated and your real life looked into, potentially up to arrest and incarceration. Do you disagree?
I understand the value of anonymity. I understand the value of privacy.
But why, when we defend those principles, must we be in the business of defending a**holes who threaten real world violence?
Regardless of "credibility", whatever that means, since it doesn't take anything except being a hate-filled douchebag or insanity to deliver on a threat.
*According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning.
So, the Slashdot story summary is a completely fabricated pile of shit, with a little explanation on the bottom, after the preceding propaganda already riled up the prejudices and produced a cascade of comments from the usual Salshdot poster who can't even bother to read the story summary, nevermind the story, before commenting in completely contrived, manipulated outrage.
Congratulations Slashdot, you are playing the same game as Fox News: half-truths intended to incite anger, without relevance as to actual truth.
Guy threatened someone with violence, guy arrested. Common sense, end of story. Everything else is bullshit.
Foreign extremists will be angry. About something. Always. This is all they do.
People who bomb civilians by surprise, in their homelands mostly BTW, are not people you ever consider having a valid agenda you can somehow appease by changing your own behavior.
Because it's not about your behavior. It is about their behavior, and their agenda, which would violently exist no matter what you said or did.
At some point you have to realize you have to oppose people on the basis of their lame agenda and their lame tactics as a simple matter of principle. THEIR agenda. Which would exist no matter how peaceful or not the West is or ever was. And in opposing them, you do not piss them off. Because they are already pissed off and interested in bombing anyone who opposes them already. Come to them with flowers, or come to them with a drone, they are already engaged in the business of murder according to their own teachings and desires, completely independent of anything in the West's agenda. It is the height of arrogance to assume you are the source of their menace. The source of their menace is their own ideology, created completely on their own, completely having nothing to do with the West. You would know this, if you saw the obvious truth that the greatest victim of these a**holes are their own people, in their own homelands.
This whole premise of appeasing radical hotheads is a complete nonstarter. You don't appease them. You oppose them. They are already committed to violence according to their own self-realized agenda. Their agenda has nothing to do with, and will never have anything to do with, anything the West ever did or is doing.
You oppose them on principle, and you oppose them in the name of helping the moderates in their homelands retain control of their homelands. You don't try to appease them. Because you can't ever appease them. You have to understand what kind of a**holes you are really dealing with here. Currently, you do not. You believe this arrogant lie that these monsters are created by the West, somehow, by magic, even as these monsters cite their own ideological beliefs in their inspiration, and even as they have an agenda which has nothing to do with the West, and has to do with transforming their own societies into medieval hellholes.
so i can't watch the opening ceremony: nbc doesn't offer it
fuck this ridiculous fucking system of intellectual property control
you just want to smash it to pieces and defy it, on the principal of the thing: if the consumer wants to watch something, and the artist wants you to watch it, and infrastructure exists for you to do so (the Internet), the useless rent-seeking parasites who don't let you watch it are destroying culture and cultural appreciation in the name of a buck, and adding nothing back to the equation
yes: i don't want private companies selling plutonium to anyone and i want my government to use my tax dollars to stop them
no: i don't want private companies restricted by rules that squash competition and i want government free of the sort of meddling by large corporations that sometimes creates this vile status quo
in other words, the idea of government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell is a large complicated concept that has many answers depending on the context
Slashdot Mirror
a google search turns up 4 top sponsored links on google:
Pella.com
Home Depot Windows
Sears Windows
Andersen Windows & Doors
sue them! LOL
what a fucking farce intellectual property is. destroy it, defy it, subvert it
of course i don't support some assholes opening their own sandwich shop called McDonalds across from a real McDonalds. this is valid intellectual property law. this is a core concern. but we have gone FAR FAR away from this example:
you don't admit that with 70 year copyright extensions, and a completely unrelated use of a common word, that things in the world of intellectual property are a complete farce, only useful to litigious rent seeking parasites?
false monopolies and rent-seeking parasites are an anti-capitalist force, do you not see that? you don't admit that this is completely ridiculous that this unrelated use of a common abstract word, "metro", even by a large company with plenty of lawyers and well-versed on their own bullying intellectual property shenanigans, even they can be bullied into submission here?
admit it: intellectual property law has become a destructive absurd force. far, far overreaching it's original intent, and no longer having to with protecting creators, and just emboldening litigious trolls that do not create anything
you talk of capitalists and creators making money from their labor? ok, well here we have a case of a creator having difficulty making money from their labor: due to an intellectual property troll forcing them to retool the name of their project
open your eyes
no one would make the connection
do i avoid the Subway sandwich chain if there is a subway crash in New York? how about avoiding Target the retailer because the USA missed the archery target in the Olympics. how about avoiding Sears the retailer because the local paper wrote that it is so hot outside it is searing. can Subway sue the NYC transit authority? can Target sue the Olympics? Can Sears sue the local paper?
ridiculous nonsense
German Metro has no moral leg to stand on
yes, they have a legal leg to stand on, and that's the real problem here
intellectual property law is a scam by rent seeking litigious parasites. it does nothing for creators. it is a pox on our societies and must be utterly abolished as a philosophical concept. as a philosophical concept, it is completely flawed. that makes it immoral. that makes anyone's defiance of intellectual property law a valid act of civil disobedience against a corrupt legal status quo. of course, the flow of cash in our politics means it will be a long time to change. the concept of intellectual property is stupid and evil. defy it, undermine it, destroy it. this will be what is written in the history books about this century: the downfall of intellectual property
just look up metro on google
a bunch of transit authorities use the word, there's metroPCS, some library consortium, a few other government entities, etc.
clearly, the word is common and abstract enough that anyone can claim it's usage
trademark law, copyright law, intellectual property: it is such an absurd, useless pox on civilization. i foresee and fervently hope that history will write of this century about how the whole concept of intellectual property law became abolished. it's such useless wasteful, lawyer mongering nonsense by trolls
we really need to just lose the entire concept of intellectual property from our societies. it is utterly destructive to the free flow of culture and ideas and does NOT do what it purports to do: protect creators. no, it empowers litigious rent-seeking parasites. so much wasted money energy and time
there's a certain segment of society that listens to faux news and reads the drudge report and faithfully accepts the propaganda from the oligopolies who want to retain their rent-seeking parasite status on our societies. why these people's minds are so beholden to the corporate propaganda and the well-paid demagogues is beyond my understanding. some people retain open minds, other minds close up and never think critically again, and are forever more enthralled to the propaganda channels that, for some reason, they dutifully accept without any resistance. it's a strange world
no, raven's are often constipated. it's such a sad sight to see the other birds happily chirping and swooshing around the forest while the raven sits on a low obscure branch, red faced and straining the whole morning
solidraven is a good description of the poster's problem, colonically and mentally
a bad system doesn't excuse bad actors
you fix the system AND you punish the bad actors
and will also oftentimes find that the bad system continues to exist the way it does precisely because of efforts by the bad actors. such as professional groups and business consortia giving money to politicians
Spoken like a petty homo sapiens. A species should know when it is just food.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/218901-overview
A shark is considerate and will masticate and shred you into edible pieces in the course of minutes, you will be out of your misery in no time.
But what you are proposing dooms the shark to die a slow miserable death due to the load of nasty diseases you carry in your mouth as a member of diseased lecherous species, homo sapiens.
hold of an official aeoi.org.ir email address."
huh?
anyone can do that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing
are you telling me Mikko Hypponen has some trustworthy independent means to verify the email actually came from aeoi.org.ir?
or are you telling me aeoi.org.ir is using some verification scheme when sending emails to random Western audiences, or that such an infrastructure even exists/ is trustworthy?
"Last month, F-Secure's chief research officer, Mikko Hypponen, was sent an email that appeared to be from a scientist working at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), claiming nuclear systems had been targeted by cyber attackers."
yeah, "appears"
either I must be a complete idiot and not getting something here, because Mikko knows a heck of a lot more about email security than me, but "was sent an email that appeared to be from" sounds like somebody at Langley VA or Tel Aviv or just some warmongering kiddie in a basement somewhere
is this a hyped nonstory? or am i not understanding obvious here?
Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
So its a nice fable, the righteous vigilante, it makes for great Clint Eastwood movies or Batman movie. But its a fantasy. In reality, its more often about a deranged fool doing a lot worse than any cop force and judiciary.
it is called 4chan
1. cheetos stains are ok on an underling's t-shirt, but as a manager, when you wipe your cheetos hands on your shirt, it should blend in, so you appear professional. therefore, ultraviolet orange is the only shirt color you can wear from now on
2. you should not wear the same jeans more than 3 days in a row. it is ok to set them out and allow the bacterial mass to age for a day or two, and then wear them another day later
3. when you take your shoes off, the sock odor whiff from the cubicle next door should not exceed 220 ppm particulates of fungal matter. this level for managerial positions is more strict than 660 ppm particulates of fungal matter for underlings. so socks must be changed at least weekly. if you have a your own office now, then by all means, you do not have to change your sock policy, private offices are allowed mushroom growth
(* you are asking slashdot for clothing advice. SLASHDOT. what do you expect?)
It does not make sense!
as opposed to obama
yes, i know where you are coming from, i know there are worse retards than the faux news propagandized tools: the clueless socially malformed shut ins who think obama and romney are the same thing
when their bosses, the gun manufacturers, see it as a threat.
Romney doesn't need any more money, he has tons more cash than Obama as he is bankrolled by the plutocracy.
although you are right, i forgot the great legion of American idiots, who would give this man money and vote for him, even though he is part of the corporate culture that fired the unemployed American idiot to move his job to a country with less workers rights and cheaper slave like labor. but don't worry, his kind will reemploy the American idiots again, just as soon as all "evil socialist" worker's rights are destroyed and we desperately need the walmart greeter job at one tenth the salary
you will have to repost your comment. each comment on slashdot now needs it's own app
The NRA does not represent the second amendment, the NRA uses the second amendment, warps it's real meaning, gets a bunch of idiots in agreement with a lot of one dimensional low iq rhetoric ("guns don't kill people... if guns are outlawed, only..." stupid simpleton propaganda), and keeps the GUN MANUFACTURERS churning them out.
A silly printer will of course appeal to the gun loving second amendment reinterpretters, but not the manufacturers and their profits. So when the NRA stands against 3D printing and initiates the collusion in Washington to make it illegal, watch the idiots go "I don't understand..."
Yeah, you don't understand much, gun loving idiots.
no: if you make an online threat of violence, at the very least, your privacy and anonymity should be immediately violated. simply as insurance against the possibility you may carry through on your threat
i do not and can not understand championing the completely valid and important notions of anonymity and privacy, that also protects the kind of a**hole that would threaten real world violence. complete failure of common sense
anonymity and privacy are to protect us from authority goons. correct? well not all goons are in authority. plenty of hate-filled douchebags and completely insane people also walk this earth. and when they make threats, they should be investigated. will this catch false threats? sure. but what the hell is anyone doing making threats of violence online? make a threat of violence online and you should learn that it is serious by having your privacy and anonymity removed. then maybe you won't do something so stupid anymore
unless you actually believe there are situations where threats of real world violence are valid? do you believe that? if no, then why would disagree with any of this?
What is a credible threat? We assume all anonymous threats are not credible and then find out they are credible after the fact of the committing of the crime?
No, we should assume all threats are credible until proven otherwise. And how do you prove it otherwise? We all have the ability to get in a car or subway, walk up to the person, and hurt them. So how do you ever say a threat is not credible?
If you are in the business of threatening people online with violence, then you deserve your privacy violated and your real life looked into, potentially up to arrest and incarceration. Do you disagree?
I understand the value of anonymity. I understand the value of privacy.
But why, when we defend those principles, must we be in the business of defending a**holes who threaten real world violence?
Regardless of "credibility", whatever that means, since it doesn't take anything except being a hate-filled douchebag or insanity to deliver on a threat.
*According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning.
So, the Slashdot story summary is a completely fabricated pile of shit, with a little explanation on the bottom, after the preceding propaganda already riled up the prejudices and produced a cascade of comments from the usual Salshdot poster who can't even bother to read the story summary, nevermind the story, before commenting in completely contrived, manipulated outrage.
Congratulations Slashdot, you are playing the same game as Fox News: half-truths intended to incite anger, without relevance as to actual truth.
Guy threatened someone with violence, guy arrested. Common sense, end of story. Everything else is bullshit.
Foreign extremists will be angry. About something. Always. This is all they do.
People who bomb civilians by surprise, in their homelands mostly BTW, are not people you ever consider having a valid agenda you can somehow appease by changing your own behavior.
Because it's not about your behavior. It is about their behavior, and their agenda, which would violently exist no matter what you said or did.
At some point you have to realize you have to oppose people on the basis of their lame agenda and their lame tactics as a simple matter of principle. THEIR agenda. Which would exist no matter how peaceful or not the West is or ever was. And in opposing them, you do not piss them off. Because they are already pissed off and interested in bombing anyone who opposes them already. Come to them with flowers, or come to them with a drone, they are already engaged in the business of murder according to their own teachings and desires, completely independent of anything in the West's agenda. It is the height of arrogance to assume you are the source of their menace. The source of their menace is their own ideology, created completely on their own, completely having nothing to do with the West. You would know this, if you saw the obvious truth that the greatest victim of these a**holes are their own people, in their own homelands.
This whole premise of appeasing radical hotheads is a complete nonstarter. You don't appease them. You oppose them. They are already committed to violence according to their own self-realized agenda. Their agenda has nothing to do with, and will never have anything to do with, anything the West ever did or is doing.
You oppose them on principle, and you oppose them in the name of helping the moderates in their homelands retain control of their homelands. You don't try to appease them. Because you can't ever appease them. You have to understand what kind of a**holes you are really dealing with here. Currently, you do not. You believe this arrogant lie that these monsters are created by the West, somehow, by magic, even as these monsters cite their own ideological beliefs in their inspiration, and even as they have an agenda which has nothing to do with the West, and has to do with transforming their own societies into medieval hellholes.
so i can't watch the opening ceremony: nbc doesn't offer it
fuck this ridiculous fucking system of intellectual property control
you just want to smash it to pieces and defy it, on the principal of the thing: if the consumer wants to watch something, and the artist wants you to watch it, and infrastructure exists for you to do so (the Internet), the useless rent-seeking parasites who don't let you watch it are destroying culture and cultural appreciation in the name of a buck, and adding nothing back to the equation
so they must be defied and destroyed
yes: i don't want private companies selling plutonium to anyone and i want my government to use my tax dollars to stop them
no: i don't want private companies restricted by rules that squash competition and i want government free of the sort of meddling by large corporations that sometimes creates this vile status quo
in other words, the idea of government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell is a large complicated concept that has many answers depending on the context