by posting the show (or a snippet of it) on YouTube then you would legally be infringing their copyright on the show. You apparently missed the fifty or so people who posted the words "fair use" in their replies here...
I do not think they're technically correct. I think they're creating a might makes right situation, where their lawyers are mightier than his.
clearly the OP meant that it was destroyed in that big party, Ewoks are well-known for their drunken rages That would explain the big ass desert they had to cross in Ewok adventures that were definitely not there in the holographic map in Jedi... Castor sapiens on a beer rage will chop a forest down in no time, it seems;-)
And the funniest part-- the whole things is still a derivative from George Lucas' work. And Luca's works is derivative of Asimov, Herbert, Kurosawa, Tolkien, etc, etc, etc.
I have the latest version (non-beta) at work, no popups, no annoying links, no annoying file associations. My CD's play in Windows Media Player, as do my MP3's. Just because you can't change, or comprehend that a company can listen to customers and change, doesn't mean they won't change. ..or change back.
It's not a file sharing anything. It's a file transfer protocol. Yeah, logic. That'll stop 'em. 20% Flamebait?
Yup, I got some coward modding me down randomly...
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Some's got mod points they don't deserve. Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations.
Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right.;) TOTALLY different situations, I was just jumping in the GP's list. BUT, it's not for breaking a Canadian law abroad, it's a special "think of the children" law, which is an exception. AFAIK, since IANAL and all that jazz.
Also, I'm pretty sure the child exploitation is illegal abroad in most cases, just not prosecuted. So they closed the loophole by making a local law that make it a crime to break these kinds of laws in other country. I think it's an interesting approach to international legal issues.
I believe it needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms either by law or legal precedent that US companies or companies that wish to operate in the US should not be allowed to operate in the US if they are found guilty of being complicit or cooperative in the execution of laws or other legal activities in other nations that are in violation of generally accepted standards of human rights. The government would have to act that way first before it can tell its corporate citizens to do the same. And if all else fails, the corps will simply move to another, more profitable country.
Even if Yahoo is being required to cough up a few dissidents, in the long run is Yahoo causing more good (i.e. positive social change) than harm, or are they just in China to make money? $$$.
In Islamic countries like say...Libya, it's not uncommon to punish (and execute) people who have broken their own laws abroad. In China, this is also true. Australia will punish (ban) people from entering based on activities outside of their country. Canadians will be tried in a court of law if they engage in sexual exploitation of children abroad.
that stupid bang on the end of Yahoo's name in articles. It looks stupid and it's an abuse of punctuation. That it is, but it's their official stupid abuse of punctuation. At least the Register still ridicules them for the abuse of punctuation they force them to commit.
The company has stated that it had no choice but to give up the journalist's information, as it's Chinese subsidiary is subject to Chinese laws. They had a choice between making money in China or ruining this guy's life because he believed in freedom.
More importantly, buy the cd/tape/record USED, not new.
When you buy a new CD, you are putting money into the pockets of the RIAA. When you buy a used CD, you put your money into the pocket of whoever last bought the CD, and the RIAA doesn't get a penny. But neither do the artists:(
You're not "automatically guilty" of anything. The reason why this is so that possession of a large amount of a substance is itself evidence of an intent to distribute. It may not always be the case, but the Legislatures have deemed that it is often enough the case that intent ought to be presumed unless you can show otherwise. If you are caught with TheSubstance, you will go to jail. If you sell TheSubstance, you will go to the bad jail for a long long time.
"Hey, lets shift the burden of proof of trafficking to the accused! We'll say that anyone with a lot of TheSubstance was obviously planning to sell it!"
So now, if you are caught with a year supply of TheSubstance, you will go to the bad jail for a long long time. Therefore, it is much safer to be a client of organized traffickers, so that you yourself are never in possession of TheAmount than to grow yourself or to buy in bulk to save money.
Ergo, only traffickers have large amounts, and their business model is safe from the threat of self-sufficient amateur botanists. More people are spending more time in jail, and the cartels are rolling dough... the system works!
I don't really see the parallel that the submitter is trying to make. copyright infringers get sued != BitTorrent is an illegal technology I think his point was to get people talking... a bit o' light trolling, if you will.
My point, however, was that although your logic is flawless, they don't act on logic. They act on a series of baby steps towards a goal: Pay per listen.
The point I make with Whitman is that even if return fire is expected a psycho will find a way to go down in a hail of bullets that takes as many people as he can.
Maybe next time you could let us know what your point is so we can actually discuss it, rather than have to guess.
The fact that there was return fire is what makes him such a great example: It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that cowards still kill when their victims are armed, they just do it from a safe distance.
Are you really arguing that the singular case of Charles Whitman (edifying though it might be) proves "beyond the shadow of a doubt" the behavior of all such cowards? Maybe I'll dumb it down a notch next time, but frankly, I come to slashdot to find people that don't need this service...
I'm really arguing that if the population is armed and therefore will return fire to the assailant, that this will not prevent the assault. This will not prevent the assailant from killing people, and this is proven by the fact that the circumstances I'm describing are historically recorded and well known. This only leads to the use of a different tactic from the assailant in order to carry out his intended attack.
Yes, some people in Virginia Tech simply blocked doors and evaded Cho's bullets, but that is just because he did not bother with difficult targets, and he was NOT standing in one place waiting to be cornered. He was shooting to kill and moving on. And the important bit which your "stymied" argument fails to take into account is that he set the new record for "most killed before I died". He did not insist on killing these people because he simply did not care about these people, he cared about numbers, about beating the record, and he did. Some tried to save themselves, and it worked, great! In case of a sniper, hiding behind cover would also work. These shooters aren't gods, they're simply cold blooded murderers. A sharp wit, a bit of luck and a survival instinct can get you out of their scorecard.
If conditions are that return fire is expected, the strategy will change. His goal was to get the world to notice his suicide, and he got exactly what he wanted. He was smart, he was methodical, he was patient, and he was insane. Had the campus been armed, instead of walking around shooting people at point blank, he would have snipped, bombed, poisoned, whatever. He could have gassed a whole sleeping dorm with Chloroform stolen from the chem lab and killed them in their sleep for all we know. He had a goal, he devised the means to fit the current environment in order to accomplish his goal. Devising a specific counter-strategy will only work once, maybe twice, and the next mass murderer will adapt his strategy: Change the environment, and the next psycho will just change the means. He'll go pick on the Amish, or start with the Amish to draw away rescue personnel and then detonate remote bombs with a cell phone. The possibilities are endless.
The point is that there is no magic fix to the mass-murder suicide problem, and one of those magic fixes that won't work is having more people armed. I too would like a gun on me if someone tried to kill me, so I should try to kill them right back, but that is not an actual solution to the actual problem, it's a fantasy to make us feel safe.
"Right, lets see, a school massacre done with sniping is not a school massacre in your book."
Not MY book, because we're not talking about my "book" we're talking about the context of the discussion, which was clearly not snipers in a tower.
So, keeping that in mind, want to insult me again You fucking nitwit. Seriously, you appear to have as much brains as a sun bleached skull found cracked open in a desert. Which of your 47 chromosomes makes you incapable of understanding that PUTTING BLINDERS ON about how a massacre can be done is idiotic? Artificially limiting the scope of the discussion to exclude the events that don't fit your pet theory is not something you should be proud of, nor defend.
Gods, how can people be as stupid as you are and yet still be able to pass a captcha to post their mindless drivel is one of the great mysteries of our time.
a false, ridiculous argument and pretend snipers are the same as school massacres, and still get modded up. Right, lets see, a school massacre done with sniping is not a school massacre in your book. Been eating a lot of paint chips, have we?
If you are going to present an argument against the idea that school shootings can be defended against by the would-be victims having guns of their own, the Charles Whitman case might not be the best example to use. He began his attack with slow, methodical fire from a scoped 6mm rifle that killed a lot of people, and later switched to weapons that were less accurate but quicker to snap off shots from such as an M1 carbine, as civilians below began returning fire. Armed civilians not only make the "walk in and shoot the sitting ducks" approach impractical, but can also force someone using the sniper approach to employ suboptimal tactics, reducing the loss of life.
The body count of the next sniper will reflect his level of preparation and his ability to learn the lessons of those that preceded him.
The point I make with Whitman is that even if return fire is expected a psycho will find a way to go down in a hail of bullets that takes as many people as he can. The fact that there was return fire is what makes him such a great example: It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that cowards still kill when their victims are armed, they just do it from a safe distance.
Having watched their gun episode, that's not what they said. Their logic that the "walk in and shoot the sitting ducks" method would be foiled is solid. But they conveniently ignore the fact that back when anyone could have been carrying a gun, massacres still happened, just with a different technique.
The part where their own reasoning was bullshit is where they imply that "school shooting" == "walk and shoot at point blank" and that they exist because of gun laws; It's bullshit because if that stopped working, people who want to kill a lot of people as part of their suicide will go back to bombs and sniping.
I don't remember the walmart ep all that well, but I remember that they spent a lot of time talking about how a non-representative sample of people who dislike that store were idiots, and not at all any time on how walmart up and closes any store that dares start a union, build on native burial grounds, etc. They glossed over the evils and focused on people you wouldn't want to be associated with and declared them the anti-walmart type.
P.S. In their "environmentalists are t3h dumb" ep, they pass around a fake petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and then say they told no lie... meaning that they really intended to ban water? Bullshit. I like watching those guys, really I do, but they produce bullshit whilst decrying other people's bovine manure: they are entertainers, not the mighty defenders of the Truth.
P.P.S. Mythbusters also "bust" myths that they simply failed to do right: It's TV, corners are cut. Watchers beware.
The fun part, Let's see if they try it on MySpace and expect a different result.
They might actually have a modicum of success of myspace, unlike Facebook . Facebook users are more socioeconomically advantaged than those on MySpace and tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college, and who end up having higher income than their myspace counterparts.
Simply put, myspace users are more likely to shop at Wal-Mart than Facebook users. That was true, and still is, somewhat. But Facebook used to be a gated community. Now that everyone can join, the class divide is fading rapidly.
Watch the Penn & Teller 'Bullshit!' episode about Wal-Mart, where they thoroughly demolish the anti-Wal-Mart arguments. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
And those would be the same Pen & Teller that think that arming students would end all school massacres? They're funny magicians, not prophets.
I can just imagine a movie in the not too near future (I'm writing this down because I want it documented that I thought of it) where a serial killer spells out the name of his next intended victim using his GPS fare info. Can I interest you in a 2002 terrorist mail-bombing a smiley face on a map of the U.S.?
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think they're technically correct. I think they're creating a might makes right situation, where their lawyers are mightier than his.
Yup, I got some coward modding me down randomly...
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
20% Troll?
Some's got mod points they don't deserve.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right.
BUT, it's not for breaking a Canadian law abroad, it's a special "think of the children" law, which is an exception. AFAIK, since IANAL and all that jazz.
Also, I'm pretty sure the child exploitation is illegal abroad in most cases, just not prosecuted. So they closed the loophole by making a local law that make it a crime to break these kinds of laws in other country. I think it's an interesting approach to international legal issues.
And if all else fails, the corps will simply move to another, more profitable country.
At least the Register still ridicules them for the abuse of punctuation they force them to commit.
When you buy a new CD, you are putting money into the pockets of
the RIAA. When you buy a used CD, you put your money into the
pocket of whoever last bought the CD, and the RIAA doesn't get
a penny. But neither do the artists
If you sell TheSubstance, you will go to the bad jail for a long long time.
"Hey, lets shift the burden of proof of trafficking to the accused! We'll say that anyone with a lot of TheSubstance was obviously planning to sell it!"
So now, if you are caught with a year supply of TheSubstance, you will go to the bad jail for a long long time.
Therefore, it is much safer to be a client of organized traffickers, so that you yourself are never in possession of TheAmount than to grow yourself or to buy in bulk to save money.
Ergo, only traffickers have large amounts, and their business model is safe from the threat of self-sufficient amateur botanists. More people are spending more time in jail, and the cartels are rolling dough... the system works!
copyright infringers get sued != BitTorrent is an illegal technology I think his point was to get people talking... a bit o' light trolling, if you will.
My point, however, was that although your logic is flawless, they don't act on logic. They act on a series of baby steps towards a goal: Pay per listen.
Maybe next time you could let us know what your point is so we can actually discuss it, rather than have to guess.
Are you really arguing that the singular case of Charles Whitman (edifying though it might be) proves "beyond the shadow of a doubt" the behavior of all such cowards? Maybe I'll dumb it down a notch next time, but frankly, I come to slashdot to find people that don't need this service...
I'm really arguing that if the population is armed and therefore will return fire to the assailant, that this will not prevent the assault. This will not prevent the assailant from killing people, and this is proven by the fact that the circumstances I'm describing are historically recorded and well known. This only leads to the use of a different tactic from the assailant in order to carry out his intended attack.
Yes, some people in Virginia Tech simply blocked doors and evaded Cho's bullets, but that is just because he did not bother with difficult targets, and he was NOT standing in one place waiting to be cornered. He was shooting to kill and moving on. And the important bit which your "stymied" argument fails to take into account is that he set the new record for "most killed before I died". He did not insist on killing these people because he simply did not care about these people, he cared about numbers, about beating the record, and he did. Some tried to save themselves, and it worked, great! In case of a sniper, hiding behind cover would also work. These shooters aren't gods, they're simply cold blooded murderers. A sharp wit, a bit of luck and a survival instinct can get you out of their scorecard.
If conditions are that return fire is expected, the strategy will change. His goal was to get the world to notice his suicide, and he got exactly what he wanted. He was smart, he was methodical, he was patient, and he was insane. Had the campus been armed, instead of walking around shooting people at point blank, he would have snipped, bombed, poisoned, whatever. He could have gassed a whole sleeping dorm with Chloroform stolen from the chem lab and killed them in their sleep for all we know. He had a goal, he devised the means to fit the current environment in order to accomplish his goal. Devising a specific counter-strategy will only work once, maybe twice, and the next mass murderer will adapt his strategy: Change the environment, and the next psycho will just change the means. He'll go pick on the Amish, or start with the Amish to draw away rescue personnel and then detonate remote bombs with a cell phone. The possibilities are endless.
The point is that there is no magic fix to the mass-murder suicide problem, and one of those magic fixes that won't work is having more people armed. I too would like a gun on me if someone tried to kill me, so I should try to kill them right back, but that is not an actual solution to the actual problem, it's a fantasy to make us feel safe.
Is that clear enough?
Not MY book, because we're not talking about my "book" we're talking about the context of the discussion, which was clearly not snipers in a tower.
So, keeping that in mind, want to insult me again You fucking nitwit. Seriously, you appear to have as much brains as a sun bleached skull found cracked open in a desert.
Which of your 47 chromosomes makes you incapable of understanding that PUTTING BLINDERS ON about how a massacre can be done is idiotic? Artificially limiting the scope of the discussion to exclude the events that don't fit your pet theory is not something you should be proud of, nor defend.
Gods, how can people be as stupid as you are and yet still be able to pass a captcha to post their mindless drivel is one of the great mysteries of our time.
Been eating a lot of paint chips, have we?
If you are going to present an argument against the idea that school shootings can be defended against by the would-be victims having guns of their own, the Charles Whitman case might not be the best example to use. He began his attack with slow, methodical fire from a scoped 6mm rifle that killed a lot of people, and later switched to weapons that were less accurate but quicker to snap off shots from such as an M1 carbine, as civilians below began returning fire. Armed civilians not only make the "walk in and shoot the sitting ducks" approach impractical, but can also force someone using the sniper approach to employ suboptimal tactics, reducing the loss of life.
The body count of the next sniper will reflect his level of preparation and his ability to learn the lessons of those that preceded him.The point I make with Whitman is that even if return fire is expected a psycho will find a way to go down in a hail of bullets that takes as many people as he can. The fact that there was return fire is what makes him such a great example: It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that cowards still kill when their victims are armed, they just do it from a safe distance.
Yes, but they also light fires and blow stuff up. And there's a hot red head. Actual scientists could learn a few things from them.
A hot, artistic, technically inclined redhead with a great sense of style.And god bless 'em for putting her on TV for us!
But they conveniently ignore the fact that back when anyone could have been carrying a gun, massacres still happened, just with a different technique.
The part where their own reasoning was bullshit is where they imply that "school shooting" == "walk and shoot at point blank" and that they exist because of gun laws; It's bullshit because if that stopped working, people who want to kill a lot of people as part of their suicide will go back to bombs and sniping.
I don't remember the walmart ep all that well, but I remember that they spent a lot of time talking about how a non-representative sample of people who dislike that store were idiots, and not at all any time on how walmart up and closes any store that dares start a union, build on native burial grounds, etc. They glossed over the evils and focused on people you wouldn't want to be associated with and declared them the anti-walmart type.
P.S. In their "environmentalists are t3h dumb" ep, they pass around a fake petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and then say they told no lie... meaning that they really intended to ban water? Bullshit. I like watching those guys, really I do, but they produce bullshit whilst decrying other people's bovine manure: they are entertainers, not the mighty defenders of the Truth.
P.P.S. Mythbusters also "bust" myths that they simply failed to do right: It's TV, corners are cut. Watchers beware.
They might actually have a modicum of success of myspace, unlike Facebook . Facebook users are more socioeconomically advantaged than those on MySpace and tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college, and who end up having higher income than their myspace counterparts.
Simply put, myspace users are more likely to shop at Wal-Mart than Facebook users. That was true, and still is, somewhat. But Facebook used to be a gated community.
Now that everyone can join, the class divide is fading rapidly.
And those would be the same Pen & Teller that think that arming students would end all school massacres? They're funny magicians, not prophets.