I looked it up, and there is not enough nudity in "All The Presidents Men". I will be restricting my research to Linda, et al.
By the way, I recognized the advice to Woodward and Bernstein by their anonymous informant, which I would think everyone would recognize as well, but chose to use an alternate interpretation to go for the unexpected - resulting in humor.
Google "M Programming Language" and the FIRST entry returned states that M is a programming language created in the 1960s. How is this "Microsoft's New Programming Language"?
On this computer I have the following sites bookmarked - the M Language Reference Manual, M[UMPS] by Example, M Info Source, and BOFH (that last one has nothing to do with M, but it is one of my favorites...) all of which have been on my computer for more than 5 years.
I say it is like Microsoft to steal stuff, because when Vista was being touted as the next big OS, there ALREADY was an application used by the Veterans Administration (written in M, by the way) named Vista. Not just an app, but it could be an OS as well when run on a MUMPS box - you just don't see many MUMPS boxes these days.... I posted on the topic at the time, but don't find the posting right now.
Interesting, and I expect you to get a lot of replies, but I read it as "How is a person who fights against spam (spam warrior) like a person who fights against drugs (drug warrior)" and the answer is that both are fighting a battle that can not be won given human nature.
Just like the 'war on spam' is just like the 'war on drugs' is just like the 'war on terror' is just like the 'war on people who drive to fast' is just like the 'war on people who take things that arn't theirs' is just like the 'war on obesity' is just like...
Your reply SUPPORTS the original post in that some people WILL take illegal drugs (although I never knew Lewis Carrol was illegal...) just as some people WILL send spam.
I don't "pirate", nor do I reproduce copyrighted material. Living in a college town, I can get most of the music I am interested in at pawn shops and garage sales. That way I have the actual CD and can rip my own if I want, but, more importantly to me, I am not paying ANY of the RIAA mafia for the music.
Back on the original topic, as long as there are people who want something, can't (or just won't) pay for it, and lack the morals to do the right thing, there will be piracy. Note that this says nothing about copying copyrighted material.
Copying copyrighted material without permission != piracy.
A Primary Key, by definition, must be unique and also not null. Not null is easily checked, but Uniqueness is harder. You could scan the entire table to see if the value is already in use, though most modern rdbms systems use an index as it is just so much faster. An index is NOT required.
A Foreign Key must refer to an entry that is in another table, and an index is the faster way to check that relationship. Again, an index is not required, but is most often used.
Primary and Foreign Keys are useful for RELATIONAL integrity, but, except for the specific columns defined as keys, do nothing for data integrity.
If the 'Beatles' table has the Name column as the Primary, and the values of 'George', 'John', 'Paul', and 'Ringo' are contained therein, then a table with a name column defined as a Foreign Key referencing the Name column in the 'Beatles' table will not allow the addition of the name 'Yoko'. It fails the relational integrity rules. However, if I add the name 'Yoko' to the 'Beatles' table, then I can add the name to the other table as it no longer violates the RELATIONAL requirements, although it violates the integrity of the data as 'Yoko' was not one of the Beatles. Having indexes, a Primary key, or a Foreign key did nothing for the data integrity if the wrong names were added in the first place, or validly entered at any point later.
Continuing the theme, if no other table refers to the name 'Ringo' in the 'Beatles' table, deleting 'Ringo' is a valid operation even though the Names column is a Primary Key of the table. Again, being indexed or being a Primary Key did nothing for the integrity of the data, it only helps enforce referential integrity.
I work with databases daily (DBA) and some of them in production are specifically set up to have no primary keys or foreign keys. One is over 600GB in size and mission critical, and works just fine without those keys. It does, however, use lots of indexes. Referential integrity is checked in the application that accesses the database, not in the database itself. I would not design things that way, but it is one database I was hired to manage, and it has worked well for us for the last 10 years (since startup).
I work with Oracle, SQLServer, MUMPS, and some MySQL. In none of them is data integrity predicated on indexing. Referential integrity is often based on an index, but data integrity is not.
I had one of those 'radio of the mime' things, and that guy trapped in a box routine was HISTERICAL!
I also liked that I could listen at full volume in church and in a library, 'cause there was not sound. Of course, that made it hard to know what was going on 'cause it was radio, ya know.
I always wanted to have them do those 'guy walking into a strong wind' and 'guy pulling a rope' things, but never...
Ya know, a bunch of us were just talking about how simple minded JakeD409 was, but couldn't quite come up with a defining statement -- "too simple minded to...?" Someone suggested "Pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel", but that was overstating things a bit - and nobody was really sure you could read so having the instructions printed might not help you much. Someone else thought "Eat a box of chocolates (My momma says, 'Life is like...')", but, while getting closer, just didn't quite state the obvious strongly enough. Imagine my delight when I went to slashdot and found the perfect defining statement!
I'm far too simple-minded to post a satirical comment on Slashdot.
Thanks, JakeD409 (cause the world ain't ready for 410!)!
disclaimer: no actual humor was used in the making of this post, although I did hit my funny bone while typing that bit about the box of chocolates.
PS. I don't know JakeD409. He just put the "kick Me" sign on and bent over and I could not resist.
Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy, just because they can do it, and if the Corporation loses the case it's no big deal (just 0.000001% of their profit)
Sorry, but you are wrong.
I, and I would imagine most people, have a pile of cash that is used to pay bills, rent, and legal fees/fines. When that pile of cash is gone, it's gone. Next payday, I get another pile of cash. Lather, rinse, repeat.
A corporation doesn't work like that, they have "revenue streams" instead of piles of cash. You can't use up a revenue stream, they just raise prices to maintain their flow like the Corps of Engineers releasing more water from a dam to maintain river level. The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.
Even worse, the judgement against the corporation can be used to justify raising prices more than is justified by the loss of prifit - resulting in a RAISE in profit!
I remember buying cigarettes when they were 50 cents a pack. Then there was that big lawsuit resulting in BILLIONS being paid to the states when the tobacco companies lost. Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers! I also used to own stock in one of the tobacco companies, and I never, EVER heard of any year they did not make a profit, including the years when paying out the lawsuit claims.
Suing a corporation is not shooting them in the ass, it is shooting millions of the corporations customers the least little bit in the ass - and the corporation doesn't care in the least.
Actually, I had never heard of that, but purely based my posting on the thought that there is a death penalty for actual humans, so there should be the same for a corporation, an "artificial person".
Abusing / attacking / extorting real persons should be grounds - in my opinion - for an "artificial person" death penalty as there is no jail sanction available. Given the (insignificant) money penalty or nothing, I support adding in a harsher penalty, and really don't see a penalty stiff enough to deter other than a death penalty.
I REALLY think Microsoft, Best Buy, AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, you-name-it would be more circumspect in their dealings if a death penalty was an option for certain outragious acts by the corporation.
Also, keep in mind that any monetary penalties against a corporation result in higher prices for the goods or services sold by the corporation; it is a penalty AGAINST THE CUSTOMERS of that corporation, not against the corporation itself.
If I win a multibillion dollar judgement against the RIAA, it is not the case that each person in charge of the RIAA has to pony up their share of the total personally; rather, they just raise the price of CDs by $0.47 each and, due to the increase in income, make their bonus for the quarter or year. The people in charge are actually REWARDED for screwing real people over.
I can't agree with you. Giving in to blackmail or extortion is NEVER fiscally responsible, nor is it socially irresponsible.
If you had some guarantee you could believe that paying up this time would prevent ever having to pay up again - for any reason - it may be personally responsible, but here you have no guarantee at all, so you might have to pay out to every spammer who gets your email address - uh, I mean every lawyer who finds out about your willingness to pay rather than fight.
As I see it, in the long run the ONLY fiscally, personally, and societally responsible thing to do is fight 'to the last ditch' (or to the geeks out there, 'to the pain') if you are falsely accused rather than pay to 'make it go away'.
I do agree with you that the RIAA (actually, ANYBODY) should be held responsible for the financial burdens defending against baseless attacks imposes.
I am also for the corporate death penalty for the RIAA and others that abuse the legal system for profit. I think they should forfeit their charter, have their assets sold at public auction, and their board of directors forbiden from ever serving on another board of directors.
I also think the in-house, corporate legal shills should face a professional 'death penalty' consisting of losing their legal certification.
The problem I see is that the only one with a penalty is the defendant, the plantiff should also face penalties for stupid pet tricks, and, while lawyers may be necessary for some things, corporate lawyers for the purpose of suing the general public are almost never necessary. Give them the chance to do the right thing, but don't give them TWO chances to do the right thing.
Compared to not having any software patents? How would we know?
If so, has the shortage been due to the inability to get into markets because of patents, or have their been more mundane reasons (e.g., risk-adverseness among potential investors in technology)?
Looks like the same think to me - investors being risk-adverse due to patent liabilities caused by patents resulting in the inability to get into markets.
All those protection schemes are well and good, but just suspecting that a solution exists would cause a greater-than-normal effort to find it through reverse engineering.
If I give you a problem that would need a solution that shows P=NP to be solved, and I paid you for a solution, and you gave me a solution, then by definition you have a solution that proves P=NP, which proves that such a solution exists, which means that, given time and resources, I can find that solution.
Without breaching any of you security precautions, I would have discovered your secret - not the solution, but that at least one such solution exists.
But you're right. Pirate Bay has done nothing wrong. Sure they haven't. I'm sure they make 0 money off their site. They just want to 'stick it to the man'
Not sure what your point is here, but from what I am reading (maybe reading into it?) you have a problem with their making money from the site? Are you saying it would be OK for them to do exactly what they are doing IF they did not make money from the site? I am failing to see how profit or nonprofit makes any difference.
On another point, the summary and article both say that copyrighted works were downloaded through their site. My understanding of the Pirate Bay site is that you don't download ANYTHING COPYRIGHTED from the site, it only points you to some other site that claims to have what you searched for.
A pretty close analogy would be the phone book. If I go into the Yellow Pages and look up "Escorts" and call one, I could be looking for a true escort, or I could be looking for a prostitute. However, can a prosecutor indict the producer of the phone book for facilitating prostitution, based on the POSSIBILITY the "Escort" may be a prostitute?
I have never seen a site shown on TPB where TPB stated "This site is providing copyright infringing material", just as I have never seen a listing in the Yellow Pages for "Prostitute" (I have never been anywhere where prostitution is legal.)
I assume there are legal points TPB may be hit with, but copyright infringement is not one of them.
I note that the announcement is phrased very specifically that nothing was downloaded FROM the TPB site, it was downloaded "through" the TPB site. " 'The Swedish prosecutor listed dozens of works that had been downloaded through The Pirate Bay site, including The Beatles' Let It Be, Robbie Williams' Intensive Care and the movie Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire." (bolding added)
But no matter how evil they are, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. Why don't you write a song or book or create a painting, and I'll copy it. Lets see how quick you change your tune.
Strawman, as TPB is not infringing copyrights as they are not copying or providing copies of anything - they are just a listing of people and places that are claiming to provide 'stuff' which may or may not be copyrighted....copyright infringement is still copyright infringement..
Yes, and terrorists are still terrorists, and politicians are still liars, and water is still wet and the sky is still blue. None of that makes TPB guilty of anything connected with copyright infringing.
there is no excuse for ANY appliance to catch fire.
Agreed, but I did not see anywhere in TFA where is said the fire occured when the computer/monitor caught on fire. In both cases, the allegation is that the computer/monitor CAUSED a fire. I can think of several ways user error could cause a fire - including 'putting a penny in the fuse box' or otherwise overloading the circuit.
I assume there were a bunch of the computers sold - by both companies.
How many had a problem?
If just these two then I would be more inclined to suspect the device was not faulty, but the electrical system was at fault (old wiring, dis-simular wiring, etc) - or the user overloaded the circuit.
The most over-designed device, totaly incapable of catching fire itself, can cause a fire when plugged into an overloaded circuit.
The computer may have been idiot proof, but the wiley idiots have ways of getting around that!
My counter example would be the fellow that took his barbeque to the lake, then loaded it into the bed of his truck and went home. He woke up in the middle of the night with his garage on fire from the still smoldering coals in the barbeque which he had left in the bed of the truck - because it was still hot when he got home!. The truck did nothing wrong, worked as designed, but someone has to pay. Idiots will burn their businesses and homes down, and there is nothing that can prevent all stupidity the idiots are capable of achieving.
But of course, those in the legal profession are willing to sue when there is even a POSSIBILITY (no matter how slim) that there might be a big payday.
I guess my point is that if the computer/monitor/ignition switch caught fire, that is one thing, but if the building wireing/fuses/barbeque caused the fire, then suing the computer maker/monitor seller/truck builder is just stupid - and the article did not give enough information to have an opinion on whether the electrical devices CAUSED the fire or CAUGHT on fire, although I seem to remember the article saying 'caused the fire'.
Unless I missed it, TFA didn't even say the fire started IN the computer.
Let me see, on one sircuit we have an office refridgerator, the office microwave, the coffee maker, the desk lamp, the phone base/charger, the fax machine, and the pager charger. I added the computer, monitor, and printer and got a fire. OMGWTFBBQ THE COMPUTER WAS DEFECTIVE!! GOTTA SUE SOMEONE!!1!ll
If you don't know ALL the laws, how can you know which ones apply to you?
What about new laws? I may know all the laws that apply to me TODAY, but what about tomorrow? Unless I keep up on ALL laws, how can I know if a new law is passed that now makes something illegal that was legal yesterday?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure.
Stupidity of Bush ~= combined Stupidity of Millions of People
Therefore, you could be right, but it is very close...
I looked it up, and there is not enough nudity in "All The Presidents Men". I will be restricting my research to Linda, et al.
By the way, I recognized the advice to Woodward and Bernstein by their anonymous informant, which I would think everyone would recognize as well, but chose to use an alternate interpretation to go for the unexpected - resulting in humor.
I just watched that whole film again, and no where in it does Linda Lovelace use the words "follow the money".
I will have to watch it again a few times to make sure, though...
And now I can claim it is 'research"!
THANKS!!
Google "M Programming Language" and the FIRST entry returned states that M is a programming language created in the 1960s. How is this "Microsoft's New Programming Language"?
On this computer I have the following sites bookmarked - the M Language Reference Manual, M[UMPS] by Example, M Info Source, and BOFH (that last one has nothing to do with M, but it is one of my favorites...) all of which have been on my computer for more than 5 years.
I say it is like Microsoft to steal stuff, because when Vista was being touted as the next big OS, there ALREADY was an application used by the Veterans Administration (written in M, by the way) named Vista. Not just an app, but it could be an OS as well when run on a MUMPS box - you just don't see many MUMPS boxes these days.... I posted on the topic at the time, but don't find the posting right now.
Go Microsoft! Steal more struff!!
Interesting, and I expect you to get a lot of replies, but I read it as "How is a person who fights against spam (spam warrior) like a person who fights against drugs (drug warrior)" and the answer is that both are fighting a battle that can not be won given human nature.
Just like the 'war on spam' is just like the 'war on drugs' is just like the 'war on terror' is just like the 'war on people who drive to fast' is just like the 'war on people who take things that arn't theirs' is just like the 'war on obesity' is just like ...
Your reply SUPPORTS the original post in that some people WILL take illegal drugs (although I never knew Lewis Carrol was illegal...) just as some people WILL send spam.
I don't "pirate", nor do I reproduce copyrighted material. Living in a college town, I can get most of the music I am interested in at pawn shops and garage sales. That way I have the actual CD and can rip my own if I want, but, more importantly to me, I am not paying ANY of the RIAA mafia for the music.
Back on the original topic, as long as there are people who want something, can't (or just won't) pay for it, and lack the morals to do the right thing, there will be piracy. Note that this says nothing about copying copyrighted material.
Copying copyrighted material without permission != piracy.
Indexes are important for query speed.
Period.
Full stop.
A Primary Key, by definition, must be unique and also not null. Not null is easily checked, but Uniqueness is harder. You could scan the entire table to see if the value is already in use, though most modern rdbms systems use an index as it is just so much faster. An index is NOT required.
A Foreign Key must refer to an entry that is in another table, and an index is the faster way to check that relationship. Again, an index is not required, but is most often used.
Primary and Foreign Keys are useful for RELATIONAL integrity, but, except for the specific columns defined as keys, do nothing for data integrity.
If the 'Beatles' table has the Name column as the Primary, and the values of 'George', 'John', 'Paul', and 'Ringo' are contained therein, then a table with a name column defined as a Foreign Key referencing the Name column in the 'Beatles' table will not allow the addition of the name 'Yoko'. It fails the relational integrity rules. However, if I add the name 'Yoko' to the 'Beatles' table, then I can add the name to the other table as it no longer violates the RELATIONAL requirements, although it violates the integrity of the data as 'Yoko' was not one of the Beatles. Having indexes, a Primary key, or a Foreign key did nothing for the data integrity if the wrong names were added in the first place, or validly entered at any point later.
Continuing the theme, if no other table refers to the name 'Ringo' in the 'Beatles' table, deleting 'Ringo' is a valid operation even though the Names column is a Primary Key of the table. Again, being indexed or being a Primary Key did nothing for the integrity of the data, it only helps enforce referential integrity.
I work with databases daily (DBA) and some of them in production are specifically set up to have no primary keys or foreign keys. One is over 600GB in size and mission critical, and works just fine without those keys. It does, however, use lots of indexes. Referential integrity is checked in the application that accesses the database, not in the database itself. I would not design things that way, but it is one database I was hired to manage, and it has worked well for us for the last 10 years (since startup).
I work with Oracle, SQLServer, MUMPS, and some MySQL. In none of them is data integrity predicated on indexing. Referential integrity is often based on an index, but data integrity is not.
I had one of those 'radio of the mime' things, and that guy trapped in a box routine was HISTERICAL!
I also liked that I could listen at full volume in church and in a library, 'cause there was not sound. Of course, that made it hard to know what was going on 'cause it was radio, ya know.
I always wanted to have them do those 'guy walking into a strong wind' and 'guy pulling a rope' things, but never ...
What's that?
Radio of the MIND?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Bitch.
Ya know, a bunch of us were just talking about how simple minded JakeD409 was, but couldn't quite come up with a defining statement -- "too simple minded to...?" Someone suggested "Pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel", but that was overstating things a bit - and nobody was really sure you could read so having the instructions printed might not help you much. Someone else thought "Eat a box of chocolates (My momma says, 'Life is like...')", but, while getting closer, just didn't quite state the obvious strongly enough. Imagine my delight when I went to slashdot and found the perfect defining statement!
I'm far too simple-minded to post a satirical comment on Slashdot.
Thanks, JakeD409 (cause the world ain't ready for 410!)!
disclaimer: no actual humor was used in the making of this post, although I did hit my funny bone while typing that bit about the box of chocolates.
PS. I don't know JakeD409. He just put the "kick Me" sign on and bent over and I could not resist.
Damn, I thought it was fava beans?
Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy, just because they can do it, and if the Corporation loses the case it's no big deal (just 0.000001% of their profit)
Sorry, but you are wrong.
I, and I would imagine most people, have a pile of cash that is used to pay bills, rent, and legal fees/fines. When that pile of cash is gone, it's gone. Next payday, I get another pile of cash. Lather, rinse, repeat.
A corporation doesn't work like that, they have "revenue streams" instead of piles of cash. You can't use up a revenue stream, they just raise prices to maintain their flow like the Corps of Engineers releasing more water from a dam to maintain river level. The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.
Even worse, the judgement against the corporation can be used to justify raising prices more than is justified by the loss of prifit - resulting in a RAISE in profit!
I remember buying cigarettes when they were 50 cents a pack. Then there was that big lawsuit resulting in BILLIONS being paid to the states when the tobacco companies lost. Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers! I also used to own stock in one of the tobacco companies, and I never, EVER heard of any year they did not make a profit, including the years when paying out the lawsuit claims.
Suing a corporation is not shooting them in the ass, it is shooting millions of the corporations customers the least little bit in the ass - and the corporation doesn't care in the least.
You should read more, Warren Buffet has a major investment in coke.
What's that? Coka Cola? That's not the same as...
Oh.
Nevermind.
Bitch.
Actually, I had never heard of that, but purely based my posting on the thought that there is a death penalty for actual humans, so there should be the same for a corporation, an "artificial person".
Abusing / attacking / extorting real persons should be grounds - in my opinion - for an "artificial person" death penalty as there is no jail sanction available. Given the (insignificant) money penalty or nothing, I support adding in a harsher penalty, and really don't see a penalty stiff enough to deter other than a death penalty.
I REALLY think Microsoft, Best Buy, AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, you-name-it would be more circumspect in their dealings if a death penalty was an option for certain outragious acts by the corporation.
Also, keep in mind that any monetary penalties against a corporation result in higher prices for the goods or services sold by the corporation; it is a penalty AGAINST THE CUSTOMERS of that corporation, not against the corporation itself.
If I win a multibillion dollar judgement against the RIAA, it is not the case that each person in charge of the RIAA has to pony up their share of the total personally; rather, they just raise the price of CDs by $0.47 each and, due to the increase in income, make their bonus for the quarter or year. The people in charge are actually REWARDED for screwing real people over.
This should be unacceptable behaviour.
I can't agree with you. Giving in to blackmail or extortion is NEVER fiscally responsible, nor is it socially irresponsible.
If you had some guarantee you could believe that paying up this time would prevent ever having to pay up again - for any reason - it may be personally responsible, but here you have no guarantee at all, so you might have to pay out to every spammer who gets your email address - uh, I mean every lawyer who finds out about your willingness to pay rather than fight.
As I see it, in the long run the ONLY fiscally, personally, and societally responsible thing to do is fight 'to the last ditch' (or to the geeks out there, 'to the pain') if you are falsely accused rather than pay to 'make it go away'.
I do agree with you that the RIAA (actually, ANYBODY) should be held responsible for the financial burdens defending against baseless attacks imposes.
I am also for the corporate death penalty for the RIAA and others that abuse the legal system for profit. I think they should forfeit their charter, have their assets sold at public auction, and their board of directors forbiden from ever serving on another board of directors.
I also think the in-house, corporate legal shills should face a professional 'death penalty' consisting of losing their legal certification.
The problem I see is that the only one with a penalty is the defendant, the plantiff should also face penalties for stupid pet tricks, and, while lawyers may be necessary for some things, corporate lawyers for the purpose of suing the general public are almost never necessary. Give them the chance to do the right thing, but don't give them TWO chances to do the right thing.
Did someone pull their finger?!? I thought I told everyone NOT to pull their finger! Nobody ever listens to me! I don't know what they were think...
What's that? Broke the WORLD?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Bitch.
Has their been a shortage of innovation recently?
Compared to not having any software patents? How would we know?
If so, has the shortage been due to the inability to get into markets because of patents, or have their been more mundane reasons (e.g., risk-adverseness among potential investors in technology)?
Looks like the same think to me - investors being risk-adverse due to patent liabilities caused by patents resulting in the inability to get into markets.
All those protection schemes are well and good, but just suspecting that a solution exists would cause a greater-than-normal effort to find it through reverse engineering.
If I give you a problem that would need a solution that shows P=NP to be solved, and I paid you for a solution, and you gave me a solution, then by definition you have a solution that proves P=NP, which proves that such a solution exists, which means that, given time and resources, I can find that solution.
Without breaching any of you security precautions, I would have discovered your secret - not the solution, but that at least one such solution exists.
[T]here will remain more than enough stupidity to keep any lawyer with a conscience busy to the end of time.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I know of any lawyers in my circle of friends, but I was always taught that that generated a 'divide by zero' error.
It is not UNDER fire, it is ON fire!
If anyone votes based on who is "going to be a factor in the election" then they are doing it wrong.
:-)
The BEST person (in the opinion of each voter)for the job should be voted for, not the proverbial 'lesser of two evils'.
If you are saying Ron Paul is not the BEST person for the job, I probably agree with you.
If you are saying he won't be a factor in the next election BECAUSE he is not the BEST person for the job, I also might agree with you.
But you're right. Pirate Bay has done nothing wrong. Sure they haven't. I'm sure they make 0 money off their site. They just want to 'stick it to the man'
...copyright infringement is still copyright infringement..
Not sure what your point is here, but from what I am reading (maybe reading into it?) you have a problem with their making money from the site? Are you saying it would be OK for them to do exactly what they are doing IF they did not make money from the site? I am failing to see how profit or nonprofit makes any difference.
On another point, the summary and article both say that copyrighted works were downloaded through their site. My understanding of the Pirate Bay site is that you don't download ANYTHING COPYRIGHTED from the site, it only points you to some other site that claims to have what you searched for.
A pretty close analogy would be the phone book. If I go into the Yellow Pages and look up "Escorts" and call one, I could be looking for a true escort, or I could be looking for a prostitute. However, can a prosecutor indict the producer of the phone book for facilitating prostitution, based on the POSSIBILITY the "Escort" may be a prostitute?
I have never seen a site shown on TPB where TPB stated "This site is providing copyright infringing material", just as I have never seen a listing in the Yellow Pages for "Prostitute" (I have never been anywhere where prostitution is legal.)
I assume there are legal points TPB may be hit with, but copyright infringement is not one of them.
I note that the announcement is phrased very specifically that nothing was downloaded FROM the TPB site, it was downloaded "through" the TPB site. " 'The Swedish prosecutor listed dozens of works that had been downloaded through The Pirate Bay site, including The Beatles' Let It Be, Robbie Williams' Intensive Care and the movie Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire." (bolding added)
But no matter how evil they are, copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. Why don't you write a song or book or create a painting, and I'll copy it. Lets see how quick you change your tune.
Strawman, as TPB is not infringing copyrights as they are not copying or providing copies of anything - they are just a listing of people and places that are claiming to provide 'stuff' which may or may not be copyrighted.
Yes, and terrorists are still terrorists, and politicians are still liars, and water is still wet and the sky is still blue. None of that makes TPB guilty of anything connected with copyright infringing.
there is no excuse for ANY appliance to catch fire.
Agreed, but I did not see anywhere in TFA where is said the fire occured when the computer/monitor caught on fire. In both cases, the allegation is that the computer/monitor CAUSED a fire. I can think of several ways user error could cause a fire - including 'putting a penny in the fuse box' or otherwise overloading the circuit.
I assume there were a bunch of the computers sold - by both companies.
How many had a problem?
If just these two then I would be more inclined to suspect the device was not faulty, but the electrical system was at fault (old wiring, dis-simular wiring, etc) - or the user overloaded the circuit.
The most over-designed device, totaly incapable of catching fire itself, can cause a fire when plugged into an overloaded circuit.
The computer may have been idiot proof, but the wiley idiots have ways of getting around that!
My counter example would be the fellow that took his barbeque to the lake, then loaded it into the bed of his truck and went home. He woke up in the middle of the night with his garage on fire from the still smoldering coals in the barbeque which he had left in the bed of the truck - because it was still hot when he got home!. The truck did nothing wrong, worked as designed, but someone has to pay. Idiots will burn their businesses and homes down, and there is nothing that can prevent all stupidity the idiots are capable of achieving.
But of course, those in the legal profession are willing to sue when there is even a POSSIBILITY (no matter how slim) that there might be a big payday.
I guess my point is that if the computer/monitor/ignition switch caught fire, that is one thing, but if the building wireing/fuses/barbeque caused the fire, then suing the computer maker/monitor seller/truck builder is just stupid - and the article did not give enough information to have an opinion on whether the electrical devices CAUSED the fire or CAUGHT on fire, although I seem to remember the article saying 'caused the fire'.
I will go back and read the article again.
Unless I missed it, TFA didn't even say the fire started IN the computer.
Let me see, on one sircuit we have an office refridgerator, the office microwave, the coffee maker, the desk lamp, the phone base/charger, the fax machine, and the pager charger. I added the computer, monitor, and printer and got a fire. OMGWTFBBQ THE COMPUTER WAS DEFECTIVE!! GOTTA SUE SOMEONE!!1!ll
Or maybe not.
See the sig.
Easily refuted.
If you don't know ALL the laws, how can you know which ones apply to you?
What about new laws? I may know all the laws that apply to me TODAY, but what about tomorrow? Unless I keep up on ALL laws, how can I know if a new law is passed that now makes something illegal that was legal yesterday?
Wetlands? New Orleans. 'nuf said.
Hackers are frequently useful. Crackers are seldom if ever useful.