You keep talking about morality, not law. Being "good", "right", "nice", not to mention "democratic", "rational",... none have any bearing on whether something is legal. And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government. If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
On a more realistic note, try contacting the newspaper and explain that you'd like them to add his middle name to the article so that when you add your middle name to your resume/CV it will be obvious if it isn't you. If they refuse, I would probably threaten to sue them for libel
You mean "a completely unrealistic note". For one, apparently it was a blog not a newspaper. For another, newspapers do have to have an excellent understanding of libel law and they will know you have no case. Otherwise every asshole who saw a mention of himself he didn't like would be sending them similar letters.
What defense can they use? Sweden has weaker copyright laws than most of Europe and the US, but they do have some, and there are penalties for breaking them. What can they use as a defense? Certainly not "we didn't know what we were doing". They've been up front all along about what they were doing, and why. One of the founders, in a television interview, looked directly into the camera and said "we're going to keep on doing this and you can't stop us. We know it's illegal. We don't care".
I think their defence will be more like "we're going to keep on doing this and you can't stop us. We know it's legal and don't care how many big companaies wish it weren't."
I thought that was a weak argument (in a trollish and ad hominem kind of way).
I don't know who you are calling a troll here. Yourself?
Instead you chose to say that Google advertises porn and as a primary product links to pirated material.
No, I certainly did not say that.
Google has a lot of products, and I don't know which are considered "primary". It's not important from either a legal or moral point of view, it doesn't matter if you are engaging in a criminal activity as your "primary" business or secondary. But Google DOES provide a "product" that will help you find as much porn or warez as you want.
And for all the attacks, I think any reasonable person can admit that links to piracy is the primary product of TPB (even if it isn't exclusive, necessary, or their fault).
Whose attacks? The RIAA? Yours? Anyway, TPB's "product" is advertising to people who view their pages of links. Same as Google. And I can't see why their links are different in any legal sense than Google's links.
I simply wanted to point out the comparison to google was a stupid and pointless one
No, but your references to porn certainly were.
Both Google and TPB provide an interface to search for material others have put online. And plenty of people have sued Google for their links (some for linking to porn, Perfect 10, for example). Google has a busy legal department.
Google doesn't provide porn advertising, and I doubt that heir primary product is links to copyright infringement.
Google even has a porn mode "safe search off" to help those looking for porn. And it's very effective, I've been told. Also, people tell me it's the best way to find copyright-infringing media, not that I would know anything about that personally.
And sites that specifically do search for porn, warez, etc, are often "powered by Google". Eg:
rapidshareindex.
There is a point to copyright law, and there is a point to drug prohibition laws. Neither of these do more harm than good. If you had content (a song for example) that was a method for you to put food on the table, you would be thinking differently about copyright laws. Similarly, if you had really been affected by drug abuse whether personally or by those close to you, you wouldn't be spouting such jibberish about ending it.
As someone who works in the publishing industry, and has had friends who were drug addicts, I think I have the right to an opinion. And it is the opposite to yours. For drugs, people are driven into crime and prostitution to pay the amazing markups that criminalisation (not "prohibition", that's a laughable label) has created, and as a result are often alienated from "normal" society forever after. As for copyright, no one has argued for abolition of that. But there is an argument to wind back the protection, expecially in the length of time. Specifically for music, it's the multinationals that make the bulk of the profit, not the "struggling musician putting food on the table". Those are usually getting paid per performance anyway.
these guys don't have a hope in hell, all the speeches about fairness in copyright won't save them. they were running a site which made millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement.
Google and every other search engine would be equally culpable.
I happen to speak some Russian and I am familiar with the Russian (and Greek) alphabets. I still think that a distro that fosters ties to a neighboring economy as huge as China's would be of great benefit.
I don't see it. Russia's culture, and language, is a lot more European than Chinese. And China's economic, and limitary power is a threat, as well as an opportunity. Russia would not want to give them more leverage. And while I doubt the NSA really has backdoored Windows, I'm sure that China would do that if it were possible. If I were in the Russian government, I wouldn't have Chinese software on my desktops.
Red Flag Linux is: 1) Not American 2) Not German 3) A mature, well developed product that maintains a necessary independence from foreign (specifically Western) influence.
The Chinese support is important, too. Don't forget that China is Russia's neighbor, they interact as much as you may interact with (I suppose that you are American) Canadians and Mexicans.
You suppose wrong, I'm Australian, but I live in Hong Kong. And Russia certainly does not interact with China as much as the US does with Canada. And any "communist solidarity" against the West ended about 50 years ago. I think Russia trusts Germany or the US a lot more than China. The Russian military and government would never ever use software produced by China.
As for language support, Cyrillic is a variation on the Greek alphabet, nothing at all like Chinese ideographs (and I've had some experience with Chinese software). A European distro would be much closer to their needs.
I thought that they would have gone with either Red Flag Linux
Why on earth would Russians want to use a Chinese language Linux? If it was just a joke, don't bother to "whoosh". (If it was about communism, Russia isn't communist any more, and its flag is red, white and blue stripes.)
think it would be at least as accurate to refer to modern evolutionary science as "Mendelian.
Sure. The point is that there were different mechanisms of evolution proposed. So it is useful to have labels to indicate which theory you're talking about. Whether it's "Darwinian", "Mendelian" or "Wallacian" doesn't matter. I suppose TFA's point is that it would be better if it wasn't an actual person's name.
SpuriousLogic writes "The Large Hadron Collider could be switched back on in September a year after it shut down due to a malfunction and several months later than expected. Scientists had said they expected the £3.6bn ($5.4bn) machine to be repaired by November, but then pushed the date back to June, before the latest delay."
So we can thank kdawson for fucking it up and attributing his/her errors to someone else.
OK, it wouldn't hurt to stop calling it Darwinism,
And in TFA "Using phrases like 'Darwinian selection' or 'Darwinian evolution' implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
However, there are and were other theories of evolution. Aside from "Intelligent Design", there was also "Lamarckism". Probably others. So "Darwinism" is a useful adjective to mean "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
Someone posts a link to a pirated MP3 and that link gets taken down.
RTFA. These cases are about music released by record companies (their "right hand") to promote their albums. The blogs in question were giving them free advertising. Then the lawyers, (the "left hand") discovers these same promotional tracks online and complains about it.
You can't first claim "this is probably the last year you can ski here". Then, after several years of record snow fall, change it
And who is the "you" you are quoting here? Name a specific person (or committee, whatever) that made such a prediction. Or is it just another straw man, or journalistic hyperble misquoted as if it were a statement by a scientist?
This "the world is flat", "no it isn't" bickering is what makes me not give a damn.
So you will refuse to look at the evidence until there is 100% consensus? That never happens.
There are always, literally, people who will insist that the world is flat.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep talking about morality, not law. Being "good", "right", "nice", not to mention "democratic", "rational", ... none have any bearing on whether something is legal. And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government. If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
Law is legitmate, by definition.
Law is not morality. Don't mix them up.
You had a "revolution" against the then government. Not a "resistance" against a foreign invader.
If you were a native American. The white people were mostly British subjects. It was their government and as legitimate as any other.
You mean "a completely unrealistic note". For one, apparently it was a blog not a newspaper. For another, newspapers do have to have an excellent understanding of libel law and they will know you have no case. Otherwise every asshole who saw a mention of himself he didn't like would be sending them similar letters.
Okay then, now that's clear, fuck off asshole.
I think their defence will be more like "we're going to keep on doing this and you can't stop us. We know it's legal and don't care how many big companaies wish it weren't."
I don't know who you are calling a troll here. Yourself?
Instead you chose to say that Google advertises porn and as a primary product links to pirated material.
No, I certainly did not say that.
Google has a lot of products, and I don't know which are considered "primary". It's not important from either a legal or moral point of view, it doesn't matter if you are engaging in a criminal activity as your "primary" business or secondary. But Google DOES provide a "product" that will help you find as much porn or warez as you want.
And for all the attacks, I think any reasonable person can admit that links to piracy is the primary product of TPB (even if it isn't exclusive, necessary, or their fault).
Whose attacks? The RIAA? Yours? Anyway, TPB's "product" is advertising to people who view their pages of links. Same as Google. And I can't see why their links are different in any legal sense than Google's links.
I don't see any comparisonm with eBay, but very simialr to Google.
I mean, come on, they're called Pirate Bay.
And as Google has "Don't be evil", that means they must be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Rather than cleaning up their content,...
Google doesn't either. (And in fact, neither has any "content", as in downloadable media files, another thing they have in common.)
No, but your references to porn certainly were.
Both Google and TPB provide an interface to search for material others have put online. And plenty of people have sued Google for their links (some for linking to porn, Perfect 10, for example). Google has a busy legal department.
Google even has a porn mode "safe search off" to help those looking for porn. And it's very effective, I've been told. Also, people tell me it's the best way to find copyright-infringing media, not that I would know anything about that personally.
And sites that specifically do search for porn, warez, etc, are often "powered by Google". Eg: rapidshareindex.
As someone who works in the publishing industry, and has had friends who were drug addicts, I think I have the right to an opinion. And it is the opposite to yours. For drugs, people are driven into crime and prostitution to pay the amazing markups that criminalisation (not "prohibition", that's a laughable label) has created, and as a result are often alienated from "normal" society forever after. As for copyright, no one has argued for abolition of that. But there is an argument to wind back the protection, expecially in the length of time. Specifically for music, it's the multinationals that make the bulk of the profit, not the "struggling musician putting food on the table". Those are usually getting paid per performance anyway.
Google and every other search engine would be equally culpable.
I don't see it. Russia's culture, and language, is a lot more European than Chinese. And China's economic, and limitary power is a threat, as well as an opportunity. Russia would not want to give them more leverage. And while I doubt the NSA really has backdoored Windows, I'm sure that China would do that if it were possible. If I were in the Russian government, I wouldn't have Chinese software on my desktops.
Red Flag Linux is:
1) Not American
2) Not German
3) A mature, well developed product that maintains a necessary independence from foreign (specifically Western) influence.
The Chinese support is important, too. Don't forget that China is Russia's neighbor, they interact as much as you may interact with (I suppose that you are American) Canadians and Mexicans.
You suppose wrong, I'm Australian, but I live in Hong Kong.
And Russia certainly does not interact with China as much as the US does with Canada. And any "communist solidarity" against the West ended about 50 years ago. I think Russia trusts Germany or the US a lot more than China. The Russian military and government would never ever use software produced by China.
As for language support, Cyrillic is a variation on the Greek alphabet, nothing at all like Chinese ideographs (and I've had some experience with Chinese software). A European distro would be much closer to their needs.
Why on earth would Russians want to use a Chinese language Linux? If it was just a joke, don't bother to "whoosh". (If it was about communism, Russia isn't communist any more, and its flag is red, white and blue stripes.)
I wasn't arguing their merits. Though I suspect a lot of non-scientists actually believe in Lamarckism, without knowing the name.
Sure. The point is that there were different mechanisms of evolution proposed. So it is useful to have labels to indicate which theory you're talking about. Whether it's "Darwinian", "Mendelian" or "Wallacian" doesn't matter. I suppose TFA's point is that it would be better if it wasn't an actual person's name.
Who said the argument was "free speech"? Straw man.
The original submission:
SpuriousLogic writes
"The Large Hadron Collider could be switched back on in September a year after it shut down due to a malfunction and several months later than expected.
Scientists had said they expected the £3.6bn ($5.4bn) machine to be repaired by November, but then pushed the date back to June, before the latest delay."
So we can thank kdawson for fucking it up and attributing his/her errors to someone else.
And in TFA "Using phrases like 'Darwinian selection' or 'Darwinian evolution' implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
However, there are and were other theories of evolution. Aside from "Intelligent Design", there was also "Lamarckism". Probably others. So "Darwinism" is a useful adjective to mean "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
That is completely besides the point. That wasn't my major point. Try reading my post again.
What if you have a paedophiliac nazi site giving "free" advertisement to the latest Disney movie.
What if you are a braindead retard? Almost as offensive and irrelevant as your argument.
RTFA. These cases are about music released by record companies (their "right hand") to promote their albums. The blogs in question were giving them free advertising. Then the lawyers, (the "left hand") discovers these same promotional tracks online and complains about it.
Like all car analogies here, it's quite inappropriate and misleading.
Google is getting FREE CONTENT from bloggers, and SELLING ADS on the pages. It's not a charity.
And who is the "you" you are quoting here? Name a specific person (or committee, whatever) that made such a prediction. Or is it just another straw man, or journalistic hyperble misquoted as if it were a statement by a scientist?
This "the world is flat", "no it isn't" bickering is what makes me not give a damn.
So you will refuse to look at the evidence until there is 100% consensus? That never happens. There are always, literally, people who will insist that the world is flat.