First to Fight will incorporate the Marine Corps system of formations, movement, and tactics for urban combat, otherwise known as Ready-Team-Fire-Assist. This name refers to the role of each marine in a four-man fireteam. The "Ready" man is a rifleman who stands next to the "Team" leader. Across from them is the "Fire" position, manned by a marine armed with the Squad Automatic Weapon. And behind him there's the "Assist" man, who serves as assistant gunner and is also responsible for covering the team's rear. In the game, your squad will use
RTFA tactics to ensure that your marines maneuver and fight like real marines.
Just a coincidence, or clever inside joke?
(I'm kidding. It's just a coincidence. But it made me laugh anyway.)
Let's talk about the bin Laden family for a second. It's fucking huge. Let me make another point about the bin Laden family. It's fucking huge.
The patriarch of the bin Laden family, Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, died in 1968. He left no fewer than fifty-eight sons and daughters, and hundreds of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is estimated, and I'm seriously not making this up, that the bin Laden clan, including relations through marriage, numbers around 4,000 people.
Seriously. Look it up. I got these numbers from a "Frontline" transcript; I'm sure you can find them yourself if you go a-lookin'.
The family long ago disowned and disavowed Osama bin Laden. While the old saying that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree certainly has value, it's simply not fair to paint the entire bin Laden family with the same brush. After all, just because Michael's a freak, a pervert and a child molester doesn't mean Tito is too.
Now I'm gonna change gears and talk about Prince Bandar. Prince Bandar bin Sultan is the Saudi ambassador to the United States. He's a fixture around the hallowed halls. He's been in the diplomatic corps longer than anybody; he came to the United States as Saudi Arabia's ambassador in 1983. He's a highly respected diplomat. He's been around for so long that if he ever tried to pull any real shenanigans, they would have caught up to him by now. He's trusted because he's earned our trust.
Prince Bandar met with President Bush on 9/13/01. It's not known whether they discussed the matter then, but shortly thereafter (9/15, most people believe) a request came from the Saudi Embassy. The Saudi Embassy, in the person of Prince Bandar, expressed concern about anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi sentiment in the United States, and suggested that for their safety, it might be wise to let Saudi nationals leave the country.
Now, if you'll remember, various United States embassies overseas make this exact same request when touchy situations arise. It's in the news pretty regularly. It's not exceptional or unusual in any way. It's entirely routine and entirely reasonable. In fact, if anything, the Saudis' request was even more reasonable because they weren't just talking about Saudi nationals. They were talking, in part, about members of the bin Laden family themselves. If you were anywhere inside the United States in the days after 9/11, you'll understand how terrified these people must have been to be carrying Saudi passports with the name "bin Laden" in them.
So the Saudi Embassy made this request. It got routed from State to the CIA for security reasons. From CIA it was bounced over to FBI. The FBI looked at the names on the list--140 in all--and concluded that none of them were what they call "persons of interest." The CIA, in the person of then-security advisor Richard Clarke, approved the request.
Some days later, a total of six charter flights carried a total of 140 Saudi nationals out of this country and home to Saudi Arabia.
Did the planes carry only the members of the bin Laden family? No. There were 26 members of the bin Laden family in the United States at the time, out of a total 140 Saudi nationals. Did the planes fly during the general FAA ban on air travel? No, it was several days after the ban was lifted that the flights took place. (The ban was lifted on 9/14. I know this because I was on a plane that day myself. That's not the sort of thing you forget. The request didn't even get to the CIA until 9/15.) Did the FBI have the chance to interview these people? Yes. Did the CIA have a chance to review the list? Yes. Are any of these people now believed to have any connection at all with 9/11? No. Are any of these people now considered "persons of interest" by the FBI or any other agency? No.
Is Michael Moore lying in order to advance a political agenda? Yes. Of course. That's what he does.
Well it actually says more than 60 percent were no threat to coalition forces and of no intelligence value quoting Brigadier General Karpinski.
General Karpinski has been formally admonished by the Army for her actions in Iraq.
It was Karpinski's lack of leadership and discipline at the prison that led to the abuses that happened there. She's a disgrace to her rank and her uniform. She was summarily relieved of command and officially reprimanded, and when she got back to the States she went public with all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated allegations. She spazzed out, basically. Just like you tend to do when faced with unpleasant truths. Funny how that works, ain't it?
The fact that she hasn't been cashiered, or even brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming, astounds me.
What else you got?
The Red Cross numbers are 70-90%.
7. Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units.
Another unsubstantiated allegation, only this time you can't even attach it to a source. The ICRC report cites "certain officials," but since those officials are not named anywhere in the report, their alleged claims cannot be investigated. The claims were flat-out refuted by MG Taguba, and subsequently have been dismissed as being either gross exaggerations or entirely fictitious by even the most radical of the radical leftists. What's the problem? Aren't you getting the newsletter?
Now, my question is this: are you merely gullible, or are you actively spreading lies?
I think the military has admitted they swept up large numbers of people and then had no resources or way to assess their threat or value so they just held them for a really long time.
"I think the military has admitted?" Whatsa matter? Can't be bothered to even come up with a made-up source for this falsehood?
I think the war in Afghanistan is still going on today isn't it?
Nope. We're building roads and schools. They've got a constitution, and they're getting ready for general elections. That's not what I call "war." That's what I call the thing that comes after war.
Of course we already had this long discussion on what constitutes war and you ASSURED ME WE ARE AT WAR. YOU DIDN'T LIE TO ME DID YOU.
Heh. Good one. Man, you really nailed me to the wall on that one. We're at war, so therefore we must be at war EVERYWHERE, because if we're not at war EVERYWHERE we aren't at war ANYWHERE. Somebody save my seat; I must go warn the Marines at 8th and I.
I guess we just aren't at war in Afghanistan because you decided we won, though I would have assumed that would be the first place you would still be fighting a war on terrorism.
We fight the war on terrorism in places where there are... you know... terrorists. Afghanistan, apart from a few remaining lawless enclaves, is no longer a safe harbor for terrorists. The government of Afghanistan is our partner in combatting terrorism. There's no need to wage war there any more.
For some reason, this just eats you up inside. Be honest with me: do you not feel even the slightest twinge of guilt when you look yourself in the mirror and realize that you're rooting for the enemy?
Just because the Taliban and Al Qaeda moved to insurgency didn't mean the war ended.
Um. Actually, that's kind of exactly what it means. When there's no longer an enemy who can mount a coordinated, effective attack, then the war's over. Nuisance attacks by bad guys longing for the old days? Sure. But that's not really "war" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just harassment.
You offer token resistance and then you melt in to the cities or mountains
Oh, please. Have a little self-respect. How would you respond if I came in here and said, "You might want to read Ann Coulter's take on Afghanistan."
Michael Moore, Robert Fisk, Ted Rall... Seymour Hersch. All men who care more about advancing their own agendas than they do about the truth.
Seymour Hersch is the same "investigative reporter" (I feel like I need a shower after typing that) who cited MG Taguba's report on the prisons in Iraq by saying, "Sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society." That wasn't an exaggeration, a misstatement, or a typographical error. It was a bald-faced lie. MG Taguba's report said no such thing.
This is the same Seymour Hersch who said in November 2001, "The mission was initiated by sixteen AC-130 gunships, which poured thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the Mullah's house unscathed." The little problem being that there were never 16 AC-130's in Afghanistan. There are only 21 AC-130's in the entire world. Not an exaggeration, a misstatement, or an error. Just a lie.
In that same article, Hersch painted a bleak picture, predicting that the war in Afghanistan would drag on for years, or even end in failure. The Taliban fell less than a month later.
On March 31, 2003, Hersch published a real whopper. He wrote an article about "the faltering ground campaign against Saddam Hussein." Turns out he misread every single aspect of the conflict. "The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements come," he said. "The only way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle."
Nine days later--nine days!--Baghdad was in Coalition hands, Saddam's statue had fallen, and the major military aspect of the war was over.
What Seymour Hersch doesn't lie about, he gets so completely wrong that you have to wonder if he didn't know exactly where the truth lay and head deliberately in the opposite direction. Hell, even the President of the United States has no illusions about Seymour Hersch. From Bob Woodward's book:
Musharraf said his deep fear was that the United States would in the end abandon Pakistan, and that other interests would crowd out the war on terrorism.
Bush fixed his gaze. "Tell the Pakistani people that the President of the United States looked you in the eye and told you we wouldn't do that."
Musharraf brought up an article in The New Yorker by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, alleging that the Pentagon, with the help of an Israeli special operations unit, had contingency plans to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons should the country become unstable.
"Seymour Hersh is a liar, " Bush replied.
And, of course, everybody knows about Hersch's malicious, libelous statements about SecDef in the New Yorker. I'm still amazed that a civil suit didn't arise out of that one. Hersch printed statements he had to have known to be false about the Secretary of Defense, and to this day he has not retracted or corrected them.
I can't say it any better than the President did: Seymour Hersch is a liar.
Explain this to me now: what possible excuse could you have for hauling out a known agitating-propagandist and liar to bolster your own argument? An argument which is, shall we take a moment to recall, nothing more articulate than "US SUCKS!!!"
Now, unless you've got something better than Seymour Hersch under your belt, get the fuck out of here.
In 1989, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel expressed the written opinion that Posse Comitatus did not have extraterritorial jurisdiction. At the time, it was in context of overseas drug interdiction. ("Memorandum, Office of Legal Counsel for General Brent Scowcroft, 3 Nov. 1989") This was generally the opinion that the courts had upheld throughout the post-war period. (United States v. Cotton, 1973, Chandler v. United States, 1948, D'Aquino v. United States, 1951)
However, in 1994, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kahn held that Posse Comitatus does "impose limits on the use of American armed forces abroad," reversing the then-accepted position.
Today, in accordance with this ruling, the policy of the United States government is that Posse Comitatus applies both inside and outside the borders of the United States of America.
US law 101: That which isn't explicitely forbidden, is allowed.
Yeah. Try applying that universally and without exception and see how far it gets you.
But US (and European) copyright law even explicitely allows making full copies of music recordings for private use, including giving them to friends and family. There's no exemption for digital copies.
You're missing the point. Title 17 says that you're not in violation of copyright if you make a copy for fair use purposes. Since the other stipulations of Title 17 do not prohibit you from making copies period, but rather merely from making perfect digital copies by circumventing access controls, the other parts of Title 17 (the stuff you guys insist on referring to by its legislative name, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even though the act became law years ago) are not in conflict with section 107.
The DMCA changed that by disallowing circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, allowing rights holders to make perfectly ok fair use illegal simply by adding even the most ridiculous technical protection.
That's just silly and you know it. You're making it sound like the only POSSIBLE way to exercise your fair-use rights is by mass-producing bushels and bushels of perfect digital reproductions of copyrighted works. You're not fooling anybody with that kind of talk.
I challenge you to quote one relevant philosopher who can back this funny statement up.
I have absolutely no intention of digging through the writings of Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, and countless other great minds who expressed learned opinions on the rule of law and its primacy in civilized society just to convince you of something that is self-evident! If you don't accept it as an axiom, that's your problem. When and if you catch up to the rest of the modern world, come on back for another go-round. Until then, nuts to you.
may I remind the f*@!#/ing MPAA that thanks to the new laws they bought, it is now a crime to watch DVDs under Linux?
No, it of course is not. All you have to do is get your hands on a licensed DVD player. Can't find one you like? Then write your own. The DVD-CCA is happy to provide you with a license for their encoding system for an entirely reasonable fee. All you have to do is come up with a sound business case and I'm sure you'll have no trouble securing the funding you need.
What's that? You can't build a business case because Linux users, rather than simply buying the products they want, prefer instead to do things illegally for no other reason than simply to be perverse? Well, that says a hell of a lot more about Linux users than it does about the law, doesn't it?
May I remind you that it would be just as illegal to watch a DVD on a PC or a Mac were it not for the fact that helpful vendors have produced licensed software products for just that very purpose? If you want to rail against something, rail against your fellow morons--er, I mean Linux users. Pardon the slip of the tongue. Purely unintentional, I assure you.
But then, why should I care after all the crap that RIAA and MPAA spew out? What about the corruption, the oligopolist practices and the lies? Why am I to believe them anything any more?
Your tin-foil hat is in the mail. Please remit $8.95 upon receipt.
Sorry, dude, no pity from me, they can fsck themselves and go to hell.
I don't believe they're asking for your pity. Quite the contrary: while you sit here and whine about the fact that somebody else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with their property, they're raking in dough hand over fist.
They are - legally - not going to see a single cent of mine in the next few years, and I wish them a quick and painful death.
Yes, I'm sure the fact that a guy who didn't buy any of their products in the first place has since stopped buying their products (what?) has got them shaking in their boots.
Care to back this up? (sound of crickets chirping)
Uh... how about the fact that nothing even remotely like that is in the statute?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. So if a law prohibits you from making perfect digital copies but still protects your right to make other kinds of copies, then Title 17 107 has no beef.
They would have you believe that there is such an exemption, but there isn't.
Yes, that's right: it's a big conspiracy.
Circumvent Macrovision and you're in violation.
Nonsense. Macrovision doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of "access control mechanism" given in Title 17. The courts have so held, despite civil suits alleging differently.
Btw, great great great grandparent wasn't talking about perfect copies, but recompressed ones. These are lossy anyway.
Before you can "recompress" you must "decompress," which is the same as making a perfect digital copy of the original work.
You do realize that by far more American soldiers have died since the "war" has been over right?
You do realize that the total number of American soldiers killed since the invasion began is still less than 1,000, right? The invasion started in March, 2003, and it's now nearly July, 2004, which means the rate of American soldiers dying in Iraq is roughly comparable to the murder rate of Chicago, Illinois.
And that guerrilla warfare has been taken up by the true believers in that country.
We "beat" Afganistan and the Taliban is coming back there.
The legitimate government of Afghanistan would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back. The hundreds of tribal and clan representatives who participated in not one but two loya jirgas would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back.
Please. A couple of guys holed up in a cave does not mean "the Taliban is coming back."
Please take your pessimism, your negativism, and your Chicken-Littleism somewhere else. Slashdotters are, as a group, far too thoughtful to fall for those lies.
You're going to have to come up with much better lies if you want to make any headway here.
1) the US would need to be able to match the artillery batteries in numbers - maybe not 1:1, but they'd need quite a few thousand to deal with the ~16k pieces the DPRK has.
Technology like counterbattery radar is a force-multiplier. Besides, it doesn't necessarily take an artillery piece to counter another artillery piece. The counterbattery radar acquires the firing solution then transmits the coordinates of the target via Joint STARS to a loitering B-2 equipped with JDAM bombs. A bomb is programmed with the coordinates of the artillery piece to be destroyed and is dropped from 20,000 feet.
2) Presumably the US would need to know with a reasonable degree of accuracy where the pieces are located. This is a problem; many are located in caves or underground, and they're apparently moved on a regular basis.
No, that's what counterbattery radar does. It's about parabolas. Remember high-school physics? There's only one path that an object moving ballistically can follow. So once counterbattery radar acquires and tracks the incoming shell, physics dictates that we know precisely where the shell came from, down to the fraction of a meter. All, as I said, while the initial incoming shell is still in the air.
3) It doesn't take many chem/bio/nuke rounds to kill a shitload of people in a city like Seoul.
Like I said, the next big thing is an intercept system.
My main point was that it's unwise to look at this conflict as a pissin' contest, or a wild west shootout. It's more valuable to look at it as a hostage situation
Uh... no. It's none of those things. It's a war plan. The Pentagon has had half a century to construct, analyze, reject, replace, and refine OPLAN 9518. If they say they can win, then they can win. A 1950's-era military force simply can't hope to defeat a numerically smaller but much more technologically advanced 21-century force.
So, if I show up at one of your demonstrations with Nazi banners, you're obligated to have brought a banner in response to that?
You kinda missed the point. If you showed up at one of my (hypothetical) demonstrations with a Nazi banner, I'd have an obligation to have you removed from the area, or if that's not possible to remove myself and my "demonstration."
You have an obligation not to march alongside people who advocate something that you oppose. If you ignore that obligation, then you shouldn't get all huffy when people attribute their position to you. You were standing right beside them, after all.
The people with those banners piss me off quite a lot, but when I protest, it's against those I believe represent the greatest threat to our country.
That's why nobody, but NOBODY, will ever take you seriously. Because you think the sitting administration is more worthy of vocal objection than the guy with the "Kill American Soldiers" placard.
Your perspective is so far out of whack that you find yourself on the same side of the argument as murderers and tyrants.
And, just to make things worse, this doesn't seem to bother you a bit.
That's why the "peace movement" and the "activists" are wasting their time.
if we'd had more troops at the beginning, we could have rounded up the insurgent forces before they got organized, back when they were being clumsy and largely ineffective
They were never clumsy or ineffective.
Oh, incidentally: there are no insurgent forces in Iraq. "Insurgent forces" means indigenous people who take up arms to oppose an occupier. That's not what's happening in Iraq. The people who are fighting us in Iraq are Jordanians and Syrians and Lebanese and Egyptians and Saudis and even a few Iranians. If we'd put a million soldiers in Iraq in March 2003, they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to stop these foreign fighters from streaming across Iraq's porous desert borders.
They could be planning to knock over a 7-11 in the U.S. (we wouldn't even have to know which one) and we'd have jurisdiction.
No, not unless, as I said, they made an overt act in furtherance of their conspiracy. Which none of these enemy combatants actually did.
But that's not all: there's something I forgot to mention last time. Are you familiar with the doctrine of posse comitatus? It's Latin, literally meaning "the power of the country" or something like that. The Posse Comitatus Act was an act of Congress that was passed during Reconstruction. It prohibits the government from using the military to enforce the laws. Meaning that if a Special Forces platoon marched into a terrorist training camp in Whatthefuckistan and took a hundred prisoners, then turned those prisoners over to civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI, those prisoners would have to be released no matter what charges the government was prepared to bring against them. Because their arrest by US military forces would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
So if you wanted to subject these people to civilian justice, you'd have to seize them with civilian law enforcement agents, or you'd have to accept extradition from another country that has them in custody. Neither of those were options in late 2001, and they're not options now.
I said "military court", not "court martial", so all your hair-splitting is in vain.
What is a "military court" if not a court martial?
It's been almost 3 years now, and they haven't even been charged.
Some have, some haven't.
It's possible that the legal black hole theory is consistent with the letter of the law, but it's making even our closest allies very unhappy with us. Just because we can do it (and I don't think we have that authority either) doesn't mean we should.
Fine, but again, what else should we do? We literally cannot turn these prisoners over to civilian a
You do realise that NK can pretty much destroy central Seoul (pop ~10,000,000) in the first 24 hours of their artillery bombardments
You'd be surprised just what kind of developments we've made in the past few years in counterbattery technology. Using tools like the AN/TPQ-47, our forces can detect incoming artillery shells, pinpoint the point of origin of those shells, and have a firing solution to destroy the artillery emplacement that fired them, all before the initial incoming shell hits its target.
Against a modern counterbattery force, a fixed artillery piece would be lucky to get two rounds in the air before being destroyed. And as the Iraqis learned, the same applies to mortar teams that aren't smart enough to fire and move, fire and move.
We have such counterbattery forces all along the DMZ. The artillery barrage by the DPRK wouldn't last anywhere near 24 hours, and the damage inflicted while significant wouldn't be anything like what you're intimating.
And the next big thing is a weapons system that can intercept and destroy incoming artillery shells. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, and I think it's still in the proving-ground stages, but it's coming soon to a theater-of-war near you.
So it is. I stand corrected. I thought it was some kind of trick that only the cool kids know how to do.
I would have thought by now you could have gotten one of your "fans" to post as something other than an AC to salvage some of your credibility though its a little late now.
Strangely enough, my teeming minions were nowhere to be found. Quel dommage.
At this point if you are astroturfing as an AC to try to make yourself look good, and like your a globetrotting, "embedded" reporter for "The Post" I don't care, go for it.
I'll thank you to stop spreading that rumor.
You do have interesting, informative and useful things to say, something I doubt you will ever say about me or any of the other people you seem to despise.
I have yet to hear you say anything informative or useful. Interesting, sure, in the sense that your stunning and bewildering array of blatant lies has been interesting. But informative? No. Useful? No.
Unless you mean useful in the sense of "useful idiot." In that case, my answer is yes.
But you wreck the good things you have to say by mixing in some bold face lies that you can't substantiate
"If I haven't heard it before, it's a 'bold face' lie."
(I think you meant bald-faced, although frankly it could go either way.)
constantly insisting your view of the world is the only right view and there is "no debate", (there is always room for more than one view and debate in a free and civilized world)
As I've pointed out time and again, there is no debate about facts which are not in question. Not everything is open to interpretation. Not everything is relative. Some things are simply true. And as such, no, there is no debate about those things.
We are at war. This is not an opinion. It's not a question of interpretation. It's not situationally dependent. It's not a matter of one's point of view. It's simply true. As such, there is no debate about it.
There are, however, people who like to try to deny the fact. These people are fools. There are also people who like to focus on a peripheral aspect of a statement, rather than the core aspect. These people are also fools.
You're in both groups.
and the worst is you resort to a LOT of unnecessary name calling. In case your selective memory has already purged that part, "traitor", "nutcase", "fool", "blind".
Obviously I don't find it unnecessary. You are a traitor, a nutcase, and a fool. I no longer believe that you are blind, because I know now that your refusal to see the truth is willful, not inborn.
Everytime I call you on a lie
"If I haven't seen it before, it's a lie!"
David Kay has already knocked the legs out from under your nonsense about WMD's in general, and chemical weapons in particular, in Iraq.
Interesting, because it was from his reports that I got the very facts I gave you. I guess you didn't read anything that you claim to have read.
If Saddam had any usable WMD's he would have used them in the final hours before his regime collapsed.
If Saddam had had any C3I capabilities left, he would have used what weapons he had. Our attack destroyed his C3I capabilities, effectively decapitating the Iraqi army. There was no way to get orders from Baghdad to the deployed divisions.
(C3I, incidentally, stands for command, control, communication, and intelligence. I wouldn't want you to have to strain yourself by looking it up.)
What he might have had was hollow "programs" and "desires" and those don't count for anything in a real war or a real world.
Actually, they do. As I already explained in a post that you ran from like a little girl, just one single weapons program alone would have been material breach of the 1991 cease-fire and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions, and sufficient
Yeah, I guess your copy isout-of-date because last I heard, we had a court case guaranteeing the right to make copies of video for personal use.
Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. The use of analogy technology to make copies is lawful whether the source material is encrypted or not. The use of digital technology to make perfect reproductions of encrypted source material is not lawful.
Why doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of fair use? Because that doctrine does not give you the right to make perfect copies. It merely gives you the right to make copies. Prohibiting the making of perfect copies while allowing the making of imperfect copies is not a problem as far as fair use is concerned.
My dictionary says legitimate also means "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards,"
And what have we learned here today? That dictionaries are not the source of all wisdom.
So any law that tries to infringe upon our recognized freedom to make copies of purchased recordings is, in fact illegitimate.
Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.
Not all countries walk step-in-step with the US re. copyright.
That's true. Some rogue states with illegitimate, unelected governments still refuse to become party to international intellectual property conventions, or simply to ignore the conventions to which they are already a party. This does not make the violation of intellectual property rights okay. In fact, I would conclude that the fact that very bad people are doing it is a sign that maybe it's something good people should choose to stay away from.
Congratulations! Because you're too narrow-minded to see outside the scope of the United States, I'm making you my first foe.
If you're going to get testy with somebody, get testy with me by responding to this. Don't go picking on bystanders just because I've gotten you all riled.
Hey, this is hilarious. Somebody pointed this little exchange out to me. I'm laughing myself silly here.
I don't even know how to post something anonymously. That's probably the sort of trick somebody with a lot more spare time can pull off. But it's nice to know that I've got you so tweaked you think you see me lurking in every shadow... heh-heh-heh...
But so is the law that makes it illegal (violation of fair-use).
Sorry, I must have an out-of-date copy of the United States Code here. Because mine doesn't say anything about the doctrine of fair use guaranteeing anybody the right to make perfect digital copies of copyrighted works.
There are plenty of legitimate, yet illegal, purposes for computing in general.
Nope. By definition, if it's illegal, then it's not legitimate.
The parent poster did mention decryption, but what about self-authored DVDs made with iMovie?
Rationalize all you want. The point is that the poster was talking about piracy. You might try to throw up a "but what about this? or this? or this?" smokescreen but that isn't going to fool anybody.
There's absolutely no just cause to take a potentially powerful new technology like Xgrid and sully it with implications that it's a handy-dandy tool for piracy. Doing so is incredibly short-sighted, and just plain dumb to boot.
(Incidentally, the China thing was just stupid. "What about using Xgrid to violate copyrights in countries where copyright law isn't enforced?" Dumbass.)
However, if your program needs to be fed data(eg. sort a list read from stdin), your program would have to have a way of splitting the data and giving it to the appropriate process.
No, the bundled Xgrid plug-ins already handle stdin and stdout.
I would suggest that you not waste your breath with "Kombat." His hatred of the United States knows no bounds, and responds to neither reason or fact. When he started foaming at the mouth about our name, I knew he was beyond help.
Slashdot Mirror
(I'm kidding. It's just a coincidence. But it made me laugh anyway.)
It's absolutely true.
Let's talk about the bin Laden family for a second. It's fucking huge. Let me make another point about the bin Laden family. It's fucking huge.
The patriarch of the bin Laden family, Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, died in 1968. He left no fewer than fifty-eight sons and daughters, and hundreds of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is estimated, and I'm seriously not making this up, that the bin Laden clan, including relations through marriage, numbers around 4,000 people.
Seriously. Look it up. I got these numbers from a "Frontline" transcript; I'm sure you can find them yourself if you go a-lookin'.
The family long ago disowned and disavowed Osama bin Laden. While the old saying that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree certainly has value, it's simply not fair to paint the entire bin Laden family with the same brush. After all, just because Michael's a freak, a pervert and a child molester doesn't mean Tito is too.
Now I'm gonna change gears and talk about Prince Bandar. Prince Bandar bin Sultan is the Saudi ambassador to the United States. He's a fixture around the hallowed halls. He's been in the diplomatic corps longer than anybody; he came to the United States as Saudi Arabia's ambassador in 1983. He's a highly respected diplomat. He's been around for so long that if he ever tried to pull any real shenanigans, they would have caught up to him by now. He's trusted because he's earned our trust.
Prince Bandar met with President Bush on 9/13/01. It's not known whether they discussed the matter then, but shortly thereafter (9/15, most people believe) a request came from the Saudi Embassy. The Saudi Embassy, in the person of Prince Bandar, expressed concern about anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi sentiment in the United States, and suggested that for their safety, it might be wise to let Saudi nationals leave the country.
Now, if you'll remember, various United States embassies overseas make this exact same request when touchy situations arise. It's in the news pretty regularly. It's not exceptional or unusual in any way. It's entirely routine and entirely reasonable. In fact, if anything, the Saudis' request was even more reasonable because they weren't just talking about Saudi nationals. They were talking, in part, about members of the bin Laden family themselves. If you were anywhere inside the United States in the days after 9/11, you'll understand how terrified these people must have been to be carrying Saudi passports with the name "bin Laden" in them.
So the Saudi Embassy made this request. It got routed from State to the CIA for security reasons. From CIA it was bounced over to FBI. The FBI looked at the names on the list--140 in all--and concluded that none of them were what they call "persons of interest." The CIA, in the person of then-security advisor Richard Clarke, approved the request.
Some days later, a total of six charter flights carried a total of 140 Saudi nationals out of this country and home to Saudi Arabia.
Did the planes carry only the members of the bin Laden family? No. There were 26 members of the bin Laden family in the United States at the time, out of a total 140 Saudi nationals. Did the planes fly during the general FAA ban on air travel? No, it was several days after the ban was lifted that the flights took place. (The ban was lifted on 9/14. I know this because I was on a plane that day myself. That's not the sort of thing you forget. The request didn't even get to the CIA until 9/15.) Did the FBI have the chance to interview these people? Yes. Did the CIA have a chance to review the list? Yes. Are any of these people now believed to have any connection at all with 9/11? No. Are any of these people now considered "persons of interest" by the FBI or any other agency? No.
Is Michael Moore lying in order to advance a political agenda? Yes. Of course. That's what he does.
It was Karpinski's lack of leadership and discipline at the prison that led to the abuses that happened there. She's a disgrace to her rank and her uniform. She was summarily relieved of command and officially reprimanded, and when she got back to the States she went public with all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated allegations. She spazzed out, basically. Just like you tend to do when faced with unpleasant truths. Funny how that works, ain't it?
The fact that she hasn't been cashiered, or even brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming, astounds me.
What else you got?
The Red Cross numbers are 70-90%.
Another unsubstantiated allegation, only this time you can't even attach it to a source. The ICRC report cites "certain officials," but since those officials are not named anywhere in the report, their alleged claims cannot be investigated. The claims were flat-out refuted by MG Taguba, and subsequently have been dismissed as being either gross exaggerations or entirely fictitious by even the most radical of the radical leftists. What's the problem? Aren't you getting the newsletter?
Now, my question is this: are you merely gullible, or are you actively spreading lies?
I think the military has admitted they swept up large numbers of people and then had no resources or way to assess their threat or value so they just held them for a really long time.
"I think the military has admitted?" Whatsa matter? Can't be bothered to even come up with a made-up source for this falsehood?
I think the war in Afghanistan is still going on today isn't it?
Nope. We're building roads and schools. They've got a constitution, and they're getting ready for general elections. That's not what I call "war." That's what I call the thing that comes after war.
Of course we already had this long discussion on what constitutes war and you ASSURED ME WE ARE AT WAR. YOU DIDN'T LIE TO ME DID YOU.
Heh. Good one. Man, you really nailed me to the wall on that one. We're at war, so therefore we must be at war EVERYWHERE, because if we're not at war EVERYWHERE we aren't at war ANYWHERE. Somebody save my seat; I must go warn the Marines at 8th and I.
I guess we just aren't at war in Afghanistan because you decided we won, though I would have assumed that would be the first place you would still be fighting a war on terrorism.
We fight the war on terrorism in places where there are... you know... terrorists. Afghanistan, apart from a few remaining lawless enclaves, is no longer a safe harbor for terrorists. The government of Afghanistan is our partner in combatting terrorism. There's no need to wage war there any more.
For some reason, this just eats you up inside. Be honest with me: do you not feel even the slightest twinge of guilt when you look yourself in the mirror and realize that you're rooting for the enemy?
Just because the Taliban and Al Qaeda moved to insurgency didn't mean the war ended.
Um. Actually, that's kind of exactly what it means. When there's no longer an enemy who can mount a coordinated, effective attack, then the war's over. Nuisance attacks by bad guys longing for the old days? Sure. But that's not really "war" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just harassment.
You offer token resistance and then you melt in to the cities or mountains
Michael Moore, Robert Fisk, Ted Rall... Seymour Hersch. All men who care more about advancing their own agendas than they do about the truth.
Seymour Hersch is the same "investigative reporter" (I feel like I need a shower after typing that) who cited MG Taguba's report on the prisons in Iraq by saying, "Sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society." That wasn't an exaggeration, a misstatement, or a typographical error. It was a bald-faced lie. MG Taguba's report said no such thing.
This is the same Seymour Hersch who said in November 2001, "The mission was initiated by sixteen AC-130 gunships, which poured thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the Mullah's house unscathed." The little problem being that there were never 16 AC-130's in Afghanistan. There are only 21 AC-130's in the entire world. Not an exaggeration, a misstatement, or an error. Just a lie.
In that same article, Hersch painted a bleak picture, predicting that the war in Afghanistan would drag on for years, or even end in failure. The Taliban fell less than a month later.
On March 31, 2003, Hersch published a real whopper. He wrote an article about "the faltering ground campaign against Saddam Hussein." Turns out he misread every single aspect of the conflict. "The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements come," he said. "The only way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle."
Nine days later--nine days!--Baghdad was in Coalition hands, Saddam's statue had fallen, and the major military aspect of the war was over.
What Seymour Hersch doesn't lie about, he gets so completely wrong that you have to wonder if he didn't know exactly where the truth lay and head deliberately in the opposite direction. Hell, even the President of the United States has no illusions about Seymour Hersch. From Bob Woodward's book:And, of course, everybody knows about Hersch's malicious, libelous statements about SecDef in the New Yorker. I'm still amazed that a civil suit didn't arise out of that one. Hersch printed statements he had to have known to be false about the Secretary of Defense, and to this day he has not retracted or corrected them.
I can't say it any better than the President did: Seymour Hersch is a liar.
Explain this to me now: what possible excuse could you have for hauling out a known agitating-propagandist and liar to bolster your own argument? An argument which is, shall we take a moment to recall, nothing more articulate than "US SUCKS!!!"
Now, unless you've got something better than Seymour Hersch under your belt, get the fuck out of here.
In 1989, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel expressed the written opinion that Posse Comitatus did not have extraterritorial jurisdiction. At the time, it was in context of overseas drug interdiction. ("Memorandum, Office of Legal Counsel for General Brent Scowcroft, 3 Nov. 1989") This was generally the opinion that the courts had upheld throughout the post-war period. (United States v. Cotton, 1973, Chandler v. United States, 1948, D'Aquino v. United States, 1951)
However, in 1994, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kahn held that Posse Comitatus does "impose limits on the use of American armed forces abroad," reversing the then-accepted position.
Today, in accordance with this ruling, the policy of the United States government is that Posse Comitatus applies both inside and outside the borders of the United States of America.
US law 101: That which isn't explicitely forbidden, is allowed.
Yeah. Try applying that universally and without exception and see how far it gets you.
But US (and European) copyright law even explicitely allows making full copies of music recordings for private use, including giving them to friends and family. There's no exemption for digital copies.
You're missing the point. Title 17 says that you're not in violation of copyright if you make a copy for fair use purposes. Since the other stipulations of Title 17 do not prohibit you from making copies period, but rather merely from making perfect digital copies by circumventing access controls, the other parts of Title 17 (the stuff you guys insist on referring to by its legislative name, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even though the act became law years ago) are not in conflict with section 107.
The DMCA changed that by disallowing circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, allowing rights holders to make perfectly ok fair use illegal simply by adding even the most ridiculous technical protection.
That's just silly and you know it. You're making it sound like the only POSSIBLE way to exercise your fair-use rights is by mass-producing bushels and bushels of perfect digital reproductions of copyrighted works. You're not fooling anybody with that kind of talk.
I challenge you to quote one relevant philosopher who can back this funny statement up.
I have absolutely no intention of digging through the writings of Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, and countless other great minds who expressed learned opinions on the rule of law and its primacy in civilized society just to convince you of something that is self-evident! If you don't accept it as an axiom, that's your problem. When and if you catch up to the rest of the modern world, come on back for another go-round. Until then, nuts to you.
may I remind the f*@!#/ing MPAA that thanks to the new laws they bought, it is now a crime to watch DVDs under Linux?
No, it of course is not. All you have to do is get your hands on a licensed DVD player. Can't find one you like? Then write your own. The DVD-CCA is happy to provide you with a license for their encoding system for an entirely reasonable fee. All you have to do is come up with a sound business case and I'm sure you'll have no trouble securing the funding you need.
What's that? You can't build a business case because Linux users, rather than simply buying the products they want, prefer instead to do things illegally for no other reason than simply to be perverse? Well, that says a hell of a lot more about Linux users than it does about the law, doesn't it?
May I remind you that it would be just as illegal to watch a DVD on a PC or a Mac were it not for the fact that helpful vendors have produced licensed software products for just that very purpose? If you want to rail against something, rail against your fellow morons--er, I mean Linux users. Pardon the slip of the tongue. Purely unintentional, I assure you.
But then, why should I care after all the crap that RIAA and MPAA spew out? What about the corruption, the oligopolist practices and the lies? Why am I to believe them anything any more?
Your tin-foil hat is in the mail. Please remit $8.95 upon receipt.
Sorry, dude, no pity from me, they can fsck themselves and go to hell.
I don't believe they're asking for your pity. Quite the contrary: while you sit here and whine about the fact that somebody else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with their property, they're raking in dough hand over fist.
They are - legally - not going to see a single cent of mine in the next few years, and I wish them a quick and painful death.
Yes, I'm sure the fact that a guy who didn't buy any of their products in the first place has since stopped buying their products (what?) has got them shaking in their boots.
Well done. Fight the power.
Uh... how about the fact that nothing even remotely like that is in the statute?Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. So if a law prohibits you from making perfect digital copies but still protects your right to make other kinds of copies, then Title 17 107 has no beef.
They would have you believe that there is such an exemption, but there isn't.
Yes, that's right: it's a big conspiracy.
Circumvent Macrovision and you're in violation.
Nonsense. Macrovision doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of "access control mechanism" given in Title 17. The courts have so held, despite civil suits alleging differently.
Btw, great great great grandparent wasn't talking about perfect copies, but recompressed ones. These are lossy anyway.
Before you can "recompress" you must "decompress," which is the same as making a perfect digital copy of the original work.
You do realize that by far more American soldiers have died since the "war" has been over right?
You do realize that the total number of American soldiers killed since the invasion began is still less than 1,000, right? The invasion started in March, 2003, and it's now nearly July, 2004, which means the rate of American soldiers dying in Iraq is roughly comparable to the murder rate of Chicago, Illinois.
And that guerrilla warfare has been taken up by the true believers in that country.
Which "true believers in that country?" The various militias? Disbanded. The Madhi Army? They're fighting with us now. Zarqawi's Tawhid organization? They're not even Iraqi! They're Jordanian!
We "beat" Afganistan and the Taliban is coming back there.
The legitimate government of Afghanistan would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back. The hundreds of tribal and clan representatives who participated in not one but two loya jirgas would be shocked to learn that the Taliban is coming back.
Please. A couple of guys holed up in a cave does not mean "the Taliban is coming back."
Please take your pessimism, your negativism, and your Chicken-Littleism somewhere else. Slashdotters are, as a group, far too thoughtful to fall for those lies.
You're going to have to come up with much better lies if you want to make any headway here.
1) the US would need to be able to match the artillery batteries in numbers - maybe not 1:1, but they'd need quite a few thousand to deal with the ~16k pieces the DPRK has.
Technology like counterbattery radar is a force-multiplier. Besides, it doesn't necessarily take an artillery piece to counter another artillery piece. The counterbattery radar acquires the firing solution then transmits the coordinates of the target via Joint STARS to a loitering B-2 equipped with JDAM bombs. A bomb is programmed with the coordinates of the artillery piece to be destroyed and is dropped from 20,000 feet.
2) Presumably the US would need to know with a reasonable degree of accuracy where the pieces are located. This is a problem; many are located in caves or underground, and they're apparently moved on a regular basis.
No, that's what counterbattery radar does. It's about parabolas. Remember high-school physics? There's only one path that an object moving ballistically can follow. So once counterbattery radar acquires and tracks the incoming shell, physics dictates that we know precisely where the shell came from, down to the fraction of a meter. All, as I said, while the initial incoming shell is still in the air.
3) It doesn't take many chem/bio/nuke rounds to kill a shitload of people in a city like Seoul.
Like I said, the next big thing is an intercept system.
My main point was that it's unwise to look at this conflict as a pissin' contest, or a wild west shootout. It's more valuable to look at it as a hostage situation
Uh... no. It's none of those things. It's a war plan. The Pentagon has had half a century to construct, analyze, reject, replace, and refine OPLAN 9518. If they say they can win, then they can win. A 1950's-era military force simply can't hope to defeat a numerically smaller but much more technologically advanced 21-century force.
So, if I show up at one of your demonstrations with Nazi banners, you're obligated to have brought a banner in response to that?
You kinda missed the point. If you showed up at one of my (hypothetical) demonstrations with a Nazi banner, I'd have an obligation to have you removed from the area, or if that's not possible to remove myself and my "demonstration."
You have an obligation not to march alongside people who advocate something that you oppose. If you ignore that obligation, then you shouldn't get all huffy when people attribute their position to you. You were standing right beside them, after all.
The people with those banners piss me off quite a lot, but when I protest, it's against those I believe represent the greatest threat to our country.
That's why nobody, but NOBODY, will ever take you seriously. Because you think the sitting administration is more worthy of vocal objection than the guy with the "Kill American Soldiers" placard.
Your perspective is so far out of whack that you find yourself on the same side of the argument as murderers and tyrants.
And, just to make things worse, this doesn't seem to bother you a bit.
That's why the "peace movement" and the "activists" are wasting their time.
if we'd had more troops at the beginning, we could have rounded up the insurgent forces before they got organized, back when they were being clumsy and largely ineffective
They were never clumsy or ineffective.
Oh, incidentally: there are no insurgent forces in Iraq. "Insurgent forces" means indigenous people who take up arms to oppose an occupier. That's not what's happening in Iraq. The people who are fighting us in Iraq are Jordanians and Syrians and Lebanese and Egyptians and Saudis and even a few Iranians. If we'd put a million soldiers in Iraq in March 2003, they wouldn't have been able to do a thing to stop these foreign fighters from streaming across Iraq's porous desert borders.
They could be planning to knock over a 7-11 in the U.S. (we wouldn't even have to know which one) and we'd have jurisdiction.
No, not unless, as I said, they made an overt act in furtherance of their conspiracy. Which none of these enemy combatants actually did.
But that's not all: there's something I forgot to mention last time. Are you familiar with the doctrine of posse comitatus? It's Latin, literally meaning "the power of the country" or something like that. The Posse Comitatus Act was an act of Congress that was passed during Reconstruction. It prohibits the government from using the military to enforce the laws. Meaning that if a Special Forces platoon marched into a terrorist training camp in Whatthefuckistan and took a hundred prisoners, then turned those prisoners over to civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI, those prisoners would have to be released no matter what charges the government was prepared to bring against them. Because their arrest by US military forces would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
So if you wanted to subject these people to civilian justice, you'd have to seize them with civilian law enforcement agents, or you'd have to accept extradition from another country that has them in custody. Neither of those were options in late 2001, and they're not options now.
I said "military court", not "court martial", so all your hair-splitting is in vain.
What is a "military court" if not a court martial?
It's been almost 3 years now, and they haven't even been charged.
Some have, some haven't.
It's possible that the legal black hole theory is consistent with the letter of the law, but it's making even our closest allies very unhappy with us. Just because we can do it (and I don't think we have that authority either) doesn't mean we should.
Fine, but again, what else should we do? We literally cannot turn these prisoners over to civilian a
You do realise that NK can pretty much destroy central Seoul (pop ~10,000,000) in the first 24 hours of their artillery bombardments
You'd be surprised just what kind of developments we've made in the past few years in counterbattery technology. Using tools like the AN/TPQ-47, our forces can detect incoming artillery shells, pinpoint the point of origin of those shells, and have a firing solution to destroy the artillery emplacement that fired them, all before the initial incoming shell hits its target.
Against a modern counterbattery force, a fixed artillery piece would be lucky to get two rounds in the air before being destroyed. And as the Iraqis learned, the same applies to mortar teams that aren't smart enough to fire and move, fire and move.
We have such counterbattery forces all along the DMZ. The artillery barrage by the DPRK wouldn't last anywhere near 24 hours, and the damage inflicted while significant wouldn't be anything like what you're intimating.
And the next big thing is a weapons system that can intercept and destroy incoming artillery shells. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, and I think it's still in the proving-ground stages, but it's coming soon to a theater-of-war near you.
There's a much better and more interesting list.
Its a check box on the submit page.
.
So it is. I stand corrected. I thought it was some kind of trick that only the cool kids know how to do.
I would have thought by now you could have gotten one of your "fans" to post as something other than an AC to salvage some of your credibility though its a little late now.
Strangely enough, my teeming minions were nowhere to be found. Quel dommage.
At this point if you are astroturfing as an AC to try to make yourself look good, and like your a globetrotting, "embedded" reporter for "The Post" I don't care, go for it.
I'll thank you to stop spreading that rumor.
You do have interesting, informative and useful things to say, something I doubt you will ever say about me or any of the other people you seem to despise.
I have yet to hear you say anything informative or useful. Interesting, sure, in the sense that your stunning and bewildering array of blatant lies has been interesting. But informative? No. Useful? No.
Unless you mean useful in the sense of "useful idiot." In that case, my answer is yes.
But you wreck the good things you have to say by mixing in some bold face lies that you can't substantiate
"If I haven't heard it before, it's a 'bold face' lie."
(I think you meant bald-faced, although frankly it could go either way.)
constantly insisting your view of the world is the only right view and there is "no debate", (there is always room for more than one view and debate in a free and civilized world)
As I've pointed out time and again, there is no debate about facts which are not in question. Not everything is open to interpretation. Not everything is relative. Some things are simply true. And as such, no, there is no debate about those things.
We are at war. This is not an opinion. It's not a question of interpretation. It's not situationally dependent. It's not a matter of one's point of view. It's simply true. As such, there is no debate about it.
There are, however, people who like to try to deny the fact. These people are fools. There are also people who like to focus on a peripheral aspect of a statement, rather than the core aspect. These people are also fools.
You're in both groups.
and the worst is you resort to a LOT of unnecessary name calling. In case your selective memory has already purged that part, "traitor", "nutcase", "fool", "blind"
Obviously I don't find it unnecessary. You are a traitor, a nutcase, and a fool. I no longer believe that you are blind, because I know now that your refusal to see the truth is willful, not inborn.
Everytime I call you on a lie
"If I haven't seen it before, it's a lie!"
David Kay has already knocked the legs out from under your nonsense about WMD's in general, and chemical weapons in particular, in Iraq.
Interesting, because it was from his reports that I got the very facts I gave you. I guess you didn't read anything that you claim to have read.
If Saddam had any usable WMD's he would have used them in the final hours before his regime collapsed.
If Saddam had had any C3I capabilities left, he would have used what weapons he had. Our attack destroyed his C3I capabilities, effectively decapitating the Iraqi army. There was no way to get orders from Baghdad to the deployed divisions.
(C3I, incidentally, stands for command, control, communication, and intelligence. I wouldn't want you to have to strain yourself by looking it up.)
What he might have had was hollow "programs" and "desires" and those don't count for anything in a real war or a real world.
Actually, they do. As I already explained in a post that you ran from like a little girl, just one single weapons program alone would have been material breach of the 1991 cease-fire and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions, and sufficient
Obvious typo in the above: "analog," not "analogy."
Yeah, I guess your copy isout-of-date because last I heard, we had a court case guaranteeing the right to make copies of video for personal use.
Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. The use of analogy technology to make copies is lawful whether the source material is encrypted or not. The use of digital technology to make perfect reproductions of encrypted source material is not lawful.
Why doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of fair use? Because that doctrine does not give you the right to make perfect copies. It merely gives you the right to make copies. Prohibiting the making of perfect copies while allowing the making of imperfect copies is not a problem as far as fair use is concerned.
My dictionary says legitimate also means "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards,"
And what have we learned here today? That dictionaries are not the source of all wisdom.
So any law that tries to infringe upon our recognized freedom to make copies of purchased recordings is, in fact illegitimate.
Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.
Not all countries walk step-in-step with the US re. copyright.
That's true. Some rogue states with illegitimate, unelected governments still refuse to become party to international intellectual property conventions, or simply to ignore the conventions to which they are already a party. This does not make the violation of intellectual property rights okay. In fact, I would conclude that the fact that very bad people are doing it is a sign that maybe it's something good people should choose to stay away from.
Congratulations! Because you're too narrow-minded to see outside the scope of the United States, I'm making you my first foe.
I can't see you for tears.
For example, I have a short script which cleans up fax numbers( a few thousand) and then sorts them and removes duplicates.
Bloody hell. Unless your working set is the list of all fax numbers in the world, why are we even talking about this?
Oh, I forgot to say:
If you're going to get testy with somebody, get testy with me by responding to this. Don't go picking on bystanders just because I've gotten you all riled.
Hey, this is hilarious. Somebody pointed this little exchange out to me. I'm laughing myself silly here.
I don't even know how to post something anonymously. That's probably the sort of trick somebody with a lot more spare time can pull off. But it's nice to know that I've got you so tweaked you think you see me lurking in every shadow... heh-heh-heh...
But so is the law that makes it illegal (violation of fair-use).
Sorry, I must have an out-of-date copy of the United States Code here. Because mine doesn't say anything about the doctrine of fair use guaranteeing anybody the right to make perfect digital copies of copyrighted works.
There are plenty of legitimate, yet illegal, purposes for computing in general.
Nope. By definition, if it's illegal, then it's not legitimate.
The parent poster did mention decryption, but what about self-authored DVDs made with iMovie?
Rationalize all you want. The point is that the poster was talking about piracy. You might try to throw up a "but what about this? or this? or this?" smokescreen but that isn't going to fool anybody.
There's absolutely no just cause to take a potentially powerful new technology like Xgrid and sully it with implications that it's a handy-dandy tool for piracy. Doing so is incredibly short-sighted, and just plain dumb to boot.
(Incidentally, the China thing was just stupid. "What about using Xgrid to violate copyrights in countries where copyright law isn't enforced?" Dumbass.)
However, if your program needs to be fed data(eg. sort a list read from stdin), your program would have to have a way of splitting the data and giving it to the appropriate process.
No, the bundled Xgrid plug-ins already handle stdin and stdout.
No. "America" is a pair of continents, globally referred to as the "western world."
The "western world" also includes Europe: that is, most everything north of the Med and west of the Volga.
The "western world" is a designation of common culture, not strictly of geography.
However, the United States is wrong
That's your real point, isn't it? America is bad and wrong.
You're starting to lose it, I think.
I would suggest that you not waste your breath with "Kombat." His hatred of the United States knows no bounds, and responds to neither reason or fact. When he started foaming at the mouth about our name, I knew he was beyond help.
gmail really cannot compare
Yes, that's true.
Time required to set up a Gmail account? About four seconds.
No comparison at all.
Time to de-generalize.
"In conclusion, do not send large attachments over email..." to that guy, who through some bizarre rift in time apparently still lives in 1995.
To everybody else who lives in the 21st century, knock yourself out.
but it'[s recognized that until puberty, most children look female in their body shape when other clues are not present
The "clues" in this case include what looks an awful lot like vulva where a scrotum should be.
Now, I'm not a parent, but...