No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.
Excuse me, Sir, but your tinfoil hat has slipped a bit to the side. You probably want to get it more firmly back on your head again.
If you had sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else, would you not be a little nervous about unusual criminal proceedings?
No, because I wouldn't have sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else in the first place.
Don't you know this is all a global conspiracy against him? This is all a plot by the US Government, The Reptilians and probably the Rothschilds and Bilderberg Group trying to kill him.
He is truly this paranoid? Can someone get this man to a psychiatrist? He is only wanted for questioning. Sweden wont extradite him to USA. If you believe that you have been sucked in to the conspiracy nuts world.
This is so far from reality
No doubt about that. He has been ranting for months that the USA will secretly extradite him from Sweden (as if Sweden has already okayed this -- yeah right), ship him off to Guantanamo Bay (like Harold & Kumar, no doubt), and execute him shortly thereafter. Does that actually sound realistic to anybody with at least half a brain living in this USA? Hell, Obama would probably have a reception for him at the White House instead.
This is why Assange should have been in jail from the beginning, and not staying in a country mansion. What fools he has just made of the UK legal system.
My own two cents, but I've been living in Oakland for 20 years, and never had one urge to move to SF. Oakland has much better weather, amazing parks (10 minute drive from my house and I'm in a redwood forest), and now that it's mathematically impossible to start new clubs, bars, or restaurants in SF they are all moving here!
I get why people have skewed ideas about Oakland (the media, the closet and overt racism) but I tell them: It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.
And it is also the home of Occupy Oakland -- one of the most activist, violent, and ill-tempered Occupy movements anywhere. Who wouldn't want that in their neighborhood?
What a one-sided load of excrement this article is. Do the authors not want San Francisco (a city that has never had cheap rents in my experience) to not be successful?
And why is it that (note the clever playing of the race card) that only potentially displaced residents are the ones with creative or artistic value? Do these new people moving in have nothing at all to offer the city? I'm sure that they do.
Cities grow, shrink, and change over time. And how hard is it really to live in Oakland and participate in San Francisco when the two cities are only a short BART ride under the bay?
I mean really, what a waste of bandwidth this whiny article is.
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont.
Your solution here is Netflix.
The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.
So you hate the artist, hate his music, hate his art overall, but still like it enough to pirate. And since you'd never buy from him, you haven't hurt his earning one whit. Son, you're badly conflicted here.
I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.
And just how does a weak argument equate to not being wrong? If the facts demonstrate a weak argument as being wrong, I would expect them to do the same to a strong argument as well.
You know, if the engineers referenced the patents in designing these smartphones in order to not have to repeat the discovery and invention process then maybe I could see some payment to these patent companies. They had contributed to the speedy design and manufacture of the phone.
But we all know that this isn't the case. Had the engineers known about the patents ahead of time they would have (likely) either licensed them -- or designed around them to avoid the often outrageous additional costs that it would add to their project. They didn't set out to intentionally violate patents, but are now being burned by them all the same.
So the patent holding companies are being rewarded for having an idea first that everyone else using it also went through the same amount of effort to develop and use, and then have to pay for afterwards. I feel that needs to be changed.
As God is my witness, I would never want this woman as my lawyer for anything after her display of this. Nor would I want any candidate that she would ever support. For the thief to be crying foul is the most foul deed of all.
The only reason why Google acquired Moronola was to get ahold of the patents. Their products are a useless piece of shit, so nothing of value has been lost really. Hard to choose between Microsoft and Moronola as both companies seem to specialize in mediocre products.
I disagree Mr. Coward. I've had 4 Motorola phones going back to the revolutionary in its time StarTac and loved everyone one of them. I presently have an original Droid and no desire to upgrade it to anything newer yet because it is great at doing everything I ask of it.
Microsoft should just go away and quit trying to collect money for things they had no part at all in creating. To the fools that claim that Motorola or Google deserve it, It's not punishing Motorola at all. It's picking money out of your pockets for every Moto product that you buy to enrich Bill Gates even further.
If the feature cannot be removed or worked around (and I'm betting that it can), then ship in the phones with no operating system installed -- hence no infringement at the border where this is all being checked. Load the OS after the phones have passed by the import ban and continue merrily along the way.
The police harassment of photographers won't really end until either: 1) A settlement over this costs a city a Whole Lot of Money (>$100,000.00 + all lawyer fees). -or- 2) A police officer goes to jail for at least a year over this. Until then, threatening letters, especially from this Justice Department, are little more than toilet paper.
I don't believe that this is right of the American government to do. The Internet is not sole U.S. property and there are no court proceedings to justify it.
The RIAA is scum, and the Obama administration (who has appointed too many of their minions to the Justice Department) are their toadies. So who is surprised that this kind of crap is happening? It's all about fat contributions to the incumbent's election and reelection campaigns and screw over the rest of us.
Or should I tell you what I really think about all of this?
I'm hearing too often about police raids that involve killing someone's dog in the process. I'm coming to think that killing a person's dog -- whether the person is innocent or not, and the dog most likely is completely innocent -- is a tactic now of police forces around the world to intimidate and harm the suspect regardless of the validity of the raid. Are police being taught that it is just safer to kill any dog they come across? It has gotten to the point where I'm rooting for the dog to win at least once.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's not back to the mansion by 6pm won't he be in violation of his release on bond?
No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.
Excuse me, Sir, but your tinfoil hat has slipped a bit to the side. You probably want to get it more firmly back on your head again.
If you had sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else, would you not be a little nervous about unusual criminal proceedings?
No, because I wouldn't have sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else in the first place.
Don't you know this is all a global conspiracy against him? This is all a plot by the US Government, The Reptilians and probably the Rothschilds and Bilderberg Group trying to kill him.
Don't forget The Illuminati.
He is truly this paranoid? Can someone get this man to a psychiatrist? He is only wanted for questioning. Sweden wont extradite him to USA. If you believe that you have been sucked in to the conspiracy nuts world.
This is so far from reality
No doubt about that. He has been ranting for months that the USA will secretly extradite him from Sweden (as if Sweden has already okayed this -- yeah right), ship him off to Guantanamo Bay (like Harold & Kumar, no doubt), and execute him shortly thereafter. Does that actually sound realistic to anybody with at least half a brain living in this USA? Hell, Obama would probably have a reception for him at the White House instead.
This is why Assange should have been in jail from the beginning, and not staying in a country mansion. What fools he has just made of the UK legal system.
My own two cents, but I've been living in Oakland for 20 years, and never had one urge to move to SF. Oakland has much better weather, amazing parks (10 minute drive from my house and I'm in a redwood forest), and now that it's mathematically impossible to start new clubs, bars, or restaurants in SF they are all moving here!
I get why people have skewed ideas about Oakland (the media, the closet and overt racism) but I tell them: It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.
And it is also the home of Occupy Oakland -- one of the most activist, violent, and ill-tempered Occupy movements anywhere. Who wouldn't want that in their neighborhood?
What a one-sided load of excrement this article is. Do the authors not want San Francisco (a city that has never had cheap rents in my experience) to not be successful?
And why is it that (note the clever playing of the race card) that only potentially displaced residents are the ones with creative or artistic value? Do these new people moving in have nothing at all to offer the city? I'm sure that they do.
Cities grow, shrink, and change over time. And how hard is it really to live in Oakland and participate in San Francisco when the two cities are only a short BART ride under the bay?
I mean really, what a waste of bandwidth this whiny article is.
Find a better school.
Yes!
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont.
Your solution here is Netflix.
The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.
So you hate the artist, hate his music, hate his art overall, but still like it enough to pirate. And since you'd never buy from him, you haven't hurt his earning one whit. Son, you're badly conflicted here.
How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?
Can I trade you my "EASY" button for that? It's big and red.
I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.
And just how does a weak argument equate to not being wrong? If the facts demonstrate a weak argument as being wrong, I would expect them to do the same to a strong argument as well.
And just why do you want to know where I work?
So that you can complain to my boss that I made you look stupid and that he should fire me for that?
You know, if the engineers referenced the patents in designing these smartphones in order to not have to repeat the discovery and invention process then maybe I could see some payment to these patent companies. They had contributed to the speedy design and manufacture of the phone.
But we all know that this isn't the case. Had the engineers known about the patents ahead of time they would have (likely) either licensed them -- or designed around them to avoid the often outrageous additional costs that it would add to their project. They didn't set out to intentionally violate patents, but are now being burned by them all the same.
So the patent holding companies are being rewarded for having an idea first that everyone else using it also went through the same amount of effort to develop and use, and then have to pay for afterwards. I feel that needs to be changed.
Barbra Streisand attacks attacks again.
As God is my witness, I would never want this woman as my lawyer for anything after her display of this. Nor would I want any candidate that she would ever support. For the thief to be crying foul is the most foul deed of all.
I'm sure that the unions will love this move. Remember when Boeing first tried to create a "new production site" in South Carolina. [/sarcasm]
The only reason why Google acquired Moronola was to get ahold of the patents. Their products are a useless piece of shit, so nothing of value has been lost really. Hard to choose between Microsoft and Moronola as both companies seem to specialize in mediocre products.
I disagree Mr. Coward. I've had 4 Motorola phones going back to the revolutionary in its time StarTac and loved everyone one of them. I presently have an original Droid and no desire to upgrade it to anything newer yet because it is great at doing everything I ask of it.
Microsoft should just go away and quit trying to collect money for things they had no part at all in creating. To the fools that claim that Motorola or Google deserve it, It's not punishing Motorola at all. It's picking money out of your pockets for every Moto product that you buy to enrich Bill Gates even further.
If the feature cannot be removed or worked around (and I'm betting that it can), then ship in the phones with no operating system installed -- hence no infringement at the border where this is all being checked. Load the OS after the phones have passed by the import ban and continue merrily along the way.
The police harassment of photographers won't really end until either:
1) A settlement over this costs a city a Whole Lot of Money (>$100,000.00 + all lawyer fees).
-or-
2) A police officer goes to jail for at least a year over this.
Until then, threatening letters, especially from this Justice Department, are little more than toilet paper.
I don't believe that this is right of the American government to do. The Internet is not sole U.S. property and there are no court proceedings to justify it.
Well now he has 5 years to let his back heal without too much else to worry about.
The real troubling fact is that we have no recourse against this sort of criminal behavior by government thugs.
You have recourse. Vote the bastards out!
The RIAA is scum, and the Obama administration (who has appointed too many of their minions to the Justice Department) are their toadies. So who is surprised that this kind of crap is happening? It's all about fat contributions to the incumbent's election and reelection campaigns and screw over the rest of us.
Or should I tell you what I really think about all of this?
I'm hearing too often about police raids that involve killing someone's dog in the process. I'm coming to think that killing a person's dog -- whether the person is innocent or not, and the dog most likely is completely innocent -- is a tactic now of police forces around the world to intimidate and harm the suspect regardless of the validity of the raid. Are police being taught that it is just safer to kill any dog they come across? It has gotten to the point where I'm rooting for the dog to win at least once.