The idea of "you have to demonstrate your patent somehow" (e.g. for a patent on something like an encryption algorithim, you have to demonstrate working code for it) would also help.
Wouldn't work, which is why it's not there. Build your own new MRI machine before patenting it? My patented code is for a Honeywell mainframe, you want me to lug one to the PO? No sir.
See, that may not be what the RIAA wants, but it's what they're getting. Only stupid people roll over and pay unwarranted lawsuits. Instead, a moderately intelligent person gets a lawyer and then the RIAA has it's suit judged on an individual basis. That's what's actually happening.
You missed his point. He was writing in past tense. Your company already got compliance on the license and it has now been shown to not, in fact, own a valid patent. I then sue your company for inbursment of the extorted amount. More clear?
"No, after being the 100'th person who is wrongly accused and had to spend 10's of thousands in lawyers fees I would like the court system to slap the prosecution down."
So you don't understand the difference in case types?
Your rant is unwarranted by TFA. The defendant's attorneys have (from linkage) "requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."
Punitive damages can be added by the judge. By the way, bear in mind the Copyright Act is referred to by the defense.
How do you define a "sicko"? How interested in children/young people/minors must a person be before you can break out the "sicko" stamp?
Apparently you didn't read your parent's post -- "trade in kiddie porn or rape children...sexual crimes against children". That sounds prettly explicit and restrictive to me.
It's no use being a reactionist fool, you know. Try being constructive instead, such as not bunching people who download some porn together with people who molest, rape, and murder children. I mean, who's the problem?
Where, oh where, did you get that your parent was doing this? Only spoke of child predators, not porn parties. That little connection appears to have sprung from your brain, not parent's.
... but throwing people in prison will not help!
Sure it does. The same way taking a serial killer out of the public pool does. The count of their victims stops. That is not desireable, why? Please be specific.
I mean, we're civilized and intelligent people, right?
Civilized people protect their society from internal predators.
... I'm not talking about child abusers and killers, I'm talking about normal people.
Your parent was talking about child abusers and killers, not normal people.
Yes, someone who "loves children" could be a perfectly normal human being, has this concept grasped you all yet?)
Sure (without the quotes), it just wasn't the topic.
Why the quotes? Does that really mean someone who has sex with children? In that case; no, the person is not "a perfectly normal human being".
First and foremost, you must recognize that every noble act is a selfish act as well. Altruism is at best an incredibly rare commodity and arguably only an abstract concept. In any event, it is much more rare than the count of noble deeds done.
"That's funny... I must have missed the part where your right to say anything you want includes a guarantee of an audience."
Sure, as soon as you explain how what you said makes any sense.
It's a simple sentence. He means you have the right to say anything, but you are not guaranteed an audience; that the first does not mandate the second.
It is not yours to decide how others should handle their e-mail. Reduced to minimum, your position is that of the annoying brother "not touching" you. Like said brother, you will whine and cry when someone punches you in the arm.
"Intelligent Design propenents need to immediately begin describing their ideas more concisely and subjecting them to peer review and public criticism."
Were you serious? They won't because they can't. The reason being, the "intelligence" cannot under any circumstances be described because that would let open an avenue of coherent attack against their incoherent idea.
The "continued silence" is, in fact, their entire "theory".
"I claim the president is an idiot. The FBI comes and tortures and rapes me for making this claim."
Won't happen. You purposely chose an abstraction that is horrific and presented it as if it were possible.
"Free speech is the freedom to speak without consequences (short of that "clear and present danger" clause)."
Never has been. Where did you get that idea from? Yell "Fire!" in a theater or "Bomb!" on a plane. Provide a link or text to explain your reference to 'clear and present', the context is missing.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of "you have to demonstrate your patent somehow" (e.g. for a patent on something like an encryption algorithim, you have to demonstrate working code for it) would also help.
Wouldn't work, which is why it's not there. Build your own new MRI machine before patenting it? My patented code is for a Honeywell mainframe, you want me to lug one to the PO? No sir.
"Except thats just what the RIAA don't want."
See, that may not be what the RIAA wants, but it's what they're getting. Only stupid people roll over and pay unwarranted lawsuits. Instead, a moderately intelligent person gets a lawyer and then the RIAA has it's suit judged on an individual basis. That's what's actually happening.
You missed his point. He was writing in past tense. Your company already got compliance on the license and it has now been shown to not, in fact, own a valid patent. I then sue your company for inbursment of the extorted amount. More clear?
"No, after being the 100'th person who is wrongly accused and had to spend 10's of thousands in lawyers fees I would like the court system to slap the prosecution down."
So you don't understand the difference in case types?
Your rant is unwarranted by TFA. The defendant's attorneys have (from linkage) "requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."
Punitive damages can be added by the judge. By the way, bear in mind the Copyright Act is referred to by the defense.
If the purpose of the keg party was to get drunk then drive around committing whatever extenuating circumstances constitute felony DUI, yes.
And your perceptual skills seem blunted. The entire case is about child porn. You cannot render that moot, regardless of your desire to.
Your personal analogy falls short. Did you burn those discards of questionable material to CD?
How do you define a "sicko"? How interested in children/young people/minors must a person be before you can break out the "sicko" stamp?
... but throwing people in prison will not help!
... I'm not talking about child abusers and killers, I'm talking about normal people.
Apparently you didn't read your parent's post -- "trade in kiddie porn or rape children...sexual crimes against children". That sounds prettly explicit and restrictive to me.
It's no use being a reactionist fool, you know. Try being constructive instead, such as not bunching people who download some porn together with people who molest, rape, and murder children. I mean, who's the problem?
Where, oh where, did you get that your parent was doing this? Only spoke of child predators, not porn parties. That little connection appears to have sprung from your brain, not parent's.
Sure it does. The same way taking a serial killer out of the public pool does. The count of their victims stops. That is not desireable, why? Please be specific.
I mean, we're civilized and intelligent people, right?
Civilized people protect their society from internal predators.
Your parent was talking about child abusers and killers, not normal people.
Yes, someone who "loves children" could be a perfectly normal human being, has this concept grasped you all yet?)
Sure (without the quotes), it just wasn't the topic.
Why the quotes? Does that really mean someone who has sex with children? In that case; no, the person is not "a perfectly normal human being".
Uh, the Constitution does not "grant" rights, to anonymous travel or anything else.
Go to the source -- " Amendment IV ".
"In reading about the work needed to produce explosions in movie crashes, it occurs to me that al Qaeda missed something in this caper:"
So you decided to educate them for next time?
Couldn't really figure out your sentence end, but if you own the copyright, there's no problem. Get a grip on your fears.
No, not if you copy the entire book it isn't.
"You've bought into the false idea of fair balance.
This university system itself is considered the public good, not any one individual professor."
It's the system that is out of balance.
To do that effectively, you need to transform their economic and political systems. Hmmm.
First and foremost, you must recognize that every noble act is a selfish act as well. Altruism is at best an incredibly rare commodity and arguably only an abstract concept. In any event, it is much more rare than the count of noble deeds done.
Neither is most anyone else; you and I, for instance. That concept -- class victimhood -- is dated as well.
Do you know what JCL is? If so, please explain how you would do the "whole damn thing" in JCL?
"The military industrial complex be damned."
Unless, of course, you require them to shield your gentler nation from those who would walk all over it. Then, it's welcome.
"... it doesn't mean that you have the right to shut up anyone who is speaking nearby."
It does if they are doing the equivelant of using a bullhorn above the legally specified limit (90 dec, in K.C.).
"That's funny... I must have missed the part where your right to say anything you want includes a guarantee of an audience."
Sure, as soon as you explain how what you said makes any sense.
It's a simple sentence. He means you have the right to say anything, but you are not guaranteed an audience; that the first does not mandate the second.
"An opt-in list law is COERCION."
Bullshit.
Holy shit, you poor bastard. Whatever happened to you to make you like that?
It is not yours to decide how others should handle their e-mail. Reduced to minimum, your position is that of the annoying brother "not touching" you. Like said brother, you will whine and cry when someone punches you in the arm.
"Intelligent Design propenents need to immediately begin describing their ideas more concisely and subjecting them to peer review and public criticism."
Were you serious? They won't because they can't. The reason being, the "intelligence" cannot under any circumstances be described because that would let open an avenue of coherent attack against their incoherent idea.
The "continued silence" is, in fact, their entire "theory".
Let's look at your counter-examples:
"I claim the president is an idiot. The FBI comes and tortures and rapes me for making this claim."
Won't happen. You purposely chose an abstraction that is horrific and presented it as if it were possible.
"Free speech is the freedom to speak without consequences (short of that "clear and present danger" clause)."
Never has been. Where did you get that idea from? Yell "Fire!" in a theater or "Bomb!" on a plane. Provide a link or text to explain your reference to 'clear and present', the context is missing.