That given by copyright. The author has the right to determine when and how his/her work is disseminated. Just because the poster couldn't keep his pants on until the paperback came out does not trump the author's right to determine the release of the material.
Cite an example of the US censoring "obscenity" on the Internet. Dare you.
The UN, however, is composed of the countries which do those things. You know, the body that just couldn't bring itself to call Darfur genocide because it would insult the genociders. Those guys.
"First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there."
Bullshit. No real difference at all. Ask anyone married to someone of another race if the old laws should have been left in place. Also, it's not even subtle.
Perhaps then you could elucidate the rational reasons that anyone would have to write a letter (e-mail not accepted) in order to leave any given church and not be harassed by said church's hit-men? I do believe that "big commitment/part of life" is a personal thing, is it not? Should not then the choice to leave or drop said commitment, regardless of size, be a personal thing as well? I await your answer.
"... most curriculum is just insanely biased towards christianity."
Well, that would have been the fault of your parents, no one else. The state had guidelines and benchmarks that must be met which have zero to do with religion.
Try finding descriptions that fit "how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs" in places other than Creationist sites. Provide links, then watch how someone familiar with dinosaur taxonomy shreds the supposed support for (echo)"Dinosaurs Amongst Men"(/echo).
Are you out of your friggin' mind? It's costing us.
"Where does dicking around with DNS stand on the scale of moral wrongness?"
Well, now there's some meat. Has the U.S. done anything at all to squelch internet access? Has France, or Germany, or China, or the host of the conference Tunisia? Hmmm? U.S. zero dings, others many.
Now, just why would your prefer that countries that have actively tried to supress web content in other countries (France) or actively suppress their own citizens (China, Tunisia) have any controlling rights at all? Please be specific.
Oh, yes. Paranoid rambling about what might be is not a valid argument. It's called straw.
Why do you jump the gun? Reread the first portion which defines those covered.
Coverage from that portion:
Journalist: - print, broadcast; enough to qualify
Blogger: - photographic, electronic: enough to qualify
Rush Limbaugh: - broadcast,... satellite,: enough to qualify
Oh, yeah. "And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience." Seems you are as guilty as those in government whom you accuse.
When someone knows and disseminates information about a specific felony. The fact that they know the perp and profited from said knowledge makes them guilty of obstruction of justice if they refuse.
"A child molester has a right to live anywhere they like after their sentence has been fulfilled."
You need to read more. While I agree with your piece of paper tirade, you went a step too far without thinking it through.
The c-m will have restrictions on where they can live imposed upon them. The parent may kill the c-m, certainly. The parent by no means has the right to do so.
"I have to work something like 6% overtime or some such garbage before I get paid for it."
You sir, are getting screwed. If you are a contractor, you cannot be in their "management" or on their IT staff. You are not an employee of theirs. Every hour you work should be billable.
Given that, it is your call of course, as to whether you want to risk the position. Me? I bill all hours.
"And the 'pimps' are no better - while they offer the advantage of doing the job-search for you, their cut can be quite high, and worse, the contract may lock you in to their company. One of our former contractors is still in court over this...:("
Strictly depends on who they are and where you are. In Missouri, they cannot lock you into their company, regardless of what the contract reads.
Indeed. I contracted into SBC to analyze a migration of their accounts system to Java. It became obvious very quickly that two individuals controlled the entire system. Two "old school thought" guys who didn't want their egos bruised. I spent the last four months sitting there drawing money. They didn't give any kind of crap about what I did, so I got that time to do some online study and research.
Last I talked to someone there (two yrs ago), they were still where they were then. Sad.
"Singing it over the phone to Grandma is, in fact, a federal crime."
Please provide a cite. You are incorrect, you may sing it all you want like singing the latest Madonna or such. Being a paid for singing telegram and singing it over the phone would be illegal, but I doubt federal. Provide a cite.
Slashdot Mirror
That given by copyright. The author has the right to determine when and how his/her work is disseminated. Just because the poster couldn't keep his pants on until the paperback came out does not trump the author's right to determine the release of the material.
"I'll buy 11. When it comes out in paperback."
So you say. Until then, you've ripped off.
First, every citizen has a right to state their beliefs. Even George. Even the president.
.1% of them.
.2% of them.
Maybe in Germany or Belgium it would be a reflection, but not in the US. There are thousands of school districts. Each city has at least one.
NOW (assuming a mere one thousand):
1 school district would be
2 would be
20 and it stops being a fraction, but only gets you to 2% of them.
Since you used the pronoun "our", you knew all of the above, right?
Cite an example of the US censoring "obscenity" on the Internet. Dare you.
The UN, however, is composed of the countries which do those things. You know, the body that just couldn't bring itself to call Darfur genocide because it would insult the genociders. Those guys.
"First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there."
Bullshit. No real difference at all. Ask anyone married to someone of another race if the old laws should have been left in place. Also, it's not even subtle.
Perhaps then you could elucidate the rational reasons that anyone would have to write a letter (e-mail not accepted) in order to leave any given church and not be harassed by said church's hit-men? I do believe that "big commitment/part of life" is a personal thing, is it not? Should not then the choice to leave or drop said commitment, regardless of size, be a personal thing as well? I await your answer.
"... most curriculum is just insanely biased towards christianity."
Well, that would have been the fault of your parents, no one else. The state had guidelines and benchmarks that must be met which have zero to do with religion.
Ah, yes. The sounds of the righteously offended with nothing personal at stake.
Try finding descriptions that fit "how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs" in places other than Creationist sites. Provide links, then watch how someone familiar with dinosaur taxonomy shreds the supposed support for (echo)"Dinosaurs Amongst Men"(/echo).
"... financial gain."
Are you out of your friggin' mind? It's costing us.
"Where does dicking around with DNS stand on the scale of moral wrongness?"
Well, now there's some meat. Has the U.S. done anything at all to squelch internet access? Has France, or Germany, or China, or the host of the conference Tunisia? Hmmm? U.S. zero dings, others many.
Now, just why would your prefer that countries that have actively tried to supress web content in other countries (France) or actively suppress their own citizens (China, Tunisia) have any controlling rights at all? Please be specific.
Oh, yes. Paranoid rambling about what might be is not a valid argument. It's called straw.
The U.N. does not innovate. The U.N. subsumes.
"Why am I not surprised?"
... satellite,: enough to qualify
Why do you jump the gun? Reread the first portion which defines those covered.
Coverage from that portion:
Journalist: - print, broadcast; enough to qualify
Blogger: - photographic, electronic: enough to qualify
Rush Limbaugh: - broadcast,
Oh, yeah. "And as much as I hate that fucktard Rush Limbuagh and his innumerable clones on the radio were they bloggers instead of government propagandists I would demand the same protections for them as given to anyone who communicates information to an audience." Seems you are as guilty as those in government whom you accuse.
The discussion is on a law of exemption. Those other laws would be abrogated by it for certain individuals.
When someone knows and disseminates information about a specific felony. The fact that they know the perp and profited from said knowledge makes them guilty of obstruction of justice if they refuse.
"A child molester has a right to live anywhere they like after their sentence has been fulfilled."
You need to read more. While I agree with your piece of paper tirade, you went a step too far without thinking it through.
The c-m will have restrictions on where they can live imposed upon them. The parent may kill the c-m, certainly. The parent by no means has the right to do so.
They and you can, in any media you wish. An opinion. What the "journalists" do is to present "facts", not opinion.
"I have to work something like 6% overtime or some such garbage before I get paid for it."
You sir, are getting screwed. If you are a contractor, you cannot be in their "management" or on their IT staff. You are not an employee of theirs. Every hour you work should be billable.
Given that, it is your call of course, as to whether you want to risk the position. Me? I bill all hours.
"And the 'pimps' are no better - while they offer the advantage of doing the job-search for you, their cut can be quite high, and worse, the contract may lock you in to their company. One of our former contractors is still in court over this... :("
Strictly depends on who they are and where you are. In Missouri, they cannot lock you into their company, regardless of what the contract reads.
Indeed. I contracted into SBC to analyze a migration of their accounts system to Java. It became obvious very quickly that two individuals controlled the entire system. Two "old school thought" guys who didn't want their egos bruised. I spent the last four months sitting there drawing money. They didn't give any kind of crap about what I did, so I got that time to do some online study and research.
Last I talked to someone there (two yrs ago), they were still where they were then. Sad.
That only works if you have the same equipment, configured the same, as the employer. Most people don't have access to mainframes off site.
"Singing it over the phone to Grandma is, in fact, a federal crime."
Please provide a cite. You are incorrect, you may sing it all you want like singing the latest Madonna or such. Being a paid for singing telegram and singing it over the phone would be illegal, but I doubt federal. Provide a cite.
So you do work for others for free? All your work? Or is it just the stuff you want?
I must agree with the two other posters, and I'll give you a concrete example.
It used to be illegal to marry a person of another color in many states. I need go no further.
That said, to answer the grandparent, no. You could purchase the equipment necessary to record it as you watch it.
What HBO puts in a torrent is legal chow.
Those "diffs" would still be copyright infringement.
You are correct. Swedish law allows them to download things from a torrent.
Does Swedish law guarantee the quality of said downloads? If not, your point is moot and their griping meaningless.