Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
you are dishonest. You repeat the same lie about only one Israeli dying in the WTC. You snip half of my post. Try reading some proper history before you reply again.
Jesus, I hope for the sake of any present/future girlfriends you are 14 and do some growing up in the next few years.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I am a lawyer.
The "evidence" is pathetic, and (even if true) no more demonstrates foreknowledge than all those psychics who claim to have predicted 9/11. It also doesn't make sense - why would the conspirators warn someone four blocks from the WTC, but not those in the WTC? What kind of conspiracy sends text messages beforehand but keeps absolute secrecy afterwards?
If you think the evidence is so good, why don't you take it to court yourself? Or make a claim under the Freedom of Information Act? Or take it to the press? Don't tell me - it's all a giant conspiracy and the Zionists/freemasons/lizards will get you.
The real problem is that conspiracy junkies like you just can't cope with the messiness and complexity of real politics and real history. You prefer the tidiness of make-believe conspiracies, perfectly planned and perfectly executed by perfectly pantomime villians and kept perfectly secret forever. The real world just isn't like that. Watergate, the Lavon affair, Iran/Contra, the Teapot Dome Scandal, etc, are all great examples of what *real* conspiracies are like.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
your 9/11 Odigo stuff is truly feeble. *This* is evidence for a grand conspiracy? Seems to be on the borderline between urban myth and coincidence. And not one, but five, Israelis were killed in the WTC (see http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kh20). How reliable is everything else you say? But if you're one of those USS Liberty conspiracy freaks, rationality is probably wasted on you.
your genocide explanation is even worse; the war on drugs clearly doesn't fall within the definition of genocide in the particular US statute you cite (although this is hardly *the* legal definition of genocide).
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
nothing to do with feminism, everything to do with America's love of medication. And pur-lease get a sense to perspective - "ruined America"?
Re:very strange stuff in the article about Churchi
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
people were allowed to have those opinions, and Churchill was allowed to denigrate them for having those opinions. He was right. If he hadn't done that, I might not be here now. You cannot judge Britain in the 1940s by the standards of a Californian university campus today.
very strange stuff in the article about Churchill
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
The guy claims that, at the start of World War II, "any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy" was labelled "defeatist", preventing any argument. This is strange stuff.
Presumably Churchill's "aggressive policy" was wanting to continue fighting against Germany. Nasty and aggressive, indeed. And how bizarre that the premier of a country fighting for its existence, and without any allies, wanted to prevent defeatist talk amongst his colleagues spreading throughout the country.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
not heresy, but just about as dumb as Graham's example of the 10 foot Pittsburg residents.
"evidence implicating Israel"? Is this the same tiresome lie about all the Jewish workers in the tower vanishing on 9/11, a lie dispelled by any quick read of the obituraries in the next few weeks? Or do you have something original and new?
"the war on drugs is genocice"? I'm in favour of drug legalisation, but your use of the word "genocide" is bonkers.
"feminism has ruined America"? I'd love to see more detail on this, because it's bound to be kind of funny.
we're pretty good at dating and identifying historic and prehistoric finds - why do you think our descendents in a thousand years time will be less good?
If you believe SCO's share value will plummet in the medium term you should sell it "short" (i.e. buy a derivative of the share so you make money if it falls).
If enough people do this, the share value will get pushed down. And if you're right, you can make a killing. Of course, it you're wrong and the share price rises, you can lose a fortune...
There is no comparison. DeCSS avoids/bypasses CSS, without the permission of the copyright holder of CSS. That is the very purpose of DeCSS.
Your example is just silly. The word "impair" must be read in conjunction with the other words in the DMCA ("avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate") as well as the ordinary meaning of the word "circumvention". No court would read the word "impair" as you suggest.
"to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner"
As the copyright holder of the DLL is Microsoft, anything they do to the DLL (however stupid) will be "with the authority of the copyright holder". Hence nothing they do will be caught by the circumvention restriction.
that is simply not true. Recently revealed documents show that US military advisers knew at the time that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iranian humane wave attacks. That's it. No supply of weapons. No assistance with use.
I don't agree with the US's tacit support for Hussein in the 80s. But suggestions the US supplied him with chemical weapons are at best an urban myth and at worst a lie. If anybody doubts this, they should post a link rather than just modding me to troll.
Absolutely. How many mult-billion dollar companies bother to develop revenue streams generating income in the single figure millions? It's simply not worth the management time and development costs. Large organisations don't, as a rule, do small things efficiently.
A better example is Nazi Germany, which had Sabin and all manner of nasty chemical weapons, significantly more advanced than those of the Allies, but of course didn't use them.
There are a number of "no free lunch" theorems proving that an optimisation algorithm which produces better results over one particular (and narrowly defined) class of problem will necessarily produce worse results over another class of problem.
And that's when the planes were *given* to British Airways and Air France, with the governments absorbing the huge R&D spend as well as the manufacturing costs.
It was that and the fact the supply of replacement parts was about to dry up which killed Concorde, not the accidents.
Sadly supersonic travel will remain the province of the military and the rich unless someone can work out a way for a plane to travel supersonic economically. Query if this is possible.
It's possible such a takeover could be blocked by European competition law (yes, I appreciate neither is a European company, but it's hardly viable to have google separately owned in Europe but owned by Microsoft in the States).
Does anybody know or has anybody read anything on what the US anti-trust position would be?
If there's an extradition treaty, the US (or anywhere else) can generally extradite someone if it can show there's a prima facie case and that the offence is a criminal offence in both jurisdictions.
So, for example, if the US passes legislation criminalising spam then it won't be able to extradite from jurisdictions which don't have very similar legislation.
As a very broad rule, most of the places you'd want to live in have extradition treaties with the US. I think Russia does but, whilst I'm afraid I am indeed a lawyer, I'm not an American lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
you are dishonest. You repeat the same lie about only one Israeli dying in the WTC. You snip half of my post. Try reading some proper history before you reply again.
Jesus, I hope for the sake of any present/future girlfriends you are 14 and do some growing up in the next few years.
I am a lawyer.
The "evidence" is pathetic, and (even if true) no more demonstrates foreknowledge than all those psychics who claim to have predicted 9/11. It also doesn't make sense - why would the conspirators warn someone four blocks from the WTC, but not those in the WTC? What kind of conspiracy sends text messages beforehand but keeps absolute secrecy afterwards?
If you think the evidence is so good, why don't you take it to court yourself? Or make a claim under the Freedom of Information Act? Or take it to the press? Don't tell me - it's all a giant conspiracy and the Zionists/freemasons/lizards will get you.
The real problem is that conspiracy junkies like you just can't cope with the messiness and complexity of real politics and real history. You prefer the tidiness of make-believe conspiracies, perfectly planned and perfectly executed by perfectly pantomime villians and kept perfectly secret forever. The real world just isn't like that. Watergate, the Lavon affair, Iran/Contra, the Teapot Dome Scandal, etc, are all great examples of what *real* conspiracies are like.
your 9/11 Odigo stuff is truly feeble. *This* is evidence for a grand conspiracy? Seems to be on the borderline between urban myth and coincidence. And not one, but five, Israelis were killed in the WTC (see http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kh20). How reliable is everything else you say? But if you're one of those USS Liberty conspiracy freaks, rationality is probably wasted on you.
your genocide explanation is even worse; the war on drugs clearly doesn't fall within the definition of genocide in the particular US statute you cite (although this is hardly *the* legal definition of genocide).
nothing to do with feminism, everything to do with America's love of medication. And pur-lease get a sense to perspective - "ruined America"?
people were allowed to have those opinions, and Churchill was allowed to denigrate them for having those opinions. He was right. If he hadn't done that, I might not be here now. You cannot judge Britain in the 1940s by the standards of a Californian university campus today.
The guy claims that, at the start of World War II, "any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy" was labelled "defeatist", preventing any argument. This is strange stuff.
Presumably Churchill's "aggressive policy" was wanting to continue fighting against Germany. Nasty and aggressive, indeed. And how bizarre that the premier of a country fighting for its existence, and without any allies, wanted to prevent defeatist talk amongst his colleagues spreading throughout the country.
not heresy, but just about as dumb as Graham's example of the 10 foot Pittsburg residents.
"evidence implicating Israel"? Is this the same tiresome lie about all the Jewish workers in the tower vanishing on 9/11, a lie dispelled by any quick read of the obituraries in the next few weeks? Or do you have something original and new?
"the war on drugs is genocice"? I'm in favour of drug legalisation, but your use of the word "genocide" is bonkers.
"feminism has ruined America"? I'd love to see more detail on this, because it's bound to be kind of funny.
we're pretty good at dating and identifying historic and prehistoric finds - why do you think our descendents in a thousand years time will be less good?
this is wrong: "Colgate" is an invented word and so enjoys stronger trademark protection than variations on a common word such as "Mythic".
you're looking at this the wrong way.
If you believe SCO's share value will plummet in the medium term you should sell it "short" (i.e. buy a derivative of the share so you make money if it falls).
If enough people do this, the share value will get pushed down. And if you're right, you can make a killing. Of course, it you're wrong and the share price rises, you can lose a fortune...
care to beg for an explanation?
is it childish of me to giggle at how many Americans must be mystified by the great football (as in soccer) analogy?
There is no comparison. DeCSS avoids/bypasses CSS, without the permission of the copyright holder of CSS. That is the very purpose of DeCSS.
Your example is just silly. The word "impair" must be read in conjunction with the other words in the DMCA ("avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate") as well as the ordinary meaning of the word "circumvention". No court would read the word "impair" as you suggest.
This is not possible. The DMCA says:
"to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner"
As the copyright holder of the DLL is Microsoft, anything they do to the DLL (however stupid) will be "with the authority of the copyright holder". Hence nothing they do will be caught by the circumvention restriction.
that is simply not true. Recently revealed documents show that US military advisers knew at the time that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iranian humane wave attacks. That's it. No supply of weapons. No assistance with use.
I don't agree with the US's tacit support for Hussein in the 80s. But suggestions the US supplied him with chemical weapons are at best an urban myth and at worst a lie. If anybody doubts this, they should post a link rather than just modding me to troll.
Absolutely. How many mult-billion dollar companies bother to develop revenue streams generating income in the single figure millions? It's simply not worth the management time and development costs. Large organisations don't, as a rule, do small things efficiently.
A better example is Nazi Germany, which had Sabin and all manner of nasty chemical weapons, significantly more advanced than those of the Allies, but of course didn't use them.
unless by "we" you mean various French and German chemicals companies, you're talking out your arse.
This is most likely not possible.
There are a number of "no free lunch" theorems proving that an optimisation algorithm which produces better results over one particular (and narrowly defined) class of problem will necessarily produce worse results over another class of problem.
Concorde was a huge financial failure.
And that's when the planes were *given* to British Airways and Air France, with the governments absorbing the huge R&D spend as well as the manufacturing costs.
It was that and the fact the supply of replacement parts was about to dry up which killed Concorde, not the accidents.
Sadly supersonic travel will remain the province of the military and the rich unless someone can work out a way for a plane to travel supersonic economically. Query if this is possible.
isn't speed the problem with using airships for long range travel? Is anyone really going to take a two day flight across the Atlantic?
Incidentally, does anyone know how the economics compare with conventional aircraft?
It's possible such a takeover could be blocked by European competition law (yes, I appreciate neither is a European company, but it's hardly viable to have google separately owned in Europe but owned by Microsoft in the States).
Does anybody know or has anybody read anything on what the US anti-trust position would be?
Patent law in most jurisdictions has a narrower scope than US patent law. This patent is unlikely to be enforceable anywhere else.
If there's an extradition treaty, the US (or anywhere else) can generally extradite someone if it can show there's a prima facie case and that the offence is a criminal offence in both jurisdictions.
So, for example, if the US passes legislation criminalising spam then it won't be able to extradite from jurisdictions which don't have very similar legislation.
As a very broad rule, most of the places you'd want to live in have extradition treaties with the US. I think Russia does but, whilst I'm afraid I am indeed a lawyer, I'm not an American lawyer.