And a philosophy professor should beat the writing teacher with a baseball bat for teaching any such thing. Structuring opinions as assertions of fact leads to sloppy thinking and, in my opinion, mental disease.
See, that would be a true story about a bureaucratic nightmare with a bank. It's clearly not defamation.
If, on the other hand, the above happened to you and you put up a website saying "Bank of America stole all of my money for no reason and then their CEO raped my children", they could sue you for libel.
Go for it. Of course, your stupid posts will be entered into evidence, and you'll have to convince the judge and/or jury that you're not actually stupid.
Well, if what you're saying in the campaign against the bank is true (and it'll help if you can prove that it's true), they shouldn't be able to sue you for libel.
However, if you were planning on spreading lies about the bank, you'd justifiably be smacked with a libel lawsuit. And I'm not sure how much damage an Internet campaign against a bank saying "These guys are jerks; if you're an idiot and don't update the address on your driver's license when you move, as required by state law, they're not going to accept it as valid ID" is going to do anyway.
Your analysis of what Apple's business model is would be a lot more credible if you knew what the word "revenue" meant. Even moreso if you were actually correct that iTS wakes no profit which is what I assume you meant. It may not have a huge profit margin, but they're not exactly giving away the content "at cost".
Treason is a federal crime. The state of West Virginia will not, and cannot, execute someone for treason.
Obviously, if you commit a federal crime for which there's a death penalty in West Virginia (even one that's not mentioned in the Constitution), state law is completely irrevelant.
It only applies is some states. Including one, which decided a Presidential election a while back, where you can apparently lose your right to vote for having a similar name to a convicted criminal, even if that person's crime was committed before you were born.
Of course, since infringing upon the profit capability of a work isn't anything close to being a necessary condition for copyright infringement, your personal opinion probably isn't a very informed one. Or at the very least, it's an opinion of what the law ought to be rather than what the law actually is, which is hardly relevant to whether Google would be rational to host the content.
Unless your MTA is incredibly broken, it will do the exact same thing it does now when it gets email from an IP that not in their blacklist: it will look up ipaddress.rbl.spamhaus.org, get an NXDOMAIN, and say "Ok, that site's not blocked, so deliver the mail".
Since when has "innocence" as a concept had anything whatsoever to do with a civil suit? I can guarantee you a preponderence of evidence brought in a case will support the plaintiff if he's the only one to offer any evidence at all.
Umm, Bayer was a German company. The fact that after the war the right to use their trademark was given to an American company doesn't mean the American company was doing business in Germany during the war. I suggets you look up the history yourself.
I think you'll find very few people who understand the law that think the answers to those questions would be anything that allows distribution of an entire TV program to every single person on the Internet, so no, that's no really the issue here.
Oh the irony of an Anonymous Coward demanding Internet users be forced to establish their identity to the government before using the network.
By the way, "extreme liberals" aren't the ones who believe market forces will fix everything. That would be the right wing nuts who've brainwashed you into hating liberals without realizing that you're actually opposed to their political views.
Do you drive you own car instead of hiring a professional driver to do so? Why do you think you have a god-given right to do so? When you buy a new toaster or microwave, do you plug it in yourself, or hire an electrician to do it for you? What makes you think you have the god-given right and education necessary to handle such a dangerous task on your own?
And no, for the record, I don't believe any of my rights are derived from God. Thanks.
Wouldn't it make things easier for everyone to make it a felony to sell a computer that's not already adequately set up? Why do you need to attack normal consumers for buying a consumer product and then expecting that they can take it home and use it without hiring a professional to install it?
Re:I have plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft..
on
The BBC's Honeypot PC
·
· Score: 1
except that's an average, so half the time you have LESS than 23 minutes before pwnage.
Not to be pedantic (ok, who am I kidding, this is just to be pedantic), but "average" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Please shut off your computer until you can prove to me you have a PhD in Computer Science and have personally designed a computer with at least 5% of the world market share. If you can't, I judge you not competent to use a computer, and you're endangering the rest of society by doing so.
That's interesting. When I bought an iPod, its firmware didn't even support DRM, yet these key aspects of the design were all present.
Next you'll be telling me the whole reason the iPod has reprogrammable firmware is that Jobs loves DRM so much that he wanted to make sure he could add it to the player later to go with all of the other design decisions that were made specifically for that future DRM.
They don't. The iPod will play every song in your playlist (or your entire library, for that matter) exactly once if you leave it in shuffle mode until all songs have played. It will even display "Song X of Y" to let you know how far through the playlist it is, and reset the count when it's played everything (if you've got Repeat mode on).
Of course, when the iPod is reset (or, more annoyingly, synced, at least on my 3rd generation one), it will forget where it was and play everything over again.
You really think a bit of light reflecting off the Earth is going to be more disruptive than 14 straight days of sunlight?
And then there's the inconveniently thick slab of radio-wave-blocking rock between the telescope and the scientists who want to use it to look at things. I suppose they could always put some communication satellites into lunasynchronized orbit.
Of course they can. No record label is under any obligation whatsoever to do business with any particular distributor if they don't want to. They can claim whatever the hell they want to. You clearly have no idea how the business world, the legal world, or the world in general works on any level. In short, you are a moron.
They don't sue Apple because they have a contract with Apple that Apple is honoring.
What makes you think they're going to be willing to sign a similar contract with a provider whose DRM scheme is a ripoff of Apple's sold by an enemy of RIAA?
Slashdot Mirror
If by "like the live sites" you mean "not at all", then yes, they're scanned exactly the same.
And a philosophy professor should beat the writing teacher with a baseball bat for teaching any such thing. Structuring opinions as assertions of fact leads to sloppy thinking and, in my opinion, mental disease.
See, that would be a true story about a bureaucratic nightmare with a bank. It's clearly not defamation.
If, on the other hand, the above happened to you and you put up a website saying "Bank of America stole all of my money for no reason and then their CEO raped my children", they could sue you for libel.
Go for it. Of course, your stupid posts will be entered into evidence, and you'll have to convince the judge and/or jury that you're not actually stupid.
However, if you were planning on spreading lies about the bank, you'd justifiably be smacked with a libel lawsuit. And I'm not sure how much damage an Internet campaign against a bank saying "These guys are jerks; if you're an idiot and don't update the address on your driver's license when you move, as required by state law, they're not going to accept it as valid ID" is going to do anyway.
Your analysis of what Apple's business model is would be a lot more credible if you knew what the word "revenue" meant. Even moreso if you were actually correct that iTS wakes no profit which is what I assume you meant. It may not have a huge profit margin, but they're not exactly giving away the content "at cost".
Umm, I was obviously talking about current law, or the grandparent's point about how West Virginia won't execute you at all is rather irrelevant.
Obviously, if you commit a federal crime for which there's a death penalty in West Virginia (even one that's not mentioned in the Constitution), state law is completely irrevelant.
It only applies is some states. Including one, which decided a Presidential election a while back, where you can apparently lose your right to vote for having a similar name to a convicted criminal, even if that person's crime was committed before you were born.
Of course, since infringing upon the profit capability of a work isn't anything close to being a necessary condition for copyright infringement, your personal opinion probably isn't a very informed one. Or at the very least, it's an opinion of what the law ought to be rather than what the law actually is, which is hardly relevant to whether Google would be rational to host the content.
Unless your MTA is incredibly broken, it will do the exact same thing it does now when it gets email from an IP that not in their blacklist: it will look up ipaddress.rbl.spamhaus.org, get an NXDOMAIN, and say "Ok, that site's not blocked, so deliver the mail".
Since when has "innocence" as a concept had anything whatsoever to do with a civil suit? I can guarantee you a preponderence of evidence brought in a case will support the plaintiff if he's the only one to offer any evidence at all.
Umm, Bayer was a German company. The fact that after the war the right to use their trademark was given to an American company doesn't mean the American company was doing business in Germany during the war. I suggets you look up the history yourself.
I think you'll find very few people who understand the law that think the answers to those questions would be anything that allows distribution of an entire TV program to every single person on the Internet, so no, that's no really the issue here.
By the way, "extreme liberals" aren't the ones who believe market forces will fix everything. That would be the right wing nuts who've brainwashed you into hating liberals without realizing that you're actually opposed to their political views.
And no, for the record, I don't believe any of my rights are derived from God. Thanks.
Wouldn't it make things easier for everyone to make it a felony to sell a computer that's not already adequately set up? Why do you need to attack normal consumers for buying a consumer product and then expecting that they can take it home and use it without hiring a professional to install it?
Not to be pedantic (ok, who am I kidding, this is just to be pedantic), but "average" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Please shut off your computer until you can prove to me you have a PhD in Computer Science and have personally designed a computer with at least 5% of the world market share. If you can't, I judge you not competent to use a computer, and you're endangering the rest of society by doing so.
Next you'll be telling me the whole reason the iPod has reprogrammable firmware is that Jobs loves DRM so much that he wanted to make sure he could add it to the player later to go with all of the other design decisions that were made specifically for that future DRM.
They don't. The iPod will play every song in your playlist (or your entire library, for that matter) exactly once if you leave it in shuffle mode until all songs have played. It will even display "Song X of Y" to let you know how far through the playlist it is, and reset the count when it's played everything (if you've got Repeat mode on). Of course, when the iPod is reset (or, more annoyingly, synced, at least on my 3rd generation one), it will forget where it was and play everything over again.
And then there's the inconveniently thick slab of radio-wave-blocking rock between the telescope and the scientists who want to use it to look at things. I suppose they could always put some communication satellites into lunasynchronized orbit.
I believe would be even more informative. If you don't mind your TV station trying to tell everyone how good New Coke is.
Of course they can. No record label is under any obligation whatsoever to do business with any particular distributor if they don't want to. They can claim whatever the hell they want to. You clearly have no idea how the business world, the legal world, or the world in general works on any level. In short, you are a moron.
What makes you think they're going to be willing to sign a similar contract with a provider whose DRM scheme is a ripoff of Apple's sold by an enemy of RIAA?