If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
Which really translates into payola. There is long standard precedence for academics to be paid for their contributions to journals and other authoritative sources. This has nothing to do with prestige and everything to do with simple coinage. Why is it so non-obvious that people might desire to be paid for their work? And rightfully so.
Hell, Wikipedia spends roughly 3x-4x what it actually needs to be very well run; including growth. They can easily afford to stop buying jets and pay academics to bring credibility to Wikipedia. Sadly, they see fund raising with half truths and buying jets far more important.
So you're saying he's above the bar to which he measures others. That alone invalidates your position. If he is above his own remarks, and lame bemusement, doesn't that mean he's just a blow hard who doesn't have anything to contribute in the first place? That's rhetorical...which brings us full circle and back to my original post.
Isn't a streaming license intended to charge a fee for streaming content to which the listener likely doesn't own a license; or at the very least, is unknown? In this case, hasn't the listener already paid (assuming the content isn't stolen) for a license on the content they are streaming to themselves? Assuming I understand the issue correctly, it really sounds like they are trying hard to double dip and receive payment twice for the same license.
Anyone know if consumer music has an explicit streaming license clause attached? And if so, has that ever been tested?
I agree no one cares if puns are intended or not but the link means that poster is a far bigger douche and idiot than anyone who actually says their pun is intended or not. Seriously, if someone pointing out their puns is enough to get you this cranked, you're already a cherry on a loser sundae.
The phrase "no pun intended" makes me want to band saw my dick off just in case I'm the last man alive and I have to risk repopulating Earth with some moron's incapable vagina. There's no such thing as an unintentional pun; the act of typing the phrase "no pun intended" makes it intentional. If your pun truly wasn't intended, then why didn't you erase it and write something else, asshole?
Seriously, this guy is such a douche, he ignorantly and very successfully argues everyone should go out of their way to make puns, and point them out, just so we can see this douche mutilate himself.
Aside from that, he completely ignores the more common issue in that someone speaking off the cuff may unintentionally say and verbally note the pun was not intentional. Frequently this is to convey the subject matter is not one of levity as the speaker may have accidentally implied by the use of a pun. Furthermore, it acts to convey sensitivity to the subject matter in hopes of assuring offense was not intended. It is far more likely, as humans frequently do, this verbal offense and defense carried over to the written word without much thought. Which again, underscores what a complete douche bag that guy is. Seriously, to make such a big deal of what is all too frequently, absolutely not as he portraits.
Seriously, his douche baggery is far more offensive than anyone he actually portraits in an effort to oh-so-brilliantly say, look at me, I'm so much smarter than everyone and therefore will cast bolts from my mighty mountain of douche bag intellect.
Its more than likely is a gmail bug. And that, sadly, is the basis of most of these reports. All too often, people who have no idea what they are doing blame the application closest to them for their problems. Many, many stability and memory footprint issues which are commonly blamed on the browser are frequently add-on and plugin issues. Flash is one of the more common plugins which creates stability and memory issues but people are happy to ignore that, despite it being extremely well known, and blame what they see - FF.
It may be that what you guys are talking about actually is a FF bug, but based on the false error rate attributed to firefox, chances are extremely high, its not a FF bug.
Isnt this a conflict of interest and grounds for appeal?
No. Of course not. Frequently, the judge in question gets to determine if there is a conflict of interest; including determination if they qualify for an appeal.
Mozilla Firefox is crashing almost daily for me, between full crashes and times that it leaks enough memory that it hits 1.5GB and stops responding
Perhaps you should stop blaming your browser for what is extremely likely a Flash problem. Frankly, your entire post is so contradictory to the vast majority of user experiences, it smacks of trolling and/or turfing.
Hell, I'm running the same FF 4.0 instance since release day, have over 50 tabs open in five frames, have numerous add-ons installed, including flash, and only have ~800M in use. The latest FF is super reliable, extremely fast and responsive, and based on my results, very frugal with memory. It easily, for me, has a 200-300M smaller foot print than FF 3.x.
Seriously, your claims just don't seem credible in the least.
is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons
I don't know of any reference.
It is important to keep in mind "export-grade" does not mean inferior. For example, the Apaches which the US has exported to Israel are actually superior to what the US flies in many ways. While they don't get the same software load, different doesn't mean inferior. My understanding is, the "quality" of the export has more to do with who is receiving the goods rather than the mere fact its being exported.
Either way, saying I'll stop being bad if you stop first is simply childish shit.
Not really. And in fact, US weapons sales have saved many a life. One of things people seem to be in a hurry to ignore is that, if the US didn't make those sales, they very likely would be made by our enemies, or at least rivals. Which likely means France, Russia (both of which had military such exports to Iraq - even after the ban and no fly zone), China, North Korea, so on and so on.
Furthermore, many complex weapon systems can be disabled after the fact. For example, the US sold numerous F-14s and associated weapon packages to Iran before their revolution. Before US contractors left the country, all planes and weapon systems were inert. Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Yes, it would be nice if these weapon sales didn't occur. But its simply not realistic. This is especially true after the fall of the iron curtain. Literally, almost everything Russia developed is currently available on the market. That's one of the reasons why reports of missing warheads were so alarming.
Ultimately, it means if the US doesn't make these sales, others, who will do who knows what with the money, will. And even beyond that, even sales of weapons such as the M16 is beneficial because while AK and ammo are a dime a dozen, M16's and ammo are not. While there is cheap ammo available for M16s, they function very well on cheap ammo - see M16's record at introduction in Vietnam for more information.
So contrary to the childish and nieve world view of weapon sales, realistically, having the US (or at least a friendly Western power) make these sales is frequently to everyone's advantage.
Too bad you failed to fucking read and comprehend twice now! Two fucking posts. One in detail which specifically addresses the issue. You are fucking retarded. Holy shit I can only pray you are removed from the gene pool.
Fucking retards/. attracts these days.
Yes - pot is completely legal too - unless you have a prescription - at which point, you can go to fucking jail. Damn you're fucking retarded. Yes, suppressors are fucking legal too, unless you don't have your FFL at which point, you go to fucking jail. Damn you're fucking retarded.
For all intents and purposes, they are illegal. You can jump through hoops to become an exception, but in many states, its a crime to posses without such exceptions. That's not the same thing as being legal. Dip shit. Holy shit you are fucking stupid.
Most people don't even realize that 99 cents is, in today's world, really expensive for a single song.
You're right of course, except for the massive majority where its a pittance. The real problem is, most people who attack the "system", do so out of massive ignorance of economics plus a liberal dose of utopian disenchantment. Worse, most pirates are actively and yet completely ignorantly, advocating socialism so long as it doesn't touch their income.
The reality is, most songs are a flop. Thusly, the successful songs actually fund the majority of failures. Furthermore, statements such as yours scream you have no concept of capitalistic economics, otherwise, you'd understand the price is what the market will bare. And study after study clearly show price has extremely little to do with piracy. In fact, most studies clearly show piracy is almost completely about a self of self entitlement.
Bullshit. "Piracy" has existed for decades and has not stopped the growth of any given media industry. All that's changed is the belief in the lie that these draconian laws are going to curb piracy and deliver money in to the hands of media industries. If I am impacted due to overzealous behavior, it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, your view has absolutely no basis in the discussion. Its not the least bit legitimate, which only further validates my original post.
it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
This is the only part of your post which is even partly correct. Its the overzealous behavior on both sides which are to blame. Which is exactly what I said. You have idiots stealing on one side and an industry reacting to that theft on the other. Which brings us full circle, back to my original post. I strongly suggest you re-read it and since unknowingly, actually agree with what I said.
Understanding the issue might actually help you understand how to prevent further erosion of our rights as well as make these policy changes distasteful. Until pirates are repeatedly kicked very hard in the nuts at every opportunity, you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to expect anything other than these types of policies.
That's completely untrue despite being a common lie to justify modern alcohol taboos.
Wines were cut when served. The strength of the uncut wine was extremely dependent on the degree of delusion at the time of serving. The uncut wine was stronger than common table wines today. The cut wine was commonly stronger than your typical modern beer. Realistically, wine served then commonly had the alcohol content somewhere between modern beer and modern table wines.
Furthermore, as you can read in my post below, its believed one of the reasons Jesus was asked to create more wine is because they were not properly cutting the wine for the guests, making it extra potent.
Furthermore, it is well understood, the more drinks one had, traditionally, the less cut and therefore more potent the drink. This is because wines then had strong flavors of tar and pitch and cutting made it less offensive. But once had had become joyful, the need to cut the drink became substantially reduced. Such things don't happen, if as you suggest, intoxication is all but impossible.
There is what is commonly taught and widely believed from churches, and then there is the truth...
i always thought it odd that the southern baptists denounce alcohol but their savior turned water into wine for a party.
That's because, like most established religions, they fabricate "facts" to support their political and societal ambitions. If you look, you'll find southern baptists were created when alcohol consumption in polite society was an issue as were concerns over slavery and tobacco production.
Furthermore, other denominations condemn alcohol on the basis that modern booze is far stronger and therefore not traditional. But that ignores that traditional wines were in fact, extremely potent, typically stronger than common table wines, and were in fact, commonly cut with water, honey, fruits and juice, etc., before served. Sadly, this was all but a requirement because of the strong notes of pitch and tar which permeated wines then. In fact, you can safely say the cocktail was very traditional before it was re-discovered by modern society.
While not commonly preached, its believed the reason Jesus was called to create more wine is because the celebration participants were not cutting their wine sufficiently to allow the supply to last. But the party must go on. For whatever reason, people like to pretend that if Jesus was human or even had a good time, it somehow undermines his religious stature. I find that position most bizarre given that the current Pope was a Nazi.
While its unpopular, the simple fact is, this is what happens when everyone bends over backwards to support criminal behavior. I've been saying this for years now. People bitch and moan about ever growing draconian laws but are more than happy to turn a blind eye to criminal behavior. You can't have it both ways. When are people going to pull their heads from their ass and realize PIRATES are the direct cause of our freedoms and privileges being eroded.
If you bemoan laws and policy changes like these and are not condemning pirates, then you're ignoring that you are part of the problem. You can't be outraged about your house being burglarized when seeing and ignoring the same thing happening to your neighbor. These are all connected events. Please stop pretending they are completely unrelated.
If you've not figuratively or literally kicking a pirate, repeatedly, in the nuts, then you have no right to bemoan these completely expected, and all but demanded, policy changes. That doesn't make them right. And it certainly doesn't mean I endorse these policies, but that's reality. People need to start dealing with reality and come back from their imaginary utopian worlds which don't exist.
I dunno...maybe the population is actually getting dumber.
There is a major difference in perception. Firearms have a long tradition as essential tools for living. Even prisoners, after their release, were commonly returned their firearm and provided ammunition. It was understood most people used it as an essential tool which also acts as a literal weapon of liberty. Its illegal uses were and are, by far, in the minority.
P2P, unfortunately, was quickly seized on by those who used it strictly for illegal purposes. Blizzard making use of it for their game came only after it became entrenched for illegal purposes. Even to this day, the majority of bit torrent traffic still supports massive numbers of criminal offenses. For now, garnering organizational support for P2P is the same thing as advocating criminal behavior. And, more or less, we're already seen organizations attempt this - Limewire and Pirate Bay are some such commercial ventures.
Its important to understand that despite that statistics clearly showing anti-gun people are crazy, even finding support to abolish what was very clearly unconstitutional laws is difficult. I can't see any P2P organization as being sustainable and certainly not without becoming an easy target by the likes of the big media owners.
but lock picks are legal in all states (some states require locksmith license)
Only when licensed. If you are unlicensed, you are arrested. Furthermore, many states require background checks to receive your license. And worse, some states require sign-off by a law enforcement official. The point remains, they are illegal unless you go through great leaps to be allowed to legally own. Are you suggesting we should all be licensed to be allowed to use bit torrent? That's they only way your statement seems to make any sense.
Why would a criminal spend several minutes to an hour to pick a lock when some property damage gets them instant access?
Why are 98% of all crimes commit with handguns committed with unlicensed firearms and yet we still require licensing and tracking. Here's a hint - it literally has more to do with Germany's history rather than crime deterrence. This is resoundingly validated by the illegal use of federal troops and state officers to use registration lists to illegal steal weapons (as was exactly done in Germany's history) from all citizens after Katrina. But at this point, we're pretty far off point.
Lock picks are almost always used for legitimate purpose due to lost or locked keys.
Then there is no need to make possession a criminal offense and no need to require licensing. As I said, I'm sure you're right out there fighting the good fight.
One of the arguments companies have used over time is that if they do not police their copy right they somehow lose it legally.
Wrong. That's trademarks. You must actively defend your trademark or lose it. You are confused. Copyright is commonly ignored until market reasons can justify otherwise. This behavior is actually pretty common.
The associated video is pretty fun. The logic is, it must be true because why else would they center text, as is commonly done in print. That logic really is funny and yet, sadly, I'm sure some dope, somewhere, actually believes that garbage.
Just remember, next time you hit that center text button in Word and OO, you're killing a kitten! Oh no! Text is centered again...the world is ending!
Has EA lost an eighth, or are they well within their rights by going DMCA on a 26-year-old game they had no hand in developing?"
If they own the IP, which according to the post, they do, why are you asking moronically stupid questions to which we all already know the answer. Yes, absolutely, if they own the IP, they are absolutely within their rights.
Why are so many stupid people attracted to slashdot these days. The fact I keep coming back seem more and more evident I now fall into such categorizations.
Slashdot Mirror
If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
Which really translates into payola. There is long standard precedence for academics to be paid for their contributions to journals and other authoritative sources. This has nothing to do with prestige and everything to do with simple coinage. Why is it so non-obvious that people might desire to be paid for their work? And rightfully so.
Hell, Wikipedia spends roughly 3x-4x what it actually needs to be very well run; including growth. They can easily afford to stop buying jets and pay academics to bring credibility to Wikipedia. Sadly, they see fund raising with half truths and buying jets far more important.
So you're saying he's above the bar to which he measures others. That alone invalidates your position. If he is above his own remarks, and lame bemusement, doesn't that mean he's just a blow hard who doesn't have anything to contribute in the first place? That's rhetorical...which brings us full circle and back to my original post.
If that's the case, any idea what a "streaming license" actually includes? Any idea why the original license isn't applicable?
Isn't a streaming license intended to charge a fee for streaming content to which the listener likely doesn't own a license; or at the very least, is unknown? In this case, hasn't the listener already paid (assuming the content isn't stolen) for a license on the content they are streaming to themselves? Assuming I understand the issue correctly, it really sounds like they are trying hard to double dip and receive payment twice for the same license.
Anyone know if consumer music has an explicit streaming license clause attached? And if so, has that ever been tested?
Nobody cares if your puns were intended.
I agree no one cares if puns are intended or not but the link means that poster is a far bigger douche and idiot than anyone who actually says their pun is intended or not. Seriously, if someone pointing out their puns is enough to get you this cranked, you're already a cherry on a loser sundae.
The phrase "no pun intended" makes me want to band saw my dick off just in case I'm the last man alive and I have to risk repopulating Earth with some moron's incapable vagina. There's no such thing as an unintentional pun; the act of typing the phrase "no pun intended" makes it intentional. If your pun truly wasn't intended, then why didn't you erase it and write something else, asshole?
Seriously, this guy is such a douche, he ignorantly and very successfully argues everyone should go out of their way to make puns, and point them out, just so we can see this douche mutilate himself.
Aside from that, he completely ignores the more common issue in that someone speaking off the cuff may unintentionally say and verbally note the pun was not intentional. Frequently this is to convey the subject matter is not one of levity as the speaker may have accidentally implied by the use of a pun. Furthermore, it acts to convey sensitivity to the subject matter in hopes of assuring offense was not intended. It is far more likely, as humans frequently do, this verbal offense and defense carried over to the written word without much thought. Which again, underscores what a complete douche bag that guy is. Seriously, to make such a big deal of what is all too frequently, absolutely not as he portraits.
Seriously, his douche baggery is far more offensive than anyone he actually portraits in an effort to oh-so-brilliantly say, look at me, I'm so much smarter than everyone and therefore will cast bolts from my mighty mountain of douche bag intellect.
Insightful and interesting. Wish I had mod points!
From the comments, it might be a gmail bug.
Its more than likely is a gmail bug. And that, sadly, is the basis of most of these reports. All too often, people who have no idea what they are doing blame the application closest to them for their problems. Many, many stability and memory footprint issues which are commonly blamed on the browser are frequently add-on and plugin issues. Flash is one of the more common plugins which creates stability and memory issues but people are happy to ignore that, despite it being extremely well known, and blame what they see - FF.
It may be that what you guys are talking about actually is a FF bug, but based on the false error rate attributed to firefox, chances are extremely high, its not a FF bug.
Isnt this a conflict of interest and grounds for appeal?
No. Of course not. Frequently, the judge in question gets to determine if there is a conflict of interest; including determination if they qualify for an appeal.
Mozilla Firefox is crashing almost daily for me, between full crashes and times that it leaks enough memory that it hits 1.5GB and stops responding
Perhaps you should stop blaming your browser for what is extremely likely a Flash problem. Frankly, your entire post is so contradictory to the vast majority of user experiences, it smacks of trolling and/or turfing.
Hell, I'm running the same FF 4.0 instance since release day, have over 50 tabs open in five frames, have numerous add-ons installed, including flash, and only have ~800M in use. The latest FF is super reliable, extremely fast and responsive, and based on my results, very frugal with memory. It easily, for me, has a 200-300M smaller foot print than FF 3.x.
Seriously, your claims just don't seem credible in the least.
is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons
I don't know of any reference.
It is important to keep in mind "export-grade" does not mean inferior. For example, the Apaches which the US has exported to Israel are actually superior to what the US flies in many ways. While they don't get the same software load, different doesn't mean inferior. My understanding is, the "quality" of the export has more to do with who is receiving the goods rather than the mere fact its being exported.
I agree your fix is more accurate.
Either way, saying I'll stop being bad if you stop first is simply childish shit.
Not really. And in fact, US weapons sales have saved many a life. One of things people seem to be in a hurry to ignore is that, if the US didn't make those sales, they very likely would be made by our enemies, or at least rivals. Which likely means France, Russia (both of which had military such exports to Iraq - even after the ban and no fly zone), China, North Korea, so on and so on.
Furthermore, many complex weapon systems can be disabled after the fact. For example, the US sold numerous F-14s and associated weapon packages to Iran before their revolution. Before US contractors left the country, all planes and weapon systems were inert. Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Yes, it would be nice if these weapon sales didn't occur. But its simply not realistic. This is especially true after the fall of the iron curtain. Literally, almost everything Russia developed is currently available on the market. That's one of the reasons why reports of missing warheads were so alarming.
Ultimately, it means if the US doesn't make these sales, others, who will do who knows what with the money, will. And even beyond that, even sales of weapons such as the M16 is beneficial because while AK and ammo are a dime a dozen, M16's and ammo are not. While there is cheap ammo available for M16s, they function very well on cheap ammo - see M16's record at introduction in Vietnam for more information.
So contrary to the childish and nieve world view of weapon sales, realistically, having the US (or at least a friendly Western power) make these sales is frequently to everyone's advantage.
In other words, you likely committed a crime and got upset someone threatened to hold you accountable. Oh no...what a topsy tervy world we live in.
Too bad you failed to fucking read and comprehend twice now! Two fucking posts. One in detail which specifically addresses the issue. You are fucking retarded. Holy shit I can only pray you are removed from the gene pool.
Fucking retards /. attracts these days.
Yes - pot is completely legal too - unless you have a prescription - at which point, you can go to fucking jail. Damn you're fucking retarded. Yes, suppressors are fucking legal too, unless you don't have your FFL at which point, you go to fucking jail. Damn you're fucking retarded.
For all intents and purposes, they are illegal. You can jump through hoops to become an exception, but in many states, its a crime to posses without such exceptions. That's not the same thing as being legal. Dip shit. Holy shit you are fucking stupid.
Most people don't even realize that 99 cents is, in today's world, really expensive for a single song.
You're right of course, except for the massive majority where its a pittance. The real problem is, most people who attack the "system", do so out of massive ignorance of economics plus a liberal dose of utopian disenchantment. Worse, most pirates are actively and yet completely ignorantly, advocating socialism so long as it doesn't touch their income.
The reality is, most songs are a flop. Thusly, the successful songs actually fund the majority of failures. Furthermore, statements such as yours scream you have no concept of capitalistic economics, otherwise, you'd understand the price is what the market will bare. And study after study clearly show price has extremely little to do with piracy. In fact, most studies clearly show piracy is almost completely about a self of self entitlement.
Bullshit. "Piracy" has existed for decades and has not stopped the growth of any given media industry. All that's changed is the belief in the lie that these draconian laws are going to curb piracy and deliver money in to the hands of media industries. If I am impacted due to overzealous behavior, it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, your view has absolutely no basis in the discussion. Its not the least bit legitimate, which only further validates my original post.
it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
This is the only part of your post which is even partly correct. Its the overzealous behavior on both sides which are to blame. Which is exactly what I said. You have idiots stealing on one side and an industry reacting to that theft on the other. Which brings us full circle, back to my original post. I strongly suggest you re-read it and since unknowingly, actually agree with what I said.
Understanding the issue might actually help you understand how to prevent further erosion of our rights as well as make these policy changes distasteful. Until pirates are repeatedly kicked very hard in the nuts at every opportunity, you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to expect anything other than these types of policies.
That's completely untrue despite being a common lie to justify modern alcohol taboos.
Wines were cut when served. The strength of the uncut wine was extremely dependent on the degree of delusion at the time of serving. The uncut wine was stronger than common table wines today. The cut wine was commonly stronger than your typical modern beer. Realistically, wine served then commonly had the alcohol content somewhere between modern beer and modern table wines.
Furthermore, as you can read in my post below, its believed one of the reasons Jesus was asked to create more wine is because they were not properly cutting the wine for the guests, making it extra potent.
Furthermore, it is well understood, the more drinks one had, traditionally, the less cut and therefore more potent the drink. This is because wines then had strong flavors of tar and pitch and cutting made it less offensive. But once had had become joyful, the need to cut the drink became substantially reduced. Such things don't happen, if as you suggest, intoxication is all but impossible.
There is what is commonly taught and widely believed from churches, and then there is the truth...
because believing the Simpson's cartoonist was a spook is more scary.
Of course! Everyone knows South Korean cartoonists make the scariest international spooks!
i always thought it odd that the southern baptists denounce alcohol but their savior turned water into wine for a party.
That's because, like most established religions, they fabricate "facts" to support their political and societal ambitions. If you look, you'll find southern baptists were created when alcohol consumption in polite society was an issue as were concerns over slavery and tobacco production.
Furthermore, other denominations condemn alcohol on the basis that modern booze is far stronger and therefore not traditional. But that ignores that traditional wines were in fact, extremely potent, typically stronger than common table wines, and were in fact, commonly cut with water, honey, fruits and juice, etc., before served. Sadly, this was all but a requirement because of the strong notes of pitch and tar which permeated wines then. In fact, you can safely say the cocktail was very traditional before it was re-discovered by modern society.
While not commonly preached, its believed the reason Jesus was called to create more wine is because the celebration participants were not cutting their wine sufficiently to allow the supply to last. But the party must go on. For whatever reason, people like to pretend that if Jesus was human or even had a good time, it somehow undermines his religious stature. I find that position most bizarre given that the current Pope was a Nazi.
I have a feeling you need extremely clearly stated words else your imagination starts pretending.
Welcome to /. Home of the black and white concept and literal-only interpretation.
While its unpopular, the simple fact is, this is what happens when everyone bends over backwards to support criminal behavior. I've been saying this for years now. People bitch and moan about ever growing draconian laws but are more than happy to turn a blind eye to criminal behavior. You can't have it both ways. When are people going to pull their heads from their ass and realize PIRATES are the direct cause of our freedoms and privileges being eroded.
If you bemoan laws and policy changes like these and are not condemning pirates, then you're ignoring that you are part of the problem. You can't be outraged about your house being burglarized when seeing and ignoring the same thing happening to your neighbor. These are all connected events. Please stop pretending they are completely unrelated.
If you've not figuratively or literally kicking a pirate, repeatedly, in the nuts, then you have no right to bemoan these completely expected, and all but demanded, policy changes. That doesn't make them right. And it certainly doesn't mean I endorse these policies, but that's reality. People need to start dealing with reality and come back from their imaginary utopian worlds which don't exist.
I dunno...maybe the population is actually getting dumber.
There is a major difference in perception. Firearms have a long tradition as essential tools for living. Even prisoners, after their release, were commonly returned their firearm and provided ammunition. It was understood most people used it as an essential tool which also acts as a literal weapon of liberty. Its illegal uses were and are, by far, in the minority.
P2P, unfortunately, was quickly seized on by those who used it strictly for illegal purposes. Blizzard making use of it for their game came only after it became entrenched for illegal purposes. Even to this day, the majority of bit torrent traffic still supports massive numbers of criminal offenses. For now, garnering organizational support for P2P is the same thing as advocating criminal behavior. And, more or less, we're already seen organizations attempt this - Limewire and Pirate Bay are some such commercial ventures.
Its important to understand that despite that statistics clearly showing anti-gun people are crazy, even finding support to abolish what was very clearly unconstitutional laws is difficult. I can't see any P2P organization as being sustainable and certainly not without becoming an easy target by the likes of the big media owners.
I don't know what "music" you're talking about
Don't know what you're talking about.
but lock picks are legal in all states (some states require locksmith license)
Only when licensed. If you are unlicensed, you are arrested. Furthermore, many states require background checks to receive your license. And worse, some states require sign-off by a law enforcement official. The point remains, they are illegal unless you go through great leaps to be allowed to legally own. Are you suggesting we should all be licensed to be allowed to use bit torrent? That's they only way your statement seems to make any sense.
Why would a criminal spend several minutes to an hour to pick a lock when some property damage gets them instant access?
Why are 98% of all crimes commit with handguns committed with unlicensed firearms and yet we still require licensing and tracking. Here's a hint - it literally has more to do with Germany's history rather than crime deterrence. This is resoundingly validated by the illegal use of federal troops and state officers to use registration lists to illegal steal weapons (as was exactly done in Germany's history) from all citizens after Katrina. But at this point, we're pretty far off point.
Lock picks are almost always used for legitimate purpose due to lost or locked keys.
Then there is no need to make possession a criminal offense and no need to require licensing. As I said, I'm sure you're right out there fighting the good fight.
One of the arguments companies have used over time is that if they do not police their copy right they somehow lose it legally.
Wrong. That's trademarks. You must actively defend your trademark or lose it. You are confused. Copyright is commonly ignored until market reasons can justify otherwise. This behavior is actually pretty common.
The associated video is pretty fun. The logic is, it must be true because why else would they center text, as is commonly done in print. That logic really is funny and yet, sadly, I'm sure some dope, somewhere, actually believes that garbage.
Just remember, next time you hit that center text button in Word and OO, you're killing a kitten! Oh no! Text is centered again...the world is ending!
Has EA lost an eighth, or are they well within their rights by going DMCA on a 26-year-old game they had no hand in developing?"
If they own the IP, which according to the post, they do, why are you asking moronically stupid questions to which we all already know the answer. Yes, absolutely, if they own the IP, they are absolutely within their rights.
Why are so many stupid people attracted to slashdot these days. The fact I keep coming back seem more and more evident I now fall into such categorizations.