So.... plausible deniability... you'll go far revoltron!
Why is FAUX News an insult? Surely since they report Fair & Balanced news, it would be a big compliment - a nick name for being fair and balanced.
If organisations keep appearing in a bad light and there is a common link, do you not think the common link should be mentioned?
P.S. You, dear sir are the first to use the term "FAUX NEWS" TM !!!
One article. Another. The story from the plant operator
The root cause of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - especially in this case is the lack of information. The reactor is apparently on level 4 alert (accident with local consequences - this alone should have made the news at least in Nebraska), has had a fire, has had a no-fly zone extended over it since June 6 - the reason given is "the flooding". The first I heard of this was on June 17th - stumbled across it by chance while looking up information on nuclear plants and was suspicious of it (Russian source so WTF would they know was my first thought). Found lots of youtube stuff, people screaming "why haven't we been told". It has only recently hit slashdot and mainstream news - this has been going on since June 6 (the fire was June 7).
Knowledge stops FUD and builds confidence, the authorities should have at least informed people instead of people calling in ("by the hundreds" as on shock jock put it) and complaining that something is wrong.
Instead of being "condescending", it would help the nuclear cause if facts were given to counter the shock jocks - before they get a foot hold.
It wasn't until June 17 that the plant operator actually deemed to give any information (the answers look a little shaky imo - the water level does not constitute an accident with local consequences). I hope they are truthful because this should have been a story of conservative precautions - see, FUD is working - I doubt them.
Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.
By definition. Which part of "illegal" != "commit crime" ?
" A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
What public offence makes a person removable from the Unites States (apart from being illegally in the US or some other serious crime - which I would hope would compel the person to produce documentation regardless of this law).
The law gives police the right to arrest (not just question) anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, they would not need to have committed a crime before being arrested - proving they are profiling is not a simple matter (he/she was acting in a suspicious manner your honour). To argue this will not encourage racial profiling is not being honest.
I did join a barter group in the 80s (hence I'm also skeptical about this idea - skeptical as to the motives behind it too) and although the government was supposed to get their "piece of the action", this was difficult to enforce.
I do realise the likelihood of doing all your transactions in BTC is pretty small but people in rural areas (a lot of them already use bartering) and people without substantial assets (teens, early 20s) would have a reasonable chance of this. Theoretically (in other words pigs would be flying and dropping their payloads everywhere) once it hits a critical mass it could swamp all other currencies.
More importantly, you can be arrested and lose your property if you refuse to pay your taxes, and you need to use USD to do so. Nobody is punished for not having BTC, but people can be punished for not having USD, which creates some serious imbalance in the demand for BTC.
So BTC is worthless unless the "established elite" find a way to get a slice of the cake....
Just curious, what would happen if your work pays you in BTC? That would mean you haven't been paid (e.g. I work from Australia for a Multinational company that pays me in BTC from one of their off shore subsidiaries) if it has no value, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?
If the company sells it's product in BTC, does that mean they have incurred massive losses (they bought raw product in $)?
I don't think BTC will get any real traction, I suspect it will end up like those lovely pyramid schemes of the 70s and 80s but there is merit in a "global currency" that is not under the control of a single government.
Pretty sad that the only country it seems we can really trust with nuclear power is France. Everyone else is either too greedy and corrupt or too incompetent.
I'm surprised by France as well. Their nuclear industry seems well regulated, the majority are supportive of nuclear power and nuclear power seems to have done wonders for their "carbon footprint".
What about pointing out that the Fukushima disaster was caused by building a reactor right on a coastline where tsunamis occasionally happen, and by being struck by both an earthquake and a tsunami at the same time?
The meltdown (they have confirmed that three reactors have experienced a meltdown) has been caused by greed and cutting corners. They were warned 20 years ago that flooding of generators placed in a basement was the most likely cause of reactors overheating and should be moved to a more appropriate location, this was brought up by the Japanese nuclear authority in 2004 and again 2 years ago. Who is going to pay? Nuclear can be safe, it's the implementation and enforcement of standards that is dangerous.
There is a distinct (tongue-in-cheek) possibility that the Italian government might not be trusted to enforce the standards required. The Germans may feel the same way about their government. Is your government strong enough to stand up to multinational corporations?
I use Bluefish on Ubuntu. It's very functional and has enough longevity as far as I know.
I second the recommendation for Bluefish on the *nix side of things. That has replaced Quanta Plus as my standard html editor on my Debian systems, since QP is no longer in Sid.
On the Windows side of the house, Arachnophilia is a good one to use.
It sounds like we do agree on most areas. Like you, I was being facetious saying he should be awarded a medal - taking everything and handing it over to a third party that you only know through things you read sounds reckless regardless of the good that may have come from it.
It does appear that the media is being careful as to what is released but given our media, that is more than likely good fortune rather than good management.
It is also disconcerting that it is possible for someone to do what he did, I hope they have addressed the security of data.
This is old ground. I find it rather disingenuous to treat Wikileaks as the sole fount from which freedom in the Arab states sprung. I would even go so far as to suggest that this was going to happen with or without Wikileaks. Otherwise it opens up some rather interesting questions as to exactly when US-sourced information is credible, when it isn't, and how easy it would be for the supposed diabolical US Government to manipulate the world.
If it sounded like I was saying Wikileaks was solely responsible, my apologies but to argue that they did not at the very least is being biased. I am also not saying the US is diabolical so please do not put words into my mouth, the US government has done some things to be very ashamed of but they have also done a lot of great things too, credit where credit is due, criticism where it is warranted, what they have done to someone that has not been convicted (yet) is wrong - do you believe Manning has been treated properly?
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Manning exposed no smoking guns. He provided no evidence of horrific crime and provided little insight to anything that wasn't already reported or known. Manning deserves no medal for putting his own freedom on the line for, in the end, not blowing any whistles. But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore.
Whether it was Manning or not, whether the information was known already, the affect (according to Amnesty and other organisations btw) has been to a the very least start the ball rolling. It was news of the corruption in Tunisia that has opened the floodgates.
Your argument that it would have happened anyway cannot be put to the test, Are you trying to say it was coincidental that the Wikileaks information came out just before the uprising started?
A statement like "But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore." exposes a closed mind that has already tried and convicted him. Surely he deserves a fair trial (which I doubt is possible given the statements from even the President and comments such as the one you have made) and humane treatment.
Manning, however, is likely to suffer for his actions if, in fact, he is the leak.
Is likely to??? Are you saying he is not already suffering whether guilty or not? The conditions he was held in from July to April were cruel and spiteful to say the least - this is before being convicted (a formality I suspect, regardless of whether he is guilty or not).
I have heard the doom and gloom stories regarding the release of this information but from what I can see, the aftermath seems to be a spring cleaning of oppressive regimes, it appears to be a bit cheaper than it has cost / is still costing to remove Saddam.
If Manning is responsible, perhaps he should get a medal - unless the U.S. government wants these thugs to stay in power.....
Maybe the Alaskan government is concerned that people downloading copies of the emails would chew up their bandwidth.... it could slow down their porn torrents.
Yes it is; you're innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how much prosecutors, police, and the government don't want to believe it sometimes. If the government can't be burdened to prove that he's guilty, he's innocent.
IANAL, but AFAIK 'innocent' is never used in the US Justice System. So, if the government fails to prove he's guilty, then he is not guilty.
With the US legal system isn't it guilty until proven rich?/stirring
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. In this post-9/11 world, you have to relinquish some of your rights to live more safely. Think of the children.
Hmm, perhaps the school should have argued they were "lookin' fer terrists". The students complaining would have been strung up as bin laden lovers.
Oops, wrong state - my bad.
To me, that means they failed to meet their obligations (and that is putting it politely, if you do some searching you'll find their own employees had brought this up several times).
To argue there was not absolute requirement is what is the root cause of the mistrust, the JAEA brings up that this is a problem and they choose to ignore it then claim "who would have thought this could happen" as an excuse - and get away with it!
Oh, thanks for bringing that up, I should have linked to what I meant by that statement.
You forget that the biggest reason that fukushima was still running is because of NIMBY concerns in Japan not wanting new reactors built. The money was there for replacing it 10 years ago, but it was politically inconvenient and tepco couldn't get the permits. Based on a normal construction time it would have been replaced with a newer, safer design and we wouldn't be talking about this if it wasn't for the anti-nuclear nutjobs.
I suspect TEPCO's, the IAEA's and governments track record with the truth and compliance comes into the equation (imo).
TEPCO failed to meet it's obligations regarding maintenance of pumps and their word that it will be done was accepted despite being caught falsifying records on more than one occasion. Why did they get the green light to keep operating let alone extend the life of reactors operated by them that should have been decommissioned?
The risk of the generators failing due to a tsunami were identified in 1990 and raised in 2004, the only comment made now is that "it appears TEPCO did not address the risk"
To argue that the NIMBY crowd is at fault I believe is disengenuous when the root cause is more than likely profit and expediency. Who will foot the bill?
There are other significant advantages in NSW (Australia) at least. Smaller class sizes, better facilities (federal government subsidies are quite generous to private schools imo), a ranking system almost beyond comprehension that does favour private school students.
Simply put, the marking system looks at how your school ranked you (say they said you were 10th in your year), they look at the marks everyone scored at the exams - say you got the highest mark in your school, this is given to the student who was ranked as the top student by the school and every one is then scaled accordingly.
Another aspect of the ranking is half the marks are assessed by the school so they want to moderate the marks so they look at how your school scores at these external exams and scales the assessment according to this rank - the calculations apparently are too complex to explain.
My understanding is if you are a bright student in a "dumb" school, half your mark would get scaled to oblivion (if you scored full marks for every test and every assignment, the teacher gives you 95% as your assessment, they would look at your school's rank and if they deem your school is bottom of the heap, your assessment would be "scaled appropriately - you might have scored 100% in the test too - you might be the only person that did but that is not taken into account). NSW Board of studies.
Yet so, so many people seem to love the work of our artists, writers, producers, directors, and musicians. Now, if they'd only agree to pay for it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I thought multinational companies are the ones benefitting, not the US public - I could be wrong but for example:
Sony Corporation ( Son Kabushiki Gaisha) (TYO: 6758, NYSE: SNE), commonly referred to as Sony, is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Minato, Tokyo, Japan and the world's fifth largest media conglomerate with US$77.20 billion (FY2010).
Sir Howard Stringer (born February 19, 1942) a Welsh-born business man is chairman, president and CEO of Sony Corporation.
These multinational companies are in most countries, have artists, writers, producers, directors, and musicians on their books that are not from the US (some are excellent at their jobs) - I suspect most of their "product" isn't from the U.S. but I could be wrong (doubt it though).
As to the "love the work", I can only speak for my self:
A lot of the "work" I love enough that if it were free I'd watch / listen to (free to air tv, radio, free concerts etc and if legal in my country, downloads).
Some I'd watch / listen to if I were paid.
Some I'd refuse to watch / listen to even if I were paid.
A few I would (and do) pay for gladly.
I hope everyone does likewise.
If the artist can't be contacted, they can't file a lawsuit either.
A copyright owner can be reclusive up until the moment that the copyright owner is ready to sue. Or a copyright owner can die or go out of business, and it might not be feasible to trace to whom the copyright has passed. Quick question: Who owns the copyright in Zero Wing, a 1989 scrolling shooter video game developed by Toaplan?
Since you are defending their actions, I'd like a little clarification (a genuine request to get both sides of the equation).
I assume you are not saying that it is okay to distribute works if you don't know who the copyright owner is.
I also expect the distributers in question had these "products" in their portfolio. My misgivings are:
I am not aware of Canadian law but here in Australia before someone can sue they have to make an attempt at getting the payment (letter of demand with accompanying documantation), isn't that the case in Canada? If it is, why did they not pay when presented with a request for payment (I feel very cynical in saying that they knew their legal team could drag it out and end up paying a fraction of the amount so I hope you do have an explanation)?
Now that they have been contacted by the copyright owners, where is all the money?
Shouldn't the distributer have been keeping the money in an account and not spending it? Shouldn't their balance sheet have this money listed as debts to be paid - i.e. bring down their profits?
Shouldn't it be reasonable to expect full payment?
These are some of the companies that extrapolate very large figures when calculating losses "due to theft", should they not pay interest on the money they have been using? I know over here we can claim interest.
Is it not reasonable to expect that there is a copyright owner?
The more I think about it, the more I see wrong with what has occurred (except for the distributer, they seem to have come out of it quite cheaply) to argue that "they couldn't find them" and only pay 1% of what is owing is very disingenuous in my opinion - I would not be able to get away with that argument, but then I suppose I don't have their resources or lawyers... sigh, I guess the envy is showing.
If a man disagrees in the forest, where his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?
The version I told some friends was if a man says something in the forest where his wife can't hear him, is he still wrong?
My friend's wife was distractedly listening while fixing her six year old daughter's jumper. The daughter asked her mum What did he say?
Without thinking, she replied if a man says something his wife can't hear, he is still wrong. We all looked at her and asked what was that? She repeated it again, didn't even realise it was not what I said.
So the answer, quite obviously, is yes.
With quantum theory everything exists in all states, the only exception is: a husband can only be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
So.... plausible deniability... you'll go far revoltron!
Why is FAUX News an insult? Surely since they report Fair & Balanced news, it would be a big compliment - a nick name for being fair and balanced.
If organisations keep appearing in a bad light and there is a common link, do you not think the common link should be mentioned?
P.S. You, dear sir are the first to use the term "FAUX NEWS" TM !!!
I've never been conerced about it. It's as if I was around in a state of olbivion.
Conerced to be conned and coerced..... describes our system of government quite well. Kudos to you AC
The ring with root access to all the other rings.
I ain't giving anyone root access to my ring - at least not on the first date.
One article.
Another.
The story from the plant operator
The root cause of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - especially in this case is the lack of information. The reactor is apparently on level 4 alert (accident with local consequences - this alone should have made the news at least in Nebraska), has had a fire, has had a no-fly zone extended over it since June 6 - the reason given is "the flooding". The first I heard of this was on June 17th - stumbled across it by chance while looking up information on nuclear plants and was suspicious of it (Russian source so WTF would they know was my first thought). Found lots of youtube stuff, people screaming "why haven't we been told". It has only recently hit slashdot and mainstream news - this has been going on since June 6 (the fire was June 7).
Knowledge stops FUD and builds confidence, the authorities should have at least informed people instead of people calling in ("by the hundreds" as on shock jock put it) and complaining that something is wrong.
Instead of being "condescending", it would help the nuclear cause if facts were given to counter the shock jocks - before they get a foot hold.
It wasn't until June 17 that the plant operator actually deemed to give any information (the answers look a little shaky imo - the water level does not constitute an accident with local consequences). I hope they are truthful because this should have been a story of conservative precautions - see, FUD is working - I doubt them.
Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.
By definition. Which part of "illegal" != "commit crime" ?
" A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
What public offence makes a person removable from the Unites States (apart from being illegally in the US or some other serious crime - which I would hope would compel the person to produce documentation regardless of this law).
The law gives police the right to arrest (not just question) anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, they would not need to have committed a crime before being arrested - proving they are profiling is not a simple matter (he/she was acting in a suspicious manner your honour). To argue this will not encourage racial profiling is not being honest.
I did join a barter group in the 80s (hence I'm also skeptical about this idea - skeptical as to the motives behind it too) and although the government was supposed to get their "piece of the action", this was difficult to enforce.
I do realise the likelihood of doing all your transactions in BTC is pretty small but people in rural areas (a lot of them already use bartering) and people without substantial assets (teens, early 20s) would have a reasonable chance of this. Theoretically (in other words pigs would be flying and dropping their payloads everywhere) once it hits a critical mass it could swamp all other currencies.
More importantly, you can be arrested and lose your property if you refuse to pay your taxes, and you need to use USD to do so. Nobody is punished for not having BTC, but people can be punished for not having USD, which creates some serious imbalance in the demand for BTC.
So BTC is worthless unless the "established elite" find a way to get a slice of the cake....
Just curious, what would happen if your work pays you in BTC? That would mean you haven't been paid (e.g. I work from Australia for a Multinational company that pays me in BTC from one of their off shore subsidiaries) if it has no value, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?
If the company sells it's product in BTC, does that mean they have incurred massive losses (they bought raw product in $)?
I don't think BTC will get any real traction, I suspect it will end up like those lovely pyramid schemes of the 70s and 80s but there is merit in a "global currency" that is not under the control of a single government.
Pretty sad that the only country it seems we can really trust with nuclear power is France. Everyone else is either too greedy and corrupt or too incompetent.
I'm surprised by France as well. Their nuclear industry seems well regulated, the majority are supportive of nuclear power and nuclear power seems to have done wonders for their "carbon footprint".
What about pointing out that the Fukushima disaster was caused by building a reactor right on a coastline where tsunamis occasionally happen, and by being struck by both an earthquake and a tsunami at the same time?
The meltdown (they have confirmed that three reactors have experienced a meltdown) has been caused by greed and cutting corners. They were warned 20 years ago that flooding of generators placed in a basement was the most likely cause of reactors overheating and should be moved to a more appropriate location, this was brought up by the Japanese nuclear authority in 2004 and again 2 years ago. Who is going to pay?
Nuclear can be safe, it's the implementation and enforcement of standards that is dangerous.
There is a distinct (tongue-in-cheek) possibility that the Italian government might not be trusted to enforce the standards required. The Germans may feel the same way about their government. Is your government strong enough to stand up to multinational corporations?
I use Bluefish on Ubuntu. It's very functional and has enough longevity as far as I know.
I second the recommendation for Bluefish on the *nix side of things. That has replaced Quanta Plus as my standard html editor on my Debian systems, since QP is no longer in Sid.
On the Windows side of the house, Arachnophilia is a good one to use.
Third it. Feature list.
It sounds like we do agree on most areas. Like you, I was being facetious saying he should be awarded a medal - taking everything and handing it over to a third party that you only know through things you read sounds reckless regardless of the good that may have come from it.
It does appear that the media is being careful as to what is released but given our media, that is more than likely good fortune rather than good management.
It is also disconcerting that it is possible for someone to do what he did, I hope they have addressed the security of data.
This is old ground. I find it rather disingenuous to treat Wikileaks as the sole fount from which freedom in the Arab states sprung. I would even go so far as to suggest that this was going to happen with or without Wikileaks. Otherwise it opens up some rather interesting questions as to exactly when US-sourced information is credible, when it isn't, and how easy it would be for the supposed diabolical US Government to manipulate the world.
If it sounded like I was saying Wikileaks was solely responsible, my apologies but to argue that they did not at the very least is being biased. I am also not saying the US is diabolical so please do not put words into my mouth, the US government has done some things to be very ashamed of but they have also done a lot of great things too, credit where credit is due, criticism where it is warranted, what they have done to someone that has not been convicted (yet) is wrong - do you believe Manning has been treated properly?
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Manning exposed no smoking guns. He provided no evidence of horrific crime and provided little insight to anything that wasn't already reported or known. Manning deserves no medal for putting his own freedom on the line for, in the end, not blowing any whistles. But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore.
Whether it was Manning or not, whether the information was known already, the affect (according to Amnesty and other organisations btw) has been to a the very least start the ball rolling. It was news of the corruption in Tunisia that has opened the floodgates.
Your argument that it would have happened anyway cannot be put to the test, Are you trying to say it was coincidental that the Wikileaks information came out just before the uprising started?
A statement like "But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore." exposes a closed mind that has already tried and convicted him. Surely he deserves a fair trial (which I doubt is possible given the statements from even the President and comments such as the one you have made) and humane treatment.
Manning, however, is likely to suffer for his actions if, in fact, he is the leak.
Is likely to??? Are you saying he is not already suffering whether guilty or not? The conditions he was held in from July to April were cruel and spiteful to say the least - this is before being convicted (a formality I suspect, regardless of whether he is guilty or not).
I have heard the doom and gloom stories regarding the release of this information but from what I can see, the aftermath seems to be a spring cleaning of oppressive regimes, it appears to be a bit cheaper than it has cost / is still costing to remove Saddam.
If Manning is responsible, perhaps he should get a medal - unless the U.S. government wants these thugs to stay in power.....
Maybe the Alaskan government is concerned that people downloading copies of the emails would chew up their bandwidth.... it could slow down their porn torrents.
Yes it is; you're innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how much prosecutors, police, and the government don't want to believe it sometimes. If the government can't be burdened to prove that he's guilty, he's innocent.
IANAL, but AFAIK 'innocent' is never used in the US Justice System. So, if the government fails to prove he's guilty, then he is not guilty.
With the US legal system isn't it guilty until proven rich? /stirring
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. In this post-9/11 world, you have to relinquish some of your rights to live more safely. Think of the children.
Hmm, perhaps the school should have argued they were "lookin' fer terrists". The students complaining would have been strung up as bin laden lovers.
Oops, wrong state - my bad.
That simply isn't true. The pumps stopped because of flooding, and there is no suggestion that maintenance was an issue.
A 1990 report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission foretold of this exact scenario, this was brought up again to Tepco in 2004 by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
To me, that means they failed to meet their obligations (and that is putting it politely, if you do some searching you'll find their own employees had brought this up several times).
To argue there was not absolute requirement is what is the root cause of the mistrust, the JAEA brings up that this is a problem and they choose to ignore it then claim "who would have thought this could happen" as an excuse - and get away with it!
Oh, thanks for bringing that up, I should have linked to what I meant by that statement.
You forget that the biggest reason that fukushima was still running is because of NIMBY concerns in Japan not wanting new reactors built. The money was there for replacing it 10 years ago, but it was politically inconvenient and tepco couldn't get the permits. Based on a normal construction time it would have been replaced with a newer, safer design and we wouldn't be talking about this if it wasn't for the anti-nuclear nutjobs.
I suspect TEPCO's, the IAEA's and governments track record with the truth and compliance comes into the equation (imo).
TEPCO failed to meet it's obligations regarding maintenance of pumps and their word that it will be done was accepted despite being caught falsifying records on more than one occasion.
Why did they get the green light to keep operating let alone extend the life of reactors operated by them that should have been decommissioned?
The risk of the generators failing due to a tsunami were identified in 1990 and raised in 2004, the only comment made now is that "it appears TEPCO did not address the risk"
To argue that the NIMBY crowd is at fault I believe is disengenuous when the root cause is more than likely profit and expediency. Who will foot the bill?
. France appears to be doing a good job and apparently the populace were quite happy having nuclear plants in their neighbourhood - until this "accident". No NIMBYers there for some reason......
Who or what is this "it" to which you refer? Is it acquiescent?
There are other significant advantages in NSW (Australia) at least. Smaller class sizes, better facilities (federal government subsidies are quite generous to private schools imo), a ranking system almost beyond comprehension that does favour private school students.
Simply put, the marking system looks at how your school ranked you (say they said you were 10th in your year), they look at the marks everyone scored at the exams - say you got the highest mark in your school, this is given to the student who was ranked as the top student by the school and every one is then scaled accordingly.
Another aspect of the ranking is half the marks are assessed by the school so they want to moderate the marks so they look at how your school scores at these external exams and scales the assessment according to this rank - the calculations apparently are too complex to explain.
My understanding is if you are a bright student in a "dumb" school, half your mark would get scaled to oblivion (if you scored full marks for every test and every assignment, the teacher gives you 95% as your assessment, they would look at your school's rank and if they deem your school is bottom of the heap, your assessment would be "scaled appropriately - you might have scored 100% in the test too - you might be the only person that did but that is not taken into account).
NSW Board of studies.
Yet so, so many people seem to love the work of our artists, writers, producers, directors, and musicians. Now, if they'd only agree to pay for it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I thought multinational companies are the ones benefitting, not the US public - I could be wrong but for example:
Sony Corporation ( Son Kabushiki Gaisha) (TYO: 6758, NYSE: SNE), commonly referred to as Sony, is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Minato, Tokyo, Japan and the world's fifth largest media conglomerate with US$77.20 billion (FY2010).
Sir Howard Stringer (born February 19, 1942) a Welsh-born business man is chairman, president and CEO of Sony Corporation.
These multinational companies are in most countries, have artists, writers, producers, directors, and musicians on their books that are not from the US (some are excellent at their jobs) - I suspect most of their "product" isn't from the U.S. but I could be wrong (doubt it though).
As to the "love the work", I can only speak for my self:
A lot of the "work" I love enough that if it were free I'd watch / listen to (free to air tv, radio, free concerts etc and if legal in my country, downloads).
Some I'd watch / listen to if I were paid.
Some I'd refuse to watch / listen to even if I were paid.
A few I would (and do) pay for gladly.
I hope everyone does likewise.
If the artist can't be contacted, they can't file a lawsuit either.
A copyright owner can be reclusive up until the moment that the copyright owner is ready to sue. Or a copyright owner can die or go out of business, and it might not be feasible to trace to whom the copyright has passed. Quick question: Who owns the copyright in Zero Wing, a 1989 scrolling shooter video game developed by Toaplan?
Since you are defending their actions, I'd like a little clarification (a genuine request to get both sides of the equation).
I assume you are not saying that it is okay to distribute works if you don't know who the copyright owner is.
I also expect the distributers in question had these "products" in their portfolio. My misgivings are:
I am not aware of Canadian law but here in Australia before someone can sue they have to make an attempt at getting the payment (letter of demand with accompanying documantation), isn't that the case in Canada? If it is, why did they not pay when presented with a request for payment (I feel very cynical in saying that they knew their legal team could drag it out and end up paying a fraction of the amount so I hope you do have an explanation)?
Now that they have been contacted by the copyright owners, where is all the money?
Shouldn't the distributer have been keeping the money in an account and not spending it? Shouldn't their balance sheet have this money listed as debts to be paid - i.e. bring down their profits?
Shouldn't it be reasonable to expect full payment?
These are some of the companies that extrapolate very large figures when calculating losses "due to theft", should they not pay interest on the money they have been using? I know over here we can claim interest.
Is it not reasonable to expect that there is a copyright owner?
The more I think about it, the more I see wrong with what has occurred (except for the distributer, they seem to have come out of it quite cheaply) to argue that "they couldn't find them" and only pay 1% of what is owing is very disingenuous in my opinion - I would not be able to get away with that argument, but then I suppose I don't have their resources or lawyers... sigh, I guess the envy is showing.
Here's an idea, let's not connect it to the Internet.
How else will they be able to outsource the monitoring to India?
There was a cry of OMG! that is seriously HUGE! Coming from her astrophysics lecturer's office just before she announced the discovery.
If a man disagrees in the forest, where his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?
The version I told some friends was if a man says something in the forest where his wife can't hear him, is he still wrong?
My friend's wife was distractedly listening while fixing her six year old daughter's jumper. The daughter asked her mum What did he say?
Without thinking, she replied if a man says something his wife can't hear, he is still wrong. We all looked at her and asked what was that? She repeated it again, didn't even realise it was not what I said.
So the answer, quite obviously, is yes.
With quantum theory everything exists in all states, the only exception is: a husband can only be wrong.