So a German visits my site. 3 years later I learn I have a default judgement against my site in Germany. What do I care?
Depends how you found out... If you found out during your vacation on the Rhine, you'll probably care.
But not as much as you'd care if it was a Frenchman visits your site and you find out while you're on the Seine.. because French repercussions for contempt of court are pretty heavy handed, especially for foreigners.
A proper air gap, in which your own data is stored on your own servers, and only accessed under rigorous guidelines, wouldn't be crossing your ISP's infrastructure. Therefore - the ISP can't hand it over to the government. No one can reach what is inaccessible from the internet, unless then come in to your place of business, to gain physical access to your servers. That might be done with a secret warrant from a secret court - but the moment they come through your doors, it's no longer very secret. You KNOW that the government is snooping through your data, and you KNOW that you've been compromised.
Not actually true: if they monitor your place of business and then serve your landlord with a secret warrant, they'll walk in when nobody's there, temporarily disable your alarms, do what they want (including installing keyloggers) and then leave, with you none the wiser, unless you've got an ultraparanoid IT staffer or physical security person that you actually listen to (and who hasn't been muzzled by same government agents).
Out of the 124 individuals or institutions awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, 23 of them have been from the United States. That is nearly 1/5th of all Nobel Peace Prizes. So, to state that the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize is staggeringly idiotic on its face. I am not able to comprehend what could lead you to state such an ill-informed opinion in public, in front of everyone. Please try to do better with your future forum posting.
The answer is obvious: they awarded it to Obama:D Nothing says "I hate you" like awarding a prize to your newly elected President because of his election platform of peace, cooperation and tolerance.
The world isn't better or safer because of what he's done - it might be one day, but for now we're just slightly better informed.
If there was a Nobel prize for good intentions, sure, give him that.
The Peace Prize IS the Nobel prize for good intentions. Just look at who it has been given to in the past. In each case, the winner had good intentions for peace, and very rarely did peace result from those intentions. But the key is, the prize was invariably awarded during the "intentions" phase, not during the results phase. It's used as a carrot for good behavior.
I wonder if the community activist had a different world view BEFORE he was president.
Then after he got elected, he found out what kind of people he had at gitmo. Probably learned all kinds of things about how the world works.
And suddenly he "has the wolf by the ears" as it were. If he just magically closes gitmo, maybe he will create even more problems he will be blamed for (from his hypothetical new view).
Just wondering. It's like you don't want us to kill terrorists, but you don't want us to capture them either. Or you want to fight a war using civil police procedures. Maybe Obama just figured out that your way isn't realistic even if it does play well in The Huffington Post.
I'd assume that to some degree, this is the case, as it is for everyone entering a new management position.
However, I'd also expect such a person, under such a situation, to say "You know, I used these items as pillars of my election platform, and once I was elected, was made privy to all sorts of classified information that led me to conclude that my ideas weren't actually feasible. As a result, I will be unable to make good on my election promises. Further, anyone who comes after me will be in the same boat unless we change the following things, which I am going to attempt to do during my term in office:...."
Instead, we find politician after politician hiding and hoping nobody will notice, with virtually no attempt to inform the public or change the real underlying issues that are preventing them from realizing their initial election platform (even if the issues are ones of education).
If you can't think of ways by which you could derive indicators of the nationality of a sender, and maybe a recipient, of a piece of email you aren't really trying.
I can't think of ways by which I could derive indicators of American nationality of a sender/recipient of a piece of email that I haven't collected and examined. Not with a 0% FN rate anyway, which would be required. Collecting and examining it is the part people are claiming is unconstitutional -- and you can't "un-examine" a document.
Well, PINWALE refers to Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems software (not sure which side of the fence that puts it on). Definitely not classified or NSA-centric, but anyone touching a PINWALE system is likely to have some sort of security clearance.
Doh; and after re-reading what I wrote, I'll be the first person to point out that Modem is NOT an acronym; it's short for Modulator-Demodulator and is a contraction -- we should really write it mo'dem or modem' (depending on which style guide you follow).
In reality, NSA is one of those terms, like FBI, LASER, MODEM and DVD that are both an acronym and a noun.
As such, the letters are treated as individual words. N is pronounced as "en", which means that "an en ess ay" would be phonetically and grammatically correct.
I think your meaning is correct, but your terminology is a bit fluffy here. In English (as in Romance languages such as French), phonetics trump markup in grammatical use. The letters aren't treated as individual words; the acronym is just treated as a phonetic instead of lexical unit.
This quirk of treating letters as words in acronyms is also why "DVD's" is the correct plural form and "DVDs" is not. Letters of an acronym stand alone. Letters that stand alone are pluralized with an apostrophe-s.
Actually, DVD's is incorrect, as DVD is a noun, and 's on nouns connotes possession by default. Whether you go phonetic (deeveedees) or lexical (DVDs), the plural form has no apostrophe, as apostrophe is used to connote possession in nouns, and alternately as a phonetic marker to indicate absent lexical components in the phonetic transcription (dropped vowels). Thus, "I have many DVDs" is correct, and "The DVD's surface is scratched" is correct. Acronyms are exempt from the contraction clause, as they aren't elisions of two words, but as you say, individual representations of words combined to form a single unit of meaning.
"But wait!" you say: "'Mind your p's and q's' uses apostrophes!" And that's correct. The Chicago style guide (Oxford uses a similar guide, as does APA) states,
Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s. To aid comprehension, lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s.
A good measuring stick for grammatical order of operations is the word "it".
On the other end of things, you often hear idiotic TV announcers using the phrase "an historic". This is not correct, since the word "historic" starts with a consonant-H sound. "An hour" is correct because the H is silent, and the word starts with a vowel sound (it's pronounced like "our").
"This is an historic occasion" is completely correct. Of course, if you pronounce it "This is ahn hisstoric occasion" you're playing in two ballparks at the same time. If you pronounce it "This is an istoric occasion" (as many parts of the world do), you're perfectly fine. Same goes for silent Ys (not Y's, which apart from connoting possession, is also the name of a classic video game).
So, to recap: "An NSA clearance" is correct. "An hour" is correct. "An historic" makes you sound like a tool. And the next retard that uses "impacting" or "impacted" to mean anything other than a collision or a tooth infection gets a bullet.
Digging a little deeper, if you refactor the contents of those search results, you get a VERY complete picture of what's going on... for example, PINWALE is the code name for Mission Systems, developed for the Military by Northrop Grumman. Most of the people who developed the system appear to be on LinkedIn:)
That's just a taste; anyone good at graph theory and data mining could probably put together quite a dossier of people and projects based on the public info available through LinkedIn/Google.
Every slide in the deck labeled TOP SECRET with headings listed as 1.4(d) TS//NOFORN, with at least one slide of a leaked document embedded should be enough to keep anyone with security clearance out of the presentations, or with a lot of paperwork.
For that matter, just make the sign-in pages leaked documents -- nothing quite says headache like explaining what your signature is doing on a document outside of your clearance.
XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.
Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.
Odd; I use iTunes to control my own content. It's on my computer, and is not controlled by Apple (not even in their preferred "Library". The stuff in iTunes is also mirrored in the cloud.
"The Cloud" is a means of distribution; it's equivalent to making backup copies of your DVDs that you use all the time, keeping the originals stored away. Cloud services allow you to access select content from anywhere; I'd stay away from ANY cloud service that didn't allow you to have a local copy of your cloud contents as well (I'm looking at you, Facebook).
As such, this entire article is based on a false premise. While Cloud services could be moving in that direction, right now they are used (and advertised) as an alternate distribution system for content you own. Deleting all copies except what's in the cloud is silly, as you never know when cloud access will vanish.
The big issue with Cloud data is that you lose primary control of the data -- that's fine for disposable/consumable data (music, movies, etc) but for anything you don't want to also belong to other people, don't put it in the cloud.
All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.
Added to this, people often have the misconception that just because something is "old" it is less complex than the current requirements. In reality, all that COBOL was written to perform the same function on severely limited hardware that they now want to accomplish on a simple server system -- and I bet the data and processing requirements both then and now are astronomical. The end result is that whoever is doing the new system is likely pitting themselves against whatever the brightest minds of yesteryear were able to produce, and it won't be simple. That old system had time to be fine tuned, and the protocol built up over the years is designed around the precise quirks created by the system. Thus, the entire architecture and ALL related protocol has to be re-examined prior to architecting a replacement system -- and I doubt the winning bidder was even asked to bid on that, especially in a military organization.
"The claim that the documentation "vanished" seems bogus. Far more likely in my opinion that it never existed in the first place, or that at some point they fired everyone, and thus broke the chain of custody."
I agree with the latter, but that still means the documentation did "vanish". It just doesn't address why.
I think the money would have been better spent simply replacing the Pentagon and all its staff. The new one can be 5-sided, too. But they should build it in Montana and staff it with locals. It's cheaper. They'd probably win more wars for us too.
They'd have to deal with the Zombie Apocalypse then though....
It's like publishing a video of you silently acting out the plot of a book. Supplemental, yes. Derivative, no. In the US, this stuff has already been long hashed out -- seems like that's not the case in Sweden.
You got it with your last thought:) The issue is that once the ice enters the fluid (it's floating), the force is distributed around the oceans, as opposed to being directly distributed over the Antarctic plate as it was when it was sitting on bedrock.
Woah there... Who said anything about pirating? If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?
Yes, but in many cases it is cheaper to buy an english only version of a movie than one with local subtitles. The MPAA want to preserve this charging of countries other than the US more money for the same crap.
Just because this makes sense does not really make it right though. I think they missed the point here as in many cases the user contributed subtitles are better than the original subtitles they provide as they often contain local slang that only someone who can swear well in both languages can make. They should have let this stand as all it had was text which without a copy of the video and sound would be pretty useless.
Interestingly, beyond that, I don't think this raid would even be legal in the US. The fans are creating commentary on the original work; they are not creating a derivative. They do not have access to the screenplays or the commercial subtitle scripts -- so everything they write is purely commentary on the movie, which just happens to be able to sync up with the actual video/audio. The fact that the studios eventually offer a similar product for sale is neither here nor there -- they have no copyright claim over the subtitles.
The same argument could be used for music lyrics, but I think intent would be much more important here, as people are trying to re-create the songwriter's lyric sheet, which is not what's happening with movies and subs.
If this still doesn't fly in court, the answer is easy: add in extra commentary that is obviously not derived from the original content in any way other thaat it is a fan's reaction to it.
Of course, this all assumes you live in the US -- the laws the US shoved down on the rest of the world are likely more draconian and don't have the appropriate fair use exemptions. Anyone in Sweden care to educate us as to whether this is the case?
Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?
By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.
An added issue, which has been seen in the past couple of decades in Greenland, is that if the ice calves and slides into the ocean, not only will mass previously perched on land enter the ocean, but the mass removed from the antarctic plate will cause the plate to rise significantly... causing less volume for the ocean in that area, and REALLY messing with plate tectonics.
Some people think there's a correlation between the rising landmass in Greenland and some of the recent quakes in the Pacific.
What creature on Earth needs to be threatened with death to adhere to its natural inclinations? Moreover, which creature will actually run counter to its 'natural' inclination and risk death for a few moments of sweaty, non-procreative activity.
Answer: Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- they've got this sadistic streak in them, I think. See Darwin Awards for a few examples of individuals of this species who, when threatened with possible death, still run counter to natural inclination and risk death for a few moments of sweaty, non-procreative activity (skydiving without a parachute, wrestling alligators, driving a rocket into a cliff, sniffing gasoline and then playing with matches, etc.).
The standard with us human beings appears to be that while there's a general clustering of "normal" activity, as a species we appear to try and do just about everything imaginable, and let survival select the winning strategies that will eventually become popular with the population at large (usually via social constructs). So, this said, there must be some reason why this aberration of monogamy (or aberration of polygamy, depending on how you look at it) became socially selected. Whether it's still a valid selector or just "junk social DNA" is an exercise left to the reader.
Only thing I can think of is to run one of those utilities that sniffs the WiFi channel for MAC IDs and randomly switches to one that's been seen but isn't currently on the network. Of course, you'd also have to be clearing all your tracking markers continuously, and not log in to any cloud-based services (including webmail, social network, etc.).
Hopping from the WiFi to an anonymous VPN service/could/ add an extra layer of misdirection, *if* you trust the service. Over this, you run TOR.
So the end result is: Trackable web apps purged regularly Using Ghostery and/or Albine and NoScript and AdBlockPlus Over TOR Over Anonymous VPN Via shared but traceable Starbucks IP Via Spoofed MAC ID pool
Did I miss a step? There's of course the entire DNS issue (ISP and Google DNS are tracked), so you really want a DNS somewhere under a jurisdiction that you don't mind tracking you (don't assume they're not tracking you). I suppose you could limit yourself to the i2p network to mitigate this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright people, we've got the tortillas and the onions, all we need are some bell peppers and some meat and we've got ourselves a fajita.
Don't forget TACO....
So a German visits my site. 3 years later I learn I have a default judgement against my site in Germany. What do I care?
Depends how you found out... If you found out during your vacation on the Rhine, you'll probably care.
But not as much as you'd care if it was a Frenchman visits your site and you find out while you're on the Seine.. because French repercussions for contempt of court are pretty heavy handed, especially for foreigners.
A proper air gap, in which your own data is stored on your own servers, and only accessed under rigorous guidelines, wouldn't be crossing your ISP's infrastructure. Therefore - the ISP can't hand it over to the government. No one can reach what is inaccessible from the internet, unless then come in to your place of business, to gain physical access to your servers. That might be done with a secret warrant from a secret court - but the moment they come through your doors, it's no longer very secret. You KNOW that the government is snooping through your data, and you KNOW that you've been compromised.
Not actually true: if they monitor your place of business and then serve your landlord with a secret warrant, they'll walk in when nobody's there, temporarily disable your alarms, do what they want (including installing keyloggers) and then leave, with you none the wiser, unless you've got an ultraparanoid IT staffer or physical security person that you actually listen to (and who hasn't been muzzled by same government agents).
Out of the 124 individuals or institutions awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, 23 of them have been from the United States. That is nearly 1/5th of all Nobel Peace Prizes. So, to state that the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize is staggeringly idiotic on its face. I am not able to comprehend what could lead you to state such an ill-informed opinion in public, in front of everyone. Please try to do better with your future forum posting.
The answer is obvious: they awarded it to Obama :D Nothing says "I hate you" like awarding a prize to your newly elected President because of his election platform of peace, cooperation and tolerance.
The world isn't better or safer because of what he's done - it might be one day, but for now we're just slightly better informed.
If there was a Nobel prize for good intentions, sure, give him that.
The Peace Prize IS the Nobel prize for good intentions. Just look at who it has been given to in the past. In each case, the winner had good intentions for peace, and very rarely did peace result from those intentions. But the key is, the prize was invariably awarded during the "intentions" phase, not during the results phase. It's used as a carrot for good behavior.
I wonder if the community activist had a different world view BEFORE he was president.
Then after he got elected, he found out what kind of people he had at gitmo. Probably learned all kinds of things about how the world works.
And suddenly he "has the wolf by the ears" as it were. If he just magically closes gitmo, maybe he will create even more problems he will be blamed for (from his hypothetical new view).
Just wondering. It's like you don't want us to kill terrorists, but you don't want us to capture them either. Or you want to fight a war using civil police procedures. Maybe Obama just figured out that your way isn't realistic even if it does play well in The Huffington Post.
I'd assume that to some degree, this is the case, as it is for everyone entering a new management position.
However, I'd also expect such a person, under such a situation, to say "You know, I used these items as pillars of my election platform, and once I was elected, was made privy to all sorts of classified information that led me to conclude that my ideas weren't actually feasible. As a result, I will be unable to make good on my election promises. Further, anyone who comes after me will be in the same boat unless we change the following things, which I am going to attempt to do during my term in office: ...."
Instead, we find politician after politician hiding and hoping nobody will notice, with virtually no attempt to inform the public or change the real underlying issues that are preventing them from realizing their initial election platform (even if the issues are ones of education).
Doesn't the US currently have a War on Mass going on? Obesity, not religious services....
If you can't think of ways by which you could derive indicators of the nationality of a sender, and maybe a recipient, of a piece of email you aren't really trying.
I can't think of ways by which I could derive indicators of American nationality of a sender/recipient of a piece of email that I haven't collected and examined. Not with a 0% FN rate anyway, which would be required. Collecting and examining it is the part people are claiming is unconstitutional -- and you can't "un-examine" a document.
Well, PINWALE refers to Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems software (not sure which side of the fence that puts it on). Definitely not classified or NSA-centric, but anyone touching a PINWALE system is likely to have some sort of security clearance.
Doh; and after re-reading what I wrote, I'll be the first person to point out that Modem is NOT an acronym; it's short for Modulator-Demodulator and is a contraction -- we should really write it mo'dem or modem' (depending on which style guide you follow).
Technically, "NSA" isn't a word. It's an acronym.
In reality, NSA is one of those terms, like FBI, LASER, MODEM and DVD that are both an acronym and a noun.
As such, the letters are treated as individual words. N is pronounced as "en", which means that "an en ess ay" would be phonetically and grammatically correct.
I think your meaning is correct, but your terminology is a bit fluffy here. In English (as in Romance languages such as French), phonetics trump markup in grammatical use. The letters aren't treated as individual words; the acronym is just treated as a phonetic instead of lexical unit.
This quirk of treating letters as words in acronyms is also why "DVD's" is the correct plural form and "DVDs" is not. Letters of an acronym stand alone. Letters that stand alone are pluralized with an apostrophe-s.
Actually, DVD's is incorrect, as DVD is a noun, and 's on nouns connotes possession by default. Whether you go phonetic (deeveedees) or lexical (DVDs), the plural form has no apostrophe, as apostrophe is used to connote possession in nouns, and alternately as a phonetic marker to indicate absent lexical components in the phonetic transcription (dropped vowels). Thus, "I have many DVDs" is correct, and "The DVD's surface is scratched" is correct. Acronyms are exempt from the contraction clause, as they aren't elisions of two words, but as you say, individual representations of words combined to form a single unit of meaning.
"But wait!" you say: "'Mind your p's and q's' uses apostrophes!" And that's correct. The Chicago style guide (Oxford uses a similar guide, as does APA) states,
A good measuring stick for grammatical order of operations is the word "it".
On the other end of things, you often hear idiotic TV announcers using the phrase "an historic". This is not correct, since the word "historic" starts with a consonant-H sound. "An hour" is correct because the H is silent, and the word starts with a vowel sound (it's pronounced like "our").
"This is an historic occasion" is completely correct. Of course, if you pronounce it "This is ahn hisstoric occasion" you're playing in two ballparks at the same time. If you pronounce it "This is an istoric occasion" (as many parts of the world do), you're perfectly fine. Same goes for silent Ys (not Y's, which apart from connoting possession, is also the name of a classic video game).
So, to recap: "An NSA clearance" is correct. "An hour" is correct. "An historic" makes you sound like a tool. And the next retard that uses "impacting" or "impacted" to mean anything other than a collision or a tooth infection gets a bullet.
Would you like your bullets rounded or square?
Digging a little deeper, if you refactor the contents of those search results, you get a VERY complete picture of what's going on... for example, PINWALE is the code name for Mission Systems, developed for the Military by Northrop Grumman. Most of the people who developed the system appear to be on LinkedIn :)
That's just a taste; anyone good at graph theory and data mining could probably put together quite a dossier of people and projects based on the public info available through LinkedIn/Google.
If you look at the results of that list, you'll see that almost all of them are contractors. Still useful info.
Even better than this: use the following as a style guide for presentation templates:
http://www.ncis.navy.mil/securitypolicy/seced/trng/NSMC%20Student%20Guide/sg_4-1.pdf
Every slide in the deck labeled TOP SECRET with headings listed as 1.4(d) TS//NOFORN, with at least one slide of a leaked document embedded should be enough to keep anyone with security clearance out of the presentations, or with a lot of paperwork.
For that matter, just make the sign-in pages leaked documents -- nothing quite says headache like explaining what your signature is doing on a document outside of your clearance.
Does it seem strange that someone working for the Federal Government (DHS) is asking other Federal Employees to stay away?
No, not really.
Would it be any more difficult to spot one of the vast numerous contractors that work at the behest of the feds?
That's easy, if you include industry partners. Close your eyes, spin around once, stick out your finger, and it'll likely be pointing at one.
We're talking about DEFCON... not Blackhat of the previous decade.
XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.
Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.
Odd; I use iTunes to control my own content. It's on my computer, and is not controlled by Apple (not even in their preferred "Library". The stuff in iTunes is also mirrored in the cloud.
"The Cloud" is a means of distribution; it's equivalent to making backup copies of your DVDs that you use all the time, keeping the originals stored away. Cloud services allow you to access select content from anywhere; I'd stay away from ANY cloud service that didn't allow you to have a local copy of your cloud contents as well (I'm looking at you, Facebook).
As such, this entire article is based on a false premise. While Cloud services could be moving in that direction, right now they are used (and advertised) as an alternate distribution system for content you own. Deleting all copies except what's in the cloud is silly, as you never know when cloud access will vanish.
The big issue with Cloud data is that you lose primary control of the data -- that's fine for disposable/consumable data (music, movies, etc) but for anything you don't want to also belong to other people, don't put it in the cloud.
All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.
Added to this, people often have the misconception that just because something is "old" it is less complex than the current requirements. In reality, all that COBOL was written to perform the same function on severely limited hardware that they now want to accomplish on a simple server system -- and I bet the data and processing requirements both then and now are astronomical. The end result is that whoever is doing the new system is likely pitting themselves against whatever the brightest minds of yesteryear were able to produce, and it won't be simple. That old system had time to be fine tuned, and the protocol built up over the years is designed around the precise quirks created by the system. Thus, the entire architecture and ALL related protocol has to be re-examined prior to architecting a replacement system -- and I doubt the winning bidder was even asked to bid on that, especially in a military organization.
"The claim that the documentation "vanished" seems bogus. Far more likely in my opinion that it never existed in the first place, or that at some point they fired everyone, and thus broke the chain of custody."
I agree with the latter, but that still means the documentation did "vanish". It just doesn't address why.
I think the money would have been better spent simply replacing the Pentagon and all its staff. The new one can be 5-sided, too. But they should build it in Montana and staff it with locals. It's cheaper. They'd probably win more wars for us too.
They'd have to deal with the Zombie Apocalypse then though....
It's like publishing a video of you silently acting out the plot of a book. Supplemental, yes. Derivative, no. In the US, this stuff has already been long hashed out -- seems like that's not the case in Sweden.
You got it with your last thought :) The issue is that once the ice enters the fluid (it's floating), the force is distributed around the oceans, as opposed to being directly distributed over the Antarctic plate as it was when it was sitting on bedrock.
Woah there... Who said anything about pirating? If you wanted to watch a movie you bought that was not in a language you can understand, wouldn't you want subtitles?
Yes, but in many cases it is cheaper to buy an english only version of a movie than one with local subtitles. The MPAA want to preserve this charging of countries other than the US more money for the same crap.
Just because this makes sense does not really make it right though. I think they missed the point here as in many cases the user contributed subtitles are better than the original subtitles they provide as they often contain local slang that only someone who can swear well in both languages can make. They should have let this stand as all it had was text which without a copy of the video and sound would be pretty useless.
Interestingly, beyond that, I don't think this raid would even be legal in the US. The fans are creating commentary on the original work; they are not creating a derivative. They do not have access to the screenplays or the commercial subtitle scripts -- so everything they write is purely commentary on the movie, which just happens to be able to sync up with the actual video/audio. The fact that the studios eventually offer a similar product for sale is neither here nor there -- they have no copyright claim over the subtitles.
The same argument could be used for music lyrics, but I think intent would be much more important here, as people are trying to re-create the songwriter's lyric sheet, which is not what's happening with movies and subs.
If this still doesn't fly in court, the answer is easy: add in extra commentary that is obviously not derived from the original content in any way other thaat it is a fan's reaction to it.
Of course, this all assumes you live in the US -- the laws the US shoved down on the rest of the world are likely more draconian and don't have the appropriate fair use exemptions. Anyone in Sweden care to educate us as to whether this is the case?
Wait what?
By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.
My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.
An added issue, which has been seen in the past couple of decades in Greenland, is that if the ice calves and slides into the ocean, not only will mass previously perched on land enter the ocean, but the mass removed from the antarctic plate will cause the plate to rise significantly... causing less volume for the ocean in that area, and REALLY messing with plate tectonics.
Some people think there's a correlation between the rising landmass in Greenland and some of the recent quakes in the Pacific.
What creature on Earth needs to be threatened with death to adhere to its natural inclinations? Moreover, which creature will actually run counter to its 'natural' inclination and risk death for a few moments of sweaty, non-procreative activity.
Answer: Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- they've got this sadistic streak in them, I think. See Darwin Awards for a few examples of individuals of this species who, when threatened with possible death, still run counter to natural inclination and risk death for a few moments of sweaty, non-procreative activity (skydiving without a parachute, wrestling alligators, driving a rocket into a cliff, sniffing gasoline and then playing with matches, etc.).
The standard with us human beings appears to be that while there's a general clustering of "normal" activity, as a species we appear to try and do just about everything imaginable, and let survival select the winning strategies that will eventually become popular with the population at large (usually via social constructs). So, this said, there must be some reason why this aberration of monogamy (or aberration of polygamy, depending on how you look at it) became socially selected. Whether it's still a valid selector or just "junk social DNA" is an exercise left to the reader.
Only thing I can think of is to run one of those utilities that sniffs the WiFi channel for MAC IDs and randomly switches to one that's been seen but isn't currently on the network. Of course, you'd also have to be clearing all your tracking markers continuously, and not log in to any cloud-based services (including webmail, social network, etc.).
Hopping from the WiFi to an anonymous VPN service /could/ add an extra layer of misdirection, *if* you trust the service. Over this, you run TOR.
So the end result is:
Trackable web apps purged regularly
Using Ghostery and/or Albine and NoScript and AdBlockPlus
Over TOR
Over Anonymous VPN
Via shared but traceable Starbucks IP
Via Spoofed MAC ID pool
Did I miss a step? There's of course the entire DNS issue (ISP and Google DNS are tracked), so you really want a DNS somewhere under a jurisdiction that you don't mind tracking you (don't assume they're not tracking you). I suppose you could limit yourself to the i2p network to mitigate this issue.