While I would prefer that Amazon carry a full range of titles encompassing all speech, they are a company, not the government. They are free to carry or not carry whatever titles they choose. While I see no upside to them in not offering a full range, it is their prerogative to select their own wares.
The alternative is that we would force retailers to carry products that they do not wish to carry, which is not something that I see happening in a sane world.
If the only citation you can come up with is Wikipedia then either you aren't doing your job or the citation is suspect. I find no issue with the court's decision, I'd be more inclined to beat the prosecutor with a wet noodle for failing to find a more reliable source.
Why waste time on cop cars, cops don't make the laws. Put them on the cars of judges and politicians.
"My my judge, it appears that your car likes to drive to the local titty bars at least twice a week. Funny how those cars do love the titties."
"Mr. Senator, can you tell me why it is that your car was parked outside of a known gay bar? Were you doing research for your anti-gay legislation....2 times a week for the last month?"
BP is probably not a good analogy to this as there is to my knowledge no evidence that federal involvement from the initial blow out would have made any difference. The feds don't have a solution to capping the well either (and in fact failed rather disastrously in keeping BP in compliance with existing government overseen safety regulations).
I concur that both feds and civilians would work better in concert than opposition, but for civilian networks you are dealing with an area in which the feds have absolutely no expertise. Every network is configured differently, with different requirements, different hardware and different security concerns. To allow feds access to those networks under the auspices of "security" is a ludicrous proposition. If the feds want to improve security they should look at the government computers (which most government offices receive a failing security grade for) and concentrate on making sure that there is absolutely no kind of all encompassing override (like a government backdoor) that could be exploited by attackers.
Do you remember Katrina? Do you really want the feds fucking with your network? It is far more plausible to believe that civilian networks will rebound faster from a cyber attack without federal interference because most civilian networks are run by people who do that sort of thing for a living, with their networks, configured properly for their use. Do you really think some random fed network guy is going to be able to reconfigure your network from afar without prior knowledge of how you have it configured? How will they know your user names? How will they access your backups? How will they know which entries on your administrator list are valid administrators and which ones are planted by cyber attackers?
Given how much programming in COBOL is analogous to building computers with vacuum tubes, I think that celebrations are not really called for. I'm thinking we need a Dr. Kevorkian style mercy killing here.
I second this one. Filterware is a bogus solution in just about any case, as there will always be sites it doesn't filter that it should and sites that it does filter that it shouldn't. The best solution is to put the computer in a place where you can always see what is being looked at.
My son's computer is directly beside mine.
Also, as embarrassing as it may be for you, teaching your children comprehensive sex education at an early age won't hurt them any.
Simply, I think they don't get SciFi. The SciFi Channel, named after the genre itself ran John Edwards for months and currently devotes at least one day a week to people going around with IR cameras going "I feel a presence". What's another name for "really really bad science fiction movie"? "SciFi Channel Original Feature". I keep waiting for them to redo Night of the Lepus when they run out of types of lizards, snakes, and gothic masonry.
People whose perception of the world is filtered through a layer of ratings analysis are often not the best judge of quality scifi.
He certainly lost my support. While all the aye votes deserve contempt, Obama as the democratic candidate could have thrown his weight into it and stopped it. As much as one person can bear responsibility I blame him for not doing his damn job.
Next time firehose folks, mod this one down. Seriously, every time I see an article like this it boggles my mind that folks are worrying about this gibberish. Yes, the internet is physically removing neurons from our brains, planting child porn, killing kittens, and screwing your spouse.
Next up your toaster could be making you more prone to nervous breakdowns!
Ignorance of technology is unfortunately not something limited to a single party. Most of our current crop of politicians fail to comprehend technology pretty much across the board.
While Luddite bashing is a fun pastime, and probably well deserved in this case, it is probably best used when reserved for individuals, not political parties.
While it would suck to be unfairly flagged as a bad cop, the alternative to allowing anonymous folks to bitch about their arresting officer would be to restrict speech that is most certainly free. I think the cons (no pun intended) far outweigh the pros in that scenario.
Interesting case in the link, however it's worth pointing out that even in that case, the police were the ones monitoring conversations. The parent of this thread however is about civilian agencies (the ISPs) being responsible. While the MPs may be ticked that a cop monitored their conversation, imagine if you will at how incensed they would be at mere civilians listening in. Especially if every single sordid affair of their private lives got leaked to the tabloids. Cops they can threaten. Geeks it's hit or miss, and frankly some of our slashdot bretheren are downright anarchistic and would not mind poking an MP in the eye.
Plus the very infrastructure for peeping would be an absolutely *huge* target for any black hat groups.
The easiest way to combat this is to then monitor the traffic of politicians and their families first. Obviously any piracy problem is most serious when practiced by a member of the parliament or their families, so careful monitoring of all communications from politicians is obviously a priority. After that, monitor traffic from anybody employed by the recording industry and their families. Then the families of the owners of all major industries. After that, ensure that no members of the police force are secretly pirating. If you get through that list without a repeal of the directive then you can monitor the rest of the populace, but I suspect that'll be a short lived initiative.
TBD does not actually share the files, it certainly facilitates the sharing, but itself only maintains the trackers. I could be mistaken, but I do not believe the law (happen to have an english translation of the actual law?) has a provision for facilitation of copying. Like the Napster case, I suspect that the RIAA and their proxy prosecutor will attempt to outlaw facilitation through this court case, since it is not specifically (yes, an assumption without knowing the actual text) outlawed by the statute.
Talking about the majority, I of course refer to those that are familiar with TPB. What sort of red herring are you throwing in discussing what people completely ignorant of TPB think of TPB? People who are completely ignorant of them and the issues surrounding them won't have any opinion at all, and therefore have little impact on the discussion. I do suspect you overestimate the number of Swedish citizens who are ignorant of TPB, as Sweden has long been one of the front running nations of internet users. Their median knowledge of the internet and sites like TPB are far more advanced than most other nations. You can still refuse to accept this if you choose, it's really not terribly important to my argument.
The irony of the use of the totalitarian, ideological, fundamentalist terminology I'll leave you to discuss with yourself, you're obviously having fun with it and it's not doing much for me.
Attributing hysteria to my arguments, however, amuses me. I honestly do not think that any outcome of this case will result in anything anybody needs to get hysterical about. If the prosecutor in question wins his case, it will have little impact on piracy. If he loses the case it again won't really change the fact that piracy occurs. While you seem upset that your attribution of my supposedly flimsy morals supposedly applies a prejudgement on a case that has not occurred to an outcome that is irrelevant, I really think you're missing the point.
My point is that corporations should not be able to influence governments to protect their business models that are against the public interest, and not supported by the market. And before you accuse me of ideological assumptions that I am all knowing of the public interest, think about what would be required to secure the RIAA's lock on media. Not only would we have to have laws worse than the DMCA, we would have to allow them to snoop all traffic on the internet, to ensure that every single packet does not have some copyrighted material. And before you attribute more "hysteria" to my actions understand that I believe there will always be ways to circumvent, which means that the aformentioned laws and snooping would only inconvenience people who play by the rules and have zero impact on those that wish to pirate media.
In prior posts you made much ado about TPB profiting from their acts. While it is true that they are profiting, you are completely missing the point that the RIAA's supporting studios could have made *more* money doing exactly the same thing. The only thing stopping the studios from putting sites like TPB out of business is their own obstinance in maintaining a business model that does not work. They would rather legislate away the ability to copy files across the internet (which happens to be one of the major functions of the internet) than adapt.
You make much of my supposed moral relativism, which incidentally is your construct based entirely on your imaginings of my mental workings, but in essence I think the ideal outcome is for the studios to put TPB out of business by competition rather than legislation and litigation. The studios do represent some of the artists and they ideally should be paid for their work. That does not give them free license to fuck up the internet to suit a means of business that is proven to be ineffective.
The *actions* of the RIAA are evil, not because the corporations themselves are evil, but because trying to restrict the internet and copying in the way that they are
What you do with your web site and file sharing is clearly irrelevant. What TPB does is currently legal in Sweden, at least until the courts of Sweden say otherwise. While, if they were doing this in the United States they would just as clearly be violating the law, they are not violating the law in Sweden.
A moral prosecutor does not work for the government and do the bidding of corporations. Your reference to a "potential client" is therefore moot. The RIAA is not a client of a government prosecutor. What do you call it when a corporation tries to get a government employee to strong arm a person/company they don't like? Corruption maybe? As far as whether it's sensible to support the RIAAs failing business model the government should ideally have no say whatsoever. The market will support profitable models and unprofitable models will fail, there is no need for the government to mandate that we must get our music from Warner or Sony. Will civilization grind to a halt if Sony tanks because they can't sell their latest crap CD? No? Then why should the government care? Should Sony, instead of pushing out crap CDs, find a way to remain profitable by selling decent music to customers without DRM and encourage sharing, since that seems to boost actual sales? Hmm, now there's a thought.
As to whether I know and represent the will of the people, I'll allow some leeway there. I think it's unlikely that the majority believe TPB should be shut down but I could be wrong. Given that what they do is currently legal though, I think I may have a solid leg to stand on. Your mileage may vary.
Repeating that I have a "totalitarian bias" by the way really doesn't make much of an impact on me. I make no attempt to impose my will upon others. My opinions, on the other hand, I'm quite free with. I fail to see how that makes me a totalitarian, but perhaps that word has a different meaning where you're from, since where I'm from it's sort of the opposite of my stance, that governments should leave consumers to decide what markets succeed or fail instead of making it illegal not to support failing markets that line the pockets of the government.
1) File sharing in Sweden is legal, therefore legal considerations are an aside. What is left if not moral selection. This prosecutor is attempting to show that TPB is violating the law specifically with the intent to cause file sharing to be illegal through court decision, which it is currently *not*. Prosecutors prosecuting people for *not* breaking the law are the ones that should be thrown out of the legal profession. Shall we also discuss the prosecutor harassing the members of TPB? 2) I never claimed that choosing to tell the RIAA to pick a new business model was because they were better or worse than anybody else. You may make that claim if you like, but it is largely irrelevant. My statement was meant to show that the government, specifically a member of the judiciary, should have no stake in securing business models that are clearly flawed. If they do have a stake in that, then it would be prudent to question their motives, and by association their morals. 3) I want everybody to decide what is moral, provided they don't mind me disagreeing with them. Going through life without a moral compass, even if that compass points south south east, is not really an ideal thing. In the context of my prior post, I believe that this prosecutor knows that he is doing this at the behest of an industry, which is clearly a conflict of interest with the will of the people, and that he is doing this with the full knowledge that he is being naughty in doing so. Immorality does not require absolutes of morality. You just have to do what you think is bad.
And... moral stand in favor of freedom with totalitarian bias? I have not the slightest idea what you're saying with that one... come see the violence inherent in the system? Help help I'm being repressed?
Given Swedish law, they don't have a lot of choice except to go after large folks like TPB. They're trying to get a legal precedent set. The accusation of bribe is likely unsubstantiated, but given that a person is a prosecutor do they a) go after folks committing actual evil acts or b) mount a hideously expensive case against folks sharing music and movies?
A moral prosector would of course tell the record companies to find a business model that doesn't depend on supply of expensive physical media for digital content that can be copied for almost no cost. Since sharing actually boosts sales of music the issue is not piracy per se, but rather the fact that open sharing prevents the recording industry from gaining exclusive control of the media. The only way to do this now is to seek to have ISP filtering/spyware/big brother type shenanigans instituted on the government level and to lock folks out of trying to circumvent government mandated via DMCA-like provisions.
The RIAA is playing the long game here to try to become the world's gatekeeper for all entertainment content and the prosecutor for the Swedish government is almost certainly being offered at the very least political influence, if not actual monetary bribes. The lack of a plethora of prior cases should not be taken as lack of an agenda here. When you make a move like this, it is calculated to have the most impact possible, and the RIAA is hoping for Sweden to make another Napster decision. Then you'll see the courts flooded with cases against infringement.
Curiously though I think there is a distinct lack of studies that show how the use of multiple vaccines at earlier ages affect autism. Given that a child's immune system is at best only partially developed before the age of six months, it's somewhat irritating to me that doctors regularly inject 7 vaccines at a time into children as young as 1 month of age. My own son developed infantile spasms (a degenerative seizure disorder) a week after his 3 month checkup where he was inject with the MMR, DtAP, and Varicella vaccines (MMR and DtAP each are combinations of 3 vaccines, giving him 7 total).
Anecdotally, of the 6 children in my son's special education kindergarten class, 3 of the children developed seizure disorders within a week of similar vaccinations, one of which was administered at one week of age. Most countries wait until at least 6 months of age before beginning the injections of MMR and DtAP vaccines.
Personally I think that thimerisol is a red herring distracting folks from considering any contributing factors of age and volume of vaccines administered. I think we'd do well to compare current vaccinations correlation to autism versus a program that staggers vaccinations with individual vaccines starting at 6 months of age to see how much that contributes to the rate of autism.
Slashdot Mirror
While I would prefer that Amazon carry a full range of titles encompassing all speech, they are a company, not the government. They are free to carry or not carry whatever titles they choose. While I see no upside to them in not offering a full range, it is their prerogative to select their own wares.
The alternative is that we would force retailers to carry products that they do not wish to carry, which is not something that I see happening in a sane world.
Frankly if they don't do the cheesy-as-hell activation fee like Intel is proposing I'm sold.
If the only citation you can come up with is Wikipedia then either you aren't doing your job or the citation is suspect. I find no issue with the court's decision, I'd be more inclined to beat the prosecutor with a wet noodle for failing to find a more reliable source.
Why waste time on cop cars, cops don't make the laws. Put them on the cars of judges and politicians.
"My my judge, it appears that your car likes to drive to the local titty bars at least twice a week. Funny how those cars do love the titties."
"Mr. Senator, can you tell me why it is that your car was parked outside of a known gay bar? Were you doing research for your anti-gay legislation....2 times a week for the last month?"
BP is probably not a good analogy to this as there is to my knowledge no evidence that federal involvement from the initial blow out would have made any difference. The feds don't have a solution to capping the well either (and in fact failed rather disastrously in keeping BP in compliance with existing government overseen safety regulations).
I concur that both feds and civilians would work better in concert than opposition, but for civilian networks you are dealing with an area in which the feds have absolutely no expertise. Every network is configured differently, with different requirements, different hardware and different security concerns. To allow feds access to those networks under the auspices of "security" is a ludicrous proposition. If the feds want to improve security they should look at the government computers (which most government offices receive a failing security grade for) and concentrate on making sure that there is absolutely no kind of all encompassing override (like a government backdoor) that could be exploited by attackers.
Do you remember Katrina? Do you really want the feds fucking with your network? It is far more plausible to believe that civilian networks will rebound faster from a cyber attack without federal interference because most civilian networks are run by people who do that sort of thing for a living, with their networks, configured properly for their use. Do you really think some random fed network guy is going to be able to reconfigure your network from afar without prior knowledge of how you have it configured? How will they know your user names? How will they access your backups? How will they know which entries on your administrator list are valid administrators and which ones are planted by cyber attackers?
Jeff Green is the former excellent editor of Computer Gaming World magazine. He's always been on the level.
Given how much programming in COBOL is analogous to building computers with vacuum tubes, I think that celebrations are not really called for. I'm thinking we need a Dr. Kevorkian style mercy killing here.
I second this one. Filterware is a bogus solution in just about any case, as there will always be sites it doesn't filter that it should and sites that it does filter that it shouldn't. The best solution is to put the computer in a place where you can always see what is being looked at.
My son's computer is directly beside mine.
Also, as embarrassing as it may be for you, teaching your children comprehensive sex education at an early age won't hurt them any.
Simply, I think they don't get SciFi. The SciFi Channel, named after the genre itself ran John Edwards for months and currently devotes at least one day a week to people going around with IR cameras going "I feel a presence". What's another name for "really really bad science fiction movie"? "SciFi Channel Original Feature". I keep waiting for them to redo Night of the Lepus when they run out of types of lizards, snakes, and gothic masonry.
People whose perception of the world is filtered through a layer of ratings analysis are often not the best judge of quality scifi.
He certainly lost my support. While all the aye votes deserve contempt, Obama as the democratic candidate could have thrown his weight into it and stopped it. As much as one person can bear responsibility I blame him for not doing his damn job.
Perhaps you are confusing the term "atheist" with the term "non-christian". Judaism is still a religion.
Next time firehose folks, mod this one down. Seriously, every time I see an article like this it boggles my mind that folks are worrying about this gibberish. Yes, the internet is physically removing neurons from our brains, planting child porn, killing kittens, and screwing your spouse.
Next up your toaster could be making you more prone to nervous breakdowns!
Ignorance of technology is unfortunately not something limited to a single party. Most of our current crop of politicians fail to comprehend technology pretty much across the board.
While Luddite bashing is a fun pastime, and probably well deserved in this case, it is probably best used when reserved for individuals, not political parties.
While it would suck to be unfairly flagged as a bad cop, the alternative to allowing anonymous folks to bitch about their arresting officer would be to restrict speech that is most certainly free. I think the cons (no pun intended) far outweigh the pros in that scenario.
I think the subject says it all.
Interesting case in the link, however it's worth pointing out that even in that case, the police were the ones monitoring conversations. The parent of this thread however is about civilian agencies (the ISPs) being responsible. While the MPs may be ticked that a cop monitored their conversation, imagine if you will at how incensed they would be at mere civilians listening in. Especially if every single sordid affair of their private lives got leaked to the tabloids. Cops they can threaten. Geeks it's hit or miss, and frankly some of our slashdot bretheren are downright anarchistic and would not mind poking an MP in the eye.
Plus the very infrastructure for peeping would be an absolutely *huge* target for any black hat groups.
The easiest way to combat this is to then monitor the traffic of politicians and their families first. Obviously any piracy problem is most serious when practiced by a member of the parliament or their families, so careful monitoring of all communications from politicians is obviously a priority. After that, monitor traffic from anybody employed by the recording industry and their families. Then the families of the owners of all major industries. After that, ensure that no members of the police force are secretly pirating. If you get through that list without a repeal of the directive then you can monitor the rest of the populace, but I suspect that'll be a short lived initiative.
TBD does not actually share the files, it certainly facilitates the sharing, but itself only maintains the trackers. I could be mistaken, but I do not believe the law (happen to have an english translation of the actual law?) has a provision for facilitation of copying. Like the Napster case, I suspect that the RIAA and their proxy prosecutor will attempt to outlaw facilitation through this court case, since it is not specifically (yes, an assumption without knowing the actual text) outlawed by the statute.
Talking about the majority, I of course refer to those that are familiar with TPB. What sort of red herring are you throwing in discussing what people completely ignorant of TPB think of TPB? People who are completely ignorant of them and the issues surrounding them won't have any opinion at all, and therefore have little impact on the discussion. I do suspect you overestimate the number of Swedish citizens who are ignorant of TPB, as Sweden has long been one of the front running nations of internet users. Their median knowledge of the internet and sites like TPB are far more advanced than most other nations. You can still refuse to accept this if you choose, it's really not terribly important to my argument.
The irony of the use of the totalitarian, ideological, fundamentalist terminology I'll leave you to discuss with yourself, you're obviously having fun with it and it's not doing much for me.
Attributing hysteria to my arguments, however, amuses me. I honestly do not think that any outcome of this case will result in anything anybody needs to get hysterical about. If the prosecutor in question wins his case, it will have little impact on piracy. If he loses the case it again won't really change the fact that piracy occurs. While you seem upset that your attribution of my supposedly flimsy morals supposedly applies a prejudgement on a case that has not occurred to an outcome that is irrelevant, I really think you're missing the point.
My point is that corporations should not be able to influence governments to protect their business models that are against the public interest, and not supported by the market. And before you accuse me of ideological assumptions that I am all knowing of the public interest, think about what would be required to secure the RIAA's lock on media. Not only would we have to have laws worse than the DMCA, we would have to allow them to snoop all traffic on the internet, to ensure that every single packet does not have some copyrighted material. And before you attribute more "hysteria" to my actions understand that I believe there will always be ways to circumvent, which means that the aformentioned laws and snooping would only inconvenience people who play by the rules and have zero impact on those that wish to pirate media.
In prior posts you made much ado about TPB profiting from their acts. While it is true that they are profiting, you are completely missing the point that the RIAA's supporting studios could have made *more* money doing exactly the same thing. The only thing stopping the studios from putting sites like TPB out of business is their own obstinance in maintaining a business model that does not work. They would rather legislate away the ability to copy files across the internet (which happens to be one of the major functions of the internet) than adapt.
You make much of my supposed moral relativism, which incidentally is your construct based entirely on your imaginings of my mental workings, but in essence I think the ideal outcome is for the studios to put TPB out of business by competition rather than legislation and litigation. The studios do represent some of the artists and they ideally should be paid for their work. That does not give them free license to fuck up the internet to suit a means of business that is proven to be ineffective.
The *actions* of the RIAA are evil, not because the corporations themselves are evil, but because trying to restrict the internet and copying in the way that they are
What you do with your web site and file sharing is clearly irrelevant. What TPB does is currently legal in Sweden, at least until the courts of Sweden say otherwise. While, if they were doing this in the United States they would just as clearly be violating the law, they are not violating the law in Sweden.
A moral prosecutor does not work for the government and do the bidding of corporations. Your reference to a "potential client" is therefore moot. The RIAA is not a client of a government prosecutor. What do you call it when a corporation tries to get a government employee to strong arm a person/company they don't like? Corruption maybe? As far as whether it's sensible to support the RIAAs failing business model the government should ideally have no say whatsoever. The market will support profitable models and unprofitable models will fail, there is no need for the government to mandate that we must get our music from Warner or Sony. Will civilization grind to a halt if Sony tanks because they can't sell their latest crap CD? No? Then why should the government care? Should Sony, instead of pushing out crap CDs, find a way to remain profitable by selling decent music to customers without DRM and encourage sharing, since that seems to boost actual sales? Hmm, now there's a thought.
As to whether I know and represent the will of the people, I'll allow some leeway there. I think it's unlikely that the majority believe TPB should be shut down but I could be wrong. Given that what they do is currently legal though, I think I may have a solid leg to stand on. Your mileage may vary.
Repeating that I have a "totalitarian bias" by the way really doesn't make much of an impact on me. I make no attempt to impose my will upon others. My opinions, on the other hand, I'm quite free with. I fail to see how that makes me a totalitarian, but perhaps that word has a different meaning where you're from, since where I'm from it's sort of the opposite of my stance, that governments should leave consumers to decide what markets succeed or fail instead of making it illegal not to support failing markets that line the pockets of the government.
1) File sharing in Sweden is legal, therefore legal considerations are an aside. What is left if not moral selection. This prosecutor is attempting to show that TPB is violating the law specifically with the intent to cause file sharing to be illegal through court decision, which it is currently *not*. Prosecutors prosecuting people for *not* breaking the law are the ones that should be thrown out of the legal profession. Shall we also discuss the prosecutor harassing the members of TPB?
2) I never claimed that choosing to tell the RIAA to pick a new business model was because they were better or worse than anybody else. You may make that claim if you like, but it is largely irrelevant. My statement was meant to show that the government, specifically a member of the judiciary, should have no stake in securing business models that are clearly flawed. If they do have a stake in that, then it would be prudent to question their motives, and by association their morals.
3) I want everybody to decide what is moral, provided they don't mind me disagreeing with them. Going through life without a moral compass, even if that compass points south south east, is not really an ideal thing. In the context of my prior post, I believe that this prosecutor knows that he is doing this at the behest of an industry, which is clearly a conflict of interest with the will of the people, and that he is doing this with the full knowledge that he is being naughty in doing so. Immorality does not require absolutes of morality. You just have to do what you think is bad.
And... moral stand in favor of freedom with totalitarian bias? I have not the slightest idea what you're saying with that one... come see the violence inherent in the system? Help help I'm being repressed?
Are you a bot spouting pro-microsoft bullshit or a troll trying to derail the point with deliberately inane comments?
Given Swedish law, they don't have a lot of choice except to go after large folks like TPB. They're trying to get a legal precedent set. The accusation of bribe is likely unsubstantiated, but given that a person is a prosecutor do they a) go after folks committing actual evil acts or b) mount a hideously expensive case against folks sharing music and movies?
A moral prosector would of course tell the record companies to find a business model that doesn't depend on supply of expensive physical media for digital content that can be copied for almost no cost. Since sharing actually boosts sales of music the issue is not piracy per se, but rather the fact that open sharing prevents the recording industry from gaining exclusive control of the media. The only way to do this now is to seek to have ISP filtering/spyware/big brother type shenanigans instituted on the government level and to lock folks out of trying to circumvent government mandated via DMCA-like provisions.
The RIAA is playing the long game here to try to become the world's gatekeeper for all entertainment content and the prosecutor for the Swedish government is almost certainly being offered at the very least political influence, if not actual monetary bribes. The lack of a plethora of prior cases should not be taken as lack of an agenda here. When you make a move like this, it is calculated to have the most impact possible, and the RIAA is hoping for Sweden to make another Napster decision. Then you'll see the courts flooded with cases against infringement.
Hey kiddo, I have a retarded child that tests my patience every day. Little trolls like you barely even register.
Curiously though I think there is a distinct lack of studies that show how the use of multiple vaccines at earlier ages affect autism. Given that a child's immune system is at best only partially developed before the age of six months, it's somewhat irritating to me that doctors regularly inject 7 vaccines at a time into children as young as 1 month of age. My own son developed infantile spasms (a degenerative seizure disorder) a week after his 3 month checkup where he was inject with the MMR, DtAP, and Varicella vaccines (MMR and DtAP each are combinations of 3 vaccines, giving him 7 total).
Anecdotally, of the 6 children in my son's special education kindergarten class, 3 of the children developed seizure disorders within a week of similar vaccinations, one of which was administered at one week of age. Most countries wait until at least 6 months of age before beginning the injections of MMR and DtAP vaccines.
Personally I think that thimerisol is a red herring distracting folks from considering any contributing factors of age and volume of vaccines administered. I think we'd do well to compare current vaccinations correlation to autism versus a program that staggers vaccinations with individual vaccines starting at 6 months of age to see how much that contributes to the rate of autism.