His writing style reads exactly like my father's. I'd like to know if there's a particular name for Mr. Rossi's ailment or if it's the product of a mere overclocked brain.
My father was never officially labelled handicap, that I'm aware of, yet his sentences read almost exactly like yours when he writes e-mail to me. Is there a particular name for your affliction?
enabling the unauthorized exchange of copyrighted material
When the legal system begins to protect inventors and creators from obviously single-sided signing contracts and employee agreements then perhaps we'll see whether or not the exchange is really unauthorized. The day that I can break my employee contract, leave a company, and then sue that company for distributing my IP, then I will agree that the law is doing what it purports to do. As things are now, once I leave a company, the company still owns everything I've done as per the employee contract. How then are the laws securing the rights of inventors and creators?
Can any music group, as a member of the RIAA, get up and say,"We've made enough cash. We're fat rich. From this day forth our music is freely available." Of course not. The recording company would sue them into oblivion. Shouldn't that be a right of an inventor or creator, though?
If we take the other approach and talk of legally signing away rights then where is the line drawn? If you can legally sign away every right you possibly have by clicking an EULA or putting your name on a document then aren't we admitting that our system isn't about freedom but rather about trickery? It's not a question of which rights you legally have. It becomes a question of which rights I can cajole you into signing away.
That doesn't sound like the honest, benefit to society, feel-good IP propaganda that the *AA lawyers talk of, though. The double-speak is enough to arouse suspicion. Why would any honest hardworking citizen adhere to a clearly suspicious law? If our government is relying on threats of physical or financial ruination to govern the people isn't that a tip that there's something fundamentally wrong with the government?
Yes, and all gun control laws are in clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Would you approve of getting rid of those as well?
Absolutely. I'm not the suspicious type nor am I easily cowed into fear by a straw man conjured up by the politicians. Even if every one of my neighbors owned 10 guns each I would never fear being shot as I walk down the street.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help but laugh. You are a first rate _TROLL_.
His writing style reads exactly like my father's. I'd like to know if there's a particular name for Mr. Rossi's ailment or if it's the product of a mere overclocked brain.
My father was never officially labelled handicap, that I'm aware of, yet his sentences read almost exactly like yours when he writes e-mail to me. Is there a particular name for your affliction?
enabling the unauthorized exchange of copyrighted material
When the legal system begins to protect inventors and creators from obviously single-sided signing contracts and employee agreements then perhaps we'll see whether or not the exchange is really unauthorized. The day that I can break my employee contract, leave a company, and then sue that company for distributing my IP, then I will agree that the law is doing what it purports to do. As things are now, once I leave a company, the company still owns everything I've done as per the employee contract. How then are the laws securing the rights of inventors and creators?
Can any music group, as a member of the RIAA, get up and say,"We've made enough cash. We're fat rich. From this day forth our music is freely available." Of course not. The recording company would sue them into oblivion. Shouldn't that be a right of an inventor or creator, though?
If we take the other approach and talk of legally signing away rights then where is the line drawn? If you can legally sign away every right you possibly have by clicking an EULA or putting your name on a document then aren't we admitting that our system isn't about freedom but rather about trickery? It's not a question of which rights you legally have. It becomes a question of which rights I can cajole you into signing away.
That doesn't sound like the honest, benefit to society, feel-good IP propaganda that the *AA lawyers talk of, though. The double-speak is enough to arouse suspicion. Why would any honest hardworking citizen adhere to a clearly suspicious law? If our government is relying on threats of physical or financial ruination to govern the people isn't that a tip that there's something fundamentally wrong with the government?
Yes, and all gun control laws are in clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Would you approve of getting rid of those as well?
Absolutely. I'm not the suspicious type nor am I easily cowed into fear by a straw man conjured up by the politicians. Even if every one of my neighbors owned 10 guns each I would never fear being shot as I walk down the street.
And someone with a malicious website will have figured out how to use this anti-phishing toolbar as a vector for remote code execution.