Answer: MENTORS.
Buddy up with good guys willing to teach you about the innards of an organization, and give advice whenever asked before you proceed with anything. Older/wiser/realistic/cynical guys likely better for this, but if you are young especially, they may have a soft spot for you.
Yeah, I somewhat shocked myself one day when a friend of mine who constantly employs the wrong term for a situation, not out of ignorance but an inability to call forth that which she wants, came up in conversation among other friends; out of nowhere I recalled and said "it's called dysnomia", and really, I cannot remember where I had read about it or how long before I had, but there it was coming out of my mouth. I went to look it up later, and sure enough, that was correct. Aphasia btw is a broader category which subsumes dysnomia and includes all kinds of maladies of different characters and causes, while dysnomia tends to be applied to non-injury cases of verbal recall disorder. E.g. anomia is applied to dynomic like phenomena which develop after injury to the brain, but like dysnomia is subsumed under the category "aphasia". : )
RAID is so much for back-up (which I took the "safer" part to imply, but if I am wrong, my mistake). In my experience those who RAID for back-up come out sorely disappointed when something fails. Problems in the controller can mean corrupt data in all attached disks; the failure rates when [re]building data can be large... Depending on the level being used may be more or less useful for back-up, but really it's not back-up. RAID is data virtualization. I know it's trite to say ("...not back-up"), but really it could save your butt to observe it; where your comment is very valid, however (IMHO) is that done right the RAID should boost read and write times (making the extra expensive drives that are slightly faster superfluous).
Also remember to have versioning with whatever back-up system you use (copies of data at different times and dates) so that issues with corruption don't leave you with two copies of useless files. If you really want to use it as a back-up solution, though, at least go to RAID 6. On those systems multiple drives may fail and if set right the others will have data in redundancy and keep on functioning; it still doesn't get around the problem of failure points and hardware faults in hardware common to every drive however: unless you are running servers for the world or building important software with a deadline, or perhaps writing a PhD 24/7, I think that is likely overkill though.
A couple external drives, connected with SATA cables if your machine is current enough to support it (USB otherwise) and some software to duplicate important folders periodically to chronological folders, is good enough, cheap, and simple enough that most folks with average intelligence and access to Google can figure out from tutorials or from forum help.
And of course since my last dealings with RAIDers who couldn't get data back, things might have significantly improved...
One can refuse specific updates from the update manager. I scroll through the list and choose which updates I do and do not want based on information published as to stability and functionality. If some problem has been discovered, I wait a while until a fix is released. This means of course being slightly behind in regard to updates, but generally speaking I do not install things like Java in a browser, I disable scripts, block fetches from other domains, and avoid risky websites (or lock everything down first), thus don't have too many issues. Of course I am not important, and nobody forces me to use some site or service in pursuit of business as many encounter, but the same goes for a lot of the ordinary users of distros like Ubuntu, who use it because it works well enough they do not have to fiddle with it.
I would be surprised if many of them ever updated their systems since, after all, "it works" (if installed correctly): I installed for my father when he made the mistake of getting a Vista machine when that OS was first released, and when the computer died returned him to Windows due to requirements of business software he is familiar with, and he hates it now ("everything is slow"). The entire time he was on Linux he did not update because things "just worked", so adding No Script and configuring it to the sites he uses regularly was very important, and hitting the system whenever I visited was also. As far ordinary users go, perhaps it would be advisable for the nerdier folk to set up SSH or VLC on family members' systems, lock things down, and tunnel-in whenever they screw things up? Making them dependent not on commercial vendors, but family, and teaching and quizing them constantly might raise the general competence with these machines a little, if done tactfully: "it says I have an update, but I don't know the password", "I'll log-in now and help"; it also might lead to more of us ("the family computer go-to guy's") blowing our brains out though...
Of further interest, it is sometimes those with the strong immune systems that die, rather than the weak. Various conditions provoke immune response that chemically eats at important organs and tissues, e.g. the recent flu that they warned was killing more 18-25 year old men than others: that is because 18-25 y.o. men have the strongest immune systems in general terms, and I do mean in the sense of strong/weak.
What you did not mention is the distinction of immunity types, that is, specific vs. general immunity; a body that is unable to immediately react to a new threat with a precise, targeted approach can do so through chemical warfare: unfortunately it can also burn itself within in this way; the weapons of this warfare are hydrolytic enzymes, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, and a myriad of other goodies that you would not dare drink, and having a generally strong trait for nonspecific immunity means that with 'bugs' that are really provocative, viral or otherwise, can cause your own strength to finish you off.
The first stage of immunity usually is a clear cut strong/weak scenario, and frequently this turns out well, at least in the modern era of antibiotics to make overresponse unnecessary as the body finds a slowed, dying, or severely weakened threat, but with viruses (far less treatable), and especially novel variants (the more novel, the worse), the response can often be catastrophic. Of course that clear-cut sense of "strong/weak" is restricted to general (nonspecific) type response rather than specific response (i.e. already having antibodies to an intruder), and is the basest sense of force/hostility/violence that people use those terms, in this case with regards inundation (churning out) the goodies as opposed perhaps to a light spray; then of course the simplicity soons begins to fail when one considers the interaction between infected cells and their environment to attract the bombers, and even between them and the leukocytes directly to hand over proteins to go make antibodies...
Of course "go make antibodies" is inaccurate if taken to imply that the cells who receive proteins from infected cells are the actual makers, actually...
Oh whatever. Not speaking about general or nonspecific immune response vs. specific or targeted immunity, and comparing the immune system in general to antivirus software for computing 'health', shows that you obviously know nothing. : )
p.s. I do mean it as a chide rather than really trying to be adversarial, okay?
The term you're looking for is "envy", (to be overly 'literal':) "to look at, see, with malice" (for the fortune befallen the on beheld). Also, just for kicks, the opposite of Shadenfreude, happiness for someone else's fortune, is "congratulatory". I also want to clarify that contrary to popular conception, "envy" and "jealousy" are not properly the same nor synonymous, as "jealous" arose for use in a good sense, e.g. to be jealous of someone was to wish to emulate him, though they're not mutually exclusive: a jealous man can envy the object of his jealousy.
That doesn't mean those who misuse legitimate knowledge gained through reverse engineering (which is not only legal, but standard practice in the tech industry to work with any piece of hardware) are an excuse to drop the hammer on those who use it legitimately.
It's a noble ideal, but the downside is that you may have a bunch of other people telling the world all about you through "games" like "answer a question about so and so", "link our game to the family/relations tree gam to add more subjects", et cetera, and you won't even know about it. The dynamics in play on Facebook are such that non-participants are punished, and they are profiled anyways: having a FB proflie therefore permits some modicum of control or ability to edit what's being collected on you--in my case I care less for making face as for keeping the bridges open to correct inaccuracies (though frankly as disconnected as I am to a lot of people who know me because of a very tough work schedule and hard life, and a family spread-out across the country, I'm surprised any would presume to answer questions in "games" about me at all). If any of you, by the way, are recalling certain descriptions of systems created to induce people to spy on each other happily and without mal intent, from a certain famous work of literature at that, good wit.
I have a policy myself of replying to practically nothing, except long-disconnected friends and acquaintances trying to re-establish contact, but all else I keep replying "use my e-mail address or call me". I feel you on the point about shut-ins and antisocials being the haunts of FB, though, and of want to engage people for real rather than simply virtually--perhaps I'd even "friend" you on FB if you had an account. ; )
You sounded legit until advocating copyright infringement (and no, don't get started on the silly, endless extensions) of a kind clearly having little to do with IP abuse; worse yet, the area most abused consists of patents, not vice versa, and as such you've conflated copyright IP and patent IP. "Little" errors like yours are the kind which the I-want-to-own-your-ideas-before-you-do-something-about-them-as-I-sit-on-my-ass-or-just-barely-do-anything-to-pretense-to-the-courts-that-I-intended-to-be-a-responsible-economic-entity,i.e. business-by-actually-creating-product, the lawyers, etcetera seize upon for their rhetoric. Good friggin' job at that.
People already do this stuff, though then again, much of what gets patented in tech these days has also already been done but goes unnoticed by the USPTO.
What connector? The USB connector?
I use the regular cable that came with my iPhone (which has the 30 pin dock connector on one end and a USB connector on the other)
He "probably" means the Apple, propriety non-usb end of the connector cable, also the system for connecting any other device to almost any iPod, not the actual device that takes electricity and puts it into a female connector that accepts a male usb inserter: you know, since almost everyone calls the cable that comes with iPods "the charger".
Dude, chill: large community site here with a lot of varied, often unrealistic, sometimes insightful, opinions./. isn't all zealots, nor are they rare here, but it's full of people with IT and tech experience in the trenches. Linux is also not a mere Unix rehash, it's based on Minix and has Unix stuff hacked on top of it: it even means "Linux is not Unix". Have a great day and keep such things in mind--depending on the article you'll have different types of commentators and you have to be critical rather than reactionary.
...but I don't think they can publish without your permission.
Not true. The publisher/author/s, however, could be liable for libel, that is, any publication about another puts them in the possible hot seat for suit. On the other hand, if they can show their work is factual then they're not liable for libel. In the U.S. the test is truth.
Just to humor the off-topic guy: Note that strictly speaking Unitarians can't be identified as "Christian" in an historical[1] sense, nor were they ever accepted as Christians by outside authorities except themselves, and mostly weren't by the rest until people start to be feel-goody and not want to offend people even if it meant laxing care for definitiosn and speaking (and demanding others speak) accurately. Nowadays if a Traditionalist Roman Catholic decides to call him or her self a Reformed Protestant as well, it wouldn't be surprising to see popular condemnation of those who pointed out the error or delusion as "overly critical", "too concerned for technical accuracy", "insensitive to feelings", bla bla bla: we see such a thing with Buddhists claiming to be Christian and vice versa, Mormons claiming to be Christian--it. just. ain't. Abrahamic... and all early Mormons, from founders down, denied being Christian, and vice versa, and there was no problem.
But nowadays the glorified academy in non-comparative un-critical ir-rational religious studies (ignoring actual differences and studying nothing, idiots) says otherwise, so it must be so: I love to mock the want-to-appear-reverent-and-make-all-feel-good-and-accept-us academic types who're really irreverent more than the fundamentalists, who'll at least be straight-faced and frank about beliefs (sometimes, since nowadys anyone with religious convictions beyond "I believe something but won't insist upon it to anyone else" is labelled "fundamentalist!!!").
[1] "an" is here used before "history" in tribute to the days that it was actually common to so use, since this reply is about old stuff.
No...you know what? It was more than brilliantly stupid, "
Unless you have a document showing the transfer of the copyright to you, then you do not own the material. If the copyright owner decides that they want the recordings back, then you will probably have to turn it over to them.
", just as written, doesn't allude or suggest or imply "I was just alluding to that they could make his life difficult for having more money than he", but means "you'll have to fork over your possessions on their demand without right to do otherwise because there was no transfer of copyright"; it was an absurdly wrong comment. If you meant to say one thing, then you should have said that, not something else: no offense. You know what, though, I do the same thing sometimes...but I don't like when people come back and make excuses for their mistakes in expression rather than saying "oops, sorry. I meant to say [correct self]" would have been better. Your second comment, though, much shorter and more lucid, would have been better from the get-go, e.g. "They probably have more money than [you], so if they demand those, you might just want to hand them over", though that's also a cowards way out against abusers of the law and legal system.
Copyright doesn't mean that having possession of some kind of content is illegitimate for anyone except the copyright holder, of which it appears you're unaware. If I should have quite a few recordings of various kinds that were transferred between parties without sale or salvage, others sold but not salvaged, it would still be perfectly legitimate to have them, indeed not just have them, but I would actually own the physical media and have a limited right to use of the content as the owner of the media, though not to copy the content until the copyrights have lapsed. In other words, he stole nothing, and you're talking from you butt: sit down already.
It was still a brilliantly stupid comment. I don't say that as an attack either, but only to be frank. And if they were stupid enough to make a false claim on his physical media or rightly owned copies of the programs under the guise of copyright he could not only file the form that gets them fined for false copyright claims (which isn't a lot of money for big Co.s, though), but perhaps litigate for intimidation (emotional damages, anyone)? Besides that, though, if I were him, I might just offer to sell them back: starting price? One hundred million dollars or more.
I am sick of hearing "political analysts" and politicians saying Wikileaks is endangering American soldiers because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers, and as the flawed logic goes, emboldens the enemy.
I'm noting your spin...nobody is saying "because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers" is the reason that the leakers are endangering soldiers; what is being said is that the leak (even if incidental/unintentional) of names of those who work as informants, or who gather informants, is what is endangering intelligence as well as informants. On the other hand, if you find such uncareful rhetoric, the which I really wouldn't be too surprised about given how many charlatans we have in offices of political and academic power, in "think"-tanks, and so on, reply to my reply and quote it, and in the case my apologizies; even if so, however, note that for the most part my point holds true, that what's said to be dangerous is the leaking of names of people who are helpful, people not committing atrocities, etc., etc., who trust that people won't say anything about them publicly, but let them remain anonymous.
On the other hand, those leaks can be used as diversions/distractions from atrocities, used to legitimize action to silence embarrassments, etc., and that's why something like Wikileaks needs to be diligent both about curating what they release, as well as about countering any false accusations that may be made against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer: MENTORS.
Buddy up with good guys willing to teach you about the innards of an organization, and give advice whenever asked before you proceed with anything. Older/wiser/realistic/cynical guys likely better for this, but if you are young especially, they may have a soft spot for you.
Darn it if my mod points hadn't expired. This is underrated, and hilarious. : )
Yeah, I somewhat shocked myself one day when a friend of mine who constantly employs the wrong term for a situation, not out of ignorance but an inability to call forth that which she wants, came up in conversation among other friends; out of nowhere I recalled and said "it's called dysnomia", and really, I cannot remember where I had read about it or how long before I had, but there it was coming out of my mouth. I went to look it up later, and sure enough, that was correct. Aphasia btw is a broader category which subsumes dysnomia and includes all kinds of maladies of different characters and causes, while dysnomia tends to be applied to non-injury cases of verbal recall disorder. E.g. anomia is applied to dynomic like phenomena which develop after injury to the brain, but like dysnomia is subsumed under the category "aphasia". : )
I don't know about Eris, but dysnomia also refers to suffering a constant inability to call the desired word from mind for speech. : )
RAID is so much for back-up (which I took the "safer" part to imply, but if I am wrong, my mistake). In my experience those who RAID for back-up come out sorely disappointed when something fails. Problems in the controller can mean corrupt data in all attached disks; the failure rates when [re]building data can be large... Depending on the level being used may be more or less useful for back-up, but really it's not back-up. RAID is data virtualization. I know it's trite to say ("...not back-up"), but really it could save your butt to observe it; where your comment is very valid, however (IMHO) is that done right the RAID should boost read and write times (making the extra expensive drives that are slightly faster superfluous).
Also remember to have versioning with whatever back-up system you use (copies of data at different times and dates) so that issues with corruption don't leave you with two copies of useless files. If you really want to use it as a back-up solution, though, at least go to RAID 6. On those systems multiple drives may fail and if set right the others will have data in redundancy and keep on functioning; it still doesn't get around the problem of failure points and hardware faults in hardware common to every drive however: unless you are running servers for the world or building important software with a deadline, or perhaps writing a PhD 24/7, I think that is likely overkill though.
A couple external drives, connected with SATA cables if your machine is current enough to support it (USB otherwise) and some software to duplicate important folders periodically to chronological folders, is good enough, cheap, and simple enough that most folks with average intelligence and access to Google can figure out from tutorials or from forum help.
And of course since my last dealings with RAIDers who couldn't get data back, things might have significantly improved...
One can refuse specific updates from the update manager. I scroll through the list and choose which updates I do and do not want based on information published as to stability and functionality. If some problem has been discovered, I wait a while until a fix is released. This means of course being slightly behind in regard to updates, but generally speaking I do not install things like Java in a browser, I disable scripts, block fetches from other domains, and avoid risky websites (or lock everything down first), thus don't have too many issues. Of course I am not important, and nobody forces me to use some site or service in pursuit of business as many encounter, but the same goes for a lot of the ordinary users of distros like Ubuntu, who use it because it works well enough they do not have to fiddle with it.
I would be surprised if many of them ever updated their systems since, after all, "it works" (if installed correctly): I installed for my father when he made the mistake of getting a Vista machine when that OS was first released, and when the computer died returned him to Windows due to requirements of business software he is familiar with, and he hates it now ("everything is slow"). The entire time he was on Linux he did not update because things "just worked", so adding No Script and configuring it to the sites he uses regularly was very important, and hitting the system whenever I visited was also. As far ordinary users go, perhaps it would be advisable for the nerdier folk to set up SSH or VLC on family members' systems, lock things down, and tunnel-in whenever they screw things up? Making them dependent not on commercial vendors, but family, and teaching and quizing them constantly might raise the general competence with these machines a little, if done tactfully: "it says I have an update, but I don't know the password", "I'll log-in now and help"; it also might lead to more of us ("the family computer go-to guy's") blowing our brains out though...
Of further interest, it is sometimes those with the strong immune systems that die, rather than the weak. Various conditions provoke immune response that chemically eats at important organs and tissues, e.g. the recent flu that they warned was killing more 18-25 year old men than others: that is because 18-25 y.o. men have the strongest immune systems in general terms, and I do mean in the sense of strong/weak.
What you did not mention is the distinction of immunity types, that is, specific vs. general immunity; a body that is unable to immediately react to a new threat with a precise, targeted approach can do so through chemical warfare: unfortunately it can also burn itself within in this way; the weapons of this warfare are hydrolytic enzymes, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, and a myriad of other goodies that you would not dare drink, and having a generally strong trait for nonspecific immunity means that with 'bugs' that are really provocative, viral or otherwise, can cause your own strength to finish you off.
The first stage of immunity usually is a clear cut strong/weak scenario, and frequently this turns out well, at least in the modern era of antibiotics to make overresponse unnecessary as the body finds a slowed, dying, or severely weakened threat, but with viruses (far less treatable), and especially novel variants (the more novel, the worse), the response can often be catastrophic. Of course that clear-cut sense of "strong/weak" is restricted to general (nonspecific) type response rather than specific response (i.e. already having antibodies to an intruder), and is the basest sense of force/hostility/violence that people use those terms, in this case with regards inundation (churning out) the goodies as opposed perhaps to a light spray; then of course the simplicity soons begins to fail when one considers the interaction between infected cells and their environment to attract the bombers, and even between them and the leukocytes directly to hand over proteins to go make antibodies...
Of course "go make antibodies" is inaccurate if taken to imply that the cells who receive proteins from infected cells are the actual makers, actually...
Oh whatever. Not speaking about general or nonspecific immune response vs. specific or targeted immunity, and comparing the immune system in general to antivirus software for computing 'health', shows that you obviously know nothing. : )
p.s. I do mean it as a chide rather than really trying to be adversarial, okay?
Did you or did you not read the constitutional restriction against states imposing duties and levies upon interstate commerce?
The term you're looking for is "envy", (to be overly 'literal':) "to look at, see, with malice" (for the fortune befallen the on beheld). Also, just for kicks, the opposite of Shadenfreude, happiness for someone else's fortune, is "congratulatory". I also want to clarify that contrary to popular conception, "envy" and "jealousy" are not properly the same nor synonymous, as "jealous" arose for use in a good sense, e.g. to be jealous of someone was to wish to emulate him, though they're not mutually exclusive: a jealous man can envy the object of his jealousy.
That doesn't mean those who misuse legitimate knowledge gained through reverse engineering (which is not only legal, but standard practice in the tech industry to work with any piece of hardware) are an excuse to drop the hammer on those who use it legitimately.
It's a noble ideal, but the downside is that you may have a bunch of other people telling the world all about you through "games" like "answer a question about so and so", "link our game to the family/relations tree gam to add more subjects", et cetera, and you won't even know about it. The dynamics in play on Facebook are such that non-participants are punished, and they are profiled anyways: having a FB proflie therefore permits some modicum of control or ability to edit what's being collected on you--in my case I care less for making face as for keeping the bridges open to correct inaccuracies (though frankly as disconnected as I am to a lot of people who know me because of a very tough work schedule and hard life, and a family spread-out across the country, I'm surprised any would presume to answer questions in "games" about me at all). If any of you, by the way, are recalling certain descriptions of systems created to induce people to spy on each other happily and without mal intent, from a certain famous work of literature at that, good wit.
I have a policy myself of replying to practically nothing, except long-disconnected friends and acquaintances trying to re-establish contact, but all else I keep replying "use my e-mail address or call me". I feel you on the point about shut-ins and antisocials being the haunts of FB, though, and of want to engage people for real rather than simply virtually--perhaps I'd even "friend" you on FB if you had an account. ; )
You sounded legit until advocating copyright infringement (and no, don't get started on the silly, endless extensions) of a kind clearly having little to do with IP abuse; worse yet, the area most abused consists of patents, not vice versa, and as such you've conflated copyright IP and patent IP. "Little" errors like yours are the kind which the I-want-to-own-your-ideas-before-you-do-something-about-them-as-I-sit-on-my-ass-or-just-barely-do-anything-to-pretense-to-the-courts-that-I-intended-to-be-a-responsible-economic-entity,i.e. business-by-actually-creating-product, the lawyers, etcetera seize upon for their rhetoric. Good friggin' job at that.
Yes.
Er... "privilege", that is, "e", not "a", sorry about that.
Wrong about privilage for a diary.
People already do this stuff, though then again, much of what gets patented in tech these days has also already been done but goes unnoticed by the USPTO.
What connector? The USB connector? I use the regular cable that came with my iPhone (which has the 30 pin dock connector on one end and a USB connector on the other)
He "probably" means the Apple, propriety non-usb end of the connector cable, also the system for connecting any other device to almost any iPod, not the actual device that takes electricity and puts it into a female connector that accepts a male usb inserter: you know, since almost everyone calls the cable that comes with iPods "the charger".
Dude, chill: large community site here with a lot of varied, often unrealistic, sometimes insightful, opinions. /. isn't all zealots, nor are they rare here, but it's full of people with IT and tech experience in the trenches. Linux is also not a mere Unix rehash, it's based on Minix and has Unix stuff hacked on top of it: it even means "Linux is not Unix". Have a great day and keep such things in mind--depending on the article you'll have different types of commentators and you have to be critical rather than reactionary.
...but I don't think they can publish without your permission.
Not true. The publisher/author/s, however, could be liable for libel, that is, any publication about another puts them in the possible hot seat for suit. On the other hand, if they can show their work is factual then they're not liable for libel. In the U.S. the test is truth.
Just to humor the off-topic guy: Note that strictly speaking Unitarians can't be identified as "Christian" in an historical[1] sense, nor were they ever accepted as Christians by outside authorities except themselves, and mostly weren't by the rest until people start to be feel-goody and not want to offend people even if it meant laxing care for definitiosn and speaking (and demanding others speak) accurately. Nowadays if a Traditionalist Roman Catholic decides to call him or her self a Reformed Protestant as well, it wouldn't be surprising to see popular condemnation of those who pointed out the error or delusion as "overly critical", "too concerned for technical accuracy", "insensitive to feelings", bla bla bla: we see such a thing with Buddhists claiming to be Christian and vice versa, Mormons claiming to be Christian--it. just. ain't. Abrahamic... and all early Mormons, from founders down, denied being Christian, and vice versa, and there was no problem.
But nowadays the glorified academy in non-comparative un-critical ir-rational religious studies (ignoring actual differences and studying nothing, idiots) says otherwise, so it must be so: I love to mock the want-to-appear-reverent-and-make-all-feel-good-and-accept-us academic types who're really irreverent more than the fundamentalists, who'll at least be straight-faced and frank about beliefs (sometimes, since nowadys anyone with religious convictions beyond "I believe something but won't insist upon it to anyone else" is labelled "fundamentalist!!!").
[1] "an" is here used before "history" in tribute to the days that it was actually common to so use, since this reply is about old stuff.
to
yet I screwed-up and hit "Submit" instead, oops.
", just as written, doesn't allude or suggest or imply "I was just alluding to that they could make his life difficult for having more money than he", but means "you'll have to fork over your possessions on their demand without right to do otherwise because there was no transfer of copyright"; it was an absurdly wrong comment. If you meant to say one thing, then you should have said that, not something else: no offense. You know what, though, I do the same thing sometimes...but I don't like when people come back and make excuses for their mistakes in expression rather than saying "oops, sorry. I meant to say [correct self]" would have been better. Your second comment, though, much shorter and more lucid, would have been better from the get-go, e.g. "They probably have more money than [you], so if they demand those, you might just want to hand them over", though that's also a cowards way out against abusers of the law and legal system.
Copyright doesn't mean that having possession of some kind of content is illegitimate for anyone except the copyright holder, of which it appears you're unaware. If I should have quite a few recordings of various kinds that were transferred between parties without sale or salvage, others sold but not salvaged, it would still be perfectly legitimate to have them, indeed not just have them, but I would actually own the physical media and have a limited right to use of the content as the owner of the media, though not to copy the content until the copyrights have lapsed. In other words, he stole nothing, and you're talking from you butt: sit down already.
It was still a brilliantly stupid comment. I don't say that as an attack either, but only to be frank. And if they were stupid enough to make a false claim on his physical media or rightly owned copies of the programs under the guise of copyright he could not only file the form that gets them fined for false copyright claims (which isn't a lot of money for big Co.s, though), but perhaps litigate for intimidation (emotional damages, anyone)? Besides that, though, if I were him, I might just offer to sell them back: starting price? One hundred million dollars or more.
I am sick of hearing "political analysts" and politicians saying Wikileaks is endangering American soldiers because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers, and as the flawed logic goes, emboldens the enemy.
I'm noting your spin...nobody is saying "because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers" is the reason that the leakers are endangering soldiers; what is being said is that the leak (even if incidental/unintentional) of names of those who work as informants, or who gather informants, is what is endangering intelligence as well as informants. On the other hand, if you find such uncareful rhetoric, the which I really wouldn't be too surprised about given how many charlatans we have in offices of political and academic power, in "think"-tanks, and so on, reply to my reply and quote it, and in the case my apologizies; even if so, however, note that for the most part my point holds true, that what's said to be dangerous is the leaking of names of people who are helpful, people not committing atrocities, etc., etc., who trust that people won't say anything about them publicly, but let them remain anonymous.
On the other hand, those leaks can be used as diversions/distractions from atrocities, used to legitimize action to silence embarrassments, etc., and that's why something like Wikileaks needs to be diligent both about curating what they release, as well as about countering any false accusations that may be made against them.