Though I probably know a fair bit more about the law, diversity, equality, and natural rights than you claim to. And calling your fellow citizens 'the dumb masses' makes you even more of an idiot than anything you have said previously.
For those interested this was brought about by the release of the Australian Law Reform Commissions (ALRC) long sought report on "Copyright and the Digital Economy" released last week to the public.. The govt has had it since November 2013 though.
The report contains 30 recommendations for reform of the current copyright act with the key recommendation for an introduction of a fair use exception to Australian copyright law [about bloody time].
Basically indistinguishable from Star Chambers and why their so called evidence is inadmissible in any court anywhere else on the planet.
Interestingly though the protections against self incrimination in the US's Fifth Ammendment were implemented to nullify the inquisitorial ability of Star Chambers.
Oh but "grand juries' are different. people say.. BULLSHIT! they are basically an absolutely inquisitorial process that removes due process, procedural fairness, transparency and the ability to be represented FULLY by counsel and not forget the fact that exculpatory evidence is NEVER shown because the prosecution is all powerful and the leader of proceedings .. ie: a Star Chambers or Kangaroo court.. take your pick
How to Grammar! * Prepositions are not words to end sentences with. * And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction. * It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. * Avoid clichés like the plague. (They’re old hat) * Also, always avoid annoying alliteration. * Be more or less specific. * Remarks in brackets (however relevant) are (usually) (but not always) unnecessary. * Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies. * No sentence fragments. * Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used. * Foreign words and phrases are not apropos. * Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous. * One should NEVER generalise. * Comparisons are as bad as clichés. * Don’t use no double negatives. * Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc. * One-word sentences? Eliminate. * Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake. * The passive voice is to be ignored. * Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas. * Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice. * Kill all exclamation points!!! * Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them. * Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas. * Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed. * Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” * If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly. * Puns are for children, not groan readers. * Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms. * Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed. * Who needs rhetorical questions? * Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement. [ (Source: misscellania.com ]
Actually looking at his website where he states he is a SuperHero.. (I'm not joking -2nd paragraph) states that SEO is really "simple" as long as you "play by the rules" (same about page as above) it seems that he is also highly narcissistic as well.. ie: Either batshit crazy or getting there.
Though I have to always ask this... What in all blazes does an SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) person know about Public Relations and more importantly Risk & Reputation management.
Though supposedly this guy used to have a huge hockey page.. maybe a few too many beers or hits in the head with a puck might explain it all
Its a parody and interpretation of what is wrong both logically, ethically and holistically with Academic publishing as it now stands.
Anyone who has actually attempted to publish papers using the convoluted and extremely one sided way most institutions and peer review is done by so called unbiased, niche, and scientific journals (and don't get me started on there mostly narcissistic peer review structures) would have either gotten correspondence extremely similar if not exactly like this at some time dealing with it all.
JKR is actually quite apt being here since her original manuscripts were actually rejected by a LOT of major publishers.
So based on standard advertising terms and fees Google should most likely charge a minimum of $1000 to $5000 per search result for each time these competitirs are displayed.
Hey That's okay.. Think of the crowd sourcing that people who hate Microsoft (Bing) could do by searching specific things just so that Micro$oft can start paying absolutely huge amounts of money to Google.
10,000 hits per day * $1000 = $10M per day... WOOT!!!
Really... did ANYONE actually think of the knock on Payment affect of this to these so called 'competitors'? IDIOTS!
The only thing the actual citizens get angry at is the narcissism of the USA and its audacity to assume that it somehow can inflict its ideals of democracy (that's a laugh in itself) or other ideals of [insert some stupid moralistic crusade/war/bullshit here] on another jurisdiction especially when the REST OF THE PLANET WONT! ie: CUBA
But hey... those Floridians that were ex cubans can't have them being butthurt in their ego's can you.. Where would you get the money to elect Governers, Senators, Presidents from then hey?