This is what happens when you declare that corporations are people. WTF did they think would happen? Of course people want to be able to shift all blame and wrongdoing to a concept that can't show up in court.
How exactly did you get that he appears to care about the public??? It's quite obvious what this is all about.
He is a standard congresscritter. He was receiving or sending an email to his mistress/girlfriend and he happened to notice a Viagra or Cialis ad targeting him. He freaked out and just had to know who else was reading his email. He panicked and decided legislation needed to be enacted to keep the FBI off his ass.
"Confronted by this kind of result, the copyright maximalists will probably say: so what? One success proves nothing -- it can't be generalized."
Even though I like CwF + RtB as a formula, the elusive generalization that escapes the copyright maxilmalists is simple and they are well aware of it. The better the content, the more people will view it; the greater the interest the more advertisers will pay.
I first want to apologize for using the term gun nuts. While I'm sure that there are gun nuts, certainly not everyone who is passionate about the issue is crazy.
This article is about the first and second amendments. Even though most of us have a pretty clear understanding of the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is not so clear to most people.
The reason for the confusion is that many many many people choose to ONLY read the second half of the amendment or simply choose to ignore the first half. The above comment is a perfect example.
"3. My right to keep and bear arms is embedded in the constitution of the United States."
Yes that is true, BUT only as part of a well regulated militia. The US Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms simply by being a citizen.
I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, ALL of it. Not just the latter half.
"5. It is probably important for the government to keep track of who carries weapons and who owns them (though technically, I believe, even that is a violation of my rights since it means they could choose to take my license and my weapon at any time)."
It is NOT a violation of your rights for the government to regulate your weapons. It is that regulation that gives you the right to bear arms.
"350k! Not bad considering Mike Masnick says no money is made off of pirate site ads. lol What a giant douche."
While I am willing to agree that Mike often downplays the financial success of "pirate sites", you're missing the point to attack Mike for the wrong reason.
Making money within the scope of the law is not illegal. As long as linking to content is legal then "pirate sites" like this are perfectly LEGAL. So if you are upset that someone is making a profit legally then I have no idea what to say to that.
I'm with you on the profit angle. I'm sure there is significant income in these sites, which is why there are so many, and as long as they are legal they are not going away. Many of the better ones have already moved out of the US, which by the way is an ACTUAL loss to the US economy.
The industry likes to talk about lost sales, but the only ACTUAL loss that can be accurately quantified is the money that is ACTUALLY made by a business that felt better off out of the US, since that is money that should have been in the economy.
Seems like the only giant douches are the ones who don't seem to realize they are attacking legal websites. Let me help you out. It's like arresting a guy for walking down the street wearing a sign that says "Give me a dollar and I will tell you wear to buy tax free cigarettes for $2.00 per pack". The guy doesn't own or sell the illegal items, he just knows where to get them and is charging for that knowledge. In your world the cops arrest him and send him to jail while wondering where the illegal cigarettes are.
Like so many of the outraged comments from the good people of NC, it uses the same line of flawed logic. It supposes that if this information were printed in the newspapers that criminals would immediately target gun owners. It's public so it doesn't need to be printed in the newspapers.
Cognitive dissonance time. Gun nuts will argue that owning a gun makes you a target if it's publicly known because criminals will want to steal your gun. They also hold the belief that if the public knows you have a gun you are a much less appealing target, because you are likely to fight back.
Reality check. If I assume the first is true then criminals can simply request the information since its public. If I assume the second is true then criminals can simply request the information because it is public.
Instead of shaking their fists at the newspaper, the citizens should be calling their legislature and having gun ownership information declared private.
"THANK YOU!!! Every healthcare "debate" ignores this question."
None of the debates ignore this question. The question is simply not relevant. If you are trying to prevent reformation of a corrupt system, then you have to IGNORE as many facts and as much evidence as possible and stick to rhetoric that will inflame the masses against their own betterment.
For the Children
inferior medical care
the terrorist will win
national debt (NEVER include debt of the ill person)