I see far too many characterizing Mr Swartz as weak and/or guilty because he took his own life. They do not care that he was a sick man, suffering from depression. They do not care just how heavy-handed the actions were against him. So many people just assume was was guilty, and that his guilt drove him over the edge. Forget for the moment that he died an innocent man, because in this country you aren't guilty until you've been judged so in the courts. Think, instead, just how twisted it is that so many people will no only decry the work he did, but call him a coward for taking his own life. That is truly sickening to me. It's the basal misunderstanding of issues within the mind. It is ignorance and fear turning to disgust and hatred. I have nothing but pity for those sorts of people that would make these disparaging remarks against him. To me it is as bad as telling a cancer patient that they aren't really sick, and they are faking it all. For highly intelligent people (or so go the claims), your minds truly are small and closed.
Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
Your mis-characterization of his suicide is problematic, and far-too common in society, today. The assumption is that someone kills themselves and is therefore weak. No one stops to take into consideration mental health issues. People with mental health problems such as depression do not make the best decisions. They make the decisions their illness pushes them towards. Using his suicide to 'make a point' in the manner that you do makes you the person on the wrong side of the debate by default. You cannot know why he committed suicide or what he was thinking in the moments before. All you can do is make assumptions and sickeningly twist it all to your own benefit or argument. Please, take that troll elsewhere.
Sadly, I know personally a few chiropractors (but have never availed myself of their services), and they agree with you. I guess there are still some schools in America that teach the scientific method, at least. Maybe some Brit chiros should come here to study?
No, we wouldn't. A small contingent of what I sometimes consider 'mouth frothers' would. I don't see as he's done anything illegal in printing the leaked documents. He isn't a US national, he is/was in control of a media outlet (Wikileaks, like it or not), and he didn't get the information first. A US publication did (was that the Times?), and yet they aren't under the gun for anything. Odd, isn't it?
Funny, having grown up in Ohio I know that saying isn't used around here. Mostly because people who are aware of how the police work know that being innocent doesn't mean squat unless you can prove it. All the 'innocent until proven guilty' is empty wash if you're lower income in the US. They WILL find a way to convict you.
Back to your statement that his running for senate is proof of blah blah blah? Remember, he started all this BEFORE the US tried extradicting him. Doesn't that put the lie to your assumption?
You analysis is valid, but only as opinion. You are using heresay evidence to make your judgements. Without meeting the man and actually talking to him, I find it more than a little difficult to put too much weight on an analysis, particularly one that is based on television interviews.
"It doesn't merely reboot your iPhone or iPod, it clears the whatever is left suspended or stuck while processing data through RAM."
Wow, that's... exactly what happens when you reboot... ANYTHING. What's 'stuck while processing data through RAM' doesn't miraculously stay in RAM, or there'd be no reason to reboot in the first place. That isn't unique to iOS.
Not sure what 'trolling proxy' you mean. If you are suggesting it's the same person posting, the snowflakes are different. I'm legally blind and can tell the difference in both that and the writing styles.
1) This is an instance where you had the opportunity to show up and at least admit that you could be wrong. You're not doing that, so you're just showing yourself up to be the troll we all know and love.
2) The weenies you speak of, those would be the middle-men, yes? The publishing houses, the recording studios and their ilk? Because they 'steal' a hell of a lot more from artists than any infringement ever could. (Huge influence my ass.)
3) Copyright is automatic, as you well know. Otherwise the barb was rather pointless, but in the spirit of you and others accusing everyone who posts here of being a pirate.
4) I agree that numbers would be nice, but from there you just devolve into a little jerk, again.
5) No idea where you got the notion it only covers two days. It says 'based on ebook sales as of December 7,' which says nothing of when it started. You are suggesting that the Insider Shop started offering ebooks on the 5th, and never once before that? Care to back that up?
6) More baseless supposition attacking stated facts.
Of course, in your world everything will show up on TPB to be pirated away without a care, even if it's already being offered legally for free.