We are talking about the same Rep Peter King who had no problem supporting terrorists when they were bombing people in the UK? The kicker is, the Boston Bombing a year ago, is a near identical carbon-copy of the Warrington bombing that occurred almost exactly 20 years earlier. even the death toll was eerily similar. But he has a problem with one and actively supported the other.
Man's an absolute fucking disgrace. He's no room to talk about anything or anyone about causing people to be mad. He makes my blood boil every time I see him spout more shit. Mainly because I was AT that bomb attack he supported. I was just 13, and I heard that bang, and felt something just miss my head.
Well you know what, go fuck yourself you corrupt terrorist piece of shit. Go rot in jail where you belong.
When I hit you up on twitter about this, it was because the Dutch pirate party was having issues over it. Thing is, the Dutch PP doesn't even use the free certs, they pay for them. And STartSSL wants something like $1200+ to revoke them.
Poe: Okay, I'm a thief. I'm stealin' House of Cards. How do I get it to be number two when you pull up "house of cards"? That's my question!
My answer would be:
Well, first I'd start by ignoring the lobbyist that handed me this question, Rep. Poe, because he's clearly ignorant about copyright and copyright law. As both the legislation makes clear, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed, you're not 'stealing' anything. Then I'd question the wisdom and fiscal responsbility in holding a hearing just to show the committee member's ignorance over their supposed subject material and finally I'd suggest that if you were REALLY interested in improving your position in a search engine, you'd do what everyone else does, and hire an SEO company, there's thousands out there.
Of course, I'd probably be held in 'contempt' of Congress for that, but it's nothing compared to the contempt I feel for these corrupt PetaQ ...and the horse they rode in on.
I've played around a little with the current 'pocket generatoin' (a Farnsworth fusor), and while the 13yo is the youngest one now, that one was built on a design a friend (Chad ramey) made when he was 17 from about $5k in recycled gear, and which is the smallest design available at present.
Had some really bad storms at the house I lived at in 06, fried the dsl modem and some of the exchange circuits. Guy comes out to fix it. While we're talking, he's telling me how they're installing fiber all in the area (note, I live in town, right by the hospital - in fact the helipad is at the end of my garden). Telling me they've just finished the main nearby town (Covington, Ga, better known now as the Hollywood of the South) and they're going to upgrade down towards us over the next year. They even have the fiber in the stores ready to be installed. That town still doesn't have any fiber installed. A year later I move a bit up the road, towards Covington, and the route they've said they'd be installing along. Until 09, every time the AT&T guy came out, I'd ask and be told 'its planned, but it's been delayed'. Then they're just not bothering at all now. So this area, our only option is AT&T DSL. or we could go for verizon 4G (there is a tower for it here, but it's the only cell service here, and expensive as hell) Or hughesNet. We can't even go Comcast because they couldn't even be bothered to run POCS here let alone any sort of internet. Which is why 8 years on, I'm still paying the same amount for the same connection - $55 for a 6/0.5
Wow, thats' quite an achievement. So he was studying US law in Bucharest, before he moved to the US aged 12 in 1962? In reality he didn't even START studying law until he was 22, and since he's now 63, that's a large chunk of life he wasn't studying law there. At best 'studied law 2/3 of his life'
Nimmer – who also teaches at UCLA and is of counsel at Irell & Manella – told THR that he agrees with the decision, although he added that the facts of the case were “as squirrely as you could imagine.”
Is what it says. Sounds like a personal agreement with the ruling, but the last line indicates he's not sure if it agrees legally.
Did you RTFA? Specifically, there was a link about 4 words earlier about how some thought it good. If you'd clicked it, you'd have gone to a piece called "Hollywood Experts Divided on Implications of 'Muslims' Ruling"
In it, it cites a number of experts who thought it bad, therefore they're no longer 'anonymous' are they?
To help you out, I'll even list them. “It is a terrible ruling,” said UCLA School of Law professor Neil Netanel. “This is clearly an ends-driven opinion,” countered Davis Wright’s Alonzo Wickers, who represents content creators and distributors. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelmann was blunt. “It’s amateur hour at the Ninth Circuit,” he said. James Janowitz, chair of the entertainment group at New York’s Pryor Cashman, said “sometimes people will twist themselves into a pretzel” to reach a desired decision. Janowitz represents production companies and networks.
That help any? A little less 'anonymous' now? And all you had to do was click the provided reference. Amazing.