Me neither, but I still predict this bill will die. If you have the means to set up shell companies to hide behind, you can afford to make contributions to certain political campaigns, too. A small start-up that's just trying to make an honest buck or two doesn't often have that luxury.
Actually, I have to agree with her on that point. Downloaders ARE the worst kind of thieves imaginable: they download all day and all night, and despite all of their efforts, not one single title has ever gone missing.
Well, I'm 1/4th German via my grandmother on my father's side. I guess I should keep that to myself or some Monsanto-disciple will blame me for the Holocaust.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim copyright on DNA. Here's why: each generation of organisms only gets half of its DNA from each of its parents. So unless a Monsanto soybean is planted and pollinated by another Monsanto soybean plant, I would say that the resulting generation was only half Monsanto. The next generation only 1/4th, and so on.
If an organism only owes half of its DNA to a Monsanto seed, is it still a Monsanto seed, or is it something new (a derivative work, if you will)? If not half, how about 1/4th? 1/8th? At what point is a plant "not Monsanto enough" to fall under their IP?
Given enough time, Monsanto could claim that all soybeans grown in North America are theirs, because the wind blows pollen every which way, and sooner or later their trademarked genes may turn up anywhere.
This is insanity. Let's be honest: Monsanto did not "invent" anything. They observed nature. They realized that there are different varieties of soybeans all over the world. they picked a few with characteristics they liked, cross-pollinated them, and managed to fool someone into thinking the result was a new "invention."
Yelp has currently filtered out 84 of Hadeed's 91 reviews. Another 6 were totally removed. Most of those 6 are outside Hadeed's area, so I can imagine they were totally inappropriate/spam/etc. But I wonder why 84 reviews were filtered out, leaving only 7? That seems suspicious, as if Yelp is trying to tell us there's been a lot of shenanigans.
"Mike skips over the actual crimes and focuses on details of HOW gov't got the information."
Well yes, the FBI's flagrant violation of the 4th amendment is the story, not the alledged criminal activity.
I don't give a rip what crime he's accused of. He could be accused of eating babies for all I care. We can't have law enforcement throwing out the Bill of Rights whenever it pleases them. This guy has only been accused, not convicted. It's INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around.
You have got to be kidding. You're darn right the burden is on the "offended." That's where it belongs. If you think you're entitled to justice, your options are simple. Consult a lawyer who can advice you if you can legitimately make that claim in court. Then you find out what it will cost to properly make that claim, and you decide whether to proceed, or take your lumps and stfu.
On the other hand, if you sue me willy-nilly over some half-cocked notion, you place an unfair burden on me to defend myself. If it is determined that you were in the wrong, why should I have to pay legal fees?
Under "loser pays" you'll think twice before you try to pervert the legal system by turning it into a weapon.
Isn't it obvious? Sure, the number of people EMPLOYED is up, but the number of people with JOBS is rapidly disappearing. You see, just because someone is employed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have an actual job to do.
My neighbor gave me the key to his house so I can water his plants while he's on vacation. Apparently the minute I entered his house, I committed breaking and entering, because the lock was designed to keep me out. Is that the logic we're employing here?
I know, huh? It's like jumping through all those hoops to legally own a firearm is the same as being a registered sex offender. Another nail in Privacy's coffin.
I Yahoo'd the etymology of the verb "to Google." Turns out Merriam-Webster has made "google" official, so to answer your question, no. No, we can't stop.
Re:
Me neither, but I still predict this bill will die. If you have the means to set up shell companies to hide behind, you can afford to make contributions to certain political campaigns, too. A small start-up that's just trying to make an honest buck or two doesn't often have that luxury.
Re:
I don't think we read the same article.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alice Cooper is also a man. Just sayin'.
Re:
Actually, I have to agree with her on that point. Downloaders ARE the worst kind of thieves imaginable: they download all day and all night, and despite all of their efforts, not one single title has ever gone missing.
Re: Here's some reductio ad ridiculum
Well, I'm 1/4th German via my grandmother on my father's side. I guess I should keep that to myself or some Monsanto-disciple will blame me for the Holocaust.
Re: Re: Re: Patenting Nature
oops, I meant "patent" not "copyright." Rookie mistake.
Re: Re: Patenting Nature
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim copyright on DNA. Here's why: each generation of organisms only gets half of its DNA from each of its parents. So unless a Monsanto soybean is planted and pollinated by another Monsanto soybean plant, I would say that the resulting generation was only half Monsanto. The next generation only 1/4th, and so on.
If an organism only owes half of its DNA to a Monsanto seed, is it still a Monsanto seed, or is it something new (a derivative work, if you will)? If not half, how about 1/4th? 1/8th? At what point is a plant "not Monsanto enough" to fall under their IP?
Given enough time, Monsanto could claim that all soybeans grown in North America are theirs, because the wind blows pollen every which way, and sooner or later their trademarked genes may turn up anywhere.
This is insanity. Let's be honest: Monsanto did not "invent" anything. They observed nature. They realized that there are different varieties of soybeans all over the world. they picked a few with characteristics they liked, cross-pollinated them, and managed to fool someone into thinking the result was a new "invention."
Just curious...
Yelp has currently filtered out 84 of Hadeed's 91 reviews. Another 6 were totally removed. Most of those 6 are outside Hadeed's area, so I can imagine they were totally inappropriate/spam/etc. But I wonder why 84 reviews were filtered out, leaving only 7? That seems suspicious, as if Yelp is trying to tell us there's been a lot of shenanigans.
Re: Mike again makes no distinction between "mine" and "yours"
"Mike skips over the actual crimes and focuses on details of HOW gov't got the information."
Well yes, the FBI's flagrant violation of the 4th amendment is the story, not the alledged criminal activity.
I don't give a rip what crime he's accused of. He could be accused of eating babies for all I care. We can't have law enforcement throwing out the Bill of Rights whenever it pleases them. This guy has only been accused, not convicted. It's INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Re:
For the record, his PhD is in Philosophy, so he is in fact a doctor.
This is no defense of his actions though. I giant douche bag is a giant douche bag, with or without a title.
Re:
Nah, we just enjoy seeing people hoisted on their own petard.
Re: Re: Bring the British system to the US
You have got to be kidding. You're darn right the burden is on the "offended." That's where it belongs. If you think you're entitled to justice, your options are simple. Consult a lawyer who can advice you if you can legitimately make that claim in court. Then you find out what it will cost to properly make that claim, and you decide whether to proceed, or take your lumps and stfu.
On the other hand, if you sue me willy-nilly over some half-cocked notion, you place an unfair burden on me to defend myself. If it is determined that you were in the wrong, why should I have to pay legal fees?
Under "loser pays" you'll think twice before you try to pervert the legal system by turning it into a weapon.
Re:
Isn't it obvious? Sure, the number of people EMPLOYED is up, but the number of people with JOBS is rapidly disappearing. You see, just because someone is employed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have an actual job to do.
Re: Re: Re:
My point, exactly. It's my neighbor's HBOtoGo, it's his password, and I have explicit permission to use it. So how is that a crime?
Re:
My neighbor gave me the key to his house so I can water his plants while he's on vacation. Apparently the minute I entered his house, I committed breaking and entering, because the lock was designed to keep me out. Is that the logic we're employing here?
Re:
Well, hiring armed guards is another way to go about getting the names and addresses of gun owners.
(untitled comment)
" if you take / steel a song, you are not taking anything physical off them, so no harm done."
Except you are taking something from them: their privacy, and quite possibly their safety.
The rest of your rant is just crazy-talk. Maybe in the interest of the safety of your neighbors, Mike should publish your email/IP address.
Re: mental
I know, huh? It's like jumping through all those hoops to legally own a firearm is the same as being a registered sex offender. Another nail in Privacy's coffin.
Re: Can we please stop using "Google" as a verb?
I Yahoo'd the etymology of the verb "to Google." Turns out Merriam-Webster has made "google" official, so to answer your question, no. No, we can't stop.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google
(untitled comment)
Unfortunately true. Voters think "incumbent" means "right person to vote for." It usually means the opposite.