I imagined an imaginary scene from an imaginary play with .. deference to these poignant words: The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Since it's fairly obvious you derived that I was telling him he was wrong you seem perfectly qualified for interpretive duties at the Hineylick Center for the Rehabilitation of Crack Abuse Victims. Thank your insight, sir. May I have another?
Here I sit broken hearted I tried to vote and only farted.
But really, here's the thing, the harder you squeeze the more the juice comes out and the more juice that comes out the bigger the mess and the bigger the mess the less juice you have and when you run out of juice and you just keep squeezing in self-righteous indignation the ground becomes nourished and writhes beneath you and you learn, slowly, that you are being squeezed and you are being eaten and you are bleeding and only then do you see the error - you should have squeezed harder, you should have squeezed faster and you should have squeezed over a bowl because all is now lost and there's shit everywhere and you're bleeding. And you crawl towards the Tree of Liberty looking for more fruit and there is none. At last, we are safe.
Since it's fairly obvious Mr. Pres. Elect needs to start focusing now you kind of seem perfectly qualified to take over these truth and criticism duties. Truth to Powah, Brutha! Truth to Powahhh. Don't fuck this up.
You mean calling a spade a spade isn't cool? Too quick to qualify? Is he wrong? Wrong tone? Not CNN enough? Too much CNN? Were you guys upset? Is this a search for acceptance gone wrong? The power to change minds backfiring? What?
The guy is POTUS in a twitter tister with the NYT. Dude's pretty much whining. I might be with you on the "Constant" part though because that might tend to imply to infinity and beyond. He should definitely change that, like, immediately, or I could, you know, I could freak the fuck out. It's not right. Not cool.
Really? Because I drop in for the free form flow of info that includes feelings, rants and opinions. Not too mention the old school approach to a comment section. There's absolutely nothing more inane than a bunch of carefully crafted and polished blog posts for not much value other than someone might take offense. That and I positively abhor the trends I'm witnessing with most "apps" (what-the-actual-fuck), mediation, advertisement, comment sections disappearing en-masse and.. fuck me, prosecutions founded on text and words and based on nothing more than pussy, fear-mongering, bitchy bullshit.
I expect dirt from techdirt, pure, unfiltered, dirty dirt. And I like bad words and, unlike the "pc" trends and views, it shows me grit and purity.. And fuck-all the puritanical, "I didn't hear what you said because I didn't like how you said it" crap because I can't fathom willful ignorance under any circumstances.
Everyone is expecting the Internet to make them some money. Look at telecom - the depth and breadth of that greed-based stranglehold makes me want to break shit. I pay .. hm.. too damn close to $500.00 a month for all my comms. And it's rapidly, extremely rapidly, turning into nothing but cable 2.0. I expect better from the Internet, I demand it. Speak your minds. Oh and thanks for sharing.
w.t.f are you on about? I've read your comment three times out of a sheer fascination with its ability to do nothing for me or the topic. iPic food? Local ethnic hangout preferences? The eating habits of toddlers. Small dark Jewish boys. I really have no idea. I think I enjoyed myself. Not certain. Please don't help me.
Why am I having such difficulty in understanding almost every comment so far on this posting?
Are lizard people even a thing? Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner? Are the currently agreed upon protocols somehow left vulnerable is some way I fail to understand? Do moderated TLDs pose some sort of threat to those that are not? .... Hold on.. I think the internet just went pitch dark.. The light has just gone off in my tube. My cat!! It's gone!
Where does the incentive to create come from when one can no longer lawfully create and someone else can sit on a single creation (and, apparently prevent others from sitting on one) for what amounts to several generations? .. Patently absurd notion of progress that stunningly neuters it in the same breath.
These types of "protections" are, in fact, preventative measures - designed to keep creators from creating. That much has become all too clear.
In no way is any original artistry threatened here for if your work is art, and valued as such, then said art will always be in demand as original works.
"Zero tolerance" has apparently now also become the mantra of "rights holders" along with every other war on 'x' - usually adversely effecting the most disenfranchised among us the most and benefiting only those already far too bloated with wealth and power the most.
A chair design protected for generations. Fucking ridiculous.
I'd wager that the publisher/rights holder is doing far and away better on her works than she could ever possibly achieve in a "we own the rights to your works (and control all the knowledges - mwah-hah-hahh)" model. Something tells me she should be doing far better than she actually is.
"The negative effects of such an intervention would lead directly to lower levels of investment in European content production, promotion and distribution,"
But.. the world is flat!
I imagine, given the near-zero cost of distribution, which happens to flow nicely into effective promotion, that investment into production would skyrocket.
Once something is broadcast I'm not sure how the argument of a "right" to make money by controlling distribution is an effective argument anymore (if it ever was). Hell, it's only relevant due to deep pockets and corrupt influence on law makers.
"Middle-men", in the areas of distribution in a digital market, are simply less relevant, if at all - laws and punishments and "the rights of distribution" be damned.
It's not a secret if you tell someone... It is no longer "solely yours" when you release it... "Copyright" needs to be fixed and it's not because the middle-men or mega media corps stand to loose money. That's simply not the point of a copyright much less an indication of how long they should last. You guys simply do not create - you strangle what's already been created. And that only for yourselves and those artists that you've convinced that only they can be your one and only benefactor.
I kind of like the control I have over the media I can access and the reality is that there's not much anyone can do about it, good, bad or otherwise.
The sooner you asshats can agree on and create a catalog of rights then the sooner you can provide income to "your" artists and creators. Get your twisted, self righteous heads out of your cocktail glasses and fix your shit.
I don't understand. Why would anyone patent peer review on a computer or otherwise? Isn't it kind of up to the, I don't know, peers doing the reviewing?
Oh.. nevermind. It must be to protect the furtherance of the progress of the sciences and the arts. I get it.
From this angle Elsevier looks like it's aim is to crush innovation vs innovate, and with a patent, no less. Ironic.
Elsevier is the epitome of preventing the flow of academic information.
"I was published in another academic journal! Woohoo!! No, no monies." ... Uhhh, that still means that much to you guys when, you know, a huge chunk of the population is a few key taps away? I guess it's pretty cool to be smart, huh? And have all your hard work and research paid for and seen by millions.. well, except for that last part.
Also, as someone mentioned here elsewhere, "identity theft" is fraud. So, no, identity theft is not "theft" of your identity because, shocker, you still have one. The perp is out committing fraud with your identifying datum and is probably stealing things from others with it.