suggests that Linux and GNU should close their source and start selling because its obvious which s more in use.
Erm... not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you suggesting that MS software is used more because it's closed source? That's hardly "looking at it neutrally". Far as I can see MS became the most used OS because 1/ It was among the first to develop a relatively computer-illiterate-friendly interface and 2/ It got (illegally) copied massively 3/ Now it's largely inertia from 1 and 2 driven by businesses who think they can't afford to retrain their staff.
And planning to bomb people or property by discussing how to do it as part of a terrorist group is enough probable cause for me.
Except this is the whole point (theoretically at least) of "innocent until proven guilty". Until the plan and the discussing have been proved in a court of law, his denial carries more weight than the police accusation. Compelling a suspect to produce private information under threat of a slam-dunk criminal offence (if you refuse you are de-facto a criminal under this law - you will lose in court) is an end-run around the basis of UK law. This was Tim's point - no matter how much it might be clear the guy is a terrorist, law should apply equally otherwise it's not "just and fair". Imagine you're accused of, let's say, rape. Your word against hers (or his as the case may be), but the police demand you turn over that password to your secure files. You know there's nothing relevant in there, but it's personal and private - perhaps it's embarrassing, perhaps it'll ruin your career or marriage. You now have a choice of those consequences or going to jail for being simply accused of something I'm going to assume you didn't do.
I see...a whistleblower is one who releases classified information because he has determined that everyone else is wrong about the legality of what is being pursued
Yes, now you're getting it. If these things weren't true there would be no necessity to be a whistleblower. In a corporate setting he might be fired for gross misconduct, in a governmental/military setting it it inevitably illegal. You can argue his motives if you must, but his actions are textbook whistleblower.
I find it nothing short of remarkable that Snowden was able to copy all of this information, but apparently unable to get it in the hands of persons within our government who would act upon it responsibly and without disclosing our secrets to the entire world.
Really? Who? Even now, after months of media coverage and with a decent portion of public opinion to provide a political flak-jacket the vision from this side of the pond suggests that only a relative handful of "the government" are digging for real answers. Would they have done as much (read: anything) without public opinion to back them up? Suggesting he "should have gone to the government" is artful at best when it's become clear "the government" is a cunning combination of ostrich, clueless and deliberately misinformed when it comes to intelligence oversight.
Uh, unilateral action? What you describe is pretty much the text-book definition of a whistleblower, so your argument seems to be "He's not a whistleblower because he's a whistleblower". As for the running away, are you suggesting that in order to be a whistleblower it's mandatory to also be a martyr?
The results aren't as positive as the title implies
*shrug* everyone has their own spin, but even with the margin of error, as many or more people don't support the government's policies than do even despite the apparently leading questions. That's gotta be worth at least a minor "whoop!"
"Do you support or oppose the federal government program in which all phone calls are scanned to see if any calls are going to a phone number linked to terrorism?"
If the survey questions are framed like this it's very telling indeed that it still comes out against the government's policies. Imagine how much worse the figures would look if the questions weren't leading...
Re: If you want an example of a country that loves freedom...
If you want an example of a country that loves freedom......never look at the UK
File that one under "sad but true", though there's a difference between what the country loves and what the government loves.
Not that the US seems any better - all talk and no actuality. Personally I think the US is worse in some ways - the UK has no history of "freedom", but the US is supposedly founded on it which makes it worse that it throws it away.
that's exactly right and that is the intent of this law
No, you missed my point. As I see it, in order to actually prosecute someone under this law, you'd have to wait until the actual perpetrator was convicted. Depending what "violent crime" you'd filmed, this could be a while. Is it seriously practical to arrest a citizen and then not give them a fair trial for an unknown amount of time while you find out if you even have any basis for the prosecution? Is it even legal to arrest someone without having sufficient evidence of a crime? Imagine a murder arrest where the police could claim "we're pretty sure you murdered and buried someone in the park but we don't have a body so we're going to arrest and hold you while we dig up the park to find out if there is really a body... shouldn't take us more than a couple of years to be sure."
I have some emails out, and hopefully someone in the press will stop focusing on getting up photos of this woman's breasts for long enough to see if they can get a copy of the actual lawsuit to post as well.
Breasts or lawyers, your's still talking about a bunch or tits surely? /possibly too english joke
IANAL, but it occurs to me that if this became law it would be all but unenforceable.
It is unlawful for a person to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime,(Emphasis mine)
In order to be arrested for filming a violent crime, the perpetrator would have to be tried and convicted first, would they not? If no conviction is secured, it wasn't a violent crime that was filmed and therefore not illegal. So technically they'd have to defer a prosecution under this statute until after the act it depicts, which doesn't sound too practical to me...
Copyright is what empowered you to demand that attribution, and you grabbed onto it with both hands.
Well I find myself completely unsurprised that you failed to read even the part you actually quoted. Or perhaps you deliberately misinterpreted...
and embedding a note about the CC BY-SA licensing makes it more likely that people won't lose the licensing information and feel they need to ask for permission.
The point Mr Michael seems to be making there is that copyright exists on everything and , as has been seen time and again, many publications are nervous to use content that might be copyrighted. His stated intent in attribution is not personal aggrandisement, but instead to help keep the information intact that would allow more people to use it without fear. That you would try and paint someone desperately trying to work as best he can within the mess that is copyright law as hypocritical is as predictable as it is dumb.