I highly recommend the Pimsleur language learning system. You're not going to get a very broad vocabulary from it (they average around 600 words, maybe more depending on the language), but I've found their lessons an enjoyable and useful experience.
It's pricey (like most language programs as far as I can tell), but it is DRM free (unlike some others).
Indeed, that sounds like his point. Studies show the majority (~89%?) of torrents infringe copyrights, therefore anything that searches exclusively torrents has a "substantial connection" to the crime of copyright infringement. Doesn't sound like he's relying on the old inducement thing, just the presence of a "substantial connection."
I really don't follow his logic at all though on why this applies to a torrent search, but not to a Google Search. If anything, Google links to more torrents than these other guys do (pretty much by definition as it aggregates most everyone). Isn't that a more substantial connection by his own argument?
I mean even his own examples of Wal-Mart being held liable for crimes of others using some tiny part of their stock (ammunition), or crimes committed on their property, seems to support the idea that our current system has no qualms about placing liability on a party such as Google, however insane that notion may be to a rational person.
Wow, that article paints an even more disturbing picture of the situation. I honestly can't understand why anyone would support or be in favor of a police officer or judge acting in such a childish and counterproductive manner.
?Let me just say that as a matter of policy I think it?s ludicrous that people would be arrested for recording a police officer,? adds Volokh.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only encouraging thing about all this is that at least some of these situations are getting a little bit of national attention. Maybe a positive trend is possible.
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
The only verifiable evidence that I can see in Peter King's open letter that he uses to back up his claims regarding the danger of WikiLeaks is half a sentence from a New York times article. Here's one larger quote from the same article:
"Administration officials said they were not aware of anyone who has been attacked or imprisoned as a direct result of information in the 2,700 cables that have been made public to date by WikiLeaks, The New York Times and several other publications, many with some names removed. But they caution that many dissidents are under constant harassment from their governments, so it is difficult to be certain of the cause of actions against them."
I certainly would like to give them that benefit of the doubt. That perhaps this is an attempt to ferret out those currently leaking documents. But it's hard to make that leap when so much of the rest of our government's "public reaction" has been so shortsighted and similar in tone to this.
Netflix has huge value in it's rating and recommendation system. While far from perfect, I've discovered tons of content that way and really enjoyed the results. Props to the variety of content they've added also. I've never failed to find something informative or entertaining to watch, even if the specific title I might seek out isn't available.
1. Women = Time x Money [Women require multiples of time and money]
2. Time = Money [time is money my dear friend]
3. Women = Money x Money [from 1 and 2]
4. Money = sqrt(Evil) [Money is the root of all evil]
5. Money x Money = Evil [from 4]
6. Women = Evil [from 3 and 4]
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people?s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the eﬃciencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to deﬁne their behavior as conspiratorial.
What if it was a situation more like this where most (or all) of the article is posted, but it's broken up and commented on and dissected. What if it was exactly like that with comments/dissection and everything, but the dissection comments and the article were separated such that the whole article was posted in it's entirety. What if there was a 5 paragraph complete article posted, followed by 10 paragraphs of dissection? or followed by just 1 paragraph of dissection.
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?