I feel that just because you don't believe a law/rule is right, doesn't mean you shouldn't use it to your advantage when given the chance. Most would refer to this as "playing the game"
I've seen co-workers time after time be turned down for a job their over qualified for to someone who's absurdly under qualified just because that person is willing "tweak" stats or numbers. It's hard to complain to someone doing this, because after all the industry is rewarding them for this behavior. I'm sure we all know the effects of conditioning and positive reinforcement.
I personally feel those who don't take advantage of the rules to achieve their goals are fools. Although I wouldn't have announced it on the radio.
Molyneux is not changing his stance on his beliefs, just acknowledging this is how he accomplished his goal. If anything this should demonstrate the blatant errors of the DMCA.
"It's suggested that these kinds of orders could be valid for up to six months but at least initially would only be directed at sites hosting actual files, not links to files such as in the case of BitTorrent indexes."
The most laughable part of all. You're going to go on sites like Youtube and take down what's probably legitimate content while the people who don't give a f#@! continue to actually watch your content for free.
At least in the past, as weak as their strategies may have been, at least it aimed toward the actual problem of piracy. It seems now you're just attacking everything and anything for the sake of attacking it.
I disagree this was not a poor choice to notify how your family died. It's understandable it could not be done face to face, but if texting was an option why wouldn't a phone call be? This was apparently not a mass text, so they took the time to write each text individually. I don't see a phone call taking much longer.
I see the argument they "opt[ed] in" to text notification. I have my doubts there was a box...
[ ] Please notify family by SMS in case of injury or death
...on the flight forms. It's likely an option to receive general notifications. I doubt this is the kind of notification they had in mind.
If phone was not an option, for whatever reason, then I would agree contacting by some means over no means would be preferable. But if I get a text a loved one has died because I opted to get a text notification when my plane was going to be late, I would be very upset.
I couldn't find the quote, I thought it was in the article about inaccurate stories in the media.
Cracked writers have said in their articles that they're not necessarily required to fact check, and articles can be opinion based. I know they quite often pride themselves because they do at times put out heavy fact checked and cited articles, but their main focus is comedy.
And in that article you mentioned, "5 Big News Stories That Left Out the Most Important Part", they admit they make mistakes.
That didn't stop every news source and website on the planet (including, ahem, us) from declaring it to be the harbinger of sci-fi technologies that we've been dreaming about for years.
That may be a partial quote, but it's the only part that addresses his point.
The original poster was referring to the "purpose" of copyright. The purpose was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The rest of the quote is merely the method they planned to approach it by.
"As the components are free, as in open source and beer, there is nor financial reward to the developers of other incentive for the developers to create what the users require."
This is the same argument people make with copyright works, this very same website has shown this is not true.
And what you state is almost the opposite of what I've come to expect from open source software.
"As a consequence if there is some critically need function required but one in which developers find distasteful then that component will not be produced."
This is the most laughable part of all. This is what I would expect from closed source software sure. Microsoft left Internet Explorer 6 on the market, horribly bugged, for years because there were no browsers to really compete with it. It wasn't until Firefox (an open source browser) came in to compete against it that Microsoft smartened up.
Open source does the opposite because it's being made by the people who use the damn product. In this case we're not talking about a small group of developers who might decide they equally don't like something and exclude it. We're talking about thousands of developers with different concerns. I've never seen something "critical" missing from open source software. I have seen open source missing a feature that was critical to specific businesses, but that is a different story, and has little to do with the overall quality.
"In a free society money is the means by which scarce resources are allocated to the highest needs."
Your quote here, let me fix it.
"In a fiat currency capitalist society money is the chains that binds the most scarce resources to those more likely to abuse it"
"Besides, half a million is hardly successful, my grandma shits out that much during her /ANAL SEEPAGE/ attacks"
Here goes another idiot thinking he can dictate the norm. Only a person with their head in the clouds would think making a half a million isn't successful just because someone else has made more. You greedy empirical fucks won't give up until every other man is just a slave under your boot.
Get this through your head, the world owes you nothing. It is just as willing to put a bullet through your head walking home one evening as it is willing to give you a break. You should feel privileged to have done so well. Go ahead and call others liars and thieves. Is your family wealthy? If so, which of the three ways did they do it that are common to so many other wealthy American's. Was it prostitution? Smuggling? Or slavery?
The world is changing, and you're playing for the wrong side. You are the 1%, and you deserve so much. But people are massing, protesting, fighting. Who do you think is going to save you when you're outnumbered 99 to 1? The police? Don't make me laugh (it hurts my belly). No one else on here is willing to say this, because they're mostly reasonable people, but you're a piece of shit. And I expect you'll get what's coming to you a lot sooner than you think.
"Batman will surely make a ton of money in theatrical but not all movies (TV shows, books, etc) are Batman."
This is one of the things I hate about movies. Do you think Batman just sells because Batman is popular? There have been other Batman movies and shows, this one sells because they're good. Not just because it's Batman. Maybe if making a movie like The Dark Knight Rises is what's needed to make money, creators would take the time to make better movies.
I for one am getting sick of Hollywood making shitty movies just because it will meet the bottom line. More movies like Dark Knight and Avengers please.
From reading the article, the ad comes in as a third caller. Skype already has the ability to do three way calling. So some computer dials into your convo, and that computer would basically record that it connected correctly.
I really can't say this enough. There is nothing in this bill that will stop piracy.
I hear a bunch of crap about blocking DNS domains to take down "rogue" sites. Loading a site without the use of DNS requests can be done, not to mention many services (like bit torrent) don't use DNS at all.
Connections can be encrypted, proxy servers can be use to redirect your connection, and internet routes can always be rerouted. And even though it can seem complex, I know 10 year olds that can accomplish these things.
When small businesses can't work because licensing fees are too high, and big industry's still won't budge on their ridiculous prices, piracy will thrive.
You have once again demonstrated that someone can formulate an opinion without a single iota of knowledge related to the subject your are directing your opinion at.
If you can find one example of Ron Paul simply changing his policy to meet public opinion, show me. He's the only politician I have seen that HASN'T changed his opinion based on public opinion (including his stance on the war, economics, Taxes, and laws against the constitution).
He's always stuck to his guns, and many of his stances/opinions are not popular due to most people being brainwashed by the media to think his suggested solutions would be bad for the public. Until years later when he's proved to have been right all along. And STILL people won't listen to him.
I don't know why I'm even posting this, since you're probably one of those people who formulates an opinion, and never changes their mind even when the evidence is right in front of your face.
But seriously, watch some documentaries he's been in (I don't remember the name, but the one about the Federal Reserve). Ron Paul points out things that have been wrong for years, which no one else will take the time to point out.