That's been debunked. The guy who made the Supersize Me movie falsified his research. You cannot reach the calorie counts he claimed without violating the rules he claims he followed.
I suppose that it's possible he faked his data.
Someone who actually does follow the rules claimed in Supersize Me tends to maintain or even lose weight on a McDonalds diet unless they are a total couch potato.
Nope, sorry, I probably wouldn't believe this statement with a mountain of data to back it up.
And just a side note: as I recall, he wasn't having as much trouble with weight gain as he was with liver damage...
Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
Yeah, agreed, this is a pretty horrible decision. And if you extrapolate it just a teeny bit further, I'm not sure if it would make a difference if you *had* the discs in your Office 2010 example.
As I read this article, I found myself wanting to yell at my monitor, "Shut up you stupid old dinosaurs, you don't even know what you're saying!"
If you'd like a chuckle, check out his full (auto)biography on poemhunter.com; I'm not going to link to it for fear of being held libel.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but in my humble opinion his poetry is complete garbage, the kind of drivel that emo fourteen year olds write in high school.
If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.
Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...
A noble goal my friend. It is too bad that you are under the delusion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property". Just look at those two words. They don't go together! You can't own an idea.
Congress can't selectively decree who can and cannot have copyright protection. If it provides it to anyone, it has to be available to all.
Ok, follow along with us slowly here:
(from above) "Rather, the copyright act (a federal law) says that works created by the federal government are ineligible for copyright. (17 USC 105 IIRC)"
Still with us? Ok, now:
Congress makes and/or changes laws.
That was a tough one, I agree. But stay in there:
Congress can modify the copyright act to state that State and local government materials are *also* not eligible for copyright!
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.
Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.
However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.
And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.
Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.
Also, I need to point something out: Demanding that the files be "returned" was completely idiotic in the first place. Nothing was ever "taken". He *copied* the files once, and I sure as hell hope he copied them again (somewhere open) before he "returned" the files.
It's very interesting to me that the government apologists keep bringing up the "only 6 months" in jail, but keep neglecting an important fact: Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, he didn't want to be labelled as a felon for the rest of his life? Are you aware that a felony conviction, even if you "only" serve 6 months, irrevocably alters a person's life in many negative ways?
Err, what makes you think that Megan's parents couldn't sue Lori Drew? I assure you, they could certainly sue, perhaps over wrongful death or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The question is whether or not they would win, which I suspect would be unlikely on either of those counts. Modification to contract law to allow 3rd party action over TOS violations is a horrible, horrible idea. It would be immediately abused and overused in ways that we probably can't even imagine.
Your adamant refusal to acknowledge any guilt on the part of Lori Drew is positively pathological.
Some might say that your need to blame a second party for the unfortunate actions of a first party is positively pathological.
It was a sad situation but Drew did not break any laws, and the over-the-top efforts to try and punish her by any means was worse than sad, it was a travesty. Society will ostracise Drew for the rest of her days, there was no need to fabricate a legal issue.
On the post: DJs' 'Dihydrogen Monoxide' April Fool's Prank Results In Suspension And Possible Felony Charges
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose that it's possible he faked his data.
Someone who actually does follow the rules claimed in Supersize Me tends to maintain or even lose weight on a McDonalds diet unless they are a total couch potato.
Nope, sorry, I probably wouldn't believe this statement with a mountain of data to back it up.
And just a side note: as I recall, he wasn't having as much trouble with weight gain as he was with liver damage...
On the post: DJs' 'Dihydrogen Monoxide' April Fool's Prank Results In Suspension And Possible Felony Charges
Re: Re: Another update
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Boo effing hoo
Instead of just one 99 cent song (because hey clever guy, who only has just 1 song?), Alice has 2000 99 cent songs. However, she finds that she doesn't listen to 100 or so anymore, and she would like to sell her legally purchased property. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so?
I'll tell you why. Because you goons want your cake and to eat it too. "No no, you can't make copies, because they are digital property." and "No no, you can't sell them, because it's just a license, you don't own that."
Screw you, stupid lying shill.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Very bad ruling
As I read this article, I found myself wanting to yell at my monitor, "Shut up you stupid old dinosaurs, you don't even know what you're saying!"
On the post: Judge Wright Orders Second Prenda Hearing, Tells Everyone They Better Actually Show Up This Time
Re: Re: That last line -
Disbarment? You softy.
On the post: Judge Wright Orders Second Prenda Hearing, Tells Everyone They Better Actually Show Up This Time
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Most Crime Involves A 'Cyber' Element, Can't We Just Call It Crime Instead Of Cybercrime?
Re: Re:
On the post: Bizarre 'Attribution' Troll Bullies Twitter Users Into Compliance With Baseless Legal Threats
shaun shane, wtf
And not to put to fine a point on it, but in my humble opinion his poetry is complete garbage, the kind of drivel that emo fourteen year olds write in high school.
On the post: New Book About Data Mining To Find Love Online Has Author Admit To Possible CFAA Violations
Just thought I'd mention
Mike, there is no level too ridiculous or extreme that a career prosecutor won't go to. And defending business models seems to be the new goal of many US govt agencies...
On the post: Music Publishers: We Need Strong Copyright Laws Because We Don't Like The Consumer Electronics Association
Re: Re: Huzzah!
Because you can watch movies on planes, silly!
On the post: Copyright Boss: 'It's Great Mechanics Now Need To Know About Copyright'
Re: OEM abuse of copyright concepts
On the post: Canada Denies Patent For Drug, So US Pharma Company Demands $100 Million As Compensation For 'Expropriation'
Re:
On the post: Canada Denies Patent For Drug, So US Pharma Company Demands $100 Million As Compensation For 'Expropriation'
Re:
Is there any room in your mind for the possibility that the pharm corporations might have a little bias?
On the post: CT State Representative Proposes 10% Tax On Mature Video Games
Re: Re: erm...
cause: bullets fired at people
effect: bullet holes in people
On the post: Copyright Insanity: School Policy Requires Students Hand Over Copyright On All Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: public funding
Ok, follow along with us slowly here:
(from above) "Rather, the copyright act (a federal law) says that works created by the federal government are ineligible for copyright. (17 USC 105 IIRC)"
Still with us? Ok, now:
Congress makes and/or changes laws.
That was a tough one, I agree. But stay in there:
Congress can modify the copyright act to state that State and local government materials are *also* not eligible for copyright!
Shizbam!
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.
However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.
And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.
Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?
Can we drop the "only 6 months" bullshit, please?
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re: Contract Law
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re: "dispute"
Some might say that your need to blame a second party for the unfortunate actions of a first party is positively pathological.
It was a sad situation but Drew did not break any laws, and the over-the-top efforts to try and punish her by any means was worse than sad, it was a travesty. Society will ostracise Drew for the rest of her days, there was no need to fabricate a legal issue.
Next >>