Comment Hello (Score 1) 384
I'm a slashdot editor, and I can't distinguish between the concepts of "secretly" and "non-consensually".
Please give generously, so further people don't have to suffer the consequences of my stupidity.
I'm a slashdot editor, and I can't distinguish between the concepts of "secretly" and "non-consensually".
Please give generously, so further people don't have to suffer the consequences of my stupidity.
Except
Freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or libel people you don't like, and it absolutely does not include the right to do so anonymously. You have the right to free speech - but you also must obey the libel laws, and you must be prepared to take the legal consequences of your free speech.
Objection your honour: assumes a fact not in evidence. My client would like it stated that the £50,000 cost for legal fees is press conjecture, unsupported by citations.
Actually, that list goes:
ESB
SW
RotJ
Star Wars Holiday Special
Caravan of Courage: The Ewok Movie
TPM
RotS
Care Bears the Movie
Sex and the City
AotC
Kids, eh. Many of them don't know the difference between "who's" and "whose".
Seriously folks, no-one is looking at the free US Media and saying "That is the model to which we should all aspire". Would I rather have a democratic government or Rupert Murdoch controlling the media - well, I'd rather have neither - but at least I can vote out a democratic government.
Fox News or The BBC - no fucking contest....
You're left with nothing but dust...
I can't speak for Australian Law, but it most certainly does in some jurisdictions.
Except Sydney Opera House was opened in 1973, so its completely reasonable that its design is subject to copyright. Stonehenge was completed sometime around 1500BC, so that copyright has probably lapsed by now.
That applies to things that are actually copyright already -- so if I make a NEW henge on public display somewhere, I get to restrict images of it, because its my artistic work.. But Stonehenge's design is out of copyright now.
I've noticed a 0-day vulnerability in old ladies in that I can hit them over the head with a cudgel and steal their handbags. I'm going to a black-hat muggers conference to hand out cudgels and more detailed instruction. But that doesn't make be an utter scumbag, oh no. I'm a "security researcher", that's what I am, only interested in increased security for old ladies.
Better yet, lets co-opt pretexting: How about "Today two men pretexted themselves into my grandma's house by claiming to be from the gas company, then stole all her valuables." What's the difference here?
Can we have a new tag: "Rhetorical questions to which the answer is 'No'"
Oh, yeah? Then why is the first google hit for "Ja Me Yoon" a link back to this slashdot article?
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
