Problem is, what it was intended to do means sod all when it comes to determining what it actually does - the court won't hold you to the spirit, it will hold you to the letter.

Which is why the fine print exists in those other agreements. But it doesn't exist here beyond the wording of the GPL itself. So asking the creators of the GPL in this instance will get you nowhere because their opinion on the matter lacks any weight, its what the actual wording says which determines what you are beholden to. They dont get to have a second bite of the pie by saying "well, what we actually meant was..." - they had that chance when they wrote it originally.

No, the creators will tell you what it was intended to do, the court will tell you what it actually does. Potentially huge difference there.

You mean some selfish posters are ruining certain articles for others, who don't particularly mind if Bennett Haselton posts or not...?

If you don't like him posting, SKIP OVER HIS FUCKING POSTS. No one is requiring you to click on that link to read his post, SO DONT FUCKING DO IT.

Coming in here and posting drivel because you dislike him and his is nothing more than you thinking you own this fucking place and your opinions matter more than everyone elses - its as bad as the bullshit "bring back classic" posts which did the same - yeah, ruin it for everyone because you don't personally like it.

How about you go fuck yourself?

Im not missing anything of the sort, the post I was replying to was commenting that *Google* would be the one who had to verify that all the paper work was in place, when that is patently not true - they accept a declaration of compliance from the poster, and then they accept a declaration of infringement from a third party. Google doesn't verify anything at all, they let the two parties deal with it between themselves while hosting the video in a manner that conforms with the law (eg the DMCA allows for a counter claim from the poster to be made which allows Google to legitimately reinstate the video and not suffer any legal issues by doing so).

Google wouldn't verify anything in that scenario, they just receive legally binding declarations from both parties and then it moves upstairs in the legal process.

Why would Google have to do anything? If the producer wants it to be listed, they have to have all their ducks in a line - Google just has to remove it each time its shown that those ducks are not in line and put it back up each time the producer says they are.

Google doesn't have to check to see if those ducks are valid or not, they go by the assertion of the person putting it up.

Does that mean we can describe the Muslim invasions as a backlash against the prior Roman occupations?

Wow, that's quite a rewrite of history you have there...

So the fact that Peter James Knight was a fanatical Christian who strongly believed in the Bible and his faith, and was described during his trial as "obsessive, fanatical about certain matters [...] including your faith" means his action wasn't at all motivated by his faith...?

Don't remove the exemption, just exempt the people using the exemption from being able to frequent public areas without protective clothing (protective as in protecting others from them, not protective as in protecting them from everyone else).

Its illegal to be naked in most public places, its illegal to knowingly infect others with dangerous illnesses, so why shouldn't it be illegal to knowingly be in a public place when you are much more open to infection from dangerous illnesses and thus to infect others with them...?

How the fuck did it stand for freedom?

A non-political body called the Judicial Appointments Commission, the 15 members of which include barristers, judges, normal everyday people and legal professionals. The government have no say in appointments, and have no power over the commission - its completely independent.

Except that in the UK, Judges have the ability to nullify a law if they consider it onerous or wrong, without being specifically asked to look at the law itself.

One of the many reasons I trust the UK judicial system - its very independent of the current Government.

That's because it is a minor version bump - the main difference is in how projects consume it.

Not even that, its a Delta V Heavy which has been flying for a while now.

Assistance dogs do not "understand" those things, they are trained to react in a certain way to a certain set of stimuli, but that's not the same as understanding the link between the stimuli and the reaction. Put an assistance dog in a similar situation, but change some of the stimuli, and their reaction will not be the same. They cannot adapt training to new circumstances on their own, they have to be led.