If you care more about enjoying Internet than enjoying nature, wireless might be the way to go. However, a repeatedly confirmed Dutch study has shown that WiFi is bad for vegetation, drying it up. It's a crime to run WiFi in a park - wire up the location. It's also safer, as I'm sure you know.
I concur. Though you have to admit: IP laws suck if you're an innovator, but they're money in the bank if you're an IP lawyer.
David Leigh of The Guardian may have sodomized Assange of Wikileaks. Assange said "no" but Leigh kept on pressing. Now Assange is suing for rape, but it all depends on the rape laws in UK.
The only solution that makes sense. VOTE THIS ONE UP!
There is no single and absolute "TRUTH", just competing versions and theories thereof. To think that you can hold someone "accountable" for their opinions is silly. It is similar to Italians who sentenced and jailed seismologists for not being able to predict the recent earthquake near Rome, or Romanians who almost convicted meteorologists for "lying about the weather". Forcing people to use their real names will cause more people to abandon wikipedia.
If you one wants to use his or her real name, nothing stops them.
Using real names is a bad idea. The whole point of wikipedia is that the collective wisdom of the many produces better results than the individual wisdom of few (as is the case with other encyclops. It is the best known bastion (and possibly the only one) in the fight against ipse-dixit-ism, a disease deeply embedded in human DNA. Requiring real names would not prevent editors from being dicks, but rather would make corruption easier and restrict dickishness solely to those who can produce credentials or create the illusion that they have them.
Also, why so many people think here that real names are the answer, while in comments on articles about Google Plus debacle they correctly identify that policy as flawed?!?
This is a quote from PZ Myers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0MnBmSlhE
"The kind of naive falsifyability that you hear from the philosophers of the Popper school
Religious people think the same way about Creationism. How can a debate be possible, if neither side allows for the possibility that they could be wrong?
Personally, I don't find the creationist argument persuasive so very early in my youth I chose to go down science path. Though back then I used to think it was a "reason" based decision, it is now clear to me that it was essentially driven by what I liked more.
If I was running **AA, I'd hire a PR firm to create the appearance that downloading takes place for profit. Planting such text files, though silly, might achieve just that. Even though it's easier to shut such sites down (but expensive), I stand to profit more from creating the appearance that "pirates" are not so innocent and allowing the sites to continue.
Canadian RIAA has been claiming that Canadian laws are inadequate while dragging its feet before suing IsoHunt: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/
What the EFF should be claiming is that "government employees abuse the limits of their power".
--sarcasm-- Yes, that _would_ rally the people. --/sarcasm--