Fair is the compromise between the balance of interests of the various people who create, consume and reuse of creative content.

"Fair" could be defined as anywhere between everything is automatically public domain and fair is giving the content creator absolute power over every tiny aspect about how this work is used until the end of time. Both extremes would affect the possible business models of content creators and the net social utility value that humanity derives from this content.

"Fair use" is the current attempt to legally define where this balance should lie. The real question of course is how do you put a financial figure on net social utility value, when the copyright industry has a vested interest in maximizing and guaranteeing licensing fees.

Goatse.cx - social media for those with nothing to hide

You mean like this gossip story involving Princess Diana's fertility test pre-embryo's which where stolen by a rogue doctor and implanted into his wife as a surrogate. She is apparently called Sarah, and if it wasn't for the cutoff date on male-first inheritance of the crown, she would technically be in the direct line of succession, after Prince Charles and before Kate Middleton.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/25/...

“It’s your father’s Sinclair ZX Spectrum. This is the weapon of a computer hacker. Not as clumsy or as random as an iphone, but a more elegant weapon for a more civilized age. For years, the hackers were the guardians of peace and justice in the internet. Before the dark times, before the NSA.”

Can you imagine a country where the leaders preach that women have natural defenses against rape, having nukes? You wouldn't credit such a country with having electricity.

It is not just cream that rices to the top.

and the sales.

Go go gadget helicopter
http://media.giphy.com/media/4...

> lots of great software that a lot of people simply do not like.

Yeah and I am really famous but a lot of people don't know that.

I am also a fantastic cook but many people don't the taste of my cooking.

But you sound like an idiot, you judge a product on its technical merits, not whether it has any use or value. Your the kind of idiot who would implement an idea because it sounds noble and fuck whether it has actually does anything useful.

You mean the company that had widespread child abuse in its building for decades and everyone looked the other way? That BBC?

Since the idea is that this universe is a simulation, who says it is a simulation of reality? Maybe we are some kids crazy fantasy world in which the container has to be larger then its contents! FREAKY!

The trick to thinking outside the box, is to stop thinking the box is real.

IF this is a simulated world, there is no reason to assume the rules in the simulation are the same as the ones of the world in which the simulation is running.

Firstly, IS did offer to ransom James Foley, for $100 million dollars, and the US refused to negotiate with "terrorists", so there is that old saying "never make an idle threat". The public act of beheading him communicated that they where serious in their threat, which then forced the US to back up its own threat of military action in retaliation for violence towards US citizens.

The second reason was properganda, its a big public statement that not only do they not fear Amercia, they are capable of inflicting damage (a single citizen) upon the worlds great superpower.

"The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it"

On a technical level, the video is now out there on the internet and once out you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Islamic State is a new "empire" currently conducting a war of expansion, much like many of the Western European powers did during the last millennium. The Geneva conventions are in essence a gentleman's agreement between the members of the "nation-state" club as to how to conduct war in a "civilized" manner. Islamic State rejects the fundamental notion that it needs to be bound by the rules and traditions of "western civilization".

In essence what they have done is to publicly execute a hostage for non-payment of ransom, a common practice several centuries ago.

The more political issue is censorship and properganda warfare, who gets to control which information we see. Censorship or adding a non-skippable PSA is all about attempting to control the message, that the little people must not be allowed to think the wrong things, doubly so in a democracy. The war against communism followed a similar pattern of attempting to censor "subversive" ideas, such that Western Civilization isn't the only way to run things.

This also won't work against the "terrorist" Buddhist monks who have decades of training in maintaining a perfectly zen state of calmness even in extreme situations... however their shaven heads and robes might be a dead give away.

The alternative hypothesis is that as someone who has chosen to commit suicide by train, would you prefer to watched in your final moments by a train driver, or would you prefer a little privacy

Edward Snowdon understood what would happen if he where to seriously try and push the issue internally.

The global surveillance network was a core NSA policy authorized at the highest levels. This was not simply some rouge agent or rouge department. Previous individuals have attempted to raise concerns internally and failed to achieve any change underlying policy. The NSA has even deliberately lied to congress on the matter.

As a contractor, he has no employment rights. Making noise would likely get his security clearance revoked and his employer finding someone else who doesn't have a moral problem with surveillance. It would also likely get himself added to the NSA watchlist.

As a pragmatist, his decision to publicly release records has successfully created enough political pressure for congress to at least review the NSA's policies. A cowardly little shit who was willing to risk everything on a high risk venture, with a very strong possibility of getting caught, that takes some major balls from someone who knows exactly what the NSA is capable of.