="My thoughts about this award is that it makes it quite clear that the average person posting on slashdot does not know anything about law."
yep. what should be clear to folks by now is that sharing files over the 'Net is not going to be excused as "private, non-commercial use". Sharing files on the net will be treated as copyright infringement: stare decisis: this matter is settled.
You say whoever organized the attack couldn't trust Bin Laden, because he could be in bed with the CIA. He is an asset to the CIA because he is an effective scapegoat. If you did not have the attacks, you would not need a scapegoat, so he wouldn't be an asset at all.
Drawing from your logic, Bin Laden only has value IF there is an attack. I'm sure you see where I'm going from there.
not exactly
go back and read the article referenced in the lead post. Viacom is going after U-tube for contributory infringement, their argument being that U-tube is picking up readership and thus advertising revenue by winking at infringement. whether this is true or not will be up to the court to determine
This may be old news, but I just noticed myself and thought I'd report it. I've been using the "New Version" of GMail for a couple of weeks (I hardly notice the difference from the "Old Version"), and happened to notice today that the inbox URL still used "http://", even after all the complaints that they didn't maintain "https://" after login. I decided a quick test was in order, and added the all-important "s" to the protocol indicator. It worked fine. After clicking around some, openin
[edit] I really should have made this a story, not a journal entry[/edit]
Danny Carlton writes on Adsense chat:
"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama
