Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen'images,

Reply
Thread Tools

'We're being screwed': photographers and designers vent over 'stolen'images,

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2013
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:47:07 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>[..]
> You, like many criminals read selectively. I first bring your attention
>
> to Article 17. of the document you have presented us:
>
> Article 17.
>
> (1) Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association
>
> with others.
>
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
>


Doesn't really apply, given that bitstrings all belong to the public
domain and hence they can't be considered to be property.

The only actual property you have are the physical carriers, like a
CD or a usb stick that holds the bitstrings.

People don't share and exchange such physical property (like CDs or
usb sticks) on torrent websites like piratebay.

They share and exchange bitstrings.

Furthermore, nobody is deprived of their property due to filesharing,
as nothing (neither physical property, nor bitstrings) is ever being
taken away from anyone.


>
>
> Then we have the Article on which your argument is precariously balance:
>
> Article 19.
>
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
>
> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
>
> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
>
> regardless of frontiers.
>


That article says it's a human right to share and exchange
information (e.g. bitstrings), for instance sharing them on piratebay.

>
>
> Then I refer you to Article 27. section 2:
>
> Article 27.
>
> (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
>
> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
>
> production of which he is the author.
>


Hmmm, I don't see anything about a monopoly on the reproduction and
distribution of information. So that is certainly not a human right and
there is no reason to assume that not having a monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of information precludes people from having the right to
the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

After all, otherwise public libraries would be in violation of the UDHR,
as they offer free access to information.

Article 27, section 2, does imply that the government should implement
a system of taxation on information (just like libraries are financed
by means of tax money) in order to ensure that people who create new content
are provided with an appropriate incentive to encourage their creativity.

So public libraries would be in violation of the UDHR if they didn't just
offer free access to information, but they also put authors of books in labor
camps so they write books for free, in order that the government wouldn't have
to resort to taxation to finance public libraries.

>
>
> So, your argument hinges on Article 19 & your personal interpretation
>
> of "information".
>


Buy a dictionary and look up the word information, you will find that
bitstrings are a form of information (just like DNA strings for instance).

>
>
> ...and yet you are prepared to waive Article 17 (2) & Article 27 (2)
>
> and the rights of any creator or owner of the product so you can
>
> violate your touted Universal Declaration of Human Rights by denying
>
> those authors, creators and owners of the information you and other
>
> Torrent users lift in violation of the UDHR their rights.
>


Bullshit.. Torrent websites are not in violation of the UDHR simply
because they facilitate the free exchange of information, but article 27, section 2, does provide grounds for people to demand the taxation of
information in a similar fashion to the way public libraries are financed.

Just like public libraries are not in violation of the UDHR simply
because they offer free access to information.

Article 17 (2) and Article 27 (2) don't detract from the freedom to
exchange information granted by Article 19.

>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2013
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:03:26 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>[..]
> One more observation, I see that you are also in violation of Article 30.
>
> Article 30.
>
> Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
>
> State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
>
> perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
>
> freedoms set forth herein.
>


There you have it. That means that your attempts to demonize filesharing
actually aims at the destruction of the freedom to share and exchange
information as granted by Article 19 of the UDHR and it can certainly
not (as declared by Article 30) be justified on the grounds of
Article 17 (2) and Article 27 (2).


>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2013
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:57:34 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-30 19:37:56 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:47:07 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> [..]

>
> >> You, like many criminals read selectively. I first bring your attention

>
> >> to Article 17. of the document you have presented us:

>
> >> Article 17.

>
> >> (1) Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association

>
> >> with others.

>
> >> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

>
> >

>
> > Doesn't really apply, given that bitstrings all belong to the public

>
> > domain and hence they can't be considered to be property.

>
>
>
> Actually your "bitstrings" belong to who ever created them. Adobe would
>
> argue that they own their "bitstrings", that they are their property,
>
> and they sell a license to use them for them to be used by the licensee.
>


Nonsense. But if they were really serious about owning those bitstrings
they created, they shouldn't be reproducing or distributing them in the
first place. If they do reproduce and distribute them, it's nonsense to
try and prevent others from reproducing and distributing.

They can try, but it seems they are not very effective:

http://tinyurl.com/bd4u827

>
>
> > The only actual property you have are the physical carriers, like a

>
> > CD or a usb stick that holds the bitstrings.

>
> > People don't share and exchange such physical property (like CDs or

>
> > usb sticks) on torrent websites like piratebay.

>
> >

>
> > They share and exchange bitstrings.

>
>
>
> Sigh!
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, nobody is deprived of their property due to filesharing,

>
> > as nothing (neither physical property, nor bitstrings) is ever being

>
> > taken away from anyone.

>
>
>
> You still deny the existence of intellectual property and the rights of
>
> the creators & owners of said intellectual property, which said
>
> creators & owner have the right to protect by imposing copyright &
>
> licensing conditions under UDHR Article 17 (1)(2) and Article 27.
>
>
>
> ...but then you don't believe they should be able to protect their
>
> property with copyright do you?


Protection doesn't imply copyright. One form of protection is taxation
to finance public libraries, to authors get paid despite their books
being available for free consumption at the library.
Copyright is not mentioned anywhere in the UDHR and it doesn't really
offer protection either.

>
>
>
> >> Then we have the Article on which your argument is precariously balance:

>
> >> Article 19.

>
> >> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right

>
> >> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,

>
> >> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and

>
> >> regardless of frontiers.

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > That article says it's a human right to share and exchange

>
> > information (e.g. bitstrings), for instance sharing them on piratebay.

>
>
>
> ...er, no it doesn't. Not one word about "bit-strings" or "piratebay".


Are you saying bitstrings are not information? Are you saying filesharing
is not a means to exchange information?

People who engage in filesharing via piratebay seek, impart and receive
information by means of the p2p network medium that piratebay is.

>
>
>
> >> Then I refer you to Article 27. section 2:

>
> >> Article 27.

>
> >> (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material

>
> >> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic

>
> >> production of which he is the author.

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > Hmmm, I don't see anything about a monopoly on the reproduction and

>
> > distribution of information. So that is certainly not a human right and

>
> > there is no reason to assume that not having a monopoly on the reproduction

>
> > and distribution of information precludes people from having the right to

>
> > the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any

>
> > scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

>
>
>
> Of course you don't see anything regarding monopoly in the UDHR, it
>
> isn't there, and isn't part of that declaration.
>
>
>
> While you can use the UDHR as a basis for your argument, it is not
>
> valid to add elements not in the published UDHR so as to bolster your
>
> argument.
>


You are denying the facts. The fact is that filesharing on the piratebay
is a human right according to the UDHR.

>
>
> > After all, otherwise public libraries would be in violation of the UDHR,

>
> > as they offer free access to information.

>
> >

>
> > Article 27, section 2, does imply that the government should implement

>
> > a system of taxation on information

>
>
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> Where do you find that implication in these words; " Article 27 (2)
>
> Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
>
> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
>
> production of which he is the author."?
>


It is just a particular way to offer protection in the sense of
ensuring that creators get paid, despite their creations being shared
freely online.

>
>
> > (just like libraries are financed by means of tax money) in order to

>
> > ensure that people who create new content are provided with an

>
> > appropriate incentive to encourage their creativity.

>
>
>
> However, I seriously doubt that you contribute to the taxes which
>
> support your community libraries.


Well, it stands to reason that wealthy people ought to pay more taxes
than people with limited financial resources.

>
>
>
> > So public libraries would be in violation of the UDHR if they didn't just

>
> > offer free access to information, but they also put authors of books in labor

>
> > camps so they write books for free, in order that the government wouldn't have

>
> > to resort to taxation to finance public libraries.

>
>
>
> Libraries buy books so they can be loaned to and read by those who use
>
> their services.
>


They can also be read at the library for free by anyone.
The books that the library buys are partially financed by taxation.

>
>
> >> So, your argument hinges on Article 19 & your personal interpretation

>
> >> of "information".

>
> >

>
> > Buy a dictionary and look up the word information, you will find that

>
> > bitstrings are a form of information (just like DNA strings for instance).

>
>
>
> I don't have to buy a dictionary, I own several.
>
>
>
> INFORMATION:
>
> 1 facts provided or learned about something or someone. knowledge
>
> * Law a formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a
>
> prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.
>
> 2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or
>
> sequence of things: genetically transmitted information.
>
> * Computing data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
>
> * (in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the
>
> probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols,
>
> impulses, etc., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.
>
>
>
> Strange, not one mention of "bit-strings".
>


Ok, we have already established that you are totally clueless about
information technology. Computing data on contemporary computers is stored
in the form of bitstrings, long strings of 0's and 1's, like
0101111011111110000000100100101101010100010101010

So people who are exchanging bitstrings via p2p networks like piratebay
are simply exchanging information in the form of bitstrings.

>
>
> >> ...and yet you are prepared to waive Article 17 (2) & Article 27 (2)

>
> >> and the rights of any creator or owner of the product so you can

>
> >> violate your touted Universal Declaration of Human Rights by denying

>
> >> those authors, creators and owners of the information you and other

>
> >> Torrent users lift in violation of the UDHR their rights.

>
> >

>
> > Bullshit.. Torrent websites are not in violation of the UDHR simply

>
> > because they facilitate the free exchange of information, but article

>
> > 27, section 2, does provide grounds for people to demand the taxation of

>
> > information in a similar fashion to the way public libraries are financed.

>
>
>
> This idea of taxation is your proposal. Where in the UDHR does it say
>
> anything about providing for the taxation of information in Article 27
>
> (2)?
>
> Please cite.


Are you saying that public libraries are not financed by taxation?
Are you saying the fact that public libraries financially support
authors of the books that they offer free access to has nothing to do
with that Article 27 (2)?

>
> ...and just who are the Torrent sites paying this tax to?


People who download in the Netherlands pay a special levy on
storage media and that is used to support creative people to compensate
for the opportunity to obtain free copies via p2p filesharing.

>
>
>
> > Just like public libraries are not in violation of the UDHR simply

>
> > because they offer free access to information.

>
>
>
> That is a completely different issue.


Well, perhaps in your confused and misguided mind. But anyone
with a functioning brain can see the connection.

>
>
>
> > Article 17 (2) and Article 27 (2) don't detract from the freedom to

>
> > exchange information granted by Article 19.

>
>
>
> You obviously choose to ignore Article 17 (2) & Article 27 (2).
>
> ...and you choose to provide your personal interpretation of
>
> "information" to Article 19 to justify your behavior.
>


You are totally clueless about information technology. I suggest
watching a few online courses to make up for that ignorance.

>
>
> OK! I have to modify my opinion. You are a hypocritical, sociopathic,
>
> parasitic, thief, who is only capable of imparting his interpretation
>
> to the UDHR to suit his end.
>
>
>
> Nowhere is there any mention of "bit-strings" in the UDHR.
>
> ...or in the dictionary definition of the word "information". The
>
> concept has been formulated in the space between your ears, and has not
>
> been codified in the UDHR or anywhere else.
>


Nowhere is there any mention of copyright in the UDHR.

They do mention information in the UDHR and any dictionary will tell
you that computing data (=bitstrings) is a form of information.

>
>
> Intellectual property is every bit as valid under the UDHR as physical
>
> property. It is just inconvenient for YOU to recognize that.
>


Where does it say anything in the UDHR about intellectual
property or imply that it entails a monopoly on the reproduction and
distribution of information?

>
>
> Where in any article of the UDHR does it state anything about
>
> "bit-strings" which are merely a part of your argument?
>
>
>
> Where does it state in the UDHR that websites such as Piratebay are a
>
> legitimate means of distributing anything?
>
>


You should first work on your language comprehension skills before
attempting a discussion about human rights.

>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2013
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:30:27 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:23:42 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:16:35 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:16:35 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>
> >>

>
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> > Sharing information is a human right

>
> >>

>
> >> >and I exercise that human right.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> Who granted you that right?

>
> >

>
> >http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

>
> >

>
> >I'm an advocate of the idea that humans have (or ought to have)

>
> >certain rights, though I think that these are not carved in stone

>
> >or supplied by a higher power (like an imaginary creator) and

>
> >to some degree they might evolve over time as society evolves

>
> >and technology advances.

>
>
>
> So, nobody has given it to you. You just want to claim it. What
>
> responsibilities do you accept in return?


I pay taxes. In particular, when I buy a new storage medium,
I pay an additional special tax to compensate for the legal freedom
I'm entitled to to collect things via p2p sharing for personal use.

>
> >

>
> >So that UDHR is just a preliminary sketch as far as I'm concerned.

>
> >

>
> You _are_ a lonely particle.


Yeah, me and millions of other filesharing enthusiasts.

>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
NotMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2013
"Joe Kotroczo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 26/01/2013 08:23, sobriquet wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> Employing, manipulating and remixing images one encounters in
>> one's environment (like on the internet or on the streets)
>> constitutes artistic freedom.

>
> Yes. And making money with these remixed images constitutes copyright
> infringement. Keyword being "commercial use".
>


Remix without permission = copyright infringement.


 
Reply With Quote
 
NotMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2013

"sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 11:58:35 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Commercial use isn't the only basis for claiming infringement of
>>
>> copyright.

>
> Let's make it more concrete.. suppose I find an image online
> in two locations with conflicting intellectual property claims:
>
> http://www.desbaratinando.com/2011/0...-do-mundo.html
> http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000USltyghmtts
>
> How am I going to determine who's intellectual property it actually
> is?


Matters not if it's not yours and you are not authrized to use the work
product. DON'T!
>
> Let's assume for argument's sake that the second one is valid.
> What if people only encounter the first link and based on that, they
> distribute and reproduce the images while pointing back to the
> source where they found the image:
> http://imgur.com/a/dnjMj#0
>
> Does that constitute copyright infringement?


Without ownership or permission any use of the image is copyright
infringement.


 
Reply With Quote
 
NotMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2013

"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ke7dq8$c1e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Joe Kotroczo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> : If you don't want your pictures to be used without payment,
>>>> : only show them to prospective buyers in hard copy form
>>>> : where you retain physical possession, or, if on the web,
>>>> : in uselessly small versions (smaller than say 80 pixels
>>>> : smallest dimension.) If you sell them for digital use
>>>> : in large size, make sure you get enough to cover their
>>>> : value from the first sale.
>>>>
>>>> And what is "their value" in that context?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is what is necessary to make a business model work.
>>> It might be $30 for a wedding photographer or $30,000 for
>>> a photographic artist. But the point is ... a business
>>> model built on one photo, one sale, and a profit.

>>
>> There's an alternative to that of course: join an agency.
>> Magnum, Getty Images, Corbis, Sipa Press, Alamy, and so on..

>
> That doesn't stop them being reused without permission, it simply allows
> you to easily sell them to those who do seek permission.
>


Does help a bit as some (Getty Images comes to mind) have spiders that go
out and find abuse of copyright. First they send a bill then the send a
process server. Most times they collect (some cases sue a beggar get a
louse).



 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2013
sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:09:45 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> [..]
>> > Sharing information is a human right. A monopoly on the distribution
>> > and reproduction of information is not.


>> I DEMAND MY HUMAN RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE EXACTLY YOU LIVE. YOU
>> DONT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND REPORODUCTION OF
>> THAT INFORMATION.


>> Give. Or I'll have you in front of the human rights court


>> for mishandling my human rights!


> Sharing information is a human right, but it's not a compulsory
> duty to disclose all information to everyone.


So you say you get to decide whom to share where you live?
You'd probably get upset if your landlord or your town or
your internet provider etc. shared the information (which is
--- as you say --- their human right)?

Then you're a hypocrite, because you want to deny others
that choice.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2013
sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:05:28 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> > On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:19:27 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:


>> >> Stealing has certainly occurred when you deprive the creator of the
>> >> file of an opportunity to sell a copy.


>> > Depriving the creator of an opportunity to scam people with
>> > idiotic licensing bullshit.


>> So you take away the freedom of grown up to enter a contract
>> as they like it and put that under your(!) control?


> Well, people can come up with all kinds of bullshit in a license.


And YOU get to decide what is bullshit, i.e. everything that
gives you more leverage and power is fine, everything that
gives other people more leverage and power is bullshit.

BTW, we were talking contract, not just license.

> But whether people take such a license seriously is another matter.


So if some people come up with a contract that says "we give
you X if you give us Y first" and you give Y because you want
X, and then they say "Fooled you! We don't take our contract
seriously, you get nothing!" then that MUST be fine with you!
After all, you do just the same ... don't you?

> In many cases, you may enter a website or accept a download and you're
> provided with multiple pages of legalistic mumbo jumbo that you probably
> couldn't really follow unless you have a legal background, so most people
> just press the OK button without really exploring what terms and conditions
> they are agreeing to.


Ignorance is no defense.

The terms being surprising may be a defense, but you NOT being
granted special rights someone else holds by law is not a
surprise at all.


> I think there is a kind of disconnect between large corporations who
> supposedly are entering a kind of contractual agreement with individual
> people.


So every photographer, writer, artist, ... is a large
corporation?

> The government is on the side of the corporations, because the government is just a kind of extension of those corporations, so as an individual you're powerless against them anyway, as they can afford to sue you indefinitely.


That must be the reason that large corporations are voted
into power by the people, and the government is voted on only
by large corporations. And there are no laws against
harassment by suing.

Feel free to emigrate to some island withh a couple hundred
or thousand people and no large corporations.

> So a typical individual will just accept whatever terms and conditions a corporation seeks to impose on them, but I wouldn't really consider that to
> be an example of the freedom of adults to enter into a contractual agreement.


It's not the system's fault if you are unwilling to negotiate
and it's not the system's fault if a source offering a specific
product is unwilling to barter. In case of art: go make your
own if you don't like the terms of all the sources offering
them.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2013
sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:50:05 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who

>>
>> > claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp

>>
>> > the most basic aspects of information technology.

>>
>>
>>
>> So you'd just love every last wannabe terrorist in the world
>>
>> cooking up some *really* nasty epidemic bioweapon and some
>>
>> really nasty chemical weapons? Add in the details to the
>>
>> security of head of states and the like? Maybe give them
>>
>> Flame and StuxNet and RedOctober, too? Because *that* sort
>>
>> of information really belongs to the public domain!
>>
>>
>>
>> Please also send us a couple naked photographs of you, how
>>
>> you look naked is information and it really belongs in the
>>
>> public domain. Don't forget you (to be created) diary of
>>
>> your love life.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or do you have your head stuck up your ass and fail to grasp
>>
>> the most basic aspects of information technology?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Wolfgang



DO FIX YOUR F***ING NEWSREADER! Remove all these spurious
empty lines! I don't care how you do it, but you show you're
not even intelligent enough to use your tools. So why should
anyone take *you* seriously about information and internet?


> There *might* be good reasons to prevent people from sharing certain
> information, but copyright sure isn't one of them.


Having much more information to share in the long run and much more
information in the short term isn't a reason?


> But it's an interesting philosophical debate to what degree information
> can be harmful to individual people or to society in general and to
> what degree the government would be entitled to restrict access to
> such information.


> Perhaps information that would allow someone to construct a weapon of
> mass destruction at home from readily available items they can
> easily purchase at local stores.
> I doubt that it's a sensible approach to try and prevent such information
> from being disseminated, if we suppose that such information would exist.


What would be your approach?


> I think an intuitive/natural idea would be to draw the line where
> information promotes hate/violence as a reason for the government to
> interfere with the freedom of people to share and exchange information.


Why?


> But one might equally well argue that there are better ways to prevent
> such information from being disseminated (for instance by improving
> the level of education of people, so they are less likely to act upon
> information that might otherwise incite people to hate or violence).


So you magically educate 8,000,000,000 people --- and manage
to do away with all resentments and hate. Nice brain washing
scheme. At least a couple 10,000 of the world's approximate
160,000,000 psychopaths will build the WMDs, just because
they can and because people don't do as they like and
because, being educated, they know well how to avoid being
caught quickly.

BOOOM. 99.999% of the world is destroyed with WMDs, because
it was no good idea to make that knowledge restricted.

Clever you.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Arrest more photographers! Arrest more photographers!" RichA Digital Photography 0 09-10-2010 01:56 PM
The Directory of Indian Web Designers, Graphic Designers charan.uptrend@gmail.com Perl Misc 0 03-01-2007 04:11 PM
Invitation to ROR Developers, UI Designers, AJAX Gurus and graphics designers wheresdave Javascript 0 02-14-2007 04:41 PM
Vent Shane NZ Computing 86 03-23-2006 01:45 AM
JavaMail - Eclipse - whatever! [allow me to vent up] Rico Java 3 01-29-2005 02:42 AM



Advertisments