sk00byd00

It happened with Kissinger before. If one were cynical, one might assume that the closed Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee, entirely different to the Swedish Nobel Prize committee (started by Alfred Nobel), may have been used as a PR mechanism by outside parties for quite some time.

If I am not mistaken you mean "steganography" and not "stenography" as the latter is the person(s) that transcribe in a courtroom. I have never seen a spell check that had the word steganography in it though.

Its a shame you didn't attempt to explain further, we could have both learned something. As it stands now, in certain respects, I disagree.

Isn't the convention to only use the phrase o'clock when using a 12 hour notation?

Sure but then Netflix and Universal stealing translated subtitles from these "pirates" and including it on their commercial content is also piracy.

Thing is though, as a civil claim, the monetary incentive is clear on the movie companies side but not the "pirates". I suppose with all things being equal, in the spirit of fair play, we can expect to see headlines stating these people have been awarded a massive sum of money in the future right?

People get confused about copyright because it is confusing. It isn't what it was when it was created and your interpretation of copyright makes no allowance for fair use, and as far as I am aware those precedents set in the 80s still stand to this day. So until they don't, you're only half right.

> but that does not permit them to distribute it without the original work's copyright holder's permission (and the original work's copyright holder would need the derivative's copyright holder's permission to distribute that.

There are cases (at least in Scandinavia) where the subtitles on a Norwegian subtitle site showed up on the Blueray version (noticeable due to huge cultural mistakes in the translation), when the Norwegian site clearly had subtitles first.

I'll start holding my breath for when the law will be applied equally on both sides.

Before coming to Sweden I would have probably agreed with that, now, however, I am inclined to believe Swedish laws are only applicable to Swedish people where and when America is not involved.

Other than all those times, yeah, sure.

Scripts are copyrighted but the translated subtitles are never straight translations of scripts (as I have found out in recent years being English in a non-English country), there is a level of interpretation (using a similar phrase, or a different cultural reference, perhaps just converting imperial to metric).

Then you have to also consider the fact that many of the subtitles included on DVDs and sometimes even theatrical releases (at least in Sweden and Norway) are very often lifted from online sources the movie companies attack (rather than them hiring actual translators for all the markets they wish to conquer).

Finally... I might be wrong on this but what happened to fair use? There were cases in the 80's that cemented our standard of fair use. Humming a song on the street is fair use, providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use.

Your expensive vendors sit on security patches for weeks and my free ones shoot them out almost immediately. Why is that not a business concern?

I don't think it's zelotry, there are a lot of advantages to open source software you aren't going to get from Microsoft. If you are an edge case and you happen to stumble on that race condition bug are you going to have your engineers black box test and reverse engineer someone elses product illegally while they wait around for Microsoft support or have them look under the hood, patch the bug and move on?

What the big licenses fees get you is accountability, which is of course a huge thing, but what open source gives you is control.

I think if your business is software, then open source makes perfect business sense, especially if one of your assets is a team of competent engineers.

Yes I understand that. What I was suggesting is that the poor people in Tower Hamlets haven't all been displaced, just the people in the Shoreditch triangle, which is tiny in population when you compare to say, Bow, just next door.

So the amount of money brought in from the Shoreditch gentrification and subsequent business tax breaks leading up to the Olympics was so great in that one concentrated area that the ENTIRE Tower Hamlets looks decent statistically but the reality is very different.

Fascinating. I find it especially interesting to see the results of gentrification. As someone who watched a million Nathan Barleys take over Shoreditch in the mid to late 00's until the artists left, it is absolutely amazing to see the average salary of Tower Hamlets is now £3400.

Where did all those poor people go?

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

There is a difference between legal and lawful.

I think you are missing the scale of these data collection programmes. For instance, if you are in north Germany, some of your traffic will be routed through Sweden (because of Telia), Sweden has the FRA law[1] and the Titan Traffic Database[2] which means your traffic gets intercepted, stored and handed over to American authorities for analysis.

Why aren't you as angry about Sweden doing the same thing to your communications? It was not even a secret matter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA-law [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_traffic_database

There are non-refoulement[1] clauses in international refugee law that 181 countries around the world are bound to, I believe.

In previous cases[2] where people are deported whilst seeking asylum the UNHCR has said:

> UNHCR denounced the move as a violation of the "non-refoulement" policy that prohibits the forced return of asylum seekers to areas where they could face danger – a cornerstone of international refugee protection.

> "We cannot accept that these asylum seekers were deported without a chance to explain their case,"

In my opinion, for the rule of law to stand, the asylum process must conclude before he gets deported.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement [2] http://www.unhcr.org/3fe98ef84.html

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

> 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.

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

> The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.

Ah, innocent until proven guilty and all that!

I am not entirely convinced everything we have seen the US do in this case in legal in international terms. By pressuring countries to ignore the asylum process in order to carry out an illegal extradition is already crossing a line. If he was to be extradited it would be breaking international law.

And the US was one of the primary authors of these international laws, treaties and standards of human rights.

As a British person in Sweden I just had a chuckle out loud with my morning coffee reading your comment. Good stuff (I couldn't disagree more but good stuff nonetheless).

> One would think that the leading figures of these pools know each other. One would think it's outside the realm of conspiracy...

No it is not outside the realm of possibility that people could conspire to perform a double spending attack, you are completely right. What you have to consider, however, it is not very likely that people conspire to undermine their own economic interest. That doesn't happen very often in this world, it is not in our nature (but it is a possibility).

There are much cheaper and easier attacks that could be pulled off right now by a single attacker, lower hanging fruit (like flooding the network with transactions with above average fees, this will effectively block most other transactions for as long as the attacker can afford).

If a double spending attack was to occur at the mining pool level, you wouldn't even need to have a conspiracy to make it possible, just a single large pool operator with a period of extraordinary luck would be able to get 6 blocks in a row (it has happened before, it will happen again).

> No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society.

Why should I need to be a citizen to not have my human rights violated? If it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights[1] then chances are your country signed it, agreed that would be the minimum standard, that these rights were inalienable and most importantly, that they applied to everyone.

You have to admit it seems a bit silly (at least from my side of the pond) that when it comes to human rights the US seems to ignore the UNDoHR and when it comes to it's international drug policy it enforces the UN Single Drug Convention all over the world with aggression to the point that no country in the world besides Peru can even make cannabis legal in their own nation state without violating international law (which WILL be enforced).

[1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Care to share links to some of these insightful posts?

Oh please, your comment is just as cringe inducing as the one you are responding to. 40 isn't even that old and you are talking like you are on your death bed, it's embarrassing. The world has, is and will be shaped by people of all ages, your ages are not your primary limiting factors here.

Go to http://www.google.com/ncr and it will forward you to the main US version of Google (it will also set your language preference which helps if you find yourself being redirected to the local countries Google domain later).

Personally I took the phrase 'frame-by-frame' to be a figure of speech.

"A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which ascend from its literal interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

I think the comment author was just trying to emphasize they were trying to be thorough, a bit like when police say they will search an area with a fine-toothed comb. No reasonable person expects the police to use actual combs.

Ah, I apologise. I wasn't aware that was the point, I thought the target audience was in Sweden (the site was down when I made that comment so I hadn't seen it).

You would think 6 years is enough to learn English but in my day-to-day experience in Sweden (anecdotal) there are a fair amount of Swedes who speak a little to no English, especially in rural areas (and rural areas in Sweden are cheap, beautiful and fibred to the gills, so I have to assume there are some worthwhile start ups out there).

It certainly is an interesting state of affairs when you don't need to learn Swedish in Swedish cities (personally I feel guilty). At this rate I wonder if there will be a Swedish language at all in 100 years.

I'm in currently in Sweden and I get a 502 bad gateway... so I can't comment on the site, but out of curiosity, if this is targeted at the Swedish entrepreneur, why call it 'Swedish' anything rather than Svensk/Sverige which would be the first phrase typed in by a Swedish person on Google (one would assume)?

I know some people speak English in Sweden (you can even hear people modelling their accents on a British or American variety), but not everyone. I know that English is a requirement of Swedish universities but if the American way of doing things taught me anything, its a lot of very capable people don't go to university. It just seems to me like an unnecessary barrier, you might be missing out on input from the next Ingvar Kamprad.

Do you trust the client side at all?

That might be possible but a competent buyer will have you agree to a non-compete for a given amount of time (likely a couple years) before a sale is finalized.

Or perhaps, "They are attracted to him because he is infamous and attractive"