Russia Famili Naturis

Greg, Greg, Greg ... Llaneros



often act anonymously, but Greg . Greg the faltusco, Greg monkeys. A perfect example of amorality without limits of propriety, the invalidity of arguments, ciberingeniería social and personal harassment against the enemy characteristic of copyleft English. Since you can not fight face to face, throw sand in our eyes.

The subject in question, which the old profile of the rapist has a blog a long and hysterical pamphlet which attacked me as if I had taken the honor in a love affair. To me those heart-rending groans and the simple soul feminine malice make me laugh, for it must be the height of wit and poetic justice.

I admit that is pure and empirical impeccable: almost everything he says, bundles of firewood intended textual fools burn in your fireplace, it is true and proven. The bad (and criminal) is as follows and lies, when, using a public resume without updating, which also must contain all data, professional intrusion accused of a practicing lawyer (ie slander him), when projected in it his own psychopathic traits, or when, embarrassingly, even for people of average intelligence, follows that Socrates is a 'troll' was considered a moral gadfly, Wikipedia because it establishes. Thus, the inept sociopath and compulsive liar (so far, the prototype of pirate) come together in the supposed purity Greg methodological giddy, loud and sycophant: the real Greg, the only known. A pure idiot capable of converting information into defecation.

'lurker', flattering and buck negligible, swarming around the logs of his colleagues to mark participants who do not fit the profile of inbreeding of the slogans which serves as the opening act. He has been a bully and, as such, combines the qualities of quarrelsome and stubborn hound mercilessly. You may find as a fan in space related to Atheism and copyright, showing always a forofil and unwavering stupidity. One would say that only lives for this . Here

have in recent action. Visualizadlo with bloodshot eyes and pounding the keyboard:

You can not imagine, my amollll, seeing how Descojonado me a shot in the dark. Since I started identifcarte for what you are-a-TROLL championship and have accused me of being up to 3 different guys. How many people will fall ill? No wonder, is that stink rude, xenophobic and homophobic. Come on, it smells good as you are, a troll.

I forgot. Your maximum charges against me are curious. I am accused of having insulted, he says, to fags and whores, that is, lying to the father and mother. Even found those who think like and now form a small group of offended by my literature intolerable. But none I had never given much time and so vain. If it is true that the effect is proportional to the cause, I will not ridicule the idea that I go to the Pygmy, going off on a tangent of "ad hominem" more grotesque, had a reaction as histrionic and unconscionable.

addition, Greg has several blogs for it alone (the whopping seven simultaneous, competing in ridiculous), that no one visits, except those now pinchéis-and pampering as something big. Of these, perhaps the most foolish is this . Where, in a lucid interval, which nonetheless retains the usual lack of spelling errors and syntax, we can read the author himself:

"I am a paranoid suspicion of all / no heart."

It is, without doubt. But in his heart is seen as a prolific genius , something that can only be understood if one weights them degree of alienation. Provides many unselfish collaborations spaces that, despite being related, they are rejected with the greatest of indifference. Unable to recover from the failures so honest that lead to mediocrity and daring, has gone a step further by making the humiliation of others a way of being. Try and build a reputation on the Internet, a halo and a gloss at the expense of the demerit voicing real people or fictional names.

Despite its soi-disant vanity incisive and witty writer, ideologue, as this is the self-image which, in its dramatic helplessly the poor devil has been created, he can not write at all or learn by now. What would you think of someone to write the following?:

Bon Appétit

The project is to make the language ceases to be an obstacle to the palate, to facilitate the understanding and knowledge of each food whatever the origin of the visitor through the combined efforts of bibliographic software and training.

Well just that I think of Greg, who is 32 and still living with their parents and their offspring. Finally, as to spare the time, enthusiastically engaged in sectarian opinions about television programs that are addicted ( "Seven Lives" ), to explain their pathetic complaints against the manufacturers of appliances and for military the movement gay liberation. Is to highlight on your resume that you have excluded server several times for its tendency posts Bajun and irresponsible defamation. He denies everything and attributes it to the censorship of Bill Gates hitmen and Pope of Rome.

All this can be found on the net, but I assure you is not worth even to procure an evil to be so obnoxious individual. This man, even that effort, not known to impair, is a complete zero. Negligible head to toe, the only factor that stands out about him is his "gringo accent, which gives infinite detail swagger sometimes and that is closely proud.

If the opportunity arises, keep reporting.

Cooking Timein Mini Ceramic Pans

copyleft, machinists moral




ended up going to the seminar Copyfight, if redeemed me Nacho and his troupe illusionist. Maybe tomorrow they do, these yuppies. Has passed in front of me the great star, built at the last minute and has been screaming "the machine is unstoppable!". Shortly before another guru, Cervera, had said that the software is a moral issue. Also nap. Vagueness as fists.

However, I have taken some notes with loving respect, that's what they are supposed to seminars, to germinate. Although I have felt like an alien, unable to empathize despite my willingness. In total there were about 40-50 people, counting the four speakers, which included a bean silly good-looking and clumsy verb. There has been a funny moment when the lecturer who officiated as master of ceremonies, one Jose Luis, has referred to the girl as someone who writes "a blog that needs no introduction." However, the public "in absentia" has mind several times it has done so unflattering terms as "the girl that before." What that tells me a lot of the poor perception of reality and their own possibilities for these deluded.

Discussion subject requires some familiarity with the issues and terminology. Its main lines: the intellectual property and the decline of the current model of copyright, the great paradoxes of the leading technological revolution after the Internet (the unstoppable machine.) Et alia.

scale first thing that this rumpus, and should have the alarm bells ringing everywhere, is that the supposed utopian revolutionaries staunchest liberals agree on almost every point. Arrojo several ideas in the air:

1) When from these instances is said that intellectual property is free, in fact is subjugating the material of real property capable of acquiring third-party, play and even manipulate it without checking out. Liberty has here only the liberal sense of freedom of movement, understood as imperative as opposed to freedom of disposition. The industry of luxury goods (and culture is one of them, possibly more lucrative) serves, then, the role of property to prevent pooling in the calm of savings and speculation.

2) Until now there has never ordered: Purchase or expropriate you! But today begins to hear: Give or expropriate you!. At the same time takes shape the framework of incentives, such as virtual network that gave birth, for mask the underlying mandate and make it nice. This gift is a sell off, a risk-refundable. Is the counterpart of blind impulse of the consumer: production and non-profit blind, production by production that keeps alive the monster. School unstoppable machine.

3) Apart from the deep differences, observed and cracks in the same presentation of the case in regard to its strategic side. Because, if it claims that it is against copyright, but its uniqueness compared to more open stifling copyleft, modalized and contract, which would represent an alternative, simultaneously, why is justified piracy with excuses such as the right to culture, that is, the right to consume but not produce with guaranteed returns?

4) No right is unlimited. Then, if even the copyright is limited in time to not ruin the social use, but are clearly insufficient, should not you also call them the right to culture, read a free and universal dissemination? Then I wonder: Are revocable licenses in copyleft? That is, how I can buy back the rights they've given up? If not, the system is no less draconian copyright today, saving the detail that the once infamously duped today called generous soul. And if they were, as is the case, should not be considered a copyright for the poor, in the interval recommended to come to better fortune? What will change and who are they kidding?

5) fibs Against socialism practiced by copyleft applaud the anarchic and liberal order: All private property is a small monopoly is always, by definition, antisocial. Because if I can only do what others let me do, I can not grant a right, but notes here and now a de facto situation that may change tomorrow regardless of what I want or remember. Argue that the ideas can not be private property when private property itself, its concept, an idea that has a thousand guards cynicism is frightening. But I've seen and I've heard. With my eyes, my ears. This afternoon.

6) The conflict, therefore, is as follows: Create the least, played the most. Can those they impose their will "de facto", depriving them of any right or reducing it to the symbolic only because they are in the minority? In other words: Can the right of reproduction overcome the building? And this is not only the freedom to create, as it includes also the living of creation, to invest in a serious time to work meets certain competitive features, worthy and enduring.

7) In my opinion, the copyleft part of a database error and is eager to protect the profit of others, understood as direct exploitation, and leave unguarded, however, the sidewall of indirect and negative free use is undefined.

8) is also argued that while the copyright regulated scarcity where there was, now, in times of abundance and technological bonanza, what you want is by artificial restrictions, create gaps necessary to maintain the privileges of which living income. In other words, before there was a shortage of means to disseminate ideas and now there is not, because the scope is potentially global Internet and immediate. But beware: that ideas can spread very easily happen does not mean as much when generating them. If ideas were not limited in its genesis, if only that quality reserve the property, not convertible into bytes, we are privileging the market position of those holding tangible assets to the detriment of those who, based on their competence personal and intellectual, retain only the right expectations. And all to protect the consumer, "id est", the employer (and its contractual splint). Because no one without the other, Cervera dixit.

9) We agree that it is not tradition is plagiarism, but this is not the issue. That what I write or what I write is original or not is immaterial. It need not be and it is enough that is new to any significant degree, to provide utility with respect to what precedes it, which adds value. Is created, by the way, what is not natural, what is human purpose and a particular translation into a language. But, again, is not the issue. Here what is at stake if we consider intelligence as an asset or a service. For me it certainly is an asset. A capital is the set of goods whose nature is to generate returns on a regular basis for which is held in whole or in part, as a service typically generates only once it provides; understood: that gets rid of it or its conditions of possibility ( time, resources, etc.). But no one gets rid of his intelligence. This, then, by nature, a capital, but by convention the fittest, or those in a position to do deliverables, service receiving treatment, claiming to goodwill and keeping the operator in jeopardy.

10) heard today: "The culture industry does not want to sell their products, but alquilártelos." I answer function of capital is not sold or leased, but held without being consumed. Repárese that when we sell a product we are selling only its workmanship, material, what we consume it, not its shape or design. The latter depends on intelligence, which is capital. And can not claim the full provision, nor piecemeal, on a foreign capital that has been transmitted.

11) heard as well: "We need filters, filters to sift through the overabundance of information. And then: "We should pay these filters in place to pursue them." But, I say, are not such "filters" the mediators that they wanted to do without cheaper product? And now we have to pay! A glimpse of the new bureaucracy, new vested interests.

12) The only progress tolerable, in my view, would ensure the recognition of intelligence as capital through its redefinition binding in state law. Under what circumstances? When this understanding, such as creativity, constitute an essential part of the final product sold, eg, in every work or art exhibit.

13) Finally, rinse qur I would not support an extensive application of copyright. Simply once who used some of my creation is paid once, provided they are not profiting from this in subsequent occasions. The current copyright is unfair because it does not set clear limits and, of course, leads to an absurdity. What say! In two absurdities: the copyright (the copyright) and copyleft.

In conclusion, I discuss the following sentence, which was mentioned as a fetish and not just a platitude: "The culture does not exist without an audience." I agree, but then add the nonsense: "Culture is not unilateral," as implying that the viewer is also an artist in one indissoluble process. This fallacy is the answer like this: If we are all artists, no culture, since it has been agreed that for it to give a viewer is required. And if we are all spectators, there is clearly no, because there is nothing to see. Now, if we are both, it is obvious that the culture needs to apply to the viewer, as it is impossible to escape it.

Copyfight, Stretch, acrobats, hairy, redness all. And I take two candles, but still lit, avoiding toxicity discourse that prevailed in the environment. Another bronze maxim: "Culture is a verb not a noun." Culture verbose and pointless, I thought.

Free Personalized Ecards Like Jibjab

The two principles of rationality in exchange



David Bravo, a colleague, and argues on his blog to justify piracy:

"What would if it were not so easy to get water? Probably buy it from bottled mineral and from the point of view Fontvella for them as if they steal every time you open the tap.

What would you do if you could not burn the movie to pitch today in Telecinco in your old home video? I really do not know. Just buy it. Just no. But I do not have to argue that they are not imagining worlds in which we live. Today you can record, technology has made possible and the business of music is revolutionary with it.

When the tape appeared the owners of the theaters where it was exhibited live music could say "but what would you do if the tape recorder did not exist? Probably would come to hear the music in my theater rather than hear it from your house. "We do not know and it is best to forget the statistics on how many would go to the theater and those who do not. What we do know for sure is that the tape exists and about this reality should be discussed. "

This is to keep the personal and even their own attorneys in their daily practice, deontologically not correct. You can not compare an exchange of goods or services with a mere ownership, but not cause a real detriment to the assets of any third party. Well, in a case being redeemed or utility property on the other (running water, video and tape for money), it is understood the role of trade and social cooperation. With so if you stop buying a product to move to its equivalent, this function is maintained. However, in the course of the acquisition without compensation, a "consumer" is used and that have allowed so that the appliance is essential in traffic will, so to speak, of emptiness. It added that even though many beneficiaries and only a few operated by the sponging, the cooperative principle is broken, refuses to root. For the same reason, although we were all thieves, we would all be antisocial.

Imagine for a moment, by magic, We were given universally ignore the principle of scarcity. The ability to copy, say, cars and sell the copy without letting go of that and we inevitably sink the automotive industry. Also would render superfluous, it is said. But what about the future? At the end all the cars remain the same models for fifty years and are not going to let technological progress and thus improving the quality of life of consumers.

About all this, think that mere ideas, not hardware or virtual, can not be sold as a product, they are not consumable and not respect the principle of scarcity. They can, Instead, capitalize, as already explained. But the copyleft rejected "a priori" all possibilities: either the sale of the idea turned into paper as previous capitalization, claiming that is a non-capitalized, social, of all (of course, when I'm refuting David Bravo, is David Bravo refutes itself, because we share the social good that I have generated in the form of letters?). In short, the proposed copyleft winter ideas.

Why Is My Cervix So Low

Wikipedia and the decline of the elites frustrated



In general all the mini-revolutions Virtual Internet, which is the Sierra Morena of communism recycling and games, I look ridiculous, full of sound and fury, but lacking brain. Wikipedia is another example.

The Wikipedia unmentionable part of premises, as that knowledge is held by a minority which makes use of manipulative political ends. The solution to this alleged defect happens, they say, to extend the power handling to most to be autoneutralice. Far from achieving, making their articles op-eds in near misses mutilated, inaccessible trenches, crude propaganda or reckless plagiarism (typical case of the English language version), and their heroes of Soviet stamp entitled to decoration of hands-on "vandals hunters."

Dream anarchy produces monsters "is being shown, is contrary to science. A contest of wills for knowledge, condensed but inarticulate, flattened or final state can only tend to chaos. There is no correct those flaws without compromising with the complete subversion of the essence of the project and, finally, access to par with the incumbent. Change everything so that nothing changes. Encyclopedia more with the new issue offered to satisfy the ego of the readers by giving them an illusion of participation fee.

Wikipedia may work through the multitude of brilliant individuals that comprise it, as the influx of employees is massive, and you know you can also preserve their best contributions to a fair selection. However, all this is thanks to the Internet, common sense and very providential though Wikipedia itself, which inevitably weakened by its exacerbation naive.

sometimes loses the thread in one article because it has been modified by hundreds of zanganillos dissenting. It's like if you put ten people working in an orchard of five square meters, is annoying and it will end up worse than they were two or one.

the end you spend more effort in fight to avoid being deleted or dilute it somewhat (fight that involves a tacit horse trading criteria, claudication purely political) to write this thing.

And what is worse, the proposed merger of knowledge, with countless innovative mechanisms in your hand, the transfer has failed interdisciplinary maintaining traditional patterns and curriculum divisions. Eat too bourgeois. In view of the results, made eligible for "the people", I recommend less pretentious alternative input.