Improper, or at least they misrepresent the source, as far as I can tell.
- Chris
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Sam Blacketer
sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Sam Blacketer
sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/16/internet-copyright-lawcaught
my eye because of its rather alarming headline. However it's about
copyright law; the headline refers to this paragraph:
In a
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/16/internet-copyright-lawcaught
my eye because of its rather alarming headline. However it's about
copyright law; the headline refers to this paragraph:
In a second thought experiment, imagine that it's five years ago and you are
responsible for
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Sam Blacketer
sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet
Thanks for bringing up that old article from 2008. Some lovely bits there:
It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which
I was just going to post that analogy. Then you did. :(
Oh well. :)
X!
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:12 PM [Mar 16, 2009 ], Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Sam Blacketer
sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
