Your second example is spurious...there is no "right to set off nuclear weapons" (unless you believe it's covered by the second amendment, which I do not concede is a bona fide right).
As to your first example, you are essentially correct, but are forgetting that the violation of the criminal's rights takes place so that others may more freely exercise their own rights. The benefit of putting criminals in jail (if there really is a benefit, but that's another debate) doesn't accrue necessarily to the Government, but to the people or businesses or property who/that would otherwise be victimized by the criminal. Your right to swing your fists around stops where my nose begins.
Why should it be okay for us to censor these things but illegal for other countries to censor them? Not to get too picky, but this law can't make it illegal for other countries to censor information, it only acts on American-owned businesses or businesses operating on American Soil. The US Gov is certainly within its rights to regulate these kinds of businesses in whatever way the voters^Wlobbyists see fit.
Other countries are still free to do as they wish.
What's the harm in letting others participate in this fantasy world?
What's the harm in letting others profit from their participation? These are two very different things. I've never seen any evidence that Rowling has denied others the chance to participate in the Potter fantasy world. She lets fanfic flourish, loves to lurk at her fan sites, etc.
Letting others profit from it, on the other hand, she's very tough about. Of course, she may be contractually obliged to be tough about it, I don't know. It may be part of her deal with her publisher that she go after this kind of use, as the publisher stands to lose money as well as Rowling.
I remember in high school using qbasic (I think that's what it was) which was structured with procedures, at least. One of my partners wrote the core code, and I had to refactor it to take advantage of the structured part of the language. Of course, we didn't call it "refactoring" back then, we called it "cleaning up this goddam spaghetti."
Your sarcastic simile implicitly compares two very different kinds of users, specifically developers on the one hand, and normal windows users on the other. I don't think the responses of those two groups are comparable.
Is the University U of Toronto? I know the Toronto Police have a "cybercrime" unit (just typing that word makes me cringe)that works closely with U of T.
There are enough studies out there to show Pornography is a 'pressure valve' and that it reduces crime. If you have sources for this, I'd very much appreciate a linky. Not trolling, I would like to read any such papers, and right now I can't be googling.
...it takes out more than just the RIAA and SSC (which is already dead, as parent pointed out).... thankfully, there's a fine legal maxim that applies: "just because it's dead, doesn't mean you can't riffle through the corpse."
Here's an interesting quote from "War In Heaven, War on Earth."
"The cleansing will come from above, not from another country on the Earth as biblical scholars have believed; There is a political organization in the Heavens above us; There is evidence of contention that has gone on for sometime now. War is at hand. And it will likely come in our lifetime. Greater war than this earth has ever known."
Actually I'd find 60 GB inadequate for backing up hard drives, but adequate for backing up just my music collection. I've considered upgrading from my full-to-overflowing iRiver H320 to a high-capacity iPod for back-up and storage reasons for a while now. I certainly wouldn't buy an iPod with less than 60 GB, and that's just for music.
And to all the omg-the-battery-can't-be-changed haterz, I bought my iRiver with ease of battery replacement in mind, only to find two years later that my players model of battery was DISCONTINUED. No new battery for my expensive brick, and now I'm making do with my wife's old iPod (whose battery can be replaced, with some difficulty) while I gather funds for a new music player.
That doesn't mean the other lawyer is attacking your rights for profit. He may be protecting someone else's rights. Or enforcing the will of the State. Or, gawd help us, protecting the children. And of course, just because a lawyer is protecting your rights, doesn't mean he's not doing it for profit. Personal Injury lawyers make money hand over fist, you know. More than the lawyers who defend the Insurance companies, actually.
But the flipside is that, even if a person does not get rich, if he works hard and works smartly, he or she will inevitably improve himself or herself. I've got one statistic that proves that point undeniably - education. People with degrees tend to earn far more over a lifetime than people that don't. Those people that went to college either worked harder, or worked smarter, made a commitment and invested themselves, and yes, they do finish on top. This only applies to people with access to education, whether that access is economic or geographical. My thinking isn't just about the average North American who has a school down the street and a community college in the next town over. I'm thinking about the "superghettos" that are growing in cities all over Africa, South America, Asia, where millions of people per city are packed into neighbourhoods consisting of cardboard or mud shacks.
There are billions of people on the planet who work as hard as they can to accumulate just enough wealth to not starve. They have no time to get an education and no schools to go to if they wanted one.
I for one don't think that limiting how much money one person can make is quite the right way of doing it: I'm more in favour of putting limits on how much money can be passed from parent to child
This I can agree with but with the exception of businesses. I say this not because I believe in a meritocracy over a nobility. I say this because those businesses that stay family held tend to take a longer term view than public corporations, have better working conditions for the people and tend to be a better part of the community. But if you own a bunch of stock and real estate that's really just a big collection of stuff, then, that's all up for grabs by the government. And, if the family had a big business, and sold it, like Wanamakers did, then, yeah, those investments that were there should probably be taxed at the point of sale. You may have a point, but a conter-example to your model "family run" business would be Wal-Mart, which is still privately held by the Walton family, as far as I know, and is perhaps the very worst retail outlet in terms of working conditions and promoting the real health of a community.
I don't pretend that my idea is a whole solution, or even that it would prove workable in practice. I just think that we need thinking divorced from left/right dichotomies if we're going to balance things out before the poorest %90 decide to take back the wealth being hoarded by the richest %10.
If you are stupid, you will not get rich. Sorry, but some fairly basic stats work will show that though your statement is correct, it could equally apply to intelligent people, ambitious people, basically anyone. The socialist objection is that for any randomly chosen person, no matter what that person does, her odds of getting rich are essentially nil, and the current economic system is rigged to maintain that status quo.
The socialist seeks to find the regulatory changes that would make the economic system more equitable. I for one don't think that limiting how much money one person can make is quite the right way of doing it: I'm more in favour of putting limits on how much money can be passed from parent to child. We could allow anyone to pass on only enough money to their children so that they would enjoy, as an example, a comfortable, middle class lifestyle for the rest of their lives, and no more, mandating that the rest of the money or assets or whatever be put back into the economy directly, instead of waiting for Junior to spend it or not.
The problem with both sides of the debate (capitalist vs socialist) is that Economics is Hard, and the solutions to the world's woes are more likely to come from careful, subtle economic and regulatory fiddling, not from grand platforms presented by politicians on the Left or Right, designed to garner votes. But nobody wants to hear that.
Sure, I'll concede that point, though strictly speaking there is nothing *technically* wrong in the example you gave, even if there is something *morally* wrong. In the case of the police officer, there's probably a good deal of case law (does Sweden use case law? I don't know) or regulations governing the production of evidence and Conflicts of Interest.
Well strictly speaking, they're not on the same side. The police and the prosecutor represent the State, not the victim. The State's interest is to see that justice is served for all the people, while the victim's interest is to get back at the party that wronged them. This is why civil and criminal law are separate branchs.
(note that several hundred years of legal philosophy have been distilled down to 3 sentences, and thus I have grossly simplified the matter)
IANAL...yet.
There is a clear conflict of interest if a police officer, while conducting an investigation, entertains and later accepts a job offer with the alleged victim. There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job, but any work he did on the case is suspect and would be inadmissible in court. The prosecutor, if s/he knew about this, wouldn't likely even try to get the evidence entered. If the cop was key to the investigation, then all the evidence would be tainted. If the suspect evidence has already been heard, then the Trial would probably be declared a mis-trial, and the prosecution would have to start from scratch, with all new evidence (and remember, the TPB servers are no longer in Sweden).
Slashdot Mirror
Your second example is spurious...there is no "right to set off nuclear weapons" (unless you believe it's covered by the second amendment, which I do not concede is a bona fide right).
As to your first example, you are essentially correct, but are forgetting that the violation of the criminal's rights takes place so that others may more freely exercise their own rights. The benefit of putting criminals in jail (if there really is a benefit, but that's another debate) doesn't accrue necessarily to the Government, but to the people or businesses or property who/that would otherwise be victimized by the criminal. Your right to swing your fists around stops where my nose begins.
Other countries are still free to do as they wish.
What's the harm in letting others profit from their participation? These are two very different things. I've never seen any evidence that Rowling has denied others the chance to participate in the Potter fantasy world. She lets fanfic flourish, loves to lurk at her fan sites, etc.
Letting others profit from it, on the other hand, she's very tough about. Of course, she may be contractually obliged to be tough about it, I don't know. It may be part of her deal with her publisher that she go after this kind of use, as the publisher stands to lose money as well as Rowling.
Indeed, they were pretty different.
I remember in high school using qbasic (I think that's what it was) which was structured with procedures, at least. One of my partners wrote the core code, and I had to refactor it to take advantage of the structured part of the language. Of course, we didn't call it "refactoring" back then, we called it "cleaning up this goddam spaghetti."
Because if the dimensions were not very very small, we would have found them already.
Your sarcastic simile implicitly compares two very different kinds of users, specifically developers on the one hand, and normal windows users on the other. I don't think the responses of those two groups are comparable.
Wow, that's a pretty red herring you got there.
ping 734 Evergreen Terrace
Is the University U of Toronto? I know the Toronto Police have a "cybercrime" unit (just typing that word makes me cringe)that works closely with U of T.
...it takes out more than just the RIAA and SSC (which is already dead, as parent pointed out).... thankfully, there's a fine legal maxim that applies: "just because it's dead, doesn't mean you can't riffle through the corpse."Here's an interesting quote from "War In Heaven, War on Earth."
"The cleansing will come from above, not from another country on the Earth as biblical scholars have believed; There is a political organization in the Heavens above us; There is evidence of contention that has gone on for sometime now. War is at hand. And it will likely come in our lifetime. Greater war than this earth has ever known."
right. to GP, check your sauce pls.
Actually I'd find 60 GB inadequate for backing up hard drives, but adequate for backing up just my music collection. I've considered upgrading from my full-to-overflowing iRiver H320 to a high-capacity iPod for back-up and storage reasons for a while now. I certainly wouldn't buy an iPod with less than 60 GB, and that's just for music.
And to all the omg-the-battery-can't-be-changed haterz, I bought my iRiver with ease of battery replacement in mind, only to find two years later that my players model of battery was DISCONTINUED. No new battery for my expensive brick, and now I'm making do with my wife's old iPod (whose battery can be replaced, with some difficulty) while I gather funds for a new music player.
That doesn't mean the other lawyer is attacking your rights for profit. He may be protecting someone else's rights. Or enforcing the will of the State. Or, gawd help us, protecting the children. And of course, just because a lawyer is protecting your rights, doesn't mean he's not doing it for profit. Personal Injury lawyers make money hand over fist, you know. More than the lawyers who defend the Insurance companies, actually.
Complete with black hole in the centre...now I have to go disinfect my brain.
OMGHAX!
There are billions of people on the planet who work as hard as they can to accumulate just enough wealth to not starve. They have no time to get an education and no schools to go to if they wanted one. I for one don't think that limiting how much money one person can make is quite the right way of doing it: I'm more in favour of putting limits on how much money can be passed from parent to child This I can agree with but with the exception of businesses. I say this not because I believe in a meritocracy over a nobility. I say this because those businesses that stay family held tend to take a longer term view than public corporations, have better working conditions for the people and tend to be a better part of the community. But if you own a bunch of stock and real estate that's really just a big collection of stuff, then, that's all up for grabs by the government. And, if the family had a big business, and sold it, like Wanamakers did, then, yeah, those investments that were there should probably be taxed at the point of sale. You may have a point, but a conter-example to your model "family run" business would be Wal-Mart, which is still privately held by the Walton family, as far as I know, and is perhaps the very worst retail outlet in terms of working conditions and promoting the real health of a community.
I don't pretend that my idea is a whole solution, or even that it would prove workable in practice. I just think that we need thinking divorced from left/right dichotomies if we're going to balance things out before the poorest %90 decide to take back the wealth being hoarded by the richest %10.
How many kilometres of cable to you buy at a go?
There'll be no accusations, just friendly crustateans under the seeeeeeea!
The socialist seeks to find the regulatory changes that would make the economic system more equitable. I for one don't think that limiting how much money one person can make is quite the right way of doing it: I'm more in favour of putting limits on how much money can be passed from parent to child. We could allow anyone to pass on only enough money to their children so that they would enjoy, as an example, a comfortable, middle class lifestyle for the rest of their lives, and no more, mandating that the rest of the money or assets or whatever be put back into the economy directly, instead of waiting for Junior to spend it or not.
The problem with both sides of the debate (capitalist vs socialist) is that Economics is Hard, and the solutions to the world's woes are more likely to come from careful, subtle economic and regulatory fiddling, not from grand platforms presented by politicians on the Left or Right, designed to garner votes. But nobody wants to hear that.
Sure, I'll concede that point, though strictly speaking there is nothing *technically* wrong in the example you gave, even if there is something *morally* wrong. In the case of the police officer, there's probably a good deal of case law (does Sweden use case law? I don't know) or regulations governing the production of evidence and Conflicts of Interest.
Well strictly speaking, they're not on the same side. The police and the prosecutor represent the State, not the victim. The State's interest is to see that justice is served for all the people, while the victim's interest is to get back at the party that wronged them. This is why civil and criminal law are separate branchs. (note that several hundred years of legal philosophy have been distilled down to 3 sentences, and thus I have grossly simplified the matter) IANAL...yet.
There is a clear conflict of interest if a police officer, while conducting an investigation, entertains and later accepts a job offer with the alleged victim. There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job, but any work he did on the case is suspect and would be inadmissible in court. The prosecutor, if s/he knew about this, wouldn't likely even try to get the evidence entered. If the cop was key to the investigation, then all the evidence would be tainted. If the suspect evidence has already been heard, then the Trial would probably be declared a mis-trial, and the prosecution would have to start from scratch, with all new evidence (and remember, the TPB servers are no longer in Sweden).
Or you could turn your damn arm off before you go to bed.