Usually, murder and attempted murder are still both serious crimes that will get you a shitload of prison time.
Besides that, letting the state get away with fudging them just because it's "immoral to split hairs" is also just as immoral.
So what if a guy shouldn't argue the difference? That doesn't excuse the state from exploiting that to beef up a sentence on a conveniently overlooked technicality. And given how politically motivated and/or egotistical the prosecutor can be, without such "hair splitting" there may well be no check on a prosecutor who has an incentive to have maximum punishment imposed, "seek the truth" oath bullshit notwithstanding.
And the state is run by people, who are just as fallible in government as they are everwhere else, some would argue more so but I digress. It's not unreasonable to hold the government to the same sorts of standards that it expects from the people under its jurisdiction.
In actuality, you are just as pwned by an aimbot as you are pwned by a railgun god.
If you can't prove it happened, what can you do? You have even less of a case in the court of public opinion when your peers don't even give a shit anyway.
Which could very well be the case if you're among a crowd where aimbots are an accepted tool of the trade for pwnage.
Methinks that copyright holders besides the FSF should start enforcing the GPL.
Unfortunately when you have a legal system that only works for the highest bidder, you will get screwed.
The only people that can fix it have a highly vested interest in preserving the status quo, and also have proverbial guns at their skulls to do so from the folks that are giving them the power to fix it.
Or you can just start a huge harassment campaign against employees of the IRS and then walk in and demand unique tax deductions that nobody else will get, in exchange for dropping the attack.
Oh wait, didn't Scientology do that? I believe they did. It sounds exactly the sort of thing they'd do considering that they use copyright law to protect their scriptures.
And I don't fucking care if I get sued for saying this.
Only if apple had an exclusive license or something, and it would still be fuzzy at best.
Iconic association, not quite sure about, as anything that related back to apple's association would probably already be indicated by trademark.
As far as "it's for a court to decide", technically true but standing is a common and well precedented concept in the legal realm. it's stable enough that law schools can confidently teach it.
More like I was too busy gawking at the candy rack to notice until it was too late to stop him without causing a major ruckus.
Between the time I noticed and the time I could have said anything the deed had already been done, and any circumstantial evidence that would have proven I was there first had long since been destroyed.
Being a pipsqueak a ways down the totem pole of seniority didn't help matters either.
Because we americans are so impatient we cannot STAND to see a gap in a register line and we're just going to explode that someone might get it before we do.
It's not all about efficiency, it's about ego and getting a short line before the other guy does. I've gone grocery shopping, and I see jockeying for position all the time. I've even been the victim of brave daredevils that have balls enough to cut in front of me when they won't get caught, and where getting my spot taken back would cause too much of a ruckus for store security to tolerate.
We had a perfect solution: Municipal internet where the local government owns the pipes and the ISPs compete for access to it.
In fact, Monticello was on track to doing exactly this when they got sued to a halt by TDS while they marched on with the same network they stopped the city from building.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, murder and attempted murder are still both serious crimes that will get you a shitload of prison time.
Besides that, letting the state get away with fudging them just because it's "immoral to split hairs" is also just as immoral.
So what if a guy shouldn't argue the difference? That doesn't excuse the state from exploiting that to beef up a sentence on a conveniently overlooked technicality. And given how politically motivated and/or egotistical the prosecutor can be, without such "hair splitting" there may well be no check on a prosecutor who has an incentive to have maximum punishment imposed, "seek the truth" oath bullshit notwithstanding.
And the state is run by people, who are just as fallible in government as they are everwhere else, some would argue more so but I digress. It's not unreasonable to hold the government to the same sorts of standards that it expects from the people under its jurisdiction.
9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
repeat ad nauseum until people stop questioning your right to meddle with everyone's affairs.
Better yet, wait until they are just about to fly so that they not only get blocked, but they lose what they spent on their ticket too.
if you're among a crowd where ...
Way to conveniently overlook a blatant qualifying statement there, bravo.
And I can tell you're trolling because the word "unfortunately" served as a waiver of warranty for my premise.
Call it wishful thinking that is labelled as such.
Unless you're prepared to be a hermit living off the land out in the forest fending for yourself, isolationism is not a viable strategy.
Doubly so when the society one seeks to avoid enmeshing with expands and decides to invade said forest.
Game Theory 101 also includes how to interact with a superior force holding all of the cards.
In actuality, you are just as pwned by an aimbot as you are pwned by a railgun god.
If you can't prove it happened, what can you do? You have even less of a case in the court of public opinion when your peers don't even give a shit anyway.
Which could very well be the case if you're among a crowd where aimbots are an accepted tool of the trade for pwnage.
Methinks that copyright holders besides the FSF should start enforcing the GPL.
Unfortunately when you have a legal system that only works for the highest bidder, you will get screwed.
The only people that can fix it have a highly vested interest in preserving the status quo, and also have proverbial guns at their skulls to do so from the folks that are giving them the power to fix it.
Unfortunately sometimes I'm behind a firewall that blocks outbound DNS, so using my "ISP" for DNS is mandatory.
Coincidentally enough there are shitloads of domain names on its blacklist that refuse to resolve.
Just wait until ISPs start doing that wholesale "to protect the children" *cough*
Only if I trust them not to fuck with it.
Or you can just start a huge harassment campaign against employees of the IRS and then walk in and demand unique tax deductions that nobody else will get, in exchange for dropping the attack.
Oh wait, didn't Scientology do that? I believe they did. It sounds exactly the sort of thing they'd do considering that they use copyright law to protect their scriptures.
And I don't fucking care if I get sued for saying this.
Ahem.
I mean "contribute campaign contributions and offer cushy private sector jobs in return for special favors."
Yeah.
In China you don't go to jail, you just get executed.
Seeing as the rich are the ones buying the laws in the first place, yeah.
You'd need like a revolution for something like that.
Only if apple had an exclusive license or something, and it would still be fuzzy at best.
Iconic association, not quite sure about, as anything that related back to apple's association would probably already be indicated by trademark.
As far as "it's for a court to decide", technically true but standing is a common and well precedented concept in the legal realm. it's stable enough that law schools can confidently teach it.
You are a corporation.
Steve Jobs is a person.
You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.
Stick to your trademark rights over the apple icon and dump the celebrity likeness bullshit.
Corporate vote with consumer dollars requires competition.
There actually has to be a "lesser of two evils"
A free market is one that isn't controlled by anyone.
Not government, not suppliers, and not consumers.
In practice the only way to do that is to have government just big enough to put a stop to collusion without being too big to be corrupted.
Considering mankind's inherent greed however, such a solution may not actually exist.
What about sabotage by a competitor?
Government sucks because people suck.
Wow...
Not even national security is more important than commerce.
Unless this is just some tiwsted diplomacy
More like I was too busy gawking at the candy rack to notice until it was too late to stop him without causing a major ruckus.
Between the time I noticed and the time I could have said anything the deed had already been done, and any circumstantial evidence that would have proven I was there first had long since been destroyed.
Being a pipsqueak a ways down the totem pole of seniority didn't help matters either.
Efficiency often takes a back seat to fairness when defectors can stab you in the back.
See Prisoner's Dilemma.
Because we americans are so impatient we cannot STAND to see a gap in a register line and we're just going to explode that someone might get it before we do.
It's not all about efficiency, it's about ego and getting a short line before the other guy does. I've gone grocery shopping, and I see jockeying for position all the time. I've even been the victim of brave daredevils that have balls enough to cut in front of me when they won't get caught, and where getting my spot taken back would cause too much of a ruckus for store security to tolerate.
Business doesn't even WANT to compete.
We had a perfect solution: Municipal internet where the local government owns the pipes and the ISPs compete for access to it.
In fact, Monticello was on track to doing exactly this when they got sued to a halt by TDS while they marched on with the same network they stopped the city from building.