I was being facetious. I was highlighting the irony of the situation. The government basically intervened in this case in the first place because of the copyright lobby's apparent property rights in the contents of other people's accounts, but then they say that account owners themselves have no property interests in the contents in the account, even when they themselves own the copyright.
Assisted suicide is probably cheaper than extended palliative care, not that money should be a deciding factor. Treating breast cancer is also expensive. But I guess one wouldn't really be objecting based on cost, that would just be the cover so it doesn't seem like one is impinging on the personal decision of another.
Anyways, another suggestion I might add is that those that use assisted suicide may not donate organs, so that there can be no question that they were pressured into it for that reason, or that they might kill themselves to save a loved one or something.
lol true true but thankfully we are starting to see more competition in wireless in BC. unsurprisingly, wireless companies are working a bit harder to keep customers.
bell, rogers, telus, their subsidiary companies fido, kudo etc. plus some newcomers like Wind Mobile, who are really shaking things up. it's amazing what a little competition can do.
Lol. No you're right. Also evolution is a conspiracy.
Favourite quote:
“We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”
It seems to me that the ability to send messages to premium services should be disabled by default, and you should have to enable it manually by contacting your provider.
For my part, I've called my provider to inform them that I will not be paying for any such services (roaming, long distance etc) so they should disable those services from their end. If a charge comes up, I reference that conversation and it's their problem. No charge has come up.
Oh I see. Racism is over, doesn't exist anymore now that Obama was elected, right? Or you don't see racism yourself, whatever colour you are, so it must not exist. I misjudged you when you took a position against racial profiling, so I'm sorry.
So then your theory is that black people are genetically predisposed to crime? Or what? Perhaps you can explain why black people make up a majority of the prison population in the US? Enlighten us.
The world has some very poor societies that are relatively crime free. The correlation between crime and poverty is complicated, and is certainly not "obvious".
Fine. It's not obvious to you. But counter-examples of a trend do not negate a trend. That's why it's called a trend. If you don't accept that poverty and crime tend to correlate, then say so. We can put it on the shelf with other myths, like global warming, evolution and heliocentrism.
If your assertion that white dominance causes black crime was really true, then black crime would be higher in areas where they are a smaller minority, and diminish as they became more dominant.
If I meant majority I would have said majority. Do not conflate the two concepts. Dominance has to do with power, not straight numbers. If dominance in South Africa was determined by pure numbers, then we never would have seen apartheid.
I don't see how you can blame that on "white dominance".
I'm not saying white dominance causes crime. I'm saying the colour of who is dominant and who is subdominant is irrelevant; colour doesn't matter. Social injustice and inequality contributes to racial disparities in crime rates.
You dance around it and mince your words, but why don't you come out and say that blackness itself is a cause of crime. If you don't think that, then offer up a reasonable counter-explanation to explain the disparity in crime rates that you yourself have highlighted. The problem is, if you are a person who realizes that all people, regardless of skin colour, inherently have the same potential for good and evil, then the only way that prisons can be over represented by black people is because of institutionalized discrimination somewhere in society. Either it's the people or it's society: so which is it, according to you?
Ugh I need to have a shower to get all this racism off of me. You know what don't respond, or if you do I'm not going to read it. I've had enough troll for one day.
I certainly agree with your assertion of equality, but I will correct you by saying, "more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime."
A better question is why are certain races more likely to end up in jail?
That is a big distinction. Plenty of white people commit crimes every day and see leniency from police, judges and juries that blacks in similar circumstances do not. Look at police recommendation for charges as well as sentencing for evidence. Furthermore, black people are more likely to be living in poverty, and poverty is obviously associated with higher crime rates.
Not that you said this, but many feel that there is something inherently different about black people that leads them to be arrested more frequently than white people. If white people were the "subdominant race" in America, we would see the same trends in reverse.
I'm not sure your point, as it has no bearing on what I said. Are you conflating the interests of the government with the interests of an individual?
As I said, secrets that are in the genuine interests of the people are worth keeping (i.e. true national security concerns). Secrets that the government wants to keep to avoid the embarrassment of officials are not. I'm not sure where the controversy is. I get why officials don't want to be embarrassed but what I don't get are the individual citizens who support them.
Indeed. Comparing individual privacy interests with government secrecy is a pretty stupid analogy.
Government are not individuals with inalienable rights. They service (or rather should service) their constituents. The only government secrets that are worth keeping are the ones that revealing would actually harm the people, rather than the government.
In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between the people of a democracy and its government...a perfect government would already be serving its people's interests.
The problem with a "Cure for Cancer" is that few people understand that cancer is just a name for hundreds if not thousands of diseases caused by just as many different cellular mistakes, each needing their own approach and treatment regimen.
You might as well say "Cure for Sickness," as in, "Medical science is useless: they haven't even come up with a cure for sickness yet."
Or perhaps the cause and effect are backward. Perhaps gleefully uninformed people who enjoy violence for its own sake are drawn to the Xbox (rather than the games transforming people).
And you can't seriously believe that the average Xbox gamer would have such a nuanced viewpoint. Spend some time chatting on Halo or COD. Their viewpoints aren't more any more informed than, "heh heh only fags get hit by drones. quick somebody teabag these noobs!"
Ok...but their assessment was that there was no scientific reason to predict an earthquake at this time, and that was correct. How many psychics failed to predict the earthquake? At least the scientists weren't misrepresenting the facts.
Even if it were engineers who made a preventable mistake resulting in the collapse of a bridge, generally it would be criminal negligence causing death rather than manslaughter.
I don't know. I'm am a health care provider. In order for me to be found culpable of negligence, three things must be established:
1) That there was a duty of care (that I was required to provide). 2) That the duty of care was not met. 3) That the failure to meet the duty of care caused the harm experienced by the plaintiff victim. (That is, it can't just be some irrelevant failure on my part.)
Regarding number 1: To me, this ruling is suggesting that the scientists must predict earthquakes, something science has more or less stated is not currently possible. Not only that, it apparently absolves the population from taking adequate precautions to prepare for an earthquake. If I lived on a fault zone, I would hope that is something for which I would prepare, rather than remaining unprepared until such a time as some prophet/scientist foretold an earthquake.
Regarding number 2: I guess if you accept the first point, then this point follows.
Regarding number 3: This is the most interesting one. What if the scientists had predicted the quake (as at least one individual did, albeit as more of a guess)? What would everyone have done differently? We can already see that the one individual was suppressed and ridiculed. But even if they took it seriously...what? Retrofit their buildings in under a week? A month? Evacuate the city? I suppose they could stockpile supplies but that hardly helps reduce most of the fatalities. Even if the scientists had accurately predicted the quake I don't know what more the city could have done if they weren't already generally prepared for a quake. And therefore it's hard to make the case that the scientists' failure resulted in the harm experienced by the victims/plaintiffs.
As you said, this is retribution on a scapegoat, plain and simple. The implications are frightening. It reminds me of the stories in other parts of the world where they put animals on trial. All it serves to do is highlight the unadulterated stupidity of those involved.
I've had two separate friends who were ticketed for going less than 5 km/h over the limit. I was in the car for one of them. In that case, it took about 10-20 seconds to pass the cop car, meaning there was a speed differential of maybe a couple km per hour. That's hardly leaving a margin for inaccuracies. His reasoning was essentially that it is illegal to pass a cop, as if police spedometers are international standard for velocity, free of inaccuracies.
These are the cops that give the rest of them a bad name.
And yes they do "trick you" with speed traps in areas where the speed limit makes no sense and is out of date. It can be just as dangerous to go significantly below the flow of traffic as it can be to go faster, but who would want to make policy changes that make more sense at the expense of a nice revenue stream. If traffic violations were about safety only then the revenue could just as easily go to a charity with no input into traffic enforcement. Of course we all know that would never happen, and any argument against that suggestion only serves to prove the point that it's the money that really matters.
Slashdot Mirror
I was being facetious. I was highlighting the irony of the situation. The government basically intervened in this case in the first place because of the copyright lobby's apparent property rights in the contents of other people's accounts, but then they say that account owners themselves have no property interests in the contents in the account, even when they themselves own the copyright.
Assisted suicide is probably cheaper than extended palliative care, not that money should be a deciding factor. Treating breast cancer is also expensive. But I guess one wouldn't really be objecting based on cost, that would just be the cover so it doesn't seem like one is impinging on the personal decision of another.
Anyways, another suggestion I might add is that those that use assisted suicide may not donate organs, so that there can be no question that they were pressured into it for that reason, or that they might kill themselves to save a loved one or something.
I see.
But I'm confused I thought property interests in digital goods was what prompted this whole mess.
If I understand this, then when VEVO "stores" their songs on Youtube, they lose all property rights to those songs right?
lol true true but thankfully we are starting to see more competition in wireless in BC. unsurprisingly, wireless companies are working a bit harder to keep customers.
bell, rogers, telus, their subsidiary companies fido, kudo etc. plus some newcomers like Wind Mobile, who are really shaking things up. it's amazing what a little competition can do.
Lol. No you're right. Also evolution is a conspiracy.
Favourite quote:
“We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”
It seems to me that the ability to send messages to premium services should be disabled by default, and you should have to enable it manually by contacting your provider.
For my part, I've called my provider to inform them that I will not be paying for any such services (roaming, long distance etc) so they should disable those services from their end. If a charge comes up, I reference that conversation and it's their problem. No charge has come up.
That's why it's non-enforceable in many parts of Canada.
Oh I see. Racism is over, doesn't exist anymore now that Obama was elected, right? Or you don't see racism yourself, whatever colour you are, so it must not exist. I misjudged you when you took a position against racial profiling, so I'm sorry.
So then your theory is that black people are genetically predisposed to crime? Or what? Perhaps you can explain why black people make up a majority of the prison population in the US? Enlighten us.
The world has some very poor societies that are relatively crime free. The correlation between crime and poverty is complicated, and is certainly not "obvious".
Fine. It's not obvious to you. But counter-examples of a trend do not negate a trend. That's why it's called a trend. If you don't accept that poverty and crime tend to correlate, then say so. We can put it on the shelf with other myths, like global warming, evolution and heliocentrism.
If your assertion that white dominance causes black crime was really true, then black crime would be higher in areas where they are a smaller minority, and diminish as they became more dominant.
If I meant majority I would have said majority. Do not conflate the two concepts. Dominance has to do with power, not straight numbers. If dominance in South Africa was determined by pure numbers, then we never would have seen apartheid.
I don't see how you can blame that on "white dominance".
I'm not saying white dominance causes crime. I'm saying the colour of who is dominant and who is subdominant is irrelevant; colour doesn't matter. Social injustice and inequality contributes to racial disparities in crime rates.
You dance around it and mince your words, but why don't you come out and say that blackness itself is a cause of crime. If you don't think that, then offer up a reasonable counter-explanation to explain the disparity in crime rates that you yourself have highlighted. The problem is, if you are a person who realizes that all people, regardless of skin colour, inherently have the same potential for good and evil, then the only way that prisons can be over represented by black people is because of institutionalized discrimination somewhere in society. Either it's the people or it's society: so which is it, according to you?
Ugh I need to have a shower to get all this racism off of me. You know what don't respond, or if you do I'm not going to read it. I've had enough troll for one day.
Indeed. The headline should have read: "Police Everywhere Want New Internet Surveillance Tools"
I certainly agree with your assertion of equality, but I will correct you by saying, "more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime."
A better question is why are certain races more likely to end up in jail?
That is a big distinction. Plenty of white people commit crimes every day and see leniency from police, judges and juries that blacks in similar circumstances do not. Look at police recommendation for charges as well as sentencing for evidence. Furthermore, black people are more likely to be living in poverty, and poverty is obviously associated with higher crime rates.
Not that you said this, but many feel that there is something inherently different about black people that leads them to be arrested more frequently than white people. If white people were the "subdominant race" in America, we would see the same trends in reverse.
Sort of. But if you violate their rules they can ask you to leave and you are obligated to do so. But they still can't compel you to delete anything.
That was brilliant. I think I'm going to write that down.
Who exactly ensures that bankers are accountable to customers? Competition, sure, but without anti-trust laws, a monopoly is all but certain.
I'm not sure your point, as it has no bearing on what I said. Are you conflating the interests of the government with the interests of an individual?
As I said, secrets that are in the genuine interests of the people are worth keeping (i.e. true national security concerns). Secrets that the government wants to keep to avoid the embarrassment of officials are not. I'm not sure where the controversy is. I get why officials don't want to be embarrassed but what I don't get are the individual citizens who support them.
Indeed. Comparing individual privacy interests with government secrecy is a pretty stupid analogy.
Government are not individuals with inalienable rights. They service (or rather should service) their constituents. The only government secrets that are worth keeping are the ones that revealing would actually harm the people, rather than the government.
In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between the people of a democracy and its government...a perfect government would already be serving its people's interests.
ahhh the theory of gay marriage. My favourite theory of them all.
Also, I'm totally gay for science.
The problem with a "Cure for Cancer" is that few people understand that cancer is just a name for hundreds if not thousands of diseases caused by just as many different cellular mistakes, each needing their own approach and treatment regimen.
You might as well say "Cure for Sickness," as in, "Medical science is useless: they haven't even come up with a cure for sickness yet."
Note to future religious text writers: stick to unfalsifiable metaphysics and moral advice.
So much win
Or perhaps the cause and effect are backward. Perhaps gleefully uninformed people who enjoy violence for its own sake are drawn to the Xbox (rather than the games transforming people).
And you can't seriously believe that the average Xbox gamer would have such a nuanced viewpoint. Spend some time chatting on Halo or COD. Their viewpoints aren't more any more informed than, "heh heh only fags get hit by drones. quick somebody teabag these noobs!"
Ok...but their assessment was that there was no scientific reason to predict an earthquake at this time, and that was correct. How many psychics failed to predict the earthquake? At least the scientists weren't misrepresenting the facts.
Even if it were engineers who made a preventable mistake resulting in the collapse of a bridge, generally it would be criminal negligence causing death rather than manslaughter.
...Scientists charged with negligence for warning of earthquake too early.
I don't know. I'm am a health care provider. In order for me to be found culpable of negligence, three things must be established:
1) That there was a duty of care (that I was required to provide).
2) That the duty of care was not met.
3) That the failure to meet the duty of care caused the harm experienced by the plaintiff victim. (That is, it can't just be some irrelevant failure on my part.)
Regarding number 1: To me, this ruling is suggesting that the scientists must predict earthquakes, something science has more or less stated is not currently possible. Not only that, it apparently absolves the population from taking adequate precautions to prepare for an earthquake. If I lived on a fault zone, I would hope that is something for which I would prepare, rather than remaining unprepared until such a time as some prophet/scientist foretold an earthquake.
Regarding number 2: I guess if you accept the first point, then this point follows.
Regarding number 3: This is the most interesting one. What if the scientists had predicted the quake (as at least one individual did, albeit as more of a guess)? What would everyone have done differently? We can already see that the one individual was suppressed and ridiculed. But even if they took it seriously...what? Retrofit their buildings in under a week? A month? Evacuate the city? I suppose they could stockpile supplies but that hardly helps reduce most of the fatalities. Even if the scientists had accurately predicted the quake I don't know what more the city could have done if they weren't already generally prepared for a quake. And therefore it's hard to make the case that the scientists' failure resulted in the harm experienced by the victims/plaintiffs.
As you said, this is retribution on a scapegoat, plain and simple. The implications are frightening. It reminds me of the stories in other parts of the world where they put animals on trial. All it serves to do is highlight the unadulterated stupidity of those involved.
But you are describing academic negligence, hardly a criminal offence. Even if we assume it can be criminal, it's certainly not manslaughter...
Suspects for what, traffic violations?
I've had two separate friends who were ticketed for going less than 5 km/h over the limit. I was in the car for one of them. In that case, it took about 10-20 seconds to pass the cop car, meaning there was a speed differential of maybe a couple km per hour. That's hardly leaving a margin for inaccuracies. His reasoning was essentially that it is illegal to pass a cop, as if police spedometers are international standard for velocity, free of inaccuracies.
These are the cops that give the rest of them a bad name.
And yes they do "trick you" with speed traps in areas where the speed limit makes no sense and is out of date. It can be just as dangerous to go significantly below the flow of traffic as it can be to go faster, but who would want to make policy changes that make more sense at the expense of a nice revenue stream. If traffic violations were about safety only then the revenue could just as easily go to a charity with no input into traffic enforcement. Of course we all know that would never happen, and any argument against that suggestion only serves to prove the point that it's the money that really matters.