Yes, but the key point is that the case has been kicked up to a higher court, so Giovanni Conti's decision is not the final word on the matter. It's the ruling made by the appeals court (the Justice Tribune) that will apply to the entire country. Now, they may agree with the lower court, but at this point, they have not, so it is not the same as the Supreme Court saying Monsanto must repay royalties collected over the past decade.
the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled the company must repay royalties collected over the past decade.
What?! The linked article doesn't say anything of the sort! It says:
In April, Giovanni Conti, a judge in Rio Grande do Sul, decided that Monsanto's levy was illegal, noting that the patents relating to Roundup Ready soya beans have already expired in Brazil. He ordered Monsanto to stop collecting royalties, and return those collected since 2004 -- or pay back a minimum of US$2 billion. Monsanto appealed, and Conti's decision has been suspended for now, pending consideration by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul.
But in 2011, Monsanto had also made a parallel legal bid to the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice, the country's highest federal court. The company argued that the syndicates had no legal status to bring their case, and also that any final ruling should be limited to Rio Grande do Sul, fearing that its losses would be even greater if it applied to the whole country.
On 12 June, the judges of the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Monsanto, deciding unanimously that the ruling by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul, once it is made, should apply nationwide. Monsanto has declined to comment on the case.
Logic and rational thought are a bit more than saying 'they'll get in trouble, so they won't do that!' Someone who really wants to look at the issue should consider what the US might offer Sweden and whether it'd be worth whatever penalty they'd face from the EU after the fact if they handed Assange over to the US. I have a feeling the US can offer a hell of a lot under the table and that Sweden's punishment wouldn't exactly be on the order of expulsion from the EU under a cloud of shame. As for why the US wouldn't just get him from the UK, maybe the powers that be there are reluctant to get into another US extradition controversy on top of the McKinnon case.
So, yeah, while people shouldn't immediately start screaming about plots by the big bad government, it's no better to rant about conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats and say that a government would never do something because it's against the rules.
I don't think such confidence is unwarranted. Sure, you can't perform surgery simply because you are a genius with computers and have a well-organized mind, but with sufficient focus and attention to detail, you really can be confident in doing most things well and correctly.
For example, my posts on Slashdot always look perfectly fine even though I never use the Purview button.
Maybe, maybe not. 'Couldn't care less' is more accepted and straightforward, but 'could care less' is used and according to some speculation here, it probably developed as sarcasm, much like 'I should be so lucky'.
Meh I don't see much difference between vigilante "justice" and regular "justice"...its all just excuses to use violence against people.
Now, when "jusitce" is used against people who probably did something really bad, like murder, or rape...then I have no problem with it, and even cheer its application.
I know! How could anyone have a problem with someone who probably did something really bad being beaten and/or killed?
Ok, now think of China as Microsoft and solar panels as Internet Explorer...
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 0
No one, not even Blizzard, cares what people do in offline/LAN games per se, but having access to the game engine and character files made it a lot easier for people to create exploits that they used to affect Battle.net games and characters.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I personally don't like the required internet connection, but I wouldn't say it's strictly to prevent piracy. I'm sure everyone remembers what a mess dupers and hackers made of Diablo II; having everything server-side is an effort to stop the same thing from happing to D3. And with the real money auction house, such measures really are necessary because in-game items have an actual cash value.
So, yes, I'd prefer it if there was an offline single player mode with modding possible, but I understand why they don't have one and that there are benefits to doing it that way.
And what software wrote that summary? Ouch, that thing was painful to read. And I have no idea why the title says the software has 'started humming'. Doesn't anyone go over these things to make them a bit more readable before putting them on Slashdot's front page?
Any Football player that gets into the sport should know the risks involved. When your job is to play a full-contact sport, injuries happen. That's why they get multi-million dollar contracts. Their safety gear is all excellent, but even the best protection does not prevent every injury. Nobody is forcing them to play the game. They can walk away at any time.
Your first sentence is exactly why research like this is necessary. Prospective football players have every right to know exactly what they'll be risking if they play. And while no one is forcing them to play, the US does have a policy of banning certain activities for the detrimental effects on willing participants.
How does warning people I'm going to murder their for not doing something pointless and trivial make me any less of a murderer when I go around shooting kids in the streets for something ridiculous that their parents didn't do?
This is basically the equivalent of what happened in biblical Egypt. It does not excuse the god in the bible from being a vengeful, murderous entity.
Actually, it was more of a 'If you don't stop abusing my people and release them from the slavery you imposed on them, I'll..." and it was a graduated response, starting small and ending with the killing of the first-born when earlier plagues didn't get results.
Don't you think there are enough good examples of atrocities committed by religions and their supposed deities for no good reason that we don't need to twist the ones that could actually be considered warranted?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the key point is that the case has been kicked up to a higher court, so Giovanni Conti's decision is not the final word on the matter. It's the ruling made by the appeals court (the Justice Tribune) that will apply to the entire country. Now, they may agree with the lower court, but at this point, they have not, so it is not the same as the Supreme Court saying Monsanto must repay royalties collected over the past decade.
What?! The linked article doesn't say anything of the sort! It says:
Really? Going by recent Hollywood works, I'm amazed it isn't going to be directed by Michael Bay and star Keanu Reeves.
Logic and rational thought are a bit more than saying 'they'll get in trouble, so they won't do that!' Someone who really wants to look at the issue should consider what the US might offer Sweden and whether it'd be worth whatever penalty they'd face from the EU after the fact if they handed Assange over to the US. I have a feeling the US can offer a hell of a lot under the table and that Sweden's punishment wouldn't exactly be on the order of expulsion from the EU under a cloud of shame. As for why the US wouldn't just get him from the UK, maybe the powers that be there are reluctant to get into another US extradition controversy on top of the McKinnon case.
So, yeah, while people shouldn't immediately start screaming about plots by the big bad government, it's no better to rant about conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats and say that a government would never do something because it's against the rules.
I don't think such confidence is unwarranted. Sure, you can't perform surgery simply because you are a genius with computers and have a well-organized mind, but with sufficient focus and attention to detail, you really can be confident in doing most things well and correctly.
For example, my posts on Slashdot always look perfectly fine even though I never use the Purview button.
Maybe, maybe not. 'Couldn't care less' is more accepted and straightforward, but 'could care less' is used and according to some speculation here, it probably developed as sarcasm, much like 'I should be so lucky'.
Whoops. Never mind. For some strange, unknown reason, my browser seems to have blocked a link that contained the word 'advertising' in the URL.
Huh?
Did the ban emails happen to come with a handy link where you could enter your account info to verify your identity and get unbanned?
Um... This story is on Slashdot.
Oh, that's just an urban legend!
In Soviet Russia.
I know! How could anyone have a problem with someone who probably did something really bad being beaten and/or killed?
That's not putting it in Slashdot terms!
Ok, now think of China as Microsoft and solar panels as Internet Explorer...
No one, not even Blizzard, cares what people do in offline/LAN games per se, but having access to the game engine and character files made it a lot easier for people to create exploits that they used to affect Battle.net games and characters.
I personally don't like the required internet connection, but I wouldn't say it's strictly to prevent piracy. I'm sure everyone remembers what a mess dupers and hackers made of Diablo II; having everything server-side is an effort to stop the same thing from happing to D3. And with the real money auction house, such measures really are necessary because in-game items have an actual cash value.
So, yes, I'd prefer it if there was an offline single player mode with modding possible, but I understand why they don't have one and that there are benefits to doing it that way.
And what software wrote that summary? Ouch, that thing was painful to read. And I have no idea why the title says the software has 'started humming'. Doesn't anyone go over these things to make them a bit more readable before putting them on Slashdot's front page?
Because his desired ends might not be the company's desired ends.
So our immune system is kind of like a Bayesian spam filter?
Obviously the drug of choice at the school was Mentats.
Your first sentence is exactly why research like this is necessary. Prospective football players have every right to know exactly what they'll be risking if they play. And while no one is forcing them to play, the US does have a policy of banning certain activities for the detrimental effects on willing participants.
Want? Yes. Expect? No.
But just because we won't get everything we want doesn't mean we shouldn't identify common failings in games and suggest some possible solutions.
I'd think in the current political climate, not spending would be election year behavior.
They'd prefer you just piss off.
Actually, it was more of a 'If you don't stop abusing my people and release them from the slavery you imposed on them, I'll..." and it was a graduated response, starting small and ending with the killing of the first-born when earlier plagues didn't get results.
Don't you think there are enough good examples of atrocities committed by religions and their supposed deities for no good reason that we don't need to twist the ones that could actually be considered warranted?