I think that would have the effect of limiting piracy to about 1% of its current users. And if things ever get so bad that the internet gets abandoned by "criminals" then you can be sure that there will be lots of always on DRM and bans on movie/game copying software as well.
Sure, they will never make it so that it is completely impossible for a few people to do. But they have more then enough lobbying power to make the consequences of being caught so severe and the internet so monitored that piracy is so underground that 99% cannot find it and would not take the risk if they did.
It might not help their profit margin to do this as much as they think, but they are mega corporations and they at least have a chance at doing whatever they want. While they might not be able to do so in any reasonably free and fair society or under current US law, but that will not necessarily stop them. Hell, I would not bet against them if they launched a coup to physically take over the government and impose a tyranny in the US and put the current administrations heads on spikes outside of the whitehouse.
I can tell you with absolute conviction that WE DO NOT have even close to the best access or speed. Huge swaths of the country are not able to access anything other then cell phone internet and most of the country is only able to get online using either Rogers or Bell (as they simply do not allow the little guys to use there lines outside of the big cities) and the price is huge (I pay $50 for 5GB max per month with over the limit prices that cost ~ $800 if you use 30Gigs). Also absolutely everything is heavily throttled. And Rogers only promised because they where threatened by the government.
But that is still a moral judgement. You cannot accommodative everyone, and choosing who you do is a moral judgement.
For example, It is accommodating some groups of people to not allow access to Lesbian and Gay material. And it is accommodating to other to not allow access to material on evolution. There are even groups that would not want pictures of dogs, let alone live ones, be in there vicinity.
Would this not fall into indecent acts/nudity in public laws? I am all for individual freedoms and anti-censorship, and I even see the slippery slope of other similar topics, but it seems to me there has to be a better compromise then forcing everyone who wants to use the library to be confronted with that.
While Nuclear testing implies gigantic explosions of the kind to produce seismic evidence I imagine you can achieve nuclear fission without producing a giant bang. For example, I think nuclear power plants use fission to create power and do so without seismic evidence or gigantic explosions. And I am sure that it is possible to explode a small enough amount of the stuff to not produce noticeable seismic evidence.
I think they are in Canada, it is just that the market is rich people and that means the US for the most part. As of a few years ago their only product was the very top end and designed for holding an unlimited number of movies (they claimed every movie ever created was possible). They have at least part of their company here in Waterloo, Canada. I actually had an interview with them here, at that time they were really throwing money around trying and succeeded at looking impressive to Waterloo coop students.
It is not that so much as it is bad for the employees. It is the same as if all the tech giants went into an agreement together to lower all of their workers wages (since they used a monopoly position to do it they could force a lot of people to work for less money). And while this is less nefarious sounding, no poaching does lower wages, significantly.
But his superiors up the chain all had the same information he had. There is nothing he could of done within the chain of command. This was not some specific information that really only he had, it was just a huge archive of Intel that hundreds of other people knew more about then he did.
And technically treason (at least the definition that everyone uses and what we are all referring to) intent to overthrow the government not just intent to cause it grief or without regard to causing harm.
And why should he deserve death if what you say is true? At no point do you say that he intentionality try to cause harm to anyone, but he deserves death.
I don't see how you could call him a tool. But he did violate his oath, but I don't see how it should be considered treason unless treason is considered a very broad term in the military. Additionally, I cannot agree that anyone, no matter what they are guilty of, deserve a death sentence if their crime had no provable real negative effects. Also, there are many whistle-blower laws that are supposed to protect people like Manning (because not only do employers unilaterally dislike whistle-blowers, often it would be illegal to disclose information, except when you are a whistle-blower).
At least 5 years. There might not have seen any obvious signs of it from their finances but the company has been improperly lead almost since its creation.
I have no doubt that hate speech is mentioned in the criminal code, but I meant the limitation clause in our constitutional freedom of speech. "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Well it is not like anyone is even shown evidence that the holocaust ever happened, you are just told, by the victors, how evil the enemy was. If there was any reason to believe that they would of made it up then the 0 proof that is given to basically everyone would not be enough.
Everything is a matter of belief, you either believe the scientists or you believe the priests.
And there isn't a God is considered to be very hateful by many religious groups. The same how Holocaust denial is considered both a crime and hateful.
As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech. I believe the relevant section of our freedom of speech law can be summarized as "You can say whatever you want as long as it is democratically reasonable". Of course it is used exclusively (as far as I know) for hate speech.
Since when is posting the maximum sentence good for anything other then over dramatizing a case? It sounds like the police are cooperating with him and even taking his side so far. And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries.
I wonder if it is all people from outside of the USA? and I wonder if America would have any luck extraditing thousands of people for a single crime. I don't imagine that anyone non anonymously doing this in America really has a chance to get off easily. Something like this they are likely going to classify as terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that would have the effect of limiting piracy to about 1% of its current users.
And if things ever get so bad that the internet gets abandoned by "criminals" then you can be sure that there will be lots of always on DRM and bans on movie/game copying software as well.
Nothing is completely untraceable or unblockable.
And blocking and tracing are not the only ways to stop piracy.
Sure, they will never make it so that it is completely impossible for a few people to do.
But they have more then enough lobbying power to make the consequences of being caught so severe and the internet so monitored that piracy is so underground that 99% cannot find it and would not take the risk if they did.
It might not help their profit margin to do this as much as they think, but they are mega corporations and they at least have a chance at doing whatever they want.
While they might not be able to do so in any reasonably free and fair society or under current US law, but that will not necessarily stop them.
Hell, I would not bet against them if they launched a coup to physically take over the government and impose a tyranny in the US and put the current administrations heads on spikes outside of the whitehouse.
I can tell you with absolute conviction that WE DO NOT have even close to the best access or speed.
Huge swaths of the country are not able to access anything other then cell phone internet and most of the country is only able to get online using either Rogers or Bell (as they simply do not allow the little guys to use there lines outside of the big cities) and the price is huge (I pay $50 for 5GB max per month with over the limit prices that cost ~ $800 if you use 30Gigs).
Also absolutely everything is heavily throttled.
And Rogers only promised because they where threatened by the government.
I think there were "secrete" because that sounds more menacing.
But that is still a moral judgement.
You cannot accommodative everyone, and choosing who you do is a moral judgement.
For example,
It is accommodating some groups of people to not allow access to Lesbian and Gay material.
And it is accommodating to other to not allow access to material on evolution.
There are even groups that would not want pictures of dogs, let alone live ones, be in there vicinity.
Would this not fall into indecent acts/nudity in public laws?
I am all for individual freedoms and anti-censorship, and I even see the slippery slope of other similar topics, but it seems to me there has to be a better compromise then forcing everyone who wants to use the library to be confronted with that.
"Secret Nuclear Tests" aka, they broadcast the event around the world but no one believed them.
While Nuclear testing implies gigantic explosions of the kind to produce seismic evidence I imagine you can achieve nuclear fission without producing a giant bang.
For example, I think nuclear power plants use fission to create power and do so without seismic evidence or gigantic explosions.
And I am sure that it is possible to explode a small enough amount of the stuff to not produce noticeable seismic evidence.
I think they are in Canada, it is just that the market is rich people and that means the US for the most part. As of a few years ago their only product was the very top end and designed for holding an unlimited number of movies (they claimed every movie ever created was possible).
They have at least part of their company here in Waterloo, Canada. I actually had an interview with them here, at that time they were really throwing money around trying and succeeded at looking impressive to Waterloo coop students.
Since when has Facebook innovated since its creation?
shifting around the GUI elements every few months is NOT innovation.
Wish I had mod points, that was exactly what I was going to post.
He is still being jailed for knowing the wrong stuff. If they had evidence of a specific crime he was preparing for then that is different.
If companies do not compete for employees then they are stifling salaries and playing people less simply because they have a monopoly set up.
It is not that so much as it is bad for the employees. It is the same as if all the tech giants went into an agreement together to lower all of their workers wages (since they used a monopoly position to do it they could force a lot of people to work for less money). And while this is less nefarious sounding, no poaching does lower wages, significantly.
But his superiors up the chain all had the same information he had. There is nothing he could of done within the chain of command. This was not some specific information that really only he had, it was just a huge archive of Intel that hundreds of other people knew more about then he did.
And technically treason (at least the definition that everyone uses and what we are all referring to) intent to overthrow the government not just intent to cause it grief or without regard to causing harm.
And why should he deserve death if what you say is true? At no point do you say that he intentionality try to cause harm to anyone, but he deserves death.
I don't see how you could call him a tool. But he did violate his oath, but I don't see how it should be considered treason unless treason is considered a very broad term in the military. Additionally, I cannot agree that anyone, no matter what they are guilty of, deserve a death sentence if their crime had no provable real negative effects. Also, there are many whistle-blower laws that are supposed to protect people like Manning (because not only do employers unilaterally dislike whistle-blowers, often it would be illegal to disclose information, except when you are a whistle-blower).
When you start trying to execute journalists and their sources.
You cannot polish a turd.
At least 5 years. There might not have seen any obvious signs of it from their finances but the company has been improperly lead almost since its creation.
I have no doubt that hate speech is mentioned in the criminal code, but I meant the limitation clause in our constitutional freedom of speech.
"subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Well it is not like anyone is even shown evidence that the holocaust ever happened, you are just told, by the victors, how evil the enemy was.
If there was any reason to believe that they would of made it up then the 0 proof that is given to basically everyone would not be enough.
Everything is a matter of belief, you either believe the scientists or you believe the priests.
And there isn't a God is considered to be very hateful by many religious groups. The same how Holocaust denial is considered both a crime and hateful.
As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech.
I believe the relevant section of our freedom of speech law can be summarized as "You can say whatever you want as long as it is democratically reasonable". Of course it is used exclusively (as far as I know) for hate speech.
... And the American governments Fs you in the A.
Since when is posting the maximum sentence good for anything other then over dramatizing a case?
It sounds like the police are cooperating with him and even taking his side so far.
And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries.
I wonder if it is all people from outside of the USA? and I wonder if America would have any luck extraditing thousands of people for a single crime.
I don't imagine that anyone non anonymously doing this in America really has a chance to get off easily. Something like this they are likely going to classify as terrorism.