I'm all for punishing copyright infringers, but note that in general there is no way to tell if a watermark has been embedded in an image or not. If you read the ruling, the extra award was specifically for "willful removal of the digitally embedded watermark". If you can't even tell a watermark's there, it's unlikely you'd be willfully removing it.
I think the only thing that would make you happy would be to grant them citizenship and give the food stamps. Maybe throw them a parade? I think the only thing that would make you happy is if people stopped caring about "the rule of law" and just accepted that people might be "disappeared" every once in a while. If it works for South American dictators, it should be good enough for the North American ones, too, eh?
"concentration camp" != "death camp" Wrong again. The "death camps" were specially designed "concentration camps". Do you have no concept of what != means, or are you really just that thick? Just because some concentration camps are death camps does not mean that all of them are. Concentration camp is defined as "a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined". Harsh treatment is not required to fit the definition. By this definition, Gitmo is most definitely a concentration camp.
This is not a court matter. Any situation where the government detains someone is a court matter. Detainment in avoidance of the legal system is, by definition, kidnapping - a federal crime.
Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Stop trying to equate people detained with no charges brought against them with war criminals. Actual war criminals get trials.
Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. I suggest you try reading the constitution some time instead of just thinking you know what it doesn't say.
In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. [...] All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic. And these actions were wrong. They shouldn't have done it. Bringing up past wrongs does not make present ones any less wrong themselves.
Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Bush acted against people who were vaguely accused of vague crimes by people who may or may not have had a grudge against them, and where little or no evidence beyond the base accusation existed.
Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar. Then you are not familiar with many legal theories.
Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened. How about the Constitution? The Constitution sets limits on the government, and only in very few and specific situations does it specify that those limits only apply to US citizens.
1: That's factually incorrect. Dozens have been charged in their home countries. Charged with what, exactly? And with what evidence? If the US had that evidence, and it was valid enough to stand up in a US court, and not just in some third-world kangaroo court, why were they released? Also, even if all these "dozens" of people were actually guilty, exactly what percent of the total released detainees was that? What's our guilty:innocent ratio here?
2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least. And once again, you refuse to accept that "concentration camp" != "death camp". The camps we sent Japanese-Americans to in WWII were considered "concentration camps", and they were a hell of a lot nicer place than Gitmo.
3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? The possibility that one or two of the hundreds of detainees might do something like that in the future is not justification to hold everyone remotely suspected indefinitely. That is not justice, that is tyranny. Besides, I'd say the dots aren't that hard to connect: Take hundreds of random persons. Kidnap and torture for a period of several years. Release. Expect no ill will, and certainly no reprisals from any of them.
Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.
If violating the terms of a GPL agreement is wrong, then violating terms of a commercial EULA is wrong, too. These are two entirely different situations. The law gives the purchaser of an item complete control over what they do with their purchase, beyond making copies that violate copyright law (i.e. you can resell, disassemble, or do whatever you want besides make copies and sell them).
EULA: Attempting to enforce further stipulations upon your use of the product after the time of purchase, adding restrictions in addition to standard legal protections without granting any additional benefit to the purchaser. GPL: No further stipulations added beyond standard "sale" of item. However, it will reduce restrictions on standard legal protections as long as you agree to certain limitations.
EULAs unilaterally add restrictions after the fact, and are not enforced by law if you don't agree to them. The GPL grants you rights in addition to what you are allowed under the law, but you are not required to accept these additional rights. These are two completely different situations, and supporting one without supporting the other is not hypocritical in any way.
content companies shouldn't seek a secure p2p distribution channel. They should realize that their business model is now outdated and that now they will have to find other ways of making money than by charging for copies of their content. Now you're just being naive. People want stuff, and (most) people are willing to pay for their stuff. The current download-illegally-from-the-internet trend would shrink dramatically if there were another way for people to get the content just as conveniently, and at what they considered a reasonable price. You can already see this trend just by looking at the success of iTunes (and I hardly consider that reasonably priced).
If someone were to come out with a p2p service providing A-grade content, DRM-free, at a price cheaper than buying the CD/DVD/etc., I think people would be more than willing to pay for it.
After MPAA got Bram Cohen and the UTorrent guy on their pockets, it was a matter of time until they tried to pull such stunts. [...] they could sell access to their content using the bittorrent protocol and nobody would be able to join the swarm without paying. ...and that's a bad thing why, exactly? Content companies receive a secure p2p distribution channel, and the rest of us receive a 100% bulletproof example of how p2p is not "just for illegal files". Sounds like win-win to me.
The problem we have is that if you win, and Valve fold, allow all these Russian or Thai copies to be activated in the U.S., they're going to have to raise the prices in these poorer countries to reduce the incentive for importers, essentially locking out financially anyone who genuinely wanted a localised copy for a fair price. Or, they could do what they do in the US: Release the game at price X, then slowly lower the price over the course of time. They could even offer it in Thailand or wherever at a discount if they really wanted - just make that discount be about the same price as the shipping on it would be.
If you only save $4-5 buying something from overseas, 99.9% of people will just pay the couple of extra bucks to get it without having to worry about international shipments, customs, etc. It's when the price becomes $15+ difference that you really see people start considering this.
If Valve really wants to limit cheap-ass copies to particular regions, then they shouldn't put boxes into stores there; they should sell to those regions exclusively via direct-sale through Steam or their website - that way, they can check IPs as the purchases are made, and not have to worry about pissing people off like this.
Your comparison is a horrible one; the Mig 29 would not be legal for you to buy here, either, due to weapons restrictions. You could just as well say that you weren't allowed to import all that pot you bought in Amsterdam to the US.
Your example has nothing to do with it being from a foreign country. It is all about legality of the product in this country.
A sign can invoke a contract as a basis of entry. No, it cannot. It can inform you of the stated policy, but as it does not force you to sign anything or otherwise agree to what it states, the sign in and of itself is meaningless. Just because you read a contract does not mean you have agreed to the contract.
The store's own doors being "open to the public" is just as much of a contract as that sign is - they opened their doors as an offer to you to come in. After you accepted that one, you declined the other, but the first contract ("please come inside and shop") is in no way nullified by your refusal to accept the second.
If you don't agree to the store's policy, they have every right to refuse service - however, if they serve you without first verifying that you agreed to their policies, they cannot enforce those policies upon you.
Knowing it is CC's policy to check receipts, why else would he shop there other than to make a scene? Convenience, probably. Also, he is used to just walking out past those security guys at the door on a regular basis and not having any actual trouble occur.
You own the bag, as it was heavily implied that it was being given to you to keep. They gave the bag to you (usually without even asking), asked for no payment for it, and made no mention of even wanting its return, let alone requiring it. All that adds up to either "gift" or "considered part of purchase".
That's still not active acceptance, because it still involves no action on their part to the terms you proposed. Maybe, but neither is their putting a sign in their store proof of active acceptance on your part. Unless they can prove you read the sign and agreed to it, your T-shirt would have just as much legal weight as their signs do - it's something written that the other party may or may not have even read, and you definitely have no proof they agreed to. In order for them to claim that their policy applies to you in that case, they have to agree that your policy applies to them.
I imagine most fantasy fighters to use a sword and shield... a minority a two-handed weapon, and an even smaller minority two weapons. But the 3.X rules make it so it is just unplayable to be a sword-and-shield fighter - unless you don't mind losing out to the other fighters all the time. You only ever "lose out" to the other fighters in terms of damage output - with a +5 heavy shield you have an AC 7 points higher than other fighters. When you're fighting a Big Nasty(TM) that 35% extra miss chance can make a whole lot of difference. Also, no two-weapon fighter should be without a shield. They should always have either Improved Shield Bash or Improved Buckler Defense.
exact digital copies of the sourcebook material. Of course, why anyone who had the actual book might want that is beyond me, unless maybe their primary computer was a laptop or they traveled a lot. I'll give you a hint: Ctrl+F
Also, there's the ease of use/lookup - instead of a stack of books taking up space, and several more spread out on your desk, you just have a couple of windows open on your screen.
Copy & paste the text of any complex spells/feats/items/abilities into a word processor and you end up with a nice, compact list of what your character can do - and not have to lug around 50 pounds of books so you can look them up later.
If your group always concentrated on two-weapon fighting, it sounds like you were min-maxing damage, but still choosing suboptimal options. If you're going for a survivable tank, you make use of a shield (even more-so now with all the Magic Item Compendium goodness); if you want to dish out the damage, you take a two-handed weapon and power attack. The only reasons to use two-weapon fighting are: (1) if you have sneak attack or similar damage-adding mechanics on your character; (2) use of Tactical or Weapon Style feats that give you an ability you want (still sub-optimal from a feat-cost standpoint); or (3) role-playing/style reasons.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it. This quote from the story makes it sound like they're going to start the plot over from scratch: "The idea is to relaunch the brand in a new way." Personally, I wish they'd finish out the original series, especially since they already had the ending written.
Oh well, here's hoping that the new movies kick as much ass as season 3 did, although the lack of all the original writers makes me worried...
Only one can make a call from one number at a time. They missed entirely using ports on a router so multiple users behind a router can make a call all at once from the same phone number. The number does not identify the individual any more than call from the political campaign center identifies the individual making the call. You may try to call them back and sue the individual for harrassment, but identifying the individual by the phone number is a problem. Actually, I would say IP = phone number is a perfect analogy, and fits precisely with your logic. How? Look at any company with a large phone system, such as corporate offices, call centers, or (most familiar to most people) hotels. There are dozens if not hundreds of calls coming and going simultaneously - all of which connect through the same phone number. If you receive a call from someone inside one of these systems, you (usually) get the same number on caller ID regardless of who called you, or from what internal location. You can trace it back to the building's switchboard, but from there it is impossible to trace further from outside the system. Likewise, when you call to one of these systems, you call a general number and any further routing is done by the system on the other end by giving either a name or extension number (analogous to a port number).
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are you smiling?
If it works for South American dictators, it should be good enough for the North American ones, too, eh? "concentration camp" != "death camp"
Wrong again. The "death camps" were specially designed "concentration camps". Do you have no concept of what != means, or are you really just that thick?
Just because some concentration camps are death camps does not mean that all of them are. Concentration camp is defined as "a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined". Harsh treatment is not required to fit the definition. By this definition, Gitmo is most definitely a concentration camp.
Also, even if all these "dozens" of people were actually guilty, exactly what percent of the total released detainees was that? What's our guilty:innocent ratio here? 2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least. And once again, you refuse to accept that "concentration camp" != "death camp". The camps we sent Japanese-Americans to in WWII were considered "concentration camps", and they were a hell of a lot nicer place than Gitmo. 3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? The possibility that one or two of the hundreds of detainees might do something like that in the future is not justification to hold everyone remotely suspected indefinitely. That is not justice, that is tyranny.
Besides, I'd say the dots aren't that hard to connect: Take hundreds of random persons. Kidnap and torture for a period of several years. Release. Expect no ill will, and certainly no reprisals from any of them.
Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.
EULA: Attempting to enforce further stipulations upon your use of the product after the time of purchase, adding restrictions in addition to standard legal protections without granting any additional benefit to the purchaser.
GPL: No further stipulations added beyond standard "sale" of item. However, it will reduce restrictions on standard legal protections as long as you agree to certain limitations.
EULAs unilaterally add restrictions after the fact, and are not enforced by law if you don't agree to them. The GPL grants you rights in addition to what you are allowed under the law, but you are not required to accept these additional rights. These are two completely different situations, and supporting one without supporting the other is not hypocritical in any way.
If someone were to come out with a p2p service providing A-grade content, DRM-free, at a price cheaper than buying the CD/DVD/etc., I think people would be more than willing to pay for it.
If you only save $4-5 buying something from overseas, 99.9% of people will just pay the couple of extra bucks to get it without having to worry about international shipments, customs, etc. It's when the price becomes $15+ difference that you really see people start considering this.
If Valve really wants to limit cheap-ass copies to particular regions, then they shouldn't put boxes into stores there; they should sell to those regions exclusively via direct-sale through Steam or their website - that way, they can check IPs as the purchases are made, and not have to worry about pissing people off like this.
Your comparison is a horrible one; the Mig 29 would not be legal for you to buy here, either, due to weapons restrictions. You could just as well say that you weren't allowed to import all that pot you bought in Amsterdam to the US.
Your example has nothing to do with it being from a foreign country. It is all about legality of the product in this country.
Blinker fluid and bumper belts are much more important to check.
I say we take off and nuke the website from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The store's own doors being "open to the public" is just as much of a contract as that sign is - they opened their doors as an offer to you to come in. After you accepted that one, you declined the other, but the first contract ("please come inside and shop") is in no way nullified by your refusal to accept the second.
If you don't agree to the store's policy, they have every right to refuse service - however, if they serve you without first verifying that you agreed to their policies, they cannot enforce those policies upon you.
You own the bag, as it was heavily implied that it was being given to you to keep.
They gave the bag to you (usually without even asking), asked for no payment for it, and made no mention of even wanting its return, let alone requiring it. All that adds up to either "gift" or "considered part of purchase".
I forgot that two wrongs actually do make a right (-wing politic).
Of course, why anyone who had the actual book might want that is beyond me, unless maybe their primary computer was a laptop or they traveled a lot. I'll give you a hint: Ctrl+F
Also, there's the ease of use/lookup - instead of a stack of books taking up space, and several more spread out on your desk, you just have a couple of windows open on your screen.
Copy & paste the text of any complex spells/feats/items/abilities into a word processor and you end up with a nice, compact list of what your character can do - and not have to lug around 50 pounds of books so you can look them up later.
If your group always concentrated on two-weapon fighting, it sounds like you were min-maxing damage, but still choosing suboptimal options. If you're going for a survivable tank, you make use of a shield (even more-so now with all the Magic Item Compendium goodness); if you want to dish out the damage, you take a two-handed weapon and power attack. The only reasons to use two-weapon fighting are: (1) if you have sneak attack or similar damage-adding mechanics on your character; (2) use of Tactical or Weapon Style feats that give you an ability you want (still sub-optimal from a feat-cost standpoint); or (3) role-playing/style reasons.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it. This quote from the story makes it sound like they're going to start the plot over from scratch: "The idea is to relaunch the brand in a new way." Personally, I wish they'd finish out the original series, especially since they already had the ending written.
Oh well, here's hoping that the new movies kick as much ass as season 3 did, although the lack of all the original writers makes me worried...