The precautionary principle: We should not vaccinate children because it is possible the vaccines will interfere with the natural development of their immune systems/etc.
Why do you think it is impossible for somebody to see being able to sell their invention/music rights to someone else as an incentive to create said works.
Being able to sell something seems to work fine as an incentive to make such things in lots of other areas.
Maybe in whatever jurisdiction you are in. Most other places have things below "negligent homicide" namely voluntary manslaughter which applies to many cases of "deliberately causing harm in a manner that results in a death", and hence your classification range is false. That the link being discussed is such a case should have made that pretty obvious.
It's not just falsely labelling some goods, there's the money laundering part and the falsely obtaining citizenship part - both of which probably account for some of that sentence.
And I'm pretty sure that that lieing on the citizenship part ruling is worse than the 5 years in jail - she gets deported back to China the day she is released from prison (well "released from prison" really just means "custody transfered to ICE" in that case).
That link is the "Sure I intentionally punched him in the head, but I didn't expect him to die from it" variety. Which hopefully is as bad as manslughter gets before being called murder.
I'm sure they don't care. The guy worrying abou the police finding his unregistered car in the parking lot likely isn't that big a spender and you likely don't want him getting store credit either.
The Solar System is a specific place and not just the star system you happen to be in (well it does happen to be the one you are in right now, but assuming you managed to get to different one...).
just because my bank sent my bank statement to your house by accident, that does not give you the right to read or open it (at least not via post in the UK)
Which has nothing to do with email and domain squatting and so on.
If my name is Bill Smith and I live at 12 Station St and your bank decides to send your bank statement to me addressed as:
Bill Smith 12 Station St.
Then surely it can not be against the law for me open the letter? How do I know it isn't for me before I open it?
With physical goods, like a book, I suspect they could legally demand the book be returned (although, who's going to hire a lawyer and go to court over a $10 book).
I can suspect that all you want. You'd still be wrong.
If it were something sufficiently valuable for it to be "worth it", though, they could probably demand it be returned. I mean, mailing something to you doesn't make you the 'owner' - netflix mails me DVDs, but I don't "own them", and must return them.
You have an agreement with netflix before they sent them that you would return them. If netflix sent you some DVDs to someone who hadn't requested them out of the blue, then that person now owns those DVDs.
If they addressed it to me i'm pretty sure it does - or am I supposed to use magical powers to determine I should open that piece of mail with my name and my address on it?
This is not "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bill Jones at 14 Station St" It is not even "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bill Jones at 12 Station St". This is "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bob Smith at 12 Station St".
Sure the sender screwed up an actually meant to send it to Bill, but are you seriously saying Bob is going to be breaking the law by opening it.
And that could happen with physical mail - it's not such a stretch to put the a letter in the wrong envelope. I'm sure someone somewhere has sent TIm's wedding invitation to Jane because they screwed up when putting 200 personalised invites into 200 addressed envelopes. Or a letter printer and envelope printer got out of sync in some automated setup.
And what do you think the speculators use to determine prices? That's right, they make a judgement as to the long-term prospects of the company. In fact, they freely give out this information for everyone, for free. If you didn't have a market in a company, (suppose it's a privately owned restaurant) you'd have to do a lot of legwork figuring out what it was worth.
No they don't. They determine prices by making a judgement on what others will think the stock will be worth in 5 minutes/5 hours/5 days/5 weeks/5 months time.
It is perfectly normal for a speculator to buy something they think is will be worth $5 in the long term for $15 today because they also think that someone else is going to pay $20 for it tomorrow.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that the long term valuation of something is what they are judging.
Issueing new stock would be far more difficult without a functioning market for trading existing stock. So that secondary market is important for the issuing of new stock.
And of course the companies are the objects being traded - the beneficiaries are the owners not the companies.
because Comodo's announced the problem and revoked the bad certificates within minutes of them being created. Whereas DigiNotar did nothing for a month.
CAs are all about trust, sure Comodo showed they have some problems but also that they do the right thing when shit happens. DigiNotar showed they are completely untrustworthy - security breaches happen the ignoring them bit is unforgivable for an entity whose role is solely about trust.
Yes "if you do the things that make you X, you will be X". After all that's what "things that make you X" means by definition.
The problen is there us no X that will make you rich univerally. That garbage book is just full of things that happened to work in one particular time frame (along with the completely made up). How did all the people who took his advice and invested in real estate in 2006 do?
No it isn't. Maye you should try reading it first? Or repeat that CS intro class again and maybe pay attention this time?
You could easily write numerous recursive algorithms to give the end result of splitting all large ompanies into smaller companies with 300 or less employeed, but what was described is not one of them.
How do you split a company with 2000 employees into two companies each of wihch have at most 300 employees?
Sack 1400 people at random?
And wow, way to push those who are currently working two jobs to make ends meet into complete poverty. Great way to encourage people to save for the future, tax 90% of their interest earnings. And anyone who is a little risk averse and wants to start up their own local business but in case it doesn't work wants to do so part time while keeping a normal job to pay the bills - screw them how dare they try do anything but work for some rich guy's existing business better take 90% of their earnings to make sure they fail.
And in this particular domain even the customer doesn't care.
Sure I could spend more of my time and money finding and using the CA with the best security practices. But when the cheap-n-nasty is hacked to generate (or just hands out due to their lack of checking) a cert for my domain to someone else that the CA I chose wasn't hacked is completely irrelevant. I've gained nothing by choosing the more secure provider.
Slashdot Mirror
So add "harmful" to the sentence. Was that so hard to do yourself?
The precautionary principle: We should not vaccinate children because it is possible the vaccines will interfere with the natural development of their immune systems/etc.
Nope.
It's just a name defined by law, and that law doesn't use such a restrictive definition: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1956.html
None of that seems to imply that allowing someone to sell something can't act as an incentive for that someone to make that something.
And that's mutually exclusive, why?
Sure in the US that's the reason for the Federal Government being granted the power to do such things. But is that the case in the EU?
Why do you think it is impossible for somebody to see being able to sell their invention/music rights to someone else as an incentive to create said works.
Being able to sell something seems to work fine as an incentive to make such things in lots of other areas.
Maybe in whatever jurisdiction you are in. Most other places have things below "negligent homicide" namely voluntary manslaughter which applies to many cases of "deliberately causing harm in a manner that results in a death", and hence your classification range is false. That the link being discussed is such a case should have made that pretty obvious.
It's not just falsely labelling some goods, there's the money laundering part and the falsely obtaining citizenship part - both of which probably account for some of that sentence.
And I'm pretty sure that that lieing on the citizenship part ruling is worse than the 5 years in jail - she gets deported back to China the day she is released from prison (well "released from prison" really just means "custody transfered to ICE" in that case).
That link is the "Sure I intentionally punched him in the head, but I didn't expect him to die from it" variety. Which hopefully is as bad as manslughter gets before being called murder.
I'm sure they don't care. The guy worrying abou the police finding his unregistered car in the parking lot likely isn't that big a spender and you likely don't want him getting store credit either.
Nope.
The Solar System is a specific place and not just the star system you happen to be in (well it does happen to be the one you are in right now, but assuming you managed to get to different one...).
They aren't exoplanets, and hence not a precedent.
I was only respinding to this part:
just because my bank sent my bank statement to your house by accident, that does not give you the right to read or open it (at least not via post in the UK)
Which has nothing to do with email and domain squatting and so on.
If my name is Bill Smith and I live at 12 Station St and your bank decides to send your bank statement to me addressed as:
Bill Smith
12 Station St.
Then surely it can not be against the law for me open the letter? How do I know it isn't for me before I open it?
With physical goods, like a book, I suspect they could legally demand the book be returned (although, who's going to hire a lawyer and go to court over a $10 book).
I can suspect that all you want. You'd still be wrong.
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/MailFraud/fraudschemes/othertypes/UnsolicitedFraud.aspx
If it were something sufficiently valuable for it to be "worth it", though, they could probably demand it be returned. I mean, mailing something to you doesn't make you the 'owner' - netflix mails me DVDs, but I don't "own them", and must return them.
You have an agreement with netflix before they sent them that you would return them. If netflix sent you some DVDs to someone who hadn't requested them out of the blue, then that person now owns those DVDs.
If they addressed it to me i'm pretty sure it does - or am I supposed to use magical powers to determine I should open that piece of mail with my name and my address on it?
This is not "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bill Jones at 14 Station St" It is not even "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bill Jones at 12 Station St". This is "Bob Smith at 12 Station St" getting mail addressed to "Bob Smith at 12 Station St".
Sure the sender screwed up an actually meant to send it to Bill, but are you seriously saying Bob is going to be breaking the law by opening it.
And that could happen with physical mail - it's not such a stretch to put the a letter in the wrong envelope. I'm sure someone somewhere has sent TIm's wedding invitation to Jane because they screwed up when putting 200 personalised invites into 200 addressed envelopes. Or a letter printer and envelope printer got out of sync in some automated setup.
And what do you think the speculators use to determine prices? That's right, they make a judgement as to the long-term prospects of the company. In fact, they freely give out this information for everyone, for free. If you didn't have a market in a company, (suppose it's a privately owned restaurant) you'd have to do a lot of legwork figuring out what it was worth.
No they don't. They determine prices by making a judgement on what others will think the stock will be worth in 5 minutes/5 hours/5 days/5 weeks/5 months time.
It is perfectly normal for a speculator to buy something they think is will be worth $5 in the long term for $15 today because they also think that someone else is going to pay $20 for it tomorrow.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that the long term valuation of something is what they are judging.
Issueing new stock would be far more difficult without a functioning market for trading existing stock. So that secondary market is important for the issuing of new stock.
And of course the companies are the objects being traded - the beneficiaries are the owners not the companies.
because Comodo's announced the problem and revoked the bad certificates within minutes of them being created. Whereas DigiNotar did nothing for a month.
CAs are all about trust, sure Comodo showed they have some problems but also that they do the right thing when shit happens. DigiNotar showed they are completely untrustworthy - security breaches happen the ignoring them bit is unforgivable for an entity whose role is solely about trust.
Because there was no sarcasm being used.
What a completely useless tautology.
Yes "if you do the things that make you X, you will be X". After all that's what "things that make you X" means by definition.
The problen is there us no X that will make you rich univerally. That garbage book is just full of things that happened to work in one particular time frame (along with the completely made up). How did all the people who took his advice and invested in real estate in 2006 do?
No it isn't. Maye you should try reading it first? Or repeat that CS intro class again and maybe pay attention this time?
You could easily write numerous recursive algorithms to give the end result of splitting all large ompanies into smaller companies with 300 or less employeed, but what was described is not one of them.
How do you split a company with 2000 employees into two companies each of wihch have at most 300 employees?
Sack 1400 people at random?
And wow, way to push those who are currently working two jobs to make ends meet into complete poverty. Great way to encourage people to save for the future, tax 90% of their interest earnings. And anyone who is a little risk averse and wants to start up their own local business but in case it doesn't work wants to do so part time while keeping a normal job to pay the bills - screw them how dare they try do anything but work for some rich guy's existing business better take 90% of their earnings to make sure they fail.
Which is what I said, but repetition is never bad I guess.
And in this particular domain even the customer doesn't care.
Sure I could spend more of my time and money finding and using the CA with the best security practices. But when the cheap-n-nasty is hacked to generate (or just hands out due to their lack of checking) a cert for my domain to someone else that the CA I chose wasn't hacked is completely irrelevant. I've gained nothing by choosing the more secure provider.
So of course you have a race to the bottom...