I'm not equating copyright infringment with stealing, It's the breaking the law because the producer of something doesn't price it at a point you like part I'm commenting on.
Sure they might even make more money selling more copies at a lower unit price. But it's their product so they get to choose the price point, and if it's higher than you think it's worth then you do without it.
So you know their claim that they reused some software from another google project without noticing it recorded more than what they actually cared about is false?
And you know that the programmer who did so either didn't realize at all or didn't just think "who cares if it wastes resources grabbing that stuff it's minuscule and we can just not use it" and just used it without mentioning it to anyone?
Are you omniscient? Or do you just spend your life spying on google?
The topic is health insurance. Insurance companies are not usually retarded, if they are charging smokers more it is because the stats tell them that smokers will cost them more. Or the market is uncompetitive - though smoking appears, to me at least, to bring forward health problems that are expensive.
That matters to the insurance company, they don't care if you get cancer after you've retired and no longer have coverage with them. They do care if you get it while you are still covered by them...
Any impact on taxes and pensions is completely irrelevant to the insurance company.
I'm pretty sure if BP could put the oil pouring out of the well "on hold" while they did their "internal audit" no one would care.
Seriously, you can't see the difference between something that is outside the control of the company (BP haven't stopped the oil spilling even though they want to) and something that is (google has stopped collecting said data, for now anyway)?
But as I've said before BP is doing all the can to fix the problem, they are drilling a relief well. But people don't want to be told "there is nothing we can do except wait a few months while we drill" so they are trying ever more ludicrous ideas out. None of which they expect to work at all, it's just to satisfy the "you have to do something" crowd - though of course they might get lucky.
What fucking difference does it matter to Americans in Wisconsin if money is spent to build rail between Baltimore and Yonkers instead of building road between Baltimore and Yonkers????
But that's a law in your country applying to you when you are outside of your country. That's perfectly normal - US tax laws apply to US citizens outside the US for example.
That is fundamentally different from a country you are not in and not a citizen of acting as if its laws apply to you. Which is what is being asked.
So since there are poker shows on TV, poker players are also working producing entertainment? And why is the direct entertainment provided by gamblers to the people they are playing with not a valid product? And why is me paying $100 to play poker for an evening immoral while me paying $100 to eat at a restaurant isn't?
How is equity in that company different from debt from the same company? In both cases the company is using the money for something, and paying out something to the original (or to whom the paper has been sold to) owner of the money. So why is charging interest immoral but claiming a dividend not? I'm not doing any work in either case - I'm just being compensated for risk. At least debt is closed ended, at some point the debt is paid off. Equity is never ending.
And why are unemployment benefits not immoral - it certainly "gives people money in exchange for no work". The person mightn't be willfully unemployed, but they are willfully claiming the benefits even though they know they aren't working.
So because there's a good chance of fraud on "server's in some other country" and they can't be raided or audited, the solution is to force all of the operators to be outside the country. Rather than say, allowing gambling on servers based in the US that are audited and regulated by the US?
Australia couldn't give a shit about the laws in your country. You are in their country, all that matters is their laws - if you don't like that don't go there.
Just like always, you don't bring such data across borders. America is one of the worst offenders in this anyway, so it's far more likely your laptop will get seized at the US end on your way back.
They are a sovereign nation (OK lets ignore that Queen they have in living on the other side of the planet) can outlaw whatever art they feel like. They can cut off the hand of someone who breaks their laws and they can send someone break rocks in jail for breaking their laws.
That they are a democracy only further legitimizes their authority to do so.
1. It would be directed, allowing it to create things that evolution just wouldn't. 2. Nature doesn't have a great track record itself so adding yet more adds more risk. I'm sure all the life that did exist before cyanobacteria evolved and killed everything else buy spewing out toxic oxygen would have prefered a bit less unsupervised genetic twidling...
But don't get me wrong, I think this is great stuff and we should keep on doing it.
Now I realize this is slashdot and people don't read the articles, or even the summaries sometimes. But I think we can assume they read the fucking title.
It's still offered as license. Since it's offered as an option with a BSD license it doesn't really matter, but if the software was actually valuable and other license more restrictive making such a joke could end up costing you when someone tries to get a court to strip bits out and just leave "you can have it all"...
Some people have access to data before everyone else and get to inject orders in reaction to that data before everyone else even sees it.
In doing so they take profits from others who don't have access to the data early.
But it'll fix itself, at some point people get fed up enough with it and don't bother dealing with such a biased market. For now it's a money printing machine for those on the inside.
Fair enough. In my defense I thought we were talking about oil derived stuff.
But when they burn under water are they really doing to by using O like O2? I would expect them to be reacting with OH - then again I haven't looked at a chemistry book for 15 years...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not equating copyright infringment with stealing, It's the breaking the law because the producer of something doesn't price it at a point you like part I'm commenting on.
Sure they might even make more money selling more copies at a lower unit price. But it's their product so they get to choose the price point, and if it's higher than you think it's worth then you do without it.
And I'd gladly pay $42 for a new 2010 Mercedes E350.
I really don't get it. Make cars cheap enough and the problem goes away. But they don't so I'm forced to steal cars.
It's a stupid metric, even stupider than normal:
Carlton Towers Apartments - 30 stories and 248 feet high.
Al Faisaliyah Center - 30 stories and 875 feet high.
So you know their claim that they reused some software from another google project without noticing it recorded more than what they actually cared about is false?
And you know that the programmer who did so either didn't realize at all or didn't just think "who cares if it wastes resources grabbing that stuff it's minuscule and we can just not use it" and just used it without mentioning it to anyone?
Are you omniscient? Or do you just spend your life spying on google?
The topic is health insurance. Insurance companies are not usually retarded, if they are charging smokers more it is because the stats tell them that smokers will cost them more. Or the market is uncompetitive - though smoking appears, to me at least, to bring forward health problems that are expensive.
That matters to the insurance company, they don't care if you get cancer after you've retired and no longer have coverage with them. They do care if you get it while you are still covered by them...
Any impact on taxes and pensions is completely irrelevant to the insurance company.
I'm pretty sure if BP could put the oil pouring out of the well "on hold" while they did their "internal audit" no one would care.
Seriously, you can't see the difference between something that is outside the control of the company (BP haven't stopped the oil spilling even though they want to) and something that is (google has stopped collecting said data, for now anyway)?
But as I've said before BP is doing all the can to fix the problem, they are drilling a relief well. But people don't want to be told "there is nothing we can do except wait a few months while we drill" so they are trying ever more ludicrous ideas out. None of which they expect to work at all, it's just to satisfy the "you have to do something" crowd - though of course they might get lucky.
because people go to the bathroom instead of wearing diapers.
And don't think about those lazy workers who think they should sleep at night.
Because we live to work! Recreation is evil!
You only feel guilt when someone knows you did something wrong*, not just when you do something wrong*?
I hope "don't want to make other people feel bad" would be a better description.
* Not that unfriending someone on a website is "wrong" in the first place, but that's already being implied by using the word "guilt".
What fucking difference does it matter to Americans in Wisconsin if money is spent to build rail between Baltimore and Yonkers instead of building road between Baltimore and Yonkers????
wealth AND power. Not wealth OR power.
A geek knows the difference.
But that's a law in your country applying to you when you are outside of your country. That's perfectly normal - US tax laws apply to US citizens outside the US for example.
That is fundamentally different from a country you are not in and not a citizen of acting as if its laws apply to you. Which is what is being asked.
So since there are poker shows on TV, poker players are also working producing entertainment? And why is the direct entertainment provided by gamblers to the people they are playing with not a valid product? And why is me paying $100 to play poker for an evening immoral while me paying $100 to eat at a restaurant isn't?
How is equity in that company different from debt from the same company? In both cases the company is using the money for something, and paying out something to the original (or to whom the paper has been sold to) owner of the money. So why is charging interest immoral but claiming a dividend not? I'm not doing any work in either case - I'm just being compensated for risk. At least debt is closed ended, at some point the debt is paid off. Equity is never ending.
And why are unemployment benefits not immoral - it certainly "gives people money in exchange for no work". The person mightn't be willfully unemployed, but they are willfully claiming the benefits even though they know they aren't working.
So because there's a good chance of fraud on "server's in some other country" and they can't be raided or audited, the solution is to force all of the operators to be outside the country. Rather than say, allowing gambling on servers based in the US that are audited and regulated by the US?
That seems just a little backwards.
Gambling gives people money in exchange for no work, just like usury. Both are inherently immoral, even though they may have their uses.
So professional sports are immoral? I'm immoral because I collect dividends on some stocks? Short term unemployment benefits are immoral?
Australia couldn't give a shit about the laws in your country. You are in their country, all that matters is their laws - if you don't like that don't go there.
Just like always, you don't bring such data across borders. America is one of the worst offenders in this anyway, so it's far more likely your laptop will get seized at the US end on your way back.
They are a sovereign nation (OK lets ignore that Queen they have in living on the other side of the planet) can outlaw whatever art they feel like. They can cut off the hand of someone who breaks their laws and they can send someone break rocks in jail for breaking their laws.
That they are a democracy only further legitimizes their authority to do so.
1. It would be directed, allowing it to create things that evolution just wouldn't.
2. Nature doesn't have a great track record itself so adding yet more adds more risk. I'm sure all the life that did exist before cyanobacteria evolved and killed everything else buy spewing out toxic oxygen would have prefered a bit less unsupervised genetic twidling...
But don't get me wrong, I think this is great stuff and we should keep on doing it.
"Accused" is in the title.
Now I realize this is slashdot and people don't read the articles, or even the summaries sometimes. But I think we can assume they read the fucking title.
So?
It's still offered as license. Since it's offered as an option with a BSD license it doesn't really matter, but if the software was actually valuable and other license more restrictive making such a joke could end up costing you when someone tries to get a court to strip bits out and just leave "you can have it all"...
Because it's fundamentally unfair.
Some people have access to data before everyone else and get to inject orders in reaction to that data before everyone else even sees it.
In doing so they take profits from others who don't have access to the data early.
But it'll fix itself, at some point people get fed up enough with it and don't bother dealing with such a biased market. For now it's a money printing machine for those on the inside.
have estimated the volume of the Earth where liquid water can exist, and calculated that life inhabits as little as 12% of it.
And what about the volume of Earth where liquid water can not exist, what percentage of that is inhabited by life?
Fair enough. In my defense I thought we were talking about oil derived stuff.
But when they burn under water are they really doing to by using O like O2? I would expect them to be reacting with OH - then again I haven't looked at a chemistry book for 15 years...
But not because the O in H2O acts as O2...
I'm sure the scientists who wrote the paper never even considered that before submitting the article for peer review.
as he gave back the passports and papers
So he took your passport!!!
I hope you also went on a crying to the media about the abuse.