If they aren't selling it, they they are losing nothing when we pirate it. This in turn means that there is no damage to them, and thus no case against us.
Also, I think very few people would argue that it is immoral to videotape something off the TV and keep it indefinitely (although this is not usually legal, an overwhelming majority of people do it). As I pay no blank-media levy, (unlike in Canada etcetera), and have never completed a ratings survey, it makes no difference to the copyright holders if I record off the TV or download off the internet (I do not have a HDTV, so that argument is moot, and I always fast forward through the ads on videos). Thus, if you accept videotaping of TV content, it is nonsensical to argue that downloading the same content is not acceptable simply because you accessed it differently.
If they are selling it, but there are artificial barriers caused by legal restrictions on over-riding region coding and the like, then this could be argued to be an illegal restriction on free trade under WTO rules, although we all know that no-one with the money to fight such a case ever would.
This doesn't quite ring true, but it is irrelevant to my point above, so I'll ignore it.
How about: "Don't compete with a species of tool using, intelligent beings." Of course, they may provide the information my means of an object lesson.;-)
Not sure: since Neanderthals are usually depicted as being white, white supremacists could see them as evidence that non-whites are less human than cavemen. That would just make things worse.
Assuming the Neanderthals were as stupid as animals (which I don't expect was true), what would be the difference between cloning a one and cloning a pig? Pigs have been used to provide organs for humans, and there is no ethical difference between cloning a pig and breeding it naturally, so why would it matter if you clone a Neanderthal for his organs.
OTOH, if they were approximately human in intelligence, they should be given appropriate civil rights from the start.
You have forgotten the prokaryotes and protists. Think of all that they have suffered over the millions of years of oppression by the evil animals, their running-dog lakeys the plants and the heartless parasites that are the fungi.
Rise up, unicellular organisms! You have nothing to loose but your chains!
Why not, they've done it dozens of times previously. An ape, however, might be a bit of a major improvement, and would probably be seen as too intellectual by the average voter.
Rules should be enforced or repealed, not simply ignored as this harms the public's respect for the law and makes a mockery of the system.
For example, where I live, smoking is banned inside pubs, restaurants, etc. (it has been banned in shops and so on for a long time under H&S rules), but is permitted in beer gardens and other such outside areas. However, many pubs have beer gardens which have roofs, heating, and some even have complete walls made of roller blinds, which are rarely wound up even when police or, in one case I saw, the health minister, walked in. Whilst the letter of the law may be being obeyed, the intent is blatantly ignored.
When this sort of thing gets proposed in.AU, it is does include flaming, griefing, and trolling. People writing negative things about you would very likely be covered by existing libel/slander/defamation laws.
In most jurisdictions, retaliating within a certain limited time is considered/prima facie/ to be self -defence (in my own, it is 30s IIRC). They can still get you on a public order charge, but that is less severe.
A swift kick in the gonads is going to be more painful for the target, and even the weediest little runt is able to do it, especially if the target is not expecting it.
He has a PhD, not an MD. That means he isn't a medical doctor (or at least the ancestor post didn't specify that he was), so all of this subthread is nonsense.
I suspect it is partly related to the bikeshed problem, since everyone can post something vaguely sensible on a a non-tech story, but most people don't like getting modded down for posting something moronic when they don't know anything worthwhile.
OTOH, people who come here are mostly drawn by the tech aspect,so they are likely to read the comments in the hope of finding out something new and interesting.
In this case (of the story), is this breaking the 'rules'? What if Valve were legitimately going to give this guy a job? Sure, they're expecting him to get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean the offer is necessarily fake. What if Valve was feeling vigilante and decided to hire the guy, then report him to the FBI the next week? Hell, what if they hired him _without_ intending to turn him over, but the FBI discovered him on their own? Or maybe a disgruntled employee reported him?
All those situations end up in the same place: the guy's arrested by the FBI. Which cases should be illegal? Why does it even matter? That's why police can use tricks to get people. There's nothing to say what's good and what's bad except a jury in a civil suit. And because we, as a society, prefer not to let criminals roam freely, such cases usually fail.
If Valve really wanted to hire him, wouldn't they be able to refuse to press charges[0] against him?
[0] The terminology in the US might be different, but the idea would presumably exist.
Which raises another difference in that EU members may leave if they choose to without any repercussions other than a loss of the benefits that membership confers on them, as Greenland did in 1985.
Slashdot Mirror
If they aren't selling it, they they are losing nothing when we pirate it. This in turn means that there is no damage to them, and thus no case against us.
Also, I think very few people would argue that it is immoral to videotape something off the TV and keep it indefinitely (although this is not usually legal, an overwhelming majority of people do it). As I pay no blank-media levy, (unlike in Canada etcetera), and have never completed a ratings survey, it makes no difference to the copyright holders if I record off the TV or download off the internet (I do not have a HDTV, so that argument is moot, and I always fast forward through the ads on videos). Thus, if you accept videotaping of TV content, it is nonsensical to argue that downloading the same content is not acceptable simply because you accessed it differently.
If they are selling it, but there are artificial barriers caused by legal restrictions on over-riding region coding and the like, then this could be argued to be an illegal restriction on free trade under WTO rules, although we all know that no-one with the money to fight such a case ever would.
This doesn't quite ring true, but it is irrelevant to my point above, so I'll ignore it.
Now that you have made me aware of the sanctity of the human germ line, I'm going to do everything I can to protect these gametes.
If the Pythons hadn't already done that, you need to hand in your geek card at once.
How about: "Don't compete with a species of tool using, intelligent beings." ;-)
Of course, they may provide the information my means of an object lesson.
Let me make clear, I do not support this view, I am simply suggesting a worse (not worst, I'm not pessimistic enough) case scenario.
Not sure: since Neanderthals are usually depicted as being white, white supremacists could see them as evidence that non-whites are less human than cavemen. That would just make things worse.
Assuming the Neanderthals were as stupid as animals (which I don't expect was true), what would be the difference between cloning a one and cloning a pig? Pigs have been used to provide organs for humans, and there is no ethical difference between cloning a pig and breeding it naturally, so why would it matter if you clone a Neanderthal for his organs.
OTOH, if they were approximately human in intelligence, they should be given appropriate civil rights from the start.
You have forgotten the prokaryotes and protists. Think of all that they have suffered over the millions of years of oppression by the evil animals, their running-dog lakeys the plants and the heartless parasites that are the fungi.
Rise up, unicellular organisms! You have nothing to loose but your chains!
Why not, they've done it dozens of times previously. An ape, however, might be a bit of a major improvement, and would probably be seen as too intellectual by the average voter.
Furthermore, they can have a blacklist, which would be especially effective in a small town.
Rephrasing that might have been a good idea.
My phone's vibrator is quite loud, and is perfectly audible.
Rules should be enforced or repealed, not simply ignored as this harms the public's respect for the law and makes a mockery of the system.
For example, where I live, smoking is banned inside pubs, restaurants, etc. (it has been banned in shops and so on for a long time under H&S rules), but is permitted in beer gardens and other such outside areas. However, many pubs have beer gardens which have roofs, heating, and some even have complete walls made of roller blinds, which are rarely wound up even when police or, in one case I saw, the health minister, walked in. Whilst the letter of the law may be being obeyed, the intent is blatantly ignored.
The short vowels, especially 'a's, is a peculiarity of Melbournians and southern Victorians, and is less prominent closer to the River Murray.
The use of Americanisms is lower outside the eastern cities, although still far too common for my taste.
There is Electronic Frontiers Australia, which is a similar organisation, but I'm not sure if they are actually affiliated with the EFF or not.
That's the new cybermen. The old ones had become pure robot by the time the doctor met them, and had replaced their brains with computers.
When this sort of thing gets proposed in .AU, it is does include flaming, griefing, and trolling.
People writing negative things about you would very likely be covered by existing libel/slander/defamation laws.
In most jurisdictions, retaliating within a certain limited time is considered /prima facie/ to be self -defence (in my own, it is 30s IIRC). They can still get you on a public order charge, but that is less severe.
A swift kick in the gonads is going to be more painful for the target, and even the weediest little runt is able to do it, especially if the target is not expecting it.
He has a PhD, not an MD. That means he isn't a medical doctor (or at least the ancestor post didn't specify that he was), so all of this subthread is nonsense.
Oh, all right then, call it +NaN.
ITYM TB, not Tb. There is a factor of 8 difference, and I think you would be very unhappy to get a Tb HDD when you paid for a TB one.
I suspect it is partly related to the bikeshed problem, since everyone can post something vaguely sensible on a a non-tech story, but most people don't like getting modded down for posting something moronic when they don't know anything worthwhile.
OTOH, people who come here are mostly drawn by the tech aspect,so they are likely to read the comments in the hope of finding out something new and interesting.
In this case (of the story), is this breaking the 'rules'? What if Valve were legitimately going to give this guy a job? Sure, they're expecting him to get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean the offer is necessarily fake. What if Valve was feeling vigilante and decided to hire the guy, then report him to the FBI the next week? Hell, what if they hired him _without_ intending to turn him over, but the FBI discovered him on their own? Or maybe a disgruntled employee reported him?
All those situations end up in the same place: the guy's arrested by the FBI. Which cases should be illegal? Why does it even matter? That's why police can use tricks to get people. There's nothing to say what's good and what's bad except a jury in a civil suit. And because we, as a society, prefer not to let criminals roam freely, such cases usually fail.
If Valve really wanted to hire him, wouldn't they be able to refuse to press charges[0] against him?
[0] The terminology in the US might be different, but the idea would presumably exist.
They wanted to keep the union together
Which raises another difference in that EU members may leave if they choose to without any repercussions other than a loss of the benefits that membership confers on them, as Greenland did in 1985.
US states have this right, in the Constitution.
Arrgh! it is "hear, hear", as in listen, not "here, here".