My point is that copyright infringement still deprives the copyright holder of something they would have otherwise had without the infringement, the exclusivity of control over who may make copies, so the argument that it can't be theft because the copyright holder doesn't lose anything is invalid. I remain resolute in the notion that the only real reason that people object to calling copyright infringement "theft" is because they don't want to feel guilty about doing it, and they want to somehow rationalize to themselves that it's okay when they think that theft is still wrong. I would suggest that such people should better spend their efforts on explaining why such theft is actually morally justified than trying to call it something other than what it is.
First, when you infringe on copyright by electronic distribution nobody is claiming that any electrons are being stolen.... what is actually being stolen is a commensurate portion of the copyrighter's exclusive right to control who is allowed to copy the work... if someone is copying the work without permission, they are effectively permanently usurping that control from the copyright holder (since the copyright holder never actually regains any of the control over copying that was lost by unauthorized copying unless the unauthorized copy and all of its descendants are destroyed).
Now what is being stolen here is admittedly intangible, but that does not mean that it does not have a quantifiable value to the rights holder, and in this way copyright infringement fully meets the criteria of depriving the original holder of something, which is typically cited as an argument for why making a copy can't be considered stealing.
One may not agree that the rights holder should have those exclusive rights in the first place, but that does not alter the fact that the law recognizes that they do.
Infringing on copyright is theft. Convincing yourself otherwise is just rationalizing the behavior so that one can think they don't need to feel guilty about it. Honestly, I think they'd do well to just admit that they don't think that the rights holder ought to have those exclusive rights in the first place and say that they are just usurping the rights holder's rights on those grounds.... at least then they are being honest with themselves and with others.
The entire point of using the brake in an emergency is to slow down so that you can *give* your brain more time to figure out what is wrong and correct it. Obviously you don't brake on a skid, but you definitely shouldn't be trying to acellerate either. Again, the slower the car is moving, the better your position is going to be with regards to dealing with the situation. This was not a situation where she was under a skid however... this is a situation where a person swerved to avoid one thing she didn't expect and drove right into a situation that they had even less time to react to and exemplifies the very reason why swerving should *NEVER* be your goto response to seeing something on the road that you did not expect to see.
Obviously she should not have been driving drunk in the first place, but if people weren't so fucking obsessed with using the steering wheel as some sort of collision avoidance system and the instinctive response to seeing something you did not expect being to try and slow down, with skids alone being treated as a special case, then even when drunk she would have slowed down first before trying to pull over... and while the accident may have still occurred, at the lower speed it may not have killed both her and her passenger.
Slowing down when you see something that you don't expect is just part of defensive driving, and I think it's unfortunate that it isn't drilled into more young people as they are learning how to drive.
You don't try and steer while under heavy braking, you brake so that you give your brain more time to visually assess *WHERE* you can safely steer to. The fact that she steered the car right into a building and tree exemplifies the fact that swerving to avoid a coillision is generally the *WORST* thing you can do, because you haven't yet assessed whether where you are swerving to is actually any safer. In this case, she swerved into a situation that she had even *LESS* time to react to, whereas if she had slowed down first and *THEN* pulled over, she would have had more time to react before hitting anything on the side of the road.
If you are approaching something that you didn't expect to see, you should be slowing the fuck down, not trying to swerve away into god knows what. This gives your brain more time to assess the situation, and you can then try to *safely* and slowly pull over, because you can look for a safe place to move the car off to the side instead of pointing the car randomly at what may be something just as bad or maybe worse.
Of course she was drunk anyways, and her judgement was impaired which can prevent her from making rational decisions but if while she was being taught to drive it had been hammered into her brain that using the brake was to become the *instinctive response* to any unexpected situation while driving, then she probably wouldn't have been swerving into a tree in the first place.
... the billing address? While there can certainly be legitimate reasons for getting a credit card that is tied to a foreign bank, that foreign bank will still have your real address. Obviously one can work around this if you get a credit card that is tied to another country and manage to deceive the bank into believing that your billing address is in the same country as they are despite your permanent shipping address (which is where they are going to physically send the card in the first place) not being so, which involves committing fraud and may be criminally prosecutable. While it probably wouldn't solve all of Netflix grievances with wanting to block people from using their service to see content that the company hasn't got licensing for in that country, that policy alone would, I think, at least *tend* to minimize the number of people that might try to get away with it.
No... he is under the assumption that while such a segment of the population exists, it should not be an acceptable burden that those who are wanting to contribute productively should have to bear, since while it may be a minority, it is a sufficiently large one that the remainder of society would not be able to usefully uphold it over the long run without adversely affecting their own lifestyles as well.
.... for Americans in the first place? If a person is legally living in the USA, then they rightly should have about the same cost of living as an American and be entitled to the same lifestyle as anyone else doing the same job. Since where a person is from should not be a factor on whether a person is hired in the first place except to the extent that it may affect their ability to do the job, it should have absolutely *NO* effect on how much they are getting paid to do the job either. Doing so is grossly discriminatory, and employers that want to get away with this are no better than those involved in human slave trade, and in my view should be treated with equal contempt.
That's all very well and good if you get to choose which tasks you do. In my experience, developers on teams often get assigned certain responsibilities by the producer or manager of the project, and failure to complete those responsibilities in a timely fashion results automatically in a poor performance evaluation, unless the developer can readily show during their review that the difficulties they encountered would have equally impaired any of the others on the development team. If the developer took more time than allowed because they were fixing other people's bugs, that can be legitimate as long as they can show that those bugs needed to be fixed for them to complete the tasks that they were given.
I proposed the above metric on the assumption that all other things were equal, and assuming that all developers completed all of their assigned tasks in the requisite time.
So your proposed method of trying to game it would not work since the developer who tried it would not even get as far as being able to have any kind of useful metric to compare to others and would likely be let go because of their unproductivity.
This has a problem that if the bug is intentionally left there for somebody else to fix then it may be easy enough for another developer other than the one you are cooperating with to fix, so the person you are cooperating with may not get these easy bugs that you leave, and may thus not have any incentive to leave any for you. Further, intentionally leaving bugs in the code might also scream that you do not perform even the most basic rudimentary testing on your code before submitting it into the company's repository, and carries the risk of making you both look incompetent to a code reviewer, regardless of how many of the other's bugs that you fix.
That said, how would you game (bugs you fix - bugs in your code)/(total bug count)?
My bad... I forgot to parenthesize the i*pi in e^(i*pi)=-1, above... although it does not change the conclusion... I just did not correctly type the expression in that one equation.
i is the square root of -1, and so can be shown as just sqrt(-4/4), and given that e^i*pi=-1, you that means that i*pi=ln(-1), and so pi=ln(-1)/i, which can be rewritten as pi=ln(-4/4)/sqrt(-4/4)
I think he meant exactly what he said... Nothing less, nothing more.
So... yes. At least, that's how it read to me.
At the very least, you don't get to just arbitrarily change or remove some of the words that somebody was using to determine that is what they must have originally meant. Maybe you are right, but his argument did not read to me like that at all. I was just calling someone out for trying to put different words in someone's mouth than what was actually said.
I should think that the better solution for the employer is to not allow the applicant's country of origin to factor into the hiring decision at all except insomuch as it may affect their ability to be able to regularly come into work in the first place. If they are legally allowed to work in a country, then they should be treated entirely equal to anyone else who is legally able to work in the same country and has the same skillset.
You misunderstand my question. While some employers may indeed feel this way, it does not really address the underlying point. Why should an employee's nation of origin make any employer feel any differently about how much (or how little) the employee is entitled to? If it shouldn't then it seems like H1B salary restrictions could end up obligating employers to pay some of their employees unfairly.
Often, it's not so much that there are literally no single Americans that can fill the position as much as no single qualified American bothered to apply for the job when you were trying to fill the position.
Sure, but if you pay more, you are entitled to a refund, which will be sent back to you at tax-return time anyways, so it's a wash. May as well pay only what you owe, and use the money now instead of letting the government hold onto it for up to a year.
Of course, if you are only paying slightly more than you should, getting it back all at once right after you fill out your taxes can seem like a nice mini-windfall that can often be most welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that copyright infringement still deprives the copyright holder of something they would have otherwise had without the infringement, the exclusivity of control over who may make copies, so the argument that it can't be theft because the copyright holder doesn't lose anything is invalid. I remain resolute in the notion that the only real reason that people object to calling copyright infringement "theft" is because they don't want to feel guilty about doing it, and they want to somehow rationalize to themselves that it's okay when they think that theft is still wrong. I would suggest that such people should better spend their efforts on explaining why such theft is actually morally justified than trying to call it something other than what it is.
First, when you infringe on copyright by electronic distribution nobody is claiming that any electrons are being stolen.... what is actually being stolen is a commensurate portion of the copyrighter's exclusive right to control who is allowed to copy the work... if someone is copying the work without permission, they are effectively permanently usurping that control from the copyright holder (since the copyright holder never actually regains any of the control over copying that was lost by unauthorized copying unless the unauthorized copy and all of its descendants are destroyed).
Now what is being stolen here is admittedly intangible, but that does not mean that it does not have a quantifiable value to the rights holder, and in this way copyright infringement fully meets the criteria of depriving the original holder of something, which is typically cited as an argument for why making a copy can't be considered stealing.
One may not agree that the rights holder should have those exclusive rights in the first place, but that does not alter the fact that the law recognizes that they do.
Infringing on copyright is theft. Convincing yourself otherwise is just rationalizing the behavior so that one can think they don't need to feel guilty about it. Honestly, I think they'd do well to just admit that they don't think that the rights holder ought to have those exclusive rights in the first place and say that they are just usurping the rights holder's rights on those grounds.... at least then they are being honest with themselves and with others.
The entire point of using the brake in an emergency is to slow down so that you can *give* your brain more time to figure out what is wrong and correct it. Obviously you don't brake on a skid, but you definitely shouldn't be trying to acellerate either. Again, the slower the car is moving, the better your position is going to be with regards to dealing with the situation. This was not a situation where she was under a skid however... this is a situation where a person swerved to avoid one thing she didn't expect and drove right into a situation that they had even less time to react to and exemplifies the very reason why swerving should *NEVER* be your goto response to seeing something on the road that you did not expect to see.
Obviously she should not have been driving drunk in the first place, but if people weren't so fucking obsessed with using the steering wheel as some sort of collision avoidance system and the instinctive response to seeing something you did not expect being to try and slow down, with skids alone being treated as a special case, then even when drunk she would have slowed down first before trying to pull over... and while the accident may have still occurred, at the lower speed it may not have killed both her and her passenger.
Slowing down when you see something that you don't expect is just part of defensive driving, and I think it's unfortunate that it isn't drilled into more young people as they are learning how to drive.
You don't try and steer while under heavy braking, you brake so that you give your brain more time to visually assess *WHERE* you can safely steer to. The fact that she steered the car right into a building and tree exemplifies the fact that swerving to avoid a coillision is generally the *WORST* thing you can do, because you haven't yet assessed whether where you are swerving to is actually any safer. In this case, she swerved into a situation that she had even *LESS* time to react to, whereas if she had slowed down first and *THEN* pulled over, she would have had more time to react before hitting anything on the side of the road.
If you are approaching something that you didn't expect to see, you should be slowing the fuck down, not trying to swerve away into god knows what. This gives your brain more time to assess the situation, and you can then try to *safely* and slowly pull over, because you can look for a safe place to move the car off to the side instead of pointing the car randomly at what may be something just as bad or maybe worse.
Of course she was drunk anyways, and her judgement was impaired which can prevent her from making rational decisions but if while she was being taught to drive it had been hammered into her brain that using the brake was to become the *instinctive response* to any unexpected situation while driving, then she probably wouldn't have been swerving into a tree in the first place.
If it was brewed 5,000 years ago, I can't imagine it'd still be any good by now.
... the billing address? While there can certainly be legitimate reasons for getting a credit card that is tied to a foreign bank, that foreign bank will still have your real address. Obviously one can work around this if you get a credit card that is tied to another country and manage to deceive the bank into believing that your billing address is in the same country as they are despite your permanent shipping address (which is where they are going to physically send the card in the first place) not being so, which involves committing fraud and may be criminally prosecutable. While it probably wouldn't solve all of Netflix grievances with wanting to block people from using their service to see content that the company hasn't got licensing for in that country, that policy alone would, I think, at least *tend* to minimize the number of people that might try to get away with it.
No... he is under the assumption that while such a segment of the population exists, it should not be an acceptable burden that those who are wanting to contribute productively should have to bear, since while it may be a minority, it is a sufficiently large one that the remainder of society would not be able to usefully uphold it over the long run without adversely affecting their own lifestyles as well.
.... for Americans in the first place? If a person is legally living in the USA, then they rightly should have about the same cost of living as an American and be entitled to the same lifestyle as anyone else doing the same job. Since where a person is from should not be a factor on whether a person is hired in the first place except to the extent that it may affect their ability to do the job, it should have absolutely *NO* effect on how much they are getting paid to do the job either. Doing so is grossly discriminatory, and employers that want to get away with this are no better than those involved in human slave trade, and in my view should be treated with equal contempt.
That's all very well and good if you get to choose which tasks you do. In my experience, developers on teams often get assigned certain responsibilities by the producer or manager of the project, and failure to complete those responsibilities in a timely fashion results automatically in a poor performance evaluation, unless the developer can readily show during their review that the difficulties they encountered would have equally impaired any of the others on the development team. If the developer took more time than allowed because they were fixing other people's bugs, that can be legitimate as long as they can show that those bugs needed to be fixed for them to complete the tasks that they were given.
I proposed the above metric on the assumption that all other things were equal, and assuming that all developers completed all of their assigned tasks in the requisite time.
So your proposed method of trying to game it would not work since the developer who tried it would not even get as far as being able to have any kind of useful metric to compare to others and would likely be let go because of their unproductivity.
This has a problem that if the bug is intentionally left there for somebody else to fix then it may be easy enough for another developer other than the one you are cooperating with to fix, so the person you are cooperating with may not get these easy bugs that you leave, and may thus not have any incentive to leave any for you. Further, intentionally leaving bugs in the code might also scream that you do not perform even the most basic rudimentary testing on your code before submitting it into the company's repository, and carries the risk of making you both look incompetent to a code reviewer, regardless of how many of the other's bugs that you fix.
That said, how would you game (bugs you fix - bugs in your code) /(total bug count)?
The term is apt. It refers to charging via induction, and no conductive wires are necessary to run from the charger to the device.
My bad... I forgot to parenthesize the i*pi in e^(i*pi)=-1, above... although it does not change the conclusion... I just did not correctly type the expression in that one equation.
i is the square root of -1, and so can be shown as just sqrt(-4/4), and given that e^i*pi=-1, you that means that i*pi=ln(-1), and so pi=ln(-1)/i, which can be rewritten as pi=ln(-4/4)/sqrt(-4/4)
Actually, you can, if you allow complex arithmetic - ln(-4/4)/sqrt(-4/4)
Unconstitutional, I can understand, or even calling it just plain wrong, but unlawful?
I think he meant exactly what he said... Nothing less, nothing more.
So... yes. At least, that's how it read to me.
At the very least, you don't get to just arbitrarily change or remove some of the words that somebody was using to determine that is what they must have originally meant. Maybe you are right, but his argument did not read to me like that at all. I was just calling someone out for trying to put different words in someone's mouth than what was actually said.
He said *seems* to agree... I kinda think he has a point.
I should think that the better solution for the employer is to not allow the applicant's country of origin to factor into the hiring decision at all except insomuch as it may affect their ability to be able to regularly come into work in the first place. If they are legally allowed to work in a country, then they should be treated entirely equal to anyone else who is legally able to work in the same country and has the same skillset.
Not all employers see things that way.... really.
You misunderstand my question. While some employers may indeed feel this way, it does not really address the underlying point. Why should an employee's nation of origin make any employer feel any differently about how much (or how little) the employee is entitled to? If it shouldn't then it seems like H1B salary restrictions could end up obligating employers to pay some of their employees unfairly.
Why should I be obliged or inclined to pay a worker any more or less than I would pay an equally qualified one who was from somewhere elsee?
Often, it's not so much that there are literally no single Americans that can fill the position as much as no single qualified American bothered to apply for the job when you were trying to fill the position.
The employers that do not offer at least an annual cost-of living increase are not worth staying at any longer than it takes to find a better job.
Sure, but if you pay more, you are entitled to a refund, which will be sent back to you at tax-return time anyways, so it's a wash. May as well pay only what you owe, and use the money now instead of letting the government hold onto it for up to a year.
Of course, if you are only paying slightly more than you should, getting it back all at once right after you fill out your taxes can seem like a nice mini-windfall that can often be most welcome.