I do not confuse love with marriage, rather, I only presume that love should be a mandatory prerequisite for marriage. You can love someone without marrying them, but if you marry someone without loving them, that marriage is doomed from the start.
I remain firmly of the belief that the *ONLY* thing that a couple with any sincere desire to get married should ever be planning for with regards to being apart someday is if one of them dies before the other, and ensuring to the best of their ability that the surviving partner still has a means to carry on without them.
Talking about how assets should be divided in the event of infidelity places the importance of material possessions above that of the marriage itself, and I would suggest that someone who would ask for such a prenup has no business getting married in the first place, since they clearly do not understand what real love is.
Actually, without the qualifier of "some", the progressive present participle tense in the headline connotes that the observation reflects some kind of ongoing trend that is either expected to continue or increase. Misleading is putting it mildly.
Why should you need to prove infidelity to get a divorce? If one partner doesn't trust the other, the relationship is already done. Just sign the papers and make it official.
It's obvious to me that any one that would even consider this is already too far gone in how far they trust their significant other to remain a viable married couple.
The problem isn't drones... the problem is people flying them irresponsibly. The exact same situation could have happened, actually possibly even a more dangerous one, if the person had simply been flying an ordinary kite at that altitude. The problem isn't the drone, the problem was that he was flying one too friggen close to the airport, where he had no business flying *ANYTHING* in the first place.
Seriously... the drone operator clearly does not possess even the slightest bit of common sense to realize that flying something near an airport any higher than the buildings or lamp posts around you is going to at the very least jeopardize whatever it is you are flying.
Honestly, it could just as easily have been a kite flying there with no electronics involved whatsoever, and it would have been equally stupid, and certainly no less dangerous.
In fact, I think that the word 'drone' is superfluous in the headline, and suggests that an agenda is probably being sought to influence public opinion into thinking that the drones themselves are bad... instead of focusing on the real issue, which was that some imbecile was flying something too close to an airport when he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place!
I agree, but the law still allows for it, so the tariff is there. Yeah, it's a money grab, but what else is new? Living in Canada, I actually do happen to object to the blank media tariff as well, especially since the latest amendments to our copyright law which have jeopardized one's ability to legally even privately copy many modern works in the first place on account of potentially bypassing encryption, but I also don't feel any compulsion to want to pirate copyrighted content because of it either.
I don't know about other nations, but in Canada, the tariff blank CD's does not exist to cover piracy... although this does seem to be the popular perception. The official reason it exists here is to provide some compensation to copyright holders for private use copying.... nothing more, and nothing less. Of course, private copying of audio works is entirely legal in Canada, but the law also establishes that that copyright holders may still entitled to some compensation for it.
I would imagine that the standard for such disconnection would be considerably higher than hearsay.... presumably, actual guilt or innocence would be established by a court of law. If the MPAA isn't willing to put up with the waiting times for going through the legal system first, that's just too fucking bad for them.
Actually, that they practiced their religion in spite of the possible consequences, which included death would suggest that that they *were* religious.
... because of what you claim you believe has more importance than what you are doing yourself to advocate what you say you believe, then either you don't really believe in that religion, or else that religion is not worth anyone believing in the first place.
As the bill would technically outlaw thought... since thoughts cannot be reconstructed entirely in their original state afterwards since even the very act of remembering something can and often does make changes to how that thing is remembered.
Actually, more specifically the copyright is the right to *control* who else may make copies. If it were simply the right to make a copy, then a portion of that right would be implicitly surrendered whenever a copyright holder granted permission to anyone else to make even an entirely authorized copy, but that is not the case.
I'll reference fallacies by the name given in the ethicscoreboard.
1. One can't legally buy a copy. Piracy is the *only* option to watch it.
Woody's Excuse.
2. Artificial Scarcity. If a DVD/BluRay is not available in my region, piracy is simply more convenient
Tit for Tat.
3. They can't afford it.
And that somehow makes it right? Variation of the Saint's License.
4. If a borrow a movie from a library, watch it, and then return it this has the exact same effect as if I had borrowed a movie from the library, made a copy, returned the original, and watch my copy later, except the former is legal, yet the latter is "magically" illegal
Wrong.. the former did not infringe on the copyright holder's rights. The library did not make an unauthorized copy of the work for you to borrow.
5. Piracy is the delusion that "copying numbers is illegal". How stupid is Civilization when it has declared Illegal Numbers !?!?/sarcasm Those pesky Mathematicians! They are the cause of the downfall of society!
Copying something without permission that a rights holder was supposed to have exclusive rights to control copies is what is illegal. Exclusive means that nobody else is doing it, after all. If you disagree with this premise, then you advocate abolition of copyright.
Civil Disobedience is the only way to change to corrupt laws.And we're back to tit-for-tat. Also, wrong.... you can vote for representatives that will promote the kinds of laws that you want. Being too lazy or impatient to go that route does not mean that the route does not exist.
Almost every single rationalization or justification that I've ever heard for why a person might pirate, other than supporting the abolition of copyright entirely, can be found on the list of ethical fallacies, and it gives a person some measure of pause to at least carefully consider the premise that just because one *can* do something, does not necessarily mean that they *should*.
I'm probably going to modded into slashdot hell for saying this, but that these alleged studies that somehow show that piracy doesn't harm the sales of works are entirely irrelevant.... if one believes that copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it, even if they do not agree with the means by which it is being implemented. If you pirate, you either advocate the complete abolition of copyright or are a hypocrite. Period.
The ISP's should probably change their terms of service then... since they usually explicitly prohibit using their connection to do things that are illegal. I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?
This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.
For myself, that's the worst one... largely because it isn't even true. I endeavor to test everything I write before committing it to the repo, but I know I don't think of everything... including, unfortunately, the very first things that my boss's boss apparently tries to do with whatever I've written whenever he gets a new binary, leaving them with little impression but to think that any testing that I may have done was obviously too cursory to qualify as even the most rudimentary verification of code stability and correctness. What I've had to do is simply learn to think more like how he likes to do during first tests.... which isn't easy at all, and does not come naturally, but as I've been learning, the number of complaints has been steadily dropping, and I haven't heard that remark about my code in over a year now.
If your definition of theft includes intangible notions such as rights. permissions, etc, that can be effectively "taken" from someone, then I believe a pretty strong argument exists that copyright infringement is theft, actually. What is being stolen in the case of copyright infringement is a proportional measure of the copyright holder's exclusivity to control who may copy the work... By the very definition of "exclusive", which means that nobody else is doing it, when infringement occurs, that right which supposed to be wholly integral part of what copyright is in the first place is being deprived to what is otherwise the lawfully recognized right holder. One might try and make the argument that such loss is inconsequential to society or to the rights holder, but that does not mean that something is not being taken, and its measure of worth to one person may not be the same as to another. Whether this makes copyright infringement morally unacceptable or not probably depends on whether you ultimately believe that copyright as a concept is a good thing, and even if one has issues with copyright and its practical implementation in modern society but otherwise agrees with the general idea behind copyright, whether one advocates that being wronged should make it acceptable to reciprocate with additional wrong, as if that will somehow "balance the scales".
Slashdot Mirror
I do not confuse love with marriage, rather, I only presume that love should be a mandatory prerequisite for marriage. You can love someone without marrying them, but if you marry someone without loving them, that marriage is doomed from the start.
I remain firmly of the belief that the *ONLY* thing that a couple with any sincere desire to get married should ever be planning for with regards to being apart someday is if one of them dies before the other, and ensuring to the best of their ability that the surviving partner still has a means to carry on without them.
Talking about how assets should be divided in the event of infidelity places the importance of material possessions above that of the marriage itself, and I would suggest that someone who would ask for such a prenup has no business getting married in the first place, since they clearly do not understand what real love is.
Actually, without the qualifier of "some", the progressive present participle tense in the headline connotes that the observation reflects some kind of ongoing trend that is either expected to continue or increase. Misleading is putting it mildly.
Why should you need to prove infidelity to get a divorce? If one partner doesn't trust the other, the relationship is already done. Just sign the papers and make it official.
It's obvious to me that any one that would even consider this is already too far gone in how far they trust their significant other to remain a viable married couple.
[nt]
The problem isn't drones... the problem is people flying them irresponsibly. The exact same situation could have happened, actually possibly even a more dangerous one, if the person had simply been flying an ordinary kite at that altitude. The problem isn't the drone, the problem was that he was flying one too friggen close to the airport, where he had no business flying *ANYTHING* in the first place.
Seriously... the drone operator clearly does not possess even the slightest bit of common sense to realize that flying something near an airport any higher than the buildings or lamp posts around you is going to at the very least jeopardize whatever it is you are flying.
Honestly, it could just as easily have been a kite flying there with no electronics involved whatsoever, and it would have been equally stupid, and certainly no less dangerous.
In fact, I think that the word 'drone' is superfluous in the headline, and suggests that an agenda is probably being sought to influence public opinion into thinking that the drones themselves are bad... instead of focusing on the real issue, which was that some imbecile was flying something too close to an airport when he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place!
Keurig Spends 10 Years Trying to Develop A Recyclable Coffee Cup
I agree, but the law still allows for it, so the tariff is there. Yeah, it's a money grab, but what else is new? Living in Canada, I actually do happen to object to the blank media tariff as well, especially since the latest amendments to our copyright law which have jeopardized one's ability to legally even privately copy many modern works in the first place on account of potentially bypassing encryption, but I also don't feel any compulsion to want to pirate copyrighted content because of it either.
I don't know about other nations, but in Canada, the tariff blank CD's does not exist to cover piracy... although this does seem to be the popular perception. The official reason it exists here is to provide some compensation to copyright holders for private use copying.... nothing more, and nothing less. Of course, private copying of audio works is entirely legal in Canada, but the law also establishes that that copyright holders may still entitled to some compensation for it.
I would imagine that the standard for such disconnection would be considerably higher than hearsay.... presumably, actual guilt or innocence would be established by a court of law. If the MPAA isn't willing to put up with the waiting times for going through the legal system first, that's just too fucking bad for them.
That's about how long I would expect the BATTERY to last, thanks. Replacing the whole device? Forget about it.
Actually, that they practiced their religion in spite of the possible consequences, which included death would suggest that that they *were* religious.
... because of what you claim you believe has more importance than what you are doing yourself to advocate what you say you believe, then either you don't really believe in that religion, or else that religion is not worth anyone believing in the first place.
As the bill would technically outlaw thought... since thoughts cannot be reconstructed entirely in their original state afterwards since even the very act of remembering something can and often does make changes to how that thing is remembered.
Actually, more specifically the copyright is the right to *control* who else may make copies. If it were simply the right to make a copy, then a portion of that right would be implicitly surrendered whenever a copyright holder granted permission to anyone else to make even an entirely authorized copy, but that is not the case.
Woody's Excuse.
2. Artificial Scarcity. If a DVD/BluRay is not available in my region, piracy is simply more convenient
Tit for Tat.
And that somehow makes it right? Variation of the Saint's License.
Wrong.. the former did not infringe on the copyright holder's rights. The library did not make an unauthorized copy of the work for you to borrow.
Copying something without permission that a rights holder was supposed to have exclusive rights to control copies is what is illegal. Exclusive means that nobody else is doing it, after all. If you disagree with this premise, then you advocate abolition of copyright.
Almost every single rationalization or justification that I've ever heard for why a person might pirate, other than supporting the abolition of copyright entirely, can be found on the list of ethical fallacies, and it gives a person some measure of pause to at least carefully consider the premise that just because one *can* do something, does not necessarily mean that they *should*.
I'm probably going to modded into slashdot hell for saying this, but that these alleged studies that somehow show that piracy doesn't harm the sales of works are entirely irrelevant.... if one believes that copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it, even if they do not agree with the means by which it is being implemented. If you pirate, you either advocate the complete abolition of copyright or are a hypocrite. Period.
Right... Which is what xHamster is doing... they are discriminating based on the beliefs of those that support that law.
Right, but that's not the issue here. They are discriminating based on a belief .
.... if you are discriminating against those who are discriminating against someone else?
The ISP's should probably change their terms of service then... since they usually explicitly prohibit using their connection to do things that are illegal. I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?
This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.
For myself, that's the worst one... largely because it isn't even true. I endeavor to test everything I write before committing it to the repo, but I know I don't think of everything... including, unfortunately, the very first things that my boss's boss apparently tries to do with whatever I've written whenever he gets a new binary, leaving them with little impression but to think that any testing that I may have done was obviously too cursory to qualify as even the most rudimentary verification of code stability and correctness. What I've had to do is simply learn to think more like how he likes to do during first tests.... which isn't easy at all, and does not come naturally, but as I've been learning, the number of complaints has been steadily dropping, and I haven't heard that remark about my code in over a year now.
If your definition of theft includes intangible notions such as rights. permissions, etc, that can be effectively "taken" from someone, then I believe a pretty strong argument exists that copyright infringement is theft, actually. What is being stolen in the case of copyright infringement is a proportional measure of the copyright holder's exclusivity to control who may copy the work... By the very definition of "exclusive", which means that nobody else is doing it, when infringement occurs, that right which supposed to be wholly integral part of what copyright is in the first place is being deprived to what is otherwise the lawfully recognized right holder. One might try and make the argument that such loss is inconsequential to society or to the rights holder, but that does not mean that something is not being taken, and its measure of worth to one person may not be the same as to another. Whether this makes copyright infringement morally unacceptable or not probably depends on whether you ultimately believe that copyright as a concept is a good thing, and even if one has issues with copyright and its practical implementation in modern society but otherwise agrees with the general idea behind copyright, whether one advocates that being wronged should make it acceptable to reciprocate with additional wrong, as if that will somehow "balance the scales".