It's not like they have anything to hide if they're doing nothing wrong, right?
That's a fallacy.
Having something to hide does not mean there is anything necessarily wrong.
People don't wear clothes in public because there is anything (necessarily) wrong with their nude bodies. They do so because there are parts of their body that they consider private.
Of course, how you behave in public, by default, is not something that is inherently private. If one wants privacy, it stands to reason that one should take their private matters to some location where they can control who else can legally be there without their permission. Which means someplace that isn't in public.
It'd still qualify as intentional manslaughter. Not quite as heavy a penalty as premeditated murder... but one that still carries quite a few years of jail time.
Assaulting somebody is criminal behavior... and isn't something the police are liable to laugh about, unless the police on duty at the time are just assholes.
The law, however, is quite unambiguously clear. Assaulting a person is only legally justifiable in self-defense or the defense of somebody else who is unable to defend themselves against assault. Any harassment which led up to such action would have to have to have an assault component itself for it to have any hope of being legally justified.
You might win a civil case, however... if he tried to sue you for the cost of the glasses.
It depends on your lawyer. But all other things being equal, the nature of the harassment caused by somebody videoing you in public location would not generally be considered just cause for assault. You might win a civil case against someebody if they tried to sue you for the cost of the glasses, but video harassment wouldn't save you from the legal consequences, which may include jail.
If you're willing to go to jail for what you believe is right, well then kudos.
They would be.... but a lot of people are more afraid of getting arrested than they are of having their privacy violated.
When somebody who has no apparent affiliation with the government or law enforcement is holding up the camera, most people do not have any such pervasive fear to block them from expressing their first and probably most natural reaction.
That notion is built on the premise that the Death Star was in low orbit.
Watching the ending of the movie, and extracting an estimation of the Death Star explosion cloud's angular diameter as seen from the surface of the Endorian moon, and comparing that with the known actual size of the 2nd Death Star itself places it at a distance of roughly 50,000 km, which, if a planet had a similar day/night cycle to Earth's could easily be that planet's normal geosynchronous orbit altitude. Certainly it's well about the atmosphere.
The debris from the explosion could have easily been flung at velocities which exceeded escape velocity, and there is no reason to think that more than 50%, at an absolute maximum, of the Death Star would have even touched the Endorian moon's atmosphere.
Although large pieces of the death star would indeed probably fall upon the planet, the actual mass of those pieces would tend to be very low, since the Death Star is, in fact, mostly hollow. Owing to the large surface area of such pieces relative to their mass, the likelihood of meteorite-like impacts would be very low, and many would disintegrate entirely long before hitting the surface.
Although the demographic that does, in my observation, seems to be largely comprised of individuals who for whatever reason feel that by doing so they are somehow validating the existence of places like TPB.
Why is that ironic? Linux is already freely distributed and often readily available as torrents directly on the distro vendor's web site, so there would not be any significant benefit to distributing such distros through TPB.
Why? It's not like it's particularly unstable, and requires reinstalling every so often *cough*windows*cough*.... and if you're a sysadmin for a company and are installing it fresh on different computers all the time, wouldn't it be a more efficient to use the same distribution for each instead of searching for different ones on TPB all the time, and only download a new copy of the distro when that particular one is updated?
And if we will not do it voluntarily, they will take it for themselves.
Why would they?
The notion that machines that are sufficiently advanced would somehow inevitably desire the same sorts of things that we desire out of existence is simply anthropomorphism.
Violation of an NDA is considered breach of contract, which in the case of two private parties, is generally settled via a civil court, not a criminal one.
If there are extenuating damages that extend beyond the private party harmed by the release of such information, then the matter may fall before criminal court... but this is not generally the case.
So... unless your employer is the government, or some branch thereof, you cannot go to jail simply for revealing trade secrets of your employer. Your life, as you know it, may still be over, however... unless you are living a life where you have absolutely nothing to lose (but that's incredibly unlikely, given the employment circumstances under which an employer would require an NDA in the first place).
They might be able to prove that you knew... at one time, perhaps. But they would *NOT* be able to prove that you had not actually forgotten the specific details they were asking for at the time that they asked them.
Clearly then the NDA I signed on my first day of work is unconstitutional as it violates my first amendment rights as I clearly have the right to go to the local media and spill my guts as to what my employer is building in secret (all legal projects, just not yet publically known).
Of course you have that right.... but your employer also has the legal right to sue you, and the NDA that you signed would ensure that he would win.
But you wouldn't go to jail for it... nor would you necessarily be breaking any laws by divulging such information unless it involved state secrets of national security.
No nerd rage here. Your perception of Superman as so overpowered as to be uninteresting is simply far too common today amongst young people to incite any particular feelings of vengeance against you specifically.
The point of a Superman story isn't to improve the protagonist. The point of a Superman story is to make the kid in all of us think, "wow, it'd be so neat to be able to do that". The point of a Superman story is to see the wrongs get made right. It's to see the bad guy get his comeuppance, and cheer for the hero who saves so many, asking for nothing in return but to be allowed to live in peace, faced with a world that by all rights could easily reject him, wanting him to leave humanity alone. Some might feel people would be better off failing on their own than be rescued when the going gets really tough? After all, without him, humans would still get by. But look at it this way... when he *does* save people, isn't that still a good thing? The point is not for humanity to always depend on Superman to always save the day, but to simply be glad that he somehow always does.
The notion that he is somehow the very "personification of good", as you call it, is not inherently part of what Superman is, it comes forward because he was raised by down-to-earth human beings with good character who were also willing to instill good values into their adopted son. Somehow, some way that is never really explained, nor can I expect it ever be, young Clark resisted the temptation that almost certainly would certainly take any one of us, and never became absolutely corrupted with the possessing of such power. Maybe because as an alien he also possessed a greater amount of restraint than what humans necessarily have, I dunno. And I'll admit that's probably the hardest thing about the character to ever relate to. Regardless, I don't think explaining it would make a good Superman story.
But Superman still loves, laughs, grieves, and can experience pain, even if not necessarily physical. And that, I think, makes him just as human as anyone.
Not the state no. This is Canada. You might mean province.
But in Canada, people do not mineral rights on their property. Mineral rights are owned by the government and cannot be purchased... only leased. It has been this way in Canada since the early 1900's.
So yes, I would expect the province to take care of it, and if it were of unnatural causes, they could then proceed to make the individual or corporation that caused it foot the bill.
If $5k is such a small price to pay, why doesn't the province pay it instead of burdening the people who happened to find it, and in particular.... who aren't profiting from it?
A system of which is only effective if more than a certain threshold of devices actually utilize it... since a would-be thief is not likely to know ahead of time whether or not your device has a kill switch in it.
Sure, you might be able to render *YOUR* device unusable to a thief, but as a general discouragement against theft in the first place, it's only effective if it actually is generally practiced among more than perhaps at least half of all devices, so that a thief will have no particular reason to expect that a given phone, chosen at random, will not be usable if they steal it.
5 years might be enough for some types of works, but for other more long-lived works it's not practical. 25 years isn't really *THAT* long... certainly it'd generally be the case that anyone born during a period when a work was copyrighted, or if a particular work was created and copyrighted while they were growing up would still likely spend most of their adult life in a period where it wasn't. Pushing a century, however, as things are right now, is utterly absurd.
Fixed, reasonable length, and COMPLETELY unextendable copyright terms are needed for copyright to have any hope whatsoever of still having any relevance in the future. Publishers are otherwise only going to get increasingly reliant on systems that introduce layers of complexity to the work that are not strictly required for the work to be utilized as intended, simply as a means to keep people from making what they think are unauthorized copies, and so for the consumer, all these additional complexity layers do is create more additional points of failure for the work that reduce its value for the very person who would actually have patronized the publishers of the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could, you know... have a personality, and not need to have either a yacht or the need to lie about it to meet women.
That's a fallacy.
Having something to hide does not mean there is anything necessarily wrong.
People don't wear clothes in public because there is anything (necessarily) wrong with their nude bodies. They do so because there are parts of their body that they consider private.
Of course, how you behave in public, by default, is not something that is inherently private. If one wants privacy, it stands to reason that one should take their private matters to some location where they can control who else can legally be there without their permission. Which means someplace that isn't in public.
Arrested? Yes. Buying the punched another pair? Not quite so likely.
Depends... how easy is it to sue somebody while one is in jail?
Getting annoyed about being videoed in public won't save them from the legal consequences of their actions.
It'd still qualify as intentional manslaughter. Not quite as heavy a penalty as premeditated murder... but one that still carries quite a few years of jail time.
Assaulting somebody is criminal behavior... and isn't something the police are liable to laugh about, unless the police on duty at the time are just assholes.
The law, however, is quite unambiguously clear. Assaulting a person is only legally justifiable in self-defense or the defense of somebody else who is unable to defend themselves against assault. Any harassment which led up to such action would have to have to have an assault component itself for it to have any hope of being legally justified.
You might win a civil case, however... if he tried to sue you for the cost of the glasses.
It depends on your lawyer. But all other things being equal, the nature of the harassment caused by somebody videoing you in public location would not generally be considered just cause for assault. You might win a civil case against someebody if they tried to sue you for the cost of the glasses, but video harassment wouldn't save you from the legal consequences, which may include jail.
If you're willing to go to jail for what you believe is right, well then kudos.
They would be.... but a lot of people are more afraid of getting arrested than they are of having their privacy violated.
When somebody who has no apparent affiliation with the government or law enforcement is holding up the camera, most people do not have any such pervasive fear to block them from expressing their first and probably most natural reaction.
All open and unresolved problems are not necessarily equivalent. If they were, solving any one of them would provably lead to solving them all.
[nt]
That notion is built on the premise that the Death Star was in low orbit.
Watching the ending of the movie, and extracting an estimation of the Death Star explosion cloud's angular diameter as seen from the surface of the Endorian moon, and comparing that with the known actual size of the 2nd Death Star itself places it at a distance of roughly 50,000 km, which, if a planet had a similar day/night cycle to Earth's could easily be that planet's normal geosynchronous orbit altitude. Certainly it's well about the atmosphere.
The debris from the explosion could have easily been flung at velocities which exceeded escape velocity, and there is no reason to think that more than 50%, at an absolute maximum, of the Death Star would have even touched the Endorian moon's atmosphere.
Although large pieces of the death star would indeed probably fall upon the planet, the actual mass of those pieces would tend to be very low, since the Death Star is, in fact, mostly hollow. Owing to the large surface area of such pieces relative to their mass, the likelihood of meteorite-like impacts would be very low, and many would disintegrate entirely long before hitting the surface.
Linux should never need a reinstall unless you actually make a major goof up as root.
Why would you need to install a fresh distro when they reboot? Or are you allowing everyone to run stuff as root?
Some people do... sadly enough.
Although the demographic that does, in my observation, seems to be largely comprised of individuals who for whatever reason feel that by doing so they are somehow validating the existence of places like TPB.
Why is that ironic? Linux is already freely distributed and often readily available as torrents directly on the distro vendor's web site, so there would not be any significant benefit to distributing such distros through TPB.
Why? It's not like it's particularly unstable, and requires reinstalling every so often *cough*windows*cough*.... and if you're a sysadmin for a company and are installing it fresh on different computers all the time, wouldn't it be a more efficient to use the same distribution for each instead of searching for different ones on TPB all the time, and only download a new copy of the distro when that particular one is updated?
Why would they?
The notion that machines that are sufficiently advanced would somehow inevitably desire the same sorts of things that we desire out of existence is simply anthropomorphism.
Violation of an NDA is considered breach of contract, which in the case of two private parties, is generally settled via a civil court, not a criminal one.
If there are extenuating damages that extend beyond the private party harmed by the release of such information, then the matter may fall before criminal court... but this is not generally the case.
So... unless your employer is the government, or some branch thereof, you cannot go to jail simply for revealing trade secrets of your employer. Your life, as you know it, may still be over, however... unless you are living a life where you have absolutely nothing to lose (but that's incredibly unlikely, given the employment circumstances under which an employer would require an NDA in the first place).
How do they prove that you remember, exactly?
They might be able to prove that you knew... at one time, perhaps. But they would *NOT* be able to prove that you had not actually forgotten the specific details they were asking for at the time that they asked them.
Of course you have that right.... but your employer also has the legal right to sue you, and the NDA that you signed would ensure that he would win.
But you wouldn't go to jail for it... nor would you necessarily be breaking any laws by divulging such information unless it involved state secrets of national security.
No nerd rage here. Your perception of Superman as so overpowered as to be uninteresting is simply far too common today amongst young people to incite any particular feelings of vengeance against you specifically.
The point of a Superman story isn't to improve the protagonist. The point of a Superman story is to make the kid in all of us think, "wow, it'd be so neat to be able to do that". The point of a Superman story is to see the wrongs get made right. It's to see the bad guy get his comeuppance, and cheer for the hero who saves so many, asking for nothing in return but to be allowed to live in peace, faced with a world that by all rights could easily reject him, wanting him to leave humanity alone. Some might feel people would be better off failing on their own than be rescued when the going gets really tough? After all, without him, humans would still get by. But look at it this way... when he *does* save people, isn't that still a good thing? The point is not for humanity to always depend on Superman to always save the day, but to simply be glad that he somehow always does.
The notion that he is somehow the very "personification of good", as you call it, is not inherently part of what Superman is, it comes forward because he was raised by down-to-earth human beings with good character who were also willing to instill good values into their adopted son. Somehow, some way that is never really explained, nor can I expect it ever be, young Clark resisted the temptation that almost certainly would certainly take any one of us, and never became absolutely corrupted with the possessing of such power. Maybe because as an alien he also possessed a greater amount of restraint than what humans necessarily have, I dunno. And I'll admit that's probably the hardest thing about the character to ever relate to. Regardless, I don't think explaining it would make a good Superman story.
But Superman still loves, laughs, grieves, and can experience pain, even if not necessarily physical. And that, I think, makes him just as human as anyone.
Not the state no. This is Canada. You might mean province.
But in Canada, people do not mineral rights on their property. Mineral rights are owned by the government and cannot be purchased... only leased. It has been this way in Canada since the early 1900's.
So yes, I would expect the province to take care of it, and if it were of unnatural causes, they could then proceed to make the individual or corporation that caused it foot the bill.
If $5k is such a small price to pay, why doesn't the province pay it instead of burdening the people who happened to find it, and in particular.... who aren't profiting from it?
A system of which is only effective if more than a certain threshold of devices actually utilize it... since a would-be thief is not likely to know ahead of time whether or not your device has a kill switch in it.
Sure, you might be able to render *YOUR* device unusable to a thief, but as a general discouragement against theft in the first place, it's only effective if it actually is generally practiced among more than perhaps at least half of all devices, so that a thief will have no particular reason to expect that a given phone, chosen at random, will not be usable if they steal it.
5 years might be enough for some types of works, but for other more long-lived works it's not practical. 25 years isn't really *THAT* long... certainly it'd generally be the case that anyone born during a period when a work was copyrighted, or if a particular work was created and copyrighted while they were growing up would still likely spend most of their adult life in a period where it wasn't. Pushing a century, however, as things are right now, is utterly absurd.
Fixed, reasonable length, and COMPLETELY unextendable copyright terms are needed for copyright to have any hope whatsoever of still having any relevance in the future. Publishers are otherwise only going to get increasingly reliant on systems that introduce layers of complexity to the work that are not strictly required for the work to be utilized as intended, simply as a means to keep people from making what they think are unauthorized copies, and so for the consumer, all these additional complexity layers do is create more additional points of failure for the work that reduce its value for the very person who would actually have patronized the publishers of the work.