... and would chalk up players who are "caught" cheating as all part of how the games are rigged, done solely to keep fans interested in the game by trying to reinforce the notion to the fans that it's not fixed.
I'm suggesting that while it would have technically been an infringing copy, with a license in the same directory on your own machine at the program, there's no way to tell that you didn't actually download it with the program in the first place.
It's sort of like how finding money on the street and keeping it may technically be stealing, but there's absolutely nothing that anybody can practically do about it unless the person who dropped it is still right there.
ever hope to do about it unless the person who dropped it (presumably unintentionally) actually saw you pick it up.
If course you have your home insured.... but if you're remotely normal, you don't go around acting like you actually *expect* to have your house burn down any day now, simply because there's a statistical chance that it could happen.
There's a big difference between being cautious and being paranoid that something bad is going to happen.
How does one pirate something that's already free to start w/? It is legal to download the copy w/o downloading the license as well - the latter only becomes relevant if the downloaded copy is being redistributed or sold.
Actually no.
Since where you downloaded it from was, by virtue of the license, obligated to provide you with a copy of the license when you download the work, a gplv3 product without the license is an infringing one. You would not be guilty of infringing on copyright directly, but would nonetheless still possess an infringing copy, and it's not inconceivable to be held accountable for that. Although the defense of not actually realizing that it was infringing could well remove any immediate consequence, you would have to either immediately correct the issue of not having an infringing copy or else be found to be knowingly in possession of such a copy, which can and often is still legally actionable, even if you did not personally make that copy.
True... but equivalently, a smart person has no statistically valid reason to actually *expect* it to happen to them, personally, at any given time, simply because they happen to have an account with paypal.
I'm not suggesting that it's a reason to trust them implicitly, I'm only suggesting that overemphasizing the importance of outlying cases to the point that one thinks they should expect such incidents as a matter of regular order of business is not valid.
While I can appreciate where your skepticism is coming from, you have to realize that Paypal freezing people's accounts is actually not a typical thing. For every person that this sort of thing happens to, there are many hundreds or thousands of others that it does not. Not that I'm saying that it happens at all is acceptable, but it's not statistically valid to assume that something which happens a tiny fraction of 1% of the time might be sufficient reason to believe that one should actually be actively *expecting* it to happen at any particular time.
In fact, by expecting children to do something for free that adults would get paid to do, I'm wondering if it might even run afoul of child slavery laws.
Truth is a defense against libel, not necessarily defamation, particularly if there is reasonable cause to suspect that the defamation is done maliciously, and not simply an unavoidable consequence of honest reporting. HuffPo has a legitimate defense. The posters who resorted to name calling only have the defense of anonymity, which might be sufficient, but doesn't necessarily make it right.
I have not once ever suggested that any of the reasons that I gave should ever be a legitimate reason to banish the technology, only arguably justifiable reasons to perhaps have some uncomfortable anxieties about it
But it's simply an unfortunate reality that average person is simply not intelligent enough, or else too consumed with whatever it is that they happen to want at that exact moment and without regard for the future, to utilize this kind of technology productively without creating very real dangers to themselves or others. I think the very fact that people would even *think* that, for example, trying to text somebody while driving in traffic might be an okay thing to do should testify to the validity of the notion.
Aircraft pilots aren't using the aircraft's heads up display to check their friends' latest facebook updates, or waste hours watching cat videos on youtube.
1. It makes you look like a cyborg. The fact that one would do this to their own appearance willingly puts a person so many sigma beyond what is expected in societal norms that it produces an insinctive negative reaction.
2. Being wearable, it conveys an "always on" notion, that many people find troublesome because although in theory, it does not invade their privacy any more than a person with a cell phone camera can, unlike a hand-held camera, there are no obvious gestures or poses that a utilizer of this technology will typically employ that tells casual observers in an immediately recognizable way that the technology is being utilized. Looking for an LED light is all very well and good, but human beings didn't evolve to look at LED's to tell them what was around them... we evolved to interpret body language.
3. It's simply far too easy to imagine people using this while they are walking or driving and thus paying insufficient attention to their surroundings to effectively navigate, potentially posing a danger to themselves and others around them.
4. It's always been socially cool to mock something that's new and different.
But what will they do if any of the ransomware currently circulating the net places some 'content' on a system it had previously infected, accusing the user of IP infringement and use this as an excuse to (legally !) lock the machine down?
Putting absolutely any content on somebody else's computer without their permission and effectively blackmailing them by then charging them for its removal is already illegal, so there's no way to legally exploit this to do what you describe here.
Such a law is problematic for an entire host of reasons...but that's not one of them.
No, I'm not misinformed. Mulroney abolished the Metric Commission in Canada in spring of 1985. Stores might advertise in lbs because it sounds cheaper, but they are only allowed to do this at all because the laws that enabled the metric system to be adopted in the first place were repealed when the metric commission was abolished. Had those laws not been abolished, stores would not have had a choice in the matter, and would have had to use metric for all advertising.
Exit numbers, if they need to be tied to instance alonga highway, could be relcualted in km and rounded to the nearest integer. In Canada, multiple exits that would correspond with the same integer have different letter suffixes after them, such as exit 53-a and 53-b, for instance
They didn't wait a generation.... the conversion started in Canada, in earnest, in about 1971, and was completed over the course of about 10 years.
Oddly enough, about 5 years after the decade-long process of Canada's conversion to Metric was completed, our then-prime minister ended up abolishing the regulations that really enabled the conversion to happen in the first place. Switching back, since it was not actually legislated any more, was simply too inconvenient, and Canada remained on the metric system ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
... and would chalk up players who are "caught" cheating as all part of how the games are rigged, done solely to keep fans interested in the game by trying to reinforce the notion to the fans that it's not fixed.
That would make for a rather interesting tale to tell for somebody who was actually innocent and genuinely did forget.
"What are you in for?"
"Being absent minded."
I'm suggesting that while it would have technically been an infringing copy, with a license in the same directory on your own machine at the program, there's no way to tell that you didn't actually download it with the program in the first place.
It's sort of like how finding money on the street and keeping it may technically be stealing, but there's absolutely nothing that anybody can practically do about it unless the person who dropped it is still right there. ever hope to do about it unless the person who dropped it (presumably unintentionally) actually saw you pick it up.
Funny you should say that. (note, flash browser required)
Or, you deal with them through an adult... say, your parents.
Yes, but only because at that point it's indistinguishable that you didn't get the license with the software.
If course you have your home insured.... but if you're remotely normal, you don't go around acting like you actually *expect* to have your house burn down any day now, simply because there's a statistical chance that it could happen.
There's a big difference between being cautious and being paranoid that something bad is going to happen.
Actually no.
Since where you downloaded it from was, by virtue of the license, obligated to provide you with a copy of the license when you download the work, a gplv3 product without the license is an infringing one. You would not be guilty of infringing on copyright directly, but would nonetheless still possess an infringing copy, and it's not inconceivable to be held accountable for that. Although the defense of not actually realizing that it was infringing could well remove any immediate consequence, you would have to either immediately correct the issue of not having an infringing copy or else be found to be knowingly in possession of such a copy, which can and often is still legally actionable, even if you did not personally make that copy.
True... but equivalently, a smart person has no statistically valid reason to actually *expect* it to happen to them, personally, at any given time, simply because they happen to have an account with paypal.
I'm not suggesting that it's a reason to trust them implicitly, I'm only suggesting that overemphasizing the importance of outlying cases to the point that one thinks they should expect such incidents as a matter of regular order of business is not valid.
While I can appreciate where your skepticism is coming from, you have to realize that Paypal freezing people's accounts is actually not a typical thing. For every person that this sort of thing happens to, there are many hundreds or thousands of others that it does not. Not that I'm saying that it happens at all is acceptable, but it's not statistically valid to assume that something which happens a tiny fraction of 1% of the time might be sufficient reason to believe that one should actually be actively *expecting* it to happen at any particular time.
This.
Or this.
In fact, by expecting children to do something for free that adults would get paid to do, I'm wondering if it might even run afoul of child slavery laws.
Truth is a defense against libel, not necessarily defamation, particularly if there is reasonable cause to suspect that the defamation is done maliciously, and not simply an unavoidable consequence of honest reporting. HuffPo has a legitimate defense. The posters who resorted to name calling only have the defense of anonymity, which might be sufficient, but doesn't necessarily make it right.
I have not once ever suggested that any of the reasons that I gave should ever be a legitimate reason to banish the technology, only arguably justifiable reasons to perhaps have some uncomfortable anxieties about it
I'm not anti-cellphone
But it's simply an unfortunate reality that average person is simply not intelligent enough, or else too consumed with whatever it is that they happen to want at that exact moment and without regard for the future, to utilize this kind of technology productively without creating very real dangers to themselves or others. I think the very fact that people would even *think* that, for example, trying to text somebody while driving in traffic might be an okay thing to do should testify to the validity of the notion.
Tell me that's not what the average person would be doing with this kind of technology.
Aircraft pilots aren't using the aircraft's heads up display to check their friends' latest facebook updates, or waste hours watching cat videos on youtube.
Walkmans and cell phones, when they first hit the market. Yes.
1. It makes you look like a cyborg. The fact that one would do this to their own appearance willingly puts a person so many sigma beyond what is expected in societal norms that it produces an insinctive negative reaction.
2. Being wearable, it conveys an "always on" notion, that many people find troublesome because although in theory, it does not invade their privacy any more than a person with a cell phone camera can, unlike a hand-held camera, there are no obvious gestures or poses that a utilizer of this technology will typically employ that tells casual observers in an immediately recognizable way that the technology is being utilized. Looking for an LED light is all very well and good, but human beings didn't evolve to look at LED's to tell them what was around them... we evolved to interpret body language.
3. It's simply far too easy to imagine people using this while they are walking or driving and thus paying insufficient attention to their surroundings to effectively navigate, potentially posing a danger to themselves and others around them.
4. It's always been socially cool to mock something that's new and different.
Putting absolutely any content on somebody else's computer without their permission and effectively blackmailing them by then charging them for its removal is already illegal, so there's no way to legally exploit this to do what you describe here.
Such a law is problematic for an entire host of reasons...but that's not one of them.
Isn't a generation at least 20 years?
No, I'm not misinformed. Mulroney abolished the Metric Commission in Canada in spring of 1985. Stores might advertise in lbs because it sounds cheaper, but they are only allowed to do this at all because the laws that enabled the metric system to be adopted in the first place were repealed when the metric commission was abolished. Had those laws not been abolished, stores would not have had a choice in the matter, and would have had to use metric for all advertising.
Exit numbers, if they need to be tied to instance alonga highway, could be relcualted in km and rounded to the nearest integer. In Canada, multiple exits that would correspond with the same integer have different letter suffixes after them, such as exit 53-a and 53-b, for instance
They didn't wait a generation.... the conversion started in Canada, in earnest, in about 1971, and was completed over the course of about 10 years.
Oddly enough, about 5 years after the decade-long process of Canada's conversion to Metric was completed, our then-prime minister ended up abolishing the regulations that really enabled the conversion to happen in the first place. Switching back, since it was not actually legislated any more, was simply too inconvenient, and Canada remained on the metric system ever since.
Klickage
I mean, if it's really supposed to be entirely voluntary.... isn't that what that means?
Of course, conversely, they could rip down any metric signage that they see and replace them with imperial too...
I'm seeing a rather glaring problem with this notion of "voluntary" as it applies to what kinds of units the country uses.