... if copyright holders want to prevent end-users from buying & using products that break their copyrights, it's only recourse should be to sue each end-user individually.
Not if you ask me...
They should go after the creators and publishers of the infringing works, not the people who buy them. The purchaser, provided that he or she has not commissioned the work, is neither violating the copyright nor causing it to be violated. The creator and publisher, on the other hand, are likely profiting from the infringement, and damages would most sensibly be recovered from them.
Or so it seems to me, unless someone has case law that says something different.
Nitpicking aside, I agree that copyright and similar "intellectual property" matters really ought to remain in the civil, not criminal, arena.
Mabye it's the lack of good scientific journalisim, or mabye journalists don't trust the population to understand...
There is a lack of good science journalism. Even good science journalism wouldn't have time or space to regurgitate the entire body of knowledge on a given topic every time a new theory came up, however.
And while the sciences are covered shallowly in the popular media, so is theology.
Science, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output (or probability distribution if you've learned quantum). There is no such thing as a choice, or free will.
This may be true for neutrons and billiard balls, but it needn't apply to people. That people are less predictable than planets should not be such a surprise that the supernatural is the only explanation: different rules apply at different scales even within physics, and I doubt that any biologist would claim to be able to predict the exact behaviour of "a pile of advanced symbiotic bacteria".
And while you say that "[s]cience, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output," you fail to note that science is not at all the world, but more an investigative technique. Faced with situations in which inputs and outputs do not correlate cleanly, we resort to chaos theory, or, in the case of people, a psychological or sociological view.
Yet, if our every action were predetermined based on internal chemistry, all actions must be morally neutral, there can be no right or wrong. So, since you share with me the belief that certain things are right and others are wrong (even if we may disagree about which things fall in which category), the only way to be self-consistent is to believe that there is something beyond science.
Yes, metaphysics.
Neuro-chemistry may be deterministic, but this does not require the choices made by a given brain to be predictable or predestined. Brain behaviour is strongly influenced by external stimuli, and given the phenomenon of memory, for example, different brains will respond differently to the same stimulus.
We are begging the question of the existence of free will. It may be that there is no such thing. But, taking free will for granted, we can't really say that it must be caused by an immortal soul. And, if we were to accept for the sake of argument that free will is a function of an immortal soul, we still have the question of where the soul came from.
The third reason is that the big bang itself also points more directly to God. Something had to cause the big bang (or cause the thing that caused the big bang, appplied recursively as necessary).
Surely one could require something to have caused God, as well. At some point, one is left with "it just happened," and the question is only which "it" one stops at...
However, if you want to have all of modern scientific theory plus God, having God cause the Big Bang is a good accomodation. The problem, in my opinion, is in making moral arguments founded solely on the assertion that such-and-such a position is supported by the word of God, and the word of God must be absolutely authoritative due to the existence of the universe.
Rather than decreasing industrial production to reduce greenhouse emissions because you think it might help...
s/production/pollution/
Global warming or not, improving air quality and energy efficiency -- both likely side-effects of attempts at greenhouse-gas reduction -- are good things.
In this case, however, I think the intent is to note that the camera is actually a 3 gigapixel camera as stated...
Another possibility is that he wants to use "gigapixel" for contrast with the more common "megapixel" while simultaneously showing his distaste for "megapixel" as a popular term.
Whether it would have been more appropriate to forgo the formation or to embrace it is a question of taste...
...you would restrict the progress of humanity by shoving a policy of decreased energy use down its throat.
Decreased compared to what, the maximum possible consumption? And since when has improving energy efficiency not counted as progress?
Shame on you! And this is all for nothing, as fusion can provide all the energy needed a million times over...
Nobody makes working fusion power plants. So, in view of today's energy needs, rather than building windmills you'd prefer not building a fusion reactor that doesn't exist?
Meanwhile, there's a $1.9 billion project to build a gigawatt's worth of windmills in Quebec. Shame on Hydro Quebec for shoving increased generating capacity down our throats.
If you argue that a person is created at conception on some type of scientific grounds, then it is only a matter of lack of technology that we dont classify every single cell of the human body to be a person.
That's ridiculous. Arbitrary cells don't spontaneously divide and differentiate.
...allows you to dismiss it and makes you feel comfortable again...
Isn't that exactly what deciding that "they hate our freedom" does for you? If you were to be stuck with an answer like "they hate our foreign policy", or even "they hate our Baywatch re-runs", you'd have to ask yourself whether they had a point. If you choose "freedom" or some other desirable and supposedly intrinsic quality, you've already decided that they are being completely unreasonable.
It's all very well to say that people who blow things up to make a point deserve to have their point ignored, but it is not in the interest of justice to ignore it. After all, other people may well have the same complaint. If they are also violently militant, you risk further attacks. If they are not violent but are truly suffering, you may perpetuate an injustice.
I think it's more likely that the average slashdot reader has a cheap monitor than their own missile defense system. Story strikes closer to home...
Of course, without reading the article, we don't know if the phrase "strikes closer to home" applies to the missile problem as well. At this point, I, for one, would favour information about the missile.
As soon as I get the computer wired up in the basement, that is.
Beardo the Bearded and an AC say it's an X and only an X.
Idarubicin claims it's an X and possibly a check mark.
And you believe it's just about anything.
I endorse cybergrue's version, as I recall "unambiguous mark" and "voter's intention" from my civics/politics/history classes. In practice, an X is understood to be the proper way to mark the ballot, and is shown in examples given by Elections Canada.
I do not, however, endorse cybergrue's funetic spelling.
Under the Libertarians and the free market, the concept of a corporation will be abolished, and people will be responsible for their own actions once again.
If there were the slightest chance of that happening, do you really think that anyone would be interested in doing modern business in the United States? Holders of shares in U.S. based corporations would have about three choices:
Move operations to anywhere else in the industrialized world -- an easy choice for multinationals.
Wind up operations and sit on their assets, protecting themselves from liability at the expense of employees and the local economy.
Continue operating in the U.S. and get sued six times before breakfast every weekday morning.
A big company could presumably buy liability insurance for its shareholders as a cost of doing business and otherwise carry on as before, but I'll call that a special case of #3 above.
... instead of addressing this glaring issue about how a Libertarian government would protect free speech, he trails off talking about how the market will take care of it. Huh?
No, that's the big Libertarian answer. The brilliant market sorts everything out.
Like Marxism, it sounds better before someone tries it.
The reason why they pay attention to international law is that by only flouting it when necessary, they can keep up the charade of "good international citizen" and use the international law as an argument in other disputes.... Basically, for the renegade states it is enlightened self-interest, with the added perversions of international diplomacy.
The role of diplomacy in the situation that you describe is therefore to convince the renegade states that on any given point it is in keeping with "enlightened self-interest" to "keep up the charade".
The point is you don't make a car unsafe (hitting a silid enough stationary object would have destroyed it) just to gain better fuel efficiency.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and claim that "hitting a solid enough stationary object" will destroy any vehicle that's travelling at highway speeds. The highway speeds I'm thinking of are between 25 and 30 metres per second. The solid, stationary object that I'm thinking of is a vertical rock cut.
Until they build a solar car that let's me put my wife and two children in there and throw a couple of pieces of luggage in the trunk and then drive down the road to my destination, they are building novelties.
When the vehicle you've ordered has sprung fully formed from the forehead of an engineer, you will be notified. Until then, I have instructed everyone involved to knock off building these silly novelties.
Also, I have forwarded your note to the various people involved in the Ansari X-Prize competition, for their edification.
A lawsuit should be drawn against Penguin for damages against her domain name and royalties should be paid for that domain; after all Katie Jones freely and fairly bought the domain.
I agree, and I think that the people commenting on the trademark and copyright angles of the situation are missing the boat. It looks to me like there's a plain old common law tort, here: Penguin's behaviour has unfairly and unreasonably caused Katie Jones a bunch of trouble. Should she file a zillion-dollar "pain and suffering" suit? Probably not, but it's quite obvious that Penguin has wronged her, and they ought at minimum to have stopped doing so as soon as she notified them of the problem.
If the change of title from girl.com to katie.com really happened as Katie Jones says, that just makes Penguin's behaviour worse. The phrase "knew or ought to have known" does crop up in the common law a fair bit...
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you ask me...
They should go after the creators and publishers of the infringing works, not the people who buy them. The purchaser, provided that he or she has not commissioned the work, is neither violating the copyright nor causing it to be violated. The creator and publisher, on the other hand, are likely profiting from the infringement, and damages would most sensibly be recovered from them.
Or so it seems to me, unless someone has case law that says something different.
Nitpicking aside, I agree that copyright and similar "intellectual property" matters really ought to remain in the civil, not criminal, arena.
I have a Mr. Bush on line one for you, and a Mr. bin Laden on line two.
There is a lack of good science journalism. Even good science journalism wouldn't have time or space to regurgitate the entire body of knowledge on a given topic every time a new theory came up, however.
And while the sciences are covered shallowly in the popular media, so is theology.
This may be true for neutrons and billiard balls, but it needn't apply to people. That people are less predictable than planets should not be such a surprise that the supernatural is the only explanation: different rules apply at different scales even within physics, and I doubt that any biologist would claim to be able to predict the exact behaviour of "a pile of advanced symbiotic bacteria".
And while you say that "[s]cience, by definition, requires that given the same set of inputs you receive a given output," you fail to note that science is not at all the world, but more an investigative technique. Faced with situations in which inputs and outputs do not correlate cleanly, we resort to chaos theory, or, in the case of people, a psychological or sociological view.
We are begging the question of the existence of free will. It may be that there is no such thing. But, taking free will for granted, we can't really say that it must be caused by an immortal soul. And, if we were to accept for the sake of argument that free will is a function of an immortal soul, we still have the question of where the soul came from.
Surely one could require something to have caused God, as well. At some point, one is left with "it just happened," and the question is only which "it" one stops at...
However, if you want to have all of modern scientific theory plus God, having God cause the Big Bang is a good accomodation. The problem, in my opinion, is in making moral arguments founded solely on the assertion that such-and-such a position is supported by the word of God, and the word of God must be absolutely authoritative due to the existence of the universe.
s/production/pollution/
Global warming or not, improving air quality and energy efficiency -- both likely side-effects of attempts at greenhouse-gas reduction -- are good things.
Another possibility is that he wants to use "gigapixel" for contrast with the more common "megapixel" while simultaneously showing his distaste for "megapixel" as a popular term.
Whether it would have been more appropriate to forgo the formation or to embrace it is a question of taste...
You are George W. Bush, and as my prize for having spotted you I request that you approve of one of my messages.
I hope not. As the article says, the board was Broken As Designed -- the sensor was installed exactly as specified, but the specification was wrong.
Decreased compared to what, the maximum possible consumption? And since when has improving energy efficiency not counted as progress?
Nobody makes working fusion power plants. So, in view of today's energy needs, rather than building windmills you'd prefer not building a fusion reactor that doesn't exist?
Meanwhile, there's a $1.9 billion project to build a gigawatt's worth of windmills in Quebec. Shame on Hydro Quebec for shoving increased generating capacity down our throats.
More to the point, all of the cash. Don't let's pretend that the contractors built all of these vehicles for any other reason.
That's ridiculous. Arbitrary cells don't spontaneously divide and differentiate.
Isn't that exactly what deciding that "they hate our freedom" does for you? If you were to be stuck with an answer like "they hate our foreign policy", or even "they hate our Baywatch re-runs", you'd have to ask yourself whether they had a point. If you choose "freedom" or some other desirable and supposedly intrinsic quality, you've already decided that they are being completely unreasonable.
It's all very well to say that people who blow things up to make a point deserve to have their point ignored, but it is not in the interest of justice to ignore it. After all, other people may well have the same complaint. If they are also violently militant, you risk further attacks. If they are not violent but are truly suffering, you may perpetuate an injustice.
Different kinds of radiation, and it's not meant to escape the battery in any case.
Of course, without reading the article, we don't know if the phrase "strikes closer to home" applies to the missile problem as well. At this point, I, for one, would favour information about the missile.
As soon as I get the computer wired up in the basement, that is.
Unfortunately, "Act responsibly" is also a special case of option 3, "get sued six times before breakfast".
#include <stdEveryoneSuesEveryoneTheseDays.h>I endorse cybergrue's version, as I recall "unambiguous mark" and "voter's intention" from my civics/politics/history classes. In practice, an X is understood to be the proper way to mark the ballot, and is shown in examples given by Elections Canada.
I do not, however, endorse cybergrue's funetic spelling.
If there were the slightest chance of that happening, do you really think that anyone would be interested in doing modern business in the United States? Holders of shares in U.S. based corporations would have about three choices:
A big company could presumably buy liability insurance for its shareholders as a cost of doing business and otherwise carry on as before, but I'll call that a special case of #3 above.
No, that's the big Libertarian answer. The brilliant market sorts everything out.
Like Marxism, it sounds better before someone tries it.
The role of diplomacy in the situation that you describe is therefore to convince the renegade states that on any given point it is in keeping with "enlightened self-interest" to "keep up the charade".
You can't bomb everybody.
Those words do sound less insane in that order.
...in EverQuest.
Just to complete the stereotype. I agree, Slashdot is well into its own "September that never ended."
From the article:
I'm awaiting an explanation of beach volleyball in this context.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and claim that "hitting a solid enough stationary object" will destroy any vehicle that's travelling at highway speeds. The highway speeds I'm thinking of are between 25 and 30 metres per second. The solid, stationary object that I'm thinking of is a vertical rock cut.
When the vehicle you've ordered has sprung fully formed from the forehead of an engineer, you will be notified. Until then, I have instructed everyone involved to knock off building these silly novelties.
Also, I have forwarded your note to the various people involved in the Ansari X-Prize competition, for their edification.
I agree, and I think that the people commenting on the trademark and copyright angles of the situation are missing the boat. It looks to me like there's a plain old common law tort, here: Penguin's behaviour has unfairly and unreasonably caused Katie Jones a bunch of trouble. Should she file a zillion-dollar "pain and suffering" suit? Probably not, but it's quite obvious that Penguin has wronged her, and they ought at minimum to have stopped doing so as soon as she notified them of the problem.
If the change of title from girl.com to katie.com really happened as Katie Jones says, that just makes Penguin's behaviour worse. The phrase "knew or ought to have known" does crop up in the common law a fair bit...