Depends on exactly how much this increase your chances of getting sick, you are constantly surrounded by viruses and bacteria, and a normal healthy human can deal with adequately. Even if we sterilize everything that would probably compromise your immune system since it need exposure to learn to deal with them. Also micro organisms will eventually evolve to deal with your sterilization method. Also we need bacteria to live.
I understand it takes a lot of money to make a movie, and yes they deserve fair compensation for that. A few years of exclusive rights, definitely but no creative endeavor is made in a vacuum, people copy and use other peoples ideas, to make new creations all the time (I can't think of one that isn't). Once are fair time has passed they should be returned to the public domain so other creations can be made from them. I believe that the laws as they stand are result of a corrupt political system that allows lobbing, not what is in the best interest of society.
I do however think a lot of the cost of making a movie feeds into itself, buying rights to stories, paying actors, directors, producers millions. These costs are because movies can make a lot of money, and everybody wants their cut, so if the story, actor, director,... is famous enough it almost guarantees success.
I think these costs, are actually killing the movie industry, they not conducive to creating new and initiative stories but rather run by accountants, that produce the same stories over and over again because they know they will sell. If you are investing $100 million you do not want small chance of success. The only way to reduce the cost of movies is to force them to be competitive.
Apart from all that just because it is wrong doesn't make it stealing, just like it doesn't make it rape.
Yeh but you haven't stolen my wife have you? You as long as it was consensual haven't even done anything illegal (in a lot of countries).
A better analogy would be, if I was pimping my wife out, and you had consensual sex with her on her on time, and didn't pay me. Did you steal from me?
I may be annoyed that you had sex with her, but I only lost money if you where willing pay if she didn't have sex with you in the first place. She maybe she was so good that you are now willing to pay (free sample).
Disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting pimping anyone out is ethical, my wife (and all people) are in no way anybodies property. I only used it because it was the example given.
Here I have taken money that you can show what you would have gotten, if it was not for the lie.
If someone watches the concert through the window, you have lost money only if that person would have gone to the concert otherwise. They may have, they may not have, they may go to your next concert because they liked what they saw.
Just because someone pirates a movie, and if this is stealing, and the law as consistent, for a criminal case you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have paid for it anyway. I don't think you could even prove it beyond balance of probabilities.
You have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, is "stealing" intellectual property so much worse that we have to lower the standard of proof.
The answer is you are not stealing but you are committing copyright infringement which is different.
Nobody is saying we should impose equality on everybody, (straw-man anyone?) But there is a spectrum here, ranging from everybody is equal, no matter how skilled or lazy they are, right through to the rich get to set the laws, put their money in tax havens, get all the resources, and the poor are just left to die.
I am personally for a system, of fairness, where there is a reasonable chance if you work hard, you have a chance to succeed. Of course it can't be totally fair because that would be impossible to enforce, but it can be fairer than it is now.
I see the system, that is currently in the US as far to much side of, if you are rich you get what you want. Political influence can openly be bought. The wealthy do move their money around to pay less tax as a portion of their wealth.
Slaves are not free or equal.
As for health their have been studies that show the more equal a society is (probably to a point) the healthier, happier they are, even the rich are sightly better off.
I know you disagree with this and so do I. I would like point out that blacks are more likely be arrested for the same crime, and given a harsher penalty.
However I have heard similar statistics for males and violence. Men are more likely to be arrested for domestic violence even if they where the ones that called the police in the first place. I am sure that it is much less likely that a man would report violence against him committed by a woman. Women also have a tendency to pick men that stronger than them as partners, it is hard to physically intimidate a person stronger than you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in the US 76.8% murder victims are men, I pick murder because it is unlikely to go unreported. Although this could also be perpetrated by men, mens lives are clearly more dangerous.
While we continue to assume men are somehow bad, and are so dangerous, it is fair to not even let them into the same car as a woman just because they are a man we will only alienate more men. This will only cause men to dislike women more. I am sure black people where considered somehow bad, or somehow somehow worse than white people. That was racism them and this is sexism now.
If you want a "safer" uber service then you can have a service that does security checks on all its customers, and drivers. That way you are judged on your previous actions, not the genitals you where born with.
I would argue that the spirit of the law is to protect creators of content from loosing money. From the summary:
Blizzard says the rule "isn't an issue because of 'lost' subscription fees... it simply boils down to the fact that private servers are illegal
So what they are saying is, it doesn't effect us but stop doing anyway, its illegal. Note illegal != wrong. How can it be wrong if it is not hurting anyone.
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
Well actually by definition Acme has not made an unbreakable lock, since it can be broken by Acme.
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
If it is possible to make a truly unbreakable lock anyone who needs an unbreakable lock will simple go to another company, in another country, or make their own. So making it illegal will only damage local industry, because nobody will be buying Acme's intentionally inferior locks, apart from people who don't care about security in the first place.
As other people have mentioned the third option is just deal with it, sometimes you can't get all the evidence. On the face of it may sound terrible, especially when you put emotionally charged words like terrorism or pedophile in-front of them. However I am sure this scenario happens every day such as people flushing there drugs down the toilet, people putting fake license plates on there car and crashing into my fence (grr), maybe you can't find the body, pedophiles shredding images, and caches on their computers, to terrorists not leaving a paper trail on there phone. The solution is that you use other evidence. Sometimes the guilty get away with it, that is life.
Of course Trump says some things you agree with he basically spurs a bunch of inconsistent babble, sometimes you will agree with it.
I am sure that the current president (and previous ones) have authorized things that could be considered war crimes, but it wasn't part of their campaign, that they would commit them. The only reason they haven't been prosecuted is no one has the power to do it.
The key is Trump hasn't killed, YET. Give him the power to do so and he will. Just because a praying mantis has killed any person yet, doesn't mean if you make it 10 feet tall it won't. Unless of course you don't believe that Trump will not do what he says, if so then how can you trust that he will do the things that you agree with.
You are wrongly assuming that pointing out somebodies bad spelling/grammar his somehow doing them a favor. Your are not their teacher, they never asked you to correct them. It will not improve there spelling, the most likely outcome will be that they will be annoyed with you. What you are actually doing is making yourself feel superior by putting someone else down.
There are times when it is necessary to point out these errors, such as when your job is to teach/correct the person, or the grammar/spelling is so bad that you cannot understand what is written.
What would really help spelling/reading would be to make English spelling logical, as opposed to the inconsistent mapping sounds and letters it currently is.
It is a lottery, and a very unfair one at that, if you started off rich you have a much higher chance of success, you can invest money, take risks, and have connections. If you are poor, you have to worry about surviving day to day before you can even start to invest.
In economics is something that is essential to survival, that is fundamentally different to wanting something that you can live without.
The word need is often used as just a want, "I need those shoes", but English is an ambiguous language and you often need (not just want) context to work out the words true meaning.
What like the USA? Oh wait that probably the country that has experienced it the least.
The horror of when you get sick, being able to know you can afford to go to the hospital. If you loose your job knowing you won't be on the street.
Sounds horrendous, Socialism is only a dirty word in the USA because of some nation wide brain washing left over from the cold war. Sure supporting everybody no matter how little they do is not a good thing, and people should rewarded for their hard work. It is not an all or nothing proposition you can have a balance.
President Obama is being improperly advised and/or technically ignorant at best, and being an enabler to the power-hungry and/or a power-grabber himself. Note that I voted for this man, twice! Wishing I'd not have done so now.
I would not regret the decision, Mitt Romney and John McCain would have probably done exactly the same or worse. That is the problem with the current political system, because of the massive corporate funding required to run, you get a choice of 2 people who are owned by corporations. The best you can end up doing is picking the one that you think is least bad. Even if by some miracle an independent president got in, they would be neutered by congress.
The system needs to change before, anything else can.
Forcing apple to do it would probably cost more and take longer, law suits against multinational corporations, are neither fast or cheap. What this method allows, is the future unlocking of all phones, quickly.
Nonsense, just because you have a global health system doesn't mean you are a socialist country. Guess what? The world is not black an white, you can actually pick and choose which policies you want. In fact most 1st world countries, if not all, except the USA have one. It is cheaper to run than the US system, and all people live longer, including the rich. All the US system does is give money to the health insurance companies.
But don't let evidence cloud your judgement, the moment you get global health care system, is the moment you start your inevitable decent into becoming a communist state.
This is the same logic that means you are stuck with a two party system, (the stooge on the left or the stooge on the right) don't vote for the independent, that is like throwing away your vote. Vote for the person you believe in most, it is not like vote counts for that much anyway. If enough people buy into this nonsense it becomes true. If Donald Trump has a personality you either like or hate, if you hate him you will vote for anyone who runs against him.
For the purpose of this discussion Canada could be considered more European because the don't seem to be as opposed to change as the US. (Although I have never been to Canada). They use the metric system, (although not really European but every other country in the world except (Burma, Liberia, USA)). They have dropped their 1 cent coin, they their 1 and 2 dollar note a coin. When I visited the US, it amazed me how may places seemed not to accept EFTPOS, for what considered the most technologically advanced country in the world. Where Europe did not have this problem.
Let me be clear I have never been to Canada and this is only my opinion, gathered from media, not personal experience.
Sanders, does not believe in Utopia. I may not agree with all his ideas but he is right that the US political system is systemically corrupt, and the only way to solve any of the other problems is to solve that first. He may not succeed in fixing the system (probably not, it is a big job, with lots of corrupt people against him), but it needs be fixed, and it is better that the US elect someone who will at least try to fix the broken system, than someone who will continue to ignore it.
The reason that he says he will fix system as opposed to saying I'll give it my best gosh darn try, is it not politically expedient. No politician says they will try there best, they say this is what they will do.
Or he can bilk every single person in the US. (and probably the rest of the world). I am sure the all his ex partners believed they where "on his team". The only person on Donald Trumps team is himself.
To me that is the very definition of a back door, apple can install arbitrary software on your phone without your consent. That is make your phone do whatever apple wants without consent.
Nonsense, IQ tests are just some questions that some imperfect human came up with in order to judge the intelligence of people. They assign an arbitrary weighting to certain skills. Who is to say what is important and what is not. They may provide a measure of intelligence but they are certainly not a perfect one.
I am not even sure you can even assign a total ordering on intelligence, it is far more likely to be a partial ordering. We chose to give a simple number like IQ or a test score because of its simplicity and ease of comparison, not its accuracy.
I believe only fools, and arrogant people with high IQs believe they are perfect.
Why? Planes and boats (no need to know general relativity) use Newtonian physics to transport people to places they weren't normally found, that breaks down in some cases. It doesn't mean we can't use those principles.
Even if people die because the laws break down it isn't the end of the world, you just make some new people. Things don't need to be 100% safe do it, just reasonably safe.
Of course that is too much hubris, first it requires us to assume that understand enough about the known universe and what is actually happening. We currently observer the universe though specs of electromagnetic radiation billion of light years away. To assume we know what is going on is even likely is hubris. We should make these assumptions because it is the best we have. But the fraction of the universe, (both distance and time) we can actually see in any real detail is minute. Even the detail we observe is also probably very limited as well, since we may only have limited senses.
Newtons laws are very useful, we still use them now. General relativity laws will continue to be useful even if they don't predict everything. If we come up with a better theory that theory will continue to be useful, even when that theory proves not to be accurate in certain conditions as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on exactly how much this increase your chances of getting sick, you are constantly surrounded by viruses and bacteria, and a normal healthy human can deal with adequately. Even if we sterilize everything that would probably compromise your immune system since it need exposure to learn to deal with them. Also micro organisms will eventually evolve to deal with your sterilization method. Also we need bacteria to live.
I understand it takes a lot of money to make a movie, and yes they deserve fair compensation for that. A few years of exclusive rights, definitely but no creative endeavor is made in a vacuum, people copy and use other peoples ideas, to make new creations all the time (I can't think of one that isn't). Once are fair time has passed they should be returned to the public domain so other creations can be made from them. I believe that the laws as they stand are result of a corrupt political system that allows lobbing, not what is in the best interest of society.
I do however think a lot of the cost of making a movie feeds into itself, buying rights to stories, paying actors, directors, producers millions. These costs are because movies can make a lot of money, and everybody wants their cut, so if the story, actor, director, ... is famous enough it almost guarantees success.
I think these costs, are actually killing the movie industry, they not conducive to creating new and initiative stories but rather run by accountants, that produce the same stories over and over again because they know they will sell. If you are investing $100 million you do not want small chance of success. The only way to reduce the cost of movies is to force them to be competitive.
Apart from all that just because it is wrong doesn't make it stealing, just like it doesn't make it rape.
Yeh but you haven't stolen my wife have you? You as long as it was consensual haven't even done anything illegal (in a lot of countries).
A better analogy would be, if I was pimping my wife out, and you had consensual sex with her on her on time, and didn't pay me. Did you steal from me?
I may be annoyed that you had sex with her, but I only lost money if you where willing pay if she didn't have sex with you in the first place. She maybe she was so good that you are now willing to pay (free sample).
Disclaimer:
I am in no way suggesting pimping anyone out is ethical, my wife (and all people) are in no way anybodies property. I only used it because it was the example given.
Here I have taken money that you can show what you would have gotten, if it was not for the lie.
If someone watches the concert through the window, you have lost money only if that person would have gone to the concert otherwise. They may have, they may not have, they may go to your next concert because they liked what they saw.
Just because someone pirates a movie, and if this is stealing, and the law as consistent, for a criminal case you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have paid for it anyway. I don't think you could even prove it beyond balance of probabilities.
You have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, is "stealing" intellectual property so much worse that we have to lower the standard of proof.
The answer is you are not stealing but you are committing copyright infringement which is different.
Nobody is saying we should impose equality on everybody, (straw-man anyone?) But there is a spectrum here, ranging from everybody is equal, no matter how skilled or lazy they are, right through to the rich get to set the laws, put their money in tax havens, get all the resources, and the poor are just left to die.
I am personally for a system, of fairness, where there is a reasonable chance if you work hard, you have a chance to succeed. Of course it can't be totally fair because that would be impossible to enforce, but it can be fairer than it is now.
I see the system, that is currently in the US as far to much side of, if you are rich you get what you want. Political influence can openly be bought. The wealthy do move their money around to pay less tax as a portion of their wealth.
Slaves are not free or equal.
As for health their have been studies that show the more equal a society is (probably to a point) the healthier, happier they are, even the rich are sightly better off.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?s...
I know you disagree with this and so do I. I would like point out that blacks are more likely be arrested for the same crime, and given a harsher penalty.
However I have heard similar statistics for males and violence. Men are more likely to be arrested for domestic violence even if they where the ones that called the police in the first place. I am sure that it is much less likely that a man would report violence against him committed by a woman. Women also have a tendency to pick men that stronger than them as partners, it is hard to physically intimidate a person stronger than you. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in the US 76.8% murder victims are men, I pick murder because it is unlikely to go unreported. Although this could also be perpetrated by men, mens lives are clearly more dangerous.
While we continue to assume men are somehow bad, and are so dangerous, it is fair to not even let them into the same car as a woman just because they are a man we will only alienate more men. This will only cause men to dislike women more. I am sure black people where considered somehow bad, or somehow somehow worse than white people. That was racism them and this is sexism now.
If you want a "safer" uber service then you can have a service that does security checks on all its customers, and drivers. That way you are judged on your previous actions, not the genitals you where born with.
I would argue that the spirit of the law is to protect creators of content from loosing money. From the summary:
Blizzard says the rule "isn't an issue because of 'lost' subscription fees ...
it simply boils down to the fact that private servers are illegal
So what they are saying is, it doesn't effect us but stop doing anyway, its illegal. Note illegal != wrong. How can it be wrong if it is not hurting anyone.
First lets look at these options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
Well actually by definition Acme has not made an unbreakable lock, since it can be broken by Acme.
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
If it is possible to make a truly unbreakable lock anyone who needs an unbreakable lock will simple go to another company, in another country, or make their own. So making it illegal will only damage local industry, because nobody will be buying Acme's intentionally inferior locks, apart from people who don't care about security in the first place.
As other people have mentioned the third option is just deal with it, sometimes you can't get all the evidence. On the face of it may sound terrible, especially when you put emotionally charged words like terrorism or pedophile in-front of them. However I am sure this scenario happens every day such as people flushing there drugs down the toilet, people putting fake license plates on there car and crashing into my fence (grr), maybe you can't find the body, pedophiles shredding images, and caches on their computers, to terrorists not leaving a paper trail on there phone. The solution is that you use other evidence. Sometimes the guilty get away with it, that is life.
Of course Trump says some things you agree with he basically spurs a bunch of inconsistent babble, sometimes you will agree with it.
I am sure that the current president (and previous ones) have authorized things that could be considered war crimes, but it wasn't part of their campaign, that they would commit them. The only reason they haven't been prosecuted is no one has the power to do it.
The key is Trump hasn't killed, YET. Give him the power to do so and he will. Just because a praying mantis has killed any person yet, doesn't mean if you make it 10 feet tall it won't. Unless of course you don't believe that Trump will not do what he says, if so then how can you trust that he will do the things that you agree with.
You are wrongly assuming that pointing out somebodies bad spelling/grammar his somehow doing them a favor. Your are not their teacher, they never asked you to correct them. It will not improve there spelling, the most likely outcome will be that they will be annoyed with you. What you are actually doing is making yourself feel superior by putting someone else down.
There are times when it is necessary to point out these errors, such as when your job is to teach/correct the person, or the grammar/spelling is so bad that you cannot understand what is written.
What would really help spelling/reading would be to make English spelling logical, as opposed to the inconsistent mapping sounds and letters it currently is.
It is a lottery, and a very unfair one at that, if you started off rich you have a much higher chance of success, you can invest money, take risks, and have connections. If you are poor, you have to worry about surviving day to day before you can even start to invest.
In economics is something that is essential to survival, that is fundamentally different to wanting something that you can live without.
The word need is often used as just a want, "I need those shoes", but English is an ambiguous language and you often need (not just want) context to work out the words true meaning.
What like the USA? Oh wait that probably the country that has experienced it the least.
The horror of when you get sick, being able to know you can afford to go to the hospital. If you loose your job knowing you won't be on the street.
Sounds horrendous, Socialism is only a dirty word in the USA because of some nation wide brain washing left over from the cold war. Sure supporting everybody no matter how little they do is not a good thing, and people should rewarded for their hard work. It is not an all or nothing proposition you can have a balance.
President Obama is being improperly advised and/or technically ignorant at best, and being an enabler to the power-hungry and/or a power-grabber himself. Note that I voted for this man, twice! Wishing I'd not have done so now.
I would not regret the decision, Mitt Romney and John McCain would have probably done exactly the same or worse. That is the problem with the current political system, because of the massive corporate funding required to run, you get a choice of 2 people who are owned by corporations. The best you can end up doing is picking the one that you think is least bad. Even if by some miracle an independent president got in, they would be neutered by congress.
The system needs to change before, anything else can.
Forcing apple to do it would probably cost more and take longer, law suits against multinational corporations, are neither fast or cheap. What this method allows, is the future unlocking of all phones, quickly.
The code may have to be signed, for the update to be accepted on the phone.
Nonsense, just because you have a global health system doesn't mean you are a socialist country. Guess what? The world is not black an white, you can actually pick and choose which policies you want. In fact most 1st world countries, if not all, except the USA have one. It is cheaper to run than the US system, and all people live longer, including the rich. All the US system does is give money to the health insurance companies.
But don't let evidence cloud your judgement, the moment you get global health care system, is the moment you start your inevitable decent into becoming a communist state.
This is the same logic that means you are stuck with a two party system, (the stooge on the left or the stooge on the right) don't vote for the independent, that is like throwing away your vote. Vote for the person you believe in most, it is not like vote counts for that much anyway. If enough people buy into this nonsense it becomes true. If Donald Trump has a personality you either like or hate, if you hate him you will vote for anyone who runs against him.
For the purpose of this discussion Canada could be considered more European because the don't seem to be as opposed to change as the US. (Although I have never been to Canada). They use the metric system, (although not really European but every other country in the world except (Burma, Liberia, USA)). They have dropped their 1 cent coin, they their 1 and 2 dollar note a coin. When I visited the US, it amazed me how may places seemed not to accept EFTPOS, for what considered the most technologically advanced country in the world. Where Europe did not have this problem.
Let me be clear I have never been to Canada and this is only my opinion, gathered from media, not personal experience.
Sanders, does not believe in Utopia. I may not agree with all his ideas but he is right that the US political system is systemically corrupt, and the only way to solve any of the other problems is to solve that first. He may not succeed in fixing the system (probably not, it is a big job, with lots of corrupt people against him), but it needs be fixed, and it is better that the US elect someone who will at least try to fix the broken system, than someone who will continue to ignore it.
The reason that he says he will fix system as opposed to saying I'll give it my best gosh darn try, is it not politically expedient. No politician says they will try there best, they say this is what they will do.
Or he can bilk every single person in the US. (and probably the rest of the world). I am sure the all his ex partners believed they where "on his team". The only person on Donald Trumps team is himself.
To me that is the very definition of a back door, apple can install arbitrary software on your phone without your consent. That is make your phone do whatever apple wants without consent.
Nonsense, IQ tests are just some questions that some imperfect human came up with in order to judge the intelligence of people. They assign an arbitrary weighting to certain skills. Who is to say what is important and what is not. They may provide a measure of intelligence but they are certainly not a perfect one.
I am not even sure you can even assign a total ordering on intelligence, it is far more likely to be a partial ordering. We chose to give a simple number like IQ or a test score because of its simplicity and ease of comparison, not its accuracy.
I believe only fools, and arrogant people with high IQs believe they are perfect.
Why? Planes and boats (no need to know general relativity) use Newtonian physics to transport people to places they weren't normally found, that breaks down in some cases. It doesn't mean we can't use those principles.
Even if people die because the laws break down it isn't the end of the world, you just make some new people. Things don't need to be 100% safe do it, just reasonably safe.
Without two much hubris
Of course that is too much hubris, first it requires us to assume that understand enough about the known universe and what is actually happening. We currently observer the universe though specs of electromagnetic radiation billion of light years away. To assume we know what is going on is even likely is hubris. We should make these assumptions because it is the best we have. But the fraction of the universe, (both distance and time) we can actually see in any real detail is minute. Even the detail we observe is also probably very limited as well, since we may only have limited senses.
Newtons laws are very useful, we still use them now. General relativity laws will continue to be useful even if they don't predict everything. If we come up with a better theory that theory will continue to be useful, even when that theory proves not to be accurate in certain conditions as well.