Well yes and by copying it without having the copyright to do that they violated the copyright. -I try not to insult you, but how narrow is your mind, as you seem unable to grasp the simplest concepts?
On the question if it should be illegal or not, it's obvious isn't it, it's made illegal so then it is illegal. Discuss in a court if you think otherwise.
Disagreeing, is no point, it's trolling in it's best as it's unlawful and there is the copyright law, if you disagree, take the discussion to the court not here. And while it's unlawful, respect the law and act accordingly.
well you seem to try to make the point I made. I'm not against free speech quit the opposite, but I'm way past that in my discussion.
I'm discussing that human acts according to their views. And the problem with other human views deciding what is wrong or right.
Tell me who are you to tell me I'm wrong in killing you. Or whom am I telling the others wrong in putting me in prison for that act. And who are those who tells other humans it's right to kill other humans because they belong to something else, Nation/Religion/View of life, Wars = legalized murdering or man slaughter.
Who are they or you/me to tell that something is a crime. What are the differences in criminalizing one act from the other. And who's human view is the correct one to follow.
You don't see my problem here do you. If you have free speech (a good thing) and tolerance ( a good thing), in the end there is no difference is criminalizing murder or homosexuality. They are different topics yes. But the same patterns forgo in both cases. So who is to criminalize one act and not the other. Who's view are we to follow? Who's view are we to make our law?
I'm not against law and order, I'm not pro anarchist, but these questions remain. Who are to tell you or me that we are wrong in what we do. If I tell you, your wrong in something you view as right, who am I to tell you your wrong? Why would my view be superior to your view?
Most people think this is obvious and simple as in the case of a murderer, because the case is kind of obvious. But in fact there is nothing obvious about it, as long as it's base on an mans view against an other mans view. There is nothing obvious about it.
Mosquitos survive winters with -30C degrees. That is why we in early summer have bigger mosquitos than later on in mid summer. But they are not many.
Spiders the same way, but if a spider is woken up to early in the winter, as with a sudden hot winter in january to be frozen again in january it will not survive. No stored energy. Same thing with flies, big slow ones in spring. Very few though, then their offspring comes to life and are small.
But to the point, a mosquito can survive that very well. But if that is the likely explanation, I wont even comment on. I guess those who made the report, knows about the possibilities, and taken them into account.
It's far from impossible with some of those diseases, cant remember for sure now, but hepatitis or type of hepatitis could be one of them. An other would be chlamydia. There is a third version of chlamydia that is even transmitted over air. But the infection will be in the lungs and not at genital ares as with the other two types of chlamydia, also sometimes refereed to as TWAR.
You need to exchange lots of air to get an infection, why it's not common with norman dudes. However it's not uncommon among sportsmen who exchange a lot of air after a session. In the 80s or early 90s many who practiced orienteering (sports scouting) died due to that disease.
I have a friend who in his teens where skein professionally, almost got o the skiing team that represents our country, who's career was stooped due to TWAR. Having it unknowingly for too long time gave him other diseases as side effects.
So yes some of those sexually-vectored diseases definitely can be infections by other means.
So it is, but freedom of speech does not include, to willingly offend others.
Tolerance is about, not offending or be offended. Live and let live, but has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone who disagree with homosexual lifestyle, has the right to say what they think about it. The same applies the other-way around. But free speech does not include going around about it offending the other or gathering a mob against the other.
When it comes to HBT questions the same is happening on both sides. Both trying to force the others acceptance of their view. This is the same with every controversial topic. Religion, sexual preference and even science.
Freedom of speech means I can say my point of view, what ever that point of view is, to whom ever I choose to. Still tolerance is about respect. Respecting that the other has a different view, without forcing the other in any other way. Still I'm allowed to discuss the topics and if I want to try to persuade the other to chose a different view.
But still there is a problem, consider the situation when the other one sees no wrong in killing an other man. And if he wont change his view on that topic. What if we respect that view as his view and way of life, as just a different way of living. As he really may have that view. Would he respect our view that he should be in prison.
Man has never solved these problems, and never will.
I agree, and it perplexes me that copyright infringement hasn't been criminalized. This explains why RIAA tries to define it as stealing. While it isn't because copyright infringement is just as bad as stealing, but not criminal as stealing.
In essence they are the same while technically they are way different, and I think most people with normal IQ agrees on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the motto would maybe been something real rather than just a bad joke then.... :p
Well yes, what do you think the sentence "died as flies is" it's a hyperbole; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Well yes and by copying it without having the copyright to do that they violated the copyright.
-I try not to insult you, but how narrow is your mind, as you seem unable to grasp the simplest concepts?
On the question if it should be illegal or not, it's obvious isn't it, it's made illegal so then it is illegal. Discuss in a court if you think otherwise.
Disagreeing, is no point, it's trolling in it's best as it's unlawful and there is the copyright law, if you disagree, take the discussion to the court not here. And while it's unlawful, respect the law and act accordingly.
well you seem to try to make the point I made. I'm not against free speech quit the opposite, but I'm way past that in my discussion.
I'm discussing that human acts according to their views. And the problem with other human views deciding what is wrong or right.
Tell me who are you to tell me I'm wrong in killing you. Or whom am I telling the others wrong in putting me in prison for that act. And who are those who tells other humans it's right to kill other humans because they belong to something else, Nation/Religion/View of life, Wars = legalized murdering or man slaughter.
Who are they or you/me to tell that something is a crime. What are the differences in criminalizing one act from the other. And who's human view is the correct one to follow.
You don't see my problem here do you. If you have free speech (a good thing) and tolerance ( a good thing), in the end there is no difference is criminalizing murder or homosexuality. They are different topics yes. But the same patterns forgo in both cases. So who is to criminalize one act and not the other. Who's view are we to follow? Who's view are we to make our law?
I'm not against law and order, I'm not pro anarchist, but these questions remain. Who are to tell you or me that we are wrong in what we do. If I tell you, your wrong in something you view as right, who am I to tell you your wrong? Why would my view be superior to your view?
Most people think this is obvious and simple as in the case of a murderer, because the case is kind of obvious. But in fact there is nothing obvious about it, as long as it's base on an mans view against an other mans view. There is nothing obvious about it.
We didn't talk about owning the potential gain, but owning the copy of their software. But you didn't understand that did you.
Now go back and read the law, you should.
As either your a troll or an ignorant fool, and your telling me that your not a troll?
Or arena where they had their dress rooms and showers.
But they died as flies back in the 80s early 90s because of it.
An insult catches their attention way better, so spare the compliments till you got your proper attention.
I just for a second thought that you wrote no way that i take someone's body parts....
Mosquitos survive winters with -30C degrees. That is why we in early summer have bigger mosquitos than later on in mid summer. But they are not many.
Spiders the same way, but if a spider is woken up to early in the winter, as with a sudden hot winter in january to be frozen again in january it will not survive. No stored energy. Same thing with flies, big slow ones in spring. Very few though, then their offspring comes to life and are small.
But to the point, a mosquito can survive that very well. But if that is the likely explanation, I wont even comment on. I guess those who made the report, knows about the possibilities, and taken them into account.
It's far from impossible with some of those diseases, cant remember for sure now, but hepatitis or type of hepatitis could be one of them. An other would be chlamydia. There is a third version of chlamydia that is even transmitted over air. But the infection will be in the lungs and not at genital ares as with the other two types of chlamydia, also sometimes refereed to as TWAR.
You need to exchange lots of air to get an infection, why it's not common with norman dudes. However it's not uncommon among sportsmen who exchange a lot of air after a session. In the 80s or early 90s many who practiced orienteering (sports scouting) died due to that disease.
I have a friend who in his teens where skein professionally, almost got o the skiing team that represents our country, who's career was stooped due to TWAR. Having it unknowingly for too long time gave him other diseases as side effects.
So yes some of those sexually-vectored diseases definitely can be infections by other means.
So it is, but freedom of speech does not include, to willingly offend others.
Tolerance is about, not offending or be offended. Live and let live, but has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone who disagree with homosexual lifestyle, has the right to say what they think about it. The same applies the other-way around. But free speech does not include going around about it offending the other or gathering a mob against the other.
When it comes to HBT questions the same is happening on both sides. Both trying to force the others acceptance of their view. This is the same with every controversial topic. Religion, sexual preference and even science.
Freedom of speech means I can say my point of view, what ever that point of view is, to whom ever I choose to. Still tolerance is about respect. Respecting that the other has a different view, without forcing the other in any other way. Still I'm allowed to discuss the topics and if I want to try to persuade the other to chose a different view.
But still there is a problem, consider the situation when the other one sees no wrong in killing an other man. And if he wont change his view on that topic. What if we respect that view as his view and way of life, as just a different way of living. As he really may have that view. Would he respect our view that he should be in prison.
Man has never solved these problems, and never will.
Nope your wrong your using their product that they used time and effort to create.
They own it, and there is a law about it generally called "copyright".
Ever considered to quit the trolling.
No but your using their product. You never own the copy you have, just so you know. It's their copy, not yours, independent of whom copied it.
It's still a copyright infringement
so what about the fundamentals, of free speech, the freedom to talk to everyone, your neighbor?
It's not potential anymore when you pirated it, you are guilty to pay for it then already.
So you do ow them money. You did not steal the money. Just as if you skip pay rent, you haven't stolen the apartment. But you ow them money.
I wonder where your cray colored cells are.
Just broadcast the english version, the rest of the world don't need a special edition for their country, we're happy with the original.
Or is it that Americans don't understand english?
yep, and a great scientist is out of the question.
I hope you understand that it's the same with everything.
As there might be a free app to download too....
Well in first place the photo of you, wouldn't be yours to decide over. But the photographer, unless you have a different agreement.
You deprive them of the gain you where supposed to give them.
There fixed it for you.
Only if it's not mentioned what the apps do. If they did it properly they should have added the SMS feature in small print.
Then it's not a trojan at all.
That is why it's called copyright infringement instead of stealing. And yes both should be criminal.
I agree, and it perplexes me that copyright infringement hasn't been criminalized. This explains why RIAA tries to define it as stealing. While it isn't because copyright infringement is just as bad as stealing, but not criminal as stealing.
In essence they are the same while technically they are way different, and I think most people with normal IQ agrees on this.