Germany hadn't had much colonies anyway and lost all of them after World War I already. Since World War II, Germany is holier than thou when it comes to colonialism and colonies. Not having colonies for nearly 100 years, Germans will mainly tell you that colonies are bad. Very bad. Completely bad. Just BAD[tm].
This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers. Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.
But not committing a crime makes you legal. If setting up a server linking to content others provide is not copyright infringment in UK, then it isn't.
Then you failed to convince others that your choice is better. If the majority has a different opinion than you, your opinion is per definitionem a fringe opinion.
I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!
They would only be able to sell 7 billion of those things every 70 years - or about 100 mio of them each year, if the earth's population doesn't increase very much, but life expectancy of everyone increases to 70 years. If the average life expectancy stays on current levels but the population increases to 10 billion, it's 200 million doses each year.
Just because we vaccine every human on earth, we don't exterminate the flu, as flu strains in birds or other mammals will mutate and infect people again and again. That's different to infections which affect only humans like polio or pertussis.
It does make a difference, because Viagra is most dangerous for people who have the most reason to take it - older men. Sildafenil was researched as a blood pressure and heart medicamentation, and it can be deadly if you have a heart precondition, as most of the elderly people have.
In the last days of the Staatssicherheit of the former East Germany, many documents were shredded, but now they are reconstructed by scanning the remainings and having a semiautomated process searching through the scans and finding fitting parts to reconstruct the original relations - basicly doing a big puzzle. There are online reports about it, albeit they are in german.
So we are looking for an atmosphere full of methane and tetrafluoromethane as an replacement for an overheated and increasingly acidic biosphere on earth?
Oh, if we really want to invite opposing viewpoints, why not invite some quetchua indian or a central african witch doctor or the guy sitting opposite of you in the bar, if your house's plumbing starts to leak? There are people who are actually doing some research and are occupying themselves with the matter and have seen in motion what they are talking about, and then there are people who just want to sell an opinion. Before you ask "cui bono" (which is a valid question), you have to ask "what happens". If I want to know who profits from a fictional event, I go read some SF or fantasy. In each scientific discussion, I want at first people who know how to read the instruments and how to record events and how to make sense from it. If in a climate discussion, someone appears who really has the instrumental records to dispute the course of events the other site plots them, I am ok with it. If it's just someone calling people names without a record of his own, there is no point of him being there. He literally has no clue what he's talking about.
I know, the reports about hurrican Sandy have run completely out of proportion, there was just some gentle breeze, and a small, light wave washing along the shore. But the media and the government in its greed for power had made it into a big storm and some major flooding. Whenever a crisis is reported or a catastrophe looming, never believe it! It's just made up by the media and stirred up by the government to grab more power.
You mean, it might work exceptionally well? So well, that british policemen are mostly unarmed, because even the criminals in the UK are not very often armed?
No, it is not. There are courts to call the government for its faults, and to correct them. That's why judges have to be independent of every other branch of the government.
Your argument is that just because someone makes a mistake (either intentionally or not intentionally), he is furtherhin barred from ever doing anything again. Yes, the government can err. Yes, the government can intentionally disregard its own regulations. It's up to you and to the courts to give it a slap on the wrist for doing that. The government is made up from people like you and me. We are sometimes speeding, we don't follow environmental regulations everytime, and we cheat on our taxes hoping no one will notice. The government does the same, because the same people are there. This makes the government not more or less illegal than you.
I don't understand how so many people are constructing a "them vs. us" regarding the government, if it's their own responsibility to control the government and either be the government themselves or getting people into the goverment they like to be there. If the government fails, it's also your fault. You failed at getting a working government in place. Blaming the goverment is nothing else than blaming yourself for your unability to get the goverment running correctly.
... This is no legal precedent, as in German law, there is no precedent. Another court can rule completely differently, and Hamburg has some fame for ruling quite strongly in favor of big media conglomerates and contrary to the interest of the internet users.
Only if the highest court in Germany, either the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court) or the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) rule, it sets legal precedent.
Yes, it is illegal, because it causes avoidable and irreparable damage to school property. And is it really harmless if it is deadly for any living being inside of the microwave?
If you don't like the "take it or leave" it, let me elaborate.
I'm using Jean-Jacques Rousseau's model of the social contract, but there are other models basicly coming to the same conclusion.
Your sole existance is a restriction of the freedom of others. Where you sit, no one else can sit. What belongs to you, no one else can take. What you have eaten, limits the choice of food for others. The presence of your face limits the places other peoples fist can be, and your body restricts the freedom of me to put my knife there. Where your house is, others can't built a road, and where you go, others have to take care not to bump into you.
So either you have to get out of everyone else's way, living in solitary far away from civilisation (in which case you really wouldn't have to pay any taxes until you restrict other people's undisturbed view of the landscape), or you have to negotiate with everyone about how much you can restrict their freedom. This negotiations are burdensome and complex, thus people have drawn some standard contracts most people can agree on. You can buy into this contract by paying taxes, or you can refuse this contract, making you an outcast and outlaw. Because now no one is restricted in the way to handle you, in general everyone can molest you, rob you or kill you -- because you didn't buy into the contract, others are not bound either by the contract regarding to you too.
Luckily for you, most of today's social contracts restrict other's ability to harm you even though you didn't buy into the social contract, but it doesn't need to be that way, and it hasn't been for most of known history. This extended social contract is the only reason why you can falsely believe that taxes are robbed from you - even if you leech from society's social contract by not paying taxes, others won't do you much harm. If you had lived in the Middle Ages, and the ban of the Empire would have been put on you, effectively canceling your social contract, others actually could molest you, rob you and kill you completely unrestricted. You would have to renegiotiate with everyone coming your way not to do so, either by begging them, buying you out, or by fighting them. Remember, in general you are a disturbance for everyone else, and it's only the social contract hindering us not to remove everyone getting in our way, including you, the non-taxpayer. And not everyone is ready to renegotiate with you. There is a known social contract, and it's not his problem you didn't buy into it.
And you are living in a democracy, meaning you can even participate everytime at will in the renegotiations of the social contract. The contract currently offered to you doesn't need to stay that way, you don't need to renegotiate with everyone individually to actually change it to better fit your needs. But still, in the end you have to pay for your restrictions of other people's freedom. The right to get into other people's way has to be paid for.
You have a choice, you can set up your life wherever you want on the world. Some governments don't like to do business with you (e.g. letting you settle there or giving you citizenship), but that's their choice too. It's only your personal laziness that you did not to sell off all your non moveable property and moved to where you like the conditions. Don't blame the government for your own failings!
No, you owe the money. You were taking all the services of the government (like enacting and enforcing laws, enabling trade, protecting against aggressors, building roads, defining standards, structuring society), and now you have to pay for them. If you don't like the services the government provides, go somewhere else where you get services more to your liking.
Actually, Motorola offered Apple to license the patents, and Apple declined. So your argument is moot. Motorola was willing to license. Apple now tries to weazle out of the FRAND story by claiming that Motorola's prices weren't FRAND conform, but they got laughed out of court in Wisconsin already about this.
No. If everyone had the right to punch someone else in the face if disagreeing with him, only people strong enough to selfdefend against most potential attackes or rich enough to pay their own bodygards would speak their minds. Because you don't have the right to punch someone in the face except in cases of self defence, others can speak freely without the fear of retaliation.
It's not only something between you and me. It has been shown again and again that the general view of society which behaviour is ok and which is not is extremely determinant for the behaviour of the single person. A person feels entitled to the actions it sees from others. People don't punch you in the face because of your opinion, because society as a whole frowns upon bodily harm against people who speak their minds. Thus a potential attacker feels himself outside of generally accepted norms if he hits you in the face about your opinion and is thus much more likely to feel guilty afterwards.
OK, lets abolish the police, because no one has the moral superiority to hinder you from burglaring, robbing and killing someone.
What some libertarians constantly forget is that personal freedom does exist solely because there is a society that provides those freedoms to you. It's not you, who defends his personal freedom against society, it's the society which defends your personal freedom against all individuals, who want to take it from you.
If you go down to the source of each freedom you have, you will see that you only have them because society provides it to you. For instance you only have a right to free speech, because society restricts the freedom of everyone else to hit you in the face for what you say.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany hadn't had much colonies anyway and lost all of them after World War I already. Since World War II, Germany is holier than thou when it comes to colonialism and colonies. Not having colonies for nearly 100 years, Germans will mainly tell you that colonies are bad. Very bad. Completely bad. Just BAD[tm].
This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers. Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.
But not committing a crime makes you legal. If setting up a server linking to content others provide is not copyright infringment in UK, then it isn't.
You can't steal rights, you can just infringe upon them.
Then you failed to convince others that your choice is better. If the majority has a different opinion than you, your opinion is per definitionem a fringe opinion.
I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!
They would only be able to sell 7 billion of those things every 70 years - or about 100 mio of them each year, if the earth's population doesn't increase very much, but life expectancy of everyone increases to 70 years. If the average life expectancy stays on current levels but the population increases to 10 billion, it's 200 million doses each year. Just because we vaccine every human on earth, we don't exterminate the flu, as flu strains in birds or other mammals will mutate and infect people again and again. That's different to infections which affect only humans like polio or pertussis.
It does make a difference, because Viagra is most dangerous for people who have the most reason to take it - older men. Sildafenil was researched as a blood pressure and heart medicamentation, and it can be deadly if you have a heart precondition, as most of the elderly people have.
In the last days of the Staatssicherheit of the former East Germany, many documents were shredded, but now they are reconstructed by scanning the remainings and having a semiautomated process searching through the scans and finding fitting parts to reconstruct the original relations - basicly doing a big puzzle. There are online reports about it, albeit they are in german.
So we are looking for an atmosphere full of methane and tetrafluoromethane as an replacement for an overheated and increasingly acidic biosphere on earth?
Oh, if we really want to invite opposing viewpoints, why not invite some quetchua indian or a central african witch doctor or the guy sitting opposite of you in the bar, if your house's plumbing starts to leak? There are people who are actually doing some research and are occupying themselves with the matter and have seen in motion what they are talking about, and then there are people who just want to sell an opinion. Before you ask "cui bono" (which is a valid question), you have to ask "what happens". If I want to know who profits from a fictional event, I go read some SF or fantasy. In each scientific discussion, I want at first people who know how to read the instruments and how to record events and how to make sense from it. If in a climate discussion, someone appears who really has the instrumental records to dispute the course of events the other site plots them, I am ok with it. If it's just someone calling people names without a record of his own, there is no point of him being there. He literally has no clue what he's talking about.
I know, the reports about hurrican Sandy have run completely out of proportion, there was just some gentle breeze, and a small, light wave washing along the shore. But the media and the government in its greed for power had made it into a big storm and some major flooding. Whenever a crisis is reported or a catastrophe looming, never believe it! It's just made up by the media and stirred up by the government to grab more power.
You mean, it might work exceptionally well? So well, that british policemen are mostly unarmed, because even the criminals in the UK are not very often armed?
No, it is not. There are courts to call the government for its faults, and to correct them. That's why judges have to be independent of every other branch of the government. Your argument is that just because someone makes a mistake (either intentionally or not intentionally), he is furtherhin barred from ever doing anything again. Yes, the government can err. Yes, the government can intentionally disregard its own regulations. It's up to you and to the courts to give it a slap on the wrist for doing that. The government is made up from people like you and me. We are sometimes speeding, we don't follow environmental regulations everytime, and we cheat on our taxes hoping no one will notice. The government does the same, because the same people are there. This makes the government not more or less illegal than you. I don't understand how so many people are constructing a "them vs. us" regarding the government, if it's their own responsibility to control the government and either be the government themselves or getting people into the goverment they like to be there. If the government fails, it's also your fault. You failed at getting a working government in place. Blaming the goverment is nothing else than blaming yourself for your unability to get the goverment running correctly.
You have to be realistic here: Hamburg decision are riled on in other parts of Germany, because they run contrary to what other courts rule.
... This is no legal precedent, as in German law, there is no precedent. Another court can rule completely differently, and Hamburg has some fame for ruling quite strongly in favor of big media conglomerates and contrary to the interest of the internet users. Only if the highest court in Germany, either the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court) or the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) rule, it sets legal precedent.
Yes, it is illegal, because it causes avoidable and irreparable damage to school property. And is it really harmless if it is deadly for any living being inside of the microwave?
If you don't like the "take it or leave" it, let me elaborate. I'm using Jean-Jacques Rousseau's model of the social contract, but there are other models basicly coming to the same conclusion. Your sole existance is a restriction of the freedom of others. Where you sit, no one else can sit. What belongs to you, no one else can take. What you have eaten, limits the choice of food for others. The presence of your face limits the places other peoples fist can be, and your body restricts the freedom of me to put my knife there. Where your house is, others can't built a road, and where you go, others have to take care not to bump into you. So either you have to get out of everyone else's way, living in solitary far away from civilisation (in which case you really wouldn't have to pay any taxes until you restrict other people's undisturbed view of the landscape), or you have to negotiate with everyone about how much you can restrict their freedom. This negotiations are burdensome and complex, thus people have drawn some standard contracts most people can agree on. You can buy into this contract by paying taxes, or you can refuse this contract, making you an outcast and outlaw. Because now no one is restricted in the way to handle you, in general everyone can molest you, rob you or kill you -- because you didn't buy into the contract, others are not bound either by the contract regarding to you too. Luckily for you, most of today's social contracts restrict other's ability to harm you even though you didn't buy into the social contract, but it doesn't need to be that way, and it hasn't been for most of known history. This extended social contract is the only reason why you can falsely believe that taxes are robbed from you - even if you leech from society's social contract by not paying taxes, others won't do you much harm. If you had lived in the Middle Ages, and the ban of the Empire would have been put on you, effectively canceling your social contract, others actually could molest you, rob you and kill you completely unrestricted. You would have to renegiotiate with everyone coming your way not to do so, either by begging them, buying you out, or by fighting them. Remember, in general you are a disturbance for everyone else, and it's only the social contract hindering us not to remove everyone getting in our way, including you, the non-taxpayer. And not everyone is ready to renegotiate with you. There is a known social contract, and it's not his problem you didn't buy into it. And you are living in a democracy, meaning you can even participate everytime at will in the renegotiations of the social contract. The contract currently offered to you doesn't need to stay that way, you don't need to renegotiate with everyone individually to actually change it to better fit your needs. But still, in the end you have to pay for your restrictions of other people's freedom. The right to get into other people's way has to be paid for.
You have a choice, you can set up your life wherever you want on the world. Some governments don't like to do business with you (e.g. letting you settle there or giving you citizenship), but that's their choice too. It's only your personal laziness that you did not to sell off all your non moveable property and moved to where you like the conditions. Don't blame the government for your own failings!
No, you owe the money. You were taking all the services of the government (like enacting and enforcing laws, enabling trade, protecting against aggressors, building roads, defining standards, structuring society), and now you have to pay for them. If you don't like the services the government provides, go somewhere else where you get services more to your liking.
Actually, Motorola offered Apple to license the patents, and Apple declined. So your argument is moot. Motorola was willing to license. Apple now tries to weazle out of the FRAND story by claiming that Motorola's prices weren't FRAND conform, but they got laughed out of court in Wisconsin already about this.
Actually, Citroën and Peugeot are both trademarks of PSA (Peugeot Société Anonyme).
Try this: Google search for Sandy Island. Then Google can find it.
No. If everyone had the right to punch someone else in the face if disagreeing with him, only people strong enough to selfdefend against most potential attackes or rich enough to pay their own bodygards would speak their minds. Because you don't have the right to punch someone in the face except in cases of self defence, others can speak freely without the fear of retaliation. It's not only something between you and me. It has been shown again and again that the general view of society which behaviour is ok and which is not is extremely determinant for the behaviour of the single person. A person feels entitled to the actions it sees from others. People don't punch you in the face because of your opinion, because society as a whole frowns upon bodily harm against people who speak their minds. Thus a potential attacker feels himself outside of generally accepted norms if he hits you in the face about your opinion and is thus much more likely to feel guilty afterwards.
OK, lets abolish the police, because no one has the moral superiority to hinder you from burglaring, robbing and killing someone. What some libertarians constantly forget is that personal freedom does exist solely because there is a society that provides those freedoms to you. It's not you, who defends his personal freedom against society, it's the society which defends your personal freedom against all individuals, who want to take it from you. If you go down to the source of each freedom you have, you will see that you only have them because society provides it to you. For instance you only have a right to free speech, because society restricts the freedom of everyone else to hit you in the face for what you say.