If you are removing publicly available (and seemingly correct) information about a competitor from a publicly available website, this can be easily be considered anticompetitive behaviour.
It works. Try it! In Germany the radical Greens have been part of a government. And no old government has fought back (except by winning the next local and state elections). And when it comes to undo things, it's as complicated as getting things done. Politics is about compromise (as is everything else in general), and being too radical will lose you the next election anyway. But if you have a majority of votes, it basicly means that you also have the majority of the population behind you. That means that also the majority of police men in your region, the majority of town councils in your region, the majority of people in the governmental services, the majority of the boards of education and similar are behind you. So which would be that government which then will roll over you? Who will join the personal that's attacking you? You seem to think that government is other people, people not you. Some men in black, indestructible and countless in numbers. That's as wrong as it gets. Government is you. Goverment is made by people like you. People from your neighbourhood. People you were in highschool with. And, most importantly: people you elected or failed to disqualify by electing someone else. If your government fails on you, it's mainly your own fault - for either being a minority unable to voice its interest in the right manner to get other people to agree with you, or for being a majority unable to care for itself.
Of course. Government agencies outside of the U.S. seem to work in many cases. The SNCF (French Railroad) is very working well, as is their japanes counterpart Kokutetsu, EADS is mainly owned by european countries and is currently the most successful civil airplane manufacturer of the world. In Germany, the water supply is the best controlled food supply, and nearly 100 percent owned by the local municipalities. It seems that the U.S.population, expecting the government agencies to be incompetent, actually get what they are expecting and thus ready to pay for: incompetent government agencies.
It takes just enough votes to replace the current government. Isn't democracy great? (And if you don't get enough votes to replace the current government, you can rightly be considered a minority.)
It is your privately held opinion that there ought to be a law to forbid the publishing of classified documents, but alas there is none in the U.S. code of law. There is only a law that forbids leaking classified documents. That's why the U.S. prosecutors fervently try to get Pfc. Manning to testify that Mr. Assange or another person affiliated with WikiLeaks actually demanded from him to get hold of the documents they later published. But so far they don't have any proof of that, and WikiLeaks denies to ever have done so.
In the EU there are other internal payment processing agencies (eurocheque being the most important one). So it's mainly VISA and Mastercard who will suffer. And as far as I know the documents were not classified by any EU entity, so no EU law was broken.
WikiLeaks is not accused in a court of law in the U.S. of anything right now, so it can claim to be a perfectly legal entity. As long as that doesn't change, it's VISA and Mastercard, who are breaking the law. So what was the diplomatic issue you are talking about right now?
(Sorry for posting off-topic, but I am very interested to know which war actually ended communism. The last time I looked it was low oil prices and high international interest rates that caused the money flow to the Soviet Union to dry up, the free union Solidarnosc in Poland surviving a seven year long era of martial law and still going strong and the people in East Germany being fed up by a fossilized stalinist regime unwilling to any change fleeing the country in droves that brought down communism. I might err on that one, being there and actually living in East Germany in 1989, so what can I know?)
At least in Germany just a few days ago the chief police officer of Dresden had to step down because of stretching and breaking too many privacy laws. So a privacy law done right can have some teeth even against the government.
Basicly we are saying the same, and you insist on me saying the contrary. That's what I don't get. I am with you (except for the stuff you are trying to read in my posts).
Read it again:
"Refusing assisted suicide" (that is: denying people to decide for themselves when to die) "is making people suffer" (equals it to torturing others) "for your principles." (for some arbitrary set of moral rules never tainted by any reality).
So stop shooting at people who are trying to support you!
Huh?! You were saying, that keeping animals alive under the same conditions because of your principles would be considered cruelty to animals. And that I rephrased as "forcing people to stay alive under the same conditions because of your principles is torturing people."
Italy has never had any running nuclear reactors anyway (there is one not fully built though and being an investition ruin since some decades). This vote is just a confirmation of the status quo. But don't let that interfere with your opinion.
Had Google acted philanthropically, they couldn't have shown damage from being no longer allowed to do so. Copyright is about business, and to argue about copyright, you have to show a business case.
It also denies progress. If I have to pay 10000000000% more to actually get educated what Art is and how it works and how former artists have done it, I'll might not be able to create any art at all. What all those theorists about how copyright is an incentive forget, is that being confronted with Art is the greatest incentive of them all. No one will try to invent a song, if he has never heard a song. No one will try to write a novel, if he had never read one. No one will ever perform an act, if he has never seen someone else acting. And let me quote Isaac Newton, who in turn quoted John of Salisbury quoting Bernhard of Chartres: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
All Art and Culture is based on those shoulders. Copyright is fencing the shoulders and asking for an entrance fee, thus limiting the number of people who are able to see a little further.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very cheap simulation for that simulation. It's called a bike.
It was a private investigator hired by News of the World. In this case the Telco wouldn't up the quota.
If you are removing publicly available (and seemingly correct) information about a competitor from a publicly available website, this can be easily be considered anticompetitive behaviour.
Moderation: -1 Missing the Irony.
It works. Try it! In Germany the radical Greens have been part of a government. And no old government has fought back (except by winning the next local and state elections).
And when it comes to undo things, it's as complicated as getting things done. Politics is about compromise (as is everything else in general), and being too radical will lose you the next election anyway. But if you have a majority of votes, it basicly means that you also have the majority of the population behind you. That means that also the majority of police men in your region, the majority of town councils in your region, the majority of people in the governmental services, the majority of the boards of education and similar are behind you. So which would be that government which then will roll over you? Who will join the personal that's attacking you?
You seem to think that government is other people, people not you. Some men in black, indestructible and countless in numbers.
That's as wrong as it gets.
Government is you. Goverment is made by people like you. People from your neighbourhood. People you were in highschool with. And, most importantly: people you elected or failed to disqualify by electing someone else. If your government fails on you, it's mainly your own fault - for either being a minority unable to voice its interest in the right manner to get other people to agree with you, or for being a majority unable to care for itself.
Of course. Government agencies outside of the U.S. seem to work in many cases. The SNCF (French Railroad) is very working well, as is their japanes counterpart Kokutetsu, EADS is mainly owned by european countries and is currently the most successful civil airplane manufacturer of the world. In Germany, the water supply is the best controlled food supply, and nearly 100 percent owned by the local municipalities. It seems that the U.S.population, expecting the government agencies to be incompetent, actually get what they are expecting and thus ready to pay for: incompetent government agencies.
It takes just enough votes to replace the current government. Isn't democracy great?
(And if you don't get enough votes to replace the current government, you can rightly be considered a minority.)
It is your privately held opinion that there ought to be a law to forbid the publishing of classified documents, but alas there is none in the U.S. code of law. There is only a law that forbids leaking classified documents. That's why the U.S. prosecutors fervently try to get Pfc. Manning to testify that Mr. Assange or another person affiliated with WikiLeaks actually demanded from him to get hold of the documents they later published. But so far they don't have any proof of that, and WikiLeaks denies to ever have done so.
Your turn: What law WikiLeaks has broken?
My problem was that the Slashcode sucked up the ^3 character.
The volume of a sphere is actually 1/6 tau r.
Switzerland is not in the EU, so EU law (what the law firm in question is specialised in) does not apply.
In the EU there are other internal payment processing agencies (eurocheque being the most important one). So it's mainly VISA and Mastercard who will suffer. And as far as I know the documents were not classified by any EU entity, so no EU law was broken.
WikiLeaks is not accused in a court of law in the U.S. of anything right now, so it can claim to be a perfectly legal entity.
As long as that doesn't change, it's VISA and Mastercard, who are breaking the law. So what was the diplomatic issue you are talking about right now?
(Sorry for posting off-topic, but I am very interested to know which war actually ended communism. The last time I looked it was low oil prices and high international interest rates that caused the money flow to the Soviet Union to dry up, the free union Solidarnosc in Poland surviving a seven year long era of martial law and still going strong and the people in East Germany being fed up by a fossilized stalinist regime unwilling to any change fleeing the country in droves that brought down communism. I might err on that one, being there and actually living in East Germany in 1989, so what can I know?)
At least in Germany just a few days ago the chief police officer of Dresden had to step down because of stretching and breaking too many privacy laws. So a privacy law done right can have some teeth even against the government.
Every scientist, engineer, businessperson, or individual who thinks quantitatively and likes to do math in real life, who is not lefthanded.
There, fixed that for you.
He was about 50, when he died, so the chieftain daughter's room theory has some problems to overcome.
(Full disclosure: I live about 1 1/2 hrs drive from the point where he was discovered.)
The very principle of terrorism is making grand gestures. From a utalitarian point of view terrorism is just a waste of time and resources.
Basicly we are saying the same, and you insist on me saying the contrary. That's what I don't get. I am with you (except for the stuff you are trying to read in my posts).
Read it again:
"Refusing assisted suicide" (that is: denying people to decide for themselves when to die)
"is making people suffer" (equals it to torturing others)
"for your principles." (for some arbitrary set of moral rules never tainted by any reality).
So stop shooting at people who are trying to support you!
Huh?! You were saying, that keeping animals alive under the same conditions because of your principles would be considered cruelty to animals. And that I rephrased as "forcing people to stay alive under the same conditions because of your principles is torturing people."
Where is the whoosh?
So basicly you are saying:
Refusing assisted suicide is making other people suffer for your principles.
Italy has never had any running nuclear reactors anyway (there is one not fully built though and being an investition ruin since some decades). This vote is just a confirmation of the status quo. But don't let that interfere with your opinion.
Had Google acted philanthropically, they couldn't have shown damage from being no longer allowed to do so. Copyright is about business, and to argue about copyright, you have to show a business case.
It also denies progress. If I have to pay 10000000000% more to actually get educated what Art is and how it works and how former artists have done it, I'll might not be able to create any art at all.
What all those theorists about how copyright is an incentive forget, is that being confronted with Art is the greatest incentive of them all. No one will try to invent a song, if he has never heard a song. No one will try to write a novel, if he had never read one. No one will ever perform an act, if he has never seen someone else acting. And let me quote Isaac Newton, who in turn quoted John of Salisbury quoting Bernhard of Chartres: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
All Art and Culture is based on those shoulders. Copyright is fencing the shoulders and asking for an entrance fee, thus limiting the number of people who are able to see a little further.
You mean, like the K-19 and K-431 never happened?