See, we have completely different views about what is really wrong in this case. I would always call the preponderance of returning stolen good to the rightful owner (he ist the rightful owner after all!). I think the reversing of the sale of the stolen good to C, D, E... is a minor problem. After all, it's a reversing of a sale, nothing else. They return the good, and are entitled to get their money back. If they bought something that breaks within warranty, and the seller has declared bankruptcy since, they also don't get their money back if they want to undo the sale.
But forcing the rightful owner to actually buy something back that belongs to him already feels completely wrong to me.
But with your method the original owner ist wronged twice: First he loses his property, then to get it back he loses the money. What if the stolen object is some valuable item like an old painting, inherited from the ancestors? What if the original owner would have to sell his house to get it back?
That's quite different from how it is handled here: You don't own property you bought in good faith if the property was stolen or the seller didn't have a right to sell it to you. All you can do is sue the seller to return the money you paid for the item.
If you not just read TFA, but actually followed the links you would have been at Science, where the abstract clearly states:
Dopamine D2 receptor reduction seems to decrease sensitivity to negative action consequences, which may explain an increased risk of developing addictive behaviors in A1-allele carriers. Maybe this time the journalist was better at actually reading and understanding the article?
AFAICS, for several decades, OS design has consisted of shuffling the subsystems of a 1960s mainframe into slightly different configurations and slapping a shell on it. It's not that I can do better. I can't. Maybe NT, Linux, Vista really are the best we can do. That's a depressing thought. Maybe it's because the 60ies Mainframe design is elegant and never goes out of fashion?
There is a difference between Lamarckism and the fact, that not every trait that gets inherited is transfered by encoding into the genetic code. There is the mitochondric genetic code, there are special proteins that cause certain parts of the genetic code to be switched off or interpreted differently etc.pp. (There are also parts of the genetic code that generate a protein that switches exactly this part of the genetic code off, and there are other parts of the genetic code that needs a protein present to be interpreted at all, and they just generate exactly this protein... kinda chicken-egg-problem).
It's not that easy, and it is surely not Lamarckism, e.g. animals don't inherit abilities their parents got during their life. It's more that the process of inheritance itself gets disturbed, and the descendents thus don't get the original gene codes of their parents but a variant of it (and that's what mutation originally meant).
He should even get them for false advertising. They surely mention good English courses somewhere in their advertisement material, and they weren't even able to read "shoot it" correctly in the context of photography.
You didn't hire them 24/7. So what ever they do before 9 am and after 5 pm is not of your concern, and using that as reason to cancel a contract is a breach of contract, and furthermore it is against their right of free association.
That's the strange thing with freedom, it ends as soon as it limits other peoples freedom.
And wouldn't it be the task of the justice to spot legally false statements and not consider them in the findings of law? I am just a layman myself, but I guess the justice was educated in the law.
The Florida voting system hat those lever machines that try to cut holes into the ballot to count them later with an electromechanical reader, a system created and first used for public census, invented by Hermann Hollerith and base for IBMs rise to power.
One problem was that hundreds and thousands of those ballots hat the cut off paper still dangling on it, or that some were only slightly cut, but at several places (as if the voter had a second thought and pulled another lever, but none of them consequently enough).
The main arguments against paper-and-pencil-voting seem to be:
1) The ballots can't be counted fast enough for the Late News to report the results. 2) People with disabilities such as blind people need help to vote and can't check the results themselves.
Argument 1) doesn't hold in my humble opinion. I would rather like to have correct results than early reported ones. Being able to watch the count was in my own country (the former East Germany) the base for all later convictions of Voting Fraud for the leading figures of the former communist government. Also some other frauds (like the one during the voting for the town council of Dachau near Munich) were detected because people were able to compare their own counting results from the public count with the ones later reported by the Voting Commission.
Argument 2) raises a valid point, because Braille printed ballots are much larger than normal prints, and some german towns have already ballots printed on half a square meter of paper. Printing them additionally with Braille further would increase them. On the other hand it was allowed anyway to just cut out that part of the ballot with the votes one had casted and throw everything else in a shredder. So this is still possible.
You are still wrong about that. The WTO doesn't forbid the U.S. to have laws that discriminately ban some forms of online gambling (and allow other forms). It just says: If you do that, then you have to allow other countries to have laws in place that damage your economy too. The WTO then tries to arbiter how much damage a country is allowed to, and how this damage has to be applied.
So if Antigua and Barbuda decide to still respect U.S. copyright, they are free to do so. But they are also allowed not to respect them at least with respect to free trade rules defined by the WTO. Of course Antigua and Barbuda is also allowed to change its constitution and declare any form of "intellectual property" (it is still not property, even if it gets repeated again and again, it's a priviledge for a limited time) unconstitutional per se, exept the one under control of Antiguan citizens. The WTO doesn't forbid that. It only says then ok to other countries who think that this hurts their economies to retailiate with other economic means.
So stop the bullshit of the WTO reign into U.S. souvereignity. The WTO will not lobby for any changes of U.S. gambling laws. The WTO will not send troups into the U.S. to free online gambling provider sentenced by U.S. courts. The WTO will just turn a blind eye if Antigua and Barbuda infringe on U.S. copyright. That's all.
When the U.S. raised steel tariffs, the WTO awarded the EU to raise tariffs on U.S. orange juice. I don't believe that the U.S. made orange juice contains so much iron to make up for the lost U.S. business for EU steel makers.
30 million American blacks have had more impact on the arts than nearly a billion Europeans have, over the last 100 years. ... said the man who never listened to the Beatles.
So what? When the U.S. increased steel tariffs, EU countries were allowed by the WTO to raise tariffs on U.S. made orange juice. I don't think U.S. orange juice contains so much iron to make up for the lost U.S. business for EU steel makers.
The German Urheberrechtsgesetz (the equivalent to Copyright Law) explicitely states: "Copies made for yourself are illegal if they are made from an obviously illegal source." As Antiguan download servers aren't illegal thanks to the WTO, it would be ok for Germans to download from Antiguan servers. So who's now billed for this? Antigua, because they allowed Germans to copy (but didn't itself infringe on anyone's copyright), or Germany, where it is legal to copy from a legal source?
Slashdot Mirror
See, we have completely different views about what is really wrong in this case. I would always call the preponderance of returning stolen good to the rightful owner (he ist the rightful owner after all!). I think the reversing of the sale of the stolen good to C, D, E... is a minor problem. After all, it's a reversing of a sale, nothing else. They return the good, and are entitled to get their money back. If they bought something that breaks within warranty, and the seller has declared bankruptcy since, they also don't get their money back if they want to undo the sale.
But forcing the rightful owner to actually buy something back that belongs to him already feels completely wrong to me.
But with your method the original owner ist wronged twice: First he loses his property, then to get it back he loses the money. What if the stolen object is some valuable item like an old painting, inherited from the ancestors? What if the original owner would have to sell his house to get it back?
That's quite different from how it is handled here: You don't own property you bought in good faith if the property was stolen or the seller didn't have a right to sell it to you. All you can do is sue the seller to return the money you paid for the item.
There is a difference between Lamarckism and the fact, that not every trait that gets inherited is transfered by encoding into the genetic code. There is the mitochondric genetic code, there are special proteins that cause certain parts of the genetic code to be switched off or interpreted differently etc.pp. (There are also parts of the genetic code that generate a protein that switches exactly this part of the genetic code off, and there are other parts of the genetic code that needs a protein present to be interpreted at all, and they just generate exactly this protein... kinda chicken-egg-problem).
It's not that easy, and it is surely not Lamarckism, e.g. animals don't inherit abilities their parents got during their life. It's more that the process of inheritance itself gets disturbed, and the descendents thus don't get the original gene codes of their parents but a variant of it (and that's what mutation originally meant).
He should even get them for false advertising. They surely mention good English courses somewhere in their advertisement material, and they weren't even able to read "shoot it" correctly in the context of photography.
Sorry. Wrong legislation. Here we don't have a morals clause.
Breach of contract, that's what wrong with that.
You didn't hire them 24/7. So what ever they do before 9 am and after 5 pm is not of your concern, and using that as reason to cancel a contract is a breach of contract, and furthermore it is against their right of free association.
That's the strange thing with freedom, it ends as soon as it limits other peoples freedom.
And wouldn't it be the task of the justice to spot legally false statements and not consider them in the findings of law? I am just a layman myself, but I guess the justice was educated in the law.
Cool. So my little online ranking for an online game I invented in '95 is Prior Art?
That's what makes them so appealling :)
Huh? Which expensive purchased software is GPLed?
The Florida voting system hat those lever machines that try to cut holes into the ballot to count them later with an electromechanical reader, a system created and first used for public census, invented by Hermann Hollerith and base for IBMs rise to power.
One problem was that hundreds and thousands of those ballots hat the cut off paper still dangling on it, or that some were only slightly cut, but at several places (as if the voter had a second thought and pulled another lever, but none of them consequently enough).
The main arguments against paper-and-pencil-voting seem to be:
1) The ballots can't be counted fast enough for the Late News to report the results.
2) People with disabilities such as blind people need help to vote and can't check the results themselves.
Argument 1) doesn't hold in my humble opinion. I would rather like to have correct results than early reported ones. Being able to watch the count was in my own country (the former East Germany) the base for all later convictions of Voting Fraud for the leading figures of the former communist government. Also some other frauds (like the one during the voting for the town council of Dachau near Munich) were detected because people were able to compare their own counting results from the public count with the ones later reported by the Voting Commission.
Argument 2) raises a valid point, because Braille printed ballots are much larger than normal prints, and some german towns have already ballots printed on half a square meter of paper. Printing them additionally with Braille further would increase them. On the other hand it was allowed anyway to just cut out that part of the ballot with the votes one had casted and throw everything else in a shredder. So this is still possible.
No. They played something that is called Mersey beat. That's not Rock'n'Roll.
Sorry about that. My computer bluescreened, and I wasn't sure to have sent the posting.
You are still wrong about that. The WTO doesn't forbid the U.S. to have laws that discriminately ban some forms of online gambling (and allow other forms). It just says: If you do that, then you have to allow other countries to have laws in place that damage your economy too. The WTO then tries to arbiter how much damage a country is allowed to, and how this damage has to be applied.
So if Antigua and Barbuda decide to still respect U.S. copyright, they are free to do so. But they are also allowed not to respect them at least with respect to free trade rules defined by the WTO. Of course Antigua and Barbuda is also allowed to change its constitution and declare any form of "intellectual property" (it is still not property, even if it gets repeated again and again, it's a priviledge for a limited time) unconstitutional per se, exept the one under control of Antiguan citizens. The WTO doesn't forbid that. It only says then ok to other countries who think that this hurts their economies to retailiate with other economic means.
So stop the bullshit of the WTO reign into U.S. souvereignity. The WTO will not lobby for any changes of U.S. gambling laws. The WTO will not send troups into the U.S. to free online gambling provider sentenced by U.S. courts. The WTO will just turn a blind eye if Antigua and Barbuda infringe on U.S. copyright. That's all.
When the U.S. raised steel tariffs, the WTO awarded the EU to raise tariffs on U.S. orange juice. I don't believe that the U.S. made orange juice contains so much iron to make up for the lost U.S. business for EU steel makers.
So what? When the U.S. increased steel tariffs, EU countries were allowed by the WTO to raise tariffs on U.S. made orange juice. I don't think U.S. orange juice contains so much iron to make up for the lost U.S. business for EU steel makers.
The German Urheberrechtsgesetz (the equivalent to Copyright Law) explicitely states: "Copies made for yourself are illegal if they are made from an obviously illegal source." As Antiguan download servers aren't illegal thanks to the WTO, it would be ok for Germans to download from Antiguan servers. So who's now billed for this? Antigua, because they allowed Germans to copy (but didn't itself infringe on anyone's copyright), or Germany, where it is legal to copy from a legal source?
On the other hand CD albums retail for about US$ 2 in Antigua and Barbuda. So this equals to about 10 Mio CD abums copied or about 140 per capita.
.ag is already in german speaking hands, because AG is the german abbreviation for "Inc.".
Which was when?
I guess the first time someone published a chart, people started to game the chartlists.