He's talking about herd immunity. The benefits of herd immunity are to those that are unimmunized for whatever reason. If the vaccine has less than 100% effective, then there are people who have been vaccinated that would be harmed by poor herd immunity, and poor herd immunity can mean that disease can continue to thrive and may have a better chance of evolving to combat the vaccine. To me, that's one of the most dangerous things about anti-vaxxers. They are ensuring that we will need to vaccinate forever.
It's unnecessary because there is no serious health risk associated with the vast majority of chickenpox cases. It does sound better to have a vaccine (although I'm not sure of the effectiveness or the potential for side effects), but most of us would be fine without it.
He mentioned that Revenge of the Nerds had a scene of what would be legally defined as rape, but there was plenty of other films around that time that featured attempted assault/rape/murder taken in a fairly light manner. it's also odd to pin that on 'nerds', as the way I understand it, the majority of rape happens in scenarios at least resembling a date or going out, both activities typically not strongly associated with nerds.
Except that these people would be willing to be put under the sword, negating your argument. If you don't want to be potentially put under the sword, stay out of politics.
Actually, it ensures that we are governed by people who are willing to give up THEIR personal liberties to hold their position, which is very different than the kind of people we are governed by now.
No, it's not 'their job.' Their actual mission statement is much more nuanced than that, the job descriptions of those within the agency are much more complicated, and the reality is that even job descriptions tend to miss a huge share of what someone actually does. So, when you say it is 'their job', you are saying that you don't believe that these people with lots of power should be properly checked. The notion of 'perfectly acceptable' and 'their job' is the heart of the problem. It's also assuming 'their job' needs to exist at all. If you wanted to improve US national security, one of the first steps would be to destroy the NSA.
They want an environmentally/economically sustainable way of having temporary classrooms when they need them. A similar example would be disposable cutlery. Petroleum based plastic cups are intended to be temporary, but they are not sustainable because they deplete natural resources and do not biodegrade. By contrast, there are now cups that fit that role made from plant products, but will break down after a month or two of environmental exposure. These cups are intended to be temporarily used, but their design is at least intended to be sustainable.
I know this, but the british public also voted to retain that system recently if you remember.
Not being a Brit, I didn't know that. What system was the proposed replacement?
I would also point out that if enough of the british public actually felt strongly in favour of copyright reform then one of the major parties would look at adopting it and working it into their manifesto to try and win votes. The problem however is that if any party did this they would be savaged by the Murdoch press as he stands to lose out by copyright reform.
So, a major party could possibly adopt it, but they couldn't do so without major consequences.
I also think that most of the voting public actually support the idea of copyright and are far more against reform than some of us on the other side of the spectrum like to acknowledge. Once you put it to the british public as "Ensuring our digital economy is not undermined by copyright infringement" they soon think things like relaxing copyright law are a bad idea. You can be damn sure that is how the media would put it to the public when they have so much to lose by copyright reform.
Yes, if you frame it right, you can get the public to support just about anything. That's why polling is so often useless. I'd say that, in practice, public support for copyright is much weaker than the law as it stands.
One, there are a couple of metrics that could be used for what makes up the pecentage, and the accuracy of said metrics is not great by any means. Furthermore, the bar set in the Betamax case was that something 'merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.' That's a pretty low bar that this site definitely meets.
Contributory infringement exists only in US case law, and much of it used a ridiculous argument that defies previous precedent. IIRC, linking sites have been explicitly ruled to not violate copyright law in the UK. So, we have a weird corporate/government entity that has no jurisdiction here claiming that they should be able to stop a site that is actually in compliance with their national laws. So, why should anybody be listening to these asshats?
Except for the fact that the PIPCU is part of the City of London, which isn't elected really elected by citizens in a meaningful way. Also, the UK voting system is FPTP, which means that if there are strong ties with an interested group to the major political parties, the will of the people is pretty easy to ignore on all but the most important and overwhelming issues.
torrentz.eu does one better, they don't even have any content. They merely link to sites that provide means to download various media through a bittorrent client. Linking to a link should be safe territory.
Actually, First Amendment free speech protections do cover works that would be copyright violation outside of the First Amendment. Fair Use stems from the First Amendment, and the arguments here would be whether or not this is Fair Use.
Anti-virus software is technological, not legal, so it wouldn't be the result of his logic. You are arguing that DeCSS should be illegal, which is outright ridiculous.
Because in some cases, there is someone else qualified for the job, perhaps a significant number of someones applying for only one position. The interview may be the deciding factor, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point in having it (other than perhaps negotiating your pay, which is itself something that may merit concern). Also, you don't seem to be producing a great example here. If your relative strength for the position is stable, you would be more nervous with less experience interviewing, so your most recent interview probably wouldn't be the best example.
Care to cite that law? Also, random drug tests are often not all that random. People often know a week in advance that they, or at least someone is going to be tested.
You are forgetting the possibility that your sample may not be representative. They may self-select against jobs that drug test, or they may be good at passing drug tests through various means.
Assuming we have car to car communications, there would be a signal sent to the car, ideally signed via UTC timestamped public key crypto. The car would either pull over itself after calculating a safe place to pull over or prompt the end user on whether or not they wish to pull over.
If the number of cops that we have is greater than the number of cops we need to actually keep us safe, then some cops would lose their job. The reality would be that those cops shouldn't have been employed in the first place.
By that logic, why don't we have secret elections? Just go through the process of selecting candidates and platforms without letting all of the vested special interests pressuring them, and then the people can dedice which of the preselected candidates to vote for.
If you want to have broad economic advantages, you have a free trade agreement. A free trade agreement is simple. We let the people trade and we don't interfere. These agreements are to dangle the economic importance of free trade on a string to extort.
Sure is a nice economy you have there. It would be a shame is suddenly everyone were to stop allowing your goods into our country. Why don't we have a nice talk over here about some changes you're going to love.
The majority of Americans may have no problem with 'spying on other countries' in the sense of collecting a fairly wide swath of individuals reasonably close to known or suspected criminals, but I'm not sure they are as keen on 'spying on other countries' in the sense of spying on the all telephone communications for the entire fucking country.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about herd immunity. The benefits of herd immunity are to those that are unimmunized for whatever reason. If the vaccine has less than 100% effective, then there are people who have been vaccinated that would be harmed by poor herd immunity, and poor herd immunity can mean that disease can continue to thrive and may have a better chance of evolving to combat the vaccine. To me, that's one of the most dangerous things about anti-vaxxers. They are ensuring that we will need to vaccinate forever.
It's unnecessary because there is no serious health risk associated with the vast majority of chickenpox cases. It does sound better to have a vaccine (although I'm not sure of the effectiveness or the potential for side effects), but most of us would be fine without it.
He mentioned that Revenge of the Nerds had a scene of what would be legally defined as rape, but there was plenty of other films around that time that featured attempted assault/rape/murder taken in a fairly light manner. it's also odd to pin that on 'nerds', as the way I understand it, the majority of rape happens in scenarios at least resembling a date or going out, both activities typically not strongly associated with nerds.
Except that these people would be willing to be put under the sword, negating your argument. If you don't want to be potentially put under the sword, stay out of politics.
Actually, it ensures that we are governed by people who are willing to give up THEIR personal liberties to hold their position, which is very different than the kind of people we are governed by now.
No, it's not 'their job.' Their actual mission statement is much more nuanced than that, the job descriptions of those within the agency are much more complicated, and the reality is that even job descriptions tend to miss a huge share of what someone actually does. So, when you say it is 'their job', you are saying that you don't believe that these people with lots of power should be properly checked. The notion of 'perfectly acceptable' and 'their job' is the heart of the problem. It's also assuming 'their job' needs to exist at all. If you wanted to improve US national security, one of the first steps would be to destroy the NSA.
They want an environmentally/economically sustainable way of having temporary classrooms when they need them. A similar example would be disposable cutlery. Petroleum based plastic cups are intended to be temporary, but they are not sustainable because they deplete natural resources and do not biodegrade. By contrast, there are now cups that fit that role made from plant products, but will break down after a month or two of environmental exposure. These cups are intended to be temporarily used, but their design is at least intended to be sustainable.
Not being a Brit, I didn't know that. What system was the proposed replacement?
So, a major party could possibly adopt it, but they couldn't do so without major consequences.
Yes, if you frame it right, you can get the public to support just about anything. That's why polling is so often useless. I'd say that, in practice, public support for copyright is much weaker than the law as it stands.
One, there are a couple of metrics that could be used for what makes up the pecentage, and the accuracy of said metrics is not great by any means. Furthermore, the bar set in the Betamax case was that something 'merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.' That's a pretty low bar that this site definitely meets.
Contributory infringement exists only in US case law, and much of it used a ridiculous argument that defies previous precedent. IIRC, linking sites have been explicitly ruled to not violate copyright law in the UK. So, we have a weird corporate/government entity that has no jurisdiction here claiming that they should be able to stop a site that is actually in compliance with their national laws. So, why should anybody be listening to these asshats?
And where does that metric come from?
Except for the fact that the PIPCU is part of the City of London, which isn't elected really elected by citizens in a meaningful way. Also, the UK voting system is FPTP, which means that if there are strong ties with an interested group to the major political parties, the will of the people is pretty easy to ignore on all but the most important and overwhelming issues.
torrentz.eu does one better, they don't even have any content. They merely link to sites that provide means to download various media through a bittorrent client. Linking to a link should be safe territory.
Actually, First Amendment free speech protections do cover works that would be copyright violation outside of the First Amendment. Fair Use stems from the First Amendment, and the arguments here would be whether or not this is Fair Use.
Anti-virus software is technological, not legal, so it wouldn't be the result of his logic. You are arguing that DeCSS should be illegal, which is outright ridiculous.
Progress is better than regress, and you don't really need that much innovation to have dumb pipes.
Because in some cases, there is someone else qualified for the job, perhaps a significant number of someones applying for only one position. The interview may be the deciding factor, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point in having it (other than perhaps negotiating your pay, which is itself something that may merit concern). Also, you don't seem to be producing a great example here. If your relative strength for the position is stable, you would be more nervous with less experience interviewing, so your most recent interview probably wouldn't be the best example.
Care to cite that law? Also, random drug tests are often not all that random. People often know a week in advance that they, or at least someone is going to be tested.
You are forgetting the possibility that your sample may not be representative. They may self-select against jobs that drug test, or they may be good at passing drug tests through various means.
Eventually, yes. In the mean time, the 'driver' would presumably shift their car into manual drive and pull over in response to lights.
Assuming we have car to car communications, there would be a signal sent to the car, ideally signed via UTC timestamped public key crypto. The car would either pull over itself after calculating a safe place to pull over or prompt the end user on whether or not they wish to pull over.
If the number of cops that we have is greater than the number of cops we need to actually keep us safe, then some cops would lose their job. The reality would be that those cops shouldn't have been employed in the first place.
By that logic, why don't we have secret elections? Just go through the process of selecting candidates and platforms without letting all of the vested special interests pressuring them, and then the people can dedice which of the preselected candidates to vote for.
If you want to have broad economic advantages, you have a free trade agreement. A free trade agreement is simple. We let the people trade and we don't interfere. These agreements are to dangle the economic importance of free trade on a string to extort.
Sure is a nice economy you have there. It would be a shame is suddenly everyone were to stop allowing your goods into our country. Why don't we have a nice talk over here about some changes you're going to love.
The majority of Americans may have no problem with 'spying on other countries' in the sense of collecting a fairly wide swath of individuals reasonably close to known or suspected criminals, but I'm not sure they are as keen on 'spying on other countries' in the sense of spying on the all telephone communications for the entire fucking country.