Does anyone know how the value of the copyrighted works will be measured? Because $21 million could be anything from 1 copy to an infinite number of them, depending on which lawyer you ask.
Exactly, this shit happens. And what will happen in this case is that Antigua will start selling some cheap Hollywood films. And why not? They're a sovereign country. Now the US government can use some of that gambling tax money to compensate the content producers.
Sure they can, but there are still a few ways to pay which are not completely controlled by the US. And Antigua doesn't have to target customers inside the US. Why not sell stuff to Europeans for 10% of the regular price? I'm sure quite a few people will be willing to buy, giving money to Antigua instead of US companies.
Simply add the requirement that the source code of any program has to be made available to the public if you want the program to be covered by copyright.
If people bought the billboard space to declare you a pedophile, then Google should be allowed to report that. And if it's the most notable thing about you then it should also be part of autocomplete. Google just compiles information available on the internet. And people that use it expect that - it's a search engine. So if you don't like some of the information that is out there about you then tough for you. You should sue the guys that first made it available (if it was slander), not the people that archive it.
Why waste money cloning a kid just to torture it? You can probably buy them from your local addicts for a few dollars.
If you're going to spend the (quite likely) considerable amount of money needed to clone a neanderthal, then you're going to treat it as well to get as much data as possible from it.
And how many prey animals are there left in their habitat? If there were herds of elephants roaming all over Africa, then the food shortage wouldn't exist there (at least not for very long). If anything the hunters did too well, exterminating potential prey.
Why make a distinction between 'orders' of tools? Should you count a spearhead as a higher order tool, if it was made using a sharpened rock?
Any yes, wolves can hunt alone, just like humans can hunt without tools. But they are both pretty bad at it, compared to a wolf-pack or an armed human.
People experimentally create sentient people all the time. And many of the results of those experiments are treated way worse then lab specimens. And why would you think that the neanderthal would be treated in the way the Nazis treated Jews? Wouldn't that make the whole thing kind of pointless? Why clone a neanderthal and then treat it like an animal. They'd treat it like a regular child and see if there are any differences from a modern human. And as for the underclass, why bother going to the trouble of cloning them? Just drive across the border and import a few truckloads.
How do you define a human cell? If the DNA is replaced, doesn't the cell become a neanderthal cell (at least after a while). What if they used a chimpanzee cell as a base instead of a human one? It would probably be less compatible, but it could still work.
So would you also say that a woman that is likely to miscarry and still tries to have a baby is also unethical? Just because some of the lives that you create die does not make you guilty of killing them.
Being smart won't help you that much in the short term. Imagine being locked in a room with a hungry bear. Being able to make an assault rifle won't save you from being eaten.
But aren't humans the best hunters? Is there an animal that a human can't hunt successfully (with human made tools)? Or does only purely physical effort count when hunting? If that is the case, then wolves are pretty lousy hunters too, since they need to cooperate to bring down prey, most cats are lousy hunters since they need to ambush their prey,....
Well those people can now be employed by the universities that no longer have to pay the extortionate journal subscriptions, with the end result that more research can be done for the same amount of money.
But there is no need for a special law for this. If something is illegal, then it's illegal. The ToS don't even come into the equation. The problem with the law was that completely legal actions could suddenly become crimes if they conflicted with a site's ToS (which only a few % of users will ever read).
Unless he was forced to take the Meth, then it was his own choice to take it. So he destroyed his own life. I don't see why drugs are singled out to be prohibited, when there are so many other vices that destroy lives. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, legal drugs,...... Either ban all of them or let Darwin take care of the addicts.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not do both? Two sources of cash are better then one.
Does anyone know how the value of the copyrighted works will be measured? Because $21 million could be anything from 1 copy to an infinite number of them, depending on which lawyer you ask.
Exactly, this shit happens. And what will happen in this case is that Antigua will start selling some cheap Hollywood films. And why not? They're a sovereign country. Now the US government can use some of that gambling tax money to compensate the content producers.
I think you meant to say 'we0re just going to take your shiny things and go home'.
Sure they can, but there are still a few ways to pay which are not completely controlled by the US. And Antigua doesn't have to target customers inside the US. Why not sell stuff to Europeans for 10% of the regular price? I'm sure quite a few people will be willing to buy, giving money to Antigua instead of US companies.
Simply add the requirement that the source code of any program has to be made available to the public if you want the program to be covered by copyright.
If people bought the billboard space to declare you a pedophile, then Google should be allowed to report that. And if it's the most notable thing about you then it should also be part of autocomplete. Google just compiles information available on the internet. And people that use it expect that - it's a search engine. So if you don't like some of the information that is out there about you then tough for you. You should sue the guys that first made it available (if it was slander), not the people that archive it.
Why waste money cloning a kid just to torture it? You can probably buy them from your local addicts for a few dollars.
If you're going to spend the (quite likely) considerable amount of money needed to clone a neanderthal, then you're going to treat it as well to get as much data as possible from it.
And how many prey animals are there left in their habitat? If there were herds of elephants roaming all over Africa, then the food shortage wouldn't exist there (at least not for very long). If anything the hunters did too well, exterminating potential prey.
Why make a distinction between 'orders' of tools? Should you count a spearhead as a higher order tool, if it was made using a sharpened rock?
Any yes, wolves can hunt alone, just like humans can hunt without tools. But they are both pretty bad at it, compared to a wolf-pack or an armed human.
Is this adaptation part of the DNA, or is it passed down from the mother in the womb and milk?
People experimentally create sentient people all the time. And many of the results of those experiments are treated way worse then lab specimens. And why would you think that the neanderthal would be treated in the way the Nazis treated Jews? Wouldn't that make the whole thing kind of pointless? Why clone a neanderthal and then treat it like an animal. They'd treat it like a regular child and see if there are any differences from a modern human. And as for the underclass, why bother going to the trouble of cloning them? Just drive across the border and import a few truckloads.
How do you define a human cell? If the DNA is replaced, doesn't the cell become a neanderthal cell (at least after a while). What if they used a chimpanzee cell as a base instead of a human one? It would probably be less compatible, but it could still work.
There are a few billion potential mates for a Neanderthal - about half of humanity.
So would you also say that a woman that is likely to miscarry and still tries to have a baby is also unethical? Just because some of the lives that you create die does not make you guilty of killing them.
How many nice politicians or dictators do you know?
Being smart won't help you that much in the short term. Imagine being locked in a room with a hungry bear. Being able to make an assault rifle won't save you from being eaten.
But aren't humans the best hunters? Is there an animal that a human can't hunt successfully (with human made tools)? Or does only purely physical effort count when hunting? If that is the case, then wolves are pretty lousy hunters too, since they need to cooperate to bring down prey, most cats are lousy hunters since they need to ambush their prey,....
Well those people can now be employed by the universities that no longer have to pay the extortionate journal subscriptions, with the end result that more research can be done for the same amount of money.
But there is no need for a special law for this. If something is illegal, then it's illegal. The ToS don't even come into the equation. The problem with the law was that completely legal actions could suddenly become crimes if they conflicted with a site's ToS (which only a few % of users will ever read).
My guess is that time dilation doesn't apply to travel in hyperspace.
His body is dead and so is he. You can't prove I'm wrong.
Why hold back? Run them over with a Buick too.
Unless he was forced to take the Meth, then it was his own choice to take it. So he destroyed his own life.
I don't see why drugs are singled out to be prohibited, when there are so many other vices that destroy lives. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, legal drugs,...... Either ban all of them or let Darwin take care of the addicts.
Just send a few hitmen to kill the CEOs of a company that annoys you, then pass a law pardoning them.