But what makes Rapidshare so different from say Gmail? You can send a big attachment to a 'public' email, then publish the password and user name to a 'link' site. Google will then perform the same function that Rapidshare does. Or how about Googledocs. What if someone posts a copyrighted work there?
Well the question is if the case would ever get to trial. The US has show that it has no problems keeping people prisoner for years without a chance to defend themselves.
Sweden has not charged Assange with anything, he's just wanted for 'questioning'. So the limits you point out do not apply. As for the US, it has never bothered them before that people they didn't liked were not bound by their law.
Did Apple develop the technologies to turn Fidler's design into a working product? Or did they just use technologies that were developed by others, then package them into a form also designed by another persons? Yes, they should be rewarded for the work they did - the packaging itself is still a valuable service. But they should not be able to prevent OTHERS from doing the same thing.
Exactly. It's interesting that the Bioware drone mentions Dragon Age, since the DLC was advertised IN the game. You reached a quest giver, and he told you that you had to buy his quest!
But we're not talking about killing off children that are 'inferior'. We're talking about altering the genes of a single individual. Why is that considered 'undignified'?
However, if we do consider your scenario, where the choice is life or death for the fetus, even then I can see conditions where death would be preferable, even from the point of view of the fetus itself. Imagine a disease that would cause unending extreme pain and at the same time have no cure, with death taking a few days or weeks. The child would not even be able to commit suicide or ask for anyone to kill it. And what if the condition just caused pain, but was not even fatal? Would it be moral to force the child to live until the 'age of reason'?
Exactly what dignity do you see in a child dying from a genetic disease? Or do you make a distinction between filtering for lethal and non-lethal conditions? And if non-lethal conditions can be fixed, why not other disadvantages?
Level taxes might be good, bu only if ALL income was taxed. That means that that any time a person received money, a certain % of it would go to taxes. There would be no difference between a paycheck, corporate income or capital gains. Since there would be a much larger base of taxable transactions, the percentage could be very low, much lower then current income taxes.
And is the Bible their original word? Does even the bible claim to have been written by them? The Koran is at least supposed to have been written by the relevant prophet himself, so why is it so strange they give it more weight?
Does vegetarianism imply that animals aren't killed in the production of those plants? How many insects will be killed to protect the crops? How many will be killed by the ploughing and harvesting?
Vegetarian lifestyle doesn't cause many fewer deaths then someone that eats meat every day. The difference is that it kills fewer cute furry mammals.
As for killing them with as little pain as possible, I agree with you. But it's interesting how some religions object to laws demanding that animals are sedated before slaughter, since it interferes with the rituals demanded by their faith.
It's interesting how little of the current breeds of Christianity is based on the words of Jesus, and how much on the words of his students and church leaders. And how rarely all the 'love and giving and kindness' is followed by the 'righteous'. You very rarely hear a person quoting Jesus, while other authors are quoted in just about every conversation where something is claimed to be against the will of God.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.
Do we need to do better? Nearly all animals kill other animals in the course of their lives. Humans just try to make other humans feel bad about doing it.
Well I can see the point of children not being able to consent, but why do animals have to consent? They don't have to consent to anything else, including ritual slaughter. So why not allow people to have sex with them, if they feel so inclined? As long as the animal doesn't suffer, I don't see anything that should be forbidden, just as many other disgusting things aren't forbidden.
Well it's not like the Bible is much better when it comes to the rights of women. Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her, slavery of women (even sexual slavery) is fine as well. Even murder is fine if you say she's a witch.
But why save the companies whose programs were triggered or humans who panicked? They made their choices hoping to get rich, and they lost. Sure they were operation on faulty data (one companies BIG error), but at least 50% of the 'investors' (those that lose money on a trade) do, so why make these cases something special?
For everyone that looses money, some one else would gain it. If enough pension funds go bankrupt, then perhaps people will stop gambling with their money.
Great idea. The people harmed by colonialism must be compensated. The first step should be giving them back their land (including the Americas). So let's move the descendants of the colonialists back to their native countries. Then those countries can set up funds to help restart the economy of the now underpopulated continents.
Have the Mexican government get into the drug trade. Make a deal with one of the cartels, give it a drug trading concession, have the military support it for a few months, just enough to eliminate the (now unlicensed and thus illegal) competition. Then tax them and let them go about their business.
My guess is that many more cops would also start dying. Why not shoot the cop that's about to search you, when you're going to die anyway for the drugs you're carrying.
Slashdot Mirror
But what makes Rapidshare so different from say Gmail? You can send a big attachment to a 'public' email, then publish the password and user name to a 'link' site. Google will then perform the same function that Rapidshare does. Or how about Googledocs. What if someone posts a copyrighted work there?
Pay me back when you collect reasonable discovery charges
I think those only apply to civil cases.
[
Just like 99% of the resistance movements during WW2? Or like the rebels during the American revolution?
And even if you still blame them for not having the resources to get uniforms, then why not put them on trial? Why keep them in limbo?
Well the question is if the case would ever get to trial. The US has show that it has no problems keeping people prisoner for years without a chance to defend themselves.
Sweden has not charged Assange with anything, he's just wanted for 'questioning'. So the limits you point out do not apply. As for the US, it has never bothered them before that people they didn't liked were not bound by their law.
Did Apple develop the technologies to turn Fidler's design into a working product? Or did they just use technologies that were developed by others, then package them into a form also designed by another persons? Yes, they should be rewarded for the work they did - the packaging itself is still a valuable service. But they should not be able to prevent OTHERS from doing the same thing.
Exactly. It's interesting that the Bioware drone mentions Dragon Age, since the DLC was advertised IN the game. You reached a quest giver, and he told you that you had to buy his quest!
But we're not talking about killing off children that are 'inferior'. We're talking about altering the genes of a single individual. Why is that considered 'undignified'?
However, if we do consider your scenario, where the choice is life or death for the fetus, even then I can see conditions where death would be preferable, even from the point of view of the fetus itself. Imagine a disease that would cause unending extreme pain and at the same time have no cure, with death taking a few days or weeks. The child would not even be able to commit suicide or ask for anyone to kill it. And what if the condition just caused pain, but was not even fatal? Would it be moral to force the child to live until the 'age of reason'?
Exactly what dignity do you see in a child dying from a genetic disease? Or do you make a distinction between filtering for lethal and non-lethal conditions? And if non-lethal conditions can be fixed, why not other disadvantages?
Level taxes might be good, bu only if ALL income was taxed. That means that that any time a person received money, a certain % of it would go to taxes. There would be no difference between a paycheck, corporate income or capital gains. Since there would be a much larger base of taxable transactions, the percentage could be very low, much lower then current income taxes.
And is the Bible their original word? Does even the bible claim to have been written by them? The Koran is at least supposed to have been written by the relevant prophet himself, so why is it so strange they give it more weight?
Does vegetarianism imply that animals aren't killed in the production of those plants? How many insects will be killed to protect the crops? How many will be killed by the ploughing and harvesting?
Vegetarian lifestyle doesn't cause many fewer deaths then someone that eats meat every day. The difference is that it kills fewer cute furry mammals.
As for killing them with as little pain as possible, I agree with you. But it's interesting how some religions object to laws demanding that animals are sedated before slaughter, since it interferes with the rituals demanded by their faith.
It only prevents exploits for people who can't afford a horde of lawyers.
Does this also apply to stocks? When high freq traders make deals, do they have to file a report for every one of them?
It's interesting how little of the current breeds of Christianity is based on the words of Jesus, and how much on the words of his students and church leaders. And how rarely all the 'love and giving and kindness' is followed by the 'righteous'. You very rarely hear a person quoting Jesus, while other authors are quoted in just about every conversation where something is claimed to be against the will of God.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.
Do we need to do better? Nearly all animals kill other animals in the course of their lives. Humans just try to make other humans feel bad about doing it.
Well I can see the point of children not being able to consent, but why do animals have to consent? They don't have to consent to anything else, including ritual slaughter. So why not allow people to have sex with them, if they feel so inclined? As long as the animal doesn't suffer, I don't see anything that should be forbidden, just as many other disgusting things aren't forbidden.
Well it's not like the Bible is much better when it comes to the rights of women. Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her, slavery of women (even sexual slavery) is fine as well. Even murder is fine if you say she's a witch.
If the US government defaults, then the stock marker will probably crash so badly that NO stock investment will be safe.
But why save the companies whose programs were triggered or humans who panicked? They made their choices hoping to get rich, and they lost. Sure they were operation on faulty data (one companies BIG error), but at least 50% of the 'investors' (those that lose money on a trade) do, so why make these cases something special?
For everyone that looses money, some one else would gain it. If enough pension funds go bankrupt, then perhaps people will stop gambling with their money.
Great idea. The people harmed by colonialism must be compensated. The first step should be giving them back their land (including the Americas). So let's move the descendants of the colonialists back to their native countries. Then those countries can set up funds to help restart the economy of the now underpopulated continents.
Have the Mexican government get into the drug trade. Make a deal with one of the cartels, give it a drug trading concession, have the military support it for a few months, just enough to eliminate the (now unlicensed and thus illegal) competition. Then tax them and let them go about their business.
My guess would be you can't smoke pot fast enough to die from it, unless you bury yourself in a pile and set it on fire.
My guess is that many more cops would also start dying. Why not shoot the cop that's about to search you, when you're going to die anyway for the drugs you're carrying.