What if there was a whole series of games about that same research facility, by many different developers. Then Valve decides to sue someone because their game features a Gordan (there have been other Gordans, but they were before the one Valve created).
I'm pretty sure there are laws about just about everything. So unless you have time to read a few books of laws every day, then you're going to be ignorant of quite a few laws that concern you.
And even if you have the time, there is a high probability you won't understand the laws as they are written, unless you are a lawyer (and maybe even then).
An implementation of that idea. Just look at most art. It's basically one person doing something weird, then a lot of others start copying them. Should 99% of artists be sued for ripping of ideas?
So why stop them from using the NEW photograph? Fine them for 200% of the income they made selling the ORIGINAL photo, but the new one is something they made themselves.
Why not put corporations in 'jail'. They are persons after all. If they are convicted, all of their assets are frozen for X years, just like if a physical person was.
Then stockholders can sue the management for causing the situation and loosing them money.
Does not have the right to withhold evidence? So why don't the police just require a murderer to provide the murder weapon, location of the body and any other evidence that they hid?
Or why don't they require people to supply detailed records of all monetary transactions in most economic crimes. Including any Swiss bank account information.
That way the judge can keep anyone accused in jail indeffinitely, saving the people the cost of a trial.
Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.
There is a difference between writing to your congressman and paying people to lobby the entire congress.
Every voter has the chance to do the first, only the wealthy can afford to buy a personal lobbyist. So why should the wealthy be allowed to have more influence in politics?
Any other location would be just as volnurable (or even more) to an asteroid as Earth is. So why not do both? Expand beyond Earth AND develop ways to stop asteroids? If one hits Earth it will be many thousands of years (even if we presume that it survives and absolutely everything goes well) before a colony would be capable of developing anything that could defend it from subsequent strikes.
It's not that monkeys and primates are not smart. They just have the (understandable) tendency to rip pieces of flesh of off people who try to make them bring back the ball for the zillionth time.
And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.
As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.
Yes, the federal government should have no right to regulate things. And neither should the states. Who are they to tell you what to do? And who is your local city government for that matter? All things should be down to the individual! After all, who is better equipped to say what is or isn't permitted then the person actually committing the act? I'm sure people are wise enough to not do anything 'evil' even without laws stopping them.
Why stop at ending SS/Medicare? Why not end other unnecessary evils that tax dollars are spent on. Like loan repayments? Just thing how good it would be for the country if the national debt was suddenly reduced to 0. Both schemes involve taking money from people with the promise of giving that money back in the future. So why abolish one and keep the other? Why keep repaying the debt, while not supporting people that paid into SS all their lives?
They don't even have to 'block' it. All they have to do is sink a tanker or two. No company is going to risk such a high value ship if there is a real chance of it getting sunk. And if you think that the US can easily defend them, just look at how well that worked against the Somali pirates. And those guys have to board a ship to achieve their goal.
If the Sea Shepherds had the firepower needed to do something about the Somali pirates then this whole discussion would have been resolved years ago. One way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'll make one myself. But the evil NASA wants to prevent me from doing that, since they like to keep the rocks exclusive.
What if there was a whole series of games about that same research facility, by many different developers. Then Valve decides to sue someone because their game features a Gordan (there have been other Gordans, but they were before the one Valve created).
I'm pretty sure there are laws about just about everything. So unless you have time to read a few books of laws every day, then you're going to be ignorant of quite a few laws that concern you.
And even if you have the time, there is a high probability you won't understand the laws as they are written, unless you are a lawyer (and maybe even then).
An implementation of that idea. Just look at most art. It's basically one person doing something weird, then a lot of others start copying them. Should 99% of artists be sued for ripping of ideas?
So why stop them from using the NEW photograph? Fine them for 200% of the income they made selling the ORIGINAL photo, but the new one is something they made themselves.
And how do you prove that? Unless the original has been locked in a safe from the beginning, proving that you never saw it is going to be impossible.
Why not put corporations in 'jail'. They are persons after all. If they are convicted, all of their assets are frozen for X years, just like if a physical person was.
Then stockholders can sue the management for causing the situation and loosing them money.
They would either say that it was just a joke, since they only found 499GB on the drive, or they would get you for the 501st GB they find.
Giving the police the murder weapon and telling them where the body is won't incriminate you.
The fact that the weapon and body exist might, but they are not asking you to prove their existence, just where they are.
Does not have the right to withhold evidence? So why don't the police just require a murderer to provide the murder weapon, location of the body and any other evidence that they hid?
Or why don't they require people to supply detailed records of all monetary transactions in most economic crimes. Including any Swiss bank account information.
That way the judge can keep anyone accused in jail indeffinitely, saving the people the cost of a trial.
He gets a cushy well paid job after he leaves office. Usually lobbying his successor.
Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.
There is a difference between writing to your congressman and paying people to lobby the entire congress.
Every voter has the chance to do the first, only the wealthy can afford to buy a personal lobbyist. So why should the wealthy be allowed to have more influence in politics?
Any other location would be just as volnurable (or even more) to an asteroid as Earth is. So why not do both? Expand beyond Earth AND develop ways to stop asteroids? If one hits Earth it will be many thousands of years (even if we presume that it survives and absolutely everything goes well) before a colony would be capable of developing anything that could defend it from subsequent strikes.
You won't be able to play it in 2 years, when they shut down the auth servers and forget to release a DRM patch.
It's not that monkeys and primates are not smart. They just have the (understandable) tendency to rip pieces of flesh of off people who try to make them bring back the ball for the zillionth time.
What if the doors aren't marked? Or the signs might have been switched?
That more clearly describes the current situation. You don't know much about the candidates UNTIL they are elected.
And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.
As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.
That just trains people to click OK/ALLOW more. So the next 'polite' virus will do more then just kill other virii.
And the US is the bully poking the dog with a sharp stick?
Yes, the federal government should have no right to regulate things. And neither should the states. Who are they to tell you what to do? And who is your local city government for that matter? All things should be down to the individual! After all, who is better equipped to say what is or isn't permitted then the person actually committing the act? I'm sure people are wise enough to not do anything 'evil' even without laws stopping them.
Why stop at ending SS/Medicare? Why not end other unnecessary evils that tax dollars are spent on. Like loan repayments? Just thing how good it would be for the country if the national debt was suddenly reduced to 0.
Both schemes involve taking money from people with the promise of giving that money back in the future. So why abolish one and keep the other? Why keep repaying the debt, while not supporting people that paid into SS all their lives?
They don't even have to 'block' it. All they have to do is sink a tanker or two. No company is going to risk such a high value ship if there is a real chance of it getting sunk. And if you think that the US can easily defend them, just look at how well that worked against the Somali pirates. And those guys have to board a ship to achieve their goal.
You have to ask yourself about the situation in which closing the Strait would not harm Iran.
What happens if the US manages to convince the UN to impose new sanctions? What good is a way to export oil if you're prohibited from doing it.
If the Sea Shepherds had the firepower needed to do something about the Somali pirates then this whole discussion would have been resolved years ago. One way or the other.
Sinking is not piracy. You have to try stealing something.