There are some health issues associated with noise pollution. Fairly minor though.
There's not particularly compelling evidence for property prices being affected for that matter.
Both factors do depend on proximity to the towns. And the latter may well be something that could be resolved simply by the company paying compensation.
Yeah, but Clarkson was deliberately rolling it there. The segment wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. I've met dozens of Reliant drivers who managed to drive for a long time without rolling the things once.
She will have a tough time given that there is currently no law barring her employer from asking for access to her Facebook account,
No explicit law perhaps. However, this would be a technical violation of computer misuse laws, as well as a causing a breach of contract in the T&Cs between facebook and the account owner (facebook could legitimately sue for tortuous interference in contract) , not to mention a violation of the implied assumption of privacy of the facebook user's friends.
The law that can be applied outside British territorial waters is less substantial than the law that can be applied within British territorial waters.
Do you think pirates don't have to obey the law just because they're in international waters?
No, but then there is specific legislation covering piracy, that applies on the high seas. In fact, if you committed what would otherwise be an act of piracy within British territorial waters, it wouldn't be piracy according to the law, but simply an act of robbery.
Every time hacking laws are proposed, they suggest this. Fortunately every time it's shot down.
The old adage of "if you criminalise hacking tools, then only criminals will have hacking tools applies." These tools are not difficult to write, and there will be plenty kicking about. It's completely unenforcible. Since they're fairly common on Linux distros, many people will have them and be distributing them without even considering. and of course, these tools are essential for testing security vulnerabilities.
except for shoot at civilians in boats. Stage armed invasions. Use and take British military equipment without permission. Kidnap foreign nationals.
That all happened when Sealand was in international waters.
Data Piracy.
When? Unless someone actually makes a complaint, they're assumed innocent. The data haven did have a policy that they wouldn';t host data that violated UK copyright laws.
Tax evasion
I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion
Smuggling
Unless people are smuggling to Sealand and keeping stuff there, claiming jurisdiction over Sealand is pointless.
Residents of "Sealand" have broken lots of laws and show themselves to be quite indifferent to the laws of the land. The reason no-one deals with Sealand is because it would be a political hassel. They've broken plenty of laws.
Okay. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. They're not breaking enough laws publicly enough to cause enough of a problem. I'll bet quite a few people are doing those things fairly regularly. It's ignored because police resources are better spent elsewhere.
The main reason the UK hasn't done anything is that nobody on Sealand has actually broken any UK laws, so there's nothing to do. The owner could make a case for ownership of the platform under UK law, but I think he'd have a hard time convincing the courts of statehood.
There was a ruling in 1968 that it was outside British jurisdiction, but that's a lot different from accepting it as a sovereign state, and since then, British territorial waters have been extended.
I find patents difficult to read. They're written in such an abstract way.
However, my interpretation is that this seems to be the idea of storing data as floating point, and operating on it using floating point hardware. Surely this sort of thing has been around for a while.
Isn't that reasonable though? I don't want the world knowing about any of my fetishes either.
The behaviour may seem a little strange perhaps, but it's pretty harmless. The only harm is that it may upset certain groups who were persecuted by the Nazis, which means that not telling anyone about it reduces that harm considerably.
and you are of course overstating the actual ratio of new displays
This is true, but my work desktop effective ratio isn't far off that. Two 16:9 screens is effectively 32:9, and 2 foot by 6 inches as 32:8. And I will agree that I'm happier with a 1600x1200 screen than a 1920x1080.
You overestimate your importance to us. We don't really care if you're convinced or not.
That's fair enough.
I'm sort of curious though. Why are people even mentioning that there's a boycott that could conceivably affect the piracy figures if not to convince others?
What is absolutely clear though, is that there are at least some people that do boycott big entertainment media, due to their behavior. And it is not really our job to prove that the boycott accounts for large amounts of money.
No, it's not. But then you're in no position to complain if they ignore the effect of this boycott in their piracy calculations.
However, if the companies are upset about incomes not living up to expectations, maybe they should spend some time trying to figure out why, rather than just making up excuses
They have figured out why. Piracy. Personally I'm inclined to agree that this is a factor. I'll even accept the possibility that this is the only substantial factor.
My point is more that it's meaningless for individuals to claim to be boycotting the RIAA, since we can make no estimates of the number of people doing so. My reply is illustrating how ridiculous this is.
I consider it completely ridiculous to suggest that any boycott even accounts for a rounding error on this data. If you want anyone to believe that the boycott is working, or even thatit exists in any meaningful way, then convince me. A handful of responses stating that they are doesn't actually convince me particularly.
So, so far we're ion about 4. So rather than losses of $7.8 billion, we're looking at losses of $7.799998000, because I'm sure you each would otherwise spend about $500 a year on music.
Claiming that there's absolutely no effect on sales from piracy is as hopelessly naive as claiming that every pirated copy is a lost sale, but can we put the entire difference down to piracy?
Online purchasing makes it a lot easier to buy. However, it also makes it possible to buy a single track. Perhaps many people are shunning albums.
Are mp3 downloads also cheaper? Do online services like Spotify affect sales?
Alternatively, is piracy an even bigger problem than the raw numberws suggest, and the easy of online purchase mitigating this somewhat?
According to the incident report, a teacher had been reading pornographic material from the Internet to the students in class. One of the stories was about prostitutes having their faces covered with ejaculation.
Is it possible that the teacher wasn't reading these books at all, but was, for some reason, reading something downloaded from the internet?
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model.
Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,
I thought I was quite explicit that it's not about morality. I brought it up because the way people were arguing suggested that they felt Google's ethics were being called into question. I want to make it clear that this is not what the argument is about.
There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.
Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to Google's current business model.
I'm sorry? Are you really suggesting that there isn't huge amounts of copyright infringement on youTube? Google themselves may technically not be guilty of infringement according to the law, but since the OP wasn't suggesting they were, it's sort of a moot point.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
No, that's a principle in law. In terms of forming our own opinions, we can presume whatever we want.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some health issues associated with noise pollution. Fairly minor though.
There's not particularly compelling evidence for property prices being affected for that matter.
Both factors do depend on proximity to the towns. And the latter may well be something that could be resolved simply by the company paying compensation.
Well, it looks kinda cool.
I know nothing about aircraft. How does one with a range of 200-300 miles or so and a top speed of 180km/h compare with other 2 seater aircraft?
Yeah, but Clarkson was deliberately rolling it there. The segment wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. I've met dozens of Reliant drivers who managed to drive for a long time without rolling the things once.
She will have a tough time given that there is currently no law barring her employer from asking for access to her Facebook account,
No explicit law perhaps. However, this would be a technical violation of computer misuse laws, as well as a causing a breach of contract in the T&Cs between facebook and the account owner (facebook could legitimately sue for tortuous interference in contract) , not to mention a violation of the implied assumption of privacy of the facebook user's friends.
What difference does that make?
The law that can be applied outside British territorial waters is less substantial than the law that can be applied within British territorial waters.
Do you think pirates don't have to obey the law just because they're in international waters?
No, but then there is specific legislation covering piracy, that applies on the high seas. In fact, if you committed what would otherwise be an act of piracy within British territorial waters, it wouldn't be piracy according to the law, but simply an act of robbery.
Every time hacking laws are proposed, they suggest this. Fortunately every time it's shot down.
The old adage of "if you criminalise hacking tools, then only criminals will have hacking tools applies." These tools are not difficult to write, and there will be plenty kicking about. It's completely unenforcible. Since they're fairly common on Linux distros, many people will have them and be distributing them without even considering. and of course, these tools are essential for testing security vulnerabilities.
except for shoot at civilians in boats. Stage armed invasions. Use and take British military equipment without permission. Kidnap foreign nationals.
That all happened when Sealand was in international waters.
Data Piracy.
When? Unless someone actually makes a complaint, they're assumed innocent. The data haven did have a policy that they wouldn';t host data that violated UK copyright laws.
Tax evasion
I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion Smuggling
Unless people are smuggling to Sealand and keeping stuff there, claiming jurisdiction over Sealand is pointless.
Residents of "Sealand" have broken lots of laws and show themselves to be quite indifferent to the laws of the land. The reason no-one deals with Sealand is because it would be a political hassel. They've broken plenty of laws.
Okay. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. They're not breaking enough laws publicly enough to cause enough of a problem. I'll bet quite a few people are doing those things fairly regularly. It's ignored because police resources are better spent elsewhere.
The main reason the UK hasn't done anything is that nobody on Sealand has actually broken any UK laws, so there's nothing to do. The owner could make a case for ownership of the platform under UK law, but I think he'd have a hard time convincing the courts of statehood.
There was a ruling in 1968 that it was outside British jurisdiction, but that's a lot different from accepting it as a sovereign state, and since then, British territorial waters have been extended.
I find patents difficult to read. They're written in such an abstract way.
However, my interpretation is that this seems to be the idea of storing data as floating point, and operating on it using floating point hardware. Surely this sort of thing has been around for a while.
What does that have to do with anything. He's not his father.
Isn't that reasonable though? I don't want the world knowing about any of my fetishes either.
The behaviour may seem a little strange perhaps, but it's pretty harmless. The only harm is that it may upset certain groups who were persecuted by the Nazis, which means that not telling anyone about it reduces that harm considerably.
and you are of course overstating the actual ratio of new displays
This is true, but my work desktop effective ratio isn't far off that. Two 16:9 screens is effectively 32:9, and 2 foot by 6 inches as 32:8. And I will agree that I'm happier with a 1600x1200 screen than a 1920x1080.
You overestimate your importance to us. We don't really care if you're convinced or not.
That's fair enough.
I'm sort of curious though. Why are people even mentioning that there's a boycott that could conceivably affect the piracy figures if not to convince others?
What is absolutely clear though, is that there are at least some people that do boycott big entertainment media, due to their behavior. And it is not really our job to prove that the boycott accounts for large amounts of money.
No, it's not. But then you're in no position to complain if they ignore the effect of this boycott in their piracy calculations.
However, if the companies are upset about incomes not living up to expectations, maybe they should spend some time trying to figure out why, rather than just making up excuses
They have figured out why. Piracy. Personally I'm inclined to agree that this is a factor. I'll even accept the possibility that this is the only substantial factor.
A really good thesaurus might help with that second one.
Use of cockney isn't uncommon so it would make sense to include both of those in the definition for "hairstyle".
Why are people responding in the first place?
My point is more that it's meaningless for individuals to claim to be boycotting the RIAA, since we can make no estimates of the number of people doing so. My reply is illustrating how ridiculous this is.
I consider it completely ridiculous to suggest that any boycott even accounts for a rounding error on this data. If you want anyone to believe that the boycott is working, or even thatit exists in any meaningful way, then convince me. A handful of responses stating that they are doesn't actually convince me particularly.
HIJKLMNO
Yes, I remember seeing that one. One of those clues that filled me with delight when I got it.
___ (2, 3, 4, 1, 4)
To Not Have A Clue?
So, so far we're ion about 4. So rather than losses of $7.8 billion, we're looking at losses of $7.799998000, because I'm sure you each would otherwise spend about $500 a year on music.
Do you believe that boycotting customers is a substantial factor in the sales then?
How many people are boycotting the record industry?
Claiming that there's absolutely no effect on sales from piracy is as hopelessly naive as claiming that every pirated copy is a lost sale, but can we put the entire difference down to piracy?
Online purchasing makes it a lot easier to buy. However, it also makes it possible to buy a single track. Perhaps many people are shunning albums.
Are mp3 downloads also cheaper? Do online services like Spotify affect sales?
Alternatively, is piracy an even bigger problem than the raw numberws suggest, and the easy of online purchase mitigating this somewhat?
Is it possible that the teacher wasn't reading these books at all, but was, for some reason, reading something downloaded from the internet?
Somebody is lying, I'm not sure who.
I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!"
Did you read it as that?
I read it as a response to the exact opposite viewpoint. "OMG Google is a white knight on a charger who is here to save us all"
But I agree with you. Both extremes are wrong, and there's good reason to support Google here.
Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model.
Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,
I thought I was quite explicit that it's not about morality. I brought it up because the way people were arguing suggested that they felt Google's ethics were being called into question. I want to make it clear that this is not what the argument is about.
So are we just going to be nitpicking?
Let's rephrase entirely.
There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.
Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to Google's current business model.
Good for you. Hope that works out well for you in life.
I'm sorry? Are you really suggesting that there isn't huge amounts of copyright infringement on youTube? Google themselves may technically not be guilty of infringement according to the law, but since the OP wasn't suggesting they were, it's sort of a moot point.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
No, that's a principle in law. In terms of forming our own opinions, we can presume whatever we want.