The legal system isn't about fairness, and those who are involved don't even seem to pretend it is any more. The goal of the lawyers is to win the case. If that involves making an argument that contradicts the one they made the previous week in every way, that's just how the game is played.
Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy
There is the option of gliding at night and making sure you have enough altitude to last through the night.
Would you want satellite comms? Surely you only need to communicate with a ground station and other drones.
Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat.
Don't see this as a problem. Many countries will start allowing pilotless drones, so if this is based off a standard civilian design, no special license will be required. Remember, there are other aviation authorities than the FAA. I'd have thought the American authority would be the last group they would apply to.
Even if it is launched of a boat, some types of pilotless drones are launched by throwing.
And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.
I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.
Britain has its own concept of heavy rail though, which is a smaller loading gauge than European. As far as I understand, this is a standard tunnel that you could fit any train *currently* running on British tracks.
The could retrofit air con and phone reception. Air con simply isn't seen as needed for the two weeks a year when the temperatures get too high, and the public dislike the idea of idiots yammering on the phone next to their ear.
The crampedness is because this is a deep tunnel network rather than the cheaper cut and cover (i.e. dig a trench, build on top).
Strikes aren't that common, nor are jumpers. 97% of services run to schedule, which isn't too bad.
This isn't really part of the London Underground. It's a very long mainline railway tunnel.
"The Tube", like most major metropolitan underground systems is extremely overloaded, but actually a pretty good network, and well integrated with the mainline. It has its problems, the main one being expense. It is a major target of investment, mainly because the city depends on it to operate. Many parts of it are pretty old, but this is more a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
If I offered a service, I might suggest that disputes are dealt with by arbitration, and you might agree. This would typically be legal, and often this is something both sides would prefer. In this case you are signing away your right to sue, and courts tend to be quite happy with this. Of course, in this situation, the chances are you have read and pretty much understood the terms.
In this case though, it's not a negotiation. If you contacted Netflix and asked them to remove this clause, they would simply refuse. In this case, it's not even an agreement. They're imposing a new set of rules on you.
So you're right (probably - IANAL), but it's not a rule that always applies.
You're most likely right, but they will still point to this, and most likely use it in court against anyone who threatens to sue.
Of course' courts are free to reject specific clauses in contracts, and often do, especially in business-consumer contracts, but the mere existence of this clause can easily be used to dissuade people from exercising their legal rights.
I've said for a long, long time that the best societies are a healthy mix of both capitalism and socialism. Socialism for things that private industry cannot or is ill-equipped to handle
I agree. I've felt for a long time that capitalism and socialism are both tools to improve society for all of us.
As a very moderate socialist, I don't think that people have an inherent right to what they create, since they don't do this in a vacuum. We allow private enterprise and the capitalist system because on the whole, it actually works pretty well. We have supermarkets that exist to optimise range and prices of generic goods for the populace, airlines that work to optimise cost of travel, and so on. This doesn't always work. Monopolies and cartels can form. We sometimes end up with a situation that is detrimental to society. Having private industry responsible for health care is an example of this. Some form of socialism in this case typically works better than a capitalist system.
But I have no problem with people who provide benefit to a lot of people being rewarded for this, and neither do most people. Primarily, that's something that simply seems fair, but for practical purposes, we want to encourage people to innovate.
You are allowed to drive it here, and presumably refuel. I saw a Swiss car here only the other day, and I see lorries from all over the EU. There are car ferries and a rail link through a tunnel that ransport cars here.
There's nothing inherently suspicious about driving in another country. Britain's actually a fairly popular tourist destination.
While it's possible to defraud the system, they'll probably just accept this loss. Despite their rhetoric, they know full well that there's not a 1:1 displacement of purchased copies, and in this case, people are paying them $2 a time to pirate their movie.
I get the joke and apologise in advance for a serious response.
There's actually no technical reason that they can't do this. It's not like they're going to actually digitise each DVD. They'll simply use the disc as proof of purchase and give you access to an existing copy. This could be achieved just as easily with laserdisc and VHS (even Betamax, UMD, VCD and HD-DVD).
I actually doubt they will do that, but the restriction is legal or policy based, no technology based.
Although, if someone does use them, presumably the newspaper no longer has ownership so no longer has standing to sue.
I guess really it's a moot point. The newspapers were happy to give up the rights in the first place because apart from the right to sue, they're largely worthless. Except in rare cases, nobody is willing to pay to republish an article.
Well, this is vaguely similar, but I have absolutely no idea under what circumstances this should or should not be illegal. The trouble with playing this analogies game is that you end up with such a contrived situation that you might as well argue that it's like running a website that embedded video from other sites, and profiting from it.
Does this mean you have no problem with marijuana being illegal as long as there's an exception for medical purposes.
I find that most of the people I know that use cannabis don't need it.
Personally I think it's pretty stupid that there's any penalty for possession. The law makers have decided that there should be though. I may not agree with the law but as far as I can see, it's not an inherent violation of a fundamental right, so I simply don't use drugs, and if a candidate for any elected position has a pro-drugs stance, it's a significant factor in voting for them.
When it comes to medical marijuana I absolutely agree that this should be legal. To which I suggest that rather than break the law and hope that there's one juror who disagrees with the law strongly enough to nullify it we should make sure there's an actual change in the law. The advantage with changing the law is that it means that you're not relying on luck if you want to engage in non harmful behaviour.
If you do decide that you need to break the law then that's fair enough, but I presume you've factored in the risk of losing your liberty and that the benefits are worth the risk.
I don't have that much sympathy. Sure, the penalty for drugs is disproportionate, but seriously - most users don't need them, and know they're against the law. You could simply not smoke drugs, and encourage a change to the law through your representatives? Relying on Jury nullification isn't going to help get the law removed isn't going to fix the law.
Is taking drugs an absolute right? Then get it recognised as one!
I could see this leading to governments creating catch-all laws and relying on the jury to sort it out, making the legal system even more about persuasion than about guilt and innocence.
How does that not satisfy the definition of "using terror to achieve a political objective"
By the same argument, you comment is terrorism. You are using it to cause me to be in terror of my government which is, in itself a political objective. Using it this way causes the word to lose all meaning. It's lowbrow pedagoguery. Terrorism is a tactic. Not a way of branding anything we don't like.
Most importantly, we can't claim that something is bad simply because we call it terrorism. The suffragettes were, by some arguments, terrorists. There was a lot of violence committed in the cause.
Call if fascism, or authoritarianism, or whatever, if you must, but that's still missing the point. Discuss what the problems are rather than trying to pretend it's the same thing as setting off bombs in public places.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
The legal system isn't about fairness, and those who are involved don't even seem to pretend it is any more. The goal of the lawyers is to win the case. If that involves making an argument that contradicts the one they made the previous week in every way, that's just how the game is played.
The US wasn't the only potential buyer. Concorde had over 100 pre-orders, including those from Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada and the middle east.
The problem may have been manageable from a technical point of view but public perception was a problem.
According to EU regulation E74J2005-X12 this is mandatory.
Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy
There is the option of gliding at night and making sure you have enough altitude to last through the night.
Would you want satellite comms? Surely you only need to communicate with a ground station and other drones.
Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat.
Don't see this as a problem. Many countries will start allowing pilotless drones, so if this is based off a standard civilian design, no special license will be required. Remember, there are other aviation authorities than the FAA. I'd have thought the American authority would be the last group they would apply to.
Even if it is launched of a boat, some types of pilotless drones are launched by throwing.
And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.
I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.
Britain has its own concept of heavy rail though, which is a smaller loading gauge than European. As far as I understand, this is a standard tunnel that you could fit any train *currently* running on British tracks.
You can tell you don't go on the underground much.
was using on a daily basis for years. Only a real problem in the summer
The could retrofit air con and phone reception. Air con simply isn't seen as needed for the two weeks a year when the temperatures get too high, and the public dislike the idea of idiots yammering on the phone next to their ear.
The crampedness is because this is a deep tunnel network rather than the cheaper cut and cover (i.e. dig a trench, build on top).
Strikes aren't that common, nor are jumpers. 97% of services run to schedule, which isn't too bad.
Price is a big issue but really that's about it.
This isn't really part of the London Underground. It's a very long mainline railway tunnel.
"The Tube", like most major metropolitan underground systems is extremely overloaded, but actually a pretty good network, and well integrated with the mainline. It has its problems, the main one being expense. It is a major target of investment, mainly because the city depends on it to operate. Many parts of it are pretty old, but this is more a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.
That, and they aren't charged with unrelated crimes. The ones that are charged with unrelated crimes tend to be arrested and tried.
Well, sorta yes, sorta no.
If I offered a service, I might suggest that disputes are dealt with by arbitration, and you might agree. This would typically be legal, and often this is something both sides would prefer. In this case you are signing away your right to sue, and courts tend to be quite happy with this. Of course, in this situation, the chances are you have read and pretty much understood the terms.
In this case though, it's not a negotiation. If you contacted Netflix and asked them to remove this clause, they would simply refuse. In this case, it's not even an agreement. They're imposing a new set of rules on you.
So you're right (probably - IANAL), but it's not a rule that always applies.
You're most likely right, but they will still point to this, and most likely use it in court against anyone who threatens to sue.
Of course' courts are free to reject specific clauses in contracts, and often do, especially in business-consumer contracts, but the mere existence of this clause can easily be used to dissuade people from exercising their legal rights.
I've said for a long, long time that the best societies are a healthy mix of both capitalism and socialism. Socialism for things that private industry cannot or is ill-equipped to handle
I agree. I've felt for a long time that capitalism and socialism are both tools to improve society for all of us.
As a very moderate socialist, I don't think that people have an inherent right to what they create, since they don't do this in a vacuum. We allow private enterprise and the capitalist system because on the whole, it actually works pretty well. We have supermarkets that exist to optimise range and prices of generic goods for the populace, airlines that work to optimise cost of travel, and so on. This doesn't always work. Monopolies and cartels can form. We sometimes end up with a situation that is detrimental to society. Having private industry responsible for health care is an example of this. Some form of socialism in this case typically works better than a capitalist system.
But I have no problem with people who provide benefit to a lot of people being rewarded for this, and neither do most people. Primarily, that's something that simply seems fair, but for practical purposes, we want to encourage people to innovate.
It does man that they can't claim there's a licence clause that allows them to do this though.
Dear BSA
You are not allowed on the property.
It's not like you need to give a reason. they need to have a good reason to enter the property.
Plus , we use metric. 1 Metric vote = 1.13 US votes.
You are allowed to drive it here, and presumably refuel. I saw a Swiss car here only the other day, and I see lorries from all over the EU. There are car ferries and a rail link through a tunnel that ransport cars here.
There's nothing inherently suspicious about driving in another country. Britain's actually a fairly popular tourist destination.
My guess would be a simple barcode scan.
While it's possible to defraud the system, they'll probably just accept this loss. Despite their rhetoric, they know full well that there's not a 1:1 displacement of purchased copies, and in this case, people are paying them $2 a time to pirate their movie.
I get the joke and apologise in advance for a serious response.
There's actually no technical reason that they can't do this. It's not like they're going to actually digitise each DVD. They'll simply use the disc as proof of purchase and give you access to an existing copy. This could be achieved just as easily with laserdisc and VHS (even Betamax, UMD, VCD and HD-DVD).
I actually doubt they will do that, but the restriction is legal or policy based, no technology based.
I have to wonder about this. These attacks take time, especially over a network, are often detectable, and don't guarantee success.
So, serious question - how often are such attacks employed compared with exploitation of vulnerabilities or social engineering?
Although, if someone does use them, presumably the newspaper no longer has ownership so no longer has standing to sue.
I guess really it's a moot point. The newspapers were happy to give up the rights in the first place because apart from the right to sue, they're largely worthless. Except in rare cases, nobody is willing to pay to republish an article.
Well, this is vaguely similar, but I have absolutely no idea under what circumstances this should or should not be illegal. The trouble with playing this analogies game is that you end up with such a contrived situation that you might as well argue that it's like running a website that embedded video from other sites, and profiting from it.
Does this mean you have no problem with marijuana being illegal as long as there's an exception for medical purposes.
I find that most of the people I know that use cannabis don't need it.
Personally I think it's pretty stupid that there's any penalty for possession. The law makers have decided that there should be though. I may not agree with the law but as far as I can see, it's not an inherent violation of a fundamental right, so I simply don't use drugs, and if a candidate for any elected position has a pro-drugs stance, it's a significant factor in voting for them.
When it comes to medical marijuana I absolutely agree that this should be legal. To which I suggest that rather than break the law and hope that there's one juror who disagrees with the law strongly enough to nullify it we should make sure there's an actual change in the law. The advantage with changing the law is that it means that you're not relying on luck if you want to engage in non harmful behaviour.
If you do decide that you need to break the law then that's fair enough, but I presume you've factored in the risk of losing your liberty and that the benefits are worth the risk.
I don't have that much sympathy. Sure, the penalty for drugs is disproportionate, but seriously - most users don't need them, and know they're against the law. You could simply not smoke drugs, and encourage a change to the law through your representatives? Relying on Jury nullification isn't going to help get the law removed isn't going to fix the law.
Is taking drugs an absolute right? Then get it recognised as one!
I could see this leading to governments creating catch-all laws and relying on the jury to sort it out, making the legal system even more about persuasion than about guilt and innocence.
Usage defines definition, not etymology.
Ask 100 people whether the government is a terrorist organisation and the vast majority will say "no".
How does that not satisfy the definition of "using terror to achieve a political objective"
By the same argument, you comment is terrorism. You are using it to cause me to be in terror of my government which is, in itself a political objective. Using it this way causes the word to lose all meaning. It's lowbrow pedagoguery. Terrorism is a tactic. Not a way of branding anything we don't like.
Most importantly, we can't claim that something is bad simply because we call it terrorism. The suffragettes were, by some arguments, terrorists. There was a lot of violence committed in the cause.
Call if fascism, or authoritarianism, or whatever, if you must, but that's still missing the point. Discuss what the problems are rather than trying to pretend it's the same thing as setting off bombs in public places.