Now the problem is you are pointing at the horizon.
Just build it perfectly straight and rely on the earth dropping beneath you. You're traveling a decent distance around the earth, so if you start horizontal by my calculations you'll have an 18 degree elevation and a starting altitude of a couple of hundred miles.
They call themselves The "Pirate" Bay. Pirate is a commonly used term to refer to copyright infringement.
Their service is used disproportionately for infringing activities.
When copyright holders requested they remove the links, rather than giving reasons, they simply refused and mocked the complainants.
I just find it hard to follow the logic of people who suggest that TPB were innocent victims here. They knew what they were doing and did so quite deliberately. If you think they didn't then I have a bridge to sell you.
I know. My firearms company "Assasin training incorporated" got all sorts of legal trouble. Maybe I shouldn't have mocked the police explaining how what I was doing was totally legal even though 90% of my clients then went on to commit murder. Likewise, Google's new "Murder Victim Finder" service is doing nothing wrng. It's purely coincidental that 90% of its users use it to find murder victims.
Are you doing so with deliberate intent to infringe copyright?
One action can be legal, another near identical one can be illegal, depending on intent. Intent is important. For example, if I buy stolen property, it depends on whether I know it's stolen property as to whether I've committed a crime.
They also have a obligation not to cause offence. This may or may not be of grerater importance than their obligation to support freedom of speech. Wikileaks does not cause significant offence.
No, they thought they were buying a tool to do things they wanted
they didn't get that either. Not if they wanted a wikileaks app.
Uh... yeah. Right. You're being really obtuse. Smartphone apps are only one possible information channel. They aren't even an especially great channel for this kind of thing; are they any better at delivering Wikileaks than a website? I say no. And Apple has never so much as hinted that they plan to censor Safari.
I'm not sure how that matters. It's still a limitation on freedom of speech no matter how poor the channel.
I rate a newspaper much more highly if it does its level best to actually uncover the truth, and say it clearly. Some arguments are terrible...
Fair point. I guess newspapers aren't there to provide freedom of speech. Simply to take advantage of it. Still, I do prefer it if a newspaper provides a right to reply. they are not legally obliged to do so of course.
I'm not talking about forcing anyone. I'm saying I think they have a moral obligation. A bit like the moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and the moral obligation to be polite and considerate. I'd hate it if anyone was forced to do those things either but I really think they should.
Yes. I agree. And in a larger frame, I can choose to ignore any newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and I do. But you are a private individual with your own political opinions. And we expect a newspaper to have a political slant.
A mobile phone app store is a little different. Most people, when they purchased their iPhone, and locked themselves in, only thought they were locking themselves into a technology platform. Now it seems the rules have been changed, and they've also been locked into a political platform. If you're marketing yourself as a technology platform, and the technology can provide information, I feel it's unethical not to provide freedom of speech.
And for what it's worth, I rate a newspaper much more highly if it promotes all sides of an argument equally. I consider this a much better moral stance.
No, because "freedom of speech" was never applicable to private parties and their private property.
Yes it is! That being my whole point. If I have a platform, I can grant you or deny you freedom of speech. That is my legal right. It's still about freedom of speech. In what way does this not apply to private parties and private property?
Unless you allow anyone and everyone to use your private property as their personal speech platform then you are no better and thus have no reason to complain.
I don't own a platform for people to speak from. Should I acquire one, I would not make arbitrary decisions as to who may and may not use it.
It is equipment that is specialised use to receive wi-fi signals. Yes, a Wi-fi router is a specialised piece of equipment. It specialises in receiving wi-fi signals. Being cheap and reasonably common does not make it any less specialised. Being configured in this way makes it more specialised.
Now, whether you agree with me that this is specialised or not is somewhat beside the point. You don't need any equipment of any sort at all to hear a megaphone. You do need this sort of equipment that has the sole use of receiving wi-fi signals to receive wi-fi signals. It's not like the accidentally installed a wi-fi receiver in the first place or accidentally configured it to record anything.
Yes. That is specialised equipment. It is equipment that is specifically designed and configured to do this specific job. It's not a side effect of it's general function.
Quite. So that's an arbitrary limitation on freedom of speech. One that they have every legal right to apply but still indicates that Apple do not actively endorse freedom of speech as a virtue.
No it's not. You need specialised equipment to listen. It may be readily available inexpensively but you actually need to buy it and set it up, and configure it specifically to record this information. It's hard to "accidentally" record this in the same was as you can accidentally overhear someone yelling on a megaphone. It's quite possible to not listen to Wi-fi data.
And while you may well have a fantastic photographic memory, this sort of thing is atypical. Whether I remember everything I hear I certainly can't recall it.
Very true. There is, hoever the related concept of freedom of speech. This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
Anf Bill Gates had a pretty established business plan and potential market before dropping out. There was definite interest in BASIC for the Altair before he left to form MS, and he only took a leave of absence at first. He was smart enough not to burn his bridges.
I have a friend who followed roughly the same path. She ended up leaving university because she started a side business that was actually more successful than she expected. She had a business before she dropped out.
there definitely seems to be a pattern here. I wonder ifg there is anyone who had a business idea, dropped out and then did the first steps to stating. I suspect not.
That means all your large funds transfers take three to six months to clear (bad)
But this would be so bad that the banks would work out a new system that is much lower fraud risk and doesn't have the delay. Money is a good motivator. Someone will work out a way
I think it's more that the banks need at least some mechanism to reduce the risk here. I don't know how it should work, but if they were held even partially liable, the banks would work it out pretty damn quickly.
The banks do have a system which allows this fraud to go ahead easily and they know it. They have made absolutely no effort to reduce the risk for their customers. Basically, the banks are negligently allowing this fraud to continue. If you are in a position to prevent a crime, and that crime continually occurs with you as a vital part, I believe that you are negligent and bear some responsibility.
It's not really worth developing games for Linux. The hardcore gamers - the bulk of the market all use Windows. As a result, anyone with any significant interest in PC games will install Windows. This will naturally perpetute the extreme bias towards windows from developers.
The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software. These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so it's still impractical, but it's impractical for a completely new reason!
So they expect it to still work. And because they expect it to work it does.
Now the problem is you are pointing at the horizon.
Just build it perfectly straight and rely on the earth dropping beneath you. You're traveling a decent distance around the earth, so if you start horizontal by my calculations you'll have an 18 degree elevation and a starting altitude of a couple of hundred miles.
They call themselves The "Pirate" Bay. Pirate is a commonly used term to refer to copyright infringement.
Their service is used disproportionately for infringing activities.
When copyright holders requested they remove the links, rather than giving reasons, they simply refused and mocked the complainants.
I just find it hard to follow the logic of people who suggest that TPB were innocent victims here. They knew what they were doing and did so quite deliberately. If you think they didn't then I have a bridge to sell you.
I know. My firearms company "Assasin training incorporated" got all sorts of legal trouble. Maybe I shouldn't have mocked the police explaining how what I was doing was totally legal even though 90% of my clients then went on to commit murder. Likewise, Google's new "Murder Victim Finder" service is doing nothing wrng. It's purely coincidental that 90% of its users use it to find murder victims.
Are you doing so with deliberate intent to infringe copyright?
One action can be legal, another near identical one can be illegal, depending on intent. Intent is important. For example, if I buy stolen property, it depends on whether I know it's stolen property as to whether I've committed a crime.
They also have a obligation not to cause offence. This may or may not be of grerater importance than their obligation to support freedom of speech. Wikileaks does not cause significant offence.
No, they thought they were buying a tool to do things they wanted
they didn't get that either. Not if they wanted a wikileaks app.
Uh... yeah. Right. You're being really obtuse. Smartphone apps are only one possible information channel. They aren't even an especially great channel for this kind of thing; are they any better at delivering Wikileaks than a website? I say no. And Apple has never so much as hinted that they plan to censor Safari.
I'm not sure how that matters. It's still a limitation on freedom of speech no matter how poor the channel.
I rate a newspaper much more highly if it does its level best to actually uncover the truth, and say it clearly. Some arguments are terrible...
Fair point. I guess newspapers aren't there to provide freedom of speech. Simply to take advantage of it. Still, I do prefer it if a newspaper provides a right to reply. they are not legally obliged to do so of course.
I'm not talking about forcing anyone. I'm saying I think they have a moral obligation. A bit like the moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and the moral obligation to be polite and considerate. I'd hate it if anyone was forced to do those things either but I really think they should.
Yes. I agree. And in a larger frame, I can choose to ignore any newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and I do. But you are a private individual with your own political opinions. And we expect a newspaper to have a political slant.
A mobile phone app store is a little different. Most people, when they purchased their iPhone, and locked themselves in, only thought they were locking themselves into a technology platform. Now it seems the rules have been changed, and they've also been locked into a political platform. If you're marketing yourself as a technology platform, and the technology can provide information, I feel it's unethical not to provide freedom of speech.
And for what it's worth, I rate a newspaper much more highly if it promotes all sides of an argument equally. I consider this a much better moral stance.
No, because "freedom of speech" was never applicable to private parties and their private property.
Yes it is! That being my whole point. If I have a platform, I can grant you or deny you freedom of speech. That is my legal right. It's still about freedom of speech. In what way does this not apply to private parties and private property?
Unless you allow anyone and everyone to use your private property as their personal speech platform then you are no better and thus have no reason to complain.
I don't own a platform for people to speak from. Should I acquire one, I would not make arbitrary decisions as to who may and may not use it.
It is equipment that is specialised use to receive wi-fi signals. Yes, a Wi-fi router is a specialised piece of equipment. It specialises in receiving wi-fi signals. Being cheap and reasonably common does not make it any less specialised. Being configured in this way makes it more specialised.
Now, whether you agree with me that this is specialised or not is somewhat beside the point. You don't need any equipment of any sort at all to hear a megaphone. You do need this sort of equipment that has the sole use of receiving wi-fi signals to receive wi-fi signals. It's not like the accidentally installed a wi-fi receiver in the first place or accidentally configured it to record anything.
True.
Why did they need to collect the wi-fi data? I'm a little confused about what service they could use this for.
Yes. That is specialised equipment. It is equipment that is specifically designed and configured to do this specific job. It's not a side effect of it's general function.
Quite. So that's an arbitrary limitation on freedom of speech. One that they have every legal right to apply but still indicates that Apple do not actively endorse freedom of speech as a virtue.
No it's not. You need specialised equipment to listen. It may be readily available inexpensively but you actually need to buy it and set it up, and configure it specifically to record this information. It's hard to "accidentally" record this in the same was as you can accidentally overhear someone yelling on a megaphone. It's quite possible to not listen to Wi-fi data.
And while you may well have a fantastic photographic memory, this sort of thing is atypical. Whether I remember everything I hear I certainly can't recall it.
Very true. There is, hoever the related concept of freedom of speech. This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
No, but if he accidentally photocopies it and every other postcard he happens to see, you might reasonably ask questions.
They've made the accusation. It's evidence. Not very strong evidence I'll grant you but certainly adeuquate to bring him in and ask him.
Anf Bill Gates had a pretty established business plan and potential market before dropping out. There was definite interest in BASIC for the Altair before he left to form MS, and he only took a leave of absence at first. He was smart enough not to burn his bridges.
I have a friend who followed roughly the same path. She ended up leaving university because she started a side business that was actually more successful than she expected. She had a business before she dropped out.
there definitely seems to be a pattern here. I wonder ifg there is anyone who had a business idea, dropped out and then did the first steps to stating. I suspect not.
That means all your large funds transfers take three to six months to clear (bad)
But this would be so bad that the banks would work out a new system that is much lower fraud risk and doesn't have the delay. Money is a good motivator. Someone will work out a way
I think it's more that the banks need at least some mechanism to reduce the risk here. I don't know how it should work, but if they were held even partially liable, the banks would work it out pretty damn quickly.
The banks do have a system which allows this fraud to go ahead easily and they know it. They have made absolutely no effort to reduce the risk for their customers. Basically, the banks are negligently allowing this fraud to continue. If you are in a position to prevent a crime, and that crime continually occurs with you as a vital part, I believe that you are negligent and bear some responsibility.
It's not really worth developing games for Linux. The hardcore gamers - the bulk of the market all use Windows. As a result, anyone with any significant interest in PC games will install Windows. This will naturally perpetute the extreme bias towards windows from developers.
The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software. These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.
I don't think there's any way out of this.
It would have ended the whole mess quickly and neatly.
You really think so? A signed witness statement from God wouldn't convince some people.
Hard to say, but since it's mentioned in this report alongside Britain, France and Germany, I suspect it's a significant player.