The real laymen will have a truckload of issues. For one, the start button is gone. How are they supposed to know how to start an app?
Maybe they'll figure out that clicking the huge button with the name of the app in the middle of the screen will start the program? Instead of looking through a folding menu, what they're looking for is right there, front and center... I'd say that might make it easier.
...The fighter jets are needed for China mainly, not Pakistan.
Except there is not really any realistic scenario where China would invade India at all... so at the end of the day the need new fighter jets just as much as Switzerland does - that's to say not at all. China will never invade India, Pakistan will continue to fight over the borders and no other state could possible be a threat that India couldn't handle with it's current airforce and army.
IMO
While it's possible that the services that Google and YouTube (and others) provide could infringe on copyright, this was actually discussed in the original court of appeals ruling (Svea hovrätt: dom 2010-11-26 i mål nr B 4041-09, see pages 24-25) and the reason given that makes Google et al. different from The Pirate Bay (TPB) goes to the intent of the service provided and legal theories that states that a service provided can be free of liability if the benefit to society is great enough; the primary purpose of Google isn't to facilitate copyright infringement. The court concluded that TPB was used almost exclusively for file sharing so the same grounds for absolving liability wasn't deemed appropriate.
A quick Google translate of the applicable part from the ruling:
"If a search provider is by nature such that it in the first place is a valuable tool for lawful activity and generally socially beneficial,
if the legitimate use dominates, distribution or transmission of illegal materials despite precautions can not be ruled out, the operation of such a service in
objective point of view be regarded as permissible under the aforementioned theories."
Yeah, read something relating to that a while back (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=2 points 2 & 3 specifically). Still don't think that society should be a part of peoples voluntary sexual preferences or family constructions though, even though the expelled men (getting no sex) might be an issue...
Yeah why not indeed... why should the state or your neighbors be allowed to dictate how you live as long as you don't hurt anyone? Citing works (of fiction) several millennia old to me isn't really a valid point. As long as everyone's happy what's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
The real laymen will have a truckload of issues. For one, the start button is gone. How are they supposed to know how to start an app?
Maybe they'll figure out that clicking the huge button with the name of the app in the middle of the screen will start the program? Instead of looking through a folding menu, what they're looking for is right there, front and center... I'd say that might make it easier.
...The fighter jets are needed for China mainly, not Pakistan.
Except there is not really any realistic scenario where China would invade India at all... so at the end of the day the need new fighter jets just as much as Switzerland does - that's to say not at all. China will never invade India, Pakistan will continue to fight over the borders and no other state could possible be a threat that India couldn't handle with it's current airforce and army. IMO
While it's possible that the services that Google and YouTube (and others) provide could infringe on copyright, this was actually discussed in the original court of appeals ruling (Svea hovrätt: dom 2010-11-26 i mål nr B 4041-09, see pages 24-25) and the reason given that makes Google et al. different from The Pirate Bay (TPB) goes to the intent of the service provided and legal theories that states that a service provided can be free of liability if the benefit to society is great enough; the primary purpose of Google isn't to facilitate copyright infringement. The court concluded that TPB was used almost exclusively for file sharing so the same grounds for absolving liability wasn't deemed appropriate.
A quick Google translate of the applicable part from the ruling:
"If a search provider is by nature such that it in the first place is a valuable tool for lawful activity and generally socially beneficial, if the legitimate use dominates, distribution or transmission of illegal materials despite precautions can not be ruled out, the operation of such a service in objective point of view be regarded as permissible under the aforementioned theories."
Yeah, read something relating to that a while back (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=2 points 2 & 3 specifically). Still don't think that society should be a part of peoples voluntary sexual preferences or family constructions though, even though the expelled men (getting no sex) might be an issue...
Don't really get it, but I guess when you've seen the light it's kind of hard to imagine life in darkness again ;)
Yeah why not indeed... why should the state or your neighbors be allowed to dictate how you live as long as you don't hurt anyone? Citing works (of fiction) several millennia old to me isn't really a valid point. As long as everyone's happy what's the problem?
Pls let me have mod points soon... this should be (Score:4, Insightful) for sure.