The term "enthusiasts" does not apply exclusiveness to people who try to squeeze performance from high powered system. Enthusiast can be someone who wants to build a very high autonomy mobile device for example, or bring the highest performance possible from a portable device.
Apple builds very little. Almost everything they sell is in truth produced by other companies. Even a good part of the projects are made by third parties.
Because demanding data that shows Apple has lied is a very reasonable act and not doing it would be stupid. On the other hand adding new devices that are specifically designed to avoid infringing anything like the GSIII to the "infringement" list as a (pitiful) attempt of retaliation shows only childish desperation, which relates very well to tantrums.
In Apple Steve Jobs rants always made into policies, and most of those policies have been kept unchanged after his death, mostly because people are very afraid to change something that is working.
A deflationary currency would never mpose any kind of good balance, but if even after reading what GP wrote you still insist on this absurd idea there is no hope for you to understand it even if it bites you in the face. There is no comparison between the current state of affairs and deflation. The consequences of deflation are much much worse.
Oh, and Inflation does not depend on exponential growth, just on any kind of growth. Nothing depends on exponential growth. But apparently you don't have the slightest idea of what is exponential growth either. Just to give you some numbers a growth of 4-5% a year tends to generate a very healthy inflation.
Anything can be arbitrarily deemed as "legitimate" or not. Google is not more or less legitimate than Piratebay it just have a much larger legal budget. Similarly no darknet is designed to do what you imply they where, they were designed to allow for people to freely transfer data (whatever type of data they see fit) without the fear of being persecuted by governments be it China, North Korea or US. The former will persecute you if do anything against the interests of the party, and the latter will persecute you if you do anything against the interests of corporations.
Nope, a better (even if still flawed) analogy would be B&E and destroying things inside without killing or doing anything that would imply into physical threat to the people inside and around it, like burning. It is B&E and destruction of property, which hardly incur in a life sentence even in US.
As I said. I haven't seen a single case of conviction based solely on domestic upload. Apparently by your link Japan legislators are trying to force it to happen (which is being strongly opposed by public opinion there), but nobody has been convicted yet. I am almost cheering for someone to be convicted there because then hell will break loose, as it will probably happen in Finland because of this very case.
Talking about Finland, which is the place we were talking about here in the first place, there you cannot throw criminal charges against someone for domestic download or upload, as it is so well explained in the very paper you posted.
The difference is that in many countries downloading isn't even a civil liability (in Finland it is but the damages paid are relatively low). So you are at risk of being sued only when you upload in these countries. In most sane places in the world, and even insane places like US, uploading this way is a civil liability not a criminal offence. Actually I am not aware of a single country in the world where uploading a file in a p2p program at home has been judged by any court as a criminal offence (at least yet).
For it to be a crime there is usually the need of money being involved, or at least a professional distribution scheme found.
For copyright crime, certain kind of “professionalism” and willfulness as well a certain wide scope of activity are required.
Read it again and again until it sinks, you will eventually get the meaning. Unless of course you are arguing that the 9 year old girl is the head of a professional illegal distribution network. Maybe the Chinese or the Russian mafia?
Unlawfulness and fault concepts required by Finnish Copyright Act and by the Criminal Code turn out being complicated concepts, especially in the network
environment. For copyright crime, certain kind of “professionalism” and wilfulness as well a certain wide scope of activity are required. For copyright offence, gross negligence suffices. Instead for tort liability unlawfulness without subjective criteria can lead to high damages for copyright infringement
Therefore you have provided yourself the sources for my claim. Next time I recommend you take the time to read the material you are linking before you post links to it.
Downloading for personal use won't be punished, but it may lead to claims for damages, if the copier knows or should have known that the source is illegal.
As in most places in the world, downloading is not a crime.
Not there. In Finland it is not a criminal offence and the police clearly ignored the law and did what their owners (the corporations) wanted them to do, thus the need for the non-disclosure agreement. Now it remains to be seen if the courts will follow the law or blatantly ignore it and just do as they want like in the Piratebay trial in Sweden.
Yes, if you are accurate and objective in your analysis you can do such a thing without being a "hater". "Hater" and "Fanboy" are terms better reserved for people who are overly emotional and often irrational about what they defend or attack.
Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..
That is a good question. What is their value for me? And for you? For the government? For society? Because, you know, the government is not there to make laws to prioritize my notion of value over yours, or over the notion of value of everybody else.
If you measure the value of their values by the money I would be ready to pay to preserve their lives it would probably be all the money I have and everything I could get my hands on by legal or illegal means, including any money the lives of your children could get me. I doubt that you would put a similar value onto my children, though, and I doubt the government would either.
So when measuring value we need a common ground. Something objectively defined that has nothing to do with the subjective value a single individual put at things, and the best tool we have to objectively measure value is money.
So were I a government I would measure the objective value of lives by their age against their expectancy of life, their current lifestyle and expectancy of income to their families and an additional amount for the families to compensate for monetary losses due to emotional distress. That is the monetary loss, as good as any extrapolation can make it, and that is not very far from what courts do throughout the World.
The life of my children is certainly very valuable to me, but I not so much as valuable to you. Anything can have some arbitrary abstract value to anyone, but in the end, the only real way of objectively measuring it is with money.
Again, you can only prove that there was a loss if you can prove that after the unauthorized copy is made and there is one more the value really dropped, that is, the money the original owner can make diminished. You can't do it either, no matter how much you want to believe you can.
So, no, you are just wrong. Value is money in the end.
Because "people" are wrong, and you and Milton Friedman own the truth, right? Please... You can use whoever warped definitions you may choose for words, but in the end that proves nothing. By the notation officially accept in political science, be it in US or Europe, she was a conservationist.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it would, if adding the products there would hold any water and if the purpose of the list wasn't to prevent the selling of those products.
The term "enthusiasts" does not apply exclusiveness to people who try to squeeze performance from high powered system. Enthusiast can be someone who wants to build a very high autonomy mobile device for example, or bring the highest performance possible from a portable device.
Apple builds very little. Almost everything they sell is in truth produced by other companies. Even a good part of the projects are made by third parties.
Because demanding data that shows Apple has lied is a very reasonable act and not doing it would be stupid. On the other hand adding new devices that are specifically designed to avoid infringing anything like the GSIII to the "infringement" list as a (pitiful) attempt of retaliation shows only childish desperation, which relates very well to tantrums.
In Apple Steve Jobs rants always made into policies, and most of those policies have been kept unchanged after his death, mostly because people are very afraid to change something that is working.
Because "enthusiasts" can be as well enthusiastic about low power mobile devices as they are about high power high speed desktops.
A deflationary currency would never mpose any kind of good balance, but if even after reading what GP wrote you still insist on this absurd idea there is no hope for you to understand it even if it bites you in the face. There is no comparison between the current state of affairs and deflation. The consequences of deflation are much much worse.
Oh, and Inflation does not depend on exponential growth, just on any kind of growth. Nothing depends on exponential growth. But apparently you don't have the slightest idea of what is exponential growth either. Just to give you some numbers a growth of 4-5% a year tends to generate a very healthy inflation.
Keep thinking everything you or anybody else does is irrelevant and that will bring you far, my friend.
Anything can be arbitrarily deemed as "legitimate" or not. Google is not more or less legitimate than Piratebay it just have a much larger legal budget. Similarly no darknet is designed to do what you imply they where, they were designed to allow for people to freely transfer data (whatever type of data they see fit) without the fear of being persecuted by governments be it China, North Korea or US. The former will persecute you if do anything against the interests of the party, and the latter will persecute you if you do anything against the interests of corporations.
30 years is still ridiculous for a crime like this...
Oh, he is already found guilty by the government, now they are just waiting that long to make sure they can make a good case to justify it.
Nope, a better (even if still flawed) analogy would be B&E and destroying things inside without killing or doing anything that would imply into physical threat to the people inside and around it, like burning. It is B&E and destruction of property, which hardly incur in a life sentence even in US.
Because what he did, although obviously illegal and a bad thing, should never grant him a life sentence in any remotely sane law system.
As I said. I haven't seen a single case of conviction based solely on domestic upload. Apparently by your link Japan legislators are trying to force it to happen (which is being strongly opposed by public opinion there), but nobody has been convicted yet. I am almost cheering for someone to be convicted there because then hell will break loose, as it will probably happen in Finland because of this very case.
Talking about Finland, which is the place we were talking about here in the first place, there you cannot throw criminal charges against someone for domestic download or upload, as it is so well explained in the very paper you posted.
The difference is that in many countries downloading isn't even a civil liability (in Finland it is but the damages paid are relatively low). So you are at risk of being sued only when you upload in these countries. In most sane places in the world, and even insane places like US, uploading this way is a civil liability not a criminal offence. Actually I am not aware of a single country in the world where uploading a file in a p2p program at home has been judged by any court as a criminal offence (at least yet).
For it to be a crime there is usually the need of money being involved, or at least a professional distribution scheme found.
For copyright crime, certain kind of “professionalism” and willfulness as well a certain wide scope of activity are required.
Read it again and again until it sinks, you will eventually get the meaning. Unless of course you are arguing that the 9 year old girl is the head of a professional illegal distribution network. Maybe the Chinese or the Russian mafia?
Unlawfulness and fault concepts required by Finnish Copyright Act and by the Criminal Code turn out being complicated concepts, especially in the network environment. For copyright crime, certain kind of “professionalism” and wilfulness as well a certain wide scope of activity are required. For copyright offence, gross negligence suffices. Instead for tort liability unlawfulness without subjective criteria can lead to high damages for copyright infringement
Therefore you have provided yourself the sources for my claim. Next time I recommend you take the time to read the material you are linking before you post links to it.
Downloading for personal use won't be punished, but it may lead to claims for damages, if the copier knows or should have known that the source is illegal.
As in most places in the world, downloading is not a crime.
Not there. In Finland it is not a criminal offence and the police clearly ignored the law and did what their owners (the corporations) wanted them to do, thus the need for the non-disclosure agreement. Now it remains to be seen if the courts will follow the law or blatantly ignore it and just do as they want like in the Piratebay trial in Sweden.
Yes, if you are accurate and objective in your analysis you can do such a thing without being a "hater". "Hater" and "Fanboy" are terms better reserved for people who are overly emotional and often irrational about what they defend or attack.
Nope. Acknowledging the quality of Apple's products does not make you a fanboy. Defending Apple's legal practices and bully approach regarding their distributors, competitors and customers does, though, especially when you are directly and negatively affected by it..
That is a good question. What is their value for me? And for you? For the government? For society? Because, you know, the government is not there to make laws to prioritize my notion of value over yours, or over the notion of value of everybody else.
If you measure the value of their values by the money I would be ready to pay to preserve their lives it would probably be all the money I have and everything I could get my hands on by legal or illegal means, including any money the lives of your children could get me. I doubt that you would put a similar value onto my children, though, and I doubt the government would either.
So when measuring value we need a common ground. Something objectively defined that has nothing to do with the subjective value a single individual put at things, and the best tool we have to objectively measure value is money.
So were I a government I would measure the objective value of lives by their age against their expectancy of life, their current lifestyle and expectancy of income to their families and an additional amount for the families to compensate for monetary losses due to emotional distress. That is the monetary loss, as good as any extrapolation can make it, and that is not very far from what courts do throughout the World.
The life of my children is certainly very valuable to me, but I not so much as valuable to you. Anything can have some arbitrary abstract value to anyone, but in the end, the only real way of objectively measuring it is with money.
Again, you can only prove that there was a loss if you can prove that after the unauthorized copy is made and there is one more the value really dropped, that is, the money the original owner can make diminished. You can't do it either, no matter how much you want to believe you can.
So, no, you are just wrong. Value is money in the end.
Because "people" are wrong, and you and Milton Friedman own the truth, right? Please... You can use whoever warped definitions you may choose for words, but in the end that proves nothing. By the notation officially accept in political science, be it in US or Europe, she was a conservationist.