Ethics and moral are highly dependent on the eyes of the beholder. What is ethic and moral to you may be highly unethical and highly immoral to me and the other way around.
Sorry, but this is more than enough to prove to anyone that is not completely idiot (or trying to ignore the truth) that the jury didn't follow the instructions presented to them. There is no need for a recording after all these testimonies offered freely by him and other jurors.
Although I agree that minorities should be protected from abuse, it is much better to have the majority oppressing minorities than the other way around.
Now that is plain stupid. Most people were dead by 25 for most of human History. Most women died giving birth to their first child and that was way before the 18.
Most girls were sold as slaves or forcibly married by their parents, and had no say about with whom, when or how they would perform sex
By any modern law code the huge majority of sex made throughout human history can be considered as rape.
Assange was not accused of anything. He was called for questioning. No formal accusation has been made as of now, and even if he had been formally accused of something that still does not make him guilty. The only assumptions that are baseless are yours about Assange's guilty.
The base of my assertions is human History. I advise you to go back to your history books (if you ever had any) and read them instead of using your imagination to vomit fantasies, as usual
You are cute, Mr Americano, and it is not a surprise that you know nothing about History, being American and all. Just go back to your cave, I wasn't missing you.
And by the way, even if you think that what he is suspected of doing is horrible, Assange hasn't been even accused of anything yet much less proven guilty.
No, they are not, my friend. Copyright and theft are not even remotely the same thing and they will never be. They aren't the same thing even by the most absurd stretch of logic. If all of an artists fans refuse to pay to him it is because he has no value and doesn't deserve to earn anything . People do pay when they perceive value that is why Mozart, Beethoven and so many other artists lived very comfortable lives much before copyright existed.
An artist shouldn't have the right to control that which he created with the help of all mankind just because he contributed to it. It is good to give him adequate compensation, but copyright isn't the way to do it. For musicians the compensation is found in the form of paying public in their performances. It is much more honest to earn money performing and working, as everybody else does, than doing something once and reaping the fruits from it forever.
Depends on how you classify rape. Just to use your example, in Roman society it wasn't illegal to have forceful sex with your wife, or your slaves or non citizen females (which by the way was most of them). It was a crime to have sex with the females that were property of other people, but not because it was forceful, but because it was a violation of propriety.
For most of our History and throughout almost all human civilizations women were property ans spoils of war and had no say about when they would perform sex with their owners.
Accordingly to the "victim" she had fucked him the previous night, he slept with her, and when she woke up, before the penetration, she didn't push him away or even tried to stop him, instead she said things like: "You shouldn't be doing this.".
You can accuse anyone of anything, it does not make the person guilty. And again, even in the unlikely case that this accusations are indeed the truth, none of the victims where coerced with violence, they may have expressed their will to use codons and even made it into conditions, but they were free to stop it at any time and send him away. They ended conceding instead.
Furthermore the "sleeping victim" could have sent him away when she woke up, which was very soon after he started the foreplay. Sex is a very painful thing for non aroused women, you know? She would have a lot more to complain if he had really done it with her sleeping.
Oh if I include prehistory it just gets massively more prevalent, but I was quite specific I meant the 5 thousand or so years of human History. Rape was a very usual form of sex in many many civilizations, and if you include statutory rape in most of them.
There are cases where people where detained for 3 months or more in Sweden without formal accusations. It is still better than the "undetermined time" they can pull out in US but it is going the same way. You shouldn't be able to detain people for this long without accusations in any civilized country. Even with formal accusations it is a monstrosity.
Rape is natural, albeit unacceptable and illegal by the rules of most of our modern societies. It was actually the most common form of reproduction for most of the History of humankind.
That said, even if all the allegations are true, and there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise, what Assange is suspected of doing is as far from rape as I am from being a multibillionary.
Firstly you can't steal music. It is impossible. At most you can engage in an activity illegal in some countries called "copyright violation" which is not even remotely like stealing.
Secondly most of human art was developed before copyright existed, and art didn't get either better or more prolific since then because of copyright. Copyright is absurd. To compose and create any person uses thousands of years of public domain works and add a little bit of their "original" work, and then feel in the right to appropriate the result giving nothing back to the public domain for more than a hundred years.
And last, even in today's word, with copyright, far more musicians live from performing than from recording labels. There is no motive to protect the "rights" of those who decide to sell what should be free like those rights were born with Mankind. Copyright is an outdated model that has no reason to continue existing.
For each famous artist who gets the spotlight for some time there are thousands others who can barely live. That is what the current model promotes. Record Labels are reasonably good to very few artists and horribly bad for most of them.
Sure, price is not necessarily dictated by cost, but I see nothing wrong when the government that conceded rights to a telecom company to operate in their territory set the rules in a way that changes that.
Loyalty only matters to a company if it can be turned into profit, which is not really the case. Professionals, specially good ones, sell their expertise, for money. It is a commercial relation and if a professional gets a better offer he will usually take it. Besides that there is absolutely no guarantee you will have loyalty by being kind. Most people usually forget very easily the favors you did to them when it suits them.
Either way if it is really important to you, you can gate the same loyalty from men you can get from women, with the added benefit of no maternity licenses, which is what we are discussing here, not intangible subjective concepts like "loyalty".
Considering the bandwidth voice data requires it is usually trivial to guarantee the needed quality especially in a system that has to be able to provide a reasonable service to a much wider bandwidth used by data connection nowadays.
The overcharging of voice data has no real justification and that is why phone companies around the world are so hostile towards VOIP.
Unfortunately, although it is generally good to the World to have many people attempting to accomplish highly unlikely deeds, because some of them may prevail, to most of the people in question it is an ungrateful road to pain with no rewards.
The only thing that counts for a company is profit, or dollar signs if you so prefer. Short term or long term is irrelevant here. You seem to imply that paying employees that are not working is only bad at the short term but it is somewhat related to higher profits in the long term which is completely illogical.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethics and moral are highly dependent on the eyes of the beholder. What is ethic and moral to you may be highly unethical and highly immoral to me and the other way around.
Sorry, but this is more than enough to prove to anyone that is not completely idiot (or trying to ignore the truth) that the jury didn't follow the instructions presented to them. There is no need for a recording after all these testimonies offered freely by him and other jurors.
Even if that was true, better them than the MAFIAA. They at least provided the superior service...
He doesn't need to prove anything that is not already on the press. It is obvious what MPAA and its lobbyists have been doing:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
http://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-advises-movie-lobby-stop-threaten
Although I agree that minorities should be protected from abuse, it is much better to have the majority oppressing minorities than the other way around.
You are quite welcome.
Now that is plain stupid. Most people were dead by 25 for most of human History. Most women died giving birth to their first child and that was way before the 18.
Most girls were sold as slaves or forcibly married by their parents, and had no say about with whom, when or how they would perform sex
By any modern law code the huge majority of sex made throughout human history can be considered as rape.
Assange was not accused of anything. He was called for questioning. No formal accusation has been made as of now, and even if he had been formally accused of something that still does not make him guilty. The only assumptions that are baseless are yours about Assange's guilty.
The base of my assertions is human History. I advise you to go back to your history books (if you ever had any) and read them instead of using your imagination to vomit fantasies, as usual
You are cute, Mr Americano, and it is not a surprise that you know nothing about History, being American and all. Just go back to your cave, I wasn't missing you.
And by the way, even if you think that what he is suspected of doing is horrible, Assange hasn't been even accused of anything yet much less proven guilty.
No, they are not, my friend. Copyright and theft are not even remotely the same thing and they will never be. They aren't the same thing even by the most absurd stretch of logic. If all of an artists fans refuse to pay to him it is because he has no value and doesn't deserve to earn anything . People do pay when they perceive value that is why Mozart, Beethoven and so many other artists lived very comfortable lives much before copyright existed.
An artist shouldn't have the right to control that which he created with the help of all mankind just because he contributed to it. It is good to give him adequate compensation, but copyright isn't the way to do it. For musicians the compensation is found in the form of paying public in their performances. It is much more honest to earn money performing and working, as everybody else does, than doing something once and reaping the fruits from it forever.
Depends on how you classify rape. Just to use your example, in Roman society it wasn't illegal to have forceful sex with your wife, or your slaves or non citizen females (which by the way was most of them). It was a crime to have sex with the females that were property of other people, but not because it was forceful, but because it was a violation of propriety.
For most of our History and throughout almost all human civilizations women were property ans spoils of war and had no say about when they would perform sex with their owners.
Accordingly to the "victim" she had fucked him the previous night, he slept with her, and when she woke up, before the penetration, she didn't push him away or even tried to stop him, instead she said things like: "You shouldn't be doing this.".
You can accuse anyone of anything, it does not make the person guilty. And again, even in the unlikely case that this accusations are indeed the truth, none of the victims where coerced with violence, they may have expressed their will to use codons and even made it into conditions, but they were free to stop it at any time and send him away. They ended conceding instead.
Furthermore the "sleeping victim" could have sent him away when she woke up, which was very soon after he started the foreplay. Sex is a very painful thing for non aroused women, you know? She would have a lot more to complain if he had really done it with her sleeping.
Oh if I include prehistory it just gets massively more prevalent, but I was quite specific I meant the 5 thousand or so years of human History. Rape was a very usual form of sex in many many civilizations, and if you include statutory rape in most of them.
There are cases where people where detained for 3 months or more in Sweden without formal accusations. It is still better than the "undetermined time" they can pull out in US but it is going the same way. You shouldn't be able to detain people for this long without accusations in any civilized country. Even with formal accusations it is a monstrosity.
Sweden is quickly turning into USA:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-remains-locked-up-without-charges-120930/
Rape is natural, albeit unacceptable and illegal by the rules of most of our modern societies. It was actually the most common form of reproduction for most of the History of humankind.
That said, even if all the allegations are true, and there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise, what Assange is suspected of doing is as far from rape as I am from being a multibillionary.
Firstly you can't steal music. It is impossible. At most you can engage in an activity illegal in some countries called "copyright violation" which is not even remotely like stealing.
Secondly most of human art was developed before copyright existed, and art didn't get either better or more prolific since then because of copyright. Copyright is absurd. To compose and create any person uses thousands of years of public domain works and add a little bit of their "original" work, and then feel in the right to appropriate the result giving nothing back to the public domain for more than a hundred years.
And last, even in today's word, with copyright, far more musicians live from performing than from recording labels. There is no motive to protect the "rights" of those who decide to sell what should be free like those rights were born with Mankind. Copyright is an outdated model that has no reason to continue existing.
For each famous artist who gets the spotlight for some time there are thousands others who can barely live. That is what the current model promotes. Record Labels are reasonably good to very few artists and horribly bad for most of them.
No matter how much we try we won't able to wreck the lives of artists as much as the MAFIAA does.
Sure, price is not necessarily dictated by cost, but I see nothing wrong when the government that conceded rights to a telecom company to operate in their territory set the rules in a way that changes that.
Loyalty only matters to a company if it can be turned into profit, which is not really the case. Professionals, specially good ones, sell their expertise, for money. It is a commercial relation and if a professional gets a better offer he will usually take it. Besides that there is absolutely no guarantee you will have loyalty by being kind. Most people usually forget very easily the favors you did to them when it suits them.
Either way if it is really important to you, you can gate the same loyalty from men you can get from women, with the added benefit of no maternity licenses, which is what we are discussing here, not intangible subjective concepts like "loyalty".
Considering the bandwidth voice data requires it is usually trivial to guarantee the needed quality especially in a system that has to be able to provide a reasonable service to a much wider bandwidth used by data connection nowadays.
The overcharging of voice data has no real justification and that is why phone companies around the world are so hostile towards VOIP.
Unfortunately, although it is generally good to the World to have many people attempting to accomplish highly unlikely deeds, because some of them may prevail, to most of the people in question it is an ungrateful road to pain with no rewards.
The only thing that counts for a company is profit, or dollar signs if you so prefer. Short term or long term is irrelevant here. You seem to imply that paying employees that are not working is only bad at the short term but it is somewhat related to higher profits in the long term which is completely illogical.