Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, White Stripes, Foo Fighters, and Coldplay are derivative rips of better artists you likely haven't heard before thanks to mega-label collusion. I'll grant you Kings of Leon, reluctantly. Jeff Buckley, unfortunately, drowned in a river and likely doesn't give one whit about people buying or sharing his work at this point.
Unfortunately for iTunes I do not listen to artists who produce albums with only two good songs apiece. The best feature of iTunes is, arguably, predicated on the popularity of terrible artists.
To steal they would have to take something away. The old argument was that by downloading and uploading they took away sales, which was justification for calling it 'theft'. This report suggests that nothing is being taken away - rather, the industry is being helped. Rather than thieves, these people might be more properly portrayed as patrons of the arts. If they are helping, instead of stealing, how are they being dishonest?
This is not a game of words. This is applying the same logic to the situation that governments and industry representatives have applied all along.
This is not an unreasonable extension of the precedent. Most car commercials show the vehicles going very fast, often on wet, uneven pavement and curving roads. Is this any less incitement to drive dangerously than 'Rip, Burn, Mix' was incitement to infringe copyright?
The conflict wasn't specifically over taxation and tariffs. The south was expanding quickly, via plantations, to cover more area and have more voting power (this is where the African-American=3/5ths of a person court decision arose: plantation owners got to vote for their slaves, and each slave got 3/5ths of a vote, because the northern states didn't want to give them a whole vote, because then the south would have the overwhelming majority).
Basically the northern states were using the courts to ensure that the more populous (because of slave population) south did not gain the upper hand in the federal government; when the southern states got frustrated enough to secede, the northern states used their superior economic power to assert their control.
Lincoln only offered emancipation to slaves as a threat against the south, ie: stop rebelling, or when we take you over, you don't get slaves anymore. Several northern states retained slavery for many years after the war.
The right to choose not to be a slave wasn't the core issue either, though.
Lincoln only came up with emancipation as a threat: those southern states which stopped rebelling and rejoined the union would have been allowed to keep their slaves.
The US Civil War wasn't about slavery. Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.
Yes, it is reasonable to say that to avoid infinite causal regress, we could assume a cause that itself was uncaused. But why should we anthropomorphize this cause and make it into a human-like agent?
'Light ID' that suggests life was created by some non-deific intelligent agent is really just a roundabout way of positing God all over again, because any non-deific intelligent agent would have to itself have been created.
If anything what you're describing should more reasonably be ascribed to some sort of universal law, something that 'just is'. We can and do accept these laws as uncaused causes in our own lives; if we give the uncaused cause of existence agency and personality, why shouldn't we give these qualities to gravity, causality, thermodynamics, and all the other 'universal laws' we live with?
Please take a pot-shot at American capitalism by developing a secure, crypto-protected p2p IPV6 application. I know you're going to build it out of dead Tibetan monks and the bones of Taiwanese children, but still.
Possession is not illegal, but distribution is - but it is still a civil matter (copyright infringement) and not a criminal matter (theft). The obvious reasoning behind this is that nothing is actually removed from another's ownership.
That being said, new and low-quality legislation (DMCA, Patriots, etc.) can be interpreted in some very interesting ways; further, to an American college student who already is tens of thousands of dollars in debt by the end of his first year, monetary damages are every bit as life-destroying as long-term imprisonment.
To answer your question, though, having 'unlicensed' music files is not illegal as of yet.
This law, if enforced, would violate the Constitutionally-recognized right to refrain from incriminating oneself by tacking on an additional penalty to those who do not confess to copyright infringements. This is A Bad Thing.
Terrorism is the infliction of terror upon a group, plain and simple.
This often is done by attacking civilian targets, because obviously, that scares the hell out of everybody, right? 9/11 is the example everyone is, at this point, probably most familiar with.
However, if you say that all terrorists are evil and must be destroyed, do keep in mind that you are indicting quite a few Americans, as well. Take the high-ups in your federal government, for example, who have been yanking people around with terror alerts and false propaganda ever since the planes hit, scaring them into submission in order to do things like enact PATRIOT or legitimize a war in Iraq.
So who do we start with, if we want to go after the terrorists - those that purposefully inflict terror to further their goals? Does it make the most sense to shut down Al-Jazeera offices, and not CNN and Fox News?
There is no question that those responsible for the 9/11 attack are absolute monsters, and must be kept from killing again. We must, however, remember two things: that responsibility for the 9/11 attacks doesn't stop at Al-Qaeda, and that not everything can be justified by saying 'nine eleven' and waving flags.
If "Warning: you may be monitored in this washrooms. Entering these washrooms confers no rights to privacy.", maybe.
In the user agreement at this organization, employees had to agree to forfeit their privacy rights and agree to possible monitoring. The sysadmin was not breaking any rules here by monitoring his boss.
If DDT was that lethal, why did the life expectancy of Americans actually increase over the period?
There are more variables in this equation than just the presence of DDT. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why the life expectancy of Americans increased, many of them centering on improvements in medicine.
He didn't 'grab shit'. If you're using the apartment door analogy, it would be more accurate to say he saw the door was ajar, gave it a push to confirm it was open, and left a 'your door was open' note for the owner.
Saying 'The 2nd Amendment is about everyone being able to have guns' is like saying 'the 14th Amendment was about protecting civil rights and doing away with segregation', silly.
The helium nucleus will blow all the way through its target, however, meaning that not all of its kinetic energy will be transferred - lots of it will be given to the wall behind the target, for example, or the air.
In theory, you want your slug massive enough that it doesn't make it all the way through the target.
They refer to the devices as illegal. Smart card readers are not illegal, to the best of my knowledge, unless they're made out of, say, babies, or Cuban cigars.
True, but dead smokers don't contribute to the economy. Lung cancer doesn't wait until you're retired to off you. Cancer isn't the only health problem caused by smoking, either. I could develop asthma or whatnot from it too, I'm sure. The cigarette packs always tell me stuff like that.
The argument could be made that by taxing unhealthy foods, the burden on the national health care system is lessened. I smoke now and then, and I don't mind paying hefty taxes on cigarettes. I could end up in the hospital some day for sucking on these deathsticks; is it fair that Joe Nonsmoker should pay the same taxes as me, if I'm probability-wise a larger strain on the system?
Slashdot Mirror
The police, generally speaking, do not spend large heaps of private-industry money lobbying governments to change laws in their favour.
The **AAs are not exactly impartial judicial agencies.
Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, White Stripes, Foo Fighters, and Coldplay are derivative rips of better artists you likely haven't heard before thanks to mega-label collusion. I'll grant you Kings of Leon, reluctantly. Jeff Buckley, unfortunately, drowned in a river and likely doesn't give one whit about people buying or sharing his work at this point.
Unfortunately for iTunes I do not listen to artists who produce albums with only two good songs apiece. The best feature of iTunes is, arguably, predicated on the popularity of terrible artists.
To steal they would have to take something away. The old argument was that by downloading and uploading they took away sales, which was justification for calling it 'theft'. This report suggests that nothing is being taken away - rather, the industry is being helped. Rather than thieves, these people might be more properly portrayed as patrons of the arts. If they are helping, instead of stealing, how are they being dishonest?
This is not a game of words. This is applying the same logic to the situation that governments and industry representatives have applied all along.
This is not an unreasonable extension of the precedent. Most car commercials show the vehicles going very fast, often on wet, uneven pavement and curving roads. Is this any less incitement to drive dangerously than 'Rip, Burn, Mix' was incitement to infringe copyright?
Doing bodily harm is not illegal in all instances. Distributing copyrighted works is not illegal in all instances. It's a valid comparison.
The conflict wasn't specifically over taxation and tariffs. The south was expanding quickly, via plantations, to cover more area and have more voting power (this is where the African-American=3/5ths of a person court decision arose: plantation owners got to vote for their slaves, and each slave got 3/5ths of a vote, because the northern states didn't want to give them a whole vote, because then the south would have the overwhelming majority).
Basically the northern states were using the courts to ensure that the more populous (because of slave population) south did not gain the upper hand in the federal government; when the southern states got frustrated enough to secede, the northern states used their superior economic power to assert their control.
Lincoln only offered emancipation to slaves as a threat against the south, ie: stop rebelling, or when we take you over, you don't get slaves anymore. Several northern states retained slavery for many years after the war.
The right to choose not to be a slave wasn't the core issue either, though.
Lincoln only came up with emancipation as a threat: those southern states which stopped rebelling and rejoined the union would have been allowed to keep their slaves.
The US Civil War wasn't about slavery. Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.
What reason is there to posit God at all?
Yes, it is reasonable to say that to avoid infinite causal regress, we could assume a cause that itself was uncaused. But why should we anthropomorphize this cause and make it into a human-like agent?
'Light ID' that suggests life was created by some non-deific intelligent agent is really just a roundabout way of positing God all over again, because any non-deific intelligent agent would have to itself have been created.
If anything what you're describing should more reasonably be ascribed to some sort of universal law, something that 'just is'. We can and do accept these laws as uncaused causes in our own lives; if we give the uncaused cause of existence agency and personality, why shouldn't we give these qualities to gravity, causality, thermodynamics, and all the other 'universal laws' we live with?
Dear China,
Please take a pot-shot at American capitalism by developing a secure, crypto-protected p2p IPV6 application. I know you're going to build it out of dead Tibetan monks and the bones of Taiwanese children, but still.
Possession is not illegal, but distribution is - but it is still a civil matter (copyright infringement) and not a criminal matter (theft). The obvious reasoning behind this is that nothing is actually removed from another's ownership.
That being said, new and low-quality legislation (DMCA, Patriots, etc.) can be interpreted in some very interesting ways; further, to an American college student who already is tens of thousands of dollars in debt by the end of his first year, monetary damages are every bit as life-destroying as long-term imprisonment.
To answer your question, though, having 'unlicensed' music files is not illegal as of yet.
Just downloaded for Win2k; crashes on startup. Uh-oh!
Solar on the rear dash is a very smart idea. I don't know why most cars don't have this attached by default and coupled to rechargable batteries.
This law, if enforced, would violate the Constitutionally-recognized right to refrain from incriminating oneself by tacking on an additional penalty to those who do not confess to copyright infringements. This is A Bad Thing.
Terrorism is the infliction of terror upon a group, plain and simple.
This often is done by attacking civilian targets, because obviously, that scares the hell out of everybody, right? 9/11 is the example everyone is, at this point, probably most familiar with.
However, if you say that all terrorists are evil and must be destroyed, do keep in mind that you are indicting quite a few Americans, as well. Take the high-ups in your federal government, for example, who have been yanking people around with terror alerts and false propaganda ever since the planes hit, scaring them into submission in order to do things like enact PATRIOT or legitimize a war in Iraq.
So who do we start with, if we want to go after the terrorists - those that purposefully inflict terror to further their goals? Does it make the most sense to shut down Al-Jazeera offices, and not CNN and Fox News?
There is no question that those responsible for the 9/11 attack are absolute monsters, and must be kept from killing again. We must, however, remember two things: that responsibility for the 9/11 attacks doesn't stop at Al-Qaeda, and that not everything can be justified by saying 'nine eleven' and waving flags.
If "Warning: you may be monitored in this washrooms. Entering these washrooms confers no rights to privacy.", maybe.
In the user agreement at this organization, employees had to agree to forfeit their privacy rights and agree to possible monitoring. The sysadmin was not breaking any rules here by monitoring his boss.
If DDT was that lethal, why did the life expectancy of Americans actually increase over the period?
There are more variables in this equation than just the presence of DDT. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why the life expectancy of Americans increased, many of them centering on improvements in medicine.
I think you just broke the DMCA!
We all have a new DMCA-mocking .sig:
.SIG ENCODED WITH 'SHIFT-KEY' TECHNOLOGY. IF YOU ARE READING THIS, YOU ARE A CRIMINAL"
"THIS
Also, here's some filler. I got filtered out for too many caps. For serious.
He didn't 'grab shit'. If you're using the apartment door analogy, it would be more accurate to say he saw the door was ajar, gave it a push to confirm it was open, and left a 'your door was open' note for the owner.
You support the right for creation of militias?
Hey, that's great.
What does this have to do with firearm laws?
Saying 'The 2nd Amendment is about everyone being able to have guns' is like saying 'the 14th Amendment was about protecting civil rights and doing away with segregation', silly.
The helium nucleus will blow all the way through its target, however, meaning that not all of its kinetic energy will be transferred - lots of it will be given to the wall behind the target, for example, or the air.
In theory, you want your slug massive enough that it doesn't make it all the way through the target.
Um, report them for fraud?
They refer to the devices as illegal. Smart card readers are not illegal, to the best of my knowledge, unless they're made out of, say, babies, or Cuban cigars.
True, but dead smokers don't contribute to the economy. Lung cancer doesn't wait until you're retired to off you. Cancer isn't the only health problem caused by smoking, either. I could develop asthma or whatnot from it too, I'm sure. The cigarette packs always tell me stuff like that.
The argument could be made that by taxing unhealthy foods, the burden on the national health care system is lessened. I smoke now and then, and I don't mind paying hefty taxes on cigarettes. I could end up in the hospital some day for sucking on these deathsticks; is it fair that Joe Nonsmoker should pay the same taxes as me, if I'm probability-wise a larger strain on the system?