They got caught out being greedy sods, and for most, their political careers are over now because of it.
They get a large amount of money when they stop being MPs, a generous pension and quite possibly have a "fat cat" job lined up (possibly even in the public sector).
That's fair punishment
"Punishment" would include fines, being charged interest on repayments, being tossed in a jail cell, etc.
Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:
a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?
A suitable approach to dangerous driving might well be for that person to be barred from driving. In some cases (unlikely to be applicable to a London MP) this might mean they can't do their job.
Why women put up with this I dont know. Not only is she sexist against men, but in doing so she is painting women as been helpless, needy, fragile and need urgent protection. If that isnt being downright sexist AGAINST women I don't know what is.
Many self identified "feminists" have been doing exactly this for at least the last 20 or so years. However you are unlikely to get any sort of explanation since such people tend to be masters (or possibly mistresses) of argumentum ad hominem. (Typically with some stock non sequiturs thrown in. Along the lines of if you disagree with them then it must be because you believe X).
This is one of the things my home country of Norway does quite well. Sexism, under the law, refers to sexual discrimination; when someone is treated differently because of their sex. Not "because they are a woman". Here in Britain, companies like "Sheila's Wheels" (a car insurance company that only insure women) are fully able to operate, whereas in Norway it would be considered gross discrimination.
Wonder if a car insurance company selling to only men would be able to operate in the same way. It's quite possible that this company is actually operating entirely against the law, but the authorities just turn a blind eye. They might not even be legal in Australia...
I believe there have several cases here in the UK where those from ethnic minorities have tried to play that card, "I'm [ethinic minority] how can I be racist?!"
Wonder if they've heard of a country called The Republic of Rwanda?
The question I would ask these planks is, "Race has nothing to do with it pal, you're that stupid and detached from reality, how do you manage to get your trousers on in the morning?"!!!
Isn't being "detached from reality" kind of a requirement for career politicians in the first place?
you can't say that artists wouldn't produce worthwhile work in the absence of copyright, because we already know that for hundreds of years they did just that.
More like tens of thousands of years. Copyright is a quite modern concept.
What these "artists" (and I use the term loosely, as this mainly seems to be driven by the labels and many artists actually oppose the labels' standpoint) always seem to gloss over when they talk about "losing rights" is that these aren't some kind of natural, inalienable rights, they're rights specifically granted to them by the public.
In some places, such as the USA, they are intended entirely as a means to an end. Something which is often overlooked.
If the public feel that they are abusing those rights or taking them to the extreme
Or that these "rights" are somehow obsolete or that a different set of rights (e.g. "moral rights") are a better choice.
hen it's perfectly justifiable to reign them in or remove them completely.
Do you deny that choosing the name "Pirate Party" is a deliberate attempt to pander to a generation of mouth-breathing, spoiled shut-ins who have never done an honest day's work in their life?
Sounds like a good description of the majority of existing MPs:)
I'm wondering if you had any trouble getting members for the party as opposed to what is happening in Australia. The pirate party here is suffering from member apathy, no one is going as far to fill out the paper work in order to help the party get the numbers needed to register as a political party. Has the UK pirate party had any similar issues?
In the UK political parties are entirely private entities. It's perfectly possible to have one of only one member. It's also possible for someone to be a member of more than one political party.
In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?
Even with copyright there is no guarentee that you will make money. At least in a "capitalist" economy. The other thing is that plenty of people "give away" plenty of stuff right now. Sometimes without expecting any financial reward, sometimes asking for donations, sometimes to encourage sales of something else (even the same content in a different form).
If it wouldn't affect licenses at all, wouldn't EULA's then just state that to legally run the program or game you need to have a license which is only obtainable via proper channels (ie. buy the product)?
EULAs are a completly different kind of entity from the GPL, Creative Commons, etc in the first place.
Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters,
Isn't that a required "qualification" for such positions?
the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices),
Which is still going to be just as unfair the only change is that it might be different people who are paying for nothing.
and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat).
In other words the people distributing the money are completly corrupt.
Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.
You might just as well pay "artists" X amount of money from general taxation. If nothing else the people involved in paying out the money are likely to be more efficent and less corrupt.
I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules.
"Subverting" in this context meaning more of "back to basics". Considering that it originated from the US and the US Constitution is quite specific on what "copyright type" things are ment to do.
Classical music is quite enjoyable. You can point to plenty of musical/acoustic reasons why this is the case, as in the songs feature things that people find pleasing to hear. It is not the sort of thing that you require intense training to appreciate because it is all intellectual or something, and the actual sound is awful, it is simply nice to listen to.
The reason for this is that only music people like to listen to ever becomes "classical".
They're probably repelling people by playing it really loudly and with horrible quality.
Rather indicated by use of the term "blared". It's probably only a question of time before before such speakers start attracting the same kind of destruction as speed cameras.
When I studied colour associations at design school we learned that purple was associated with regality, and orange with movement and life.
Such associations tend to be somewhat cultural and related to the history of dyes and pigments. It's specifically Tyrian purple which is associated with royalty.
Slashdot Mirror
They got caught out being greedy sods, and for most, their political careers are over now because of it.
They get a large amount of money when they stop being MPs, a generous pension and quite possibly have a "fat cat" job lined up (possibly even in the public sector).
That's fair punishment
"Punishment" would include fines, being charged interest on repayments, being tossed in a jail cell, etc.
Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:
a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?
A suitable approach to dangerous driving might well be for that person to be barred from driving. In some cases (unlikely to be applicable to a London MP) this might mean they can't do their job.
Why women put up with this I dont know. Not only is she sexist against men, but in doing so she is painting women as been helpless, needy, fragile and need urgent protection. If that isnt being downright sexist AGAINST women I don't know what is.
Many self identified "feminists" have been doing exactly this for at least the last 20 or so years. However you are unlikely to get any sort of explanation since such people tend to be masters (or possibly mistresses) of argumentum ad hominem. (Typically with some stock non sequiturs thrown in. Along the lines of if you disagree with them then it must be because you believe X).
This is one of the things my home country of Norway does quite well. Sexism, under the law, refers to sexual discrimination; when someone is treated differently because of their sex. Not "because they are a woman". Here in Britain, companies like "Sheila's Wheels" (a car insurance company that only insure women) are fully able to operate, whereas in Norway it would be considered gross discrimination.
Wonder if a car insurance company selling to only men would be able to operate in the same way. It's quite possible that this company is actually operating entirely against the law, but the authorities just turn a blind eye. They might not even be legal in Australia...
I believe there have several cases here in the UK where those from ethnic minorities have tried to play that card, "I'm [ethinic minority] how can I be racist?!"
Wonder if they've heard of a country called The Republic of Rwanda?
The question I would ask these planks is, "Race has nothing to do with it pal, you're that stupid and detached from reality, how do you manage to get your trousers on in the morning?"!!!
Isn't being "detached from reality" kind of a requirement for career politicians in the first place?
There already is such a button on every computer. It's more widely known as the power button.
;)
Pity there isn't one fitted to all MPs. Won't someone think of the children
Just to correct you, it was Jacqui Smith who was involved in the porn on expenses scandal.
Though they've both "got away with it". Only 4 UK politicians facing the courts, when 400 would have been a more sensible number.
owever, the pair of them are evil, menopausal bitches from hell
Do you really need to offend the Kennel Club?
* Child meets someone online.
* Child gets on with person.
* Child agrees to meet up with person.
Most of the other ways in which people meet up do not have the previous two steps.
* Child meets up with person.
* Bad things happen.
It need not be to the "child" that "bad things" happen.
I think the button should be connected to a device to administer a large voltage to Harriet Harperson whenever pressed. The take up would be enormous.
Version 2 would come up with a prompt of "Which MP/Peer do you want to shock today?" and would be even more popular.
you can't say that artists wouldn't produce worthwhile work in the absence of copyright, because we already know that for hundreds of years they did just that.
More like tens of thousands of years. Copyright is a quite modern concept.
What these "artists" (and I use the term loosely, as this mainly seems to be driven by the labels and many artists actually oppose the labels' standpoint) always seem to gloss over when they talk about "losing rights" is that these aren't some kind of natural, inalienable rights, they're rights specifically granted to them by the public.
In some places, such as the USA, they are intended entirely as a means to an end. Something which is often overlooked.
If the public feel that they are abusing those rights or taking them to the extreme
Or that these "rights" are somehow obsolete or that a different set of rights (e.g. "moral rights") are a better choice.
hen it's perfectly justifiable to reign them in or remove them completely.
Or otherwise modify them.
Do you deny that choosing the name "Pirate Party" is a deliberate attempt to pander to a generation of mouth-breathing, spoiled shut-ins who have never done an honest day's work in their life?
:)
Sounds like a good description of the majority of existing MPs
Can we have a 3 strikes for politicians so that when they've been caught with red handed with their hand in the checkout 3 times
That shouldn't leave many.
they're jailed
What spend more public money of these parasites? Far better to conscript them to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. Deport the "Nom doms" too.
I'm wondering if you had any trouble getting members for the party as opposed to what is happening in Australia. The pirate party here is suffering from member apathy, no one is going as far to fill out the paper work in order to help the party get the numbers needed to register as a political party. Has the UK pirate party had any similar issues?
In the UK political parties are entirely private entities. It's perfectly possible to have one of only one member. It's also possible for someone to be a member of more than one political party.
In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?
Even with copyright there is no guarentee that you will make money. At least in a "capitalist" economy. The other thing is that plenty of people "give away" plenty of stuff right now. Sometimes without expecting any financial reward, sometimes asking for donations, sometimes to encourage sales of something else (even the same content in a different form).
If it wouldn't affect licenses at all, wouldn't EULA's then just state that to legally run the program or game you need to have a license which is only obtainable via proper channels (ie. buy the product)?
EULAs are a completly different kind of entity from the GPL, Creative Commons, etc in the first place.
Now, there's a huge SNAFU going on here with our RIAA-equivalent (the SGAE), who are lying bastards and cheaters,
Isn't that a required "qualification" for such positions?
the levy system isn't ideal (many people get charged who don't use P2P, and the devices/consumables that get levies are just stupid - I think it'd be better to charge levies on internet connections instead of consumables and devices),
Which is still going to be just as unfair the only change is that it might be different people who are paying for nothing.
and the way the levies are distributed is completely backwards (SGAE execs have been known to use some privately, transparency is nil, and small artists get squat).
In other words the people distributing the money are completly corrupt.
Nonetheless, the basic premise isnt all that bad: legalize audio/video/book file sharing, but impose some reasonable sort of cash stream from the people very likely to use P2P to the people who very likely have their works shared.
You might just as well pay "artists" X amount of money from general taxation. If nothing else the people involved in paying out the money are likely to be more efficent and less corrupt.
I hate that GPL argument. Sure it's technically correct, but the GPL was written with the intent of subverting copyright using it's own rules.
"Subverting" in this context meaning more of "back to basics". Considering that it originated from the US and the US Constitution is quite specific on what "copyright type" things are ment to do.
Classical music is quite enjoyable. You can point to plenty of musical/acoustic reasons why this is the case, as in the songs feature things that people find pleasing to hear. It is not the sort of thing that you require intense training to appreciate because it is all intellectual or something, and the actual sound is awful, it is simply nice to listen to.
The reason for this is that only music people like to listen to ever becomes "classical".
They're probably repelling people by playing it really loudly and with horrible quality.
Rather indicated by use of the term "blared". It's probably only a question of time before before such speakers start attracting the same kind of destruction as speed cameras.
As sentimental as that is, for the last five years I've heard nothing but complaints about the color scheme.
People with a complaint tend to be the first to say something. It's also quite possible to have a silent/indifferent majority.
When I studied colour associations at design school we learned that purple was associated with regality, and orange with movement and life.
Such associations tend to be somewhat cultural and related to the history of dyes and pigments. It's specifically Tyrian purple which is associated with royalty.
Is professionalism a virtue?
Is this even a meaningful adjective in this context. It sounds more like the sort of claims that come up to justify a subjective decision.
Metastudies are a troubling area. What's more, particularly with this kind of work, there's a huge risk of GIGO...
As well as circular reasoning.
No scientist/researcher would ever use the term "Conclusively Proven".
:)
Or at least no real one.
When you see that phraseology, mindset, or pronouncement, run away like your hair is on fire.
Or just stand there laughing, especially if you don't have much hair
"Conclusively Proven", "Settled Science", = Hidden agenda.
Or that those doing (and supporting) the "research" are deluded.