At which point the states reply "oh you mean the funds coming directly from citizens within our state?" It's a quick way to flair up a fast civil war.
You guys don't have such a good track record with civil wars. 0/1 so far.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
If you like, you can put sport in the same category as surgery and tattooing in the 'not very clear cut' category.
Stolen from some guy off the internets:
The general rule in the law of assault is that "it is an unlawful act to
beat another person with such a degree of violence that the infliction of
bodily harm is a probable consequence, and when such an act is
proved, consent is immaterial".14 In the English case of R v Donovan,
Swift J expressed the view that "'bodily harm' has its ordinary
meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the
health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such injury need not be
permanent, but must...be more than merely transient and trifling."15
This passage has since been approved by Australian courts.16
In the case of Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980), the
English Court of Appeal accepted that there were certain exceptions to
the general rule such as "properly conducted games and sports, lawful
chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference [and]
dangerous exhibition".17 Lord Lane considered that "these apparent
exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise of a legal right, in
the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in the public
interest, in the other cases".18 This ruling has also been approved by
the Australian courts.19
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Nope, because legally you can't consent to assault. Tattooing and surgery are gray areas, but this one isn't.
What's the point in hiring someone to develop software if they are going to spend half a day messing around troubleshooting their system - that's not their job. Policy in most companies is not decided by employees mothers.
Well see, that's the problem in itself. Most IT Support staff don't spend half a day fixing their own computers, and if you're doing the right thing you won't have to either.
And, as pointed out in the article, how will custom proprietary apps get on?
Easily - They rock up to the bureau of certification, pay the X thousand dollar testing fee and wait for the results.
To extend that idea a bit further: If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?
That depends, can you see them stopping if you lose all your liberties? No? Then they haven't won.
Can you see them stopping if the US becomes 'uninvolved in the Middle East'? Well, that's a subject for experts, and I certainly don't imagine anyone here can speak with anything other than blind ideology behind them.
But still, the terrorists will stop trying to blow things up if they win. I can't see them stopping just because your government is spying on you.
What a load of crap. The Australian 'sedition' laws are the same laws that have existed for decades, reworded a bit. Did you have secret police kicking your door down last year? Odds are good that you won't this year either.
You do know what free means right? If you have to pay for it, it's not free and conversely if you get it for free (with the blessing of the provider of the goods or services), you didn't have to pay for it.
Sorry, I think my statement takes that into account. If you could get it for free, then you -wouldn't- otherwise have to pay for it. But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free) and still use it for free, that's where we run into problems.
No, there is a qualitative difference. In the case of targetted killings of people who do things you don't like, the message is "don't do that"; in the case of random acts, the message is "listen to us, we'll do anything to be heard"
That is more of a function of how you feel towards the terrorists in question. ie: The whole Israel/Palestine thing is just 'we'll do anything to be heard'. However, they want to be heard by blowing up buses of civilians, which is terrorism.
Yes actually I can, because one model centers arround using government to choke off the natural supply and demand of information for the sake of incentive while the other relies on natural supply and demand of services behind the information.
The fact that we're talking about 'information' is completely irrelevant, except in that it allows for easier pirating. Capitalism boils down to: You do work, and people pay you for it. It doesn't matter whether the work is making a table or writing Doom 3.
PS: Neither the table, nor Doom 3 'wants to be free'.
Sure, and if you play the demo of a game at a store then go home and write your own exact copy of it then you aren't really depriving them of profits either. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for.
Now, if PETA was randomly blowing up busses, then perhaps the word terrorist would fit.
The only difference between someone blowing up buses of people they don't like, and someone randomly killing individuals who do things they don't like is a matter of scale.
Sure, being a bad person doesn't make you a terrorist, but threatening to kill a specific demographic unless they 'change their ways' fits the bill quite nicely. Extremist Christians and Extremist Greenies are both 'small time' terrorists in my mind. After all, you wouldn't call Osama a 'big-time' murderer, would you?
PS: While I'm thinking, should people be able to steal physical items from stores and only pay the cost of the raw materials, because they wouldn't have bought the item anyway?
Nice red herring there, wanting to buy something and wanting to have something are not synonomous, at least not all the time. You can not want to buy something, but still get that same thing later, legally or not.
They're not synonomous these days because of the easy which products can be pirated. When talking about any product that is not easily pirated, 'wanting to have' and 'wanting to buy' are exactly the same thing. (Excluding theft, which I hope you agree is a crime.)
Not being able to spell isn't properly should be a violation.:/
Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.
One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?
no it doesn't, copying is not stealing. logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.
The loss is easy to define, they lost sales. You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?
I pity the consumers who have so little choice in the market as a result of Microsoft's scorched-earth business practices.
Save your pity for those who want it. The rest of us will be over here playing the latest PC games. As countless thousands of people have said, there are perfectly viable alternatives to Windows, if people aren't using them they must be happy with what they've got.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not understand. But you will: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p 761-thompson.pdf
You guys don't have such a good track record with civil wars. 0/1 so far.
Stolen from some guy off the internets:
The general rule in the law of assault is that "it is an unlawful act to beat another person with such a degree of violence that the infliction of bodily harm is a probable consequence, and when such an act is proved, consent is immaterial".14 In the English case of R v Donovan, Swift J expressed the view that "'bodily harm' has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such injury need not be permanent, but must...be more than merely transient and trifling."15 This passage has since been approved by Australian courts.16 In the case of Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980), the English Court of Appeal accepted that there were certain exceptions to the general rule such as "properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference [and] dangerous exhibition".17 Lord Lane considered that "these apparent exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise of a legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in the public interest, in the other cases".18 This ruling has also been approved by the Australian courts.19
Nope, because legally you can't consent to assault. Tattooing and surgery are gray areas, but this one isn't.
So, you're a manager then?
That's the only way the anti-MS brigade can get out there and buy an XBox360 though.
... and... 6 games."
:/
I can see it now. "Must.. hurt.. Microsoft.. by.. buying.. 360...
Before anyone asks, I despise console gaming for what it did to some of my favorite PC games, and will never forgive it
Read a EULA lately? You can have your CD Key banned from the master server on a whim.
How do you make out on that deal?
Well, it's cheaper than retail, and you get it on the spot. You also know that your money isn't going to Vivendi.
Well see, that's the problem in itself. Most IT Support staff don't spend half a day fixing their own computers, and if you're doing the right thing you won't have to either.
There is precident in any case.
Catch any highly infectious disease and see whether the government will let you roam the countryside spreading it to anyone who wants it.
And, as pointed out in the article, how will custom proprietary apps get on? Easily - They rock up to the bureau of certification, pay the X thousand dollar testing fee and wait for the results.
That depends, can you see them stopping if you lose all your liberties? No? Then they haven't won.
Can you see them stopping if the US becomes 'uninvolved in the Middle East'? Well, that's a subject for experts, and I certainly don't imagine anyone here can speak with anything other than blind ideology behind them.
But still, the terrorists will stop trying to blow things up if they win. I can't see them stopping just because your government is spying on you.
What a load of crap. The Australian 'sedition' laws are the same laws that have existed for decades, reworded a bit. Did you have secret police kicking your door down last year? Odds are good that you won't this year either.
You do know what free means right? If you have to pay for it, it's not free and conversely if you get it for free (with the blessing of the provider of the goods or services), you didn't have to pay for it.
Sorry, I think my statement takes that into account. If you could get it for free, then you -wouldn't- otherwise have to pay for it. But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free) and still use it for free, that's where we run into problems.
Using fear perhaps?
That is more of a function of how you feel towards the terrorists in question. ie: The whole Israel/Palestine thing is just 'we'll do anything to be heard'. However, they want to be heard by blowing up buses of civilians, which is terrorism.
The fact that we're talking about 'information' is completely irrelevant, except in that it allows for easier pirating. Capitalism boils down to: You do work, and people pay you for it. It doesn't matter whether the work is making a table or writing Doom 3.
PS: Neither the table, nor Doom 3 'wants to be free'.
Need more analogy.
The only difference between someone blowing up buses of people they don't like, and someone randomly killing individuals who do things they don't like is a matter of scale.
Sure, being a bad person doesn't make you a terrorist, but threatening to kill a specific demographic unless they 'change their ways' fits the bill quite nicely. Extremist Christians and Extremist Greenies are both 'small time' terrorists in my mind. After all, you wouldn't call Osama a 'big-time' murderer, would you?
PS: While I'm thinking, should people be able to steal physical items from stores and only pay the cost of the raw materials, because they wouldn't have bought the item anyway?
They're not synonomous these days because of the easy which products can be pirated. When talking about any product that is not easily pirated, 'wanting to have' and 'wanting to buy' are exactly the same thing. (Excluding theft, which I hope you agree is a crime.)
Not being able to spell isn't properly should be a violation. :/
Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.
One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?
The loss is easy to define, they lost sales. You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?
Save your pity for those who want it. The rest of us will be over here playing the latest PC games. As countless thousands of people have said, there are perfectly viable alternatives to Windows, if people aren't using them they must be happy with what they've got.
Is gmail really a 'great internet application'? It's webmail, just like we've had for years.