This is about crime. Did someone claim that there is no crime in the USA? Note that the accused perpetrators are being prosecuted and will, if found guilty, go to prison.
Everybody is acting as if the ash is uniformly distributed. It isn't. The density will vary by orders of magnitude, being generally denser near the source and thin far away. Obviously, at some point it becomes too thin to matter (after all, there always some ash in the air everywhere as there are always volcanos going off). Thus it may be safe to fly over Germany but not Finland.
It takes more than three weeks to organize such things. It also takes more than three weeks of difficulty getting your game to work to justify them. Are people who can't get connected being refused refunds?
> I'm delusional because they hold almost all the cards and have the > gooberment in their pockets.
No, you are delusional because you greatly exaggerate their power and importance. They only get their way in Washington when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of anyone really powerful (such as the telecommunicatins industry) and they don't have much money by Washington standards. I'll give you that they are loud, but then being loud is what they _do_. As for their importance, it's only entertainment, and crap at that. You can make your own.
> Then require that the embodied person(s) is/are held accountable for the > actions of the corporation.
Each employees, officer, or director is individually responsible for all of his actions. The fact that he may have been acting as the agent of a corporation is irrelevant and not a defense in any criminal and some civil cases.
> I can only assume that the actual laws which they buy are worded more > correctly but if ever someone were to be sued for 'copyright theft' I assume > this would be grounds for dismissal. After all, the copyrights can not be > stolen if the copyright holder still has them and copyright law does not > deal with stolen property.
There is case law (both civil and criminal) establishing that copyright infringement is not theft. In fact, someone once lost a libel case after he referred to someone against whom he had won a copyright infringement case as a thief.
> In urban areas they'd probably have to be computer-controlled
They'll have to be computer-controlled everywhere. At low speeds and low altitudes the user may sometimes be permitted the illusion that he is driving.
> The public understanding of the Internet today is somewhat like the > understanding of nukes in the 1950s. Then, a nuclear war was not > unthinkable...
It was assumed (by the public) that it would end civilization and possibly the human race. The military were more realistic: they knew that it would probably be catastrophic but they did not labor under the delusion that they could predict the course or outcome of such a war. Thus they did their best to plan for all possibilities.
>...the dangers of radiation were not broadly known...
They were misunderstood and grossly exaggerated.
>...and the possibility of Nuclear Winter was completely unknown.
Surely this is one of those evil, nasty derivatives that will soon be banned by financial regulation anyway. After all, everyone knows that speculators and derivatives caused the recession, right?
Slashdot Mirror
This is about crime. Did someone claim that there is no crime in the USA? Note that the accused perpetrators are being prosecuted and will, if found guilty, go to prison.
...but isn't doing the obvious thing: running an ad-supported site on which obits can be posted for free.
> ...and how about requesting that it should be a free service...
That would just mean that those of us who don't need certificates would have to pay for them anyway.
Everybody is acting as if the ash is uniformly distributed. It isn't. The density will vary by orders of magnitude, being generally denser near the source and thin far away. Obviously, at some point it becomes too thin to matter (after all, there always some ash in the air everywhere as there are always volcanos going off). Thus it may be safe to fly over Germany but not Finland.
> When will these companies learn.
Learn what? That neither their customers nor the users actually give a damn about security? They already know that.
> They're in it for the long haul, and if a few eggs get smashed along the
> way, they're quite fine with that.
Unless they are the eggs...
It takes more than three weeks to organize such things. It also takes more than three weeks of difficulty getting your game to work to justify them. Are people who can't get connected being refused refunds?
Though security on the Web is broken by design Perspectives , while no panacea, can help. Be sure and check "Contact notaries for all HTTPS sites".
> I'm delusional because they hold almost all the cards and have the
> gooberment in their pockets.
No, you are delusional because you greatly exaggerate their power and importance. They only get their way in Washington when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of anyone really powerful (such as the telecommunicatins industry) and they don't have much money by Washington standards. I'll give you that they are loud, but then being loud is what they _do_. As for their importance, it's only entertainment, and crap at that. You can make your own.
> Instead of just not paying for it, don't watch it at all. Or don't listen to
> it.
I do neither. It's easy: everything they produce is crap.
> Then require that the embodied person(s) is/are held accountable for the
> actions of the corporation.
Each employees, officer, or director is individually responsible for all of his actions. The fact that he may have been acting as the agent of a corporation is irrelevant and not a defense in any criminal and some civil cases.
> Here's a thought... Corporations have some of the rights of human beings...
In the USA they have property rights. That's all.
> ...it only made it during the wash-up with about 40 MPs out of 600+ in the
> room for the few minutes of final debate.
Parliament has no quorum?
> Oh wait, I'm living on campus...
Move. You can do that.
> I can only assume that the actual laws which they buy are worded more
> correctly but if ever someone were to be sued for 'copyright theft' I assume
> this would be grounds for dismissal. After all, the copyrights can not be
> stolen if the copyright holder still has them and copyright law does not
> deal with stolen property.
There is case law (both civil and criminal) establishing that copyright infringement is not theft. In fact, someone once lost a libel case after he referred to someone against whom he had won a copyright infringement case as a thief.
> I believe this is a case of personifying the government as a 200-year-old,
> which leads to ridiculous statements, and worse, ridiculous policy.
Yes. As ridiculous as, say, personifying corporations.
You can take along either the luggage or the kids. Not both.
> In urban areas they'd probably have to be computer-controlled
They'll have to be computer-controlled everywhere. At low speeds and low altitudes the user may sometimes be permitted the illusion that he is driving.
> Like all DARPA projects Transformer TX is unlikely to succeed at all.
You have a strange definition of success. Hint: DARPA is a research organization.
> The public understanding of the Internet today is somewhat like the
> understanding of nukes in the 1950s. Then, a nuclear war was not
> unthinkable...
It was assumed (by the public) that it would end civilization and possibly the human race. The military were more realistic: they knew that it would probably be catastrophic but they did not labor under the delusion that they could predict the course or outcome of such a war. Thus they did their best to plan for all possibilities.
> ...the dangers of radiation were not broadly known...
They were misunderstood and grossly exaggerated.
> ...and the possibility of Nuclear Winter was completely unknown.
That you've got right.
> ...what role, if any, these bugs play in creating the oil deposits that fuel
> our civilization.
AFAIK they don't create oil. They convert it to tar.
So you want to have people imprisoned (not even tried and convicted: just locked up) for proposing legislation that you dislike.
I don't like the MPAA and the RIAA either (and I favor drastic reductions in the scope of copyright), but I think I prefer them to you.
> Exactly how is this proverbial scanning software supposed to tell the
> difference between an illegal file and a legitimate one? Based on file name?
That's easy. If it looks suspicious delete it. Better safe than sorry, right?
..."If you could have anything you want, what would you ask for?", what do you expect?
BTW if they want a pony too I have several for sale. That they might actually get.
Surely this is one of those evil, nasty derivatives that will soon be banned by financial regulation anyway. After all, everyone knows that speculators and derivatives caused the recession, right?