You're a moron; it's a point that is relevant (to some degree) because the situation in the US would not exist if it were not so easy for GM and non-GM crops to cross pollinate. There's also a big difference between artificial selection and GM; we don't know all the consequences of genetically altering an organism, but we can basically see them when selecting over generations.
How the/%&# did this get modded "+5 Insightful"?
Patent law is getting more and more inclusive all over the world. The USA is exporting its own "intellectual property" legislation by applying political and economic pressure on other countries. This, in turn, is the result of lobbying from companies who want to outsource production to low-wage countries while preventing the low-wage countries to start producing the goods on their own and competing with the American companies. Having important crops controlled by one or a few companies is a problem for the whole world - if it's not a problem for a specific country today, it will be tomorrow.
The difference between a "GM crop" and a "non-GM crop" is that the "GM crop" is owned and controlled by a private enterprise. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Actually, Monsanto forces their crops on unwilling farmers through natural pollination. Crops from Monsanto fields spread and contaminate other fields. The farmers are just protecting themselves against destruction of *their* property.
It's likely that they're trying to protect the genetic purity of their own crops.
When a GM crop is created, it's patented. Natural pollination will contaminate the genetic purity of the natural crop. Eventually, the local farmers won't be able to keep seed for their own crops because they'll all be contaminated by the GM grown nearby.
But this is ludicrous in itself. If Monsanto crop spreads itself from farmer A's field to farmer B's field, that's Monsanto's problem, not farmer B's. It shouldn't be possible to sue farmer B for not preventing patented crop to sow itself on his fields. If anything, farmer B should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his own crop.
If the consequence of this is that crop patents become hard or impossible to enforce, well, then we have to accept that crop patents are hard or impossible to enforce.
It's only cheap because anyone can produce it. Once the seed can only be provided by one company, they can and will jack up the prices.
In the pharmaceutics industry, patented drugs are usually much more expensive than generic ones. Once the patent expires, and anyone can produce generics, the companies start competing by price and the cost plummets.
The GP said that monopolies are usually government induced, which is true. Historically, there have been a very large number of government monopolies in areas like:
* Telephony * Water * Electricity * Health care * Railroads * Postal services * Drugs
I don't want general information on everything shady the US government has done. I already know that. I wanted an example of the following specifically:
No offense, but if you happen to publish some nice leaks from US that make it look bad, and then are dumb enough to step on US soil, you won't even get a trial.
The problem is that someone was apparently arrested for actions he commited four years earlier, while in the USA, where they're legal. It's troublesome from a legal perspective if a nation tries to enforce its own laws on foreign territory. If it's going to work, it needs to be regulated in international treties.
True, but you forget one point: The alleged crime took place four years earlier, while he was in the USA. It's remarkable that the Thai government prosecutes actions committed in another jurisdiction, where they're legal.
If you're talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity, they're regulated in International law, so they're illegal regardless of the national laws.
In addition, the US congress has signed the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes "grave breaches" of the Geneva conventions a Federal crime. They subsequently used it to prosecute war crimes perpetrated by Vietnamese against American soldiers on Vietnamese soil, so they can't really complain when the same laws are used against themselves.
People can, however, complain when NATIONAL laws are enforced on foreign soil. For example, there's no international treaty which makes it illegal to disclose military secrets, so trying to prosecute an Australian citizen for disclosing American secrets while outside of the USA rightly outrages people. Similarly, Americans have the right to be outraged if Iran imprisons an American citizen for criticising Islam while in the USA.
He should have taken them to the Inspector General, or Congress.
Sometimes it's not enough, for example, if Congress is partially responsible for the corruption, or if there are a lot of friendship bonds between congressmen and the ones responsible for the corruption. In that case, it may be necessary for a citizen to sacrifice himself and take a prison term for the greater good of the nation.
There is no right to private communications with terrorist groups making war on the United States.
Um... do you believe all of the people eavesdropped upon were guilty?
Mass surveillance is dangerous not because it offends the people being eavesdropped upon, but because it gives the government too much power. For example, if millions of people are eavesdropped upon systematically without much oversight, it becomes easy for a corrupted politician or civil servant to use the system to eavesdrop upon their enemies. Think "Watergate", but without the need to break in and leave physical evidence.
Still, it highlights the effects of the law - since nobody is sure what is illegal and what isn't, it has a chilling effect on business and entertainment.
I think someone confused Sweden and Scandinavia. Swedes are prudes, and have really weird laws.
As a Swede, I agree that Sweden has become a lot more sexually restrictive since the 1970's. But it's not really prudishness. We still encourage teenagers to learn about sex and provide them with free contraceptives. We still talk openly about sex on public TV. We're still topless on the beach. Women still breastfeed in public. And so on.
What's changed is that the feminist movement has gained a lot of political power, which is behind the legislation against prostitution and child pornography. Please note that it's illegal to *buy* the services of a prostitute in Sweden, but it's not illegal to solicit. The law tries to punish the buyer (who is most often a male) but not the seller (who is most often a female).
This is just a guess on my part, but it could have something to do with the huge social pressure Japanese men live under. They're expected to support their family, be loyal to their employers and bosses, not lose their face, be successful, etc, while rarely being allowed to show their emotions. I think kinky porn is often used as a pressure valve under these circumstances. It's not just under-age porn which is common and relatively accepted in Japan, but also B/D, S/M, tentacle porn, incest, etc.
I agree with the previous speaker (about Beatrice Ask's lack of legal expertise) and would like to add that she made the statement when being lobbied by feminists.
What difference would that make? The legal age for consent in Scandinavia is not 18. This story doesn't make any sense.
It's Swedish law which doesn't make sense. The age of consent is 15 in Sweden, while depiction of persons under 18 is considered child porn. Additionally, if the model's age is unknown, the prosecutor only needs to prove he/she appears to be under 18.
If it's a real person who's 17 but looks 20, it will still be legal.
Not quite. If the model's age is known, it's child porn if he/she is under 18. If the model's age is unknown, it's child porn if he/she looks under 18.
In practice, the law is used to lessen the burden of proof. The prosecutor just needs to prove the model looks under 18, and then it's up to the accused to find the model and prove he/she was over 18 at the time of photography.
Boss: Is the encryption module finished? We need to get 1.0 out in four days! Programmer guy: Almost, I just need to find a way to pad the voice data. Boss: What's that for? Programmer guy: Well, the data stream's encrypted, but someone could find a way to guess which words are spoken depending on the size of the data stream over time. Boss: But it's encrypted already, isn't it? Programmer guy: Yes. Boss: Just finish the module up and help the guys working on the network protocol. The padding thing will have to wait for version 2.0. Programmer guy: Ok, boss.
(later...)
Boss: How's the chat protocol going? We need to get 2.0 out in four days! Programmer: I'm working on the encryption protocol. Boss: What? Who ordered changes to that? Programmer: Um, no one, but I feel it isn't completely safe. Boss: Has someone cracked it? Programmer guy: No, but someone could crack if they looked closely at the size of the data frames and compared it... Boss: Sorry, you'll have to fix that later. We promised animated smilies in version 2, and then I need you to help the interface team. Programmer guy: Ok, boss.
I'm not a Linux guru either, but I think there's an option to install all security updates automatically, without user interaction, when you install Ubuntu.
Windows Update can only be used for a small selection of system software from Microsoft. It can't be used to download third-party software.
Apt (the packing tool used by Debian, Ubuntu and others) can be used for both the thousands of software packages provided in the distribution's repository, and for software packages from third-party repositories. Just add a new software source in your package manager, and the third-party packages will be updated just like all the other packages in your system.
In other words, Linux provides one single update mechanism for all software on a system, which works well in both theory and practice.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a moron; it's a point that is relevant (to some degree) because the situation in the US would not exist if it were not so easy for GM and non-GM crops to cross pollinate. There's also a big difference between artificial selection and GM; we don't know all the consequences of genetically altering an organism, but we can basically see them when selecting over generations.
How the /%&# did this get modded "+5 Insightful"?
Patent law is getting more and more inclusive all over the world. The USA is exporting its own "intellectual property" legislation by applying political and economic pressure on other countries. This, in turn, is the result of lobbying from companies who want to outsource production to low-wage countries while preventing the low-wage countries to start producing the goods on their own and competing with the American companies. Having important crops controlled by one or a few companies is a problem for the whole world - if it's not a problem for a specific country today, it will be tomorrow.
The difference between a "GM crop" and a "non-GM crop" is that the "GM crop" is owned and controlled by a private enterprise. There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Actually, Monsanto forces their crops on unwilling farmers through natural pollination. Crops from Monsanto fields spread and contaminate other fields. The farmers are just protecting themselves against destruction of *their* property.
*woosh*
It's likely that they're trying to protect the genetic purity of their own crops.
When a GM crop is created, it's patented. Natural pollination will contaminate the genetic purity of the natural crop. Eventually, the local farmers won't be able to keep seed for their own crops because they'll all be contaminated by the GM grown nearby.
But this is ludicrous in itself. If Monsanto crop spreads itself from farmer A's field to farmer B's field, that's Monsanto's problem, not farmer B's. It shouldn't be possible to sue farmer B for not preventing patented crop to sow itself on his fields. If anything, farmer B should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his own crop.
If the consequence of this is that crop patents become hard or impossible to enforce, well, then we have to accept that crop patents are hard or impossible to enforce.
It's only cheap because anyone can produce it. Once the seed can only be provided by one company, they can and will jack up the prices.
In the pharmaceutics industry, patented drugs are usually much more expensive than generic ones. Once the patent expires, and anyone can produce generics, the companies start competing by price and the cost plummets.
The GP said that monopolies are usually government induced, which is true. Historically, there have been a very large number of government monopolies in areas like:
* Telephony
* Water
* Electricity
* Health care
* Railroads
* Postal services
* Drugs
I don't want general information on everything shady the US government has done. I already know that. I wanted an example of the following specifically:
No offense, but if you happen to publish some nice leaks from US that make it look bad, and then are dumb enough to step on US soil, you won't even get a trial.
Also, please note that I didn't write the gggp.
Yes, that's even worse.
The problem is that someone was apparently arrested for actions he commited four years earlier, while in the USA, where they're legal. It's troublesome from a legal perspective if a nation tries to enforce its own laws on foreign territory. If it's going to work, it needs to be regulated in international treties.
True, but you forget one point: The alleged crime took place four years earlier, while he was in the USA. It's remarkable that the Thai government prosecutes actions committed in another jurisdiction, where they're legal.
If you're talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity, they're regulated in International law, so they're illegal regardless of the national laws.
In addition, the US congress has signed the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes "grave breaches" of the Geneva conventions a Federal crime. They subsequently used it to prosecute war crimes perpetrated by Vietnamese against American soldiers on Vietnamese soil, so they can't really complain when the same laws are used against themselves.
People can, however, complain when NATIONAL laws are enforced on foreign soil. For example, there's no international treaty which makes it illegal to disclose military secrets, so trying to prosecute an Australian citizen for disclosing American secrets while outside of the USA rightly outrages people. Similarly, Americans have the right to be outraged if Iran imprisons an American citizen for criticising Islam while in the USA.
Care to provide some links to support your position?
He should have taken them to the Inspector General, or Congress.
Sometimes it's not enough, for example, if Congress is partially responsible for the corruption, or if there are a lot of friendship bonds between congressmen and the ones responsible for the corruption. In that case, it may be necessary for a citizen to sacrifice himself and take a prison term for the greater good of the nation.
There is no right to private communications with terrorist groups making war on the United States.
Um... do you believe all of the people eavesdropped upon were guilty?
Mass surveillance is dangerous not because it offends the people being eavesdropped upon, but because it gives the government too much power. For example, if millions of people are eavesdropped upon systematically without much oversight, it becomes easy for a corrupted politician or civil servant to use the system to eavesdrop upon their enemies. Think "Watergate", but without the need to break in and leave physical evidence.
The islands off the coast of Gothenburg. Sometimes even in Slottsskogen park in the city.
Still, it highlights the effects of the law - since nobody is sure what is illegal and what isn't, it has a chilling effect on business and entertainment.
I think someone confused Sweden and Scandinavia. Swedes are prudes, and have really weird laws.
As a Swede, I agree that Sweden has become a lot more sexually restrictive since the 1970's. But it's not really prudishness. We still encourage teenagers to learn about sex and provide them with free contraceptives. We still talk openly about sex on public TV. We're still topless on the beach. Women still breastfeed in public. And so on.
What's changed is that the feminist movement has gained a lot of political power, which is behind the legislation against prostitution and child pornography. Please note that it's illegal to *buy* the services of a prostitute in Sweden, but it's not illegal to solicit. The law tries to punish the buyer (who is most often a male) but not the seller (who is most often a female).
This is just a guess on my part, but it could have something to do with the huge social pressure Japanese men live under. They're expected to support their family, be loyal to their employers and bosses, not lose their face, be successful, etc, while rarely being allowed to show their emotions. I think kinky porn is often used as a pressure valve under these circumstances. It's not just under-age porn which is common and relatively accepted in Japan, but also B/D, S/M, tentacle porn, incest, etc.
I agree with the previous speaker (about Beatrice Ask's lack of legal expertise) and would like to add that she made the statement when being lobbied by feminists.
What difference would that make? The legal age for consent in Scandinavia is not 18. This story doesn't make any sense.
It's Swedish law which doesn't make sense. The age of consent is 15 in Sweden, while depiction of persons under 18 is considered child porn. Additionally, if the model's age is unknown, the prosecutor only needs to prove he/she appears to be under 18.
If it's a real person who's 17 but looks 20, it will still be legal.
Not quite. If the model's age is known, it's child porn if he/she is under 18. If the model's age is unknown, it's child porn if he/she looks under 18.
In practice, the law is used to lessen the burden of proof. The prosecutor just needs to prove the model looks under 18, and then it's up to the accused to find the model and prove he/she was over 18 at the time of photography.
(Yes, I'm Swedish too)
I imagine it went down something like this..
Boss: Is the encryption module finished? We need to get 1.0 out in four days!
Programmer guy: Almost, I just need to find a way to pad the voice data.
Boss: What's that for?
Programmer guy: Well, the data stream's encrypted, but someone could find a way to guess which words are spoken depending on the size of the data stream over time.
Boss: But it's encrypted already, isn't it?
Programmer guy: Yes.
Boss: Just finish the module up and help the guys working on the network protocol. The padding thing will have to wait for version 2.0.
Programmer guy: Ok, boss.
(later...)
Boss: How's the chat protocol going? We need to get 2.0 out in four days!
Programmer: I'm working on the encryption protocol.
Boss: What? Who ordered changes to that?
Programmer: Um, no one, but I feel it isn't completely safe.
Boss: Has someone cracked it?
Programmer guy: No, but someone could crack if they looked closely at the size of the data frames and compared it...
Boss: Sorry, you'll have to fix that later. We promised animated smilies in version 2, and then I need you to help the interface team.
Programmer guy: Ok, boss.
Canada has a Queen of Rights?
I'm not a Linux guru either, but I think there's an option to install all security updates automatically, without user interaction, when you install Ubuntu.
Windows Update can only be used for a small selection of system software from Microsoft. It can't be used to download third-party software.
Apt (the packing tool used by Debian, Ubuntu and others) can be used for both the thousands of software packages provided in the distribution's repository, and for software packages from third-party repositories. Just add a new software source in your package manager, and the third-party packages will be updated just like all the other packages in your system.
In other words, Linux provides one single update mechanism for all software on a system, which works well in both theory and practice.
Whoosh?