I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, but it isn't it usually the case that the child taking the video is cooperating with the children doing the beating up? I.e, they should be prosecuted for accessory, which the law sometimes considers as serious as doing the actual beating.
There are usually two elements in an arrest and conviction for possession:
1 The number of files retrieved is enormous.
[...]
2 The defendant's behavior was reckless and self-destructive.
Well, yes, that may be typical, but is it necessary in order to get someone investigated and convicted?
If child pornography was planted on someone's computer in such a way that it came to the police's attention, would the case be dropped just because the suspect wasn't a "typical" child pornogropher (if there is such a thing)?
They certainly don't punish people who watched kidnappers beheading people, or terrorists killing people.
The difference being that terrorists don't kill people in order to produce those videos. It's not the demand for the videos that drive the killings. However, the demand for child pornography drives the child porn industry.
You could argue that pirated child pornography should be legal, since it doesn't put any money in the producers' pockets, but that would make it easy for anyone who had bought child pornography to get away by simply claiming it was pirated.
And they certainly don't punish people who watch rape scenes in the movies.
The difference being that the porn actors don't actually get raped, they're just acting.
If actual rapes were committed for the purpose of producing and selling videos of them, then yes, I think they too should be made illegal.
KeePass also supports auto-typing into web forms (just press a hotkey, and KeePass chooses password based on the window title). It can synchronize multiple databases, so if you make a change to one password on your USB drive, and to another password on your desktop, the changes won't overwrite eachother.
Features like this make it a lot more convenient than simply encrypting text files - especially if you have accounts on a lot of web sites. It's available for several platforms, though not all.
If they choose to spend most of theirs in a prison because they don't like the laws society has made, then so be it.
I would agree if committing a crime was a rational choice. But a lot of crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, or are influenced by a psychiatric disorder.
Sorry to nitpick, but signing a contract saying you can't resell something is not an example of transferring a right. "Transferring a right" implies that you lose the right and the other party gains it; in this case, that the other party gains the right to resell that particular copy of the book. Signing the contract means the right to resell the book just vanishes into thin air; neither you nor the other party has it.
If we follow that line of argument, we would also criticise the government for being pre-crime when it outlaws private possession of nuclear weapons and nerve gas. I think SOME tools should be illegal.
However, I do agree outlawing P2P software is ridiculous, because copyright infringement is not detrimental to people's health or society as a whole. The principle of proportionality states that a law must not impose more problems than it solves. Also, if someone suffers substantial damage through copyright infringement, the damage is possible to repair through legal action, as opposed to the damage of being exposed to lethal weapons.
I think everyone does that to some degree. In civilizations you turn off "domination" victory, beat the last guy to one city, completely surround it with artillery, send in spies to destroy any building and sabotage production of any units, build cities all around it so it has no resources.
This sounds more like a need for control than out-right sadism.
I'm not so sure about that. True, opening a shrink-wrap or clicking a button doesn't in itself bind you to a contract. But if I understand correctly, the US legal system allows for the seller to add terms to the purchasing contract after you have paid and left the store (while the consumer, on his/her hand, has the right to go back to the store and return the product, since the deal isn't closed until he/she has had opportunity to consider the terms). The text on the shrink-wrap or the computer screen is just there to ensure you know the terms of the contract before you decide to start using the product.
No, I don't think this is a good thing, since it only leads to lengthy and excessive disclaimers almost nobody bothers to read.
Hm, I don't think that was the grandparent's point. Under Mussolini, Italy became highly dependent upon Germany. The dictator himself became a puppet in the hands of the German government, and much of his own population saw him as a traitor. By the end of WWII, Mussolini and his lover were captured, shot and hanged by their ankles by a gas station to have their corpses desecrated by the public.
It's my understanding that if you do not repudiate the new contract and continue to perform (i.e. pay your bills), the new contract is binding. (IANAL, and contracts was one of my weaker classes anyway.)
Yes, of course. I'm assuming the previous poster meant that you have the option of terminating the contract without any fees if the other party decides to change the terms.
I agree with everything except the last clause - "the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market". It's an example of the "no true scotsman" argument.
If a capitalistic market fails because people are badly informed or misinformed, it's still a capitalistic market, and we have to accept that capitalistic markets don't work well under all circumstances.
This is ridiculous... nine out of the first ten hits are articles with the the words "Why is Windows so expensive" in the TITLE. The remaining hit is an article with the words "Why is Mac so expensive" in the TITLE and the word "Windows" in the BODY.
I don't think that's very pro-Microsoft, and exactly how search engines usually work.
For a comparison, search for "Why is Windows so good?" and look at the first page of hits:
* "If Windows PCs Are So Good, Why Does Microsoft Have to Lie About Them?"
* "Why windows takes so long to start up."
* "Why Does Windows Still Suck?" ...
Should we then conclude that Bing.com has been secretly hacked by Linux or Mac enthusiasts?
This is on the level with the "evidence" for conspiracy theories like the "fake moon landing" and "9/11 planned by CIA".
No, I think she meant she ran three virtual machines directly under the host OS. And not all at the same time; the "safest" one she only fired up for bank errands and the like.
I assure you, despite your misconception that the world revolves around you everyone has those requirements. From the people who build supercomputers right down to the netbook I am typing on while watching Gurren Lagann.
No, not everyone has those requirements. A scientific workstation needs to have great multi-processor performance, at the expense of cost and power effiency. A computer embedded in a weapon needs to have solid reliabilty, at the expense of cost and sometimes, performance. A gaming desktop needs to have great performance, at the expense of cost and power effiency. A gaming laptop needs to have good performance and power-efficiency, at the expense of cost. And so on.
# social insurance (in case one has no job for a longer time)
#
You mean like if I'm disabled? Got it. Paid by government.
No, I think he's referring to social wellfare benefits, which are broader than the pension granted to disabled people.
Also, I think the different social benefits generally provide a higher standard of living than in the US. So it's not just the number of benefits, it's also how big they are.
A bigger part of it is just that European governments take the privacy of their citizens very seriously.
Except Britain, of course.
I wish. Since the IPRED2 (the second Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive) was approved by the European Union, all EU countries are required to log all phone calls, emails and other electronic communications for at least six months.
We're probaby better off than U.S. citizens in terms of systematic monitoring, but the situation is far from satisfactory.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, but it isn't it usually the case that the child taking the video is cooperating with the children doing the beating up? I.e, they should be prosecuted for accessory, which the law sometimes considers as serious as doing the actual beating.
There are usually two elements in an arrest and conviction for possession:
1 The number of files retrieved is enormous.
[...]
2 The defendant's behavior was reckless and self-destructive.
Well, yes, that may be typical, but is it necessary in order to get someone investigated and convicted?
If child pornography was planted on someone's computer in such a way that it came to the police's attention, would the case be dropped just because the suspect wasn't a "typical" child pornogropher (if there is such a thing)?
They certainly don't punish people who watched kidnappers beheading people, or terrorists killing people.
The difference being that terrorists don't kill people in order to produce those videos. It's not the demand for the videos that drive the killings. However, the demand for child pornography drives the child porn industry.
You could argue that pirated child pornography should be legal, since it doesn't put any money in the producers' pockets, but that would make it easy for anyone who had bought child pornography to get away by simply claiming it was pirated.
And they certainly don't punish people who watch rape scenes in the movies.
The difference being that the porn actors don't actually get raped, they're just acting.
If actual rapes were committed for the purpose of producing and selling videos of them, then yes, I think they too should be made illegal.
KeePass also supports auto-typing into web forms (just press a hotkey, and KeePass chooses password based on the window title). It can synchronize multiple databases, so if you make a change to one password on your USB drive, and to another password on your desktop, the changes won't overwrite eachother.
Features like this make it a lot more convenient than simply encrypting text files - especially if you have accounts on a lot of web sites. It's available for several platforms, though not all.
If they choose to spend most of theirs in a prison because they don't like the laws society has made, then so be it.
I would agree if committing a crime was a rational choice. But a lot of crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, or are influenced by a psychiatric disorder.
Sorry to nitpick, but signing a contract saying you can't resell something is not an example of transferring a right. "Transferring a right" implies that you lose the right and the other party gains it; in this case, that the other party gains the right to resell that particular copy of the book. Signing the contract means the right to resell the book just vanishes into thin air; neither you nor the other party has it.
If we follow that line of argument, we would also criticise the government for being pre-crime when it outlaws private possession of nuclear weapons and nerve gas. I think SOME tools should be illegal.
However, I do agree outlawing P2P software is ridiculous, because copyright infringement is not detrimental to people's health or society as a whole. The principle of proportionality states that a law must not impose more problems than it solves. Also, if someone suffers substantial damage through copyright infringement, the damage is possible to repair through legal action, as opposed to the damage of being exposed to lethal weapons.
There's an outside ??
I think everyone does that to some degree. In civilizations you turn off "domination" victory, beat the last guy to one city, completely surround it with artillery, send in spies to destroy any building and sabotage production of any units, build cities all around it so it has no resources.
This sounds more like a need for control than out-right sadism.
I'm not so sure about that. True, opening a shrink-wrap or clicking a button doesn't in itself bind you to a contract. But if I understand correctly, the US legal system allows for the seller to add terms to the purchasing contract after you have paid and left the store (while the consumer, on his/her hand, has the right to go back to the store and return the product, since the deal isn't closed until he/she has had opportunity to consider the terms). The text on the shrink-wrap or the computer screen is just there to ensure you know the terms of the contract before you decide to start using the product.
No, I don't think this is a good thing, since it only leads to lengthy and excessive disclaimers almost nobody bothers to read.
Hm, I don't think that was the grandparent's point. Under Mussolini, Italy became highly dependent upon Germany. The dictator himself became a puppet in the hands of the German government, and much of his own population saw him as a traitor. By the end of WWII, Mussolini and his lover were captured, shot and hanged by their ankles by a gas station to have their corpses desecrated by the public.
It's my understanding that if you do not repudiate the new contract and continue to perform (i.e. pay your bills), the new contract is binding. (IANAL, and contracts was one of my weaker classes anyway.)
Yes, of course. I'm assuming the previous poster meant that you have the option of terminating the contract without any fees if the other party decides to change the terms.
I agree with everything except the last clause - "the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market". It's an example of the "no true scotsman" argument.
If a capitalistic market fails because people are badly informed or misinformed, it's still a capitalistic market, and we have to accept that capitalistic markets don't work well under all circumstances.
This is ridiculous... nine out of the first ten hits are articles with the the words "Why is Windows so expensive" in the TITLE. The remaining hit is an article with the words "Why is Mac so expensive" in the TITLE and the word "Windows" in the BODY.
I don't think that's very pro-Microsoft, and exactly how search engines usually work.
For a comparison, search for "Why is Windows so good?" and look at the first page of hits:
* "If Windows PCs Are So Good, Why Does Microsoft Have to Lie About Them?"
...
* "Why windows takes so long to start up."
* "Why Does Windows Still Suck?"
Should we then conclude that Bing.com has been secretly hacked by Linux or Mac enthusiasts?
This is on the level with the "evidence" for conspiracy theories like the "fake moon landing" and "9/11 planned by CIA".
No, I think she meant she ran three virtual machines directly under the host OS. And not all at the same time; the "safest" one she only fired up for bank errands and the like.
Come election time, he will discover this relationship is transitive.
You mean commutative?
I assure you, despite your misconception that the world revolves around you everyone has those requirements. From the people who build supercomputers right down to the netbook I am typing on while watching Gurren Lagann.
No, not everyone has those requirements. A scientific workstation needs to have great multi-processor performance, at the expense of cost and power effiency. A computer embedded in a weapon needs to have solid reliabilty, at the expense of cost and sometimes, performance. A gaming desktop needs to have great performance, at the expense of cost and power effiency. A gaming laptop needs to have good performance and power-efficiency, at the expense of cost. And so on.
So let me get this straight, the Vice President of a web company is criticizing the hardware guys in two of the world's biggest chip makers?
He's not criticising their technical know-how, he's criticising them for not knowing what their web company customers want.
Since he himself is one of those customers, it's not too unlikely that he knows what he's talking about.
Even food can be a weapon.
So you've tasted my wife's bread?
As a Swede, I agree ;-)
# social insurance (in case one has no job for a longer time) # You mean like if I'm disabled? Got it. Paid by government.
No, I think he's referring to social wellfare benefits, which are broader than the pension granted to disabled people.
Also, I think the different social benefits generally provide a higher standard of living than in the US. So it's not just the number of benefits, it's also how big they are.
A bigger part of it is just that European governments take the privacy of their citizens very seriously.
Except Britain, of course.
I wish. Since the IPRED2 (the second Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive) was approved by the European Union, all EU countries are required to log all phone calls, emails and other electronic communications for at least six months.
We're probaby better off than U.S. citizens in terms of systematic monitoring, but the situation is far from satisfactory.
Um... how about writing about something instead?
And that's the only sensible way to do it, since a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove can't be used to support an argument.
I await a flawless DRM that will work on multiple pieces of hardware--hardware that I choose! I fear I will be waiting for quite some time ...
Stay awhile... stay forever!