The fundamental problem here is a mismatch between currency and politics.
If Greece was still on the drachma, Greece would have had plenty of money to keep the economy going. The drachma would have devalued against other currencies, but people could have kept working. (From the stats I've seen, the Greeks are a hard-working people.) The economy would still have been screwed up (that was at least largely a result of Greek government problems), but it could have recovered.
If the EU was a country like the US, the country would have done something constructive to help the region. This sort of thing has happened now and again in the US.
However, Greece was on the Euro, and so couldn't control its own currency supply. This meant that there wasn't necessarily enough money to pay people for the work they did. It was not a part of a country that was typically wealthier than it was, and didn't receive relief payments. What it got was loans with increasingly strict conditions that simply trashed the Greek economy, making it impossible to repay.
The Germans have certainly learned from WWII. Invading Greece in 1941 and having to leave Greece in 1944 left them in charge for about three and a half years. Economic colonialism is a lot more profitable and lasts longer.
The other alternative is to look up fair use, and explain how this ties into the part of copyright law that is concerned with fair use. Too many people seem to have this idea that the law is what Disney wants it to be.
Another question: was that action definitely illegal? Definitely legal? In a gray area? There's at least an argument that it's covered under fair use. It's a book. The additional copy is to read the book, nothing more, and it does not diminish the commercial value of the book. Format shifting has long been considered legal.
The second step is to demonstrate that what people say is illegal isn't necessarily illegal. The action described has an excellent chance of being considered legal by the courts.
You have just described the final reason I got a Nook rather than a Kindle. I read the Nook ToS carefully, and they were explicit that what I got from the service was mine, and that the worst they could do to me would be cutting off my service.
It's a good example for the kids. It doesn't teach them that they have the right to download whatever they want, but rather explicitly demonstrates format shifting.
He paid for a license to read it on particular devices
Got any support for that statement? According to the ToS on my Nook, the ebooks I buy are mine. I don't know exactly what Amazon was selling, and it's a pretty safe bet that you don't know either. By making assumptions like that, you are in effect shilling for the copyright mafia.
Non sequitur. You have absolutely no basis to conclude that. You don't even know for sure that what the father did was illegal (it's at least arguably fair use).
not make excuses for your actions when you know they are wrong.
You started off pointing out possible illegal actions. You never discussed the morality. Now, after completely failing to address "right" and "wrong", you conclude that the person with the issue was in the wrong, as opposed to potentially violating the law. Unless you're going to maintain that violating the law in even trivial ways is always wrong, and that's a completely separate argument, you have no grounds for a moral judgment.
That's one reason why the Pirate Bay-stile prosecutions have focused on uploading rather than downloading. Downloading isn't automatically illegal, for several reasons. Uploading is generally illegal, since you can't possibly know that those getting the uploads are justified.
There is a difference between committing a crime and breaking a law. Only certain specific laws cover criminal behavior. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect you don't know which side immigration law is on, and likely didn't realize the distinction in the first place.
You used the plural when referring to supervisors and government offices. This implies that there's more than one of each. This means that different people can focus on different things, and the government is not limited to dealing with the list of issues that have gotten under your particular skin.
Given the current situation, is it wise to allow robots wander around busy streets without restriction? Or could there be possible undesirable consequences? How much experience do we have with these robots on busy streets?
I think they were being forward-looking in allowing the use in less busy areas. Show us that that works, and the city will likely consider allowing the robots everywhere.
Notice how I said this was about putting white PEOPLE down, not just white MEN. Well when you exclude white men from the work place, who are the white women going to socialize with? The probability becomes ever greater that they will socialize with nonwhite men, therefore becoming more likely to become involved romantically with nonwhite men, therefore becoming more likely to end the identity of their genetic line as being white.White people are meant to be relegated to lower classes where they are much less likely to marry and/or have children.
The white identity is being systematically destroyed.
It's perfectly possible to be for diversity and not affirmative action. I've been dubious about affirmative action for a long time, and nobody's bothered to ascertain this before throwing "affirmative action lover" in my face. It's perfectly possible to be non-racist and not give a crap about diversity. That would be the ideal, but the world does not currently work that way. I think there are practical advantages to diversity, and I think giving equal opportunity to all (which I am strongly for) would produce more diversity. I could be wrong about "practical advantages to diversity", but I have reasons for my opinion. This doesn't stop maligners from assuming I'm for diversity uber alles. Obviously, you can disagree with me while not being a white supremacist, a Nazi, or a deplorable. However, if you are a white supremacist, a Nazi, or a deplorable, and there are unfortunately many of those around, you won't agree with me, and you aren't likely to reason yourself out of prejudice that's baked into your identity.
However, the quotes above, which I took verbatim and in context, do rather suggest white supremacy. Somebody who doesn't want white women meeting nonwhite men is in fact a racist. It's not possible to deduce with complete certainty that those quotes indicate white supremacy, but it's sure the way to bet.
If it comes to civil war, you're going to lose and lose badly. My side is considerably closer to being rational, and that matters nowadays.
Why would a company have a system in place not to find the good candidates who are productive rather than other applicants with few of the needed skills?
You tell me, guy. You wanted to exclude people who were politically active or had dubious social media history or didn't graduate from top colleges or several other things that have nothing to do with being a productive employee. That's not looking for the best candidates, that's looking for the well-connected ones that didn't do anything outside of college and aren't obviously bad. You're much closer to advocating an oligarchy than a meritocracy.
You still seem to have faith in objective measurements revealing biological differences in intelligence. Elsewhere, I mentioned the Flynn effect, which shows that IQ tests don't do that. There simply wasn't time to breed people 20 IQ points higher in 67 years. Yet you take tests on people in the current environment, that are no better in this way than IQ tests, and say that they show there's no sexual discrimination, and speculate on evolutionary causes. We obviously don't know how to measure innate intelligence, and you're claiming that tests that you generally refer to (which exist) do measure innate things.
There is discrimination going on, and it's not all against straight white Christian males. Have you asked, say, a lesbian black Muslim female about this, to see her point of view? How many? There's fairly recent results showing that, given similar resumes, male white-sounding names are more likely to elicit follow-ups than either female or black-sounding names. The complaints I see about discrimination against straight white Christian men sound an awful lot like complaints about losing a privileged position. The question about whether people who love each other and are of the same sex should be allowed to marry isn't about devaluing opposite-sex marriages; it's about whether LGBQ people have the same right to marry as straight people do.
Ah, yes, more ignorance and missing the point. If you're not going to bother judging competence of scientists and scientific fields, that's fine. If you are then going to malign scientist and fields of science, that's not fine.
I'd not expect my cat to identify any fields of science as bogus. I'd expect you to identify considerably more than are bogus. Overall, I suspect the cat would be right more often, although likely to make different errors.
First, there is no system other than the one-time pad (which is not a public-key cryptosystem and thus not applicable here) which is mathematically proven to be "uncrackable".
To expand on this, cryptosystems are in NP. If we're given the key and ciphertext, we can easily determine what the plaintext is. Therefore, until P=NP is settled, the absolute most we could prove is that a cryptosystem is NP-hard. That is not the same as proving it unbreakable.
You're being overly optimistic here. Read the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Pence and the Cabinet can declare Trump incompetent, but Trump can file a written claim that he is so competent, and that stands unless two-thirds of both houses agree with Pence. The Democrats could wind up with two-thirds of the House in 2018, but they can't possibly get more than a small majority in the Senate.
There's still plenty of time for Democrats you never heard of to show up, run for President, and run competent campaigns. It's three years to the next Presidential election.
Slashdot Mirror
The fundamental problem here is a mismatch between currency and politics.
If Greece was still on the drachma, Greece would have had plenty of money to keep the economy going. The drachma would have devalued against other currencies, but people could have kept working. (From the stats I've seen, the Greeks are a hard-working people.) The economy would still have been screwed up (that was at least largely a result of Greek government problems), but it could have recovered.
If the EU was a country like the US, the country would have done something constructive to help the region. This sort of thing has happened now and again in the US.
However, Greece was on the Euro, and so couldn't control its own currency supply. This meant that there wasn't necessarily enough money to pay people for the work they did. It was not a part of a country that was typically wealthier than it was, and didn't receive relief payments. What it got was loans with increasingly strict conditions that simply trashed the Greek economy, making it impossible to repay.
The Germans have certainly learned from WWII. Invading Greece in 1941 and having to leave Greece in 1944 left them in charge for about three and a half years. Economic colonialism is a lot more profitable and lasts longer.
Or are you trying to teach your son that laws can be complicated, and that there are circumstances where copying is completely legal?
The other alternative is to look up fair use, and explain how this ties into the part of copyright law that is concerned with fair use. Too many people seem to have this idea that the law is what Disney wants it to be.
Another question: was that action definitely illegal? Definitely legal? In a gray area? There's at least an argument that it's covered under fair use. It's a book. The additional copy is to read the book, nothing more, and it does not diminish the commercial value of the book. Format shifting has long been considered legal.
The second step is to demonstrate that what people say is illegal isn't necessarily illegal. The action described has an excellent chance of being considered legal by the courts.
You have just described the final reason I got a Nook rather than a Kindle. I read the Nook ToS carefully, and they were explicit that what I got from the service was mine, and that the worst they could do to me would be cutting off my service.
It's a good example for the kids. It doesn't teach them that they have the right to download whatever they want, but rather explicitly demonstrates format shifting.
So who do I sue about all the stuff that's gotten deleted from my brain over the years?
14. Introduce the concept of "fair use". (At least if you're in the US, as most countries don't have laws quite like taht.)
Got any support for that statement? According to the ToS on my Nook, the ebooks I buy are mine. I don't know exactly what Amazon was selling, and it's a pretty safe bet that you don't know either. By making assumptions like that, you are in effect shilling for the copyright mafia.
Non sequitur. You have absolutely no basis to conclude that. You don't even know for sure that what the father did was illegal (it's at least arguably fair use).
You started off pointing out possible illegal actions. You never discussed the morality. Now, after completely failing to address "right" and "wrong", you conclude that the person with the issue was in the wrong, as opposed to potentially violating the law. Unless you're going to maintain that violating the law in even trivial ways is always wrong, and that's a completely separate argument, you have no grounds for a moral judgment.
And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that format-shifting hurts no one.
That's one reason why the Pirate Bay-stile prosecutions have focused on uploading rather than downloading. Downloading isn't automatically illegal, for several reasons. Uploading is generally illegal, since you can't possibly know that those getting the uploads are justified.
Yup, but Luddite is not a good term for a city that decided to allow potentially dangerous new things in less busy areas of the city.
There is a difference between committing a crime and breaking a law. Only certain specific laws cover criminal behavior. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect you don't know which side immigration law is on, and likely didn't realize the distinction in the first place.
You used the plural when referring to supervisors and government offices. This implies that there's more than one of each. This means that different people can focus on different things, and the government is not limited to dealing with the list of issues that have gotten under your particular skin.
Given the current situation, is it wise to allow robots wander around busy streets without restriction? Or could there be possible undesirable consequences? How much experience do we have with these robots on busy streets?
I think they were being forward-looking in allowing the use in less busy areas. Show us that that works, and the city will likely consider allowing the robots everywhere.
It's perfectly possible to be for diversity and not affirmative action. I've been dubious about affirmative action for a long time, and nobody's bothered to ascertain this before throwing "affirmative action lover" in my face. It's perfectly possible to be non-racist and not give a crap about diversity. That would be the ideal, but the world does not currently work that way. I think there are practical advantages to diversity, and I think giving equal opportunity to all (which I am strongly for) would produce more diversity. I could be wrong about "practical advantages to diversity", but I have reasons for my opinion. This doesn't stop maligners from assuming I'm for diversity uber alles. Obviously, you can disagree with me while not being a white supremacist, a Nazi, or a deplorable. However, if you are a white supremacist, a Nazi, or a deplorable, and there are unfortunately many of those around, you won't agree with me, and you aren't likely to reason yourself out of prejudice that's baked into your identity.
However, the quotes above, which I took verbatim and in context, do rather suggest white supremacy. Somebody who doesn't want white women meeting nonwhite men is in fact a racist. It's not possible to deduce with complete certainty that those quotes indicate white supremacy, but it's sure the way to bet.
If it comes to civil war, you're going to lose and lose badly. My side is considerably closer to being rational, and that matters nowadays.
You tell me, guy. You wanted to exclude people who were politically active or had dubious social media history or didn't graduate from top colleges or several other things that have nothing to do with being a productive employee. That's not looking for the best candidates, that's looking for the well-connected ones that didn't do anything outside of college and aren't obviously bad. You're much closer to advocating an oligarchy than a meritocracy.
You still seem to have faith in objective measurements revealing biological differences in intelligence. Elsewhere, I mentioned the Flynn effect, which shows that IQ tests don't do that. There simply wasn't time to breed people 20 IQ points higher in 67 years. Yet you take tests on people in the current environment, that are no better in this way than IQ tests, and say that they show there's no sexual discrimination, and speculate on evolutionary causes. We obviously don't know how to measure innate intelligence, and you're claiming that tests that you generally refer to (which exist) do measure innate things.
There is discrimination going on, and it's not all against straight white Christian males. Have you asked, say, a lesbian black Muslim female about this, to see her point of view? How many? There's fairly recent results showing that, given similar resumes, male white-sounding names are more likely to elicit follow-ups than either female or black-sounding names. The complaints I see about discrimination against straight white Christian men sound an awful lot like complaints about losing a privileged position. The question about whether people who love each other and are of the same sex should be allowed to marry isn't about devaluing opposite-sex marriages; it's about whether LGBQ people have the same right to marry as straight people do.
Ah, yes, more ignorance and missing the point. If you're not going to bother judging competence of scientists and scientific fields, that's fine. If you are then going to malign scientist and fields of science, that's not fine.
I'd not expect my cat to identify any fields of science as bogus. I'd expect you to identify considerably more than are bogus. Overall, I suspect the cat would be right more often, although likely to make different errors.
To expand on this, cryptosystems are in NP. If we're given the key and ciphertext, we can easily determine what the plaintext is. Therefore, until P=NP is settled, the absolute most we could prove is that a cryptosystem is NP-hard. That is not the same as proving it unbreakable.
tl';dr: Gee, there are insecurities in the software world already. Therefore, it will make absolutely no difference if we create a nice new big one.
Sure, give him a private army. That way, when the real army steps in to defend the Constitution, which it will, lots of Trump fans will get killed.
You're being overly optimistic here. Read the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Pence and the Cabinet can declare Trump incompetent, but Trump can file a written claim that he is so competent, and that stands unless two-thirds of both houses agree with Pence. The Democrats could wind up with two-thirds of the House in 2018, but they can't possibly get more than a small majority in the Senate.
There's still plenty of time for Democrats you never heard of to show up, run for President, and run competent campaigns. It's three years to the next Presidential election.