Titanium jewellery really comes into it's own when it's used for wristwatches. I've got a wristwatch made out of titanium (case and bracelet anyway); I love it, much, much lighter than a stainless steel watch, which is a real plus to me - heavy wristwatches bug me. Not a scratch or mark on it after years of continual wear, hypo-allergenic, as pointed out above. I even like the weird slightly dull metallicness of it - but then I've never had that attraction to "shiny". If it ever needs replacement I'll definitely be looking for another titanium one.
Well that's a bit debateable, you can own the theoretical "property" which exists *in* the land (in the UK at least), while that may not technically be the same as plain ownership of the land the difference is moot. All types of title were reduced to just two back in Victorian times: "fee simple absolute in possession" (freehold) and "term of years absolute in possession" (leasehold) but, the freehold still exists on leasehold land and therefore all land is held "in fee" (also note that possession is not ownership). While all this may have made a lot of difference under the feudal system it has little real meaning in modern times.
In the UK this is definitely theft, unless you make a real effort to return it and are genuinely unable to - hardly applicable in this case. More reasonable if you find a tenner on the steet or something. If you take property from where it's owner left it, intending to keep it for yourself that's theft, even if the owner left it somewhere stupid by mistake.
The reason it's difficult to distinguish between what you mean by genetically modified and not, is because the distinction is much less clear cut than you realise. This is what the "GMO argument" (as you put it) is trying to explain. There is much more of a sliding scale of how much technical interference is required to produce changes in an organisms genome than you acknowlege.
Personally I think most objections to GM food are pretty much luddism - I've looked for, but never found any credible scientific evidence supporting the idea of an increased health risk from GM food. Although if anybody were to provide a reference to such I'd be very interested.
I don't have a problem with it being labelled however, if the naive refuse to buy it, it just means the price will go down for the rest of us.
More than that, UK law won't necessarily respect contracts or agreements made at the time of sale if they contravene consumer protection laws. You can't voluntarily give up certain rights.
To qualify for copyright something has to have some kind of creative content, simple lists of things (for example) do not qualify. I'm pretty sure that a torrent file which contains little more than file hashes and ip addresses would not qualify for copyright protection either.
I tend to just divide by 10 - by the time you've added in extra bits in a network byte or parity bits or so on, it's close enough and much easier to calculate than 8.8.
Well you started it - are you an expert on Swedish copyright law? More so than thepiratebay's lawyers?
You claim that the Berne Convention makes piratebay illegal but does it talk about contributing to copyright infringement - I'd actually be interested to know.
*AA likes to go after the poor little guy to make the general public fear
Not only because they want to engender fear but also because the little guy doesn't have the resources for a big legal battle. Google on the other hand might well fight and then the *AA is in danger of setting a precedent - it can't afford to risk losing.
Of course, the police in Sweden have been caught lying and faking evidence before
That's exactly right - of course. Police are human like the rest of us and all police forces do this kind of thing occassionally. It needs investigating and punishing when it happens but it's foolish to condemn a whole country's police force on the basis of a few incidents. If it happens a lot that's another matter.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that the police were working within what they believed were their legal privileges on this occasion, however politically motivated it may have been at the top level.
The point is that they still wouldn't have any illegal content on their servers -.torrent files just contain hash values, ip addresses and so on. As I understand it (and I'll admit I'm no expert on Swedish law) they wouldn't be doing anything illegal.
Get your story straight. Was the burglar's back turned, or was he shining a torch in the farmer's face?
Barras (the younger one) had his back turned, Fearon (the older one) was shining his torch at Martin - not complicated, and not disuputed in court.
Let's see... he had a shotgun pointed at them
A shotgun is only a defence if you're prepared to use it. If you're not prepared to use it, two violent criminals are liable to take it off you.
And to use your own logic... how would the farmer know about the string of convictions
He wouldn't: the string of convictions merely shows that Martin's assessment of the two as dangerous violent criminals was *very* correct.
And incidentally, Barras was unarmed, Fearon wasn't.
the facts simply aren't able to support self-defence - something that the jury agreed with
*Some* of the jury agreed, also members of the jury subsequently complained about pressure and intimidation during the case - there was even an enquiry about it, although nothing could be proved.
you think shooting burglars is okay
Here you've finally got something right.
from this you decide that it must be self-defence because otherwise the farmer who did the right thing would go to jail. Common-sense be damned
This is a bit confused but from what I understand you seem to be claiming I'm forcing the fact to fit my preconceptions. Odd then, that you have such a firm opinion when you seem to actually know very little about the facts of the case - look to yourself.
Was he running away? Through a brick wall apparently since that and the window were the only exits. Even his accomplice admitted that he only started to flee the scene after at least one shot had already been fired. Tony Martin (from less than 5 meters) managed to put two shots into the legs of the burglars - which suggests to me he was deliberately aiming low.
Incidentally, the burglars were not father & son - just accomplices.
As Tony Martin was supposed to know at night in an unlit room with a torch shining in his face
had already set his dogs on the intruders
No the dogs were in another area with no access to the farmhouse
In what possible way could the guy with the gun have been in danger
Lets see . . . in a farmhouse, miles from other habitation with two burglers both of them having a string of convictions for violent assualts . . . hmmmm, I don't know, you tell me.
How on earth could it be self-defence?
Pretty easily - but I think the truth is, you don't care if it was.
This "running away" thing was a classic smear by the authorities. The fact that they guy had his back to Tony Martin at the precise moment the gun was fired does not necessarily mean he was "running away". Tony Martin's mistake was not killing Fearon as well, thus allowing Fearon to testify against him. Naturally Fearon's testimony was damning of Martin - you'd hope the jury wouldn't have put too much reliance on it though, considering he's an admitted felon and convicted heroin dealer with 30+ previous (and some subsequent) convictions
Curious though that a "whois" lookup gives the company registration as 1051861 but charitiesdirect.com says Amnesty International UK Section has registration number 3139939. Although that may just mean it's another "Section" I suppose.
What bugs me about this is that my laptop came with XP pre-installed but I never use it. I had no choice it wasn't available without an operating system - that's a sale that was never made but was still paid for. Shouldn't that be deducted from the "lost sales" they claim due to "piracy" . . . ARRRRR.
Slashdot Mirror
Titanium jewellery really comes into it's own when it's used for wristwatches. I've got a wristwatch made out of titanium (case and bracelet anyway); I love it, much, much lighter than a stainless steel watch, which is a real plus to me - heavy wristwatches bug me. Not a scratch or mark on it after years of continual wear, hypo-allergenic, as pointed out above. I even like the weird slightly dull metallicness of it - but then I've never had that attraction to "shiny". If it ever needs replacement I'll definitely be looking for another titanium one.
Well that's a bit debateable, you can own the theoretical "property" which exists *in* the land (in the UK at least), while that may not technically be the same as plain ownership of the land the difference is moot. All types of title were reduced to just two back in Victorian times: "fee simple absolute in possession" (freehold) and "term of years absolute in possession" (leasehold) but, the freehold still exists on leasehold land and therefore all land is held "in fee" (also note that possession is not ownership). While all this may have made a lot of difference under the feudal system it has little real meaning in modern times.
In the UK this is definitely theft, unless you make a real effort to return it and are genuinely unable to - hardly applicable in this case. More reasonable if you find a tenner on the steet or something. If you take property from where it's owner left it, intending to keep it for yourself that's theft, even if the owner left it somewhere stupid by mistake.
There is a conceptual deficiency in your reply.
The reason it's difficult to distinguish between what you mean by genetically modified and not, is because the distinction is much less clear cut than you realise. This is what the "GMO argument" (as you put it) is trying to explain. There is much more of a sliding scale of how much technical interference is required to produce changes in an organisms genome than you acknowlege.
Personally I think most objections to GM food are pretty much luddism - I've looked for, but never found any credible scientific evidence supporting the idea of an increased health risk from GM food. Although if anybody were to provide a reference to such I'd be very interested.
I don't have a problem with it being labelled however, if the naive refuse to buy it, it just means the price will go down for the rest of us.
More than that, UK law won't necessarily respect contracts or agreements made at the time of sale if they contravene consumer protection laws. You can't voluntarily give up certain rights.
Hey man - whatcha think X is?
To qualify for copyright something has to have some kind of creative content, simple lists of things (for example) do not qualify. I'm pretty sure that a torrent file which contains little more than file hashes and ip addresses would not qualify for copyright protection either.
I hear yoghurt is good for yeast infections.
I tend to just divide by 10 - by the time you've added in extra bits in a network byte or parity bits or so on, it's close enough and much easier to calculate than 8.8.
Well you started it - are you an expert on Swedish copyright law? More so than thepiratebay's lawyers?
You claim that the Berne Convention makes piratebay illegal but does it talk about contributing to copyright infringement - I'd actually be interested to know.
Not only because they want to engender fear but also because the little guy doesn't have the resources for a big legal battle. Google on the other hand might well fight and then the *AA is in danger of setting a precedent - it can't afford to risk losing.
That's exactly right - of course. Police are human like the rest of us and all police forces do this kind of thing occassionally. It needs investigating and punishing when it happens but it's foolish to condemn a whole country's police force on the basis of a few incidents. If it happens a lot that's another matter.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that the police were working within what they believed were their legal privileges on this occasion, however politically motivated it may have been at the top level.
The world might be a much happier place?
Don't forget CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco, they need arresting - the link is on their site after all.
Jesus Christ! How many times do you morons have to be told:
Theft: To take or remove property without the owners consent, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.
Copyright Infringement != Theft
No, "but it's similar", "but people lose potential sales", "it's the same in principal", and so on and on.
There is a precise definition of theft and copyright infringement doesn't meet it, they are two different things!
It's not hard to understand, surely you can't have missed all the times this has been brought up before . . . just how stupid are you?
You say this as if it were a bad thing?
The point is that they still wouldn't have any illegal content on their servers - .torrent files just contain hash values, ip addresses and so on. As I understand it (and I'll admit I'm no expert on Swedish law) they wouldn't be doing anything illegal.
Barras (the younger one) had his back turned, Fearon (the older one) was shining his torch at Martin - not complicated, and not disuputed in court.
Let's see... he had a shotgun pointed at themA shotgun is only a defence if you're prepared to use it. If you're not prepared to use it, two violent criminals are liable to take it off you.
And to use your own logic... how would the farmer know about the string of convictionsHe wouldn't: the string of convictions merely shows that Martin's assessment of the two as dangerous violent criminals was *very* correct.
And incidentally, Barras was unarmed, Fearon wasn't.
the facts simply aren't able to support self-defence - something that the jury agreed with*Some* of the jury agreed, also members of the jury subsequently complained about pressure and intimidation during the case - there was even an enquiry about it, although nothing could be proved.
you think shooting burglars is okayHere you've finally got something right.
from this you decide that it must be self-defence because otherwise the farmer who did the right thing would go to jail. Common-sense be damnedThis is a bit confused but from what I understand you seem to be claiming I'm forcing the fact to fit my preconceptions. Odd then, that you have such a firm opinion when you seem to actually know very little about the facts of the case - look to yourself.
Except Wikipedia has had it for ages, if you've got a login that is.
It's registered to some Real Estate Company, "Windermere Technology" in Seattle, Washington. Odd domain name for a Real Estate Company to register.
Was he running away? Through a brick wall apparently since that and the window were the only exits. Even his accomplice admitted that he only started to flee the scene after at least one shot had already been fired. Tony Martin (from less than 5 meters) managed to put two shots into the legs of the burglars - which suggests to me he was deliberately aiming low.
Incidentally, the burglars were not father & son - just accomplices.
Irrelevant.
he was unarmed
As Tony Martin was supposed to know at night in an unlit room with a torch shining in his face
had already set his dogs on the intruders
No the dogs were in another area with no access to the farmhouse
In what possible way could the guy with the gun have been in danger
Lets see . . . in a farmhouse, miles from other habitation with two burglers both of them having a string of convictions for violent assualts . . . hmmmm, I don't know, you tell me.
How on earth could it be self-defence?
Pretty easily - but I think the truth is, you don't care if it was.
This "running away" thing was a classic smear by the authorities. The fact that they guy had his back to Tony Martin at the precise moment the gun was fired does not necessarily mean he was "running away". Tony Martin's mistake was not killing Fearon as well, thus allowing Fearon to testify against him. Naturally Fearon's testimony was damning of Martin - you'd hope the jury wouldn't have put too much reliance on it though, considering he's an admitted felon and convicted heroin dealer with 30+ previous (and some subsequent) convictions
Curious though that a "whois" lookup gives the company registration as 1051861 but charitiesdirect.com says Amnesty International UK Section has registration number 3139939. Although that may just mean it's another "Section" I suppose.
What bugs me about this is that my laptop came with XP pre-installed but I never use it. I had no choice it wasn't available without an operating system - that's a sale that was never made but was still paid for. Shouldn't that be deducted from the "lost sales" they claim due to "piracy" . . . ARRRRR.