Providing financial incentives for hundreds of thousands of native Chinese to move to Tibet = colonising.
And, speaking as a Scotsman, your analogy with the UK is daft. If we ever vote for independence we will get independence. We have as much self-determination as we want. Tibet has none.
In your Hawaii example, I'd hope and expect the US would allow it do break away. If it didn't then the US would be indeed be on the moral slippery slope to Tibet.
that's a moronic assertion you haven't even tried to justify.
Rohm and other elements of the early Nazi party were "socialist" in some senses of the word (as in believing in redistribution of wealth and state control of industry, both in the interests of the working class).
To see what Hitler thought of Rohm's social views, you may want to look up the Night of the Long Knives.
"China has also never engaged in colonialism even though they had more than enough power militarily to do so in the past."
"China may not be powerful enough to take on the US today but they have more than sufficient might and resources to invade many other countries or to participate in multilateral military operations, but to date they have not done so."
Hello? Tibet?
Your justification of Chinese aggression and colonialism in Tibet by reference to Roman (!) and Greek (!) aggression 2,000 years ago is frankly surreal.
you goofed on the math.
2E6 blocks over 20 years = 1E5 blocks per year
over 365 days = 274 blocks per day
over 12 hours = 23 blocks per hour
= one every three minutes or so
it would also be wrong to assume only one block is being placed at any one time.
Google didn't purchase your post: they purchased the database containing your post. There are intellectual property rights (often copyright) in a database or catalogue of information and these rights are quite separate from the information itself. This is the kind of right that anyone who compiles a telephone directory will have.
When you post to usenet, the sensible legal view has to be that the post remains your copyright but that you grant an implied license to anyone anywhere in the world to read or archive your post. So Google couldn't (and wouldn't need to) ever buy the rights to your actual posts.
When a country joins the EU it agrees to play by the rules. One of the rules, to which Greece signed up when it ratified the EC Treaty, is "proportionality": the effects of legislation should be proportionate to the aim of the legislation.
In this case the aim was to restrict electronic gambling, and the effect is to ban all electronic games. If this isn't disproportionate then I don't know what is. It's clearly the EU's business if a country breaches EC law.
(It's probably also contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, but the European Court of Human Rights will only be able to consider the legislation if someone is prosecuted under this law and appeals to the ECHR.)
sexual selection does not "rely on having at least mammals". The peacock's tail is the classic example, and the peacock wasn't a mammal when I last checked.
I've no idea whether Hayek said that, but if he did he's wrong.
Darwin's reasoning in The Origin of Species follows from the simple insight that organisms have more offspring than can survive, that those with characteristics more suitable to their environment are more likely to survive, and that those characteristics will be passed down to future generations.
read it for yourself: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/
"It is precisely this confusion of `no one intelligence' with `no intelligence at all' that (IIUARC) gave rise to Darwinism in the first place, though..."
Any chance you'll justify this ludicrous assertion?
if you want to fix the US legal system you need to do at least two things:
- introduce a "loser pays" rule, so anyone who sues and loses has to pay the winner's costs
- abolish/cap punitive damages - if you win a case you should recover for your losses, you shouldn't be able to win a jackpot of millions of dollars
most unlikely sentences would be imposed consecutively as you suggest. If you have 100 infringing MP3s you can be pretty confident you won't be jailed for 500 years.
you are correct: under English law you can make a backup copy of a computer program but are not allowed to make any copies of audio recordings or other copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's permission.
There is soemthing of a legal consensus this is stupid, and it's most unlikely a court would allow any claim/prosecution to succeed. For example, when the record industry sued Amstrad in the 80s for making a tape-to-tape copier, the House of Lords fell over itself to find in favour of Amstrad. Lord Templeman's judgment looks downright revolutionary by today's standards:
"From the point of view of society the present position is lamentable. Millions of breaches of the law must be committed by home copiers every year. Some home copiers may break the law in ignorance, despite extensive publicity and warning notices on records, tapes and films. Some home copiers may break the law because they estimate that the chances of detection are non-existent. Some home copiers may consider that the entertainment and recording industry already exhibit all the characteristics of undesirable monopoly, lavish expenses, extravagant earnings and exhorbitant profits, and the blank tape is the only restraint on further increases in the prices of records. Whatever the reason for home copying, the beat of Sergeant Pepper and the soaring sounds of the Miserere from unlawful copies are more powerful than law-abiding instincts or twinges of conscience. A law which is treated with such contempt should be amended or repealed."
eh? It's no more expensive for an American to sue in the UK than it is for a Brit to sue in the UK.
However suing a fileswapper is a much less attractive prospect in the UK courts than it is in the US. Under English law a copyright holder has no chance of claiming the $thousands per song that the RIAA is in the States.
This is not quite correct.
The poster is right that, unlike in the US, a copyright holder cannot oblige an ISP to release information on its users without a court order.
However if an ISP is threatened with a court order by a copyright holder it could probably pass the information without breaching the Data Protection Act - section 35 of the Act allows disclosure of personal information "for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings)".
Slashdot Mirror
Providing financial incentives for hundreds of thousands of native Chinese to move to Tibet = colonising.
And, speaking as a Scotsman, your analogy with the UK is daft. If we ever vote for independence we will get independence. We have as much self-determination as we want. Tibet has none.
In your Hawaii example, I'd hope and expect the US would allow it do break away. If it didn't then the US would be indeed be on the moral slippery slope to Tibet.
that's a moronic assertion you haven't even tried to justify.
Rohm and other elements of the early Nazi party were "socialist" in some senses of the word (as in believing in redistribution of wealth and state control of industry, both in the interests of the working class).
To see what Hitler thought of Rohm's social views, you may want to look up the Night of the Long Knives.
None of this justifies the Chinese denial of Tibetan self-determination.
I assume that, in the interests of consistency, you personally solved all of Switzerland's problems before writing your post.
"China has also never engaged in colonialism even though they had more than enough power militarily to do so in the past."
"China may not be powerful enough to take on the US today but they have more than sufficient might and resources to invade many other countries or to participate in multilateral military operations, but to date they have not done so."
Hello? Tibet?
Your justification of Chinese aggression and colonialism in Tibet by reference to Roman (!) and Greek (!) aggression 2,000 years ago is frankly surreal.
you goofed on the math. 2E6 blocks over 20 years = 1E5 blocks per year over 365 days = 274 blocks per day over 12 hours = 23 blocks per hour = one every three minutes or so it would also be wrong to assume only one block is being placed at any one time.
Google didn't purchase your post: they purchased the database containing your post. There are intellectual property rights (often copyright) in a database or catalogue of information and these rights are quite separate from the information itself. This is the kind of right that anyone who compiles a telephone directory will have. When you post to usenet, the sensible legal view has to be that the post remains your copyright but that you grant an implied license to anyone anywhere in the world to read or archive your post. So Google couldn't (and wouldn't need to) ever buy the rights to your actual posts.
Hello? How exactly is this relevant to a stupid piece of modern Greek legislation?
When a country joins the EU it agrees to play by the rules. One of the rules, to which Greece signed up when it ratified the EC Treaty, is "proportionality": the effects of legislation should be proportionate to the aim of the legislation.
In this case the aim was to restrict electronic gambling, and the effect is to ban all electronic games. If this isn't disproportionate then I don't know what is. It's clearly the EU's business if a country breaches EC law.
(It's probably also contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, but the European Court of Human Rights will only be able to consider the legislation if someone is prosecuted under this law and appeals to the ECHR.)
sexual selection does not "rely on having at least mammals". The peacock's tail is the classic example, and the peacock wasn't a mammal when I last checked.
I've no idea whether Hayek said that, but if he did he's wrong.
t he-origin-of-species/
Darwin's reasoning in The Origin of Species follows from the simple insight that organisms have more offspring than can survive, that those with characteristics more suitable to their environment are more likely to survive, and that those characteristics will be passed down to future generations.
read it for yourself: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/
"It is precisely this confusion of `no one intelligence' with `no intelligence at all' that (IIUARC) gave rise to Darwinism in the first place, though..."
Any chance you'll justify this ludicrous assertion?
"There's nothing that proves the whole process of selection wasn't created by a greater being"
Well, there's nothing that proves the whole process of selection wasn't created by Bonzo the Clown. You can't prove a negative - deal with it.
It is evolution, but not natural selection - the two are not identical.
if you want to fix the US legal system you need to do at least two things: - introduce a "loser pays" rule, so anyone who sues and loses has to pay the winner's costs - abolish/cap punitive damages - if you win a case you should recover for your losses, you shouldn't be able to win a jackpot of millions of dollars
most unlikely sentences would be imposed consecutively as you suggest. If you have 100 infringing MP3s you can be pretty confident you won't be jailed for 500 years.
you are correct: under English law you can make a backup copy of a computer program but are not allowed to make any copies of audio recordings or other copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's permission. There is soemthing of a legal consensus this is stupid, and it's most unlikely a court would allow any claim/prosecution to succeed. For example, when the record industry sued Amstrad in the 80s for making a tape-to-tape copier, the House of Lords fell over itself to find in favour of Amstrad. Lord Templeman's judgment looks downright revolutionary by today's standards: "From the point of view of society the present position is lamentable. Millions of breaches of the law must be committed by home copiers every year. Some home copiers may break the law in ignorance, despite extensive publicity and warning notices on records, tapes and films. Some home copiers may break the law because they estimate that the chances of detection are non-existent. Some home copiers may consider that the entertainment and recording industry already exhibit all the characteristics of undesirable monopoly, lavish expenses, extravagant earnings and exhorbitant profits, and the blank tape is the only restraint on further increases in the prices of records. Whatever the reason for home copying, the beat of Sergeant Pepper and the soaring sounds of the Miserere from unlawful copies are more powerful than law-abiding instincts or twinges of conscience. A law which is treated with such contempt should be amended or repealed."
eh? It's no more expensive for an American to sue in the UK than it is for a Brit to sue in the UK. However suing a fileswapper is a much less attractive prospect in the UK courts than it is in the US. Under English law a copyright holder has no chance of claiming the $thousands per song that the RIAA is in the States.
This is not quite correct. The poster is right that, unlike in the US, a copyright holder cannot oblige an ISP to release information on its users without a court order. However if an ISP is threatened with a court order by a copyright holder it could probably pass the information without breaching the Data Protection Act - section 35 of the Act allows disclosure of personal information "for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings)".