Thank you. That is more clear and to the point I was trying to make. They are only the same in killing someone. Not in the terms to describe the act of killing them. Both are not good but one is worse than the other.
I do not disagree with this. Revenge, deterrent, or perhaps society just deemed them no longer safe to be in society even if locked in a cell. I'm not against the death penalty but I'm not advocating for it either. I might have a different opinion if someone killed somebody close to me but as of now, I could do with or without it.
If making them suffer was a motivation, I would imagine life in prison under harsh conditions would be better than killing them and putting them out of their misery.
Your ability to understand logic is worse. I never said the executioner was defending himself, i only listed self defense as another example. I said the executioner was killing someone but it was not murder because the state defines murder and excludes his acts.
Not at all. Not all killing is murder. Please follow along. The state decides what is just killing and what is murder. If you think the state is wrong, change it by either a democratic process, force, or depose the state and insert your own authority which is what happened with Saddam.
The extra cost is generally associated with needing extra security (what does someone knowing they are going to die have to lose) and extra legal work and appeals. Condemned prisoners get a lot more appeal opportunities due to the severity of the situation.
Do they actually have the right not to serve someone? What if the the state or the executioner is black or homosexual? Does Pfizer lose its right to participate in commerce or get fined?
Back to reality now. This will blow up on them in the end. The feds execute people too. I expect to see fines and crap become enormous when a plant screws up or some drug has issues. I can see the ruling from a lawsuit too. How is a judge going to react in a product liability when some case he had or his pal had cannot be completed because the drug companies circumvented his ruling
I can't believe people think like you. Well i can but i just don't understand how they haven't killed themselves already from other stupid and illogical thinking.
Murdering someone is the unjustified taking of their life. An execution or even self defense killing only shares the taking of life portion. In other words the difference between an execution and murder is whether or not it was justified. It certainly does not turn executioners into murderers.
And before you argue about justify, the state determines that. With a big and powerful government, you don't get that ability to define justified. You only get the ability to protest their definitions.
There is a lot of lame users on some IRC servers. Pirated content (movies especially) is still served readily on IRC. They have pretty much automated and anonymized the process too so only the incredibly ignorant get busted anymore.
Actually, air miles are traded for lots of things other than travel. But that aside, the Ronald McDonald house likely could actually use the air miles for travel as it exists to help families be closer to children sent to hospitals far away for life saving medical treatments. This is so mom doesn't have to drive 4 hours a day to see little Sallie going through chemo treatment then drive another 4 hours back home only to get a few hours sleep and do it again or end up spending a months rent on 5 days hotel stays to avoid the multiple drives.
I really hate McDonald's from their anti smoking campaigns to the anti gun bullshit but this house charity is probably the only thing that allows me to patronize their restaurants.
How exactly does that compute? I mean they weren't getting a 10% discount on all future tickets, they were getting the equivalent to a cash card or a car. This is not to mention that there is usually a dollar threshold before the IRS actively cares about winnings being reported by people other than yourself.
If you must compare it to something other than work and compensation for the work, compare it to game show or casino winnings.
Perhaps you are correct. My understanding of the common law is to the extent that it existed before we became formally a country and the traditions of stare decisis where a decision creates precedence for lower courts. I'm not sure that a law or case that happened in 1980 Britain would have much impact in the US. However, the magna carta was specifically referenced in some of the eminent domain cases I remember being fought and losing so I know it does have weight.
As for the trash being private, I'm not so sure the extent is for third parties but I was also not aware of how all over the place the courts have been on it.
In any case, if there is an issue with privacy here, I think it would be better dealt with by reforming privacy law. Using this as an argument against the original suggestion for reforming copyright law seems a bit convoluted. I think your other argument was better.
I'm not disagreeing with you. The example I was looking for was something along the lines of the Diary of Anne Frank. Perhaps it is a lot more cloudy that I initially thought. Especially since Anne Frank is dead and the copyright if applicable would be inherited by her legal heirs.
But here is a different scenario. Suppose it is security footage of a house fire instead of a diary and the rest was the same outside of it being footage like this
I'm not posting AC but you still do no know who I am. I find nothing disagreeable with his statement and certainly posting Anonymous Coward doesn't automagically invalidate anything being said. I just built two windows 10 workstations to test comparability with some specific software and put libre office on one of them. A higher up making a lot more money than I decided he needed an office suite and did the same. Turns out he cannot be assed to look at the domain name and went to some site that looked like a child created it with the.in or some extension like that instead of.org. He put icons on his desktop for the applications but installed a crapton of spyware in the process and one of them actually popped up a message saying microsoft support, clink on the link to resolve this application issue. It then gave him a phone number to call which he did and they wanted a credit card. He will not admit to giving a credit card number but I found out when he asked my why I liked libre office when it doesn't run right and wants you to pay more than the site license of MS office we had.
Of course this same moron had some say in the two programs I am trying to find a work around for because they do not work the same from windows 7 to windows 10 and there seems to be no easy way to pull data to another program. To be fair, it was a legacy ordeal patched into win7 from XP. But in my experience, this is not unusual for the types of people who seem to get paid the most in IT. They are better bullshitters than techs and it puts used car salesmen in good standing in some cases.
I set the scenario up a specific way for a reason. And we are talking about in the USA inherently due to the clause in the US constitution that is mentioned as reasoning. However, I'm not sure if that specific scenario would not apply in Britain to. You see, in the scenario outlined, the writings were specifically thrown away (because they were presumed to be destroyed by the fire but actually weren't). So does this supposed right (which you were vague on naming) extend to writings you discard and no longer have in your possession? Perhaps it would but not in the US which we are talking about..
lol.. You are not paying for porn, you are paying for a shell account which can allow you to access porn and a lot more. Hell, you can even set up your own website and host your own porn on their servers if your privileges are high enough.
Suppose you write a program and nobody finds it useful. It doesn't pass your test so it doesn't have copyright. Now suppose I find two or more of these useless programs and group them together to work as a single unit and everybody finds it useful in promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts. You and the other people do not have a copyright and all the sudden, I do. You may even see how I applied the other programs and may have thought that others would have conceived that to which is why you didn't bother. But now I have a copyright on your work and you do not.
But lets go further. Your house catches fire, I'm on the clean up crew that is meant to dispose of all the damaged items and prepare the area for the workers who come in and rebuild. In this mess, I find your diary or memoirs of your happy but boring life. I decipher it, put it in a novel called why flammable houses suck and use it to enrich myself while claiming to be promoting science in spreading the word about the necessity of inflammable building materials being used in building homes. It's your story, you wrote it, you do not have any copyright, you essentially threw it away, and now I have a copyright on it and am making money. Well, according to your "test" that is.
That phrase is in the US constitution because the federal government was never intended to have unlimited powers. It is a justification for the power of copyright and patents resting within it. The laws should be crafted to that end and need to be changed when they do not. However, it should not be a specific requirement of copyright for the reasons I already laid out. Perhaps mandatory licensing and shorter terms of life (especially for short life span products like computer programs and such) would be appropriate. Definitely no Tax dollars should be spent on defending your copyrights outside of what is normally absorbed by a sitting judicial process.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, just the parts of your purposed solution. If the work has value to me or you should be all that matters. Otherwise you could be in copyright violation when making copies of your own diary or memoirs under some conditions without any intentional actions of your own (I stand over your shoulder and read the diary as you write in it then publish it).
Tax deductible is a misnomer. It is true that advertising is an expense that is removed from the gross before the tax rate is applied but it does not create a dollar for dollar wash. It is still a losing proposition.
Lets assume a 10% tax rate for simplicity. For every $100 dollars of profit you would owe $10 in taxes. So you spend $90 that would otherwise be pocketed in order to save that $10. This is also why you cannot buy two of something that is half off and end up getting it for free. Of course it gets more complicated with tax credits and progressive tax rates but the principle is the same,- more money has to be spent than what will be saved due to it being deductible.
So here is a quick question. Would you prefer $90 in your pocket or $0 for saving $10 on a tax bill? Well, even that answer is complicated because the value returned in spending the $90 of profit might be worth more money in the future. But if you have to spend it unnecessarily to repair your reputation you remove that potential value. So it would be an unnecessary cost if you could otherwise avoid it.
It appears they have in several iterations over the years. The GP is likely conflating several instances but i cannot find fault with it. I am somewhat concerned about your strict denial without even a simple Google search that brought up the links i posted and more.
Or stop buying watches that use batteries. Or just buy magnets and use them as a daily supository. I bet the later would make your suggestions or my first one a lot more probable.
No, I'm not aware of any parties with that agenda. However, i can see how it might be pleasurable at different times just not every morning. I get in moods when i like petite women in high heels stepping around there. If you think you need this every morning, maybe you should talk with your sexslave union rep about it as I don't think it is actually a law. He likely would know if any parties exist with that goal or not.
That is largely because they are plotting conspiracies.
Seriously. It is commonly known that they have agendas and desires that are not universally supported so they attempt to attach riders to acceptable bills named something like patriot act or keeping children safe act.
It probably came out of some (un)official slush fund billed as community outreach or something. A peon in the sense of the chain of command could likely still have access to these funds.
We had a chief of police run out because the department purchased paintball guns and rented some land which they claimed was for training purposes. That claim fell apart quickly when it was videotaped and appeared purely recreational. It really fell apart when the owner of the land was discovered to be one of the office's relations. They claimed some patrol leader set it all up and that the higher ups were unaware of it. The chief took a leave of absence and retired shortly after. But he went to work at the municipal court building two months later I
Thats cute, you totally have no idea how easy it is to get information out of copious amounts of encrypted information.
Especially considering that without the source code of the client software and a lot of man hours auditing it, there is no guarantee that the client software is not making the encryption keys available is an obscure part of the encrypted files specifically for access by parties you didn't intend to view/use them.
The U.S. will not be destroyed if trump becomes president. Most of the establishment republicans and practically all democrats dislike him. He will need support from congress to do anything so only the crap they agree with will get done. I expect executive orders and such that are disagreeable to be overwritten by law too. The democrats will likely join the establishment republicans and override any vetoes.
The worst that could happen is people in other countries get pissed off. But that seems to be the new normal anyways ever since the first gulf war and the DMCA. So who cares?
You sure your deed doesn't show the middle of the street? The state or municipalities have a right of way 8 feet from the center of the road here for two lanes and 8 feet from the center of the closest lane if more than two.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. That is more clear and to the point I was trying to make. They are only the same in killing someone. Not in the terms to describe the act of killing them. Both are not good but one is worse than the other.
I do not disagree with this. Revenge, deterrent, or perhaps society just deemed them no longer safe to be in society even if locked in a cell. I'm not against the death penalty but I'm not advocating for it either. I might have a different opinion if someone killed somebody close to me but as of now, I could do with or without it.
If making them suffer was a motivation, I would imagine life in prison under harsh conditions would be better than killing them and putting them out of their misery.
Your ability to understand logic is worse. I never said the executioner was defending himself, i only listed self defense as another example. I said the executioner was killing someone but it was not murder because the state defines murder and excludes his acts.
Not at all. Not all killing is murder. Please follow along. The state decides what is just killing and what is murder. If you think the state is wrong, change it by either a democratic process, force, or depose the state and insert your own authority which is what happened with Saddam.
The extra cost is generally associated with needing extra security (what does someone knowing they are going to die have to lose) and extra legal work and appeals. Condemned prisoners get a lot more appeal opportunities due to the severity of the situation.
Do they actually have the right not to serve someone? What if the the state or the executioner is black or homosexual? Does Pfizer lose its right to participate in commerce or get fined?
Back to reality now. This will blow up on them in the end. The feds execute people too. I expect to see fines and crap become enormous when a plant screws up or some drug has issues. I can see the ruling from a lawsuit too. How is a judge going to react in a product liability when some case he had or his pal had cannot be completed because the drug companies circumvented his ruling
I can't believe people think like you. Well i can but i just don't understand how they haven't killed themselves already from other stupid and illogical thinking.
Murdering someone is the unjustified taking of their life. An execution or even self defense killing only shares the taking of life portion. In other words the difference between an execution and murder is whether or not it was justified. It certainly does not turn executioners into murderers.
And before you argue about justify, the state determines that. With a big and powerful government, you don't get that ability to define justified. You only get the ability to protest their definitions.
It seems to me that he was trying to show how easy it is to social engineer a defeat to security or the appearance of security.
There is a lot of lame users on some IRC servers. Pirated content (movies especially) is still served readily on IRC. They have pretty much automated and anonymized the process too so only the incredibly ignorant get busted anymore.
No, it is his house not him himself.
Actually, air miles are traded for lots of things other than travel. But that aside, the Ronald McDonald house likely could actually use the air miles for travel as it exists to help families be closer to children sent to hospitals far away for life saving medical treatments. This is so mom doesn't have to drive 4 hours a day to see little Sallie going through chemo treatment then drive another 4 hours back home only to get a few hours sleep and do it again or end up spending a months rent on 5 days hotel stays to avoid the multiple drives.
I really hate McDonald's from their anti smoking campaigns to the anti gun bullshit but this house charity is probably the only thing that allows me to patronize their restaurants.
How exactly does that compute? I mean they weren't getting a 10% discount on all future tickets, they were getting the equivalent to a cash card or a car. This is not to mention that there is usually a dollar threshold before the IRS actively cares about winnings being reported by people other than yourself.
If you must compare it to something other than work and compensation for the work, compare it to game show or casino winnings.
Perhaps you are correct. My understanding of the common law is to the extent that it existed before we became formally a country and the traditions of stare decisis where a decision creates precedence for lower courts. I'm not sure that a law or case that happened in 1980 Britain would have much impact in the US. However, the magna carta was specifically referenced in some of the eminent domain cases I remember being fought and losing so I know it does have weight.
As for the trash being private, I'm not so sure the extent is for third parties but I was also not aware of how all over the place the courts have been on it.
I'm not disagreeing with you. The example I was looking for was something along the lines of the Diary of Anne Frank. Perhaps it is a lot more cloudy that I initially thought. Especially since Anne Frank is dead and the copyright if applicable would be inherited by her legal heirs.
But here is a different scenario. Suppose it is security footage of a house fire instead of a diary and the rest was the same outside of it being footage like this
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
Do you think the privacy angle would be any different even though you or the home owner would essentially own the footage originally?
I'm not posting AC but you still do no know who I am. I find nothing disagreeable with his statement and certainly posting Anonymous Coward doesn't automagically invalidate anything being said. I just built two windows 10 workstations to test comparability with some specific software and put libre office on one of them. A higher up making a lot more money than I decided he needed an office suite and did the same. Turns out he cannot be assed to look at the domain name and went to some site that looked like a child created it with the .in or some extension like that instead of .org. He put icons on his desktop for the applications but installed a crapton of spyware in the process and one of them actually popped up a message saying microsoft support, clink on the link to resolve this application issue. It then gave him a phone number to call which he did and they wanted a credit card. He will not admit to giving a credit card number but I found out when he asked my why I liked libre office when it doesn't run right and wants you to pay more than the site license of MS office we had.
Of course this same moron had some say in the two programs I am trying to find a work around for because they do not work the same from windows 7 to windows 10 and there seems to be no easy way to pull data to another program. To be fair, it was a legacy ordeal patched into win7 from XP. But in my experience, this is not unusual for the types of people who seem to get paid the most in IT. They are better bullshitters than techs and it puts used car salesmen in good standing in some cases.
I set the scenario up a specific way for a reason. And we are talking about in the USA inherently due to the clause in the US constitution that is mentioned as reasoning. However, I'm not sure if that specific scenario would not apply in Britain to. You see, in the scenario outlined, the writings were specifically thrown away (because they were presumed to be destroyed by the fire but actually weren't). So does this supposed right (which you were vague on naming) extend to writings you discard and no longer have in your possession? Perhaps it would but not in the US which we are talking about..
lol.. You are not paying for porn, you are paying for a shell account which can allow you to access porn and a lot more. Hell, you can even set up your own website and host your own porn on their servers if your privileges are high enough.
Naive nonsense. And here is why.
Suppose you write a program and nobody finds it useful. It doesn't pass your test so it doesn't have copyright. Now suppose I find two or more of these useless programs and group them together to work as a single unit and everybody finds it useful in promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts. You and the other people do not have a copyright and all the sudden, I do. You may even see how I applied the other programs and may have thought that others would have conceived that to which is why you didn't bother. But now I have a copyright on your work and you do not.
But lets go further. Your house catches fire, I'm on the clean up crew that is meant to dispose of all the damaged items and prepare the area for the workers who come in and rebuild. In this mess, I find your diary or memoirs of your happy but boring life. I decipher it, put it in a novel called why flammable houses suck and use it to enrich myself while claiming to be promoting science in spreading the word about the necessity of inflammable building materials being used in building homes. It's your story, you wrote it, you do not have any copyright, you essentially threw it away, and now I have a copyright on it and am making money. Well, according to your "test" that is.
That phrase is in the US constitution because the federal government was never intended to have unlimited powers. It is a justification for the power of copyright and patents resting within it. The laws should be crafted to that end and need to be changed when they do not. However, it should not be a specific requirement of copyright for the reasons I already laid out. Perhaps mandatory licensing and shorter terms of life (especially for short life span products like computer programs and such) would be appropriate. Definitely no Tax dollars should be spent on defending your copyrights outside of what is normally absorbed by a sitting judicial process.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, just the parts of your purposed solution. If the work has value to me or you should be all that matters. Otherwise you could be in copyright violation when making copies of your own diary or memoirs under some conditions without any intentional actions of your own (I stand over your shoulder and read the diary as you write in it then publish it).
Tax deductible is a misnomer. It is true that advertising is an expense that is removed from the gross before the tax rate is applied but it does not create a dollar for dollar wash. It is still a losing proposition.
Lets assume a 10% tax rate for simplicity. For every $100 dollars of profit you would owe $10 in taxes. So you spend $90 that would otherwise be pocketed in order to save that $10. This is also why you cannot buy two of something that is half off and end up getting it for free. Of course it gets more complicated with tax credits and progressive tax rates but the principle is the same,- more money has to be spent than what will be saved due to it being deductible.
So here is a quick question. Would you prefer $90 in your pocket or $0 for saving $10 on a tax bill? Well, even that answer is complicated because the value returned in spending the $90 of profit might be worth more money in the future. But if you have to spend it unnecessarily to repair your reputation you remove that potential value. So it would be an unnecessary cost if you could otherwise avoid it.
http://www.cnet.com/forums/dis...
http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/03/...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/0...
It appears they have in several iterations over the years. The GP is likely conflating several instances but i cannot find fault with it. I am somewhat concerned about your strict denial without even a simple Google search that brought up the links i posted and more.
Or stop buying watches that use batteries. Or just buy magnets and use them as a daily supository. I bet the later would make your suggestions or my first one a lot more probable.
No, I'm not aware of any parties with that agenda. However, i can see how it might be pleasurable at different times just not every morning. I get in moods when i like petite women in high heels stepping around there. If you think you need this every morning, maybe you should talk with your sexslave union rep about it as I don't think it is actually a law. He likely would know if any parties exist with that goal or not.
That is largely because they are plotting conspiracies.
Seriously. It is commonly known that they have agendas and desires that are not universally supported so they attempt to attach riders to acceptable bills named something like patriot act or keeping children safe act.
It probably came out of some (un)official slush fund billed as community outreach or something. A peon in the sense of the chain of command could likely still have access to these funds.
We had a chief of police run out because the department purchased paintball guns and rented some land which they claimed was for training purposes. That claim fell apart quickly when it was videotaped and appeared purely recreational. It really fell apart when the owner of the land was discovered to be one of the office's relations. They claimed some patrol leader set it all up and that the higher ups were unaware of it. The chief took a leave of absence and retired shortly after. But he went to work at the municipal court building two months later I
Especially considering that without the source code of the client software and a lot of man hours auditing it, there is no guarantee that the client software is not making the encryption keys available is an obscure part of the encrypted files specifically for access by parties you didn't intend to view/use them.
The U.S. will not be destroyed if trump becomes president. Most of the establishment republicans and practically all democrats dislike him. He will need support from congress to do anything so only the crap they agree with will get done. I expect executive orders and such that are disagreeable to be overwritten by law too. The democrats will likely join the establishment republicans and override any vetoes.
The worst that could happen is people in other countries get pissed off. But that seems to be the new normal anyways ever since the first gulf war and the DMCA. So who cares?
You sure your deed doesn't show the middle of the street? The state or municipalities have a right of way 8 feet from the center of the road here for two lanes and 8 feet from the center of the closest lane if more than two.