My position is that there is no automatic morality in law. Bad laws are possible, and should be changed. To do this we need to discuss the morality of the law in question. To say "it is moral because it is legal" is both trite and unhelpful in such a context.
Your looking at the picture from only one side. While there is no automatic morality in law, there is automatic law in morality. You are morally obligated to be lawful until the laws become immoral. You have not stated were or why they are immoral. You have taken no effort to convince me or anyone why copyright or the current system in place around the world is immoral. I suppose one you do that, you will start seeing your own position crumble. I can't see any sane case that can be made.
I knew you were going to say that, Unconscionable according to whom, then?
If your going to arbitrarily make up definitions or use abstract meanings just to confuse the situation, then your not making a point, your attempting to hide one that's probably more valid then your own. When I suggested that you look a term up, I expect you to grab a dictionary or use an online dictionary or something and do what they taught all of us to do in second grade- look it up. I'm woefully sorry that is difficult for you and you need explicit instructions. But hey, lets look on the bright side, it might be a good opportunity for you to see your mom.
Insults already? It normally takes longer than that for you to run out of rational arguments.
Oh, you thought that was an insult? Tell me, was it true or not? Did you disclose what you think is immoral? Did you mention any specifics about what you do not think is moral about the current system? All you did is repeat yourself claiming a law isn't automatically moral but failed to show how it wasn't moral. You use the word as if there is meaning to it but failed to show any substance to that meaning.
It seems to me that "fair" and "deserve" are moral terms rather than legal ones. You can't justify that by invoking the "current model".
They can be both legal and moral terms. They do not need to be either or. And yes, you can justify them by the current model. You see, the morality of things would be that everyone plays by the known rules. The know rules which was supported by laws say that people have a certain amount of control of copyright and patents for content or media they create. They sell copies of the content to others because they have a legal right to control copies and initial distribution of the content. So far, we are all playing by the same rules.
So where the immorality comes in is when you start pirating software or music and refuse to play by the rules. Now your attempting to reject the reality everyone else knows and substitute your own. Let me explain this a little differently, Suppose you owned a store and kids shoplifted candy every day. Is it moral of them to not play by the rules? Is it moral for you to try to stop them? And do not inject the concept of physical property verses IP because as long as the law describes the right to it, it's tangible. So lets look at this in another way, suppose a company you have invested your retirement fund turns out to be fraudulently spending it on themselves instead of investing in the markets. Now this ponzy scheme, is it moral? It is lawful or ok?
Of course the answers are no because they weren't playing by the same set of known rules. That's what your claiming to have the right to do and your claiming that the existing laws aren't moral without backing them up. Your doing nothing but attempting to justify your incorrect position without backing those justifications up. Ever question presented to you about your position was pretty much met with a question, you even broke down when I suggested you learn what unconscionable meant.
If the protective order stated no contact, then person Y would be in violation of it under your scenario. The thing with restraining orders is that any violation of the order is considered a violation until it is shown to not be intentional or knowingly. The only out they would have is if person Y signed up for the game with no knowledge of person X being a player or member until later. At the point person Y has knowledge of person X's involvement, person Y would have to take any steps reasonable to be in compliance with the order.
Here is the unobvious thing about protective orders. People have been attempting to work around them for ages and most judges will see right through attempts to ignore them. A very real fact is intimidation with the protected in which they can be influenced by simply seeing that a person is willing to violate a protective order. Judges take this very seriously and it's why most states have adopted the rules that allow prosecutors to continue prosecution of crimes even if the offended/victims ask to have the charges dropped. Attempting to sneak into a game or site in order to harass someone who has a protective order against you is only going to anger the courts and they plenty of experience of this happening outside of being online.
Most if not all restraining orders require a level of knowingly to be in violation. In other words, you need to prove your actions where completely innocent of being in violation of the order when happenstance places you in violation of the order. If you hang out somewhere where the protected person usually goes, then chances are, your not going to get away with it. However, if your shopping and happen to run into the person, then your obligated to correct anything that might be in violation. When the circumstances are outside of your control, like maybe you were in an auto accident and rushed to the same emergency room the other person might be at for different reasons, then it waits until you are able to control your own actions.
What this means is that if the contact is unknowingly, then as soon as it's reasonably known or suspected, you have to take corrective actions to be in compliance with the order. So if two AC accounts or pseudonyms turn out to be in violation of the order and there is nothing to suggest it was intentional, they aren't technically in violation until one or the other figures it out. If it's the protected person who does it first, then the cops will inform the restrained, if it's the restrained who figures it out first, they have to cease any actions that would violate the order as soon as they are aware of it.
This isn't really something new to E-law as it happens all the time in real life. Imagine how many times you randomly run into an ex somewhere when it isn't expected. Now imagine that Ex is the restrained person of a protective order who didn't do anything to cause the run in. It's actually that common outside some court order will list specific places where the person isn't allowed to go. I've seen them list places of employment, parks close to homes of protected people, schools, and so on when trolling court documents. Here is a site that explains a little more about them in my state. I have no reason to believe they word much differently in other states. That site deals mostly with domestic violence but it does have some input about when you find yourself in the same place as the restrained further down the page.
So then you're basically trying to justify the morality of the BSA's position by pointing out that their position is entirely legal.
I'm not sure why your attempting to bring morality into the issue. Is it your position that the laws and ways people abide by them is somehow immoral and should be ignored or something? IF so, please back that up. The bottom line is that the law grants ownership to certain people. When they give rights or copies to others and charge for it, the moral way is the lawful way to obtain it. Unless you thin stealing is lawful and moral or something. Please expand on that too.
Actually, I think you'll find we're legally bound, not morally. Else, we're required to blindly accept any law on the statue books as moral, however unjust it may be.
Maybe you should look up what unconscionable means. Seriously, why did you even write that line? You are morally bound to act lawfully until the law is unconscionable is a pretty easy term that follows along with what you just said. If you can find something convincingly unconscionable about the current law, then plead your case. If you cannot, then morally you would be wrong to violate the law.
We've been around this loop before. I don't share your conviction that legality implies morality, and I doubt either of us is about to change the mind of the other this time around. I've got the clarification I was after; is there any need to discuss this further?
Obviously there is a need to discuss this further. You apparently do no understand what morality means or you are unwilling to disclose what you think is immoral after throwing the words around. I don't think it means what you think it means. And no, legality does not imply morality, but morality includes legality. I said the later nor previous.
No, multiple judges have rejected that possession of 2500 copies means the defendant owes for 2500 copies. The difference is that possession does not equal owing- making and distributing copies does. Possessing 2500 copies does not mean you distributed 2500 copies.
Either way, we aren't talking about legal specific of cases here. We are talking about the quantifiable rights granted by law and differing ways of measuring it to make stated positions. Unless there is a ruling on the subject I am not aware of that would bar usage in the terms we are speaking of, then it's right to frame it both ways.
If you need a citation, then look up the various laws of differing nations on copyright, patents, and commerce. This isn't a secrete that you somehow missed, it's the way the world has been operating for the last 50 or more years which pretty much makes it your entire lifetime.
Or are you using the term in a tautological sense? "This is the way things are, because this is the way things are". Logically inescapable in a trivial sort of way, but doesn't imply any of the moral authority suggested by your use of the term.
Not at all. I'm saying that various laws around the world give ownership of rights of works or content and grant exclusivity to those rights. This exclusivity and ownership allows them to charge for copies and so on and that's what they have been doing. Legal authority is the only moral authority needed because morally, you are bound to operate in a lawful manor unless the law is unconscionable. Copyright and patent laws do not seem to rise to that level by any sane examination of them.
I'm surprised you're surprised. This is a techie/geek forum, not one dedicated to law or economics.
Well, that is exactly why I am surprised. Any Geek worth his salt would have spend a cursory attempt at understanding the world around them. They may not agree with how it operates or have suggestions for changes but it wouldn't be very geeky or techie of them to totally ignore it or how it works. Maybe I'm falling into the geek trap where I expect others to know as much as I do and I'm incapable of understanding how others could be ignorant about something as trivial as this.
Which "current model" would that be? Who uses it? What authority can it be claimed to carry?
The current model is the distribution model used by industry and artists that is in place and supported by copyright laws as well as commerce laws around the world. It is used by everyone acting in a lawful manor. I'm surprised you had to ask.
Obviously, the current model used by the BSA is going to support the BSA's estimations, for instance. But by itself, that wouldn't make it fair or accurate or in any way reflective of reality.
Actually is would be just as fair and accurate because once the copy is made, they deserve the payment. That's how it currently works unless you act in an unlawful way. The copyright owner or patent owner has exclusive rights that they sell. The people who purchase those rights conduct business with them and under the copyright and patent laws around the world, the artist or owners are entitled royalty or licensing payments for each copy made outside of fair use or fair dealings.
Now you can seriously make a case that if the law wasn't broken, it wouldn't translate to as many sales as law breaking happened to reflect. But the fact that the law was broken and copies were made outside of fair use does mean that the owners are entitled to a royalty under the existing model created by existing laws for those copies made.
Actually, they can claim a lost sale for every copy in existance that wasn't made from fair use or fair dealings. This is because the current model is that the only way you get a copy is by a sale outside of fair use provisions.
The fact that people wouldn't have otherwise purchased the product isn't important in this figure because the current model of distribution doesn't account for them. In other words, while it is a valid argument to claim they wouldn't have had 2500 sales, the fact that 2500 copies exist outside of fair use and legitimate copies means they would be entitled to 2500 sales when we look at the current system of distribution and copyright laws.
Of course you can divide the 2500 into some average of the number of tracks on a CD or whatever and have a more accurate number. I'm just using the 2500 because it was already in use and stating that the two realities do not clash as being presented.
More like "A man who thinks he has a life, apparently."
Ever hear of to each their own? There are so many things in life that make people unhappy so when something comes along that makes them happy, they should keep it around for as long as they can. If this guy thinks working a 9-5 factory job makes him happy, good for him. If something likes the challenges of coding and does it outside of work good for them. But all that is a personal choice by people capable of making their own decisions. Your decisions should not be forced onto others and their shouldn't be forced onto you. That's one thing that really pisses me off, when someone thinks something works for them and decides everyone should have to alter their life to either accommodate their choices or mimic them. It doesn't work that way and it should work that way. To each their own, we are free and capable for now.
Why this article even made it past a blog entry is a mystery to me. It should have never been close to slashdot let alone a front page article.
I do not know if I would trust TPB much more. IT seems that after one of their outages, I was looking for an old movie and got a sharing copyrighted material complain against my IP. Fortunately for me, it listed the wrong IP, had 3 of them reported within 3 seconds of each other and Verizon was robo-phoning me to explain why they where shutting my internet off.
All I did was search for the movie, I didn't download it. Now it could be a freaky coincidence where they mixed a legitimate complaint against someone else up with my account or it could have just been a malicious campaign by Sony Entertainment to knock me off line. But it was a freaky situation as it happened less then 24 hours from when I searched TPB for the movie.
I'm not sure we could possibly quantify that. There are several issues at stake considering the flu shots do not protect against all forms of the flu and people can and will still get the flue after the flu shots.
However, just as there are people who get the flu after having a flu shot, there are people who do not get the flu at all. I can only imagine that good hygiene is behind it. I have only gotten the flu twice in my 38 years of life and I have never taken the flu shot. Once was from kissing a girl the day before her symptoms came about, the other was when I was a kid and didn't know any better.
I have even watched people around me get the flu without catching it. Of course when others get sick, I am overly conscious about washing my hands and face and not standing in front of someone who looks like they are about to sneeze. Most the people I am around are also concious about sneezing and coughing into their sleeves or a handkerchief of something so that helps too. I don't buy into the hand sanitizers or anti bacterial soaps, just regular bathing soap like they had 20 years ago is all I purposely go after (now if it's somewhere where I'm at, I'll use it, I just do not buy it).
Now, I may end up with some minor exposure to the flu which might have the same effect as the vaccine, I couldn't tell for sure. However, there are lots of moms who treat their children or husbands who never seem to get the flu either. It may be the same for them where the body builds immunities faster then the minor exposure can cause symptoms. But if that's the case, then I wouldn't need the shot to begin with.
That's only true if MS contributed the code and it would only be true for the specific code they contribute. However, the way I understood the article as well as articles on this in the past is that MS is not giving code, they are giving APIs and technology insight to the samba team so that they can implement it on their own. That wouldn't trigger the automatic patent license which leads to the vulnerability I mentioned.
Like I said, they need a firm commitment in writing from MS that denies such licensing changes or provisions in order for Samba to be safe. Without it, it actually could be a trap. But the trap is there already even if they didn't work with MS. All MS would have to do is patent it's authentication schemes, claim it's a defensive then issue an open but incompatible license for it and we are at the same situation with or without MS cooperating with the Samba team.
This is a real threat to be considered for any GPLv3 code. Until software patents are gone, any software that gets patented can destroy the GPLv3 code by the GPL's own wording. Take Gnome or KDE for instance, if they went GPLv3, they would have had to go backwards (unless they just ignore the GPLv3 terms) because someone patented icons and isn't licensing them.- Now I don't know if the patent has since been revoked or if it is still in force or whatever, the problem with the GPLv3 wording is that as soon as it's known, the software can't be distributed until a patent license allowing the rights as specified in the GPL is secured.
Actually, the cafeteria is not the same food establishment that prepared meals for patients. They are generally close together but separate with separate staffing because the food for the patients need to meet strict dietary requirements where cafeteria food doesn't. Most hospital cafeterias are not large enough to feed all the patients in the hospital.
As for radiology, well, I already said the janitors are wearing sanitary protections and using disinfectants. They also do not go in while the patients are there. It's called privacy and there are some HIPPA concerns too. A hospital is not like your grade school.
As for the hallways, in the areas I mentioned, they are controlled and access is limited for the most part. This is to control drug seekers and thieves as well as someone wanting to interfere with diagnostic results for insurance fraud or something.
I've worked in a hospital too. In fact, I actually worked in 5 different hospitals owned by the same parent company. We all had to use the service elevators which was controlled access by key card, there were service entrances we were required to enter and exit from, and for the most part, I wouldn't ever see any patients at all. There was two notable exceptions where a guy who was on the crazy floor got permission to smoke and the order lost control of him on the way back up. He was hiding in an access closet. The other time was when a patient learned he was being charged with something by the cops, managed to escape monitoring and wondered through the building with a key card he took from an administrative assistant looking for an exit that wasn't monitored. There are provisions in place for both of those scenarios and it isn't likely that it would happen again unless hospitals have changed somewhat in the last 5 years or so.
Of course my experience is within one chain of hospitals, it doesn't mean all of them are like that but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be. Maintenance and IT simple are not around patients or there is no need for them to be though.
Now I understand that droplet spreading is quite a but like airborne but it can be effectivly managed by washing hands, people sneezing and coughing into their sleeve and if you was a around someone who sneezed or coughed washing or using sanitizer is still somewhat effective.
IF they are terminated for not taking the vaccine because of an existing problem, then they might be covered by the Americans with disability act depending on their specific problems/illness.
There are people saying that if they have a compromise immune system, they shouldn't be working in places like a hospital. However, there are quite a few jobs in a hospital in which they wouldn't be exposed to any risks. Preparing meals for patients for instance wouldn't ever expose workers to illnesses unless one of the other workers got ill on their own. Certain custodian and janitorial jobs would be free from exposure to illnesses too. For instance, a janitor who cleans the imaging department would never be exposed to ill patients, he comes in before and after patients are present and uses gloves, disinfectants and so on in order to clean the rooms-equipment and so on.
The trap wouldn't necessarily be Microsoft claiming patent infringement but offering the technology with a license that's incompatible with the GPLv3's patent requirements. Since the GPLv3 and Samba going to the GPLv3 license, it would basically cause Samba 4 to discard all works done under the GPLv3 license and basically cripple Samba to pre-GPLv3 conditions with a lot of work to redo a lot of functionality and improvements.
I warned of this possibility way back when the GPLv3 was a heated debate and again when Samba announced it's move to the GPLv3. Without a firm Commitment from Microsoft, this will forever linger and remain a possible threat. BTW, the unclean hands portion would drastically be negated in a court if MS offered a free as in beer license for any IP it considers infringing even if it isn't free as in speech and compatible with the GPLv3 requirements.
The problem with changing things is that you cannot present a capable way things would be better. The reason why liability is limited to the amount invested or value of the company is because you have to trust people to do the required work. We have extremely rigorous and thorough screening for government jobs pertaining to national secrets and so on and even with those safe guards in place, we still have agents who work for the enemy or do illegal activities. Even if companies applied the type of screening to their employers which would lock out most of the country from employment, we still wouldn't have all the bad apples removed.
That's the problem with companies. If you run them, you are responsible for your actions. If someone else makes a decision and screws the world over, you will not know until after the fact and are only responsible for your investment and possible for the lack of oversight. But when you high 200 managers to over see the lower levels of the company and it's one of them who does the deed, your still not finding out until after the fact. And this is even more exacerbated when you are just a silent investor who owns a few shares in their retirement accounts or something.
I can understand you wanting change. I just do not think your willing to look at it realistically or want to understand how the current system works or why it is this way. Do you seriously want to loose your home, retirement, and about everything else because despite all the checking you did on the company before investing, some manager screws up and you do not find out until after the fact and a court gives a judgment 2 million times more then what the company is worth? I mean that is what you are asking for and you will not know until after the fact.
Sadly, I couldn't find a followup either. As for the federal statutes extending, I believe at the time, the federal statute limited itself to federal agencies and employees which probably wouldn't have covered it. However, I think it's been changed since then. It would be nice if there was a universal law that would cover all situations with all employees but I don't think we are close yet. We are often left with a sense of coverage when in fact, we might not have it.
Mankind is something of an odd creature. Our inquisitive nature allows it explored areas that are too hostile even for us to survive. We do this exploration and observe what happens in order to satisfy our other primary curiosity, knowledge. From this knowledge and experience, we gain valuable insight that helps make out lives a bit easier, safer, and perhaps more challenging at the same time. It's in our nature to push the limits of about anything in order to achieve a goal or satisfy a challenge. This is one thing that distinguishes us from most other life forms we know of.
That being said, we do it because we can and be we can means that we will be able to do other things later which may or may not benefit society. So far, crashing a probe and analyzing the debris is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to satisfy the question of Ice on the moon. If it's there, the next challenge would be to make it accessible and usable to man for whatever out needs are. Now this tech could be really interesting because it could help irrigate deserts or provide emergency water in catastrophe situations. It could also help us in determining much more about the moon and develope technology to make missions possible to other planets which may or may not yield more information or technology that makes human life easier/better.
In short, the point is to simply expand our knowledge. The point is to satisfy some of the very basic human traits.
Acts of terrorism are illegal. That's not what I'm complaining about. What I'm complaining about is the use of an outside enemy to justify mistreatment of citizens. And terrorism is a much better outside enemy than communism for that purpose, because it can never be completely defeated. Even if Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc were completely removed from existence, those who wanted to repress people here in the US would simply say that the terrorists had gone into hiding and occasionally uncover a "sleeper cell" to justify the continuing intrusion into their citizen's lives.
First of all, what special insight do you have to know that "those who wanted to repress people here in the US would simply say that the terrorists had gone into hiding"? I mean did someone tell you this? And if so, then why haven't you outed them as someone who wants to repress people?
Second, what mistreatment of citizens? All of this crap is in your head. There has been only one or two citizens mistreated because of the war on terrorism. It's not as your implying. Hell, even the "those who want to repress" statement is all in your head.
In addition, you'll notice I said "acts of terrorism" are illegal, not "being a terrorist". That's because it's possible that someone could be a member of a terrorist organization without engaging in or actively and knowingly supporting terrorism. In a free society, crimes are something you do, not something you are.
Someone could be a member of a gang that robs banks but that doesn't make him innocent of the crimes if he didn't actually rob the banks. What connects them to the crime is their material support and engagement. Funding and planning terrorist activities or even bank robbers who commit terrorist acts or rob banks is a serious crime. For you to suggest otherwise is complete nonsense. Someone who is a member of an organization the funds or supports illegal activities will be judged by their involvement. It is possible that non-terrorist belong to terrorist groups without knowing the connection to terrorism and as far as I know, they aren't prosecuted. But when you know your group membership supports terrorism, there is just no excuse.
Ahh, yes. It's to stop the terrorists and block crimes. That's why we violate the NSA charter (by doing domestic spying), the Constitution (by monitoring without court order or any evidence of wrong-doing).
You need to slow down a bit and stop dragging ignorance into your conversation. First, a NSA charter has little to no legal meaning. I'm suspecting that your talking about the NSA's TSP which was within it's charter, just not the technical language of the FISA laws. However, FISA is questionable on the subject and there is good merit to the idea it wouldn't have applied because the president has constitutional authority to collect national security information. Your also completely wrong about the constitution and monitoring without a court order. There has always been ways to monitor citizens, directly or indirectly, through telecoms or traditional bugging devices without a warrant. The only constitutional protections you gain is against unreasonable searches, not all searches.
But back to the president's constitutional authority, the biggest argument in favor of this is that congress has historically believed the president had constitutional authority to conduct surveillance for national security means. And this belief existed well before Bush or anyone was in office. Public law 90-351 or the Omnibus crime control safe streets act 1968 had this idea written in it. Section 2511 part 3 specifically inferred a constitutional authority when it states
Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U.S.C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign in-. telligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such. measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.
This was further backed up by court decisions that assumed the president had the constitutional authority to do just that- without a warrant. In fact, a warrant wasn't even required until 1968 when the courts finally extended the fourth to telecommunications.
And the infiltration was to "stop crimes". R-i-i-g-h-t. And declaring a "free-speech zone" is one thing, secret monitoring and infiltration is another. That's straight out of the 1960's Vietnam era playbook, and McCarthy eara as well.
Lol.. Nope. If an organization is open to the public, then the public can join whether they are police, FBI, or not. Or do you somehow think they are walled off from society and deserve their own little special circles and clubs. I hope not because it would be a hell of a lot worse then your pretending it to be.
And it's done "to stop crime". Sure, that's the excuse given. But please name a _single prosecution_ or a single crime actually stopped by either of those efforts. Then tell me how it's "different" from McCarthy era wiretaps. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.
Nonsense. Communism is an ideology where terrorism is a crime that's illegal in almost all countries if not all. And no, they cannot just round people up and make them disappear. It happened unjustly to all of what, ten people who got released because they didn't just disappear.
there is a difference between communism which is a political ideology and illegal methods used to push any ideology or agenda. I'm sorry that your not thinking straight enough to see that. I could go on about some other things you chose to comment on but I think enough has been said.
Slashdot Mirror
Your looking at the picture from only one side. While there is no automatic morality in law, there is automatic law in morality. You are morally obligated to be lawful until the laws become immoral. You have not stated were or why they are immoral. You have taken no effort to convince me or anyone why copyright or the current system in place around the world is immoral. I suppose one you do that, you will start seeing your own position crumble. I can't see any sane case that can be made.
If your going to arbitrarily make up definitions or use abstract meanings just to confuse the situation, then your not making a point, your attempting to hide one that's probably more valid then your own. When I suggested that you look a term up, I expect you to grab a dictionary or use an online dictionary or something and do what they taught all of us to do in second grade- look it up. I'm woefully sorry that is difficult for you and you need explicit instructions. But hey, lets look on the bright side, it might be a good opportunity for you to see your mom.
Oh, you thought that was an insult? Tell me, was it true or not? Did you disclose what you think is immoral? Did you mention any specifics about what you do not think is moral about the current system? All you did is repeat yourself claiming a law isn't automatically moral but failed to show how it wasn't moral. You use the word as if there is meaning to it but failed to show any substance to that meaning.
They can be both legal and moral terms. They do not need to be either or. And yes, you can justify them by the current model. You see, the morality of things would be that everyone plays by the known rules. The know rules which was supported by laws say that people have a certain amount of control of copyright and patents for content or media they create. They sell copies of the content to others because they have a legal right to control copies and initial distribution of the content. So far, we are all playing by the same rules.
So where the immorality comes in is when you start pirating software or music and refuse to play by the rules. Now your attempting to reject the reality everyone else knows and substitute your own. Let me explain this a little differently, Suppose you owned a store and kids shoplifted candy every day. Is it moral of them to not play by the rules? Is it moral for you to try to stop them? And do not inject the concept of physical property verses IP because as long as the law describes the right to it, it's tangible. So lets look at this in another way, suppose a company you have invested your retirement fund turns out to be fraudulently spending it on themselves instead of investing in the markets. Now this ponzy scheme, is it moral? It is lawful or ok?
Of course the answers are no because they weren't playing by the same set of known rules. That's what your claiming to have the right to do and your claiming that the existing laws aren't moral without backing them up. Your doing nothing but attempting to justify your incorrect position without backing those justifications up. Ever question presented to you about your position was pretty much met with a question, you even broke down when I suggested you learn what unconscionable meant.
If the protective order stated no contact, then person Y would be in violation of it under your scenario. The thing with restraining orders is that any violation of the order is considered a violation until it is shown to not be intentional or knowingly. The only out they would have is if person Y signed up for the game with no knowledge of person X being a player or member until later. At the point person Y has knowledge of person X's involvement, person Y would have to take any steps reasonable to be in compliance with the order.
Here is the unobvious thing about protective orders. People have been attempting to work around them for ages and most judges will see right through attempts to ignore them. A very real fact is intimidation with the protected in which they can be influenced by simply seeing that a person is willing to violate a protective order. Judges take this very seriously and it's why most states have adopted the rules that allow prosecutors to continue prosecution of crimes even if the offended/victims ask to have the charges dropped. Attempting to sneak into a game or site in order to harass someone who has a protective order against you is only going to anger the courts and they plenty of experience of this happening outside of being online.
Most if not all restraining orders require a level of knowingly to be in violation. In other words, you need to prove your actions where completely innocent of being in violation of the order when happenstance places you in violation of the order. If you hang out somewhere where the protected person usually goes, then chances are, your not going to get away with it. However, if your shopping and happen to run into the person, then your obligated to correct anything that might be in violation. When the circumstances are outside of your control, like maybe you were in an auto accident and rushed to the same emergency room the other person might be at for different reasons, then it waits until you are able to control your own actions.
What this means is that if the contact is unknowingly, then as soon as it's reasonably known or suspected, you have to take corrective actions to be in compliance with the order. So if two AC accounts or pseudonyms turn out to be in violation of the order and there is nothing to suggest it was intentional, they aren't technically in violation until one or the other figures it out. If it's the protected person who does it first, then the cops will inform the restrained, if it's the restrained who figures it out first, they have to cease any actions that would violate the order as soon as they are aware of it.
This isn't really something new to E-law as it happens all the time in real life. Imagine how many times you randomly run into an ex somewhere when it isn't expected. Now imagine that Ex is the restrained person of a protective order who didn't do anything to cause the run in. It's actually that common outside some court order will list specific places where the person isn't allowed to go. I've seen them list places of employment, parks close to homes of protected people, schools, and so on when trolling court documents. Here is a site that explains a little more about them in my state. I have no reason to believe they word much differently in other states. That site deals mostly with domestic violence but it does have some input about when you find yourself in the same place as the restrained further down the page.
I'm not sure why your attempting to bring morality into the issue. Is it your position that the laws and ways people abide by them is somehow immoral and should be ignored or something? IF so, please back that up. The bottom line is that the law grants ownership to certain people. When they give rights or copies to others and charge for it, the moral way is the lawful way to obtain it. Unless you thin stealing is lawful and moral or something. Please expand on that too.
Maybe you should look up what unconscionable means. Seriously, why did you even write that line? You are morally bound to act lawfully until the law is unconscionable is a pretty easy term that follows along with what you just said. If you can find something convincingly unconscionable about the current law, then plead your case. If you cannot, then morally you would be wrong to violate the law.
Obviously there is a need to discuss this further. You apparently do no understand what morality means or you are unwilling to disclose what you think is immoral after throwing the words around. I don't think it means what you think it means. And no, legality does not imply morality, but morality includes legality. I said the later nor previous.
No, multiple judges have rejected that possession of 2500 copies means the defendant owes for 2500 copies. The difference is that possession does not equal owing- making and distributing copies does. Possessing 2500 copies does not mean you distributed 2500 copies.
Either way, we aren't talking about legal specific of cases here. We are talking about the quantifiable rights granted by law and differing ways of measuring it to make stated positions. Unless there is a ruling on the subject I am not aware of that would bar usage in the terms we are speaking of, then it's right to frame it both ways.
If you need a citation, then look up the various laws of differing nations on copyright, patents, and commerce. This isn't a secrete that you somehow missed, it's the way the world has been operating for the last 50 or more years which pretty much makes it your entire lifetime.
Not at all. I'm saying that various laws around the world give ownership of rights of works or content and grant exclusivity to those rights. This exclusivity and ownership allows them to charge for copies and so on and that's what they have been doing. Legal authority is the only moral authority needed because morally, you are bound to operate in a lawful manor unless the law is unconscionable. Copyright and patent laws do not seem to rise to that level by any sane examination of them.
Well, that is exactly why I am surprised. Any Geek worth his salt would have spend a cursory attempt at understanding the world around them. They may not agree with how it operates or have suggestions for changes but it wouldn't be very geeky or techie of them to totally ignore it or how it works. Maybe I'm falling into the geek trap where I expect others to know as much as I do and I'm incapable of understanding how others could be ignorant about something as trivial as this.
The current model is the distribution model used by industry and artists that is in place and supported by copyright laws as well as commerce laws around the world. It is used by everyone acting in a lawful manor. I'm surprised you had to ask.
Actually is would be just as fair and accurate because once the copy is made, they deserve the payment. That's how it currently works unless you act in an unlawful way. The copyright owner or patent owner has exclusive rights that they sell. The people who purchase those rights conduct business with them and under the copyright and patent laws around the world, the artist or owners are entitled royalty or licensing payments for each copy made outside of fair use or fair dealings.
Now you can seriously make a case that if the law wasn't broken, it wouldn't translate to as many sales as law breaking happened to reflect. But the fact that the law was broken and copies were made outside of fair use does mean that the owners are entitled to a royalty under the existing model created by existing laws for those copies made.
Actually, they can claim a lost sale for every copy in existance that wasn't made from fair use or fair dealings. This is because the current model is that the only way you get a copy is by a sale outside of fair use provisions.
The fact that people wouldn't have otherwise purchased the product isn't important in this figure because the current model of distribution doesn't account for them. In other words, while it is a valid argument to claim they wouldn't have had 2500 sales, the fact that 2500 copies exist outside of fair use and legitimate copies means they would be entitled to 2500 sales when we look at the current system of distribution and copyright laws.
Of course you can divide the 2500 into some average of the number of tracks on a CD or whatever and have a more accurate number. I'm just using the 2500 because it was already in use and stating that the two realities do not clash as being presented.
More like "A man who thinks he has a life, apparently."
Ever hear of to each their own? There are so many things in life that make people unhappy so when something comes along that makes them happy, they should keep it around for as long as they can. If this guy thinks working a 9-5 factory job makes him happy, good for him. If something likes the challenges of coding and does it outside of work good for them. But all that is a personal choice by people capable of making their own decisions. Your decisions should not be forced onto others and their shouldn't be forced onto you. That's one thing that really pisses me off, when someone thinks something works for them and decides everyone should have to alter their life to either accommodate their choices or mimic them. It doesn't work that way and it should work that way. To each their own, we are free and capable for now.
Why this article even made it past a blog entry is a mystery to me. It should have never been close to slashdot let alone a front page article.
I do not know if I would trust TPB much more. IT seems that after one of their outages, I was looking for an old movie and got a sharing copyrighted material complain against my IP. Fortunately for me, it listed the wrong IP, had 3 of them reported within 3 seconds of each other and Verizon was robo-phoning me to explain why they where shutting my internet off.
All I did was search for the movie, I didn't download it. Now it could be a freaky coincidence where they mixed a legitimate complaint against someone else up with my account or it could have just been a malicious campaign by Sony Entertainment to knock me off line. But it was a freaky situation as it happened less then 24 hours from when I searched TPB for the movie.
I suspect TPB might not be what it once was.
I'm not sure we could possibly quantify that. There are several issues at stake considering the flu shots do not protect against all forms of the flu and people can and will still get the flue after the flu shots.
However, just as there are people who get the flu after having a flu shot, there are people who do not get the flu at all. I can only imagine that good hygiene is behind it. I have only gotten the flu twice in my 38 years of life and I have never taken the flu shot. Once was from kissing a girl the day before her symptoms came about, the other was when I was a kid and didn't know any better.
I have even watched people around me get the flu without catching it. Of course when others get sick, I am overly conscious about washing my hands and face and not standing in front of someone who looks like they are about to sneeze. Most the people I am around are also concious about sneezing and coughing into their sleeves or a handkerchief of something so that helps too. I don't buy into the hand sanitizers or anti bacterial soaps, just regular bathing soap like they had 20 years ago is all I purposely go after (now if it's somewhere where I'm at, I'll use it, I just do not buy it).
Now, I may end up with some minor exposure to the flu which might have the same effect as the vaccine, I couldn't tell for sure. However, there are lots of moms who treat their children or husbands who never seem to get the flu either. It may be the same for them where the body builds immunities faster then the minor exposure can cause symptoms. But if that's the case, then I wouldn't need the shot to begin with.
That's only true if MS contributed the code and it would only be true for the specific code they contribute. However, the way I understood the article as well as articles on this in the past is that MS is not giving code, they are giving APIs and technology insight to the samba team so that they can implement it on their own. That wouldn't trigger the automatic patent license which leads to the vulnerability I mentioned.
Like I said, they need a firm commitment in writing from MS that denies such licensing changes or provisions in order for Samba to be safe. Without it, it actually could be a trap. But the trap is there already even if they didn't work with MS. All MS would have to do is patent it's authentication schemes, claim it's a defensive then issue an open but incompatible license for it and we are at the same situation with or without MS cooperating with the Samba team.
This is a real threat to be considered for any GPLv3 code. Until software patents are gone, any software that gets patented can destroy the GPLv3 code by the GPL's own wording. Take Gnome or KDE for instance, if they went GPLv3, they would have had to go backwards (unless they just ignore the GPLv3 terms) because someone patented icons and isn't licensing them.- Now I don't know if the patent has since been revoked or if it is still in force or whatever, the problem with the GPLv3 wording is that as soon as it's known, the software can't be distributed until a patent license allowing the rights as specified in the GPL is secured.
Actually, the cafeteria is not the same food establishment that prepared meals for patients. They are generally close together but separate with separate staffing because the food for the patients need to meet strict dietary requirements where cafeteria food doesn't. Most hospital cafeterias are not large enough to feed all the patients in the hospital.
As for radiology, well, I already said the janitors are wearing sanitary protections and using disinfectants. They also do not go in while the patients are there. It's called privacy and there are some HIPPA concerns too. A hospital is not like your grade school.
As for the hallways, in the areas I mentioned, they are controlled and access is limited for the most part. This is to control drug seekers and thieves as well as someone wanting to interfere with diagnostic results for insurance fraud or something.
I've worked in a hospital too. In fact, I actually worked in 5 different hospitals owned by the same parent company. We all had to use the service elevators which was controlled access by key card, there were service entrances we were required to enter and exit from, and for the most part, I wouldn't ever see any patients at all. There was two notable exceptions where a guy who was on the crazy floor got permission to smoke and the order lost control of him on the way back up. He was hiding in an access closet. The other time was when a patient learned he was being charged with something by the cops, managed to escape monitoring and wondered through the building with a key card he took from an administrative assistant looking for an exit that wasn't monitored. There are provisions in place for both of those scenarios and it isn't likely that it would happen again unless hospitals have changed somewhat in the last 5 years or so.
Of course my experience is within one chain of hospitals, it doesn't mean all of them are like that but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be. Maintenance and IT simple are not around patients or there is no need for them to be though.
The flue isn't really airborne.
Now I understand that droplet spreading is quite a but like airborne but it can be effectivly managed by washing hands, people sneezing and coughing into their sleeve and if you was a around someone who sneezed or coughed washing or using sanitizer is still somewhat effective.
IF they are terminated for not taking the vaccine because of an existing problem, then they might be covered by the Americans with disability act depending on their specific problems/illness.
There are people saying that if they have a compromise immune system, they shouldn't be working in places like a hospital. However, there are quite a few jobs in a hospital in which they wouldn't be exposed to any risks. Preparing meals for patients for instance wouldn't ever expose workers to illnesses unless one of the other workers got ill on their own. Certain custodian and janitorial jobs would be free from exposure to illnesses too. For instance, a janitor who cleans the imaging department would never be exposed to ill patients, he comes in before and after patients are present and uses gloves, disinfectants and so on in order to clean the rooms-equipment and so on.
The trap wouldn't necessarily be Microsoft claiming patent infringement but offering the technology with a license that's incompatible with the GPLv3's patent requirements. Since the GPLv3 and Samba going to the GPLv3 license, it would basically cause Samba 4 to discard all works done under the GPLv3 license and basically cripple Samba to pre-GPLv3 conditions with a lot of work to redo a lot of functionality and improvements.
I warned of this possibility way back when the GPLv3 was a heated debate and again when Samba announced it's move to the GPLv3. Without a firm Commitment from Microsoft, this will forever linger and remain a possible threat. BTW, the unclean hands portion would drastically be negated in a court if MS offered a free as in beer license for any IP it considers infringing even if it isn't free as in speech and compatible with the GPLv3 requirements.
The problem with changing things is that you cannot present a capable way things would be better. The reason why liability is limited to the amount invested or value of the company is because you have to trust people to do the required work. We have extremely rigorous and thorough screening for government jobs pertaining to national secrets and so on and even with those safe guards in place, we still have agents who work for the enemy or do illegal activities. Even if companies applied the type of screening to their employers which would lock out most of the country from employment, we still wouldn't have all the bad apples removed.
That's the problem with companies. If you run them, you are responsible for your actions. If someone else makes a decision and screws the world over, you will not know until after the fact and are only responsible for your investment and possible for the lack of oversight. But when you high 200 managers to over see the lower levels of the company and it's one of them who does the deed, your still not finding out until after the fact. And this is even more exacerbated when you are just a silent investor who owns a few shares in their retirement accounts or something.
I can understand you wanting change. I just do not think your willing to look at it realistically or want to understand how the current system works or why it is this way. Do you seriously want to loose your home, retirement, and about everything else because despite all the checking you did on the company before investing, some manager screws up and you do not find out until after the fact and a court gives a judgment 2 million times more then what the company is worth? I mean that is what you are asking for and you will not know until after the fact.
Sadly, I couldn't find a followup either. As for the federal statutes extending, I believe at the time, the federal statute limited itself to federal agencies and employees which probably wouldn't have covered it. However, I think it's been changed since then. It would be nice if there was a universal law that would cover all situations with all employees but I don't think we are close yet. We are often left with a sense of coverage when in fact, we might not have it.
I got your name from your home page. I didn't mean to creep you out. It was all in jest and humor.
If we can laugh with ourselves, laughing at others is much more enjoyable.
Mankind is something of an odd creature. Our inquisitive nature allows it explored areas that are too hostile even for us to survive. We do this exploration and observe what happens in order to satisfy our other primary curiosity, knowledge. From this knowledge and experience, we gain valuable insight that helps make out lives a bit easier, safer, and perhaps more challenging at the same time. It's in our nature to push the limits of about anything in order to achieve a goal or satisfy a challenge. This is one thing that distinguishes us from most other life forms we know of.
That being said, we do it because we can and be we can means that we will be able to do other things later which may or may not benefit society. So far, crashing a probe and analyzing the debris is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to satisfy the question of Ice on the moon. If it's there, the next challenge would be to make it accessible and usable to man for whatever out needs are. Now this tech could be really interesting because it could help irrigate deserts or provide emergency water in catastrophe situations. It could also help us in determining much more about the moon and develope technology to make missions possible to other planets which may or may not yield more information or technology that makes human life easier/better.
In short, the point is to simply expand our knowledge. The point is to satisfy some of the very basic human traits.
First of all, what special insight do you have to know that "those who wanted to repress people here in the US would simply say that the terrorists had gone into hiding"? I mean did someone tell you this? And if so, then why haven't you outed them as someone who wants to repress people?
Second, what mistreatment of citizens? All of this crap is in your head. There has been only one or two citizens mistreated because of the war on terrorism. It's not as your implying. Hell, even the "those who want to repress" statement is all in your head.
Someone could be a member of a gang that robs banks but that doesn't make him innocent of the crimes if he didn't actually rob the banks. What connects them to the crime is their material support and engagement. Funding and planning terrorist activities or even bank robbers who commit terrorist acts or rob banks is a serious crime. For you to suggest otherwise is complete nonsense. Someone who is a member of an organization the funds or supports illegal activities will be judged by their involvement. It is possible that non-terrorist belong to terrorist groups without knowing the connection to terrorism and as far as I know, they aren't prosecuted. But when you know your group membership supports terrorism, there is just no excuse.
You need to slow down a bit and stop dragging ignorance into your conversation. First, a NSA charter has little to no legal meaning. I'm suspecting that your talking about the NSA's TSP which was within it's charter, just not the technical language of the FISA laws. However, FISA is questionable on the subject and there is good merit to the idea it wouldn't have applied because the president has constitutional authority to collect national security information. Your also completely wrong about the constitution and monitoring without a court order. There has always been ways to monitor citizens, directly or indirectly, through telecoms or traditional bugging devices without a warrant. The only constitutional protections you gain is against unreasonable searches, not all searches.
But back to the president's constitutional authority, the biggest argument in favor of this is that congress has historically believed the president had constitutional authority to conduct surveillance for national security means. And this belief existed well before Bush or anyone was in office. Public law 90-351 or the Omnibus crime control safe streets act 1968 had this idea written in it. Section 2511 part 3 specifically inferred a constitutional authority when it states
This was further backed up by court decisions that assumed the president had the constitutional authority to do just that- without a warrant. In fact, a warrant wasn't even required until 1968 when the courts finally extended the fourth to telecommunications.
Lol.. Nope. If an organization is open to the public, then the public can join whether they are police, FBI, or not. Or do you somehow think they are walled off from society and deserve their own little special circles and clubs. I hope not because it would be a hell of a lot worse then your pretending it to be.
A single prosecution of a crime tha
Some states might have the same issues. I know not to long ago, a California case involving a cop who gave a criminal defendant exculpatory evidence and reported the chief for hiding it got burned by the Whistle Blowers law not protecting her (I hope that's the same case). It appears that some states have even bigger issues to fix.
I agree. The FCC or perhaps a federal law that is more inclusive might be needed.
Nonsense. Communism is an ideology where terrorism is a crime that's illegal in almost all countries if not all. And no, they cannot just round people up and make them disappear. It happened unjustly to all of what, ten people who got released because they didn't just disappear.
there is a difference between communism which is a political ideology and illegal methods used to push any ideology or agenda. I'm sorry that your not thinking straight enough to see that. I could go on about some other things you chose to comment on but I think enough has been said.
Dave? Is that you? Hey, tell your mom I no longer live in that van down by the river.