that's exactly why, for the vast majority of countries that do not have visa-free agreements with each other, you are supposed to get visas from your destination country's embassy or consulate before departure. this can be hard for EU and US citizens to remember, since both the EU and US have visa-free travel agreements with pretty much all other nations of the first world.
EU citizens in fact usually don't get visas in the US at all - they simply get their passports stamped for visa-exempt entry. yes, US border control can deny this, but usually it is for exceptional issues beyond the norm.
The GDP of India is not 3.3 trillion - that's at purchasing power parity only, which means India's total GDP can buy as much as the 3.3 trillion in the US can due to the lower cost of living there.
But when you're buying up a country, you only need to pay market exchange rates!
I definitely agree with you - there's a reasonable argument to be made here, but giving the government automatic authority to seize intellectual property is, in my opinion, a solution that creates more problems than it solves.
I'm certain no DRM bans the sale of legally acquired software from one party to another either. And the slippery slope argument, defined as a logical fallacy as it is, is ipso facto a poor one to make.
You're advocating the government seizure of private property without compensation here.
To take one example of why such a concept is a bad idea, say the Department of Transportation is legally required to build roads for the betterment of society. Very few people believe that the government should be able to just kick people off their land, confiscate their houses, and bulldoze them without compensation (even with compensation, as currently exists under eminent domain laws, this is a very controversial issue).
Granted, the damage you do to the value of intellectual property by copying it is much less than the damage done to the value of real estate by bulldozing it, by the underlying concept is very much the same.
Truthfully, the vast majority of DRM out there does not tie media to a single computer. (In fact, I'm not aware of any DRM that doesn't give you some way to legally uninstall media on one computer and reinstall it on another, but I could easily be behind the times).
The law doesn't prevent the library from fulfilling its legal obligations - it only makes it more difficult to do so. Just like, incidentally, how civil liberties laws makes it more difficult for the government to fulfill its national security obligations.
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Starbucks is priced cheaper (by a few cents) than its direct competitors. It's more that the entire gourmet (or not, depending on your point of view)-coffee-shop-industry is overpriced.
There is nothing unlawful about trying to find out if a product you paid for is secure and fit for the purpose for which it was marketed.
What may be unlawful in this case is that a product was reverse-engineered to achieve that effect, which may have broken applicable French laws. The law punishes actions, not just intentions.
And I'm not sure where you're going with that last part, but I never claimed you were under any legal obligation to tell the company that their product isn't secure or fit, and I do not believe that is the case either. However, I fail to see the relevance of this train of argument.
First of all, you provided nothing to back up your assertion that access to communications should be a human right.
Second of all, it's all well and good to say that in your opinion, all humans should be entitled to communications access, but it's much harder to say just how far this access should extend.
Do all humans, in your opinion, have the right to free telephone access? Free dialup access in public libraries and schools? Free dialup access in the home? Free broadband access in every school? Free broadband access in every home? Free broadband lines for every individual in every home? Free OC3 lines? Free OC256 lines? Free satellite telephones that work anywhere in the world? Free 20 megawatt communications lasers and relay satellites so they can communicate with the international space station on their own time?
Please - there's much more important things the government should be doing than raising the status of a commercial service to that of an entitlement program.
Yes. However, it is also true that we live in a society under the rule of law. You really ought to look up what "rule of law" really means if you don't understand the implications of it yet.
No, actually the internet was originally intended to allow the political and military infrastructure of the United States to continue to function in the event of a nuclear attack.
I agree. Too many people here forget that the only time an opinion can be attributed to a newspaper itself - rather than the opinion of an individual contributor - is if the opinion was an unsigned piece written by that paper's editorial board.
The guy's logical argument - that human habitation harms the enviroment of the arctic and thus shouldn't happen - applies to all of human development and expansion. Hence the reason why the argument is fallacious.
The parent was simply pointing out the logical conclusion of the grandparent's post, whose argument had no sense of proportion either. She's not arguing for "not doing any more damage than necessary" to the arctic (an obvious argument, by the way), but from the tone and content of her post, she's arguing against human habitation of the region entirely.
Let's face it - no matter where humanity goes, the environment will suffer. (Nor does this apply solely to humans, in fact - wherever any species enters an established ecosystem, the existing inhabitants of that ecosystem will suffer. It's simply that humans are better able to compete and thrive in new environments than any other species). The best solution to protect the environment would, in fact, be to commit mass genocide against the human race.
Hence, simply arguing that humans will damage the arctic environment is not a particularly strong argument - you could use the same method to argue that human habitation of the European continent harms the environment, and thus human habitation in that region must cease.
On the contrary: the courts will not rule on what personhood is. The courts will rule on what the law defines personhood to be for all legal intents and purposes, and this law will ultimately be made by the legislatures.
Philosophers will doubtlessly continue their endless debate on what personhood is for all eternity.
that's partially because saying IAAL makes what that person says a legal, expert opinion, and if anyone follows that opinion for any reasons and gets hurt as a result, the person giving the opinion can be held legally responsible. e.g., if the lawyer says "IAAL, and it's alright to steal stuff," and people actually do take his expert opinion and steal things and get caught, the lawyer could lose his license to practice.
you're clearly not a lawyer, or even a student of US history. article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the US Constitution - the supreme law of the United States - explicitly declares: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
your attempts to label diebold's gross negligence as "treason" clearly lacks legal standing.
by your definition, then, diebold committed gross negligence. gross negligence, however, also does not equate to high treason, and does not prove that diebold's systems systematically and intentionally pushed the election in any particular direction.
on the other hand, no attempt to overthrow the government has been proved. the issue here is of incompetence and failure to fulfill contractual obligations, rather than of high treason.
are you seriously suggesting icann is a government in which you ought to have representation? that's as ridiculous as saying walmart's raising of prices is "taxation without representation" - walmart's a monopoly in many markets too.
unless you provide some defining characteristic, your use of the term "taxation without representation" is so broad it's effectively worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
that's exactly why, for the vast majority of countries that do not have visa-free agreements with each other, you are supposed to get visas from your destination country's embassy or consulate before departure. this can be hard for EU and US citizens to remember, since both the EU and US have visa-free travel agreements with pretty much all other nations of the first world. EU citizens in fact usually don't get visas in the US at all - they simply get their passports stamped for visa-exempt entry. yes, US border control can deny this, but usually it is for exceptional issues beyond the norm.
The GDP of India is not 3.3 trillion - that's at purchasing power parity only, which means India's total GDP can buy as much as the 3.3 trillion in the US can due to the lower cost of living there.
But when you're buying up a country, you only need to pay market exchange rates!
I definitely agree with you - there's a reasonable argument to be made here, but giving the government automatic authority to seize intellectual property is, in my opinion, a solution that creates more problems than it solves.
I'm certain no DRM bans the sale of legally acquired software from one party to another either. And the slippery slope argument, defined as a logical fallacy as it is, is ipso facto a poor one to make.
You're advocating the government seizure of private property without compensation here.
To take one example of why such a concept is a bad idea, say the Department of Transportation is legally required to build roads for the betterment of society. Very few people believe that the government should be able to just kick people off their land, confiscate their houses, and bulldoze them without compensation (even with compensation, as currently exists under eminent domain laws, this is a very controversial issue).
Granted, the damage you do to the value of intellectual property by copying it is much less than the damage done to the value of real estate by bulldozing it, by the underlying concept is very much the same.
Truthfully, the vast majority of DRM out there does not tie media to a single computer. (In fact, I'm not aware of any DRM that doesn't give you some way to legally uninstall media on one computer and reinstall it on another, but I could easily be behind the times).
The law doesn't prevent the library from fulfilling its legal obligations - it only makes it more difficult to do so. Just like, incidentally, how civil liberties laws makes it more difficult for the government to fulfill its national security obligations.
I don't see why it couldn't - perhaps you could elaborate?
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Starbucks is priced cheaper (by a few cents) than its direct competitors. It's more that the entire gourmet (or not, depending on your point of view)-coffee-shop-industry is overpriced.
Then it is up to the courts to decide whether any of those exceptions under EU law apply in this particular case.
There is nothing unlawful about trying to find out if a product you paid for is secure and fit for the purpose for which it was marketed.
What may be unlawful in this case is that a product was reverse-engineered to achieve that effect, which may have broken applicable French laws. The law punishes actions, not just intentions.
And I'm not sure where you're going with that last part, but I never claimed you were under any legal obligation to tell the company that their product isn't secure or fit, and I do not believe that is the case either. However, I fail to see the relevance of this train of argument.
First of all, you provided nothing to back up your assertion that access to communications should be a human right.
Second of all, it's all well and good to say that in your opinion, all humans should be entitled to communications access, but it's much harder to say just how far this access should extend.
Do all humans, in your opinion, have the right to free telephone access? Free dialup access in public libraries and schools? Free dialup access in the home? Free broadband access in every school? Free broadband access in every home? Free broadband lines for every individual in every home? Free OC3 lines? Free OC256 lines? Free satellite telephones that work anywhere in the world? Free 20 megawatt communications lasers and relay satellites so they can communicate with the international space station on their own time?
Please - there's much more important things the government should be doing than raising the status of a commercial service to that of an entitlement program.
Yes. However, it is also true that we live in a society under the rule of law. You really ought to look up what "rule of law" really means if you don't understand the implications of it yet.
No, actually the internet was originally intended to allow the political and military infrastructure of the United States to continue to function in the event of a nuclear attack.
I agree. Too many people here forget that the only time an opinion can be attributed to a newspaper itself - rather than the opinion of an individual contributor - is if the opinion was an unsigned piece written by that paper's editorial board.
Yes, you're right; I stand corrected. What you said better captures the point I was trying to make. Thanks for the input.
The guy's logical argument - that human habitation harms the enviroment of the arctic and thus shouldn't happen - applies to all of human development and expansion. Hence the reason why the argument is fallacious.
The parent was simply pointing out the logical conclusion of the grandparent's post, whose argument had no sense of proportion either. She's not arguing for "not doing any more damage than necessary" to the arctic (an obvious argument, by the way), but from the tone and content of her post, she's arguing against human habitation of the region entirely.
Let's face it - no matter where humanity goes, the environment will suffer. (Nor does this apply solely to humans, in fact - wherever any species enters an established ecosystem, the existing inhabitants of that ecosystem will suffer. It's simply that humans are better able to compete and thrive in new environments than any other species). The best solution to protect the environment would, in fact, be to commit mass genocide against the human race. Hence, simply arguing that humans will damage the arctic environment is not a particularly strong argument - you could use the same method to argue that human habitation of the European continent harms the environment, and thus human habitation in that region must cease.
On the contrary: the courts will not rule on what personhood is. The courts will rule on what the law defines personhood to be for all legal intents and purposes, and this law will ultimately be made by the legislatures.
Philosophers will doubtlessly continue their endless debate on what personhood is for all eternity.
that's partially because saying IAAL makes what that person says a legal, expert opinion, and if anyone follows that opinion for any reasons and gets hurt as a result, the person giving the opinion can be held legally responsible. e.g., if the lawyer says "IAAL, and it's alright to steal stuff," and people actually do take his expert opinion and steal things and get caught, the lawyer could lose his license to practice.
you're clearly not a lawyer, or even a student of US history. article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the US Constitution - the supreme law of the United States - explicitly declares: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
your attempts to label diebold's gross negligence as "treason" clearly lacks legal standing.
by your definition, then, diebold committed gross negligence. gross negligence, however, also does not equate to high treason, and does not prove that diebold's systems systematically and intentionally pushed the election in any particular direction.
on the other hand, no attempt to overthrow the government has been proved. the issue here is of incompetence and failure to fulfill contractual obligations, rather than of high treason.
are you seriously suggesting icann is a government in which you ought to have representation? that's as ridiculous as saying walmart's raising of prices is "taxation without representation" - walmart's a monopoly in many markets too.
unless you provide some defining characteristic, your use of the term "taxation without representation" is so broad it's effectively worthless.