Then consider stealing the credit card number and making an electronic purchase, or changing bank statement information. This is a perfect example of something immoral using nothing more than the movement of electrons. Just like copyright infringment (when it's used as an alternative to buying the product, of course) is nothing more than copying bits.
Just saying that the argument that it is only bits is flawed and irrelevant to the question of morality. The question should be "Does this hurt someone?", not whether it can be broken up into many small harmless parts. Not defending the movie industry at all.
Technically yes, you're telling the other computer to remember a large number when commiting copyright infringement. But it is still wrong. Think of it this way. Both mixing two chemicals in a beaker and stealing a TV from a store boil down to a group of chemical reactions. True, one is unbelievably more complex than another, but then again, so is a DVD unbelievably more complicated than the number 548. By your logic, if you can do one, why can't you do the other? You can't just reduce certain things to very small parts, and say that because a small part can be innocent, that an aggregate of small parts is also innocent.
Hmmm. Though your question is tongue-in-cheek, it raises the point, how do you define careless? Expect lots of litigation along these lines. This is a trial lawyers dream law. Notwithstanding the opportunities for fraud.
No one knows. This is why I would not put much faith in the survey , as it is just that, a survey based on self reported data from subscibers to Consumer Reports.
Wow. You learn something new every day. I find it unbelievable that the government enforces minimum postage for private carriers, among other restrictions.
As long as safety isn't affected, why not? Is no private business ever allowed to compete with the government for anything? Can the government sue Fedex for depriving the postal service of revenue?
In any case, I don't think that the airline will be too happy letting freeloaders take bandwidth from paying customers, so the revenue loss to Logan will only be limited to those first class fliers who would have been willing to pay for internet access in the first place.
It is legal to have armor peircing bullets but you must jump through hoops to get it. In other words, any criminal with AP rounds did not get his ammo legally in the first place.
The ATF says that to get it, your name must be put on a list. It also mentions an additional fee that must be paid (which I assume is hefty). If you commit any crime, you also have 5 years tacked on to your sentence (ineligable for parole).
Your linked article says that prosecutors alleged rape. The girl may not have fought back because she was terrified of a man that could kill her with one motion of his arm. If the prosecution is correct, Marcus Garvey's sentence is not a travesty of injustice.
I shouldn't respond to an AC, but I don't do any illegal downloading personally. My only point was that other people would never pay for what they get for free. I was responding to a suggestion that a no DRM service would work. If the basis of competition is that someone would rather pay $10 than $12 for the exact same CD, why shoudln't the same argument apply when the two numbers are 0$ and any positive amount of money? Especially if no one cares about the law?
Wow, you're pretty charitable. I would never pay $5 for a non-copy-protected album if I could get it for free, and I suspect that most people won't either.
1) Lack of judicial review. If you want to search my house, get a d*mn judge to approve a warrant. Doing it because "you suspect I'm a terrorist" is just flat crap.
But there is judicial review. What the Patriot Act allows is TEMPORARILY secret searches. This is meant to get evidence on terrorists without the terrorists knowing that they've been caught and warning their comrades. The FBI must tell the searchee in a resonable period of time after the search that it took place. And once again, these searches must be approved by a judge.
Notice that I talked about music albums, not TV shows. You are right about TV shows, but music albums don't suffer from any loss in quality. One study showed that people using Napster purchased fewer CDs the longer they used the service. http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/211394 5/napster-veterans-fewer-cds
$3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down.
If there is no DRM, some one will put this on Kazaa immediately. Why pay when you can get it for free? Especially if it is an exact copy, like a music album, instead of a low quality rip, like a TV show. Do you actually believe that any business in their right minds would do as you're suggesting?
Well, the site only lists the most common causes, so I'd expect rape and incest to account for probably a fraction of a percent each. As for the remaining fraction of a percent, who knows? Maybe for something like sex selection, or perhaps the mother doesn't rememeber (it's a small percentage).
The article is scary in that people will soon be able to test whether or not their child has Asperger's and abort. Does your Asperger's make you wish that you had never been born?
You count them as convient because you're against it.
That isn't true. I consider a healthy,unborn child to be extremely important, that while less precious than a born child is still something not to be taken lightly. Convenience refers to quality of life issues less important than the life of an unborn child. While I grant you that an unborn child is not as important as a born child, is is still an extraordinarily precious thing.
What disturbs me is that you consider a disadvantaged background to be equivalent to saying that the child shouldn't even be given a chance. If a child from a bad background has a 1 in 2 chance of being a criminal, shouldn't we let the other child live?
Adoption is what you do if you don't want the baby. For all quality of life issues, the child deserves to live.
What gives you the right to decide if someone else has a baby?
What gives me the right do I have to tell someone to not smoke or ride a roller-coaster during pregnancy, or to do any immoral thing? Basic morality. Abortion is not consequence free. How does an abortion harm you in any conceivable way? There are many bad things that don't harm me in any conceivable way, like infanticide (I didn't say that abortion is always infanticide).
But who said you had any right to tell another what to do with thier life?
Again, in almost every circumstance I don't. My politics are not what you probably think that they are; I do not support government legislating morality. But this is almost human life. You can go to jail for killing a dog, but it is perfectly legal to puncture the skull and suck the brains out of a 9 month old fetus as long as the head does not protrude from the vagina. This is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Then consider stealing the credit card number and making an electronic purchase, or changing bank statement information. This is a perfect example of something immoral using nothing more than the movement of electrons. Just like copyright infringment (when it's used as an alternative to buying the product, of course) is nothing more than copying bits.
Just saying that the argument that it is only bits is flawed and irrelevant to the question of morality. The question should be "Does this hurt someone?", not whether it can be broken up into many small harmless parts. Not defending the movie industry at all.
Alternatively, hacking into a computer and stealing credit card numbers is just moving electrons, as is flipping on a light switch.
Technically yes, you're telling the other computer to remember a large number when commiting copyright infringement. But it is still wrong. Think of it this way. Both mixing two chemicals in a beaker and stealing a TV from a store boil down to a group of chemical reactions. True, one is unbelievably more complex than another, but then again, so is a DVD unbelievably more complicated than the number 548. By your logic, if you can do one, why can't you do the other? You can't just reduce certain things to very small parts, and say that because a small part can be innocent, that an aggregate of small parts is also innocent.
Hmmm. Though your question is tongue-in-cheek, it raises the point, how do you define careless? Expect lots of litigation along these lines. This is a trial lawyers dream law. Notwithstanding the opportunities for fraud.
read this
t ml
http://www.users.qwest.net/~eballen1/nt.sekrits.h
It is already relatively common knowledge that giant squid exist. Dead ones have been found several times. These are just the first live pictures.
RTFA. There is a button on the back that can be pushed with the index or middle finger.
No one knows. This is why I would not put much faith in the survey , as it is just that, a survey based on self reported data from subscibers to Consumer Reports.
Wow. You learn something new every day. I find it unbelievable that the government enforces minimum postage for private carriers, among other restrictions.
As long as safety isn't affected, why not? Is no private business ever allowed to compete with the government for anything? Can the government sue Fedex for depriving the postal service of revenue?
In any case, I don't think that the airline will be too happy letting freeloaders take bandwidth from paying customers, so the revenue loss to Logan will only be limited to those first class fliers who would have been willing to pay for internet access in the first place.
It is legal to have armor peircing bullets but you must jump through hoops to get it. In other words, any criminal with AP rounds did not get his ammo legally in the first place.
The ATF says that to get it, your name must be put on a list. It also mentions an additional fee that must be paid (which I assume is hefty). If you commit any crime, you also have 5 years tacked on to your sentence (ineligable for parole).
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm
Spitzer isn't perfect. Check out his now dismissed lawsuits against the gun industry.
y le=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS /2003/06/30&ID=Ar00601
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?St
Your linked article says that prosecutors alleged rape. The girl may not have fought back because she was terrified of a man that could kill her with one motion of his arm. If the prosecution is correct, Marcus Garvey's sentence is not a travesty of injustice.
I shouldn't respond to an AC, but I don't do any illegal downloading personally. My only point was that other people would never pay for what they get for free. I was responding to a suggestion that a no DRM service would work. If the basis of competition is that someone would rather pay $10 than $12 for the exact same CD, why shoudln't the same argument apply when the two numbers are 0$ and any positive amount of money? Especially if no one cares about the law?
Wow, you're pretty charitable. I would never pay $5 for a non-copy-protected album if I could get it for free, and I suspect that most people won't either.
Is this the first time a goat.cx link would be modded Informative?
1) Lack of judicial review. If you want to search my house, get a d*mn judge to approve a warrant. Doing it because "you suspect I'm a terrorist" is just flat crap.
But there is judicial review. What the Patriot Act allows is TEMPORARILY secret searches. This is meant to get evidence on terrorists without the terrorists knowing that they've been caught and warning their comrades. The FBI must tell the searchee in a resonable period of time after the search that it took place. And once again, these searches must be approved by a judge.
http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html
So every since then the guys in the office have been calling me Omar the tent maker. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean...
When you've got an erection, the front of your pants looks like you've pitched a tent. Did I really have to spell it our for you?
Notice that I talked about music albums, not TV shows. You are right about TV shows, but music albums don't suffer from any loss in quality. One study showed that people using Napster purchased fewer CDs the longer they used the service.4 5/napster-veterans-fewer-cds
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/21139
Old: It's not a bug it's a feature!
New: It's not a bug it's a bit a character!
$3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down.
If there is no DRM, some one will put this on Kazaa immediately. Why pay when you can get it for free? Especially if it is an exact copy, like a music album, instead of a low quality rip, like a TV show. Do you actually believe that any business in their right minds would do as you're suggesting?
IIRC, you are allowed to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability. This is how Samba is legal.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
Well, the site only lists the most common causes, so I'd expect rape and incest to account for probably a fraction of a percent each. As for the remaining fraction of a percent, who knows? Maybe for something like sex selection, or perhaps the mother doesn't rememeber (it's a small percentage).
The article is scary in that people will soon be able to test whether or not their child has Asperger's and abort. Does your Asperger's make you wish that you had never been born?
There is no such thing as an "unborn child". It's not a child until after it's born. The word you want is "fetus"
I'm sure your wife says that she's carrying your fetus instead of your child.
You count them as convient because you're against it.
That isn't true. I consider a healthy,unborn child to be extremely important, that while less precious than a born child is still something not to be taken lightly. Convenience refers to quality of life issues less important than the life of an unborn child. While I grant you that an unborn child is not as important as a born child, is is still an extraordinarily precious thing.
What disturbs me is that you consider a disadvantaged background to be equivalent to saying that the child shouldn't even be given a chance. If a child from a bad background has a 1 in 2 chance of being a criminal, shouldn't we let the other child live?
Adoption is what you do if you don't want the baby. For all quality of life issues, the child deserves to live.
What gives you the right to decide if someone else has a baby?
What gives me the right do I have to tell someone to not smoke or ride a roller-coaster during pregnancy, or to do any immoral thing? Basic morality. Abortion is not consequence free.
How does an abortion harm you in any conceivable way?
There are many bad things that don't harm me in any conceivable way, like infanticide (I didn't say that abortion is always infanticide).
But who said you had any right to tell another what to do with thier life?
Again, in almost every circumstance I don't. My politics are not what you probably think that they are; I do not support government legislating morality. But this is almost human life. You can go to jail for killing a dog, but it is perfectly legal to puncture the skull and suck the brains out of a 9 month old fetus as long as the head does not protrude from the vagina. This is wrong.