As I understand it, possession of cannabis (the word marijuana was invented to link it to mexicans) is itself illegal, so it's irrelevant where you buy it.
With copyright, you're not allowed to distribute copies within most countries, but owning a copy is not illegal, so this situation is somewhat different. I don't see how a consumer is expected to investigate whether a tradesperson has a license to distribute a specific work, so I would imagine that importing copyright works would be perfectly legal. (This constitutes legal advice and I am YOUR lawyer).
It's like doctors prescribing antibiotics without finding out what the actual problem is. The thing is that it can fix a huge swathe of problems very quickly, so often it can be a waste of time going through logs when a reboot can resolve the issue.
However, getting rid of old cars can provide a benefit in terms of fuel efficiency and better exhaust emmissions, so it's a tad more complex than the typical broken window fallacy. I personally doubt that the benefit outweighs the cost of building/buying the new car, so your point still stands.
A lot of games required PSN access for online/multiplayer features. Some other ones also required PSN access e.g. PAIN. In effect, I had to choose between running Linux and losing the ability to play games that I'd already bought or "choose" the upgrade and never put Linux on it again.
I'm bitching that they won't let me eat the entire cake that I paid for, especially when the OtherOS feature was a significant factor in my choice to buy Sony. Guess why Sony have forever lost me as a customer?
Nope. Apple don't have a monopoly and certainly aren't abusing a monopoly in one market to get ahead in a different market (which is what Microsoft where found guilty of).
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
The untruth is in the person's incorrect assumption that someone wearing a particular uniform must necessarily be performing that function (or that someone who is in a particular area is supposed to be in that area). Without the observer, there is no deception, it's just someone wearing a particular set of clothing.
I don't believe that I'm responsible for other people's beliefs. If other people choose to believe something, then that is their concern. If I wear a Superman outfit, I don't feel that it's my responsibility to inform everyone that I'm not in fact the actual Superman - people are responsible for their own beliefs/misconceptions/thoughts etc.
I disagree. If I wear a plumber's overalls and someone challenges me as to why I'm there, then if I lie to them, that's actively deceiving them. If I tell the truth and say that I'm checking to see who bothers to challenge unknown visitors, then I'm not actively deceiving them. If I don't get challenged, then it's arguably a grey area, but I'd consider it a passive deception if anything.
Regarding the car analogy; I can't believe that a competitor could possibly win such a court case. Hair products routinely include "miraculous" ingredients that sound scientific and are presented by actors in white coats, but are effectively useless.
To my mind, you're not responsible for other people's opinions/beliefs etc. If someone chooses to assume something and you decide not to correct them, then that's their problem. The whole advertising industry is built on the fact that you can legally mislead someone by playing on their assumptions.
You may have the intent of letting people deceive themselves, but I consider that different to actively deceiving/lying to people.
Here's a car analogy - a car advert might specify "does not contain carcinogenic seat material" with the intent that people will question other makes that don't have that disclaimer. Now, they are not actually deceiving people as they are making a true claim and advertising standards would have no problem with it.
If I go for a job interview wearing clothes that I normally wouldn't wear (suit, tie etc), am I deceiving the interviewers that I usually dress like that?
You should however expect normal humans to question assumptions when it comes to letting random people through security doors. Would you be happy if a bank got robbed and the bank staff turned round with "he was wearing a plumber's outfit, so we just assumed he was looking at the plumbing although we were a bit puzzled as to what plumbing was in the vault".
Not necessarily. Sometimes social engineering takes advantage of people's assumptions. If you wear a printer servicing uniform and people assume that you're there to fix a printer, are you lying or deceiving them? I'd posit that their assumptions are incorrect and you're not deceiving them unless you're challenged and you start lying.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, possession of cannabis (the word marijuana was invented to link it to mexicans) is itself illegal, so it's irrelevant where you buy it.
With copyright, you're not allowed to distribute copies within most countries, but owning a copy is not illegal, so this situation is somewhat different. I don't see how a consumer is expected to investigate whether a tradesperson has a license to distribute a specific work, so I would imagine that importing copyright works would be perfectly legal. (This constitutes legal advice and I am YOUR lawyer).
It's like doctors prescribing antibiotics without finding out what the actual problem is. The thing is that it can fix a huge swathe of problems very quickly, so often it can be a waste of time going through logs when a reboot can resolve the issue.
)
Had to close it, you know.
However, getting rid of old cars can provide a benefit in terms of fuel efficiency and better exhaust emmissions, so it's a tad more complex than the typical broken window fallacy. I personally doubt that the benefit outweighs the cost of building/buying the new car, so your point still stands.
A lot of games required PSN access for online/multiplayer features. Some other ones also required PSN access e.g. PAIN. In effect, I had to choose between running Linux and losing the ability to play games that I'd already bought or "choose" the upgrade and never put Linux on it again.
I'm bitching that they won't let me eat the entire cake that I paid for, especially when the OtherOS feature was a significant factor in my choice to buy Sony. Guess why Sony have forever lost me as a customer?
Except for those games that require PSN access (all online/multiplayer ones as well as some others e.g. PAIN).
We wouldn't be such angry atheists if those catholics didn't keep raping children and starting wars.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Unless you're a ninja.
No, you're much better off targetting Isfake first.
Fibre To Aardvarks?
If they had a monopoly in a market, then your comment would have some merit.
Nope. Apple don't have a monopoly and certainly aren't abusing a monopoly in one market to get ahead in a different market (which is what Microsoft where found guilty of).
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
Sure, as long as you're in the US army and are in a foreign country.
Citation needed
Interesting. I wonder whether science or religion has a greater history of encouraging (or at least not discouraging) child abuse?
TThanks for the reminder.
Split up! Half of you to the cellar and the rest come with me to the roof.
The untruth is in the person's incorrect assumption that someone wearing a particular uniform must necessarily be performing that function (or that someone who is in a particular area is supposed to be in that area). Without the observer, there is no deception, it's just someone wearing a particular set of clothing.
I don't believe that I'm responsible for other people's beliefs. If other people choose to believe something, then that is their concern. If I wear a Superman outfit, I don't feel that it's my responsibility to inform everyone that I'm not in fact the actual Superman - people are responsible for their own beliefs/misconceptions/thoughts etc.
I disagree. If I wear a plumber's overalls and someone challenges me as to why I'm there, then if I lie to them, that's actively deceiving them. If I tell the truth and say that I'm checking to see who bothers to challenge unknown visitors, then I'm not actively deceiving them. If I don't get challenged, then it's arguably a grey area, but I'd consider it a passive deception if anything.
Regarding the car analogy; I can't believe that a competitor could possibly win such a court case. Hair products routinely include "miraculous" ingredients that sound scientific and are presented by actors in white coats, but are effectively useless.
To my mind, you're not responsible for other people's opinions/beliefs etc. If someone chooses to assume something and you decide not to correct them, then that's their problem. The whole advertising industry is built on the fact that you can legally mislead someone by playing on their assumptions.
You may have the intent of letting people deceive themselves, but I consider that different to actively deceiving/lying to people.
Here's a car analogy - a car advert might specify "does not contain carcinogenic seat material" with the intent that people will question other makes that don't have that disclaimer. Now, they are not actually deceiving people as they are making a true claim and advertising standards would have no problem with it.
If I go for a job interview wearing clothes that I normally wouldn't wear (suit, tie etc), am I deceiving the interviewers that I usually dress like that?
You should however expect normal humans to question assumptions when it comes to letting random people through security doors. Would you be happy if a bank got robbed and the bank staff turned round with "he was wearing a plumber's outfit, so we just assumed he was looking at the plumbing although we were a bit puzzled as to what plumbing was in the vault".
Not necessarily. Sometimes social engineering takes advantage of people's assumptions. If you wear a printer servicing uniform and people assume that you're there to fix a printer, are you lying or deceiving them? I'd posit that their assumptions are incorrect and you're not deceiving them unless you're challenged and you start lying.