It's not the government who restricts access to R and NC-17 moveis - the ratings are completely derived and enforced by a complex web of private interests. The studios send the films to be rated because the theater owners and newspapers - generally shy away from showing or advertising unrated films. All private business - all acting in what they percieve as their best interests in light of the mood of the public and their business partners. But there is no law stopping you from releasing an unrated movie and no law stopping a theater from showing it to anyone who buys a ticket. Although they might get caught in a "corrupting a minor" charge depending on the content.
There is a big difference between a bookshelf and a person - the bookshelf actually owes us nothing and if it fails to hold the books it is our fault - not the bookshelf. A person cannot obtain an obligation without his agreement - plain and simple. Whether god or my parents created me - I was not a party to the decision and can obtain no obligation as a result - on the other hand the active parties can obtain obligation as a result of their own actions - thus my parents and god (if he existed) own a debt to me for forcing life upon me unasked. It is a simple concept - we obtain obligation only from our own actions...
Oh and by the way - if god made us - we don't have any duty to him - HE has a duty to us. We didn't ask to be created he made a UNILATERAL decision to create us. His actions, without my agreement, cannot give rise to an obligation on my part. If there is a god (and there isn't) he owes us - not the other way around. He may claim might makes right and try to force us to his will - but he has no legitimate moral claim for obedience. Think for yourself and you will see.
You are just side stepping the issue - if complex things on the order of people and mice require a creator - certainly something as complex as god must too. Either complex things require a creator or they don't. Infinity has nothing to do with it.
I don't know that I agree. From what I've seen the process looks very much like the process of evolution - starting with a non-living self replicating molecule, or group of molecules - and then through good old fashion variation and natural selection - viola life! If that's not evolution - what is?
There is a big difference between the idea that people are too complex to exist without a creator, but god is not to complex to exist without a creator and the search for ETs. Once we realize that people are (supposedly) intelligent life that came into existence through natural processes - it makes sense to look for other intelligent life that came into existence through a similar process. It makes no sense to look for something as complex as god which just sprang into existence. If you are telling me god EVOLVED - then I say go look for him - but if he can evolve - then so can we - so who needs him?
The problem with ID - is that if the people and other animals are too complex to exist without an intelligent creator - well then certainly god is too complex to have spontaneously sprung into existence. You can't have it both ways - either there is a process by which complex objects can exist without a creator or god must have a creator - and if he does - then you have the whole infinite regression problem - somewhere there must be a prime mover...
I think if you follow the more recent neo-Darwinist literature - e.g. Richard Dawkins, et al. You will find that evolution is starting to extend its reach to try and explain the start of life itself. Obviously it's just conjecture - but it will always make more sense than the idea that some god created the universe. The problem with the idea that god created the universe is - who created god? - and if something as complex as god doesn't require a creator - then neither do we...
That is entirely untrue. It is the exact same misleading statement that the RIAA and friends make when they insist that every pirated copy be accounted for as if it would be a full value sale. There are a wide variety of ways to quantify a possible sale. In every industry production planning is done based on projected (possible) sales that have not yet taken place. In its simplest example - the value of a potential sale = the probability of the sale multiplied by the amount of the sale. So- if the profit the studio makes of a DVD sale is $2 and the probability of the sale is.002 then the lost revenue is 4 cents. The only really difficult part is figuring out the probability of the sale. But it's done all the time by smart people with degrees in statistics
The law (in the U.S.) recognizes two types of intent. There is "Specific Intent" - meaning that you intended the effects that occurred. An example of a specific intent crime is Murder. To be guilty of Murder you had to intend to kill. Most crimes in the U.S. are NOT specific intent crimes. The other kind of intent is "General Intent". General intent means that you intended to do what you did - even if you did not intent the consequences that occurred. An example of a general intent crime is Negligent Man slaughter - You intended to drop the brick out the window - You didn't intend to kill. So - If you intend to click on the download button - that intent is sufficient to support a conviction for uploading. Because intent can never be proven - in courts it is supported by circumstantial evidence. I am a lawyer and I work tangentially in the criminal law arena
No one who falls for one of these scams believes that they are actually helping someone. The entire scam is predicated on the GREED of the victim. Scammers find that the world is awash with the greedy - the terminally helpful are a less common breed
No - Old typewriters could only be identified - if you had both the sample of the typing and the suspect typewriter in your hands. It was a system that required you to have determined the suspect by other means - and then you would have to get a search warrant to get the typewriter for a test - which requires probable cause sufficient to convince a judge to sign the subpoena or search warrant. These printers announce their SERIAL NUMBERS on every page - so no need for a subpoena or warrant - just get the document and look up the owner on you database. It is much worse - since it allows the executive branch, in the person of law enforcement, to act free of the pesky constraint of judicial branch oversight.
The thing is - many of those innovations made 300 years ago were revolutionary - and if you were sitting around 300 years ago and saying "Wow - this science thing is really starting to pay off and people are going to be living better lives soon" you would be right.
Ray is a bit of a kook and he was hawking some kind of water system to combat too much acid in your body for a while - but he may be right about a revolution coming - especially in medicine. Much of his thinking about the future seems on the right track - just the wrong time frame.
Actually - you own the phone from the moment you get it. The law of sales in monst states says that the sale is complete as soon as there is agreement on the thing and the price - even if the thing has not been delivered or the price paid. Ownership transfers on agreement. So you own the phone immediately - if you destroy it the cell company doesn't have an action against you for damages. The terms under which you buy the phone include a penalty for canceling the contract early - but this in no way effects your ownership.
Apple makes no money on it's ITunes sales - because they pay hefty license fees to the Music Companies. The music companies make lots of money on Itunes sales. And Apple makes money on Ipods and they are all happy.
So - I guess under this definition DELL isn't a hardware company either? Or Gateway? If you make your money selling hardware - you are a hardware company. No matter who actually manufactures the stuff. The question is where is the source of your revenue - and for Apple it's hardware.
I am a lawyer - althought Copyright is not my area of expertise... anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original. It sounds like no reasonable person would confuse this guys work as an actual wal-mart site.. But as noted above those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove and that protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge and ask for dismissal or summary judgment. Waht would that cost in a case like this - figure with discovery and drafting and filing fees - maybe as much as 10,000 and up. Easy to see why this college student just folded.
This is an odd misunderstanding of something that is true. Yes - people are just a way for genes to replicate themselves.
But that does not mean that you should care about that mission. It's not even a mission - genes don't want to be replicated - they just happen to replicate and there are more of the ones that replicate successfully. But as a human you are capable of wanting things different from the goal of replicating your genes as much as possible. And just because your interests may be different from what results in replicating your genes does nothing to invalidate your desires. People are smarter than genes and our desires should be our guide - not some imagined allegiance to the non-goal of our genes. Unless of course you want to - that's valid too.
A lot of people think these kinds of complex ownership arraingments are foolproof - but they are not. Courts often, and the IRS frequently, look through these kinds of sham ownership structures and not only allow seizure of assets by "piercing the corporate veil" they also dissallow losses on sales between related parties and question the true structure of transactions - it's possible to set these things up correctly - but the bottom line is - that function trumps form.
It's not as simple as that - I am a lawyer - and tax is one of my areas of interest. The rule is - that you can expense leased equipment and take a full deduction for the cost of lease payments as long it is a true lease and the payments and final buy out price do not make it look to the IRS like a disguised sale. If it looks like a disguised sale - the IRS will reclassify the lease as a sale and deny the deductions and make you depreciate it over it's listed useful life - without going into opter options like section 179 expensing or double declining balance depreciation...
I'm with you - I have a stack of bad Maxtor drive that I won't even return - they'll just send me more crappy drives. I'm on to WD now - and they've been pretty good.
If your office is anything like mine - with almost all work being done on server hosted databases - fat client users take time off too when the server goes down.
I am a lawyer - and let me tell you - settlements are very persuasive to DEFENDANTS. True - you can't cite them to a judge and they don't make case law - but in the trenches where 95% of all legal disputes end up - settlement precedent is noticed by all the attorney's who play in the IP area.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the government who restricts access to R and NC-17 moveis - the ratings are completely derived and enforced by a complex web of private interests. The studios send the films to be rated because the theater owners and newspapers - generally shy away from showing or advertising unrated films. All private business - all acting in what they percieve as their best interests in light of the mood of the public and their business partners. But there is no law stopping you from releasing an unrated movie and no law stopping a theater from showing it to anyone who buys a ticket. Although they might get caught in a "corrupting a minor" charge depending on the content.
There is a big difference between a bookshelf and a person - the bookshelf actually owes us nothing and if it fails to hold the books it is our fault - not the bookshelf. A person cannot obtain an obligation without his agreement - plain and simple. Whether god or my parents created me - I was not a party to the decision and can obtain no obligation as a result - on the other hand the active parties can obtain obligation as a result of their own actions - thus my parents and god (if he existed) own a debt to me for forcing life upon me unasked. It is a simple concept - we obtain obligation only from our own actions...
That is a convenient way to ignore the issue - either complex beings require a creator or they don't - If man REQUIRES a creator - so must god.
Oh and by the way - if god made us - we don't have any duty to him - HE has a duty to us. We didn't ask to be created he made a UNILATERAL decision to create us. His actions, without my agreement, cannot give rise to an obligation on my part. If there is a god (and there isn't) he owes us - not the other way around. He may claim might makes right and try to force us to his will - but he has no legitimate moral claim for obedience. Think for yourself and you will see.
You are just side stepping the issue - if complex things on the order of people and mice require a creator - certainly something as complex as god must too. Either complex things require a creator or they don't. Infinity has nothing to do with it.
I don't know that I agree. From what I've seen the process looks very much like the process of evolution - starting with a non-living self replicating molecule, or group of molecules - and then through good old fashion variation and natural selection - viola life! If that's not evolution - what is?
There is a big difference between the idea that people are too complex to exist without a creator, but god is not to complex to exist without a creator and the search for ETs. Once we realize that people are (supposedly) intelligent life that came into existence through natural processes - it makes sense to look for other intelligent life that came into existence through a similar process. It makes no sense to look for something as complex as god which just sprang into existence. If you are telling me god EVOLVED - then I say go look for him - but if he can evolve - then so can we - so who needs him?
The problem with ID - is that if the people and other animals are too complex to exist without an intelligent creator - well then certainly god is too complex to have spontaneously sprung into existence. You can't have it both ways - either there is a process by which complex objects can exist without a creator or god must have a creator - and if he does - then you have the whole infinite regression problem - somewhere there must be a prime mover...
I think if you follow the more recent neo-Darwinist literature - e.g. Richard Dawkins, et al. You will find that evolution is starting to extend its reach to try and explain the start of life itself. Obviously it's just conjecture - but it will always make more sense than the idea that some god created the universe. The problem with the idea that god created the universe is - who created god? - and if something as complex as god doesn't require a creator - then neither do we...
That is entirely untrue. It is the exact same misleading statement that the RIAA and friends make when they insist that every pirated copy be accounted for as if it would be a full value sale. There are a wide variety of ways to quantify a possible sale. In every industry production planning is done based on projected (possible) sales that have not yet taken place. In its simplest example - the value of a potential sale = the probability of the sale multiplied by the amount of the sale. So- if the profit the studio makes of a DVD sale is $2 and the probability of the sale is .002 then the lost revenue is 4 cents. The only really difficult part is figuring out the probability of the sale. But it's done all the time by smart people with degrees in statistics
The law (in the U.S.) recognizes two types of intent. There is "Specific Intent" - meaning that you intended the effects that occurred. An example of a specific intent crime is Murder. To be guilty of Murder you had to intend to kill. Most crimes in the U.S. are NOT specific intent crimes. The other kind of intent is "General Intent". General intent means that you intended to do what you did - even if you did not intent the consequences that occurred. An example of a general intent crime is Negligent Man slaughter - You intended to drop the brick out the window - You didn't intend to kill. So - If you intend to click on the download button - that intent is sufficient to support a conviction for uploading. Because intent can never be proven - in courts it is supported by circumstantial evidence. I am a lawyer and I work tangentially in the criminal law arena
No one who falls for one of these scams believes that they are actually helping someone. The entire scam is predicated on the GREED of the victim. Scammers find that the world is awash with the greedy - the terminally helpful are a less common breed
No - Old typewriters could only be identified - if you had both the sample of the typing and the suspect typewriter in your hands. It was a system that required you to have determined the suspect by other means - and then you would have to get a search warrant to get the typewriter for a test - which requires probable cause sufficient to convince a judge to sign the subpoena or search warrant. These printers announce their SERIAL NUMBERS on every page - so no need for a subpoena or warrant - just get the document and look up the owner on you database. It is much worse - since it allows the executive branch, in the person of law enforcement, to act free of the pesky constraint of judicial branch oversight.
The thing is - many of those innovations made 300 years ago were revolutionary - and if you were sitting around 300 years ago and saying "Wow - this science thing is really starting to pay off and people are going to be living better lives soon" you would be right. Ray is a bit of a kook and he was hawking some kind of water system to combat too much acid in your body for a while - but he may be right about a revolution coming - especially in medicine. Much of his thinking about the future seems on the right track - just the wrong time frame.
Actually - you own the phone from the moment you get it. The law of sales in monst states says that the sale is complete as soon as there is agreement on the thing and the price - even if the thing has not been delivered or the price paid. Ownership transfers on agreement. So you own the phone immediately - if you destroy it the cell company doesn't have an action against you for damages. The terms under which you buy the phone include a penalty for canceling the contract early - but this in no way effects your ownership.
Apple makes no money on it's ITunes sales - because they pay hefty license fees to the Music Companies. The music companies make lots of money on Itunes sales. And Apple makes money on Ipods and they are all happy.
When I burn my archive copy - I delete the previews and ads. Then watching is a pleasure!
So - I guess under this definition DELL isn't a hardware company either? Or Gateway? If you make your money selling hardware - you are a hardware company. No matter who actually manufactures the stuff. The question is where is the source of your revenue - and for Apple it's hardware.
I am a lawyer - althought Copyright is not my area of expertise... anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original. It sounds like no reasonable person would confuse this guys work as an actual wal-mart site.. But as noted above those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove and that protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge and ask for dismissal or summary judgment. Waht would that cost in a case like this - figure with discovery and drafting and filing fees - maybe as much as 10,000 and up. Easy to see why this college student just folded.
This is an odd misunderstanding of something that is true. Yes - people are just a way for genes to replicate themselves. But that does not mean that you should care about that mission. It's not even a mission - genes don't want to be replicated - they just happen to replicate and there are more of the ones that replicate successfully. But as a human you are capable of wanting things different from the goal of replicating your genes as much as possible. And just because your interests may be different from what results in replicating your genes does nothing to invalidate your desires. People are smarter than genes and our desires should be our guide - not some imagined allegiance to the non-goal of our genes. Unless of course you want to - that's valid too.
A lot of people think these kinds of complex ownership arraingments are foolproof - but they are not. Courts often, and the IRS frequently, look through these kinds of sham ownership structures and not only allow seizure of assets by "piercing the corporate veil" they also dissallow losses on sales between related parties and question the true structure of transactions - it's possible to set these things up correctly - but the bottom line is - that function trumps form.
It's not as simple as that - I am a lawyer - and tax is one of my areas of interest. The rule is - that you can expense leased equipment and take a full deduction for the cost of lease payments as long it is a true lease and the payments and final buy out price do not make it look to the IRS like a disguised sale. If it looks like a disguised sale - the IRS will reclassify the lease as a sale and deny the deductions and make you depreciate it over it's listed useful life - without going into opter options like section 179 expensing or double declining balance depreciation...
I'm with you - I have a stack of bad Maxtor drive that I won't even return - they'll just send me more crappy drives. I'm on to WD now - and they've been pretty good.
If your office is anything like mine - with almost all work being done on server hosted databases - fat client users take time off too when the server goes down.
I am a lawyer - and let me tell you - settlements are very persuasive to DEFENDANTS. True - you can't cite them to a judge and they don't make case law - but in the trenches where 95% of all legal disputes end up - settlement precedent is noticed by all the attorney's who play in the IP area.