Indeed. If every Canadian threatened with legal action over Hurt Locker pirating were to tell the lawyers "I'll see you in court" they would go bankrupt in a hurry.
I suppose the lawyers could try to declare commercial infringement for someone seeding the movie, but I doubt that would wash in court without some direct evidence of exchange of funds, so I think we are looking at a hard $5k limit. From what I've read, the general opinion is that the courts would likely award the "injured" party significantly less than $5k (that's the statutory maximum).
The only way I see this really working is that the media corporations send out nasty letters saying "Pay us a couple of hundred bucks NOW!" followed by some impotent legal fluff threatening dire circumstances, and hope enough people just simply pay to make it go away. But anyone that understands the true nature of the new copyright act will realize that there is no way in hell the media companies are going to pursue people all the way to the steps of the courthouse and tens of thousands of dollars of their own expense.
Considering the new law limits non-commercial infringement to $5,000 per person, what would be the point of pursuing non-commercial infringers? Lawyers fees just to prepare and set out the the threatening letters will likely eat up a fair chunk of that, a one day of examination will likely eat up the rest.
Basically, the Tories, whether they intended to or not, have made pursuit of non-commercial infringers a no-win scenario. The likelihood is that every Canadian who illegally downloaded the Hurt Locker will probably not be liable for more than a few hundred bucks in damages, and if any of them pay a hundred bucks for a lawyer to write a nasty retort to the Hurt Locker's lawyers nasty letter, it's likely the Hurt Locker's lawyers will just abandon it entirely.
Are you kidding? SMB/CIFS and AD/GPO is now going to be completely entrenched into the *nix world, likely killing off any potential open directory alternative. Embrace... extend... extinguish.
It may very well make a difference in smaller and medium sized companies where Microsoft's CAL pricing increases means that replacing aging Server 2003 AD networks could potentially become A LOT cheaper. Obviously you will need someone with the expertise to run a Samba system, but I don't see anything about Samba 4 that's any more complicated than Samba 3.
If the voters are easily fooled, then why would electoral reform improve the matter? If the most basic unit of the electoral exercise is the simpering idiot you suggest, then clearly it matters little the precise nature of picking representatives.
AV was better than nothing, and it was rejected. With AV in place parties that would have moved to a "purer" form of proportional representation like STV would have at least a moderately greater chance of being elected. But a rejection of AV essentially killed electoral reform for Westminster for at least a generation. It's rejection was also pretty much a rejection of all things LibDem, since this was the big ticket item in the coalition agreement that Clegg and Cameron had negotiated. From the AV referendum's failure then came Lords reform failure (though the proposed reforms are a dog's breakfast), and all the other humiliations that have lead the LibDems to the brink of electoral oblivion.
Besides, proportional representation would make the kind of coalition people seem to now hate pretty much permanent. Beware of what you ask for.
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
I think you may be referring to Parliamentary privilege, as per the Bill of Rights, 1689. I know of no interpretation of the notion of Parliamentary privilege that would extend beyond the bounds of Parliament itself, and remember that even if it did, Parliament itself has the power to override privilege of its members, and does not protect a member from prosecution for criminal action.
Even if the party were successful in arguing that it is immune from lawsuits, the party would still be bound by Parliamentary rules, and I'm sure the Speaker would have little issue with ordering the proxy shut down or the members in question facing contempt of Parliament.
Which conflict of interest is greater; a climatologist who is going to be studying climate whether AGW is occurring or not, or some of the largest companies in the world who stand to lose a considerable amount if oil use plummets or oil is priced to reflect the actual damage it's doing.
I'm sorry, science isn't perfect, but compared with the bizarre opaque world of international petrocorporations, I'm going to go with the science. And since neither you or I are scientists, and you're just trumpeting variations on Heartland and other pseudoskeptic "think tanks", it's not like you've come into this credibility.
But one thing is clear. The larger governments have no real intention of doing anything about it. I have little hope we will reduce emissions in any substantial way, so at some point the effects AGW will become undeniable even by the few outright pseudoskeptics out there, AND we will start running out of fossil fuels, whose value as long chain hydrocarbons outweighs many times over their value as fuel. Let's just hope the two don't happen at the same time, because our children or grandchildren will spit on our graves for being so unwilling to work in any substantial way towards substantial reductions in burning of one of the important sources of industrial chemicals this planet has.
One of the key predictions is shifts in agricultural zones. Sure, we'll still be growing grain in North America, but most of it will be in Canada, and history has lessons for those who think food security is nothing to worry about.
The problem here is that none of these predictions are particularly new. The measurements are refined, the models better, but basically it's been over three decades since climate scientists first begin saying "We have a problem."
None of this was invented yesterday, and yet, because you have this emotional desire to reject the evidence, you shoot the messenger, declaring climatologists frauds or saying "We need more time."
We're seeing major melt in the Arctic now, just as predicted, so how much fucking time do you want?
There is? There's no scientists making vast amounts of money out of this. Whether AGW is true or not climatology would still exist.
Essentially, you're rejecting AGW because of your own short term interests, and then creating an ad hoc (and frankly ludicrous) conspiracy to justify it.
Yes, change costs money. That's the way it works. The point is that it will cost one helluva lot less now than it will in fifty or a hundred years.
And that's not even raising the economic catastrophe waiting when cheap long chain hydrocarbons become scarce.
Scientists have precious little power and as to trust, why would you trust the likes of the Heartland Institute over almost ever climatologist in the world? What's more, considering which side benefits the most here, who has the greatest benefit; deniers or scientists?
You're not confusing me. Anecdotes, problems with medical research and issues in the Adriatic that for all you and I know could be tectonic in origin isn't confusing the facts, it's little more than red herrings.
Do you have specific evidence of wide ranging conspiracy in the climatological community that had almost every researcher a conspirator or not? If not, than just say so and then do the proper thing and deal with data and not with rhetorical games designed for your own choir.
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the most that they're likely to receive per infringer is a few hundred bucks, they'd be losing money on every demand.
Indeed. If every Canadian threatened with legal action over Hurt Locker pirating were to tell the lawyers "I'll see you in court" they would go bankrupt in a hurry.
I suppose the lawyers could try to declare commercial infringement for someone seeding the movie, but I doubt that would wash in court without some direct evidence of exchange of funds, so I think we are looking at a hard $5k limit. From what I've read, the general opinion is that the courts would likely award the "injured" party significantly less than $5k (that's the statutory maximum).
The only way I see this really working is that the media corporations send out nasty letters saying "Pay us a couple of hundred bucks NOW!" followed by some impotent legal fluff threatening dire circumstances, and hope enough people just simply pay to make it go away. But anyone that understands the true nature of the new copyright act will realize that there is no way in hell the media companies are going to pursue people all the way to the steps of the courthouse and tens of thousands of dollars of their own expense.
There will be no Joel Tenenbaum's in Canada.
Actually, the most disgusting part is that when I was writing it, I kept hearing the line being read by the Mad Bomber Was Bombs At Midnight.
Considering the new law limits non-commercial infringement to $5,000 per person, what would be the point of pursuing non-commercial infringers? Lawyers fees just to prepare and set out the the threatening letters will likely eat up a fair chunk of that, a one day of examination will likely eat up the rest.
Basically, the Tories, whether they intended to or not, have made pursuit of non-commercial infringers a no-win scenario. The likelihood is that every Canadian who illegally downloaded the Hurt Locker will probably not be liable for more than a few hundred bucks in damages, and if any of them pay a hundred bucks for a lawyer to write a nasty retort to the Hurt Locker's lawyers nasty letter, it's likely the Hurt Locker's lawyers will just abandon it entirely.
Are you kidding? SMB/CIFS and AD/GPO is now going to be completely entrenched into the *nix world, likely killing off any potential open directory alternative. Embrace... extend... extinguish.
Or he's into some really bizarre porn.
"Ooh yeah baby. That's it. Shove that NTFS ACL into a Posix ACL. Come on, harder... deeper... Oooh yeah! Map it to that sticky bit, baby! Map it!"
It may very well make a difference in smaller and medium sized companies where Microsoft's CAL pricing increases means that replacing aging Server 2003 AD networks could potentially become A LOT cheaper. Obviously you will need someone with the expertise to run a Samba system, but I don't see anything about Samba 4 that's any more complicated than Samba 3.
If the voters are easily fooled, then why would electoral reform improve the matter? If the most basic unit of the electoral exercise is the simpering idiot you suggest, then clearly it matters little the precise nature of picking representatives.
AV was better than nothing, and it was rejected. With AV in place parties that would have moved to a "purer" form of proportional representation like STV would have at least a moderately greater chance of being elected. But a rejection of AV essentially killed electoral reform for Westminster for at least a generation. It's rejection was also pretty much a rejection of all things LibDem, since this was the big ticket item in the coalition agreement that Clegg and Cameron had negotiated. From the AV referendum's failure then came Lords reform failure (though the proposed reforms are a dog's breakfast), and all the other humiliations that have lead the LibDems to the brink of electoral oblivion.
Besides, proportional representation would make the kind of coalition people seem to now hate pretty much permanent. Beware of what you ask for.
And the British electorate had the chance to get rid of FPTP voting in favor of an AV system, and they rejected that. So that tells me the voters like the kinds of Parliaments they get.
The people, that is the British people, opted not to give anyone a clear majority, and that means that promises made prior to the election are pretty much swept away. If the British people wished the Liberal Democrats to keep their promises, they should have given them a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend the LibDems here, but since no one saw fit to elect any party as a majority government, it's hard to go back after the fact and decry that no one is keeping their word. The voters picked this Parliament, they have to live with it.
There's a quotation about Ben Franklin that should come right around here.
I think you may be referring to Parliamentary privilege, as per the Bill of Rights, 1689. I know of no interpretation of the notion of Parliamentary privilege that would extend beyond the bounds of Parliament itself, and remember that even if it did, Parliament itself has the power to override privilege of its members, and does not protect a member from prosecution for criminal action.
Even if the party were successful in arguing that it is immune from lawsuits, the party would still be bound by Parliamentary rules, and I'm sure the Speaker would have little issue with ordering the proxy shut down or the members in question facing contempt of Parliament.
Which conflict of interest is greater; a climatologist who is going to be studying climate whether AGW is occurring or not, or some of the largest companies in the world who stand to lose a considerable amount if oil use plummets or oil is priced to reflect the actual damage it's doing.
I'm sorry, science isn't perfect, but compared with the bizarre opaque world of international petrocorporations, I'm going to go with the science. And since neither you or I are scientists, and you're just trumpeting variations on Heartland and other pseudoskeptic "think tanks", it's not like you've come into this credibility.
But one thing is clear. The larger governments have no real intention of doing anything about it. I have little hope we will reduce emissions in any substantial way, so at some point the effects AGW will become undeniable even by the few outright pseudoskeptics out there, AND we will start running out of fossil fuels, whose value as long chain hydrocarbons outweighs many times over their value as fuel. Let's just hope the two don't happen at the same time, because our children or grandchildren will spit on our graves for being so unwilling to work in any substantial way towards substantial reductions in burning of one of the important sources of industrial chemicals this planet has.
One of the key predictions is shifts in agricultural zones. Sure, we'll still be growing grain in North America, but most of it will be in Canada, and history has lessons for those who think food security is nothing to worry about.
The problem here is that none of these predictions are particularly new. The measurements are refined, the models better, but basically it's been over three decades since climate scientists first begin saying "We have a problem."
None of this was invented yesterday, and yet, because you have this emotional desire to reject the evidence, you shoot the messenger, declaring climatologists frauds or saying "We need more time."
We're seeing major melt in the Arctic now, just as predicted, so how much fucking time do you want?
There is? There's no scientists making vast amounts of money out of this. Whether AGW is true or not climatology would still exist.
Essentially, you're rejecting AGW because of your own short term interests, and then creating an ad hoc (and frankly ludicrous) conspiracy to justify it.
Yes, change costs money. That's the way it works. The point is that it will cost one helluva lot less now than it will in fifty or a hundred years.
And that's not even raising the economic catastrophe waiting when cheap long chain hydrocarbons become scarce.
Scientists have precious little power and as to trust, why would you trust the likes of the Heartland Institute over almost ever climatologist in the world? What's more, considering which side benefits the most here, who has the greatest benefit; deniers or scientists?
You're not confusing me. Anecdotes, problems with medical research and issues in the Adriatic that for all you and I know could be tectonic in origin isn't confusing the facts, it's little more than red herrings.
Do you have specific evidence of wide ranging conspiracy in the climatological community that had almost every researcher a conspirator or not? If not, than just say so and then do the proper thing and deal with data and not with rhetorical games designed for your own choir.
They shouldn't have picked software licensed under the GPL. Since they did they are bound by the terms of the license.
Wind and solar are expensive, to be sure, but in the long run they will be considerably less so than fossil fuels.
Surely you can see the advantage of short term pain for long term gain.
Do you think political ideology trumps physics?
And by what standard do you judge corruption?
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.
We always judge others by ourselves. I suppose.