Because punitive damages don't have anything to do with harm- they have to do with breaking the law. For the same reason that the State (hence Laurence v. Texas, Tennasee v. Gardner, etc, etc, etc) prosecutes criminal charges, the state should take those punitive damages- indeed, it was the law of society that was broken (so the theory goes) and so the crime was a crime against every citizen.
Not to mention, who do you think mainains those wonderful courts the plaintiff and the defendant are suing each other in?
Yes. To start, let's de-orbit one of Mars' moons, and then bombard the planet with sufficient water asteroids (a chunk of water ice totalling a few million cublic kilometres would probably do, but you'd need a lot of smaller chunks) to both significantly increase the water on the surface as well as increasing the gravity. We can continue bombarding the planet with relatively large asteroids to work on the surface gravity while we move orbital mirrors into position and begin to eat the place up.
As you say, not unfixable... just kind of difficult, especially with our currently-pathetic space programs.
Punitive damages are not the same as damages to the plaintiff for harm. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant for breaking the law, and shouldn't really go to the plaintiff anyway- the plaintiff had little to do with them.
..no, it shouldn't. The government should take some basic computer-security measures. If the government's IT people aren't competent enough to stop file sharing, how the fuck do you think they're competent enough to run a completely custom built system?
Now, some departments do- the NSA, for example, has their own chip-fab, and probably runs homebuilt systems for certain top-secret applications. But the NSA also did SE-Linux, so they've shown (at least to me, and who the hell am I to decide) that they can actually handle it.
What? The problem is the fault of the gamer being an asshole. Now, the game might be edited to compensate for that, by making drops losses- but that won't stop the gamer being an asshole.
People are assholes... you can try to work around it, but the problem is that the universe keeps coming up with a better asshole.
From Google's point of view, YouTube helps them enough to be purchased for $1.6 billion. Obviously, they want to be more than a search engine, and obviously, this lawsuit is a serious problem for them. Me, I think it's about time someone stabbed Google in the eye for screaming "don't be evil" throughout all their lying, cheating, theft and blatant copyright violation.
You seem to be replying to somebody else's quote. Yes, Google bought Youtube. However, how does de-listing Viacom help Google? It doesn't. It makes their search engine worse, and that's bad for Google. You haven't answered that point.
Didn't stop them when China demanded it, and they squash the little guy all the damn time (notice that my blog and my 3qDN have pagerank 5, but the main domain has pr0 and won't show up in the engine.)
Because if we go by the standard "How does de-listing things the Chinese government asks for help Google", it's not hard to think of good reasons. China is a country, with the ability to either block Google entirely (Great Firewall of China) or impose significant civil and criminal penalties against Google's operating assets in Chinese territory. As for the other, well, you'll just have to provide some evidence for that.
It's all well and good to make claims, but the ones you're making are in obvious contrast to facts. I think I smell astroturf.
I just smell idiocy wafting from your direction, my friend.
Think of it from Google's point of view. How does that help them? Google is helped by having the best, fastest, most effective search engine around. That's why people come to them, and that's why google gets ad revenue.
People suggest this every time, and every time the same response is valid: That's not a good solution on Google's part, because it ends up negatively impacting Google.
Tit for tat retribution really only works on the playground. And maybe in international spy rings.
That won't work for a variety of reasons; the primary one probably being social. "Yes, I'm immediately going to switch to X's software because X just reported me to the BSA and had me fined 65,000 dollars!"
Moreover, as the article clearly indicates, Microsoft wants consumers to pirate Microsoft software. They'll go after business if those businesses are large enough to make it worth Microsoft's while, but consumers? The backlash would be enormous (see the RIAA) and the gain minimal, if any.
Basically, you're going to try to stop people pirating Microsoft software... against Microsoft's will. Not only is that going to call Microsoft's wrath down your head, its going to turn OSS into some sort of anal-retentive legal freakshow in the eyes of the public, who will be even more repulsed by the 'communist hippies'.
What, exactly, does anybody stand to gain from this?
This is a non-story, sensational only in its attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. (But this is Slashdot, so why am I surprised?)
There's no story here. There is some vague hint in the summary that Microsoft is purposefully not certifying software, but this is a vague and unsupported claim at best. The only real claim that can be made is that some software is not on the list... and so what? There are dozens of reasons. The software could A) not work with Vista, b) not have been submitted for testing, C) be in the process of going through the process...
What's the point? As another poster said, if it doesn't work, don't use it.
Why is this modded troll? It is a security fundamental that if the user sitting at the keyboard has physical access to system, he can root it if he wants to- it's simply a matter of time.
Parent is exactly right. If the user wants to crash his system, he can- unless you take away his power to do anything else useful too.
The ability to actually DO anything ensures that the user can DO something bad.
I haven't played the expansion- I quit when I was about level 40 in the original game. It was terrifically boring, and I had to force myself to play- "If I get another level today, then I'll go out and get a hamburger and ice cream for dinner."
Eventually, I figured, "why am I wasting money on this crap?" and quit.
Except that grinding is Blizzard's main money earner, and therefore they have absolutely no desire to give people the ability to work less than is possible. In fact, the opposite is true- Blizzard wants to make it harder to get to level 70.
It is when it makes downloading music for free legal.
It's a trade-off that the courts and the recording industry groups and the legislators all agreed to. As soon as the CRIA decides to drop the deal, watch the courts smack down the media levy so fast it'll punch a hole in the floor.
Dude, you're posting on slashdot about black holes and you can't defeat cybersitter?...I didn't know they were teaching string theory to kindergarteners these days! Wow, elementary school has gotten a lot better since I left...
Actually, I find it ironic- because what you're claiming is, indeed, exactly what I claimed in my parent post; that constitutions where the exceptions are clearly and specifically laid down are actually stronger legal documents than those that have useless 'blanket' clauses.
It's unfortunate that most judges would agree, as indicated by their rulings on the matter. But it's still there in black and white(okay, a litlle yellow), and we should be hammering hard on that fact until it has been appropriately amended.
So you're claiming that we should attempt to enforce something enforceable until we get around to changing it to mean what we're currently enforcing it as, which was likely the intent of the people who originally wrote it unenforceably?
"We would have"? "We already have" would be more correct.
And my point was that there was no such thing as free speech. Including such a pointless clause into the constitution did nothing. It's not the law of the land, because it's inherently impossible to uphold. What if the Constitution had said that everybody could sprout wings and fly at will, too?
We would have written it off as a crock of shit long ago.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech
on
EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Because such a blanket statement as "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is so blanket and vague as to be entirely useless.
The fact is, there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech'- the fact that we live in a human society instantly precludes that blanket statement, just as it prevents any blanket clause dealing with religion or association.
What people do not realize is that statements like the Canadian constitution, which says:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Actually strengthen the exercise of those rights and freedoms, by allowing solid guidelines to be coherently laid down. Absolutities are only for tyrants and ideologues- the rest of us have to live in the real world.
As I said, it's a summary. It's twenty fucking pages long. a Ph.D thesis is 300 pages if it's it's one, and this was written by eight hundred scientists. I think I heard that the report itself was something like five thousand pages long.
The fact that it's taken as the gospel report just shows how stupid that people can be, just as the fact that you think the summary is somehow representative of the science (which is awfully solid- that 5000 pages is an amalgam of huge amounts of peer-reviewed work) but the fact is, the summary was designed to be read by people who don't actually care what the report says. For that purpose alone, it will obviously be biased to overemphasize everything the report says.
While you make some reasonable points, I'll also point out that the IPCC report is not getting particularly weaker- the range is getting smaller. For example, compare a 9-88 cm range predicted in 2001- now the range is 28-43 cm. The range itself has simply tightened, and that's frankly not unexpected- it doesn't mean that the predictions are getting any weaker, just that they're [apparently] getting more accurate.
More importantly, complaining the summary is not cited is simply semantic bullshit. You want citations, read the actual report. Now, there may be valid concerns as to the summary, and as to the report's science in general, but those aren't them.
It's good in theory, but in practice, it's not so simple. For example, a solicitor (lawyer) like a trustee, is obligated to put the good of his client above his own good in his business transactions.
I think the same thing applies here (the fiduciary duty); reference, Breen v Williams. Actually, the opposite of what I'm saying is true there, but it references other jurisdictions where the fiduciary duty is active and why.
Slashdot Mirror
Because punitive damages don't have anything to do with harm- they have to do with breaking the law. For the same reason that the State (hence Laurence v. Texas, Tennasee v. Gardner, etc, etc, etc) prosecutes criminal charges, the state should take those punitive damages- indeed, it was the law of society that was broken (so the theory goes) and so the crime was a crime against every citizen.
Not to mention, who do you think mainains those wonderful courts the plaintiff and the defendant are suing each other in?
Yes. To start, let's de-orbit one of Mars' moons, and then bombard the planet with sufficient water asteroids (a chunk of water ice totalling a few million cublic kilometres would probably do, but you'd need a lot of smaller chunks) to both significantly increase the water on the surface as well as increasing the gravity. We can continue bombarding the planet with relatively large asteroids to work on the surface gravity while we move orbital mirrors into position and begin to eat the place up.
As you say, not unfixable... just kind of difficult, especially with our currently-pathetic space programs.
Punitive damages are not the same as damages to the plaintiff for harm. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant for breaking the law, and shouldn't really go to the plaintiff anyway- the plaintiff had little to do with them.
..no, it shouldn't. The government should take some basic computer-security measures. If the government's IT people aren't competent enough to stop file sharing, how the fuck do you think they're competent enough to run a completely custom built system?
Now, some departments do- the NSA, for example, has their own chip-fab, and probably runs homebuilt systems for certain top-secret applications. But the NSA also did SE-Linux, so they've shown (at least to me, and who the hell am I to decide) that they can actually handle it.
What? The problem is the fault of the gamer being an asshole. Now, the game might be edited to compensate for that, by making drops losses- but that won't stop the gamer being an asshole.
People are assholes... you can try to work around it, but the problem is that the universe keeps coming up with a better asshole.
The good of humanity? HE INVENTED THE ONE BUTTON MOUSE, for heaven's sake! I'd rather have a dozen, a hundred bureaucrats than that evil demonic tool!
You seem to be replying to somebody else's quote. Yes, Google bought Youtube. However, how does de-listing Viacom help Google? It doesn't. It makes their search engine worse, and that's bad for Google. You haven't answered that point.
Because if we go by the standard "How does de-listing things the Chinese government asks for help Google", it's not hard to think of good reasons. China is a country, with the ability to either block Google entirely (Great Firewall of China) or impose significant civil and criminal penalties against Google's operating assets in Chinese territory. As for the other, well, you'll just have to provide some evidence for that.
I just smell idiocy wafting from your direction, my friend.
Think of it from Google's point of view. How does that help them? Google is helped by having the best, fastest, most effective search engine around. That's why people come to them, and that's why google gets ad revenue.
Fucking with the rankings does nobody any good.
People suggest this every time, and every time the same response is valid: That's not a good solution on Google's part, because it ends up negatively impacting Google.
Tit for tat retribution really only works on the playground. And maybe in international spy rings.
That won't work for a variety of reasons; the primary one probably being social. "Yes, I'm immediately going to switch to X's software because X just reported me to the BSA and had me fined 65,000 dollars!"
Moreover, as the article clearly indicates, Microsoft wants consumers to pirate Microsoft software. They'll go after business if those businesses are large enough to make it worth Microsoft's while, but consumers? The backlash would be enormous (see the RIAA) and the gain minimal, if any.
Basically, you're going to try to stop people pirating Microsoft software... against Microsoft's will. Not only is that going to call Microsoft's wrath down your head, its going to turn OSS into some sort of anal-retentive legal freakshow in the eyes of the public, who will be even more repulsed by the 'communist hippies'.
What, exactly, does anybody stand to gain from this?
Toronto tends not to export oil...
You're looking seriously farther west for that.
This is a non-story, sensational only in its attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. (But this is Slashdot, so why am I surprised?)
There's no story here. There is some vague hint in the summary that Microsoft is purposefully not certifying software, but this is a vague and unsupported claim at best. The only real claim that can be made is that some software is not on the list... and so what? There are dozens of reasons. The software could A) not work with Vista, b) not have been submitted for testing, C) be in the process of going through the process...
What's the point? As another poster said, if it doesn't work, don't use it.
Why is this modded troll? It is a security fundamental that if the user sitting at the keyboard has physical access to system, he can root it if he wants to- it's simply a matter of time.
Parent is exactly right. If the user wants to crash his system, he can- unless you take away his power to do anything else useful too.
The ability to actually DO anything ensures that the user can DO something bad.
I haven't played the expansion- I quit when I was about level 40 in the original game. It was terrifically boring, and I had to force myself to play- "If I get another level today, then I'll go out and get a hamburger and ice cream for dinner."
Eventually, I figured, "why am I wasting money on this crap?" and quit.
So no.
Except that grinding is Blizzard's main money earner, and therefore they have absolutely no desire to give people the ability to work less than is possible. In fact, the opposite is true- Blizzard wants to make it harder to get to level 70.
It is when it makes downloading music for free legal.
It's a trade-off that the courts and the recording industry groups and the legislators all agreed to.
As soon as the CRIA decides to drop the deal, watch the courts smack down the media levy so fast it'll punch a hole in the floor.
Dude, you're posting on slashdot about black holes and you can't defeat cybersitter? ...I didn't know they were teaching string theory to kindergarteners these days! Wow, elementary school has gotten a lot better since I left...
I hate to point it out to you, but it happens to be impossible to prove that you don't posssess something.
It's like trying to prove that you don't think about kids naked. How do you plan on doing that?
Actually, I find it ironic- because what you're claiming is, indeed, exactly what I claimed in my parent post; that constitutions where the exceptions are clearly and specifically laid down are actually stronger legal documents than those that have useless 'blanket' clauses.
So you're claiming that we should attempt to enforce something enforceable until we get around to changing it to mean what we're currently enforcing it as, which was likely the intent of the people who originally wrote it unenforceably?
Well, yes.
And my point was that there was no such thing as free speech. Including such a pointless clause into the constitution did nothing. It's not the law of the land, because it's inherently impossible to uphold. What if the Constitution had said that everybody could sprout wings and fly at will, too?
We would have written it off as a crock of shit long ago.
The fact is, there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech'- the fact that we live in a human society instantly precludes that blanket statement, just as it prevents any blanket clause dealing with religion or association.
What people do not realize is that statements like the Canadian constitution, which says:
Actually strengthen the exercise of those rights and freedoms, by allowing solid guidelines to be coherently laid down. Absolutities are only for tyrants and ideologues- the rest of us have to live in the real world.
As I said, it's a summary. It's twenty fucking pages long. a Ph.D thesis is 300 pages if it's it's one, and this was written by eight hundred scientists. I think I heard that the report itself was something like five thousand pages long.
The fact that it's taken as the gospel report just shows how stupid that people can be, just as the fact that you think the summary is somehow representative of the science (which is awfully solid- that 5000 pages is an amalgam of huge amounts of peer-reviewed work) but the fact is, the summary was designed to be read by people who don't actually care what the report says. For that purpose alone, it will obviously be biased to overemphasize everything the report says.
While you make some reasonable points, I'll also point out that the IPCC report is not getting particularly weaker- the range is getting smaller. For example, compare a 9-88 cm range predicted in 2001- now the range is 28-43 cm. The range itself has simply tightened, and that's frankly not unexpected- it doesn't mean that the predictions are getting any weaker, just that they're [apparently] getting more accurate.
More importantly, complaining the summary is not cited is simply semantic bullshit. You want citations, read the actual report. Now, there may be valid concerns as to the summary, and as to the report's science in general, but those aren't them.
It's good in theory, but in practice, it's not so simple. For example, a solicitor (lawyer) like a trustee, is obligated to put the good of his client above his own good in his business transactions.
I think the same thing applies here (the fiduciary duty); reference, Breen v Williams. Actually, the opposite of what I'm saying is true there, but it references other jurisdictions where the fiduciary duty is active and why.
An interesting read, and relevant, in any case.