'' Of course, in 1986 it was understandable that nobody knew what I was talking about. To not understand the concept of a website in 2007 is, to my mind, reason enough to force a judge's retirement. Being that out of touch with modern life simply can't be conducive to making good justice. ''
There are many cases where the outcome of a lawcase can depend on some very, very minor detail. Just yesterday there was a post here about a case where the deciding issue was whether you could enter a website without typing in certain information or not, a very minor detail.
So the judge reads the law, and the law says "if the defendant did X then he is guilty, otherwise he is innocent". The defendant did something with a website. Ask four Slashdotters, and you get four slightly different answers what a website is, and two of those mean the defendant did X, two mean he didn't do X. That doesn't help. So the judge has to ask the question: What exactly is a website?
'' If I'm ever charged with a computer crime, I would hope that the judge understands at the very least that a website was a document-like thing that resided on another computer that one could read with a web browser. ''
Most websites are not document-like things, they are generated by some program and contain executable code, not at all like a document. Most websites don't reside on another computer. Some websites reside on my own computer.
Web sites are not only read by web browsers. If they could only be read by a web browser, then software that scavenges websites for email addresses or other information wouldn't be possible.
'' Looks like they are flushing out folks who forward internal emails. Send to a few people and see if the fake news gets out. Binary search in action! ''
That is extremly unlikely. If some joker thinks it is clever to fake an email, some idiot with need for a bit more importance forwards it to a rumor site, and they publish it without any fact checking, causing four billion dollars loss in market caps, that is bad. If some manager at Apple had the great idea to do this on purpose, that would be so incredibly stupid, that would be beyond any belief. If an Apple manager did this intentionally, I would expect a multi million dollar fine for Apple. Nobody would be that stupid. At least I hope so.
Apple doesn't need to flush out any leaks. You might know that Apple recently had a court case in which the court told them in no uncertain terms exactly which steps Apple would have to take to find any leaks internally, and with these steps taken, there is no doubt that Apple would get a subpoena against any rumor website to get their sources.
'' If you start punishing reporters for getting a story wrong based on a faulty source when a reasonable person would have accepted the source as credible, you will basically kill investigative journalism (as if it wasn't close enough to dead in this country as it is). ''
The email claimed that Apple had issued a press release about major delays in two very important products. It would have been common sense to contact Apple and check if such a press release actually existed. We'll see what the SEC thinks about it. Apple's market caps was reduced by about four thousand million dollars for some time.
'' Be realistic. At least a few MS products are superior to all competitors. If nothing else, you can hold up Excel as a shining example of excellence in software. Many people say the same thing about Visual Studio (I haven't worked with it). ''
One of the most expensive bugs in Excel was the Currency Format bug (I think it is fixed now). When you applied the Currency format, the display was according to the currency settings in your system. When you sent the document to someone in a different country, they would open it and see the numbers using _their_ currency format. would be used to display the data.
Now imagine your US based company makes a bid for a contract doing work in Canada. You calculated that you would charge US$135,000. The prospective customer opens your spreadsheet, reads Can$135,000 and accepts your offer. Can you just see how this will lead to some real trouble when it comes to paying and your customer refuses to pay US$135,000?
Other problems are automatic "correction" (like changing students grades from A+ or A- to plain A), merciless data conversion (in some languages, there is a good chance that a number gets converted to a date without the user realising it; what do you think happens if you have products with product numbers 1234a1, 1234b1, 1234c1, 1234d1 and 1234e1? )
'' This one is complete and utter bullshit. Toyota, for example, recycles ALL of their hybrid battery packs, right down to the plastic case and wiring. ''
Could that be one of these "Greenpeace_they_got_no_plan" things? Like Toyota recycles all their hybrid battery packs, therefore they have _no plans_ to start recycling them at some point in the future, so Greenpeace says "they've got no plan! they've got no plan! They must be dirty polluters because they've got no plan!"?
I'll comment on that directly: If you drive on the motorway in Britain at 100 mph, you are severely breaking the law, and you are a danger to yourself (which I don't care one bit about) and others. Driving at 100 mph in Britain is completely irresponsible unless you are extremely concentrated on the road, on the traffic and completely observant of the traffic arround you, especially on the next lane. If you drive aggressively on top of that, or in a heavy car that will cause more damage to others in case of an accident, then it is really bad.
Now that friend of yours was going at 100 mph in Britain, apparently without giving it any thought at all. At the same time, she was so perfectly concentrated on her driving that she obeys instructions from her car and _stops_ in the fast lane of the motorway! That is so completely, utterly, braindamaged stupid, she is lucky and the rest of the world is unlucky that she didn't get herself killed.
There was a report of a village in Britain which put up signs advising drivers to "ignore their sat navs".
The problem is actually not the sat nav, it is lorry drivers who are too cheap or too ignorant to buy the right sat nav for their vehicle. What you and I buy in the shop gives you instructions based on the assumption that you are driving a car. My satnav will without hesitation lead me onto roads that are too narrow for a lorry, or closed for anyone above five tons of weight. You can buy a satnav for a bit more money that knows these things, and that will lead a 30 ton truck safely through roads that are suitable for 30 ton trucks.
'' 100 mph on a british motorway is quite normal in a reasonable vehicle and especially if you got a nice car. ''
A hint to anyone visiting Britain: Please ignore this advice. First, because you don't want to kill anyone, do you? While driving through Germany, I expect people to overtake at that speed and drive accordingly, but in Britain, this is at least twenty miles faster than any reasonable person would drive, so people _will_ pull out into the fast lane, not noticing that someone is approaching at that speed.
Second, because in many areas this will be very, very expensive. There are areas where I will most definitely _not_ exceed the 70mph limit by even one mile, and if you don't know the country and know where these areas are, just drive reasonably.
'' I hope this doesn't get settled...I want to see Apple, Microsoft, et al go to court and make it hurt. How much do you want to bet that when court day arrives, the suit gets dropped? ''
Depending on how pissed of various Steves (Jobs and Ballmer) are, they will countersue; first to get a declaration that they are not doing anything illegal that these loonies have any standing to sue for, second to cost them as much money as possible. Once they get countersued, they can't drop the case.
'' on the environment - no need announce environmental goals as other computer manufacturers are doing because iJobs himself thinks that doing so accomplishes nothing. ''
And that is so obviously correct, I don't know why you mention it at all.
Reducing waste helps. Announcing a goal to reduce waste doesn't help.
What is better in your opinion: Removing PVC from packaging (Apple twelve years ago) or announcing the goal to remove PVC from packaging in the next two years (HP) ? I know what's better in my opinion, and unfortunately we also know what is better according to Greenpeace.
'' Can anyone here explain to me, why getting rid of DRM has to be connected to better Quality and higher price? ''
First, there is EMI's point of view: They don't want to sell their music without DRM for the same price as with DRM. I bet it was difficult enough to convince their management to sell DRM free music downloads at all, no way to do it for the same price.
So what is Apple to do in this situation? They were not willing to lose money on selling music without DRM (there is not much profit per song right now; with the increased wholesale price for music without DRM Apple would have lost money at $0.99 per song). If they sold the same product with DRM for $0.99 and without DRM for more, there would be an outcry, and rightfully so. So they had no choice but to improve the product in some other way to justify the price increase.
The better quality gives Apple a justification for the price increase. On the other hand, it is a genuine improvement. On the third hand, it might be possible that Apple makes more profit from $1.29 without DRM than with 0.99 with DRM. On the fourth hand, making money is what public companies are supposed to do.
I don't think price and copying are too strongly related. Could be the opposite: High price indicates high value which means copying it is really bad. Low price would mean low value; not worth buying, so it gets copied. It is all a complicated relationship between law, ethics, purchase power and psychology. I personally think there will be more EMI music sold and more EMI music copied, with everyone being better off in the end.
'' Rubbish! How about using the iPod to transfer music between my own computers? Sounds like perfectly common reason - without even stretching things like from my computer to "my" computer at work, where the legalities get a bit murky. ''
And that has been easily possible with every single iPod (except for the tiny shuffles), and it is easily possible using any old USB memory stick.
'' I've done some work - totally within New Zealand - on anonymous publishing and encryption software, and shared it freely with the world. What I've done is totally legal here, but it's likely I've infringed on numerous sections of the Chinese criminal code. ''
The key point is "what I've done is totally legal here". You would be extradited if what you did was against New Zealand law (and then the minor question where exactly that crime occurred).
Someone posted "what if I made a cartoon picture of Mohammed and sent it to Iran, where it is against the law, should I be extradited"? Clearly if you sent the picture from say Afghanistan, and it was illegal there, they would extradite you. If you sent the same picture from Italy, you would not be extradited.
'' This is nothing but marketing guys. If jobs was so anti-drm, why is it still so difficult to get music or videos OFF of the ipod? ''
The normal way is that you buy music, either on CD or through a download, then you move it to other media that you own, like from CD to your computer, or from your computer (downloaded) to a CD, to an iPod, to a different player, etc. And there are legitimate uses where DRM gets into the way, that's why people complain about it and that's why I am glad that EMI is getting rid of it.
Nowhere is there a legitimate reason to copy from an iPod _to_ your computer (except for a computer crashing and the only "backup" on the iPod). On the other hand, it is easy enough to make backups of your files in iTunes, and easy enough to install those backups on any computer you own, without needing any additional software.
'' The crime didn't take place on American soil. ''
That is the question. The person was apparently never in the USA, but making software available illegally in the USA could be considered to be taking place in the USA. Just because the submitter says it didn't happen in the USA doesn't make it true. With that kind of situation it might matter exactly what he has done.
Second, the fine article says that he was extradited for breaking US law. That is certainly the reason why the USA wants him, but I would think that he wouldn't be extradited if this wasn't a crime according to Australian law as well.
... and one guy exporting Nazi literature for the US to Germany made the mistake of traveling to Denmark, which promptly extradited him to Germany.
Now I personally think since he was so happy with the way the Nazis ran Germany, they should have treated him how the Nazis would have treated him (most likely death through hanging, which they used to do with people distributing pamphlets against the current government), but they just put him to jail for a few years, and you won't find anyone named Bubba in a German jail...
' If I, while in the US, create a website that defames the King of Thailand do you expect the US would send me there to do my time? '
In Germany, the rules for extradition (from Germany to another country) are:
1. It must have been a crime according to German law, but committed in the country that asks for extradition. As it is relevant in this case, the location where a crime is committed is the place where it takes effect, so it would be _possible_ for someone being physically in Australia to commit a crime in the USA. 2. The person to be extradited must be able to expect a fair trial. 3. There is no "cruel or unusual" punishment for that crime. This prevents death sentence for anyone extradited from Germany to the USA.
And a few minor points, like the country asking for extradition must show enough proof that German prosecution in the same situation would put the case to a court, and you can't get extradited for anything minor, where the extradition itself would be more punishment than the crime is worth.
So for defacing a picture of the Thai king, you wouldn't be extradited. (Note that insulting foreign heads of state might get you into trouble in Germany. Obviously you can't get extradited for that, because Thailand cannot claim that you are insulting a foreign head of state. )
'' and when you get sick with a FATAL disease, that they have a treatment for, but are asking $10,000 a month for the treatment, thats NOT coverd under insurance, maby you'll change your point of view ''
There are worse things happening out of sheer stupidity.
One of the worst diseases that you could get at old age is Alzheimer's. You basically lose your mind, become a total burden to your family and the health system, it is an awful disease and really really expensive. And there is a drug that is quite cheap that can keep it from happening, which should be taken at the slightest symptom to stop it from getting bad (which is bad for you and very expensive for the health system).
However, the British NHS, which spends billions and billions on computer software that will probably never work, can't afford this. Or something like that. They can even less afford to pay for the treatment at a later stage, when it is fifty times more expensive. The difference is that at a later stage, they don't have a choice but have to pay; at the earlier stage when treatment is cheap they have the power to refuse and that is what they do.
And your GP won't tell you "you are going to lose your marbles over the next five years because we are to cheap to pay for medication, and here is what you should buy yourself if you want to stay sane"; he will just let it happen.
'' Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. ''
That is incorrect. A lot of pollution comes from the sheer mass of the product; making a lighter product using fewer materials tends to be good for customers, cheaper to produce (although harder to design), and better for the environment.
Another example is coal powerstations: Lots of the pollution is created when coal is burnt incompletely. The better your powerstation is, and the more of the coal it actually burns, the more energy it gets from the same materials, which saves money and increases profits, and the less pollution it creates, which is good for everyone.
'' Apple learnt a valuable lesson today; there are some issues (not all, but some) that when you're secretive about, people get rightly suspicious and assume you're up to no good. If they'd responded to Greenpeace in the first place, then this negative press would have never occurred. ''
Greenpeace learnt a valuable lesson today: If you make unsubstantiated claims that nobody believed in the first place, eventually you will annoy someone and you will be made to look like a fool and lose the last bit of credibility.
I don't know why Apple refused to make cash donations to Greenpeace before this mess started, but I am sure there won't be any donations in the future.
'' Greenpeace is not working against these companies, it is really working with them to help reduce the environmental mess. ''
I didn't notice anything how Greenpeace has worked with Apple and helping them reduce any mess.
If I read this article right, then Greenpeace has been praising companies for having plans to reduce some pollutant, blaming Apple for having no such plans - when Apple had already got rid of the same pollutants in 2002!
'AAC is really not better or worse than MP3, from a licensing standpoint.'
It is actually better at the moment. For MP3, you can buy a complete package of all licenses reasonably cheap, except that some patent trolling bastards claim they own two more patents covering MP3 and they have already sued Microsoft successfully. For AAC, you can buy a complete package of all licenses relatively cheap, and at the moment there are no patent trolls with patents that they claim cover AAC.
Wouldn't it be much better to improve the education system and take other measures to actually reduce the level of crime?
What Mr. Reid proposes is that I should take measures that cost me money to reduce the value of my possessions to criminals. It would make it also harder for me to sell my iPod on eBay if I want to replace it with a better model. It would be much better to give kids a decent education so they can find decent jobs instead of becoming criminals, and/or to make the risk of detection and the punishment for crime higher to actually deter criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
'' Of course, in 1986 it was understandable that nobody knew what I was talking about. To not understand the concept of a website in 2007 is, to my mind, reason enough to force a judge's retirement. Being that out of touch with modern life simply can't be conducive to making good justice. ''
There are many cases where the outcome of a lawcase can depend on some very, very minor detail. Just yesterday there was a post here about a case where the deciding issue was whether you could enter a website without typing in certain information or not, a very minor detail.
So the judge reads the law, and the law says "if the defendant did X then he is guilty, otherwise he is innocent". The defendant did something with a website. Ask four Slashdotters, and you get four slightly different answers what a website is, and two of those mean the defendant did X, two mean he didn't do X. That doesn't help. So the judge has to ask the question: What exactly is a website?
'' If I'm ever charged with a computer crime, I would hope that the judge understands at the very least that a website was a document-like thing that resided on another computer that one could read with a web browser. ''
Most websites are not document-like things, they are generated by some program and contain executable code, not at all like a document.
Most websites don't reside on another computer.
Some websites reside on my own computer.
Web sites are not only read by web browsers. If they could only be read by a web browser, then software that scavenges websites for email addresses or other information wouldn't be possible.
'' Looks like they are flushing out folks who forward internal emails. Send to a few people and see if the fake news gets out. Binary search in action! ''
That is extremly unlikely. If some joker thinks it is clever to fake an email, some idiot with need for a bit more importance forwards it to a rumor site, and they publish it without any fact checking, causing four billion dollars loss in market caps, that is bad. If some manager at Apple had the great idea to do this on purpose, that would be so incredibly stupid, that would be beyond any belief. If an Apple manager did this intentionally, I would expect a multi million dollar fine for Apple. Nobody would be that stupid. At least I hope so.
Apple doesn't need to flush out any leaks. You might know that Apple recently had a court case in which the court told them in no uncertain terms exactly which steps Apple would have to take to find any leaks internally, and with these steps taken, there is no doubt that Apple would get a subpoena against any rumor website to get their sources.
'' If you start punishing reporters for getting a story wrong based on a faulty source when a reasonable person would have accepted the source as credible, you will basically kill investigative journalism (as if it wasn't close enough to dead in this country as it is). ''
The email claimed that Apple had issued a press release about major delays in two very important products. It would have been common sense to contact Apple and check if such a press release actually existed. We'll see what the SEC thinks about it. Apple's market caps was reduced by about four thousand million dollars for some time.
'' Be realistic. At least a few MS products are superior to all competitors. If nothing else, you can hold up Excel as a shining example of excellence in software. Many people say the same thing about Visual Studio (I haven't worked with it). ''
One of the most expensive bugs in Excel was the Currency Format bug (I think it is fixed now). When you applied the Currency format, the display was according to the currency settings in your system. When you sent the document to someone in a different country, they would open it and see the numbers using _their_ currency format. would be used to display the data.
Now imagine your US based company makes a bid for a contract doing work in Canada. You calculated that you would charge US$135,000. The prospective customer opens your spreadsheet, reads Can$135,000 and accepts your offer. Can you just see how this will lead to some real trouble when it comes to paying and your customer refuses to pay US$135,000?
Other problems are automatic "correction" (like changing students grades from A+ or A- to plain A), merciless data conversion (in some languages, there is a good chance that a number gets converted to a date without the user realising it; what do you think happens if you have products with product numbers 1234a1, 1234b1, 1234c1, 1234d1 and 1234e1? )
No, Excel has to be handled with _extreme_ care.
'' This one is complete and utter bullshit. Toyota, for example, recycles ALL of their hybrid battery packs, right down to the plastic case and wiring. ''
Could that be one of these "Greenpeace_they_got_no_plan" things? Like Toyota recycles all their hybrid battery packs, therefore they have _no plans_ to start recycling them at some point in the future, so Greenpeace says "they've got no plan! they've got no plan! They must be dirty polluters because they've got no plan!"?
Wouldn't be the first company...
I'll comment on that directly: If you drive on the motorway in Britain at 100 mph, you are severely breaking the law, and you are a danger to yourself (which I don't care one bit about) and others. Driving at 100 mph in Britain is completely irresponsible unless you are extremely concentrated on the road, on the traffic and completely observant of the traffic arround you, especially on the next lane. If you drive aggressively on top of that, or in a heavy car that will cause more damage to others in case of an accident, then it is really bad.
Now that friend of yours was going at 100 mph in Britain, apparently without giving it any thought at all. At the same time, she was so perfectly concentrated on her driving that she obeys instructions from her car and _stops_ in the fast lane of the motorway! That is so completely, utterly, braindamaged stupid, she is lucky and the rest of the world is unlucky that she didn't get herself killed.
There was a report of a village in Britain which put up signs advising drivers to "ignore their sat navs".
The problem is actually not the sat nav, it is lorry drivers who are too cheap or too ignorant to buy the right sat nav for their vehicle. What you and I buy in the shop gives you instructions based on the assumption that you are driving a car. My satnav will without hesitation lead me onto roads that are too narrow for a lorry, or closed for anyone above five tons of weight. You can buy a satnav for a bit more money that knows these things, and that will lead a 30 ton truck safely through roads that are suitable for 30 ton trucks.
'' 100 mph on a british motorway is quite normal in a reasonable vehicle and especially if you got a nice car. ''
A hint to anyone visiting Britain: Please ignore this advice. First, because you don't want to kill anyone, do you? While driving through Germany, I expect people to overtake at that speed and drive accordingly, but in Britain, this is at least twenty miles faster than any reasonable person would drive, so people _will_ pull out into the fast lane, not noticing that someone is approaching at that speed.
Second, because in many areas this will be very, very expensive. There are areas where I will most definitely _not_ exceed the 70mph limit by even one mile, and if you don't know the country and know where these areas are, just drive reasonably.
'' I hope this doesn't get settled...I want to see Apple, Microsoft, et al go to court and make it hurt. How much do you want to bet that when court day arrives, the suit gets dropped? ''
Depending on how pissed of various Steves (Jobs and Ballmer) are, they will countersue; first to get a declaration that they are not doing anything illegal that these loonies have any standing to sue for, second to cost them as much money as possible. Once they get countersued, they can't drop the case.
'' on the environment - no need announce environmental goals as other computer manufacturers are doing because iJobs himself thinks that doing so accomplishes nothing. ''
And that is so obviously correct, I don't know why you mention it at all.
Reducing waste helps. Announcing a goal to reduce waste doesn't help.
What is better in your opinion: Removing PVC from packaging (Apple twelve years ago) or announcing the goal to remove PVC from packaging in the next two years (HP) ? I know what's better in my opinion, and unfortunately we also know what is better according to Greenpeace.
'' Can anyone here explain to me, why getting rid of DRM has to be connected to better Quality and higher price? ''
First, there is EMI's point of view: They don't want to sell their music without DRM for the same price as with DRM. I bet it was difficult enough to convince their management to sell DRM free music downloads at all, no way to do it for the same price.
So what is Apple to do in this situation? They were not willing to lose money on selling music without DRM (there is not much profit per song right now; with the increased wholesale price for music without DRM Apple would have lost money at $0.99 per song). If they sold the same product with DRM for $0.99 and without DRM for more, there would be an outcry, and rightfully so. So they had no choice but to improve the product in some other way to justify the price increase.
The better quality gives Apple a justification for the price increase. On the other hand, it is a genuine improvement. On the third hand, it might be possible that Apple makes more profit from $1.29 without DRM than with 0.99 with DRM. On the fourth hand, making money is what public companies are supposed to do.
I don't think price and copying are too strongly related. Could be the opposite: High price indicates high value which means copying it is really bad. Low price would mean low value; not worth buying, so it gets copied. It is all a complicated relationship between law, ethics, purchase power and psychology. I personally think there will be more EMI music sold and more EMI music copied, with everyone being better off in the end.
'' Rubbish! How about using the iPod to transfer music between my own computers? Sounds like perfectly common reason - without even stretching things like from my computer to "my" computer at work, where the legalities get a bit murky. ''
And that has been easily possible with every single iPod (except for the tiny shuffles), and it is easily possible using any old USB memory stick.
'' I've done some work - totally within New Zealand - on anonymous publishing and encryption software, and shared it freely with the world. What I've done is totally legal here, but it's likely I've infringed on numerous sections of the Chinese criminal code. ''
The key point is "what I've done is totally legal here". You would be extradited if what you did was against New Zealand law (and then the minor question where exactly that crime occurred).
Someone posted "what if I made a cartoon picture of Mohammed and sent it to Iran, where it is against the law, should I be extradited"? Clearly if you sent the picture from say Afghanistan, and it was illegal there, they would extradite you. If you sent the same picture from Italy, you would not be extradited.
'' This is nothing but marketing guys. If jobs was so anti-drm, why is it still so difficult to get music or videos OFF of the ipod? ''
The normal way is that you buy music, either on CD or through a download, then you move it to other media that you own, like from CD to your computer, or from your computer (downloaded) to a CD, to an iPod, to a different player, etc. And there are legitimate uses where DRM gets into the way, that's why people complain about it and that's why I am glad that EMI is getting rid of it.
Nowhere is there a legitimate reason to copy from an iPod _to_ your computer (except for a computer crashing and the only "backup" on the iPod). On the other hand, it is easy enough to make backups of your files in iTunes, and easy enough to install those backups on any computer you own, without needing any additional software.
'' The crime didn't take place on American soil. ''
That is the question. The person was apparently never in the USA, but making software available illegally in the USA could be considered to be taking place in the USA. Just because the submitter says it didn't happen in the USA doesn't make it true. With that kind of situation it might matter exactly what he has done.
Second, the fine article says that he was extradited for breaking US law. That is certainly the reason why the USA wants him, but I would think that he wouldn't be extradited if this wasn't a crime according to Australian law as well.
... and one guy exporting Nazi literature for the US to Germany made the mistake of traveling to Denmark, which promptly extradited him to Germany.
Now I personally think since he was so happy with the way the Nazis ran Germany, they should have treated him how the Nazis would have treated him (most likely death through hanging, which they used to do with people distributing pamphlets against the current government), but they just put him to jail for a few years, and you won't find anyone named Bubba in a German jail...
' If I, while in the US, create a website that defames the King of Thailand do you expect the US would send me there to do my time? '
In Germany, the rules for extradition (from Germany to another country) are:
1. It must have been a crime according to German law, but committed in the country that asks for extradition. As it is relevant in this case, the location where a crime is committed is the place where it takes effect, so it would be _possible_ for someone being physically in Australia to commit a crime in the USA.
2. The person to be extradited must be able to expect a fair trial.
3. There is no "cruel or unusual" punishment for that crime. This prevents death sentence for anyone extradited from Germany to the USA.
And a few minor points, like the country asking for extradition must show enough proof that German prosecution in the same situation would put the case to a court, and you can't get extradited for anything minor, where the extradition itself would be more punishment than the crime is worth.
So for defacing a picture of the Thai king, you wouldn't be extradited. (Note that insulting foreign heads of state might get you into trouble in Germany. Obviously you can't get extradited for that, because Thailand cannot claim that you are insulting a foreign head of state. )
'' and when you get sick with a FATAL disease, that they have a treatment for, but are asking $10,000 a month for the treatment, thats NOT coverd under insurance, maby you'll change your point of view ''
There are worse things happening out of sheer stupidity.
One of the worst diseases that you could get at old age is Alzheimer's. You basically lose your mind, become a total burden to your family and the health system, it is an awful disease and really really expensive. And there is a drug that is quite cheap that can keep it from happening, which should be taken at the slightest symptom to stop it from getting bad (which is bad for you and very expensive for the health system).
However, the British NHS, which spends billions and billions on computer software that will probably never work, can't afford this. Or something like that. They can even less afford to pay for the treatment at a later stage, when it is fifty times more expensive. The difference is that at a later stage, they don't have a choice but have to pay; at the earlier stage when treatment is cheap they have the power to refuse and that is what they do.
And your GP won't tell you "you are going to lose your marbles over the next five years because we are to cheap to pay for medication, and here is what you should buy yourself if you want to stay sane"; he will just let it happen.
'' Greenpeace (and most of the US) have failed to realize the obvious: vendor-based environmentalism is a mistake. It brings no profit to the vendor, only expenses. ''
That is incorrect. A lot of pollution comes from the sheer mass of the product; making a lighter product using fewer materials tends to be good for customers, cheaper to produce (although harder to design), and better for the environment.
Another example is coal powerstations: Lots of the pollution is created when coal is burnt incompletely. The better your powerstation is, and the more of the coal it actually burns, the more energy it gets from the same materials, which saves money and increases profits, and the less pollution it creates, which is good for everyone.
'' Apple learnt a valuable lesson today; there are some issues (not all, but some) that when you're secretive about, people get rightly suspicious and assume you're up to no good. If they'd responded to Greenpeace in the first place, then this negative press would have never occurred. ''
Greenpeace learnt a valuable lesson today: If you make unsubstantiated claims that nobody believed in the first place, eventually you will annoy someone and you will be made to look like a fool and lose the last bit of credibility.
I don't know why Apple refused to make cash donations to Greenpeace before this mess started, but I am sure there won't be any donations in the future.
'' Greenpeace is not working against these companies, it is really working with them to help reduce the environmental mess. ''
I didn't notice anything how Greenpeace has worked with Apple and helping them reduce any mess.
If I read this article right, then Greenpeace has been praising companies for having plans to reduce some pollutant, blaming Apple for having no such plans - when Apple had already got rid of the same pollutants in 2002!
'AAC is really not better or worse than MP3, from a licensing standpoint.'
It is actually better at the moment. For MP3, you can buy a complete package of all licenses reasonably cheap, except that some patent trolling bastards claim they own two more patents covering MP3 and they have already sued Microsoft successfully. For AAC, you can buy a complete package of all licenses relatively cheap, and at the moment there are no patent trolls with patents that they claim cover AAC.
You can buy albums, with or without DRM, for $9.99 minus whatever you paid for individual songs.
Wouldn't it be much better to improve the education system and take other measures to actually reduce the level of crime?
What Mr. Reid proposes is that I should take measures that cost me money to reduce the value of my possessions to criminals. It would make it also harder for me to sell my iPod on eBay if I want to replace it with a better model. It would be much better to give kids a decent education so they can find decent jobs instead of becoming criminals, and/or to make the risk of detection and the punishment for crime higher to actually deter criminals.