Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling.
what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219 [justice.gc.ca]). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech.
We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find.
weasel words: "reasoned debate", "identifiable group"
How about advocating capital punishment for "child love" practitioners?
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
Ya, just like they did with Win...uh.. nevermind.
What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box.
Ya, a piece of plastic with a series of pits on it. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I shone a laser on those pits...
if you change enough files...will it still be
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
All copyright laws refer to somethimg called a "work" but not one provides a general definition. This deficiency leads to contradictions in the application of copyright laws.
For example, if the "work" in question is a book, do we mean the physical copy, the sequence of letters, the layout of a particular edition, just the plot?
If the ontology of a "work" is already problematic, what more the ownership of such work?
It seems that the only people sticking up for copyright, patents and other forms of government-enforced monopolies on the exploitation of "works" are those whose living is threatened by the prospect of abolishing "IP rights". Their stance is not a principled one. It is at best a false utilitarian one and at worst, just selfish money-grubbing.
This is pure Luddism. They may as well adopt "General Ludd's Triumph" as their anthem:
The guilty may fear, but no vengeance he aims At the honest man's life or Estate His wrath is entirely confined to P2P networks And to those that old prices abate
are the parents of inventions.
The patent system is just the pimp.
"The student, Ren Ng, ran out of patience with taking pictures the traditional way"
This is the reason why he came up with the idea, not the patent system. What does "protecting" an idea mean anyway? What patents do is protect a monopoly on an idea.
While i agree with the sentiment, can't you extend that argument to say we should ignore all medical patents even within the US. But without *some* kind of protection from cheap cloning of drugs this might result in many drugs never being developed.
All that R&D money would be spent on other things, and who knows what might be developed. Drugs developed under patent protection is what is seen. But what is unseen?
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling. what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219 [justice.gc.ca]). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech.
We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find.
weasel words: "reasoned debate", "identifiable group"
How about advocating capital punishment for "child love" practitioners?
...and there you go, instant legal online gambling.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so. Ya, just like they did with Win...uh.. nevermind.
What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. Ya, a piece of plastic with a series of pits on it. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I shone a laser on those pits...
Mac OSX?
A work is the property of the author.
All copyright laws refer to somethimg called a "work" but not one provides a general definition. This deficiency leads to contradictions in the application of copyright laws.
For example, if the "work" in question is a book, do we mean the physical copy, the sequence of letters, the layout of a particular edition, just the plot?
If the ontology of a "work" is already problematic, what more the ownership of such work?
It seems that the only people sticking up for copyright, patents and other forms of government-enforced monopolies on the exploitation of "works" are those whose living is threatened by the prospect of abolishing "IP rights". Their stance is not a principled one. It is at best a false utilitarian one and at worst, just selfish money-grubbing.
This is pure Luddism. They may as well adopt "General Ludd's Triumph" as their anthem:
The guilty may fear, but no vengeance he aims
At the honest man's life or Estate
His wrath is entirely confined to P2P networks
And to those that old prices abate
That may be due to the fact that "species" is a term so vague as to be scientifically useless.
See the discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Species
I had a friend who broke a foot snowboarding and didn't feel pain until he looked at it.
That would be the "Wile E. Coyote Effect"
My wife and I put our son into daycare at 3 months. After maybe two months, we changed his formula intake..."
bottle-feeding linked to obesity in adults
"The theory of evolution can be summed up in two words; species evolve"
Great theory. Now, if they could only come up with a rigorous definition of "species", we could really get somewhere.
Which is it? And was it created thanks to the "incentives" provided by the IP system?
Or maybe because they are 100 times more likely to walk on Shabbat (i.e. not drive).
If this guy was bright enough to come up with the idea in the first place, he should have been savvy enough to patent it.
How 'bout reducing state spending?
wake me up when they come up with a rigorous scientific definition of "species" or even "life"
Dismantle the Department of Education already. Let the parents decide what they wish they chldren to learn.
The very notion of intellectual property rights is absurd.
are the parents of inventions. The patent system is just the pimp. "The student, Ren Ng, ran out of patience with taking pictures the traditional way" This is the reason why he came up with the idea, not the patent system. What does "protecting" an idea mean anyway? What patents do is protect a monopoly on an idea.
Repeal Prohibition! No IP!
Microsoft takes name first, kicks butt later. What a company!
While i agree with the sentiment, can't you extend that argument to say we should ignore all medical patents even within the US. But without *some* kind of protection from cheap cloning of drugs this might result in many drugs never being developed.
All that R&D money would be spent on other things, and who knows what might be developed. Drugs developed under patent protection is what is seen. But what is unseen?
"So it's not exactly self-powered, but it rolls." So headline should read "World's Smallest Soap-Box Racer"
Pillow manufacturers, which did not contribute, are getting a free ride. The government better correct this market failure.
Stephan "Against IP" Kinsella posted on this subject on the Mises Economics Blog. Libertarian discussion ensues.