My original comment -- that the original poster had failed to answer the submitter's question (that spoke of ethics) with any information relevant to ethics -- stands.
Question: "What's the situation legally, ethically etc. when I crack his accounts?"
Answer: "Legally you are safe, ethically it is not an issue."
That's a complete answer, like it or not. Just because you think that there is an ethical issue does not mean that anyone answering "in my opinion there is none" is not answering at all.
The police searching the home of suspects is "limited" by pretty much the same rules (permission by a judge etc.) - and is generally permitted everytime the state attorney asks nicely. The judges often don't even really read the request before signing it off.
True. On the other hand it is not that hard to prevent the police (in Germany) from conducting a search of your home with a slipshod search warrant, if you know your rights. (And most warrants, as you hinted at, are indeed slipshod, or the manner in which they try to conduct the actual search. At least when it comes to not too major crimes.) Of course people need to inform themselves to do that. Then again getting yourself informed about your rights is always a good idea.
How well to these batteries fair in the cold? If they are like the Li-ions in my video camera you'll get to the end of the street then they'll die.
I don't know about other electric cars, but the batteries in the Tesla are being kept at a constant temperature. The reason being, according to the manufacturer, that extreme changes in the temperature surrounding Li-Ions is what actually makes them wear out faster.
I feel like I'm more capable of absorbing large amounts of information from diverse sources than the last generation.
Maybe you are. Do you also feel you are able to reflect on that information as thoroughly as "the last generation"? The way that you seem to mistake information for knowledge indicates otherwise.
He dissertated in 1953 and habilitated in 1957. Both times in theology. Depending on your disposition you might not call that a science of course, but I guess that's entirely your problem. Every academic career forces you to learn about working scientifically to some extent, even theology.
There are big flags at the top of the article, one for Germany, and one for English. I suppose the submitter didn't realize that funny blue and red flag was for Great Britain and meant English.
Which just goes to show once again that in web design representing different language versions by flags is a bloody stupid idea.
And yes, this is off topic, but the above can't be pointed out too often, so I'm willing to take that karma hit.
And, of course, there were so many protesters when Bush was inaugurated into Office in 2000 that he was the first President in over a hundred years that couldn't walk from the capitol to the White House after being sworn-in. He had to be taken there in an armored car.
A well known fact. The real question is, why couldn't he be stopped from being sworn-in?
"It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes."
Old Stalin was not the first and not the last to know this. It doesn't matter what kind of elaborate systems you think up to make elections fraud proof - in the end there will always be successful efforts to change the results, no matter what you do.
So you might as well stay with the pen & paper method. At least there the evidence of fraud is a bit harder to get rid of then opposed to changing some numbers in a machine.
Nigel: You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. Youre on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.
DiBergi: Why dont you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?
The link I originally submitted should have been to the non-registration part of LA Times. At least I could read it and I definitely never logged on there (or created an account, for that matter).
Imagine the outrage and press if the database hadn't gotten the offender's entry wrong.
Actually the first report I read about this (I think it was Reuters) didn't mention the screwed up database entry. And I may be mistaken, but when researching the story this morning it seemed to have a damn low profile... not much of an outcry there anyway.
Who thinks he may have gotten what was coming to him?
I realize that this will probably not be deemed sufficient by you, but the victim had spent the last twenty years of his life either in prison or in hospital. He was 67. His last offense dates back to 1987.
Although Oliver did not say he killed Dodele (...)
The suspect admitted attacking the victim and everything so far seems to point to him being the killer, but he has not actually confessed that yet. Which is why this was not claimed in the original story submission.
If you really could, everybody would have done so already. If free operating systems really were "better" in every way, nobody would pay for a worse one if they can get something better for free.
If everybody actively had to get an OS after buying a computer the percentages and general perception about what's better and best would be different, but, well, Windows OEM, MS Office, OpenOffice, Photoshop, Gimp, car analogies, assumptions, yadda yadda yadda... we all know where this leads so I'll just stop right here.
Aside from its long-held presence in the common law,
Aside from what? The presence of copyright ideas in common law began, depending on definition, at best in the second half of the 17th century with Charles II's royal prerogative. Compare that to the bulk of civil law stemming mostly from the centuries older Roman Corpus Iuris Civilis on which many legal codes are built. (At least in judicial systems which don't rely on funny traditions like, say, case law.)
it's also good logical sense and enshrined in legal codes around the globe.
Yes, international treaties like the Bern Convention in the 19th century saw to that. Which doesn't necessarily make it a logical idea, it just means that at some point in time a number of individuals thought it could be of benefit to someone. To who exactly is open to debate.
See, one of the lovely things about copyright law is that the author of the work gets to decide what to do with it. If they feel like their work should be distributed to whomever, whenever, however, they can certainly decide that.
Yea, lovely. Let's go back to the roots. Imagine a group of cavemen. If one of them goes "Ugh" it is certainly the right of the others to go "Ugh" too if they think that "Ugh" is a pretty neat idea, no? If one of them carves something on a bark and declares it to represent his idea of "Ugh", and others think this to be interesting as well and start carving barks with "Ugh" (or even derivative stuff based on it) and maybe even spread those to other cavemen - would you say the caveman who originally came up with the "Ugh" idea has a right to stop them? If he went like "yo guys, if anyone's going to spread the word about 'Ugh' it's me or people I ask to do it" and they didn't listen to him, would you say it's ok for him to hit them over the head with a heavy rock repeatedly or would you rather ask him why he released his idea about "Ugh" into the world in the first place?
This points us to the question: is copyright a natural right? I think most people will agree that it's not. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily. But it's obvious that it is much harder to agree on the justification of unnatural rights than on the justification of natural rights, like the right to live.
So, to come back to your statement: yes this is the way it works now. It is not necessarily the only way. You could just as well argue that people who want to control the use of their ideas should just keep them in their heads. By the way, you will find that most people don't want to control their ideas that badly.
There are other people who do not want that. By obliterating copyright, you remove their rights.
Uh-huh. By taking away a right from everyone you also remove it from a subset of people. Thanks, Captain Obvious. It might be a bit less of a waste of time to consider that copyright only exists because, presumably, there once was a majority for it which allowed this legal construst to be created and installed throughout the world. But there may also come a time when there's a majority to remove it, like it or not.
As a writer myself, I favor copyright. If at any time I wish to allow my works to be distributed freely in their entirety, I can do that. If I wish it to happen on my death, I can write that into my will. But why should you decide what I may or may not do with my writings?
Because you don't keep them in your drawer. You want them to be distributed. Why should you decide what I do with my copy of your writings or how I get one? If you don't want me to get one you shouldn't have released it.
However, I cannot in any respect see how copyright law is evil. It may be unenforceable; it may be unreasonable, even. Neither of those equates with evil.
Don't forget "unnatural". Anyway, when it comes down to nitpicking you're right. It's not evil. That doesn't mean that it's completely unthinkable to relate to how grandparent feels about copyright, but, no, it's not evil. Good thing we sorted that out.
Will Smith is not a zombie cockroach. He is a Scientologist. I may be splitting hairs here, but there is a difference.
No, he just defends the beliefs of a personal friend of his (Cruise). Which still, as he states, are not his own. The claims of him having been "converted" (since Scientology is no religion but a "religion" it's impossible to write the "converted" without the quotes) came from an unnamed source.
I may be splitting hairs here, but... well, you know.
P.S.: yea, off-topic. So was parent. Sue me. Or us. Or him.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus to those who don't ask. Unfortunately.
I don't know which picture you're looking at, I only see one from 2005. That's not too recent.
Question: "What's the situation legally, ethically etc. when I crack his accounts?"
Answer: "Legally you are safe, ethically it is not an issue."
That's a complete answer, like it or not. Just because you think that there is an ethical issue does not mean that anyone answering "in my opinion there is none" is not answering at all.
Of course he has. Allow me to point it out to you:
You, on the other hand, have so far failed to show how this is not the case.
I'm not so sure about the US. Concerning "tiny", I mean.
True. On the other hand it is not that hard to prevent the police (in Germany) from conducting a search of your home with a slipshod search warrant, if you know your rights. (And most warrants, as you hinted at, are indeed slipshod, or the manner in which they try to conduct the actual search. At least when it comes to not too major crimes.) Of course people need to inform themselves to do that. Then again getting yourself informed about your rights is always a good idea.
I don't know about other electric cars, but the batteries in the Tesla are being kept at a constant temperature. The reason being, according to the manufacturer, that extreme changes in the temperature surrounding Li-Ions is what actually makes them wear out faster.
Just poke those sharpened sticks into you ears and click away.
... as if millions of marketing managers suddenly cried out in terror.
Maybe you are. Do you also feel you are able to reflect on that information as thoroughly as "the last generation"? The way that you seem to mistake information for knowledge indicates otherwise.
He dissertated in 1953 and habilitated in 1957. Both times in theology. Depending on your disposition you might not call that a science of course, but I guess that's entirely your problem. Every academic career forces you to learn about working scientifically to some extent, even theology.
Which just goes to show once again that in web design representing different language versions by flags is a bloody stupid idea.
And yes, this is off topic, but the above can't be pointed out too often, so I'm willing to take that karma hit.
"It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes."
Old Stalin was not the first and not the last to know this. It doesn't matter what kind of elaborate systems you think up to make elections fraud proof - in the end there will always be successful efforts to change the results, no matter what you do.
So you might as well stay with the pen & paper method. At least there the evidence of fraud is a bit harder to get rid of then opposed to changing some numbers in a machine.
Nigel: You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. Youre on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.
DiBergi: Why dont you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?
(small pause)
Nigel: These go to 11.
The link I originally submitted should have been to the non-registration part of LA Times. At least I could read it and I definitely never logged on there (or created an account, for that matter).
If everybody actively had to get an OS after buying a computer the percentages and general perception about what's better and best would be different, but, well, Windows OEM, MS Office, OpenOffice, Photoshop, Gimp, car analogies, assumptions, yadda yadda yadda... we all know where this leads so I'll just stop right here.
Aside from what? The presence of copyright ideas in common law began, depending on definition, at best in the second half of the 17th century with Charles II's royal prerogative. Compare that to the bulk of civil law stemming mostly from the centuries older Roman Corpus Iuris Civilis on which many legal codes are built. (At least in judicial systems which don't rely on funny traditions like, say, case law.)
Yes, international treaties like the Bern Convention in the 19th century saw to that. Which doesn't necessarily make it a logical idea, it just means that at some point in time a number of individuals thought it could be of benefit to someone. To who exactly is open to debate.
Yea, lovely. Let's go back to the roots. Imagine a group of cavemen. If one of them goes "Ugh" it is certainly the right of the others to go "Ugh" too if they think that "Ugh" is a pretty neat idea, no? If one of them carves something on a bark and declares it to represent his idea of "Ugh", and others think this to be interesting as well and start carving barks with "Ugh" (or even derivative stuff based on it) and maybe even spread those to other cavemen - would you say the caveman who originally came up with the "Ugh" idea has a right to stop them? If he went like "yo guys, if anyone's going to spread the word about 'Ugh' it's me or people I ask to do it" and they didn't listen to him, would you say it's ok for him to hit them over the head with a heavy rock repeatedly or would you rather ask him why he released his idea about "Ugh" into the world in the first place?
This points us to the question: is copyright a natural right? I think most people will agree that it's not. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily. But it's obvious that it is much harder to agree on the justification of unnatural rights than on the justification of natural rights, like the right to live.
So, to come back to your statement: yes this is the way it works now. It is not necessarily the only way. You could just as well argue that people who want to control the use of their ideas should just keep them in their heads. By the way, you will find that most people don't want to control their ideas that badly.
Uh-huh. By taking away a right from everyone you also remove it from a subset of people. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
It might be a bit less of a waste of time to consider that copyright only exists because, presumably, there once was a majority for it which allowed this legal construst to be created and installed throughout the world. But there may also come a time when there's a majority to remove it, like it or not.
Because you don't keep them in your drawer. You want them to be distributed. Why should you decide what I do with my copy of your writings or how I get one? If you don't want me to get one you shouldn't have released it.
Don't forget "unnatural". Anyway, when it comes down to nitpicking you're right. It's not evil. That doesn't mean that it's completely unthinkable to relate to how grandparent feels about copyright, but, no, it's not evil. Good thing we sorted that out.
No, he just defends the beliefs of a personal friend of his (Cruise). Which still, as he states, are not his own. The claims of him having been "converted" (since Scientology is no religion but a "religion" it's impossible to write the "converted" without the quotes) came from an unnamed source.
I may be splitting hairs here, but... well, you know.
P.S.: yea, off-topic. So was parent. Sue me. Or us. Or him.