I don't think so. This clearly is not what the law was intended to prosecute, but if the law states that minors can be prosecuted, minors can be prosecuted. Whether it was meant for them or not, they broke the law. It's the decision of the officials (or the governor), not the appeals court, to ignore this because it wasn't so intended (as it clearly wasn't).
Although the article is timing out for me, it seems like he's using it as an example of how the principle of non-neutrality is a boon, and should be applied to common carriers (which is, of course, currently and ab initio prohibited by law, pending repeal).
I mean, when you're considering whether to buy something out of the ordinary, do you think "but I could spend this money on something else!" No, you think "but I'll have less/no pocket money left..." Maybe then the other things come to mind, but the first thought is that you'll have a smaller surplus. On some level, the first may be why you want more money, but it isn't the first thing you think of. This isn't some hidden mechanism of our brains; it's pretty intuitive.
Tell that to the good people of Massachusetts, whose support for liberalization of liquor laws dropped 20 points when the scare tactics changed from "it will be easier for teenagers to buy" and "there will be more drunk drivers" to "people will start buying wine at Wal-mart!"
Easy. Let them assemble peaceably, but make sure that one of them is held accountable for the evil things they do. Hell, let them enter into it, and let them all go to jail. Or even put up a "tightwads in a diner" system, and let lawyers sort out who's responsible for what. Just hold someone in the corporation accountable for the evil.
The problem with your argument is that you imply that a given work of art can be considered an entire industry, a necessity for there to be a "monopoly" or a "planned economy." It doesn't work if you introduce the fiction of "intellectual property." Yes, it's a fiction, but property itself is a fiction, as are many other things - we agree to it because it works. Then you argue that intellectual property doesn't work. Well, then, all this "art" you're looking for - where would it be without intellectual property? These people get rich of the money they get from people who aren't as "enlightened" as you are, and that's why most of them work, even the ones who claim not to. Even those who work for the love of it wouldn't have nearly as much time to do so without those "communists'" money.
So you see, it is a capitalist idea - you advocate taking it out of the hands of particular people (whom, by the way, the state does not select, a key anti-communist fact) and putting it in the hands of the community.
It requires that there be labels in those standards available for health purposes, but if you want to advertise a "250g burger" or something similar, as long as you have Imperial nutritional facts available, no one will stop you. I think. Things might be worse than I thought...
Of course, either of us are better off (by small-l liberal standards) than any other major civilization in the world, ever. (Canada might be better, but they have a lot of the European excesses.)
1: We don't lose the right to habeas corpus. You do. An enemy combatant - which can be anyone - can be put in prison indefinitely, and subjected to any act that does not meet a very narrow definition of torture. Habeas copus is an option if and only if the person is a US Citizen. The theory is that anyone else is essentially an enemy soldier, and doesn't deserve it.
2: Habeas corpus is actually in the original Constitution, not the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). As for the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion and petition are still intact. The right to bear arms was already long gone. The one you got is fine. The freedom from search and seizure is gone as such, but you can still have gay sex! No double jeopardy or self-incrimination, although due process is out. No public trial. Excessive bail is still illegal...but you can be tortured. The last two are procedural and basically forgotten...man, this is depressing.
3: Ben Franklin was never President. He just wrote a lot of books.
4: I lost all faith in the EU when they started imposing fines for advertising in Imperial measures. For the man on the street, that's worse than what the US is doing. This is even worse.
The difference is that that's a matter of threat, a separate crime in most jurisdictions. (Indeed, in many it would be punishable only by a restraining order, or even not at all.) North Korea is not threatening to attack anyone unless sanctions are imposed. This is coercion, and that only becomes a problem when there's a real threat of sanctions, which were allegedly a response to nuclear weapons. If there are no nuclear weapons, there's no reason to impose sanctions, and I imagine that the UN will forbid it, but the US will ignore them.
While many people do it for the love of it, most of those people don't really make a stir over copyright. The people who do make a fuss obviously see their art as a source of income, so it stands to reason that that's why it exists in the first place. At least the better part of the art that's problematic wouldn't exist if it weren't.
So a privilege is something granted by the government, that would not exist if it did not exist. Well, then, I hope you enjoy your privilege to life, liberty, and property. Of course, that's unless someone claims the right for life to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Free speech is not one of those things either. You and I agree that there should be free speech, but there are many countries where it is illegal to express certain opinions, including our dear neighbor Canada. There are many, many people who defend these policies, so it's not something "we accept exists regardless of what the government wants to do about it." In certain tribal societies, there was no concept of possession, only the immediate right to use. In modern-day Cuba, there is no right to property. It's not "a natural right."
As for the fact that a right is a restriction on government, rather than something the government grants, it's also something the government grants. Property rights would certainly not exist without a government. Free speech would just as certainly exist without a government, but it would be a much more dangerous institution. Likewise, copyright ensures that the government will not appropriate one's work, at least for a period. One's work becomes a commodity in one's own possession - in a phrase, intellectual property.
Privilege, privilege, it's all privilege. The privilege of free speech, the privilege of property ownership, etc...there are those against both. The government protects your right to the proceeds of your creations - that makes it as much a right as anything.
However, this would disallow that they line their own pockets to the betterment of science and/or art. After all, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker...." This greed is the only reason this art for which you're so desperate exists.
Everyone's talking about the cost of reconciling the functions (which I assume mostly goes into labor). How do they actually propose to reconcile the functions, however? If I'm not mistaken, the rumbling caused by most mechanisms is designed to be difficult to predict precisely. So the only way to block it is to take down functionality completely for a second, or at least desensitize it. That's got to be annoying. Alternatively, the rumbling can be simplified, but that's not much better. Even beside that, it's got to be jarring to have the axis you've used as a control mechanism suddenly go crazy, even if the signals aren't actually being sent to the game.
I'm kind of surprised how much of these terms I didn't know. I'd never thought to check what "RSS" stood for, for example, or referred to a personal video recorder as anything but. Come to think of it, I don't even know what "VHS" stands for. It's quite humbling.
The stories in GTA were mostly self-contained, and barely interacted. Think about it: which was the most popular in the GTA3 series? San Andreas...and this one unquestionably had the deepest of the storylines, on its own. It tied back to the other two, but that was it. People wouldn't have played Half-Life 2 if they hadn't already gone through the first. No one's going to pay $60 for a "to be continued" marquee.
The US is a federation. Each state is a truly democratic society with one person, one vote, but the country was founded on the idea that the states would not be the same, and must be treated as separate. They are not simple provinces or administrative divisions, but literal states. This conception has been abandoned to some degree since the civil war, but the fact remains that there are at times very marked differences. (Margaret Marshall is currently thinking up new ways to ensure this.)
The Presidential election is a little screwed up, but that's not the most important election. You don't really lose say if you're in a large state (because the population reaping the benefits is so small), but if you're in a very small state, your vote is effectively tripled, because that state can't be neglected. As long as you live in one of the fifty states, though, it's not an enormous difference. The dependencies get screwed, but it's not like they're gated off - Puerto Rico, the largest overseas dependency, has been offered statehood several times and rejected it, so apparently, it's not that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you'd better hope no one tries to search for a webcomic on this thing.
I don't think so. This clearly is not what the law was intended to prosecute, but if the law states that minors can be prosecuted, minors can be prosecuted. Whether it was meant for them or not, they broke the law. It's the decision of the officials (or the governor), not the appeals court, to ignore this because it wasn't so intended (as it clearly wasn't).
You're forgetting "Michael was hoping for something a bit more dramatic, or at least less dated."
Although the article is timing out for me, it seems like he's using it as an example of how the principle of non-neutrality is a boon, and should be applied to common carriers (which is, of course, currently and ab initio prohibited by law, pending repeal).
I mean, when you're considering whether to buy something out of the ordinary, do you think "but I could spend this money on something else!" No, you think "but I'll have less/no pocket money left..." Maybe then the other things come to mind, but the first thought is that you'll have a smaller surplus. On some level, the first may be why you want more money, but it isn't the first thing you think of. This isn't some hidden mechanism of our brains; it's pretty intuitive.
Tell that to the good people of Massachusetts, whose support for liberalization of liquor laws dropped 20 points when the scare tactics changed from "it will be easier for teenagers to buy" and "there will be more drunk drivers" to "people will start buying wine at Wal-mart!"
Easy. Let them assemble peaceably, but make sure that one of them is held accountable for the evil things they do. Hell, let them enter into it, and let them all go to jail. Or even put up a "tightwads in a diner" system, and let lawyers sort out who's responsible for what. Just hold someone in the corporation accountable for the evil.
Jesus...it's always Fox News. I would be more scared over music videos, or clips of TV shows.
The problem with your argument is that you imply that a given work of art can be considered an entire industry, a necessity for there to be a "monopoly" or a "planned economy." It doesn't work if you introduce the fiction of "intellectual property." Yes, it's a fiction, but property itself is a fiction, as are many other things - we agree to it because it works. Then you argue that intellectual property doesn't work. Well, then, all this "art" you're looking for - where would it be without intellectual property? These people get rich of the money they get from people who aren't as "enlightened" as you are, and that's why most of them work, even the ones who claim not to. Even those who work for the love of it wouldn't have nearly as much time to do so without those "communists'" money.
So you see, it is a capitalist idea - you advocate taking it out of the hands of particular people (whom, by the way, the state does not select, a key anti-communist fact) and putting it in the hands of the community.
It requires that there be labels in those standards available for health purposes, but if you want to advertise a "250g burger" or something similar, as long as you have Imperial nutritional facts available, no one will stop you. I think. Things might be worse than I thought...
Of course, either of us are better off (by small-l liberal standards) than any other major civilization in the world, ever. (Canada might be better, but they have a lot of the European excesses.)
A few nitpicks.
1: We don't lose the right to habeas corpus. You do. An enemy combatant - which can be anyone - can be put in prison indefinitely, and subjected to any act that does not meet a very narrow definition of torture. Habeas copus is an option if and only if the person is a US Citizen. The theory is that anyone else is essentially an enemy soldier, and doesn't deserve it.
2: Habeas corpus is actually in the original Constitution, not the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). As for the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion and petition are still intact. The right to bear arms was already long gone. The one you got is fine. The freedom from search and seizure is gone as such, but you can still have gay sex! No double jeopardy or self-incrimination, although due process is out. No public trial. Excessive bail is still illegal...but you can be tortured. The last two are procedural and basically forgotten...man, this is depressing.
3: Ben Franklin was never President. He just wrote a lot of books.
4: I lost all faith in the EU when they started imposing fines for advertising in Imperial measures. For the man on the street, that's worse than what the US is doing. This is even worse.
The difference is that that's a matter of threat, a separate crime in most jurisdictions. (Indeed, in many it would be punishable only by a restraining order, or even not at all.) North Korea is not threatening to attack anyone unless sanctions are imposed. This is coercion, and that only becomes a problem when there's a real threat of sanctions, which were allegedly a response to nuclear weapons. If there are no nuclear weapons, there's no reason to impose sanctions, and I imagine that the UN will forbid it, but the US will ignore them.
While many people do it for the love of it, most of those people don't really make a stir over copyright. The people who do make a fuss obviously see their art as a source of income, so it stands to reason that that's why it exists in the first place. At least the better part of the art that's problematic wouldn't exist if it weren't.
But how can one buy and sell a legal person on the market? Hasn't that been illegal for some time now?
A fascinating refutation. Could you elaborate?
So a privilege is something granted by the government, that would not exist if it did not exist. Well, then, I hope you enjoy your privilege to life, liberty, and property. Of course, that's unless someone claims the right for life to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Free speech is not one of those things either. You and I agree that there should be free speech, but there are many countries where it is illegal to express certain opinions, including our dear neighbor Canada. There are many, many people who defend these policies, so it's not something "we accept exists regardless of what the government wants to do about it." In certain tribal societies, there was no concept of possession, only the immediate right to use. In modern-day Cuba, there is no right to property. It's not "a natural right."
As for the fact that a right is a restriction on government, rather than something the government grants, it's also something the government grants. Property rights would certainly not exist without a government. Free speech would just as certainly exist without a government, but it would be a much more dangerous institution. Likewise, copyright ensures that the government will not appropriate one's work, at least for a period. One's work becomes a commodity in one's own possession - in a phrase, intellectual property.
Privilege, privilege, it's all privilege. The privilege of free speech, the privilege of property ownership, etc...there are those against both. The government protects your right to the proceeds of your creations - that makes it as much a right as anything.
However, this would disallow that they line their own pockets to the betterment of science and/or art. After all, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker...." This greed is the only reason this art for which you're so desperate exists.
Everyone's talking about the cost of reconciling the functions (which I assume mostly goes into labor). How do they actually propose to reconcile the functions, however? If I'm not mistaken, the rumbling caused by most mechanisms is designed to be difficult to predict precisely. So the only way to block it is to take down functionality completely for a second, or at least desensitize it. That's got to be annoying. Alternatively, the rumbling can be simplified, but that's not much better. Even beside that, it's got to be jarring to have the axis you've used as a control mechanism suddenly go crazy, even if the signals aren't actually being sent to the game.
I'm kind of surprised how much of these terms I didn't know. I'd never thought to check what "RSS" stood for, for example, or referred to a personal video recorder as anything but. Come to think of it, I don't even know what "VHS" stands for. It's quite humbling.
The jargon was a different story, though.
Yes, but what if that had been Halo 1?
The stories in GTA were mostly self-contained, and barely interacted. Think about it: which was the most popular in the GTA3 series? San Andreas...and this one unquestionably had the deepest of the storylines, on its own. It tied back to the other two, but that was it. People wouldn't have played Half-Life 2 if they hadn't already gone through the first. No one's going to pay $60 for a "to be continued" marquee.
The US is a federation. Each state is a truly democratic society with one person, one vote, but the country was founded on the idea that the states would not be the same, and must be treated as separate. They are not simple provinces or administrative divisions, but literal states. This conception has been abandoned to some degree since the civil war, but the fact remains that there are at times very marked differences. (Margaret Marshall is currently thinking up new ways to ensure this.)
The Presidential election is a little screwed up, but that's not the most important election. You don't really lose say if you're in a large state (because the population reaping the benefits is so small), but if you're in a very small state, your vote is effectively tripled, because that state can't be neglected. As long as you live in one of the fifty states, though, it's not an enormous difference. The dependencies get screwed, but it's not like they're gated off - Puerto Rico, the largest overseas dependency, has been offered statehood several times and rejected it, so apparently, it's not that bad.