Okay, in the whole world, copyright infringement is only sometimes a crime. However everywhere theft is always a crime. Argument still works.
And the only reason why the media companies want copyright infringement to be thought of as theft is so they can leverage hefty theft-esque fines and consequences, instead of relatively smaller torts you find in copyright infringement laws.
When you call copyright infringement theft, you make a mockery of private property law.
Not true. Some laws specify civil torts while others specify crimes. You become a criminal by violating the laws that specify crimes. This isn't philosophical bullshit.
Copyright infringement (my favorite replacement term) can either be a civil tort or criminal depending on the purpose and circumstances. In most cases, especially involving P2P sharing, the infringement is a civil tort.
However, theft is always criminal. Sure, it might have to exceed a certain threshold to be a felony, but stealing even a fraction of a penny is a crime.
Theft is always a crime. Copyright infringement is only a crime in certain instances. Again, this is not philosophical bullshit.
Arguing that theft and copyright infringement are the same thing demonstrates a lack of understanding the difference between civil and criminal law not to mention the purpose and nature of copyright law.
But Britannica is keen to stress that its new website will not be following the Wiki-model, describing it "as a collaborative process but not a democratic one." First, Wikipedia is not a democracy.
Second, facts are not democratic. You can't VOTE on what will be true. Trust me, it's been tried.
*shrug*, you reply to a discussion about the Democratic race, bad-mouthing one of the candidates without saying anything about the other, WTF are people supposed to think? Well, in the absence of any comment on the matter, you should not think anything. Fancy that!
Maybe you should try following the news, because the Libertarian 'nod' went to Bob Barr two days ago. Touche.
I love it. I'm "against" Barrack Obama's, so therefore I MUST BE in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Please.
I have nothing but utter contempt for all three presidential front runners. So much so, that I will likely not vote for any of them come November. Maybe if Mike Gravel gains the Libertarian nod, I will vote for him.
You know, before you go calling someone an idiot you might want to make sure your own position is well founded in fact.
FACT - The DNC rules were concerning the seating of delegates and had nothing to do with putting names on the ballots.
FACT - The DNC ASKED candidates to withdraw their name. Some obliged. Others did not.
But don't let the facts cloud your obvious political posturing. Don't try to understand that there is a distinction between helping your party make a statement by agreeing to a request, and upholding your civil responsibilities by abiding by an organization's rules. Both of which are vastly different from violating the law, like the constitution.
Seriously, I hate political lemmings. If Howie Dean says "gee, the candidates should remove their names from the ballots" and someone doesn't, then that is like Bush ignoring the constitution!!! (In case you can't see me, my eyes are rolling here).
You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair? It's fair because Obama choose to withdraw his name from the ballot in order to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire. Planning for short-term gains at the expense of the long-term is precisely a quality I DO NOT want in a president.
Being able to aquire medical care when in need is a basic human right. I'm not sure if you were being sloppy or if you were just wording this carefully. While the pursuance of health care should be protected as a right, the health care itself is not a basic human right. It just isn't. This is based on the private property principal that you own your own services and property and no body else has a right to them unless you consent as to such.
We really need to get past this entitlement attitude that people have when it comes to sucking off the government nipple.
Should the government spend $1 million patting the backs of those already more "valuable", or should it use that money to make those who are less "valuable" more "valuable"?
Sorry but static friction beats sliding friction. Once your wheels are locked you have less friction between them and the road. Your maximum braking power is on the verge of locking but still rolling. This is far past the point where ABS chimes in.
Slashdot Mirror
Vermont cheddar has everything from Wisconsin beat.
(I'm from Michigan)
Okay, in the whole world, copyright infringement is only sometimes a crime. However everywhere theft is always a crime. Argument still works.
And the only reason why the media companies want copyright infringement to be thought of as theft is so they can leverage hefty theft-esque fines and consequences, instead of relatively smaller torts you find in copyright infringement laws.
When you call copyright infringement theft, you make a mockery of private property law.
If you violate the law, you are a criminal.
Not true. Some laws specify civil torts while others specify crimes. You become a criminal by violating the laws that specify crimes. This isn't philosophical bullshit.
Copyright infringement (my favorite replacement term) can either be a civil tort or criminal depending on the purpose and circumstances. In most cases, especially involving P2P sharing, the infringement is a civil tort.
However, theft is always criminal. Sure, it might have to exceed a certain threshold to be a felony, but stealing even a fraction of a penny is a crime.
Theft is always a crime. Copyright infringement is only a crime in certain instances. Again, this is not philosophical bullshit.
Arguing that theft and copyright infringement are the same thing demonstrates a lack of understanding the difference between civil and criminal law not to mention the purpose and nature of copyright law.
Second, facts are not democratic. You can't VOTE on what will be true. Trust me, it's been tried.
I love it. I'm "against" Barrack Obama's, so therefore I MUST BE in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Please.
I have nothing but utter contempt for all three presidential front runners. So much so, that I will likely not vote for any of them come November. Maybe if Mike Gravel gains the Libertarian nod, I will vote for him.
You know, before you go calling someone an idiot you might want to make sure your own position is well founded in fact.
FACT - The DNC rules were concerning the seating of delegates and had nothing to do with putting names on the ballots.
FACT - The DNC ASKED candidates to withdraw their name. Some obliged. Others did not.
But don't let the facts cloud your obvious political posturing. Don't try to understand that there is a distinction between helping your party make a statement by agreeing to a request, and upholding your civil responsibilities by abiding by an organization's rules. Both of which are vastly different from violating the law, like the constitution.
Seriously, I hate political lemmings. If Howie Dean says "gee, the candidates should remove their names from the ballots" and someone doesn't, then that is like Bush ignoring the constitution!!! (In case you can't see me, my eyes are rolling here).
Idiot indeed.
I'm not your pal, friend!
We really need to get past this entitlement attitude that people have when it comes to sucking off the government nipple.
Never encountered a multilayer switch eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilayer_switch
A Hanzo sword would cut through the reactor like a hit knife through buttah.
What version of MySQL are you using?
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/stored-procedures.html
Having a worldwide master computer really worked for the Bynars. I'm sure it'll work here on Earth too.
Right, because capitalism can't possibly exist in an Anarchy. Are you kidding?
Perhaps. Though they are still "more native" than the rest of the inhabitants.
Yeah, and Putin thinks he's king.
Should the government spend $1 million patting the backs of those already more "valuable", or should it use that money to make those who are less "valuable" more "valuable"?
They already expend the effort to product the clean edits for radio play. Compiling them into a CD costs nothing.
Fine. Just don't have your main firewall be on the same machine as the data you're trying to protect.
Sorry but static friction beats sliding friction. Once your wheels are locked you have less friction between them and the road. Your maximum braking power is on the verge of locking but still rolling. This is far past the point where ABS chimes in.
Oh? And how many times did you fail the CCNA exam?
That amount of power can be easily generated with one DeLorean. I'm going back to sleep...
[quote]I'm from Australia here, and I've never understood how the US health care system worked until I saw Moore's documentary, SiCKO.[/quote]
My good man, if everything you know about US health care is from SiCKO, then you still do not understand US health care.