Lets take a look at a couple of scenarios;
1. A cop on the internet spending a couple of hours to find a DIY event, then wastes man hours busting a crime that never happened.
Total manpower wasted on a non crime 4 hours.
2, Respond to a noise complaint at midnight to find 100 drunken punk rockers at a DIY event.
Lots of time spent on an actual crime
Preventing a crime is much simpler than stopping one in progress. But preventing a non crime is unconstitutional.
The fact is that we don't know how far the industry would have progressed without the illegal anti-trust violations which resulted in the supression of competition.
I think we have a pretty good idea how far the industry would have progressed. Just look at the non MS world around you.
As far as Microsoft Products they are far superior to the majority of the products out there. Are they perfect? No, but then neither is anything else.
I recently sat in a bulk head seat and had to place my backpack with my hibernating laptop in it in the overhead. Someone had managed to also place a large container of liquid in the overhead as well. After we reached cruising altitude I got up to get my laptop, when it was discovered that this liquid spilled, and was dripping on the people underneath.
The stewardess came by to try and figure out whose liquid spilled, and to clean it up. Then she saw the blinking light on my laptop. I've never seen anyone so freaked out in my life. Never mind the liquid that is spilled and leaking out and dripping on people, because there is a blinking light. OMG we are all going to die!
There is no need to ban them when they can be just turned off. And sadly, there are too many consumer electronic devices in use to simply ban them, so the best compromise is to turn them off.
And yet that didn't stop them from banning bottles of water.
However, if you listen to things like Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture", you will notice just how crappy lossy codecs really are.
Right, because only good codes will encode such a precise and perfect instruments as a cannon?
Just because a bunch of noise was created recently doesn't mean it is any less perfect than a bunch of noise that was made 200 years ago. Some people like classical music, and some people don't. And just because you don't, doesn't mean the music you don't like is "shit"
, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right.
Here in America... as is with many other countries, you've already given that right. You've agree to give that right to the content creators, SO the content creators will create.
Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all.
And what is "non-commercial?" Are you saying it is ok to copy stuff as long as you aren't reselling it? Or its ok to copy stuff someone else wrote, even if that person isn't selling it?
It isn't illegal to unlock the phone, if you own it. The real question is, when you get a phone on contract, who owns the phone? The current claim is you don't own it, and that is why you can't modify it.
And what the freak is "Co. Law?" County Law? Company Law? Corporate Law? Colorado Law? Constitutional Law?
There are times to use abbreviations, and there are times not to. This is one of those "not to" times. The summary has a grand total of three abbreviations, Co for County, e.g. for "for example" and Co for Colorado. Nice.
So you don't see anything wrong with given a truth serum (drugged up out of your mind), and then asked questions? You don't see how that might be perceived as incriminating yourself?
If a woman marries a rich man it is often in her interest to kill him and inherit.
Wow... no it isn't. The options are, be free and have money, or risk life in jail for more money. It isn't in her interest. It might be in her interest if he died, but not for her to kill him.
>The topic here isn't "ways to blow retirement savings", the topic is "the effects of so called victimless crimes". That you feel the need to change the topic tells me all I need to know.
So it is ok to "blow retirement savings" if the thing it is blown on is legal? It isn't changing the topic, the topics are the same.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that. So might a friend whose father consistently gambled away most of his take home pay. There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
So the answer is making gambling illegal, because the father gambled the money away? What if he gave it all to charity, or tossed it out the window? Or tried to start a business that failed?
Yes most "victimless" crimes have collateral damage, but so does almost everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets take a look at a couple of scenarios;
1. A cop on the internet spending a couple of hours to find a DIY event, then wastes man hours busting a crime that never happened.
Total manpower wasted on a non crime 4 hours.
2, Respond to a noise complaint at midnight to find 100 drunken punk rockers at a DIY event.
Lots of time spent on an actual crime
Preventing a crime is much simpler than stopping one in progress. But preventing a non crime is unconstitutional.
The fact is that we don't know how far the industry would have progressed without the illegal anti-trust violations which resulted in the supression of competition.
I think we have a pretty good idea how far the industry would have progressed. Just look at the non MS world around you.
As far as Microsoft Products they are far superior to the majority of the products out there. Are they perfect? No, but then neither is anything else.
I recently sat in a bulk head seat and had to place my backpack with my hibernating laptop in it in the overhead. Someone had managed to also place a large container of liquid in the overhead as well. After we reached cruising altitude I got up to get my laptop, when it was discovered that this liquid spilled, and was dripping on the people underneath.
The stewardess came by to try and figure out whose liquid spilled, and to clean it up. Then she saw the blinking light on my laptop. I've never seen anyone so freaked out in my life. Never mind the liquid that is spilled and leaking out and dripping on people, because there is a blinking light. OMG we are all going to die!
So why limit it to electronic devices only? Just because you want people to pay attention doesn't mean that is why that rule is in place.
Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions .
The ban on electronics has absolutely NOTHING to do with "concentration" or paying attention to safety instructions. NOTHING.
There is no need to ban them when they can be just turned off. And sadly, there are too many consumer electronic devices in use to simply ban them, so the best compromise is to turn them off.
And yet that didn't stop them from banning bottles of water.
However, if you listen to things like Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture", you will notice just how crappy lossy codecs really are.
Right, because only good codes will encode such a precise and perfect instruments as a cannon?
Just because a bunch of noise was created recently doesn't mean it is any less perfect than a bunch of noise that was made 200 years ago. Some people like classical music, and some people don't. And just because you don't, doesn't mean the music you don't like is "shit"
They're supposed to rule in "favor" of the law,
No, they are supposed to rule in "favor" of justice. Sometimes that means ruling against the law (and thus striking it down)
, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right.
Here in America... as is with many other countries, you've already given that right. You've agree to give that right to the content creators, SO the content creators will create.
And what are your "rights" The ability to take something from someone else without their permission?
Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all .
And what is "non-commercial?" Are you saying it is ok to copy stuff as long as you aren't reselling it? Or its ok to copy stuff someone else wrote, even if that person isn't selling it?
Ok, but why bother to switch back in the winter? If we stayed on PST all winter, it would get dark at 5pm instead of 4.
The reason for locking is so that the subscribers can't switch carriers and keep the same phone,
I've already signed a contract, that you agree to pay a certain amount of money. Whether or not the phone is locked.
It isn't illegal to unlock the phone, if you own it. The real question is, when you get a phone on contract, who owns the phone? The current claim is you don't own it, and that is why you can't modify it.
The casino made money (they take a cut from every game).
No. The casino made money from renting the suit, and also made money for renting out the use of the dealer. They did not take a cut from every game
Is everything that uses ads bad? Radio, TV? Your newspaper and magazines? Or is it just free content websites?
Why is someone an asshole for putting ads into a free app?
And what the freak is "Co. Law?" County Law? Company Law? Corporate Law? Colorado Law? Constitutional Law?
There are times to use abbreviations, and there are times not to. This is one of those "not to" times. The summary has a grand total of three abbreviations, Co for County, e.g. for "for example" and Co for Colorado. Nice.
The right to not incriminate yourself...
So you don't see anything wrong with given a truth serum (drugged up out of your mind), and then asked questions? You don't see how that might be perceived as incriminating yourself?
If a woman marries a rich man it is often in her interest to kill him and inherit.
Wow... no it isn't. The options are, be free and have money, or risk life in jail for more money. It isn't in her interest. It might be in her interest if he died, but not for her to kill him.
>The topic here isn't "ways to blow retirement savings", the topic is "the effects of so called victimless crimes". That you feel the need to change the topic tells me all I need to know.
So it is ok to "blow retirement savings" if the thing it is blown on is legal? It isn't changing the topic, the topics are the same.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that. So might a friend whose father consistently gambled away most of his take home pay. There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
So the answer is making gambling illegal, because the father gambled the money away? What if he gave it all to charity, or tossed it out the window? Or tried to start a business that failed?
Yes most "victimless" crimes have collateral damage, but so does almost everything else.
How does rephrase the question help? Those two questions aren't related in any way.
Well TFA mentions she likes to play Princess Toadstool in Super Mario Bros 2.
Every actor acts a role defined by the writer.
Charlie Sheen might disagree with you on that one.