I love the alternatives: slave work or prostitution. Has it occurred to you that those children should be, I don't know, studying?
Sure, all those poor people will just send their kids away to school instead of working. Food is overrated anyway, and I'm sure those kids will have time to catch up on their eating after they graduate and start making money!
You basically just said:
"I love the alternatives: bread or starvation. Has it occurred to you that those children could eat, I don't know, cake?"
And yes, you can use the internets to find data showing that banning child labor ends up increasing child prostitution in poor countries. (But that all happens after you pat yourself on the back for saving the children, so out of sight, out of mind, right?)
Yes, damn those greedy corporations! Always offering people better jobs than the ones they had before!
We should especially put pressure on them to ban child labor in those countries, so kids can go back to the time-honored, traditional jobs of poor children in third-world countries, such as child prostitution!
forcing all companies to meet minimum standards for wages, working conditions, and environmental protections similar to those of the US (or even better, europe) into place will improve the lives of the people in these countries
And also increase the price of the goods they produce, thereby decreasing the demand for those goods and hurting their economy.
could also help to revive some of dying manufacturing sectors in the US
Oh I see. It's a "they took er jerbs!" moment. Carry on, then.
No one is buying your "pro-IP underdog inventor vs. the big, bad anti-IP corporate bullies" story.
Large companies love patents. Sure, they spend a lot of money on infighting (see: Motorola/Nokia/Google/Apple et. al.) but they get a much bigger benefit in return: Keeping newcomers out of the market.
The problem is the covert manner in which the fee has been included in contracts.
Hence, me: As long as they are up front about the fee (which apparently they aren't)
"Public interest" is also very a broad term, and pretty much can be used to encompass anything you want it to. Will the unintended consequences of legislation be in the "public interest" too?
As long as they are up front about the fee (which apparently they aren't), I don't think the practice should be banned. Getting into the habit of banning everything someone finds distasteful is extremely destructive, especially when every new law that gets put on the books either (A) has unintended consequences, (B) will be abused by someone at a later date, or (C) both.
I'll exercise my right to vote with my dollar, however, and I'll be damned if I ever buy a house with such a clause.
Personal responsibility is out of fashion, I suppose.
Hmmm, hasn't it always been incredibly rude to wear a hat indoors.
I know, right? Just the other day I saw a kid use the fork from the wrong side of his plate! What are parents teaching their children today? Society would collapse if it weren't for the intricate maze of these and other nonsensical faux pas that we all spend our otherwise potentially productive time attempting to navigate!
This is a clear cut case of a paedophile being caught
Not to be pedantic, but (1) I don't see anything here that says the man is actually a pedophile. Being a pedophile would require that he actually molests children, rather than simply own a video of them. (2) Even if you want to equate the possession of child porn with actual child molestation, it's at all certain that the video in question counts as pedophilia, since pedophilia is related to pre-pubescent children. For example, if the child in the video is 17, it would still be considered "child porn" under the law, but it wouldn't be linked to pedophilia.
Why do courts tolerate this nonsense?
Because tacitly giving the government/police license to do whatever they want with no regard for the rule of law or rights of citizens is much more dangerous than a man who possesses a disgusting video.
"Both. After the phone company has been notified that it is not to place a call to me from you, it can easily prevent you from doing so. Since the phone company is probably richer than you are, my lawyer would probably agree."
So if I go to a payphone near my house and call you, will you still sue the telephone company? How will they stop me?
Your position is not practical in any sense. It appears that you simply want the ability to sue people who have the deepest pockets, regardless of such "minor" concepts as guilt and innocence.
I don't think Mike is saying that no one can be held responsible, just that the person held responsible should be the person who uploaded the libelous content.
If, after a long bout of harassment, you get a restraining order against me to prevent me from calling you, and I call you again anyway, do you go after me or after the telephone company? After all, the telephone company should have known not to connect my call, right? How hard can it be to screen calls? The government listens in all the time, so surely the phone companies can determine who is or isn't breaking the law in the same fashion . . .
Italy should be allowed to wallow in the stupidity of its own legal system. Perhaps if it wallows long enough in the dark ages while the rest of the world joins the information era, people will demand change. If not, well then that's great too.
A people gets the government they deserve, after all.
On the post: Fox Gets Tons Of Attention For Banksy Simpsons Video... Then Pulls It Off YouTube
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, all those poor people will just send their kids away to school instead of working. Food is overrated anyway, and I'm sure those kids will have time to catch up on their eating after they graduate and start making money!
You basically just said:
"I love the alternatives: bread or starvation. Has it occurred to you that those children could eat, I don't know, cake?"
And yes, you can use the internets to find data showing that banning child labor ends up increasing child prostitution in poor countries. (But that all happens after you pat yourself on the back for saving the children, so out of sight, out of mind, right?)
On the post: Fox Gets Tons Of Attention For Banksy Simpsons Video... Then Pulls It Off YouTube
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, damn those greedy corporations! Always offering people better jobs than the ones they had before!
We should especially put pressure on them to ban child labor in those countries, so kids can go back to the time-honored, traditional jobs of poor children in third-world countries, such as child prostitution!
forcing all companies to meet minimum standards for wages, working conditions, and environmental protections similar to those of the US (or even better, europe) into place will improve the lives of the people in these countries
And also increase the price of the goods they produce, thereby decreasing the demand for those goods and hurting their economy.
could also help to revive some of dying manufacturing sectors in the US
Oh I see. It's a "they took er jerbs!" moment. Carry on, then.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: The System Works
No one is buying your "pro-IP underdog inventor vs. the big, bad anti-IP corporate bullies" story.
Large companies love patents. Sure, they spend a lot of money on infighting (see: Motorola/Nokia/Google/Apple et. al.) but they get a much bigger benefit in return: Keeping newcomers out of the market.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Animals Copying
Read: We have the people with guns on our side, therefore we are right.
antisocial
A difference of opinion does not make one antisocial.
unethical
Government back monopolies (e.g. patents) are unethical.
stealing
Copying is not stealing.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Pot, kettle. You know the drill.
Besides, it's hardly a "self-fulfilling prophecy" when I posit a massive ego on your part, and then you jump in to confirm it to everyone here.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Thank you for proving my point so beautifully.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
You have a strange definition of "works".
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[Citation Needed]
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Bill Introduced To Ban Home Resale Fees
Re: Re: Distasteful, but not Wrong
Hence, me: As long as they are up front about the fee (which apparently they aren't)
"Public interest" is also very a broad term, and pretty much can be used to encompass anything you want it to. Will the unintended consequences of legislation be in the "public interest" too?
On the post: Bill Introduced To Ban Home Resale Fees
Distasteful, but not Wrong
I'll exercise my right to vote with my dollar, however, and I'll be damned if I ever buy a house with such a clause.
Personal responsibility is out of fashion, I suppose.
On the post: Illinois Mayor Claims Anonymous Bloggers No Different Than 9/11 Terrorists; Says Anonymity Is A First Amendment Challenge
Re: C'mon...
Reminds me of a Lewis Black bit:
"The Taliban isn't interested in killing you, you idiot! Look where you live! You're already dead!"
On the post: Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You
Re:
I know, right? Just the other day I saw a kid use the fork from the wrong side of his plate! What are parents teaching their children today? Society would collapse if it weren't for the intricate maze of these and other nonsensical faux pas that we all spend our otherwise potentially productive time attempting to navigate!
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re:
He's probably right anyway. I certainly don't care enough to look up Netflix prices across the border, and even if I did I would be unlikely to care.
On the post: Duh, Don't Leave A Thumb Drive With Child Porn Plugged Into A Shared Computer
Re:
On the post: Duh, Don't Leave A Thumb Drive With Child Porn Plugged Into A Shared Computer
Re: Third Problem....
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
What A New and Innovative Business Model
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
So if I go to a payphone near my house and call you, will you still sue the telephone company? How will they stop me?
Your position is not practical in any sense. It appears that you simply want the ability to sue people who have the deepest pockets, regardless of such "minor" concepts as guilt and innocence.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
If, after a long bout of harassment, you get a restraining order against me to prevent me from calling you, and I call you again anyway, do you go after me or after the telephone company? After all, the telephone company should have known not to connect my call, right? How hard can it be to screen calls? The government listens in all the time, so surely the phone companies can determine who is or isn't breaking the law in the same fashion . . .
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: the law applies to everyone, even google
Italy should be allowed to wallow in the stupidity of its own legal system. Perhaps if it wallows long enough in the dark ages while the rest of the world joins the information era, people will demand change. If not, well then that's great too.
A people gets the government they deserve, after all.
Next >>