Say we concede that this agreement supersedes the rights of the immigrant in question.
How does that agreement in any way suspend the rights of the landlord, who is not an immigrant, and on whose property the immigrant lives?
Sure, under that concession, the immigrant can't bar the government from coming into the house to conduct a visit.
But the government can't get *to* the house without crossing the landlord's property; the landlord is not a party to the agreement, is not an immigrant, and had not granted the government permission to enter or cross his property.
If the government wants to enter the landlord's property in order to reach the house where the immigrant lives, the government needs either the landlord's permission (which for all we know they might have gotten, if they'd been upfront about it and asked) or a warrant.
(...also, since when is "hiring an immigrant rather than an American" a crime? Even Trump does it, for his resorts...)
I think the attitude being expressed is precisely (one part of) an objection to the idea that expecting an entity not to treat "profit" as its primary, indeed overriding, goal/motivation/etc. is unreasonable; if a human behaved that way we'd call them greedy, so why should we just accept the idea that a corporation is outright obligated to do so?
We're a long, long way from getting society (much less law, much less the global / international consensus about law) to redefine the duty of a publicly-traded corporation in some way other than "profit for stockholders", but there's nothing wrong with the idea of advocating for that to happen.
The term "anti-Semitism" is established, convenient shorthand for "bias against people of Jewish descent". (Which is distinct from "bias against Jews", in at least two ways.)
It's true that the literal meaning of the term would be broader than that, and that having a term which covers just the actual intended meaning would be preferable.
But we don't appear to have one.
If you want people to stop using "anti-Semitism" in the established sense, start by proposing an equally-concise, equally-convenient replacement term which would be understood to mean what they're using it to mean.
Er... no, it looks to me as if it was an attempt to claim that it wasn't his because he posts while logged in (with an attached photo) and so doesn't get a snowflake at all.
The later duplicate comment from him, one with snowflake and one without, appears to have been an accident - not an attempt to prove that the original post with his name could not have been him.
As That One Guy said: this has nothing to do with what an actual natural monopoly is.
A natural monopoly is a naturally-occurring bottleneck on the ability (for anyone) to provide a resource. The usual example is roads; if there's only one possible route to build a road through the mountains to my house, then that route is a natural monopoly, and anyone who builds and controls a road on that route controls that monopoly.
When you control a natural monopoly and can enforce that control (e.g. through violence, yours or someone else's), no one can come in and undercut you, because there isn't enough room at the bottleneck. If someone sets up a toll station on that road, it doesn't do any good to suggest that someone build a second road, because there physically is no place to put one.
The solution to natural monopolies is to restrict what the people who control them can do with them; these restrictions need to be put in place by someone who can enforce them (e.g. through violence), and tend to be called "regulations".
I actually just looked this up for my own interest.
The word "sic" apparently means literally "thus"; I imagine it's probably the same word as in "sic transit gloria mundi", "thus passes the glory of the world". In the context, it's a perfectly appropriate way of saying "yes, this is the way it was in the original".
By way of saying "If you don't agree to this license, we won't let you have a copy in the first place", and then having the license say "By accepting this license, you contract not to use the copy we give you in any way which this license does not say is OK".
That way, even though you don't initially need permission to use the item, you can't get the item without binding yourself to a requirement to have permission.
If you violate the license, you've thereby violated the contract, and the penalty terms of the contract - which require you to cease using the item, and probably to destroy it - kick in. By the standards of contract law, those penalty terms can be enforced by a court.
No actual copyright violation is involved at that point, although the companies will often pretend (and may sometimes convince a court) that one is; it's purely a question of contract law.
The idea that such licenses can be valid and enforceable contracts is questionable, but if they can't, the companies which use such license agreements have apparently managed to avoid getting that tested in court.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, what link was that, and how did you find it / get there?
Because I reached a straightforward no-license-required download link for the Windows 10 ISO (see above), but couldn't find one for a Windows 7 ISO without entering a license key.
If Lundgren's discs were Windows 7 (as I seem to recall may have been the case?), and you can't get a Windows 7 ISO without a valid license key, then there might be some basis for the objection after all.
Of course, I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it once the download finishes, since I don't have a license and don't plan to get one. (I do have experience with installing Windows 10 at work, but there we use volume licensing with a KMS.)
I went to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10ISO and was able to get a link for a direct ISO download for Windows 10 build 1709 (the current latest), from a machine running Linux, without even being prompted for any license-related information. It's downloading as I speak.
He(?) didn't say that "every song and movie hosted there is there illegally".
He(?) said that "every song and movie is hosted there, illegally".
I.e., that there exist on YouTube illegal copies of every song and movie ever made.
Of course, even if we allow for the existence of songs (etc.) which are so 100% free that there's no such thing as an illegal copy of them, and for ones which aren't available at all, there are still things which aren't available on YouTube. For one prominent example, try looking for various classic Beatles songs; you'll probably find covers of them, or occasionally recordings of later (possibly live) performances by original members of the group, but - unless things have changed from every previous time I've gone looking- you won't find any of the familiar recorded versions, period.
Do you have to have a license in order to be able to download the software from Microsoft?
If not, then it's still entirely possible to get the software from Microsoft, and be unable to use it because you don't have a license - exactly as if you had gotten the software from Lundgren, except that Lundgren would have given you the disc (and charged you for it) whereas Microsoft just gives you the ISO (and doesn't charge you).
Not to mention, playing music from a car at the volumes I've heard some people use also means you probably can't hear the sound of sirens, warning you that an emergency vehicle is coming through. Which can result in anything from failure to yield to an emergency vehicle (violation of the law) to an actual collision, depending on the circumstances.
On the cronyism point: I think the implied argument is that, since a market with cronyism is a market which is not free, cronyism is one of the few things which it is acceptable to regulate against.
But the land for the wire to run across does compare.
Space is a resource, and while there's an unlimited amount of it out there in total, there's only so much of it near any one particular place.
Just like you can't run twenty different streets to the same house (unless it's something ridiculous like a full-fledged medieval castle, maybe), because there physically is not the space to be able to do so (and you want to use some of what space there is for other purposes), you can't run an unlimited number of wires to the same house either. The limit may be higher than for number of roads, but it's still low enough to be meaningful.
Waze actually has two routing options: shortest, or fastest. Either can take you via routes which may be undesirable for other reasons.
Myself, I want a third: best fuel economy. (Faster speeds generally mean worse fuel economy, but more stop-and-go traffic also means worse fuel economy, so there's a trade-off between lower speeds and fewer traffic lights - and of course greater distances mean more fuel consumed, so there's a trade-off between both of those things and shorter distances.) My car's built-in nav system has that, where Waze doesn't - but it also requires paid-for map updates, and the difference just isn't worth the price to me.
Eh? I read the Washington Post online during downtime at work, daily, with no subscription. I see no sign of any paywall, either for current articles or for ones from the past.
Admittedly I don't think I've tried to read any that were more than about a year or two old (at the time), but that's still a pretty big window when talking about news.
Er... no, preventing someone from trading on someone else's reputation is not the reason why trademarks exist.
Trademarks exist to prevent the customer from being confused about what they're buying, and who they're buying from.
As long as the name (et cetera) is sufficiently distinct that a reasonable customer would not be confused about those things (ref. the "moron in a hurry" standard?), it is - or should be - perfectly fine to have a name (et cetera) which is similar enough that customers will recognize it as being a reference.
On the post: ICE Performs Warrantless Raid Of Private Farm; Draws Heat From State And Federal Officials
How does that agreement in any way suspend the rights of the landlord, who is not an immigrant, and on whose property the immigrant lives?
Sure, under that concession, the immigrant can't bar the government from coming into the house to conduct a visit.
But the government can't get *to* the house without crossing the landlord's property; the landlord is not a party to the agreement, is not an immigrant, and had not granted the government permission to enter or cross his property.
If the government wants to enter the landlord's property in order to reach the house where the immigrant lives, the government needs either the landlord's permission (which for all we know they might have gotten, if they'd been upfront about it and asked) or a warrant.
(...also, since when is "hiring an immigrant rather than an American" a crime? Even Trump does it, for his resorts...)
On the post: Amazon Joins Google In Making Censorship Easy, Threatens Signal For Circumventing Censorship Regimes
Re: Re:
I think the attitude being expressed is precisely (one part of) an objection to the idea that expecting an entity not to treat "profit" as its primary, indeed overriding, goal/motivation/etc. is unreasonable; if a human behaved that way we'd call them greedy, so why should we just accept the idea that a corporation is outright obligated to do so?
We're a long, long way from getting society (much less law, much less the global / international consensus about law) to redefine the duty of a publicly-traded corporation in some way other than "profit for stockholders", but there's nothing wrong with the idea of advocating for that to happen.
On the post: UN Celebrates World Press Freedom Day By Suppressing Presentation Of Turkey Suppressing Press
Re: Re: legislate a definition of anti-Semitism
The term "anti-Semitism" is established, convenient shorthand for "bias against people of Jewish descent". (Which is distinct from "bias against Jews", in at least two ways.)
It's true that the literal meaning of the term would be broader than that, and that having a term which covers just the actual intended meaning would be preferable.
But we don't appear to have one.
If you want people to stop using "anti-Semitism" in the established sense, start by proposing an equally-concise, equally-convenient replacement term which would be understood to mean what they're using it to mean.
On the post: Some Comcast Customers Won't Get The Latest Broadband Upgrades Without Buying Cable TV
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The later duplicate comment from him, one with snowflake and one without, appears to have been an accident - not an attempt to prove that the original post with his name could not have been him.
On the post: Some Comcast Customers Won't Get The Latest Broadband Upgrades Without Buying Cable TV
Re: Re: is anyone surprised?
A natural monopoly is a naturally-occurring bottleneck on the ability (for anyone) to provide a resource. The usual example is roads; if there's only one possible route to build a road through the mountains to my house, then that route is a natural monopoly, and anyone who builds and controls a road on that route controls that monopoly.
When you control a natural monopoly and can enforce that control (e.g. through violence, yours or someone else's), no one can come in and undercut you, because there isn't enough room at the bottleneck. If someone sets up a toll station on that road, it doesn't do any good to suggest that someone build a second road, because there physically is no place to put one.
The solution to natural monopolies is to restrict what the people who control them can do with them; these restrictions need to be put in place by someone who can enforce them (e.g. through violence), and tend to be called "regulations".
On the post: Suburban Express Sued By Illinois Attorney General For Behaving Like Suburban Express
Re: Re: Re: About time
The word "sic" apparently means literally "thus"; I imagine it's probably the same word as in "sic transit gloria mundi", "thus passes the glory of the world". In the context, it's a perfectly appropriate way of saying "yes, this is the way it was in the original".
On the post: Epic Decides To Double Down On Copyright For Cheating Lawsuit Against 14 Year Old By Taking On Mom
Re:
That way, even though you don't initially need permission to use the item, you can't get the item without binding yourself to a requirement to have permission.
If you violate the license, you've thereby violated the contract, and the penalty terms of the contract - which require you to cease using the item, and probably to destroy it - kick in. By the standards of contract law, those penalty terms can be enforced by a court.
No actual copyright violation is involved at that point, although the companies will often pretend (and may sometimes convince a court) that one is; it's purely a question of contract law.
The idea that such licenses can be valid and enforceable contracts is questionable, but if they can't, the companies which use such license agreements have apparently managed to avoid getting that tested in court.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: From the Link You gave Mike
Because I reached a straightforward no-license-required download link for the Windows 10 ISO (see above), but couldn't find one for a Windows 7 ISO without entering a license key.
If Lundgren's discs were Windows 7 (as I seem to recall may have been the case?), and you can't get a Windows 7 ISO without a valid license key, then there might be some basis for the objection after all.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it once the download finishes, since I don't have a license and don't plan to get one. (I do have experience with installing Windows 10 at work, but there we use volume licensing with a KMS.)
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I went to
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10ISO
and was able to get a link for a direct ISO download for Windows 10 build 1709 (the current latest), from a machine running Linux, without even being prompted for any license-related information. It's downloading as I speak.
On the post: Cops Follow Up Officer-Involved Shooting By Heading To Funeral Home To Apply Dead Man's Fingers To His Locked Phone
Re: Re: Re:
"Everyone deserves courtesy by default, until they show by their actions that they don't deserve it.
"No one deserves respect by default, until they show by their actions that they do deserve it."
On the post: Hollywood Front Groups Decide To Kick Facebook While It's Down, Advocate For More Internet Regulations
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He(?) didn't say that "every song and movie hosted there is there illegally".
He(?) said that "every song and movie is hosted there, illegally".
I.e., that there exist on YouTube illegal copies of every song and movie ever made.
Of course, even if we allow for the existence of songs (etc.) which are so 100% free that there's no such thing as an illegal copy of them, and for ones which aren't available at all, there are still things which aren't available on YouTube. For one prominent example, try looking for various classic Beatles songs; you'll probably find covers of them, or occasionally recordings of later (possibly live) performances by original members of the group, but - unless things have changed from every previous time I've gone looking- you won't find any of the familiar recorded versions, period.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If not, then it's still entirely possible to get the software from Microsoft, and be unable to use it because you don't have a license - exactly as if you had gotten the software from Lundgren, except that Lundgren would have given you the disc (and charged you for it) whereas Microsoft just gives you the ISO (and doesn't charge you).
On the post: Gov't To Court: Driving A Car In Iowa With A Valid Iowa Temporary Tag Is A Traffic Violation
Re: Re: Re: open secret
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'
Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt
But the land for the wire to run across does compare.
Space is a resource, and while there's an unlimited amount of it out there in total, there's only so much of it near any one particular place.
Just like you can't run twenty different streets to the same house (unless it's something ridiculous like a full-fledged medieval castle, maybe), because there physically is not the space to be able to do so (and you want to use some of what space there is for other purposes), you can't run an unlimited number of wires to the same house either. The limit may be higher than for number of roads, but it's still low enough to be meaningful.
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re:
Myself, I want a third: best fuel economy. (Faster speeds generally mean worse fuel economy, but more stop-and-go traffic also means worse fuel economy, so there's a trade-off between lower speeds and fewer traffic lights - and of course greater distances mean more fuel consumed, so there's a trade-off between both of those things and shorter distances.) My car's built-in nav system has that, where Waze doesn't - but it also requires paid-for map updates, and the difference just isn't worth the price to me.
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re: Not on my street!
If Waze won't route down the street, then it won't be able to give directions to destinations - or from starting points - which are on that street.
On the post: The Washington Post Thinks Overpaying For Broadband Bundles Is A Hoot
Re: Trolling on a professional level
Admittedly I don't think I've tried to read any that were more than about a year or two old (at the time), but that's still a pretty big window when talking about news.
On the post: In 'N Out Uses A Bullshit Pop-Up Every Five Years Strategy Just To Lock Up Its Australian Trademark
Re: Re: Re:
Trademarks exist to prevent the customer from being confused about what they're buying, and who they're buying from.
As long as the name (et cetera) is sufficiently distinct that a reasonable customer would not be confused about those things (ref. the "moron in a hurry" standard?), it is - or should be - perfectly fine to have a name (et cetera) which is similar enough that customers will recognize it as being a reference.
Next >>