What they want is for Google to just stop. No more searches (for illegal material!), no more hosting of (illegal!) content. Just shut down. And apologize for existing. Give the Internet back to those who know how to use it. Is that so hard?
As a parent, I discovered that the teachers no longer understand basic mathematics. Because they were not properly taught mathematics. What they are taught was "New Math". What is "New Math"? While I was helping my daughter with her math homework I was horrified to find out that "New Math" meant they'd removed multiplication and division from the basics. Multiplication was "just adding together that many times" and division had become "just guess and see how close you can get"! How can anyone handle Algebra when they don't understand basic mathematics? So, instead of actually teaching mathematics let's do away with Algebra? This is sick!
Not necessarily. If consumption is less but savings are more there is still, basically, the same benefit to the economy. I, for one, think this society could do with a lot less consumption. You don't need a new car every year or the latest and greatest gadget every month.
Huh? I don't get your logic. The officers of the corporation are individuals who, if you will, get the liability protection and who pay taxes. The corporation itself is still liable - not protected. Your "logic" is that the corporation (which is NOT getting the benefit you mentioned) should pay taxes because of the benefit -- that it doesn't get. I think YOU are confused.
I can't understand how a presumably sane person would think some words on some website could possibly be legally binding on anyone without their express agreement.What a strange life they must lead, complying with all the commands on all the websites.
You talk about logic as if you were being logical, and you aren't.
When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.
It's on public display. It was commissioned to be on public display. That means we're allowed to look at it, photograph it, paint it and remember it. If the artist doesn't like it (and, apparently, has the power to object) then, well, remove it! Move it to a secure, inaccessible building where the artist can sit and stare at it alone.
If the artist owns the copyright and doesn't like it being photographed, the government is just going to have to remove it, cover it up or bury it.
Sounds like a good idea. Commission a new monument from someone less greedy.
Re: Re: Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name
No, you can use your ad hominem attacks any time your little heart desires. Remember, to be effective, don't bother addressing any of the points brought up and don't bother with facts, just ad hominem, that's all you need to "win" any debate. Go!
The problems with your proposal are:
1. The current laws have not affected cracking at all. What makes you think more laws will be different.
2. Such laws, while not stopping criminal behavior, end up criminalizing legal behavior.
3. These laws, then, push law-abiding citizens TO "criminal" behavior in order to accomplish what used to be, and should be, legal activities.
To summarize: Your solution does nothing to solve the problems but, instead, makes things a lot worse. Other than that, nice try!
Any intelligent person will always come down on the side of freedom, no matter what it costs. To refer to those who advocate freedom as "freetards" shows that your bias is toward less freedom and more control. It also shows that you are not as intelligent as you think you are.