"The Canadian agreement needs to be translated into all 24 official working languages of the EU before the ratification process in the European parliament could start..."
So... will the get that right, this time around? Translation is tricky enough, when there's plenty of time, and little room for differing interpretations -- and they've blown the job before (more than once).
Or is this going to be another one of those "each language-version is equally authoritative" messes?
Mike does understand it and reject it as any sane person would do. Why the public lets lawyers gets away with twisting a word's original and publicly agreed on meaning for their own gain will forever be beyond me.
And the property tax is the money you pay the government to enforce your exclusive control over that property even if you don't rent it out. But IP holders just want everything for free. They want the government to freely enforce their exclusive IP privileges even if they sit on it and do nothing. They want society to pay for enforcing their privilege. Which makes sense that they would opt for such laws that let them freely freeload off everyone else. It is very well known that those responsible for lobbying for the existence, expansion, and extension of IP laws are among the biggest freeloaders that ever existed. Freetards. Parasiting off the government, the public and artists. Then they have the nerve to pretend their pro IP position is for the artists, as if they care.
If IP is really property why isn't there a use it or lose it clause. Because I know if I don't maintain property that I own most cities will take it away. Why don't you pay property taxes to the government for enforcing your exclusivity, even if you don't make it available to others, like you would with real property. Why should everyone else bear the burden for you.
Anonymous Coward, at first I was going to try to send you a point-by-point rebutal, but I couldn't get past that you were responding to my reply to Richard as if it was you, and seemed to miss some of the things I said, and accused me of saying things I didn't say.
So let me sum up:
You seem to accept that us vs. them ideologies are bunk, but you don't seem to believe that it applies to you and it applies to Muslims. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but from this screen over here it seems you have an issue there.
If you're going to take the love your neighbor as you do yourself thing to heart, you have to accept that it applies to even to those of us that you most despise, regardless of what they did to your mom. That includes not just Muslims, but hostile Muslims that one might regard as terrorists. The very worst and most violent of Muslims. We have to invite them to the party too.
If you can't do it, no worries. Neither can they. Neither can I. Neither can anyone really. It takes a lot of practice. But I'm pretty sure that's the bar that Jesus set, and I'm pretty sure that's the bar that we as a society have to set to advance the society forward.
Also you should have to pay property tax (in addition to income tax). If I own property and make money renting it out I pay property tax just for owning the property and I pay income tax on what I make renting it out.
It sounds like you weren't around for the first exciting episode.
Steve, I don't think it really matters how allegedly harmless the data is that is being sent from the Windows 7/8 updates, What matters is what happened not too long ago.
Specifically everyone had a good read of the Windows 10 terms of service, which outlined a few important tidbits.
~ Yes, Win10 will be gathering data and sending it off to MS.
~ That data would include directory trees, keytracking, surfing habits, shopping habits etc. etc. etc.
~ Yes, they are going to share all of it with whatever commercial affiliates they wanted.
~ Yes, they are going to share all of it with whatever governments they wanted.
~ If they see something suspicious, you betcha they're going to send it to the police.
~ If they think you're pirating, you betcha they're going to sue you all the way to Mars.
~ If you design anything, create anything, manage your business books, write anything or whatever, and MS wants a copy for any reason, they get it. Even if it means you're breaking confidence agreements, NDSes, violating security clearance, or MS gets to patent your design before you do.
Essentially, Microsoft's TOS pretty much says they reserve the right to screw the end user any way that an MS tech might want. Even if for the lulz.
Even if this was written to only be used good faith as a protective legal stopgap, it means that ultimately it will be abused, and that Microsoft is, to us end-users, a hostile entity now.
So, no, we have every reason to make sure they don't get one bit of data from us, even that sent in good faith.
Exactly. Teens having sex is not a crime but the minute they took photos or videotaped themselves having sex turned into child porn. Fact is, they violated Federal law by creating child pornography and they should be charged with child porn.
Child porn is against the law, and it doesn't matter if you're over the age of 18 or under the age of 18, the law is the law.
Everyone is taking the immoral stance that teens producing child porn is a good thing. Child porn is NOT a good thing and there is a reason why a lot of countries have laws that ban the distribution of child pornography.
Just because you're under the age of 18 doesn't mean that you have the right to produce child pornography and get away with it. These teenagers knew very well that child pornography is against the law and everyone here wants these teens to be let off with a slap of the wrist?
It's an insult. If you make child porn legal for teenagers then it follows that it must be legal for adults. It's a good thing that child pornography is a violation of the law and these teens are about to be taught a real world lesson in the fact that producing child pornography is against the law.