So it's official? The US is a plutocracy? It must be if a law so blatantly aimed at preserving the wealth of a very few of Wyoming's 1/2 a million citizens at the expense of the health of the rest can even be contemplated seriously, much less enacted.
Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe".
One assumes you're in favour of repealing the 2nd amendment then?
The same argument applied even more so to firearms, which people use to kill and indeed are designed primarily for the purpose, or knives... or... well computers in general or really, pretty much anything at a stretch.
It's impossible to know who the next person will be that commits an evil act. So as opportunities come up to possibly stop some future act, I support eliminating the threat.
OK, let's pretend for a moment that this argument makes sense....
Where's the bar set? This guy apparently committed no criminal act (since there was in fact no actual bomb involved at any point in the "conspiracy") and it appears that he's pretty much all talk and seems too stupid to actually plan anything on his own.
So, that means it's OK to arrest people who: 1/ Are easily led and might be convinced by someone malicious to commit a violent crime if they happen to meet the wrong person. 2/ Are unthinking and at least borderline sociopathic enough to maybe commit some random act of violence if the right set of circumstances of anger/means/trigger/target happen to come their way at the wrong time.
So that leaves me two questions; Where are you going to put all the people that fall under that definition? How are you going to find enough people who don't to look after them?
To me, this is like setting a building on fire and handing some poor person the matches and running off.
No, it's not.... it's like making one of those fake fires with a fan, some silk and a light, handing some poor person a huge, plastic Swan Vesta match that wouldn't burn if you tried... and then having him arrested for killing hundreds of people by burning down a building that doesn't in fact exist.
No, Wikileaks has always been an Evil Cyberhacker.
Of course it has! In the "Democracy Dictionary" (Author, Mr. H. Nilats), "Evil Cyberhacker" is defined as "Anyone who shows, or might show, evidence of corruption in the Regime... uh... Democratically Elected Leadership, or anyone who depicts same in an unflattering light while using a computer"
In a sane world, intellectual property rights that a company can't be bothered to find out if they even have shouldn't be rights that can then be sued over.
THIS! This sooooo much!
This is possibly the most broken thing about copyright. It should be the case that you could challenge a copyright and if the challengee can't respond with proof of copyright within a fixed period, they are legally assumed NOT to own the copyright.
It wouldn't make copyright terms any less stupid, but it would make copyright as a whole a lot less the broken shambles it is now.
Netflix's choice to release seasons all at once is bad because it kills the "water cooler marketing buzz"
Given a choice between getting the whole thing at once and it taking almost a whole year to get round to showing a 20-week season... Well, I think I'd like to watch stuff at my pace, not yours, thanks!
If there's one thing the UK is good at in our post-empire decline it's coming up with and following really dumb rules. You thought the US was un-assailable in the top-spot of "democratic police state".. think again. We win! Bwa Ha ha haaaaaa
They claim that stealing a tiny sum of a large number of people doesn't result in any real victims.
Of course we all know this is wrong so maybe there is a chance
One can hope you're right, but the cynic says no.
It's easier to prove fraud when you can count the money, however small... it's harder to count "quantity" of freedom, especially when the people you need to prove the "count" to seem to have an almost pathological blindness to its loss.
many modern games dont want longevity. most of the cod releases for example could have just been community created free mods.
This is, of course, the problem with the theory that modding is "good for games". Certainly it's good for gamers, so yes, it's probably good for "games". On the other hand it's kryptonite for most game companies.
Let's face it, most of the major game companies prefer to recycle the same (usually) crap game as many times as they can possibly get away with, repeatedly polishing the same turd to squeeze out another £40 a time from it with "new" releases. Playing into the modding culture would not only kill that "money for old rope" business plan, but would require the games to have gameplay with an appeal lasting beyond a few 10's of hours, which is a pretty rare commodity in games. Can't see that happening somehow... be nice if a company gave a flying f*ck about it's customers, though, wouldn't it?
Dumb TVs, with less sophisticated internals, should also be cheaper to buy.
You'd think that ought to be true, but sadly it's not. I had exactly the same thought when I recently needed to replace the TV - "Why the hell do I need anything but a big monitor?" Reality is that anything much above 30" is either non-existent or counted as "specialist panel displays" for advertising etc and priced way higher than much more complicated "Smart TVs"
Unfortunately, most people don't seem to know of care about the implications of "Smart TVs", they just want a single simple box to do all their thinking for them. By the time enough people notice it's a bad idea, they'll be ubiquitous enough for it to be too late and the internet connection will probably be as mandatory as a bad computer game.
And yes, I caved and bought a "Smart" TV to use as a screen, though the only things connected to it are (non network) HDMI cables and the wall.
There are small changes that need to be made to the car to sell it in both markets, and the harder and more expensive it is to do, the less likely it is to happen
I'll admit I don't know the regulations so you could be right, but that seems counter-intuitive to me. The fact is you do see examples of various (domestic) US cars in the UK (and the rest of Europe), which I've always assumed are privately imported (the "high-end" US stuff has the occasional specialist dealer, but not as far as I know the "standard" cars).
Examples I've seen of either class seem to have no modifications and while one might pay a premium to have, oh, maybe a mustang modified to import it, it seems a stretch to think that a private importer would pay for expensive alteration and testing to have one of the cheaper cars.
While I can understand that safety testing might be mandatory for "import for sale" but might be waived for a private importer, I have to assume the cars themselves are UK-road legal since they are UK registered. Either that, or the changes are so small as to be economic for a private importer on a cheap car that they'd pose no problem for a manufacturer.
Observation of roads on both sides of the pond suggests more that Americans and Europeans simply tend to look for different things in cars (obviously with some common ground), and I suspect that regulation has little, if anything, to do with design choices. After all, as far as I know the Ford F150 is one of the best selling vehicles in the US is it not? I think you could remove import duty as well as regulation on this and you still wouldn't sell that many in the UK