Stalinism is an interpretation of Marx's works, many of which are directly counter to what Marx argued for. It is a view of how to implement communism, not communism itself.
But they can willingly hand over the data that indicates or shows you jaywalking without telling you. I'm not sure exactly how that's better.
I've been asking this question: what the hell does the British government have to do with the NSA that it claims that their national security and lives of their people are at risk?
The files and information that they're so very interested in are from American government sources, not British.
Canonical is not a US organisation, it's based in the UK. Also, it's impossible for it to be "as suspect" as Windows or iOS considering the vast majority of code is GPL'd or similar. The most suspect parts would be the automatic routing of desktop search queries via Canonical to Amazon and various others thanks to the online search feature now default in the desktop, but this can be turned off and completely uninstalled if you wish. If you really feel that isn't enough, feel free to inspect the GPL'd source code until you are happy.
In this case the idea is not that you have exactly the same UI. You have certain things that are common, certain things that are similar, and the rest is made unique to that size device and the available input. The same applies to the work being done on KDE. It's only really Windows that has tried to use almost exactly the same UI across everything.
There was a rushed transcript made that you can see here:
It's not an issue of how difficult it is to access the suppressed speech.
When a domain name is seized, the seizure is not for the purpose of suppressing speech because of the ideas being expressed.
Censorship in the First Amendment context means suppressing speech because of the ideas being expressed.
In that regard, the censorship on TD is far worse than SOPA. With SOPA, no speech is suppressed because of the ideas expressed therein, but on TD, speech is suppressed by "reporting" it by those who disagree with the ideas being expressed.
No doubt that another reason for providing access is that the internet will "filtered" of any site that states China does not have a claim to these lands. A helpful means of spreading propaga...err..important information to all citizens.
There's an interesting counter point at Technollama that suggests much of this is overblown, and is more to do with maintaining the status quo rather than legitimate fears:
Berners-Lee seems to end up playing precisely into this with the quoted part:
"I think it's important that these existing structures continue to be used without any attempt to bypass them," he said.
Except it is very clear that to interpret this bill as banning blog posts about doing direct deals you'd have to be an idiot. It is like saying a ban on a harmful substance is also a ban on any information about it.
Cheers for the informative reply (and the laugh).
A wild Modplan appeared!
This is because it is immoral to exploit other people for profit.
Creation of something knew is something scarce and something you can sell. Once created and released, it can be copied easily, cheaply and quickly. Also Bob, asking people to kick in their fair share is a donation. Pretending the modern PC doesn't exist as you use it to download the film and suing people who don't conform to your delusion is called IP maximalism.
And no Bob, the ability cite, quote, remix or parody are not benefited by IP maximalism. In fact, fair use is the exact opposite of that, y'know, being exceptions to a copyright holders control an' all.
Prior restraints are content-based restrictions; copyright laws are content-neutral. You just don't have the same First Amendment concerns. With obscenity, there is a possibility that the work at issue will turn out to not be obscene, i.e., will turn out to be constitutionally-protected speech. There's no similar concern with copyright.
Yet we have not traditionally subjected every criminal and civil sanction imposed through legal process to "least restrictive means" scrutiny simply because each particular remedy will have some effect on the First Amendment activities of those subject to sanction. Rather, we have subjected such restrictions to scrutiny only where it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place, as in O'Brien, 3 or where a statute based on a [478 U.S. 697, 707] nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity, as in Minneapolis Star. This case involves neither situation, and we conclude the First Amendment is not implicated by the enforcement of a public health regulation of general application against the physical premises in which respondents happen to sell books.
We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."
Eldred v Ashcroft
But, as Techdirt likes to point out, determination of fair use is simple and objective. Not like obscenity.
I'm really not sure how the project has failed.
They've built a decentralised social network. It works. Not every individual aspect of that goal has been met yet, but the project has been going for 2 years already.
The founders moving on hasn't shut down the project, nor has it meant the money they got 2 years ago has been put elsewhere. They've also stated previously that some of Makr.io may go back into Diaspora.
Copyright law is fundamentally based on the assumption of high costs of production combined with less powerful authors, artists etc. who want to get their works printed in significant numbers.
I'm not sure how copyright guarantees the creation of works "regardless of what the free market has to say", seeing as it only allows for you to stop others copying and selling the work, allowing you to both maintain higher prices and at least attempt to capture more money from those who want to use it or produce it. At some level it is still subject to the free market in that there has to be someone willing to pay that price, it is merely distorted so that only the copyright holder is allowed to copy and sell work even as it is widely available.
It is also fundamentally a right granted to promote the creation and dissemination of works, though not the only one and in some (perhaps many) cases not even the most significant. It also does not ensure artists get paid fairly - a goal that doesn't make a lot of sense. Does someone who gets paid $1,000,000 for a single song fair compared to someone who gets paid a comparative pittance despite consistently recording and performing their works? Here you see that regardless of copyright or not, the market always has something to say, "fairness" be damned.
We should therefore try to find a happy medium between outright piracy and strict adherence to the m?urs of copyright law.
I remember a story a long time ago about a trade agreement between the EU and South Korea:
It stated that such data cannot be used, with no distinction between public or private data, so I wander how that'll be affected. Only reason I remember is because I wrote about it /selfpromotion.
Nowhere did Glyn say it was illegal, only that De Gucht, quite accurately, stated that he would try again to get ACTA passed by resubmitting it even after it has been rejected.
How that was non-factual at all I don't know, nor did it even have to heave to heavily rely on inferring anything - what was stated was perfectly clear.