yes, you should.
Your contract is between yourself and your gym, the bank should have no part in either enforcing or stopping its fulfilment unless it is asked to by the courts.
1,329 karma · joined January 31, 2009
Your contract is between yourself and your gym, the bank should have no part in either enforcing or stopping its fulfilment unless it is asked to by the courts.
if you try and use your money to travel out of Nowhereistan, then we got you, but so long as you haven't broken the laws of your own country, and you stay in your own country, you absolutely should be immune.
What other approach would make sense? Should you be able to be arrested in the US for acting contrary to laws passed in Pakistan?
I mean, I could easily claim that my company has lost a full billion dollars because of the way you run your business.
Should that mean I should be able to get the our local cops to travel to your country, shut down your business, bring you back here to new zealand, put you in prison, and then charge you with a crime?
this thing is an absolute travesty for anyone who cares about justice, due process or the rule of law.
As far as I can see, the only thing more embarrassing than the way the USA has behaved in this case, is the way my country is doing its best to bare its buttocks to make the whole thing more comfortable.
wherever it happened, committing an act of murder is illegal.
Yes, encouraging your country to invade another country because one of their citizens committed a crime is always an option.
the only interesting question is whether they stifle it in a useful way, or a harmful way.
Every day people spent time and money on things that the market doesn't want to pay for.
That is their lookout.
A direct replacement is correct:
"Robert's one of the smartest men[1] I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected Robert and he said yes, he was a sexy single man. And since that time, he’s become a sexy married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up. So we’ve got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator."
Who believes terrorists would post their intentions on twitter? and even if they did, all they need to do to avoid this ridiculous farce is swap out a word: psst 'engage in revelry' = 'destroy'
There is no trade off between security and freedom taking place here, there is just a parody acting out that not only fails to make anybody any safer, it causes all reasonable people to blanch in shame.
"What's the problem?"
maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily?
"It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law."
If the rule of law allows for murder, then the rule of law is wrong and operating under it is no defence.
"If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?"
yes? if the police have already caught him, what possible cause could they have for beating him unnecessarily?
The interesting thing about designers is that on the whole, they have less of a choice. Everything that they do is out in the open and - if they do their job well - lots of people see it and want to copy it.
There are a couple of points to consider though. the first and most obvious is that generally a background color by itself will not work well with the other colors on your site - choosing items in isolation like that is generally a fantastic way to end up with coder art (believe me, I know something about how to produce coder art).
The thing that good designers do, and do well, is make all the elements work together, generally if you simply take a single element (background color, font sizes, etc) from someone else's site and dump it on your own site without considering the overall effect, you are doing a stupid thing.
I don't think anyone here is worried about the sharing of ideas - uses of color, general placement of elements and so forth, taking those things and merging them with your own needs and messages is how new art is made. The problem with copyright usually comes when someone simply does wholesale copying without the process of considering each element in terms of its effect, the message you want to get across and so forth.
IMO A 'good faith' copying of highrise done competently would produce something new, something where the source of inspiration can be clear, but where there is sufficient change and obvious consideration of the factors that made your own product unique that there is no question of direct copying.
The damage done by straight copying is always twofold, the first is the obvious - the breach of copyright, the second is also clear but many people miss it - a design produced that speaks to a specific product, specific website goals and specific messages is very unlikely to have the same positive effect if transplanted wholesale.
That is why wholesale copying is not just a sign of a lack of ethics, it is also a clear indication of a total lack of competence. The person doing the copying entirely lacks knowledge of the process that is required to produce good work, and has no idea why the site they admire so much works so well. Even putting copyright and ethical concerns aside, I would have no interest in working with someone who lacks the competence to understand why wholesale copying is usually a stupid idea. They will not produce good work targeted at my needs, they will produce good work targeted at something entirely unrelated.
It is an art, and you do not reward those who are good at it by copying not just their ideas but their actual works.
I agree, as a developer who does not have much talent for design, that it would be a 'better' world for me if I could just grab the html from places that do have that talent and not suffer for it.
It is hard in an area where you dont have much to offer, to accept that you do not have a right to take from those who do, but accepting that and learning to work within those constraints will make you both a better person and a better developer.
No, you haven't.
Seeing a website look that you like and emulating it by creating a blackbox version of it is fine, seeing a website look that you like and grabbing the css styling for it is breaching copyright. Its also ridiculously lazy in a bad way, getting someone else's css to work with your html is going to be way more painful than simply writing your own. Unless you also copy the html for it?
Seriously. As a professional you do not get to take other people's work without their permission. As a civilian you can do what you like, but if you want people to think of you as a professional, you need to act professionally.
I also believe strongly that people should not have their lives ruined, and citizens should not have their freedoms curtailed to protect it on a large scale.
I do believe that businesses who take a relaxed attitude to using copyrighted material that belongs to someone else are displaying a lack of ethics that is worrying and deserve to be taken down pretty hard.
There is a world of difference between some random person downloading a movie for viewing, copying a website for their personal blog etc and a company doing it.
These guys have made a really unfortunate decision here. To be fair, based on their response so far I expect its because they dont have a clue what copyright even means, so its about ignorance rather than malice, and it will soon be rectified.
Robots have to take a huge leap forward before they can even come close to the flexibility offered by a person.
People are flexible in what they build, they are flexible in how they build it, they are flexible in what job they do, and (depending on the contract) they can be dropped instantly where they are unnecessary. Compare that with a factory made of robots representing a large capital investment that could very quickly become out of date if you change your product slightly.
right, but the fact that they are chasing it implies very clearly that they believe there is more money in chasing free cash for work they have already done, than there is in creating new work.
That is the sure sign of an industry (or business) that has stopped growing.
if they die out, its because their business model is broken. if their business model is broken, they deserve to die out. why should the government protect them?
separately, if movies stop getting made that will because nobody is willing to fund them. surely that means that they should die out? if enough of us who like our movies (I am one) continue to fund movies, then they will not die out.
again, why should the government have an opinion on any of this?
That is only true if you focus entirely on sale dollars as the measuring stick.
It is much harder to measure the impact of things like customer satisfaction, office dysfunction, job churn and so forth.
I think you will find that there are practical uses for at least aspects of literature theory (ask google).
And philosophy has driven humanity forward for thousands of years, the fact you bring it up as possibly useless tells me that you have failed to educate yourself as you should.
I cannot speak about women's studies, as I have no idea what they cover, but on the whole history tells me that where a subject drives people to think deeply about something, humanity generally wins out eventually.
or some idiot could study ant trails and provide data that could improve the solution to certain algorithms.
Sure, life would be simpler and more controllable if we knew what we were going to discover before we discovered it, but we dont. Come up with an elaborate theory on owl based patriarchy that gives some other smart chap an epiphany about the behavior of whale tribal groups, and who knows what improvements your investigations might provide for.
Of course, if you just make it all up, you are not practicing science, you are practicing fraud.
where on earth would it all end?
He has done very interesting things, (almost) released 2 tablets in a world where his competitors are mostly huge companies with vast resources and is fighting for the survival of his company.
I hope he pulls it all together.
I get the politicians I am willing to pay for.
Unfortunately corporations have more money, and can afford to pay more than I can.
That is the free market at work.
In nature stability - on average - is often achieved by matching peaks and troughs, not by a lack of change (nature abhors a lack of change)
(see vacuum fluctuations)
We need to start a Bloggers Media Network.
In your 'real' world where everyone must frantically scamble to survive, civilization never leaves the caves.
We have massive surpluses across the world, 98%R of the wealth is owned by a tiny fraction of the people, food is piled up and wasted to protect markets, and yet there are still idiots claiming that we just cannot afford to educate everyone.
We cannot afford not to, if we want to survive into the 22nd century and beyond.
Its not a gravy train, our surpluses drove our technological advantages, which in turn drove our surpluses.
I am unsure what problem you actually believe is being solved by google?
What google appears to be doing now is attempting to pretend that neither supply nor demand exist at all.
The insanity of that must be fairly obvious?