I wonder - does providing a third party with a digital copy of your key remove the "expectation of privacy" for law enforcement in the same way as using a digital messaging service (ie, email) does?
That is, I wonder if this will open the doorway to police in the US saying "Oh, well the defendant left their key readout with this company, which as a third party destroys their expectation of privacy to their locks, therefore we had the right to subpoena the key and then search the premises it unlocks".
So it was advising you that it was a crime. The paperwork still didn't make it so in and of itself.
It's the "agreeing to" bit that's bothering me. If you're authorized to receive classified info it's either a crime to give it to unauthorized persons or it's not. Not something you get to agree to or not.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic... I'll just read "agree to" as "accept that you understand"
Let's say the contractor compiles the software into binary code, and just gives the binary to the aircraft company. Now, depending on the license, the aircraft company probably has no notice of the license, and thus cannot be bound to it. And of course, the passengers, the nuclear power company, the poor residents living nearby, wouldn't have seen or known about your fancy license either.
Except in practice it doesn't work that way for Copyright. For starters, your disclaimer works as far as the person who broke the chain. By handing over the code without that disclaimer, the contractor assumes liability. Not to mention that without a valid license, the aircraft company is in violation of copyright law by posessing/using the copy (sort of - it's complex and varies by jurisdiction here, but suffice to say the copy is illegal). There's no difference here to receiving a pirated copy of a movie - you're still in posession of a pirated copy even though if you received it in a way you thought "legitimate" from a pirate.
I don't think that's strictly true.
To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion), one needs to believe that the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves.
Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened. But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
I don't believe in scientific results. I believe in science as a process (in the same way that I can say I believe in Democracy as a process [for better or for worse!])
I would hope many scientists would hold a similar view, but I cannot speak for them.
In terms of cosmology - science attempts to unravel the chain of causality that resulted in the world we see today. To do this, it is assumed the universe works today much like it always has (and tries to determine the edge conditions that define that). It is also assumed that there is a point beyond which causality can no longer be followed (or that it loops back on itself or whatever. That there is a beginning, anyway - that' it's not just "turtles all the way down"). Now admittedly they're big assumptions but they seem to hold up so far, and without those assumtions the questions become meaningless in the first place.
So what happens then is that you work backwards, until a point is found for which there are multiple possible explanations. Then evidence is gathered based on experimentation and observation about which of the options seems most likely. As part of this process new options might get introduced.
What you end up with is the most likely set of explanations for the way the universe came to be the way it is, based on what we know today and what we can observe today.
It's not a presented as fact, but rather what is termed a "theory" for science, based on probability. Note that in this case the word "Theory" avoids presenting something as absolute fact whilst providing the implication of a comprehensive and somewhat tested framework, and still leaving the door open for testing and even disproving. It doesn't mean "Guess".
As for "believing" that " the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves." - this isn't a belief per se, but part of the assumption that the chain of causality ends somewhere. If something "caused" the big bang (er - other than the big bang itself), then by definition the big bang wasn't the start of the universe, but we have to go back further. So if you assume it started somewhere then you have to assume that "before" that was unknowable, as it cannot be traced back.
In this regard - if there was a "creator" - it is/was either one that can interact with/affect the observable universe or not. If it is, then we can push the start of the universe back to be the "start" of the creator. But if not then the issue is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
Exactly this
As long as governments create and enforce a monopoly on the creation of these kinds of goods through copyright and laws permitting import control of copyrighted goods, then the government has the right and responsibility to interfere when those that monopoly is abused by unfair market manipulation.
On the other hand, if the government explicitly required grey market imports to be considered as legitimate as the white market, then pricing can set as the publishers please, since they'll always have to compete against their own pricing in other regions
basically yeah - globalism and international trade is a two way street - they can't have their cake and eat it too
Our distributor for most stuff at work (one of the big guys in AU) has the irritating tendency to send an oversized box... with no packing material.
For example, I have literally opened boxes with a single sheet of paper in them - that are on the order of a cubic metre.
Not so big a deal for paper of course (just bewildering) but when you get components shipped the same way (often with one, completely insufficient, plastic airbag pack in the box too, rattling around with the part) it makes you wonder what they guys in the warehouse are thinking, and whether their management is happy with what that must be costing in unnecessary shipping and return costs (we pay the same in shipping for a given item regardless of the size of the box it was packed in, but if the boxes are oversized, then less fit on a truck and that has to affect the pricing or contract with their logistics company)
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.