Although I checked yesterday and ther were 150 negative reviews, and the three newest ones looked fairly legit. I think Trip Advisor is deleting any review added since this story hit the interwebs.
There are roughly 100,000 schools in the US, which means this would cost $2-10 billion.
Could that money be better spent on programs that deal with the root causes of school shootings?
Maybe they thought it was legal?
They did. They were wrong.
And if they thought it was legal can you say they had an intent to break the law?
They certainly had an intent to assist in making copyright materials available without the permission of the copyright holder. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. It's not that you are guilty of knowingly breaking the law but of knowingly committing the act that the law proscribes.
I somehow suspect your reasoning was more about that the Pirate bay was made for piracy.
It's a factor. The clue is in the name. But it's not only that. You can use Google to find torrents just as easily. The difference is, if you tell Google about it, they'll remove the link. If you told The Pirate Bay about it they'd send a smug response insisting that it's legal in Sweden. They did nothing to try and encourage legitimate torrents, or discourage the illegal ones. LegalTorrents.info seems to manage.
It's hard for me to believe that they had any intention to provide anything except a site for illegal material. I'd actually think less of them if they did. I can respect opposition to current IP laws. If they didn't have an anti-copyright agenda, then we're assuming that they're simply stupid.
If you can sell the gun someone is shot with and that's not a crime why would making a torrent tracker be one?
If you sell someone a gun for the purpose of shooting someone with it, then that would be a crime. You'd probably be charged as an accessory.
If your gun shop was used primarily for criminals toi acquire firearms, I imagine the police would inform you of this and urge you to do something about it. If you don't do anythng about it I could imagine that being used as evidence that you are specifically selling to criminals. If you called your gun shop "Bank Robbers Bay" or something that suggests the gund are good for crimes, I also imagine that this would be taken as evidence of criminal intent.
Crime is typically made up of two parts - actus rea and mens rea; the guilty act and the guilty mind (intent). It may be different in Sweden but probably not substantially. If you genuinely have no intention of committing the crime, then you are usually considered innocent. A large part of a typical prosecution is proving intent. Sometimes mere recklessness is sufficient - if you know that the act will very probably result from your actions.
There's no particular reason the Swedish prison system can't cater for dietary preferences.
Really? And how is that working out?
Givn that Sweden has a 30-40% reoffending rate, I'd say it's doing okay.
The article seems to be trying to find a hard and fast rule as to what "general purpose" means and then realising that that doesn't actually apply to general purpose processors.
Jesus helped the poor â" and encouraged followers to do so as well â" but he never called for Caesar to raise taxes and give free food to anyone...
This seems a bad example. Jesus broke the Sabbath law - a law that was seen as exactly the same level of morality as "though shalt not steal". while he didn't say the government has an obligation, to the poor, he did accept that the government has the right to our money which would seem to contradict your earlier point., and he had absolutely no qualms about stealing a donkey for his own benefit, and was willing to destroy a whole herd of pigs to help another man. He also said that it is practically impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, so obviously he felt that wealth, or at least greed should be punished.
Many philosophers have argued against property being a natural right. Hume argues that there is no possession except that established by laws of society.
Once again, if you are so "sure", why do you need the tax authorities to force Pauls into paying for Peters? Not encourage, mind you, but force? Why can't Paul voluntarily give Peter the extra monies for whatever service Peter goes to work to do? Perhaps, you aren't quite as sure as you claim to be...
For the most part, Paul is paying voluntarily. And Peter is voluntarily accepting that Paul has the right to most of the money he's acquired. If either of these people break this social agreement then they are punished.
There you go â" this one phrase is the tell-tale. You find selfishness unacceptable, and therefor it is Ok â" in your opinion â" to crush the "selfish" into obedience by force of arms... That's moral?
Yes. I consider murder as unacceptable as well. Also theft - as defined by society - to be unacceptable. Some people think you don't deserve your possessions. You are willing to crush these people with force of arms.
Big enough to be comfortable. Until you've had a chance to compare 5 or more German showers to that many American ones, you wouldn't understand. And I have â" perhaps, on this one you can just take my word...
This is a bizarre means of measuring quality of life. How many people in Europe can't afford basic health care? How many people go without basic food?
The entire Europe (population over 700 mln) would not be able to resist a Russian (population under 150 mln) invasion... Because you don't spend enough money on equipment and training. And not just that, unfortunately...
The solution to this would be to increase taxation and spend it on the military. What would you propose, given that you apparently consider taxation to be a crime? Hell, the soviet union had a massive army and that was a society that essentially rejected the concept of private ownership!