All I was suggesting is that asking why they choose one method of theft over another is, well.... because they are likely dumb and it didn't even occur to them.
That is an astonishingly naive view of people. Perhaps, if they were too damned dumb to know any better, you might explain why they used weapons and violence? You know, things people do because they know BEFOREHAND that what they're about to do won't sit with other people.
I know small children that know better and I would bet any amount of money those guys weren't more ignorant than small children.
t also creates a society with less empathy which breeds more violence.
Your opinion doth not a truth make.
Brakes don't suddenly go from good to bad. They have a very graduate wear and it's easy to detect that they should be replaced in the annual checkup.
The brake pads themselves, generally no. But you can have catastrophic failure in the brake fluid tubes and with no pressure, next to no breaking. Still overall mechanical failure is the reason for very few accidents compared to human error.
6 - We're using subcontractors that are not part of the "intelligence community"
Or as a variation:
11. We're collecting data on everybody except in the US, which we swap with the UK for data they can't collect. This close cooperation with foreign agencies is of course not counted. The only thing you can be sure of from the NSA leaks is that even if your own country doesn't spy on you, all other countries sure do with USA at the head of the class.
India which is much poorer:
Win 7 & 8: 58%
Win 7 & 8: 43%
Africa, South America, everywhere else that is poor XP is in massive decline. This is basically China being the odd man out, they're the only ones who want to stick to XP. Now I'm guessing most of those copies aren't legitimate, but I don't see why that should be any different in China than the rest of the world. It's just that XP is the de facto standard I guess.
I've been arrested. Your description is inaccurate.
So what was the outlet there for? If it's on a public building but not meant for public use, it should have been secured, either by locking it or having it shut off inside the building. Actually, the drinking fountain comment is a good point. Obviously, a drinking fountain is there for public use. But what if it's just a faucet? Is getting a drink from a drinking fountain okay, but not a faucet? Is charging a phone okay, but not a car? Where is the line here?
Exactly where the company chooses to draw it, in most production companies taking one chocolate off the production line and with you home is a firing offense even if it's worth five cents. Things that are provided for work (materials, tools, services, products, whatever) are there to let everyone do their job, any other incidental use you might want it for is up to their acceptable use policy. Would a network manager accept that people connected their own devices to the internal networks to siphon off a few bytes of the Internet connection to check their mail? I very much doubt that unless you work in a BYOD workplace or have guest networks set up specifically for that purpose.
Most employers tend to take a reasonable approach on marginal costs (browsing the Internet, private call on work phone, printing two pages or making five photocopies, charge your cell phone) because being an ass works both ways but strictly speaking they could put me in a secure compartmentalized zone and deny me bringing almost anything in and out except myself and the clothes on my back. Of course then I'd say I'm working for paranoid nuts and not Top Secret military systems and find myself a sane employer, but it'd be totally legal. But I have worked on systems that simply didn't have Internet access, go to special terminals if you need it.
So how far could you go in the absence of any written policy, oral approval, signs or any other obvious indications? Well there's implied permission, if they offered parking spaces and those parking spaces had EV chargers on them (like one per space) I'd take permission to park to also imply permission to use the chargers. But if there just happens to be a socket in the parking lot so anyone working there could run a power tool, I'd say you don't have that. It could be things that are so commonplace that you wouldn't ask, like using the bathroom if you already have legitimate business in the building. Charging your car isn't that though.
I think they're technically correct, though I'm a repeat offender of "accidental theft of ballpoint pen" and if the law was applied to the fullest I'd have way more than three strikes. I think it's mostly because siphoning off gas to power your car is generally recognized as a crime, siphoning off electricity to do the same sounds equivalent. It doesn't sound like something you could do without at least some form of permission. It's all fairly relative though, if EVs become common it might be commonly understood that sockets are there for charging them and you'd need to explicitly deny it. But that's ten, twenty years from now and not today.
(arguably it was never really successful. I'll reference Bill Hicks for that)
"Now I'm no bleeding heart, okay? But, when you're walking down the streets of New York City and you're stepping over a guy on the sidewalk who, I don't know, might be dead... does it ever occur to you to think 'Wow, maybe our system doesn't work?' Does that thought ever bubble up out of you?"
The guy on the sidewalk will be there regardless of the economic system, because with few exceptions the homeless aren't homeless because of economic reasons. Nearly all of them are where they are because of various forms of mental illness, and the fix for that isn't dumping capitalism, it's reinstating the system of state hospitals to care for the mentally ill, treating them to the degree we know how, and just keeping them reasonably comfortable where we don't. Of course, we need the hospitals to be much, much better than they were; the reason they were largely shut down is because they were houses of horror and it was easier for activists in the 70s to get courts to shut them down and put the patients on the street than to actually get them cleaned up.
Not coincidentally, those hospitals also used to hold a fair number of people who are still in state care, but at much higher cost because they're in prison.
I will grant that state hospitals and similar systems are socialist, so to that extent perhaps socialism is the solution to the guy on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean socialism is the right answer for those who aren't mentally ill.
With respect to people whose jobs are automated away, IMO the right level of socialism isn't to give them a basic living stipend, but instead to help retrain. One thing that most people worried about automation removing jobs don't consider is that the cost reductions due to automation go primarily to reduce the cost of goods, and therefore to lower the cost of living and raising the standard of living, which opens up all sorts of new opportunities for work, in two ways. First, by lowering the cost of living, the disposable income of the (working) masses increases and they start buying services that were previously out of reach, thereby increasing the demand for -- and jobs in -- those services. For example, in the 18th century there were very, very few professional hairdressers. In the latter half of the 20th century it became a very common profession.
Second, the lowered cost of living opens up possibilities for living doing work whose value previously simply wasn't sufficient to support life. It's not often that we think about cost of living decreasing. It seems like it's always going up, but that's because we measure it with devaluing currency, and because our standard of what constitutes an adequate lifestyle is constantly increasing. If instead we fix a particular standard of living and then look at how much time must be put in to earn it, the cost of living has been on a long downward slide for centuries, and automation is going to accelerate that.
I'm not saying that everyone is going to be a hairdresser, and I have no idea what all of the jobs of the future will be. I think the major growth will be in the service sector, because people do like receiving service from people not machines, no matter how competent the machines become. It wouldn't surprise me if the biggest growth areas are all around non-essentials, like art and entertainment. What I am certain of, though, is that as long as people have disposable income they will find things to spend that money on, and that will involve paying other people for goods and services. Many of those goods and services will seem ridiculous fripperies to us today, but much of what we spend our money on today would seem silly to people 100 years ago.
Oh, one other thing I'm certain of: people need to feel that they're earning their own way. Life earned is better than life given, regardless of how it is earned. Welfare is a fast road to unhappy dependency. That's not to say that providing short-term support to people who are transitioning isn't a good idea, but long-term unearned subsistence is a recipe for angry, unhappy people.
I completely disagree that it was "consumers" who first broke the contract. Oh, there were always small numbers of infringements, but copyright has become so one-sided that hardly any average people even understand what the social contract is. Given that it appears to most people to be a completely one-sided grant, with no significant harm caused by infringement, why not infringe? The content owners have done it to themselves. Reduce copyright to a reasonable duration (say, 10 years for most works) so that people can see that copyright actually does end and stuff does flow into the public domain, and I argue that most people will have greatly-increased respect for it. They'll actually be in a position to think "Well, I could pirate this now, but if I wait a few years I'll be able to obtain it legally". I also think a shortened copyright term would result in an explosion of mashup-based creativity -- which big media would hate but would enrich the public tremendously.
As for extending beyond expressions, both US copyright law and the Berne Convention see elements such as plot and characters as protectible. So if Greek courts fight that, good for them. But I'm not sure they do, because Greece is a Berne signatory.
The guy who pulled the trigger is still fully responsible for where that bullet went flying. Being part of a DDoS is more like being part of a riot, even if you catch one rioter you don't usually don't make that one person pay for all the damage the mob did. But then again it's the same country that'll slap one person with million dollar fines for sharing a couple CDs online because piracy is such a big problem. If they applied the same logic to speeding, you'd probably go in the electric chair if you get caught.
Seems you conveniently left out the entire purpose of a DDOS - intent.
Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
"We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others."
"So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?"
"He should have received a slap on the wrist."
Because he's a geek? No.
Axiomatically incorrect as any news day will inform you.
BR --- Political slogans are for the intellectually lazy.