Slashdot Mirror

Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed.

The only "aid" that the US is obligated to provide Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is to seek UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine is attacked (or threatened) with nuclear weapons.

The agreement is a one page document written in plain language. It's hard to imagine anyone who's read it would interpret it as you do.

Revelation 12:7 ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... ): "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [going forth] to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels;"

Yes, I want to be clear that I think this Supreme Court decision was a good one. I do not like racial preferences, even as a means to right wrongs. I think it also leaves intact the valuable parts of Affirmative Action.

Here's the order that Kennedy signed, and here is Johnson's order.

Now, Johnson's order has definitely been used to justify quotas. Nixon famously did this, and Reagan famously failed to undo this. I don't think the concept is totally without merit, but I think it is misguided, counterproductive, and sets a dangerous precedent that runs counter to the larger goal of equality.

Russia signed a specific agreement with Ukraine (and with Georgia and other FSRs) in order to get them to give their (formerly Soviet) nuclear arsenal back to Russia, that Russia would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine", etc etc.

Putin violated that agreement. Every former Soviet republic knows that Russia won't honour any agreements, and that they all boned themselves by giving those nukes back.

No, we're not. It's just a memorandum of generalize assurances, specifically the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. The only clause of the memorandum that remotely binds the signatories take any action (which is non military) is the fourth one:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

Well, the US/Europe submitted a resolution to the UN Security council calling for a Russian withdrawal and got vetoed by Russia. That's all it can do using the Memorandum as a legal justification for UN action. Of course, the US and Europe can unilaterally take action, but there's no treaty in place with the Ukraine to legally obligate it.

We are not bound to defend Ukraine. That's a complete myth. Here are the 6 clauses of the Budapest Memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/... Where does it say we are required to defend Ukraine?

Not sure about behavior, but as a 501c3, Mozilla is not allowed to donate to candidates and has limits on lobbying. But I do not know what exactly the limits are.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Something in there...

The lobbying ceiling amount for any organization for any taxable year is 150 percent of the lobbying nontaxable amount for such organization for such taxable year, determined under section 4911.

Hopefully someone has a greater interest in deciphering that.^ It does not seem related to anything decided in Citizens v United as far as I can tell.

Did you completely miss the part where we are treaty-bound to be involved in this one? That the only reason the Ukrane gave up it's nukes was because we promised that Russia wouldn't do exactly what it just did?

Here, educate yourself.

Read the above and let us know what you think we are obligated to do under the "treaty".

But, if you must have a cold reason for helping this particular liberty, let me remind you, that Ukraine was a nuclear power — until it agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for guarantees given jointly by Russia, US, and UK... The guarantors promised to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

It doesn't look like you actually read the information in the Wikipedia article you cited. There are no obligations of the signatories to "guarantee" Ukrainian territorial integrity.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances does nothing more than obligate the signatories to respect Ukraine's sovereignty/borders/politics/economics, and to "Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine ". (I would argue that the actual text of the memorandum could be interpreted in a way that would obligate the signatories to seek UNSC action even without the use/threat of nukes.)

In any case, the US and UK are in consultation with the UNSC, so the obligations of the US/UK to Ukraine under the agreement are fully met.

You mean the situation where we are a party to a treaty that says that Ukraine keeps it's borders intact in return for NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT?

You mean THAT situation?

First, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't a treaty under US law. Second, the BMSA doesn't require the US to do anything other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine" if Ukraine is the "victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

As the US is currently consulting with the UN and other nations on possible responses to the Russian actions in Crimea, the US has more than met it's obligations to Ukraine in THIS situation.

"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea"

I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!

The treaty in question was signed but never ratified, neither by Russia, nor by US or UK.

"This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

It was signed. It is binding.

Ugh, read some goddamned John Locke. Depriving people of rights to continue a condition that allows rights is an inevitability, not just a choice.

Also, enjoy Mark Twain's The Awful German Language. A brilliant take on my native language.

It is irrelevant what the British government or its courts think they can do, since this action is clearly against the legal precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights as a breach of the protections guaranteed under the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, in Marttinen v Finland the Court wrote:

The Court reiterates its case-law on the use of coercion to obtain information: although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, the rights relied on by the applicant, the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6

The British courts should take in consideration the legal precedent on EU level and overturn this sentence, or any competent lawyer will take the defendant's case before the EU Human Rights court, who will stuff this sentence up the arsehole of the British government and the tax payer (i.e. the government will have to pay the defendant compensation for the inhumane treatment and legal costs.)

This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself. For example. in Marttinen v Finland the Court interpreted the article 6.1 that reads inter alia "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...". The Court wrote in its decision:

The Court reiterates its case-law on the use of coercion to obtain information: although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, the rights relied on by the applicant, the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6

If the defendant is not able to have this sentence overturned in domestic courts, he should hire a lawyer who can bring this case before the European Court of Human Rights ASAP to obtain a decision against the Government of UK. The court will also award compensation for the inhumane treatment of the defendant by the Government, and obligate the government to compensate for the legal expenses.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

-Militia Act of 1792

Seems like that definition hasn't shifted much in a couple of hundred years...

Better idea: the Swiss Basic Income Initiative.

Swiss citizens will soon vote on a proposal to provide a basic income for all adults of $2,800 per month. The measure was introduced by grassroots activists from the Basic Income Initiative, who collected 100,000 signatures needed for a referendum.

Note that Enno Schmidt, the cofounder of the Basic Income Initiative, doesn't think the executive-compensation-limiting initiative is a good idea. Instead of capping the top, just guarantee the safety net. It's an idea that goes back at least to US Founding Father Thomas Paine in 1795's Agrarian Justice:

In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.

In other words, they are a special made up category or person that has no rights at all.

Um, you realize that this 'special made up category' has been ruled on by the courts before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager

Hell, you should also read about Operation Pastorius where a group of (attempted) German saboteurs were executed after being caught on US soil for violating the laws of war.

Of course, if you'd actually read Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention... you might begin to understand some of this.

My union doesn't impose their views on me - I'm not sure how that would actually work.

Well, that's because we have Taft Hartley, right to work, and a lot of other laws restricting the power of unions.

Unions worked hard for the weekend - remember that any time you have a day off.

The 5 day, 40h work week was introduced by Ford in 1926 in order to increase productivity, under no pressure from unions.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/HENRY_FORD:_Why_I_Favor_Five_Days'_Work_With_Six_Days'_Pay

In different words, you're a liar. But that's to be expected, I suppose.

The advice "carpe diem" ("seize the day") is as good now as it was 2000 years ago when Horace wrote those words.

The advice "carpe diem" meant something different 2000 years ago when Horace wrote those words. Then, he wrote "carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" -- or, as your translation states, "seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the next". His meaning was more along the lines of the ant vs the grasshopper in Aesop's fable. Seize the day, prepare for your future, work while you're healthy, make hay while the sun shines, and pack your 401k with as much as you can afford (or at least enough to get your full company match). Make sure your future is secure today, because you don't know what'll happen to you tomorrow.

Nowadays, "carpe diem" is usually interpreted to mean something akin to your post. Go see the world, party with your friends, have a great time, even YOLO. It can still be good advice (you might get Alzheimer's when you're 50, so see the world today while you can appreciate it) but the fact remains that the meaning of the exhortation has changed in the modern era.

If it's important for you to travel the world before you die, then do it right away even if you *don't* have the markers for some degenerative genetic disease. See to your priorities as soon as is humanly possible, at least until they develop a test that tells whether you'll be hit by a bus on your 50th birthday.

The advice "carpe diem" ("seize the day") is as good now as it was 2000 years ago when Horace wrote those words:

You should not ask it, it is wrong to know impious things, what end the
gods will have given to me, to you, O Leuconoe, and do not try
Babylonian calculations [i.e., astrology]. How much better it is to endure whatever will be,
whether Jupiter has allotted to you more winters or [whether this one is] the last,
which now weakens upon the opposed rocks of the Tyrrhenian
Sea: may you be wise, strain your wines [i.e., prepare it for immediate drinking], and because of short life
prune long anticipation. While we are speaking, envious life
will have fled:seize the day, trusting the future as little as possible.

PS: For the great majority of ancient, we *do not* have the equivalent of FaceBook posts to augment the vast reams of inventory, royal notices and laws. The peasant's lives are reconstructed from evidence, not learned from text.

You obviously don't do much research on 19th Century historical events. There are indeed substantial amounts of written information from that time period where "peasants" were literate and left behind a considerable legacy. To name one particular historical record that IMHO is almost precisely like a bunch of Facebook posts that instead was from the 1860's is this diary of a private in the U.S. Army during the U.S. Civil War (he served in the 2nd California Infantry Regiment). He was not a great war leader or for that matter anything more than a humble farmer that was drafted into military service at the time, just like hundreds of thousands of other people where the same thing happened.

While I will agree that prior to about the 18th Century such diaries were uncommon, my point is that such things do exist, and surprisingly give an interesting bit of information when you do find such things. I have seen ancient pictographs written on the walls of caves and cliffs, put there by societies without a formal written language. More than art, they actually do convey some substantial information if you can but try to understand it.

Part of the reason why we can understand how some ancient Sumerian common villager lived is also in part by watching how similar peasants live today in 3rd world countries under similar living conditions. A surprising amount of that information comes from diaries and such as well written for modern ethnographers, or at least researched by those who are studying modern cultures in part to understand cultures of the past. Such mundane records would definitely be of interest to historians trying to get some additional information about what happened in some significant event.

All I ever read is Slashdot. I'm afraid it's turned me into something of an insensitive clod.

Well, in my personal view, you're still better off as an insensitive clod, than as an insensitive pebble.

N.B.: maybe this poem is accidentally on-topic as well!

The funny thing is your own leadership back in the day spelled this flat out over a hundred years ago, well before Carlin got to the concept, and no one ever seems to remember.

Woodrow Wilson addressing the New York City High School Teachers Association said flat out:

Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do.

The situation America is in isn't an accident, isn't some sort of recent conspiracy. It has been arranged with this exact state in mind for well over a century.

So without any clear majorities and a public that actually chose to elect a split government (Senate and President to the Democrats, House to the Republicans) nothing will ever get done.

That's not a bug. It's a well-documented feature. Read The Federalist X for the full write-up by James Madison.

In the Articles of Confederation, the following right is explicitly granted:

"the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce"

-- Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, Article IV, Paragraph 1

That could quite easily be interpreted to mean that those who are poor could be excepted from the right to freely travel. At which point it becomes a question of who's definition of poor do you want to use. The 99%?

There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.

In the Articles of Confederation, the following right is explicitly granted:

"the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce"

-- Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, Article IV, Paragraph 1

This document is still technically a part of the United States Code, although I haven't seen it cited as rationale in a legal argument for preventing the "no fly list". This is also one of the few individual freedoms explicitly mentioned in founding documents that is not a part of the Constitution of 1787. As to if this document still holds legal weight could also be questioned, I suppose, but technically all the Constitution of 1787 did was update this document. It certainly puts such notions of "it is a privilege not a right" legal theories into serious question.

In other words, the right to travel is an explicitly granted constitutional right and not something that can be extrapolated more loosely from things like the 9th Amendment (which I think this quote amply shows something previously thought of as an individual right not to be eliminated by its absence in other legal documents).

You might be able to argue that the internal combustion engine itself is regulated and requires an operator's permit, although that is a real stretch. States simply can't prohibit either entry or exit of other otherwise legal citizens of other states and it can be assumed that includes travel internal to that state too.

I'll just put this Mark Twain work out there...

The paper on special relativity is fairly readable. The general relativity paper is practically illegible to the layman, requiring tensor mathematics that are usually not taught until the later stages of a physics degree.

He did, however, try to make it more generally accessible, at least to the determined student. This paper is pretty amazing:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity

The paper on special relativity is fairly readable. The general relativity paper is practically illegible to the layman, requiring tensor mathematics that are usually not taught until the later stages of a physics degree.

He did, however, try to make it more generally accessible, at least to the determined student. This paper is pretty amazing:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity

What war did the US wage against China? England screwed with them plenty, but the US has generally fought against their enemies or only indirectly in proxy wars.

Ummm... let's see: Chinese exclusion act?
* boxers rebellion and especially the aftermath?

Not a traitor as there are very specific requirements for being a traitor. Specifically see Article III section 3 of the US Constitution where it is described in detail. From what I can tell he hasn't committed an act of treason and thus is not a traitor. He does seem to be a rather sleazy individual and just because he hasn't committed an act of treason doesn't mean that he hasn't committed lesser crimes.

Our Constitution defines Treason very specifically as giving aid or shelter to an Enemy.

or in levying war against the united states. However, there is an additional element to the "aid and comfort" clause.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

From Cramer v US 325 US 1 (1945)

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy-making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Luckily for the authoritarians, sedition laws--in particular, Seditious Conspiracy have filled in the gaps.

For those who claim this is a grand conspiracy theory, you can see the difference between theory and practice, within the actual text of the agreement, summed up by this 2004 quote of Dr Michael Fernex formerly of the University of Basel who worked for the WHO;

"Six years ago we tried to have a conference. The proceedings were never published. This is because in this matter the organisations at the UN are subordinate to the IAEA. Since 1986 the WHO did nothing about studying Chernobyl. It's a pity. The interdiction to publish which fell upon the WHO conference came from the IAEA. The IAEA blocked the proceedings; the truth would have been a disaster for the nuclear industry"

This is the history of how the International Atomic Energy Agency has been able to deal with the human health implications of Nuclear disasters by muzzling the science and medicine that can be conducted. For an accident as serious as Chernobyl even the hamstrung report from the World Health Organisation said;

"The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths"

Imagine, based on the actual evidence, what the WHO may have been able to uncover had they been allowed to actually reveal the actual truth of the disaster. The Guardian however points out that the IAEA is ignoring the evidence of the volume of deaths occurring as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.The UNICEF report "Human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident" summarised it neatly;

"Life expectancy for men in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, for example, is some ten years less that Sri Lanka, which is one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and is in the middle of a long drawn out war"

This isn't from any radioactive fallout from the accident though, it's the economic fallout from a collapsed regional economy manifest as suicide and mental illnesses. So because they didn't die from cancer or radio isotopes those numbers don't get included.

Since cancer takes years to incubate, thus premature deaths and birth defects manifest over time. After this generation, the next generation and long after this disaster has passed into lore it will still be well within the toxic half-life of radioactive isotopes such as cesium 137, strontium 90 and plutonium 239.

The genetic abnormalities and diseases caused by this accident are generations away and unlikely to be seen by anyone alive today and direct exposure will occur as long as there is a food chain to absorb these isotopes and people to eat that food. So the occurrence of recessive gene damage that occurs across generations as the likelihood of combining those genes is increased as more people in the population ingest radionuclides via whatever means.

What we will never know is how many pregnancies fail to com to term from this catastrophe, however we are able to count birth defects, now a common occurrence after the Chernobyl disaster. The New York Academy of Sciences report r

I know what you mean, but maybe many others don't, so maybe instead of the 10th century story of Sweyn Forkbeard and Æthelred the Unready,
you'd better quote the more recent and accessible 1911 funny Rudyard Kipling poem.

P.S.: better hurry up and read the poem before it gets retro-actively put under copyright again!

"we simply don't have the tech to make going to the moon worth doing right now"

From the Carter years: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

Also at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Advanced_Automation_for_Space_Missions

Also look up Gerard K. O'Neill and SSI.

Besides, the challenge of making a habitat work on the Moon would be a way to learn a lot about how to live more environmentally sustainably on Earth. Exploration can mean new things are learned and imagined and that learning can be more valuable to bring back than any physical resource. One of the biggest successes of Europe putting colonies in North America is that centuries later they could stop a devastaing war in Europe and Asia and reconstruct the most problematical social institutions there:
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/
"How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."

And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan
"The constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. Currently, it is a rigid document and no subsequent amendment has been made to it since its adoption."

Aren't ideas and examples for a better way of living worth more than physical stuff or energy? See also James P. Hogan's sci-fi novel "Voyage from Yesteryear".

You have a sense of karmic payback similar to that of the Mikado. Sir, I salute you!

There have been 0 executive orders made recently. The last executive order President Obama made was Executive Order #13635 on Dec 27th, 2012 and concerned federal employees' pay. Many news organization incorrectly reported that Obama signed 23 executive orders when in fact he did not. They have now changed their wording to say executive actions. At least one reporter, from Salon.com, admitted to incorrectly reporting this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/the_23_executive_orders_that_weren%E2%80%99t/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders/
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Executive_orders_of_Barack_Obama

An original work containing a minimal degree of creative expression may generate a new copyright. A derivative work does not necessarily establish a new copyright. If it is "not transformative enough for fair use", which is a vacuous standard, since transformation is a factor and not an element, then you have a real problem with originality.

Okay, I'm just going to stop you right here. 17 U.S.C. section 103 says:

"(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

From this, we can conclude that in fact, derivative works are protected by copyright unless the new material is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection on its own. Given that the bar for copyright protection is very, very low, this basically means that derivative works inherently enjoy copyright protection. But if you need further proof, look at Title 17's definition of "derivative work":

A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

So a derivative work is considered an original work of authorship, and is therefore protected in the same way that any other work of authorship is protected, with the only real caveat being that it does not affect the copyright duration of the content that was borrowed.

But just to further support that point, here's what House Report 94-1746 says:

Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an “original work of authorship” and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material.

Note that section 102 basically says that musical works, literary works, etc. are protected by copyright, and that's pretty much the extent of that section.

Further, even if the content were appropriated illegally (it was not in this case), the new content would still enjoy copyright protection to the extent that it is separable from the original content:

"(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."

Notice that it says "any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully". So any part of the work in which the preexisting material was not used is still protected. It is unlikely that an illegal appropriation of lyrics could taint the copyright on the music. I'm not aware of any case law on that particular issue, but again, the subject is completely irrelevant because permission was given, which means that paragraph (a) does not apply, and paragraph (b) does, which means copyright is in full force.

So I've provided hard evidence straight out of Title 17 that supports my statements. Please provide some real, factual basis for your ludicrous assertions that run contrary to pretty much everything I've ever read on the subject, or else I will assume you're just trolling, and will consider the matter closed.

While no super genius he didn't sound that dumb when he thought the microphone was off:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bush_and_Blair_conversation

And he's smarter than the average US voter since he got voted in for a second term.

And this is the objection I raise to the claims of DARPA, NASA, et al as being worthy of public funding because they develop various technologies. Every technology they develop does not turn into a useful product, and they are nearly always developed at maximum cost when compared to development costs in the private sector receiving no public funds at all.

No sensible investor would invest in this because the payoff is nowhere in site. Not even today after decades of development. It may be argued that this is why we need to fund such things, but what things are not being funded because of this? Perhaps a superior backhaul for wireless cell phone towers, or some other such technology that would greatly benefit the masses instead of those people receiving the development funds.

What makes you think its up to us? We don't own it. If the Chinese want to commercialize it, they will, and won't ask us. Our best course of action is to commercialize it first.

Assuming "Our best course" implies the United States, both ithe US and China are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty.

"The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."

Microsoft should simply start to open source their products. Must not be GPL, could be "here is our code but you can't use it" license.

That's not what open source means.

The vast vast vast majority of people on both sides favor a two state solution.

I need to clear a bit of misinformation on that point.

When Israel, US leaders and most westerners hear "two states", they are assuming we are talking about "two states for two people". In other words, one Jewish state of Israel, and one Arab (or, more precisely, Muslim) state of Palestine. This, however, is not what Arab leaders mean when they say two states.

When Arab leaders say "two states", they mean one Muslim state for the Palestinians, and one non-national state where Israel was. This non-national state will then have to accept everyone who lived in Palestine for the two years prior to May 1948 plus all of their descendents (5 million people) as citizens. What this means in practice, is that when Abu Masen says "two states", he is actually referring to two Arab states.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me a statement by a Palestinian official where they acknowledge the right of a Jewish state called Israel to exist.

This is the specific criteria: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act_of_1977#Sec._804. Note that the Federal Government is the one decided whether or not the bank is meeting the needs of low-income customers. This is not the case in practice, however. Enforcement of the CRA is done by community advocacy groups. One of the criteria that is used to determine whether the bank is CRA-compliant is the comparative number of loans made to high- versus low-income clients. If you don't make enough loans to low-income clients, then you are not CRA-compliant. Source: http://www.frbsf.org/community/craresources/advocacy.pdf If a bank has a bad CRA record, then the bank will be prohibited from expanding or merging. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

There's nothing in the constitution act that dictates healthcare.

Sure it does:

" In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ...
7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals."

Granted, this is somewhat narrow, but the provinces have long been claiming that it is so only because the enumerated points were those of primary concern back when it was enacted, and as healthcare has expanded since then, so did their constitutional mandate. The feds ultimately agreed that this is so.

Provinces were running healthcare programs long before Canada Health Act - to remind, Saskatchewan started doing so in 1946. CHA was introduced to establish a framework for the then-existing arrangement, and in particular the federal transfers.

This would probably ignore patent clerks that discover Relativity however.

The patent clerck did not discover relativity.

Speech given by Henri Poincaré in 1904 in Saint-Louis.

Greece bonds are weak but slow-moving - in economic jargon, "slippery".

And, contrary to Art.3(3) TEU, everyone else has a low rate of interest.

This one's for you: a poem befitting autumn, a bit difficult to understand after 250 years:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Elegy_Written_in_a_Country_Churchyard (Thomas Gray, 1751)