Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Disney Copyright, Alaa Freed, Kelo Repealed
Egyptian blogger Alaa freed from jail. FleaPlus writes "Egyptian blogger, open source advocate, and Slashdot interviewee Alaa Abd El-Fatah has been released from jail. He had been imprisoned for 45 days after being arrested (along with several others) for taking part in a pro-democracy election reform rally, on charges which included "insulting the Egyptian president." In a blog post Alaa describes the conditions he was subjected to in the jail, as well as his worry about the hundreds of other activists who are still in prison."
Executive order defuses Kelo decision. physicsphairy writes "President Bush has issued an executive order whose effect is to undo the previous Kelo decision of the Supreme Court. From the article: 'It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.' The downside is that what was once affirmed consitutionally is now affirmed only in federal law."
Disney's trouble with Pooh bear. bbernard writes "It seems that the same laws that allow the Mouse to continue generating money for Disney have prevented Disney from taking control of Winny the Pooh. The Supreme Court has denied Clare Milne's bid to get the rights back for Pooh and his buddies. Clare is A.A. Milne's granddaughter, and her court battle was funded by Disney, as she was going to reassign the rights to them. Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?"
NASA engineer fired for opposing shuttle launch. quad4b writes to tell us The New York Daily News reports that Charlie Camarda was has been removed from his post at NASA for questioning the safety of this Saturday's launch. From the article: "Camarda's removal heightened the turmoil over NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's decision to take the 'acceptable risk' of launching the Discovery orbiter despite warnings of potentially fatal blastoff debris. Camarda, who flew aboard the troubled flight of Discovery last July, told colleagues in an e-mail that he was fired from his post as chief engineer at Houston's Johnson Space Center and given another NASA engineering job."
Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. An anonymous reader writes "A new insurance company in Sweden is offering a new policy to protect you from the RIAA [Swedish]. For a mere 140 SEK ($19 USD) per year, they will pay all your fines and give you a t-shirt if you get convicted for file sharing. Interesting development in Sweden indeed."
Open source Java months away? bl8n8r writes "A Sun Microsystems Inc. executive said Tuesday said the company is "months" away from releasing its trademark Java programming language under an open-source license. Simon Phipps, chief open-source officer for Sun, said the company is ruminating over two major issues: how to keep Java compatible and ensure no particular company uses market forces as muscle for its own implementation, a move that would threaten Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra."
Net neutrality amendment defeated in committee. DeathPooky writes "While not the end of the road for net neutrality, the latest vote isn't a good sign. From the article: 'The Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday rejected a network neutrality amendment, handing cable and phone broadband access providers yet another victory over a coalition that has demanded the application of strict nondiscrimination standards against entities that control access to millions of Internet users. The panel voted 11 to 11 to defeat an amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who had backing from Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft and other firms that deliver voice, video, and information services and applications.' All 10 Democrats on the committee, as well as Republican co-sponsor Sen. Snowe, voted for the amendment. The other 11 Republicans voted against."
Why does this remind me of Volcano Insurance from family guy?
the infallibility of karma. It is not so forgiving...
While the executive order makes for nice PR, it has no effect on Kelo or any other action taken by local governments. Bush's order only applies to Federal emiment domain. Furthermore, it's probably really only good as "advice" to the Attorney General. If you want to get a law passed, you actually have to go through Congress, not that the Bush administration cares to bother with respectin separation of powers.
... so that I can personally add the 'unsigned' keyword.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
If the company does well in Sweden, the service will likely be available in the US soon after. Insurance companies are always looking for more ways to make money.
So what were the issues in the case and how was it tied to the laws Disney wanted passed? The article was slim on the details.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It means that some random US agency like HUD is unable to go grabbing property for random unjustified purposes without violating instructions from the big boss.
A law would not be much better. I suppose a law could cover congress itself (but they always exempt themselves) or the court system. Nearly everything is in the administrative branch of the government, which this takes care of.
>we've had some bright spots in our 200+ years of history. I sure would like to see those come along more often. Or indeed, ever again...
I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
It comes from mixing peanut butter with saliva then kissing. And kicking orphans to the ground and stealing their iPod. And putting SCO on your grandma's PC. And setting her up with Kazaa and no firewall then anonymously emailing the RIAA. That's the starter list.
Its really not a good thing, the deals the RIAA offer you for breach of copyright are only small compared to what they are entitled to sue you for, this will only encourage the RIAA to more vigourously prosecute and increase fines.
Thats really bad for anyone who isn't paying insurance.
It may seem like a good idea, but the only people who are going to profit from this is the RIAA and the pirates. It may save you once when you get prosecuted, but when the pirates jack the insurance from $19US to $99US because the RIAA has decided to sue for $200,000 per breach of copyright everyone is going to be in a world of trouble.
All 10 Democrats on the committee, as well as Republican co-sponsor Sen. Snowe, voted for the amendment. The other 11 Republicans voted against."
It is clear here that the Democrats are on the side of the average person on a straightforward issue which is easy to explain and easy to get people excited about-- and the issue is framed in a way which makes it clear that a slight change in the partisan balance of power would have a direct effect on how Congress treats the issue.
With the upcoming Congressional elections, this represents a wonderful opportunity for the Democrats to completely fail at either communicating a message to the American people or presenting a credible alternative to the Republicans. I am sure that Democratic strategists are as we speak working around the clock trying to find some way to fumble this opportunity which has been dropped into their laps.
No insurance company would do this in the US under current laws. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk.
First, the US has significantly different copyright protection laws than Sweden, including the so-called contributory infringement (IANAL, my memory may be off) which allows sites that distribute torrent-like material (files that link to infringing works) to be considered guilty of copyright infringement as well. By defending people who infringe copyright, it would seem to me that the insurance company themselves could be found guilty of contributory infringement, and I doubt many insurance companies would want to be practicing a legally questionable business.
Second, the government in the US is much more willing to listen to the RIAA et al when it comes to policy decisions. If a company tried to insure customers against RIAA lawsuits here, you can bet that the lobbyists would have the federal government laying the smack down on them quicker than you can say "The Pirate Bay".
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
This would be akin to getting insurance for speeding tickets. If it is an illegal act you can't have someone just have someone pay the supposed settlement for you. Since PB isn't "technically" doing anything illegal in Sweden I suppose you can technically get insurance for it, although IANAL and definetly not well versed in Sweden law. This kind of thing will unfortunatly never fly in the US due to file sharing of copyrighted material being illegal.
Actually, now that I think about it, this kind of thing makes the *AAS even more reckless. After all, why do they care if they sue you if you have an insurance company who is just going to pay them off?
Got slapped with a huge fine because your 12 year old downloaded the latest britney spear song? Damn, guess you should have gotten the *AA insurance!
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
Come on guys... why mod this down? It's funny! (Or at least I though it was....)
Seeing as how that's one of the jobs required by the office, it's not funny at all. Besides, it's not legislating, it's issuing a directive to the executive branch, "his" employees.
Troll? Please describe how I'm trolling so that I may better understand.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Issuing an executive order is not the same as legislating. As the head of the executive branch, the President can authorise or limit the actions of any agency under the executive branch as long as doing so would not contradict any legislation.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Hu? Bush is the head of the federal branch. He is setting policy for his branch, thats his job.
Copyright infringement is a crime in Sweden as well, AFAIK. What isn't a crime is distributing torrent files, which link to the material in question that is actually provided by other users, not the site from which you downloaded the torrent.
This is why sites like The Pirate Bay are able to stay alive; they aren't actually infringing copyright, they're simply indexing user-uploaded torrents.
In the US, this would count as contributory infringement I believe, and would be shut down.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
2008 - Swedish file sharing insurance company Tankafritt is sued by the RIAA. Their servers were raided by "Swedish" police who happened to be wearing FBI jackets wink wink.
Hell, your chances of getting sued in any one year are http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=769
:)
1 in 1840. Damn this was initially supposed to be a counter argument but 200K/1840 is $108.
Nevermind
Yes, of course. Needing twice the space to express many of the same integer values is unquestionably worth the convenience of not having to learn how to use data types properly. Let's not forget how much fun bitmasks are when using signed types, either. Oh, fucking joy.
'mrchaotica' already replied to your post saying why it's a stupid idea yet you repeatedly insist on doing something stupid (adding something that's not in the spec and won't compile on anything except your own hacked up version).
And not only that but you won't STFU about it and keep posting the same "I don't care--I'm going to do it and I need to tell Slashdot so they can see how stupid I am" posts.
Basically he said it would be ASAP, but seemed to imply that (lengthy) legal issues were pretty much the cause of delays.
I'm sure it was difficult to manage to get in a shot at Bush when he does something that's pretty much universally a good thing, but congratulations, you managed it, even if it doesn't, you know, make any sense. (As has been pointed out, he's setting the policy for the executive branch of the federal government, of which he is the head. It's not legislating any more than your boss saying that you can't read Slashdot at work.)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Interesting to see a company foiled by the laws they insisted on in the first place, isn't it?
Well it would be, but the Disney case is all about Milne selling the merchandising rights back in the 30's and the daughter basically wanting to back out of that contract. What does that have to do with copyright again?
I don't think it's right of Milne (or Disney) to try and break this contract either but you have to feel a little sorry for Milne who had her grandfather basically give away a vast fortune in return for some smaller sum. Still, I think she's doing well just with her contract to Disney...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
God Damn, President Bush can never get anything right. I can't believe he is trying to overturn the power of the courts with this balancing action from another branch of the government.
Oh wait. I guess he did something good here. Darn, going to get moderated for pointing that out :)
I got convicted for file-sharing and all i got was this lousy T-shirt!!!
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Apu: I have come to make amends, sir. At first, I blamed you for squealing, but then I realized, it was _I_ who wronged _you_. So I have come to work off my debt. I am at your service.
Homer: You're...selling _what_, now?
Apu: I am selling only the concept of karmic realignment.
Homer: You can't sell that! Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos. [slams the door]
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Ok.
Well, there's a whole slew of developers who want unsigned types. They would be really happy to have them in Java, instead of having to use something like C# to get the same functionality. Therefore, someone aside form me might like it. Maybe more people want it than don't, and just maybe the only way to get it is to have someone put it in there and commit it?
Simple enough for you? Now you can take your gay little acronym (just say fuck for crying out loud, this is a big boy site), and shove it. And where the fuck do I 'keep posting' I don't care. I said it once. Your argumentative skills require work.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
It's hardly stupid to extend a compiler (and virtual machine) to have the functionality you want and share that functionality with others. In fact, I'd say you'd have to be pretty damn smart to do that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You could do it entirely in the compiler
When Nasser became president, he sought someone less intelligent than he to be the vice president. He found Sadat. Sadat did the same and found Mubarak.
Mubarak still doesn't have a vice president.
I heard that joke in the El Maadi district of Cairo.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
My submission got rejected, but net neutrality is not the only bad thing on the way via bill S.2686. This is the same bill that grants the FCC the power to require audio and video broadcast flag recognition on every device made or sold. This is one of the last opportunities you have to contact your Senators to let them know you are opposed to this bill before it gets voted through in the middle of the night.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Secondly, Bush's order only applies to federal use of emminent domain, which doesn't occur nearly as often as city and county use of said power. In fact, almost never. In the specific case of Kelo, the "taking" was done by the city of New London, so the executive order doesn't apply.
Really, the order is just political posturing, nothing more. What the court held in Kelo was this is a matter the constitution leaves to the states, and there's no reason for the federal judiciary to get involved. If the federal government actually did transfer ownership of land from one private party to another, the federal courts would have jurisdiction and might very well rule it unconstitutional.
I'm not from New London, but a neighboring town, and I feel obliged to point out that there's a lot of general support around here for what New London has done. It's still controversial, but the general feeling is that it's overall a good thing.
See, the thing is, New London is dirt poor. It's been in decline since it's peak in the 1800s, ever since whaling and fishing stopped being a reasonable basis for a small New England city's economy. For a long time now New London has been the poorest town in the area, with the most densely packed suburban sprawl, and a small downtown area which is mostly boarded up. Over the past twenty or thirty years, New London has been slowly building itself back up. They've cleaned up a lot of the bad crime that was going on, and businesses have been moving back in to areas that had lain dormant. They're developing themselves as a cultural center for the area, and doing a good job of it.
Now, with the whole eminent domain issue, here's the thing: It didn't particularly benefit the company much at all. Pfizer was going to build in the area, at comparable price, regardless, just not in New London. The government of New London saw the opportunity to bring that economic boon into their own town, and jumped on it. Now, there was no readily available area to give to Pfizer. New London is very small, with a high population for it's size. They had to move some people in order to make this go through, or they'd lose the tax base of having that industry to a neighboring, richer town.
The money generated for the town by having Pfizer there is going to allow them to increase the quality of their public services greatly. The school system is going to improve, the police effectiveness is going to improve, the quality of life for the entire town going up as a result of this. It's unfortunate that some people had to be removed for this to happen, and even more unfortunate is the level of malcontent some have felt over this act, but the town and it's inhabitants are going to benefit tangibly. The business received some benefit in order to entice them to the town, but that's a marginal amount. Big Business didn't trump the people here. The town made a heavily debated and difficult decision, and made it for the benefit of it's residents as a group.
Now, as a precedent, Kelo is undeniably dangerous. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that in the particular case of New London, it was the right choice to make.
Are we supposed to chant: "Been there, done that, have the t-shirt?"
FTA:
"For a mere 140 SEK ($19 USD) per year, they will pay all your fines and give you a t-shirt if you get convicted for file sharing."
I can get a t-shirt for next to nothing at any yard/garage sale, flea market for 1$ US or less, WTF?!?!?!
Skip the middlman, print your own t-shirts, and stay off of the server logs.txt, or whatever!
Win!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Hmm. Wait! I have excellent karma. How'd **THAT** happen??
However, I don't believe in karma: it's an invention by wronged people, to make themselves feel better about being wronged. In the real world, there's no force which balances good against evil (or laziness, or whatever) out there. That's religion - and religion sucks.
Wait - wait - I want one more crack at it:
I don't believe in karma, because my karma ran over my dogma.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Sun may release the source code to the JVM however they'll use a license that has serious restrictions. After reading lots of Sun blogs and talking to several people at Sun, I'm convinced that Sun really doesn't get open source or how it works. Solaris is a perfect example of this. In terms of Java, the license will almost surely contain clauses that disallow forks of the JVM.
Unless Sun really steps up or releases Java under a real open source license, without ridiculous restrictions (so other people can pick up Suns slack), I believe Java is in for a really tough time trying to survive the next 5-10 years. Look at how long its taken Swing to become reasonably decent, and yet even in Java 6 it still has serious problems. Look at the mess that is the Date API, NIO, JMF, Netbeans etc. Examples of terrible design decisions exist all throughout the standard API and additional Sun packages. Even a lot of people at Sun admit this, however these issues don't get fixed because Sun refuses to lose backwards compatibility (even though they've failed at that several times already). The API has so many depreciated methods that it's practically disgusting to look at.
The JCP process is not transparent, is way to slow and is a serious pain in the ass to get involved with. You want to get involved and fix bugs/write code, not gonna happen unless you sign a myriad of forms and sign lots of your rights over to Sun. Just being involved also means that you can't work on other JVM implementations. Furthermore, with the JCP you get the privilege of writing extensive JSRs and then waiting for them to take years to start seriously looking at them. You want to fix a bug or add an additional feature to Java, write a JSR and maybe it will be included in Java 10 in 10 years! Look at the bug list for Java, some of the bugs have been around for years.
For an example of the JCP not being a transparent community process, we only have to look back a few weeks when Sun out of the blue decided to include Apache Derby in the Java 6 JDK (which they've renamed JavaDB for inclusion with the JDK...). No JSR and no warning given to the JCP, just Sun unilaterally making the decision on what's best for Java. What a stupid decision that was... Who the hell, besides total beginners, wants a database included in the JDK? Are Java programmers really so inept that they can't go to the Derby website and download a jar file? What happens when a serious bug is found in Derby? Are they going to release an update to the JDK? How long will it take before the version included in the JDK is outdated? A few weeks, a few months tops... What are they going to bundle next with the JDK? That POS Netbeans? Glassfish? JOGL? Suns control over Java is running it into the ground.
Oh by the way, when Sun says "a couple months" they really mean 10 or more months.
Oops, I didn't use the permalink for Simon's blog entry referenced in the parent.
Kelo was not "repealed" (not that you can repeal a court decision, only overrule it). The executive order only stated that land can be taken "in the public interest," which is exactly how some private entities took the land, such as in the Kelo incident, as they were able to argue that it was "in the public interest." RTF case history and understand the executive order.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories. . .
/. had got some facts wrong and were having to publish corrections or something!
Phew. That's a relief! For a second I thought maybe
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
"Kelo repealed"--not even close! The President cannot "repeal" a ruling of the Supreme Court with an executive order! He certainly cannot repeal Kelo, which interpreted the scope of the U.S. Constitution!
"undo the previous Kelo decision"--wrong again! As another commenter pointed out, the executive order has no effect on what state governments do. Frankly, it's also unclear what effect the EO has on the workings of the federal government--even if we ignore the question of what authority the President has in matters such as this, just look at the wording of the EO! "It is the policy," it says. So what? Would a court overturn a taking due to a violation of "policy" expressed in an EO? Who knows? Lots of wiggle room in "policy"...
"[EOs] are almost certainly binding"--says who? Can you cite an example of someone enforcing an EO in a court? Of anyone going to jail for not following one? Did you know that most EOs have boilerplate language stating that they do not create any enforceable legal rights, so that private parties cannot sue to enforce the EO?
"it's essentially the same thing as a federal regulation"--not even close! Regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act as well as pursuant to specific statutory authority. Neither is true for this EO!
And yes, I am a lawyer--and please don't consult Slashdot or Wikipedia for legal knowledge! I don't read Legal Times or the Harvard Law Review to find technical advice...sheesh...
If, after two shuttle disasters, you overrule your safety chief and your chief engineer to proceed with a launch, and you punish someone for giving you advice contrary to what you want, you're incurable. No shock, no external event can overcome the rot.
This incident should put an end to the allegations that engineers with decades of experience were just engaged in CYA when they warned about safety problems. This is a guy who's had his A handed to him for speaking up. A bureaucrat would have gone along: he was willing to lose his job rather than toe the line(*).
Unless the reporting on this was seriously wrong then it is time to scrap NASA and start over.
(*)Sorry, forgot where I was. Make that "loose his job rather than tow the line".
Where they differ is over who ought to be protected.
Republicans believe that Business should be protected from Competition.
Democrats believe People should be protected from Business.
This isn't a new thing, this has been the way the Republican party has been for the past century or more.
When there's a qualifying exam for voting, like there should be for parenting.
Yes, I realize there's a whole other can of worms there. But, I just learned that two companies (Diebold and ESS) count 80% of all votes in the US. The punch line? The owners of both companies are brothers. (Actually, one is president, the other is a VP.)
Democracy is dead.
Oh, and don't expect to see close races like the last two. Nor 99-100% like Saddam received. It'll be 60/40 in Republican favor: that's not a landslide, and it's also not "too close" to receive support for a recount.
I wish I was joking.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
When Nasser became president, he sought someone less intelligent than he to be the vice president. He found Sadat. Sadat did the same and found Mubarak.
Mubarak still doesn't have a vice president.
Sounds like it's a good time for Dan Quayle to brush up his resume.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
The Constitution (Article I, Section 1) states that only congress has the power to make laws. The executive branch and the judicial branch have no legislative powers, whatsoever. And Congress does not have the constitutional authority to delegate its legislative power to institutions that are beyond electoral accountability to the American people.
So why is there never a word said about the fourth branch of the federal government: the unconstitutional and entirely illegal regulatory branch?
What are the alphabet agencies -- FDA, EPA, OSHA, and so on -- doing when they pass laws? And, while these laws are called regulations, so as not to upset anyone who might actually read the Constitution, the Webster's dictionary defines regulation as a rule, ordinance or law.
If America is ever to return to its constitutionally limited government, these illegal federal agencies must be abolished. If laws are needed in certain areas they must be passed by Congress. If laws are unpopular, the citizens should be able to vote out the lawmakers that enacted them. This is not possible in the regulatory branch of the government, the majority of whom are not elected nor held accountable to the people.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
If Sun wants to protect the use of the Java trademark so that others implementing Java runtime systems remain compatible with the standard, there already is a method available. It's called a "certification mark" or "membership mark" class of trademark or servicemark. If you live in the United States, you're almost certainly aware of one very famous certification mark, the "UL" label on electrical appliances. Companies supply samples of their equipment to Underwriters Laboratories, which basically tests the device to destruction, then if the fail point is higher than the minimum standard, UL grants them permission to affix the UL certification mark to their equipment.
A "membership mark" would be used where some organization is allowed to use a mark to show it's a member of a group or has qualified to show the particular mark. I think the "Energy Star" label from the Department of Energy would fit here.
The only requirement to do this is that someone else — that does not distribute the software — has to be the certification authority (you can't be both owner of a certification mark and a user of it, that would be a conflict of interest.) But they'd probably want to do that anyway, the way IBM turned over the Eclipse IDE to a separate foundation after they decided to release it open source.
So, there's already plenty of existing systems available for Sun to use a system to "protect" the Java trademark and the "write once, run anywhere" concept. And a small license fee for those who want to use the mark to cover testing costs for verifying compliance could make the whole thing self-funding.
Paul Robinson paul@paul-robinson.us
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Personally, I think that if you have to sell your house, use your college funds up, or spend the next 20 - 30 years of your life working to pay off your fine...that at least that should get you a lifetime of unlimited downloads.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Why do you have to feel sorry for Milne? Because she can't freeload off work her grandmother did a century ago?
It would either be her or this other company freeloading - in reality of course it should all be public domain by now. But given that is not possible it's kind of a shame that the granddaughter does not have fuller control over what is essentially a family legacy.
You are thinking of her only as a freeloader but her responsibiltiy to her grandfather is that of a steward, and without full rights she cannot complete that task as well as she might be able.
For instance, perhaps she would have been able to stop the development of horrid pooh bears dressed in bee outfits. *shudder*
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, Bush's executive order says nothing that has any effect. What it "means" is subject to lots of discussion. But of course an executive order cannot contradict an express Supreme Court decision. Even if that decision is unjust, or if the court is loaded with Bush's corporate appointees.
The only way to counter a Supreme Court decision, which interprets actions in the context of American laws, is to make new laws. That power is reserved to the Congress, not the president, as anyone who ever saw Schoolhouse Rock knows.
Despite the neocon "unitary executive" ("king") philosophy, the president is optional (when Congress overrides a presidential veto), but Congress never is, when making laws.
Of course, with Republicans controlling all three branches of our government, it's hard to tell how the powers are separated. Of course, that's why Republicans are doing all these antiamerican actions, while they have the chance.
And when Bush can sign such a BS order, and have naive people post, publish and read on Slashdot that it somehow "repeals" a Court decision (the correct term is "rescind", even when that is actually the effect), we can tell why they do it. Because when people believe it, it has effect. Even when it's the kind of destruction of America that our enemies have always dreamed of.
--
make install -not war
Did you mean: Alan Freed?
Come on, let's rock and roll with the Ramones...
Remember that its not only Republicans taking campaign donations, democrats take them too.
The Disney Corporation backed down yesterday after banning grieving parents from putting Winnie the Pooh on their stillborn baby's headstone.
"hey let's override the constitution at whim" is a universally good thing?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
...Discovery last July
Can someone tell me what this means? Did I miss a launch last year?
The latest Slashdot meme.
You can't simply sign an executive order saying "the supreme court is wrong." Even given the rather permissive language the court uses in Kelo, it would be the legislature, not the executive, that would be given the opportunity.
Anyone who tries to justify this because they don't like Kelo is being intelectually dishonest. Good systems don't work like this.
Never mind.
The latest Slashdot meme.
There's plenty said about them. The CIA has been in the news an awful lot recently, as I recall. Even the dingy old U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is getting a suprising amount of ink these days.
The reason they're not discussed more is because their functions are pretty mundane. The public doesn't care how the NIH decides to award federal grants, or how the SEC polices the stock market. Just printing the letters "IRS" in an article headline will guarantee that the public ignores it.
This is an extremely deleterious consequence of America's love of drama - the undramatic goes unmonitored. Meanwhile, our politicians keep us amused (and distracted from their actions) by waving flags and conjuring images of terr'ists.
What are the alphabet agencies -- FDA, EPA, OSHA, and so on -- doing when they pass laws? And, while these laws are called regulations, so as not to upset anyone who might actually read the Constitution, the Webster's dictionary defines regulation as a rule, ordinance or law.
Agency regulations are not laws. Laws are rules that apply to your actions: things that you may do, or must do, or must not do. Agency regulations are rules that apply to the actions of an agency: how it can utilize a power (that has already been given to it by the Executive or Legislative), how it cannot utilize a power, etc.
It's true that an agency sometimes relies on its own regulations to determine how to treat you. But the agency's power to deal with you in such a way was given to it by a law. And if the agency oversteps its legal authority, then a regulation won't save it.
Example: The IRS has many regulations that dictate how you must pay your federal taxes. Yet, these regulations aren't laws - the law passed by Congress is that:
- You must submit an annual federal income tax payment; and
- The IRS is responsible for creating a tax formula that adheres to the dictates of the legislature; and
- You must use the IRS formula, and follow the IRS submission procedures, to prove that you're paying the correct amount.
Now, what happens if the IRS believes that you've failed your legal duties under #1 or #3? It can't do anything to you! It has no such power. It merely tells the executive branch that you've violated the tax laws, and the executive prosecutes you for evasion - under the general tax laws passed by Congress.- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
ensure no particular company uses market forces as muscle for its own implementation, a move that would threaten Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra."
Ha! Given how long and hard it was to get Java on FreeBSD, the 'run anywere' part isn't right.
And, how Mac OS X customers in the printing industry have to wait for the java code to be redone so it works on Intel Macs the same way as it used to work on PPC Macs...the write once part ain't right either.
I'd have to say if Sun is 'worried', they should have been doing something about it sooner.
Don't worry, things just might get better after all if enough people find out whats really going on: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
One can only hope anyway...
Two flaws in this argument:
As for their perception of your likelihood to settle:
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
My boss does allow me to uh... you know... read Slashdot at work...
Hmm, $19 to protect me from the music mafia... because, if I don't pay it, something *bad* might happen to me. Oh yeah, great news. FUCK YOU RIAA. You're not getting a dime from me.
I have a suspicion that the launch date is driven by a desire to be in orbit for the 4th 0f July? Marketing driven launch dates.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Being insured against lawsuits is the single quickest way to get sued.
That said, I'm-a thinkin' about sending these fellers $19 for merely the piece of paper. I doubt a Sweedish firm would be a lot of help for Americans sent to Guantanamo and summarily tortured for their file sharing offenses, but I'd certainly like to see such a business model be proven worth-while.
This kind of protection boils down to "We'll insure you against racketeering." Right now, I'd love to have that here in the U.S.. I try to keep my nose clean, but I had a friend get reamed not too long ago for many thousands of dollars because he was caught with a card writer during the whole Dish Network fiasco.
He even wanted to fight it, but his lawyer advised him that the settlement would be cheaper in the long run. Defacto tyrrany by lawsuit is a growing norm. I'd *LOVE* to be a facless $19 statistic in some anti-tyrrany organization's counter.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
> Are Republicans for or against regulation? The answer is "yes." Regulation is a bad thing, if their current "donors" say so. It's also a good thing, for the very same reasons.
I honestly don't know any more. At one time, I agreed with them about what I thought to be the most important issues, but now all I see is them selling me up the river to telecom bastards. I've registered as a Republican since I was first able to vote, and I've never failed to vote for *anything* no matter how minor the office.
For whatever it's worth, I sent my representative a SCREW YOU! type note explaining that I wasn't going to stand for this. In the mean time, I think I'll consider myself a Pirate Party member at heart and vote for whoever I think is best able to undermine the bastards currently screwing me over.
Not quite. Congress cannot delegate "its legislative power" to an administrative agency (neither, at the risk of parsing your statement too finely, can it delegate "its legislative power" to an agency). That would be too broad a delegation, which the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional. That is, Congress could not say to the Securities & Exchange Commission, for example, "here, you guys go make the laws for a while."
but your main concern is well founded. In finding certain (sweeping) delegations of legislative power to agencies unconstitutional in the 1930s, the Supreme Court made the constitutional question turn on whether an act of delegation is too broad rather than whether it is a delegation of legislative power. [In all fairness to the Supreme Court, though, it is impossible to take a purely "functionalist" perspective of separation of powers. Any "rule" that either requires people (or any legal entity) to do something or forbids them from doing something can be said to be "legislative" in nature. But this can be indistinguishable from an act executive power. For example, to enforce a law forbidding certain accounting practices, an agency may require companies to submit or retain certain documents.]
In making it a matter of how broad a congressional delegation can be -- whether Congress has delegated its "essential legislative function" -- the door was thrown open to very wide delegations of law-making power that are (ostensibly) pursuant to very vague congressional standards (i.e. "intelligible principles" of Hampton v. US). Thus Congress has delegated to (unelected) agency heads the power to do such things as set "just and reasonable" rates that firms in various industries can charge, to "prohibit unfair trade practices", etc.
So I very much appreciate your point: Congress has delegated to unelected, and largely unaccountable, agencies a vast amount of power to make laws, within their regulatory scope or jurisdiction, usually subject only to highly vague "standards". While Congress may not be able to legislate down to the finest details, to me that's rather the point: government that does not encroach personal freedom any more than necessary to accomplish certain, limited purposes does not need to regulate the fine details!
While indeed the whole issue would be moot without copyright that's not what the snide remark was implying. It was saying specifically that the courts ruling was a direct result of Disney's support of copyright extensions when all they were doing was upholding a contract!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Java uses the Twos complement notation
There is no 'sign' bit
They say the mind is the first thing to
I read the headline as "Allah Freed". For a moment I was amazed that the DoJ was able to detain a major deity.
The universally good thing the GP referred to is the limiting of the federal government's ability to take private property away from its rightful owners. While eminent domain has been present throughout US history, Kelo sets an unprecedented standard of what is considered "public use" that left a bitter taste in the mouth of every citizen who is concerned about their property rights.
Since you seem to like Kelo I can only assume that you do not own any land. I do own land (a whopping 1/3 acre) and this judgement frankly scares the willies out of me. What will the government decide to take next?
If you do own land, consider this: A developer decides they want to build a mall where your neighborhood now stands. The developer, empowered by the Kelo judgement, convinces your city council that the land would bring in more property taxes as a mall. The council approves change and now it falls on the developer to purchase your land.
The developer gives you an offer of about 80% of what your land is worth. You naturally tell the developer to take a hike, as do most of your neighbors. The developer then sends you an offer of 85%. A few more of your neighbors sell out, but you stay. At this point, the developer is tired of playing games.
The developer goes to the city council again, this time with an appeal for some help in acquiring the land. City council responds by rezoning the neighborhood (commercial zone brings in more taxes, thanks Kelo!). This renders your property worthless. The developer now offers you 20% of the value of your(?!) land. You have no choice now but to take whatever they offer as your house is now no longer legally a residence.
After this has happened, you can take comfort in knowing that your land is now doing much more for the public good. I hope it keeps you warm.
This is not a scenario that I pulled out of the air to make a point. This happened in my home town. The city council now has a lot of new faces, but that doesn't give the displaced people much comfort.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Being insured against lawsuits is the single quickest way to get sued.
Many (most?) frivolous lawsuits are only threatened when the one suing is expecting the victim to back down without a fight because the cost of fighting is too high. If the victim can afford a defense the chance of anyone attempting to sue them is much lower since a victim that fights back is usually not worth the trouble.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Q: What's a hundred times worse than tax-and-spend-liberals?
A: Borrow-and-spend-conservatives.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I guess I should get as much wisdom from Hugo Chavez as I can right now. He might be kinda quiet from now until the next election in 2026.
and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
Wow, you really have no understanding of the US Government do you? Most those agencies you named are part of the Executive Branch, not some mystery fourth branch like you say. These are all "policing" agencies, which technically fall under the Executive Branch, if you read the Constitution. Now, I cannot speak for all the groups, but most of them were assigned their powers through...get this...Congress!
The FCC, for example, was created as part of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Their powers are relegated to them by Congressional Acts, and they have been slapped by SCOTUS before for overstepping the bounds laid before them in the law and for acting without Congressional approval. The USPTO, as another example, is given some support by the original Constitution, but all the laws for it were written through acts of Congress. The laws were merely "clarified" in some instances by the CAFC and SCOTUS. They also have a set of regulations, but in their case, the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) which are applied to patents do not hold the weight of law.
While the EPA was created by a President, Nixon to be exact, many of its "regulations" actually come from Acts of Congress. OSHA was also created by an act of Congress, conveniently having the same acronym.
Really, please read up a little bit before accusing these groups of blatantly creating and enforcing laws. These groups did not just magically appear and are hardly some sort of rogue 4th branch of US Government.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'm afraid, the folks at Open Office.org, for example, will start bundling their own Java with their next release.
The fools are bundling so many other 3rd-party packages already (license be damned), it is frightening...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It used to be a Republican mantra, until they managed to win power, now suddenly old "tax-and-spend" liberals are thinking federalism isn't such a bad idea.
I agree that Republicans are quite the federalists they used to be, but liberals/Democrats still aren't the better option for a limited government. Nowadays, they just want to spend our tax dollars on different programs than the Republicans do. There may be a few fiscally conservative, limited government liberals out there, but I can't name many, and certainly none of the ones who get the majority of the limelight fall into that category.
--trb
Sigh.
I agree that Republicans aren't quite the federalists they used to be...
--trb
I don't know what they're worried about, Java threatens Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra.
HitScan
Cut to Baron von Frankenstein (that's Frahnkunsteen) laboratory:
... ahhh ... NUISANCE!!!
Baron (yelling): Its
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I have to wonder if Allah qualifies as a major deity, much more likely a victim of conscription by the fanatics, indicating a corporal deity, sergeant at best. Sadly the term of service is "for the duration".
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
"In the US, this would count as contributory infringement I believe, and would be shut down."
No more so than medical malpractice insurance is contributory malpractice. Insurance for legal liability is a common thing.
The real reason this is not a long-term solution to the RIAA's lawsuits is that so far the RIAA has been settling for only about $5000 per case. If the party was insured, they might bring it to court and insist on the full $150,000 per infringement. No insurance could stand up to that; the provider would either go bankrupt or have to start charging obscenely high premiums.
Here is the link that explains where Winnie actually came from. I used to live in the town where Winnie was purchased and named. A few years back, they erected a big Winnie the Pooh statue. Check This link.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
While it isn't Blacks (a wonderful reference which every polymath should have at hand), dictionary.law.com, has the following definitions for regulation and law:
Regulations
law
Wouldn't that really be "Compulsory Sale"? It's the one selling the property that is being forced, the government could change their mind and not buy it, so the purchaser is not being compulsed. Then again, maybe I'm not reading the grammer right.
This is an intesting point, as you are right that this is a newspeak/doublespeak term. However it is an "old" one, like from last century or something, right? Does "newspeak" become "oldspeak" when it gets old enough, or does it remain "newspeak" forever?
Kelo wasn't repealed, you can't "repeal" a court decision.
The Supreme Court in Kelo set the Constitutional minimum, stinky as it was. Legislatures are then free to set higher bars than the Constitutional minimum. 31 state legislatures (and counting) have done so. The President's Executive Order only orders the federal executive agencies to limit eminent domain proceedings to the "public use" as defined by either law (Congress) or the Executive Order.
Precision in language, people.
If God is omnipotent, can he run on Linux?
Not only can God run on Linux, but Linux can run on God. This creates a sort of Deus ex Virtual Machina where You have have Linux running on God running on Linux running on God running on Linux, and so on.
God also releases both His sources and binaries in a variety of formats. You've got Adam and Eve, the Immaculate Conception, and Holy Communion. Not only are you made in His image, but you've also got His DNA.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
First, most eminent domain situations occur at local levels as the above poster suggests. This affects those local levels not at all.
Secondly, Kelo did nothing more than confirm the rights of the individual 50 State governments to define public use. This right had been laid out in case after case before Kelo, and if people take the time to read the Kelo opinion the realities that this case creates no new law is evident.
Most property law professors were not surprised at the outcome, but many had hoped and wished that a more conservative court would overturn or modify some of the previous decisions. As it is, if a property professor was surprised by the outcome after reading the opinion, then that professor needs to leave their self-idealistic world and read some more caselaw on the matter.
Kelo does nothing more than confirm States' rights to manage that States' property.
"The universally good thing the GP referred to is the limiting of the federal government's ability to take private property away from its rightful owners."
which, of course, Bush didn't do.
He just said "We shouldn't do that."
That is stilla good thing, but it's not like it has any real backing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you seem to beleive that politics are black and white. Republicans believe this, democrats beleive that. WRONG.
Regulation isnt always considered bad by one group or the other. It is a give an take situation.
You cant simplify politics into these sweeping statements that fit into a single sentance.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dude. Your own story states that the copyright fell to Frank. Frank then signed a contratc based on owning that copyright. Copyright is what made that contract binding because otherwise Frank would have no rights to sell!
The article was about a differing opinion on the contract being only for movies,not TV rights. But "moving pictures" can be rebroadcast on TV. Read the last few paragraphs of your own story! Copyright, again, had nothing to do with THAT case either other than being the reason why the contract was still binding to all parties.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't have to tell them that you're insured, since it's irrelevant to the case. And I don't think that the Piratbyran Insurance Group is going to reveal that information to them voluntarily! So the RIAA would have no way to know if you're insured, and would have to act accordingly (i.e., by assuming that you're not.)
Why would they choose that course? If someone *can* get ensured, and they're used to jacking up their prices until they reach what people are willing to pay, why wouldn't they raise their amounts to match what an insured person would pay? Then people worried about it *would* get insurance.
In fact, RIAA might be able to make that into a money-making venture over and above the lawsuits themselves. Buy into one or more of the insurance companies offering this insurance and keep the pressure up just enough so that the demand for the insurance is high but they're not spending too much money paying themselves off. (Would that fall under the RICO Act?)
Because the supermajority of defendants will be uninsured.
Let's start with the presumption that the RIAA has presumably already set its settlement offers to maximize return on uninsured people. This means that altering these offers in any way will result in lower yield for the RIAA for uninsured defendants.
Now let's develop that presumption as a hypothetical equation:
- P = the probability that any defendant will be insured. (The RIAA can't determine this value for any defendant, making this a crap shoot.)
- G = the gained money that the RIAA could make off of an insured defendant (on average) by adjusting the insurance rate.
- L = the money that the RIAA would lose off of an uninsured defendant (on average) by adjusting the insurance rate.
The critical equation is: N = (G * P) - (L * (1-P)).N, here, is the net profit or loss of the adjustment. If N is positive, then adjusting the RIAA settlement policy results in more money, so it should change. If N is negative, then adjusting the policy would result in less money, so it should not change.
I posit that N will undoubtedly be negative. I base this suggestion on the inference that P will be 0.00001 or smaller, i.e., only one out of every 100,000 defendants will be insured. So even if an alteration nets an additional $100,000 from an insured defendant but loses $1 from an uninsured defendant, then at an insurance rate of 0.00001, the RIAA only breaks even.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.