Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Disney Copyright, Alaa Freed, Kelo Repealed

Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: Egyptian blogger Alaa freed from jail, Executive order repeals Kelo decision, Disney's trouble with Pooh bear, NASA engineer fired for opposing shuttle launch, Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance, open source Java months away, and the net neutrality amendment defeated in committee -- Read on for details.

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."

58 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why does this remind me of Volcano Insurance from family guy?

    1. Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. by AxsDeny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Touché salesman.

      I too have an uncle.

      --

      zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
      283 files eaten by a grue
    2. Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. by antic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      New RIAA scheme:

      1. Start RIAA insurance company
      2. Wait for P2P-using "pirates" to sign up
      3. Send each of them a settlement offer for $2k ;)

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    3. Re:Swedish pirates provide RIAA insurance. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Which says it only applies in Sweden and will not accept members from other countries. Which only makes sense. The cost of litigation is far higher here.

      Oh, in that case it really is like "volcano insurance" since there'd be no grounds for the RIAA to sue anyone in Sweden to begin with -- it's $19/year to protect from nothing.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. Disney learns.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    the infallibility of karma. It is not so forgiving...

  3. Kelo Untouched by blamanj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Kelo Untouched by alshithead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And of course Federal eminent domain isn't being used like state eminent domain. It is used much less frequently and affects a much smaller group of people. Many states are rightly revising their eminent domain laws because of a couple of well publicized cases. It has been far too easy for local/state governments to take people's property away and this is one area where you might be able to say that the local/state electoriate is actually affecting policy in a big way. Of course, it doesn't hurt that rich people don't want their property taken for "local economic improvements" either.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    2. Re:Kelo Untouched by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Informative

      Executive Orders function as law until repealed by the President, overruled by subsequent Congressional legislation, or perhaps overturned by the Supreme Court (although I'm unaware of the Supreme Court ever hearing a case to decide the constitutionality of a specific Executive Order). They are most certainly legally-binding on the actions of the federal government and not just "good advice."

    3. Re:Kelo Untouched by Tx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, wikipedia disagrees with you, FWIW.

      Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

      Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.


      If wikipedia is accurate, then an executive order only has force of law if made with the backing of a congressional act. Also sounds like you couldn't be jailed or fined for ignoring it.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    4. Re:Kelo Untouched by M0b1u5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Eminent Domain" - LOL - what bullshit. It sounds like a boy band.

      What you really mean is "Compulsory Purchase".

      Never trust lawyers to name ANYTHING!

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    5. Re:Kelo Untouched by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Executive Branch is unilaterally responsible for engaging in executive functions (including those which invoke the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution), pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Constitution and those granted in statute by the Legislature. Therefore, if the head of the Executive Branch says in an executive order that his government shall not do X, and X is not otherwise required by legislation, then X will not happen (under penalty of being fired - and possibly civil or criminal penalty if an agent of the government does not comply with the executive order, depending on the circumstances). (Obviously, this ignores cases where the executive branch doesn't follow up on violations of the order, in particular when X might be something done in secret.)

      In this case, since the federal government, per executive order, is not to take property via eminent domain when the property won't be used specifically for the public good, the federal government simply won't do it. No other part of the federal government has the capability to exercise such power, so the order is as good as law until a subsequent president revokes the policy, even though it's not statute.

      It's essentially the same thing as a federal regulation - these are things defined not in statute, but rather by the Executive Branch of the government. Some things in the CFR are there because the legislature specifically requires them, while others are regulations crafted under the broad discretion that Congress sometimes gives. In the case of the anti-Kelo executive order, (fairly) broad discretion is granted by the Constitution, and the executive order sets a specific procedure under which that power is exercised. The entirety of the federal Executive Branch must abide by that order (under penalty of at least getting fired, and possibly incurring substantial civil damages against oneself if one attempts to bypass the order), and so it's as good as law as long as it's not revoked.

    6. Re:Kelo Untouched by alshithead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yup. I absolutely mean "Compulsory Purchase". Hell, even that's way too polite for what it is. Don't show up on my property and say you want it for your town, county, state or federal project because it will help SOMEONE ELSE make money. I might have to go Rambo or Charles Bronson on someone if I don't have a really, really good reason to persuade me that giving up my property is the best thing for a whole lotta people and ME.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    7. Re:Kelo Untouched by tambo · · Score: 2, Informative
      While the executive order makes for nice PR, it has no effect on Kelo or any other action taken by local governments.

      As well it shouldn't - such an order would be an unjustified intrusion into the powers reserved to the states, and hence unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

      Furthermore, it's probably really only good as "advice" to the Attorney General.

      Not just the AG, but the entire executive branch - which is almost always the branch that invokes eminent domain on behalf of the federal government. From TFA: "The Attorney General shall: (i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy..., (ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance...," etc.

      But you're correct that this is pretty limited, since virtually all eminent domain cases involve a state or local government. Nor could it (unless it were done in another manner, e.g., tied to state funding via the commerce clause.) And it's further weakened by the host of exceptions - see Sec. 3.

      ...not that the Bush administration cares to bother with respectin separation of powers.

      Generally I agree with you, but in this case, your vitriol is unsupported. Also, the headline here ("Kelo repealed"... the decision "undo[es] the previous Kelo decision") is completely wrong and misleading and stupid. The poster, physicsphairy, should stick with physics.

      (For once,) Bush isn't trumping the statement of the judiciary - he's not even addressing it, since his order doesn't use the word "constitutionality" at all.

      Read as: "Whether or not the Supreme Court correctly granted us this power, we're ordering ourselves not to use it."

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    8. Re:Kelo Untouched by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Executive Branch is unilaterally responsible for engaging in executive functions (including those which invoke the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution), pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Constitution and those granted in statute by the Legislature. Therefore, if the head of the Executive Branch says in an executive order that his government shall not do X, and X is not otherwise required by legislation, then X will not happen

      This is why the executive parliamentary model is so much superior to the executive presidential model. In a parliamentary model, power rests with the prime minister, and he can only pass legislation my a majority vote in the parliament. What's more, if he does something outrageous like spy on the states own citizens, he has to go into parilment the next day and be bawled at by the opposition, something executive presidents never have to do. They live in their own, insulated and detached little world, running the country with hardly any oversight for the length of their term. At least prime ministers have their oppositions, and sometimes their backbenchers, watching their backs all the time, often for a place to stick a knife.

      The executive president is simply a holdover from the days of monarchy. Some people simply think that "strong government" needs an eleceted dictator or else it won't be powerful enough to get the job done. Whatever. Time and again the parilimentary model has proved superior, with nearly every jumped up dictator now holding the position of a supreme executive presidency. In some parilentary democracies, that position doesn't even exist.

      So the next time the president is revealed to have been breaking the law and violating your rights, remember that this isn't a bug in the system. It's a feature.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    9. Re:Kelo Untouched by makomk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a parliamentary model, power rests with the prime minister, and he can only pass legislation my a majority vote in the parliament. What's more, if he does something outrageous like spy on the states own citizens, he has to go into parilment the next day and be bawled at by the opposition, something executive presidents never have to do.

      In theory, possibly. In practice, the UK at least doesn't work that way anymore, no thanks to Tony Blair. Besides, with a suitably well-whipped majority, it has to be something truly outrageous (or just really, really unpopular with the party's MPs - which shouldn't happen too often, if they're chosen correctly) for any law not to go through. To be honest, sometimes I'm not sure even a law declaring him dictator would be blocked, if it was well-worded and sweetened suitably... the newspapers would kick up hell, and the opposition wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't matter.

    10. Re:Kelo Untouched by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When it comes to the disposition of private property, only the people who own it should get votes. After all, it sounds nice to take someone *else's* private property for your use, but not so nice to take *yours*.

      Right. And since we'd need the unanimous consent of about 500 homeowners in order to build any freeway, we can count on never again building a municipal highway in America.

      And yet, highways must be built.

      Nothing in this executive order (or in state and local laws that are being enacted all over the place) would stop eminent domain for needful public works. If your community needs a new freeway, school, or firehouse, eminent domain is still an option (preferably the option of last resort). What is being stopped is the abuse of eminent domain, such as wiping out a residential neighborhood so that a strip mall can be built in its place that'll pay more in taxes.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  4. I really hope that part about Java is true by John+Courtland · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... so that I can personally add the 'unsigned' keyword.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    1. Re:I really hope that part about Java is true by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry to disappoint you, but it's entirely possible (and reasonable!) to open-source an implementation without letting people mess with the standard too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:I really hope that part about Java is true by John+Courtland · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell these guys that too: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =4504839
      Working on unsigned data coming in from another source is VERY bug prone in Java. Writing file format readers in Java is a nightmare.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    3. Re:I really hope that part about Java is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... so that I can personally add the 'unsigned' keyword.

      Upcoming next on TheDailyWTF..

      unsigned bool isPaulaBrillant = true;

  5. If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully follow by QuesarVII · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Try "double-digit" months away by -benjy · · Score: 4, Informative
    The source of the Java release estimate, Simon Phipps, indicated that he was misinterpreted:

    I replied as I usually do, indicating it's "months rather than years", making it clear that the way to interpret that comment is that it's double-digit months and not September!"
  8. Re:Regulation, Good or Bad? by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Funny

    >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.

  9. Re:fp by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny
    Why do I have bad karma?

    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.

  10. What an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully foll by Durrok · · Score: 2

    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.
  12. Re:More Disney details please by glowworm · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Washington Times has a slightly better writeup. Not exact but way better than that poor link.

    By the way - to the editors.... It's Winnie not Winny.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  13. Re:What a hypocrite by Cyphertube · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  14. Re:If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully foll by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  15. Re:STFU already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    '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.

  16. Re:More Disney details please by novus+ordo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Look into apellate ruling summary. Intro:
    This copyright action arises from a termination notice sent by the appellant to the appellee, seeking to recapture rights to various characters created by her grandfather, Alan Alexander Milne, who authored the "Winnie-the-Pooh" children's books. Milne originally granted various rights in those works to the appellee in 1930. Then, in 1983, due to a change in copyright law in 1976, Milne's heirs considered terminating the 1930 grant outright, but instead entered into a new agreement that revoked the original grant and re-issued rights in the works to the appellee. The appellant seeks to invalidate the 1983 agreement based on 1998 legislation. The 1998 legislation only authorizes the termination of copyright agreements executed before 1978. Because the 1983 revocation and re-grant were valid, we affirm the district court's decision.
    --
    "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
  17. Disney story unrelated to copyright by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you have to feel sorry for Milne? Because she can't freeload off work her grandmother did a century ago?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. What did she do for that money?
      She had ancestors who created marketable characters. Well, great for her.
      You can use that fact to make small talk about yourself, but make your own damn money.

    3. Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright by Generic+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What did she do for that money? She had ancestors who created marketable characters. Well, great for her. You can use that fact to make small talk about yourself, but make your own damn money.

      Seeing as how Clare Milne has cerebral palsy, that was a crummy thing to write.
      In actuality, IIRC, Christopher Robin (Milne) refused any 'Pooh' money until his daughter was born with that medical condition. He realized she would need money so as to be looked after, when he was gone.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    4. Re:Disney story unrelated to copyright by Cederic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      wtf does her medical condition have to do with it?

      It's still wrong that people have an expectation that they can freeload off their ancestors.

  18. Bush can't ever get it right! by TinyManCan · · Score: 2, Funny
    "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."

    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 :)

  19. lousy t-shirt by Elminst · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  20. A good Mubarak joke by cvd6262 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  21. Not only net neutrality by Wylfing · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  22. Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by Shrithe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by frogstar_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Since New London was foolishly permitted to make that choice, a multitude stand to lose homes, property, and businesses anytime bigger fish feel like greasing palms. Expediency for New London is no excuse for what is going to happen now.

    2. Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by bobbuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well nothing will help property values like having a nationwide reputation for government that doesn't respect property rights. You got Pfizer, you'll lose all else. Would you put a business there, knowing that someone with better connections could take your land once you get on your feet?

    3. Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets take a look at the text at hand.



      "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

      There is no doubt that increase tax revenue is good for a budget but the problem with me is two fold. First, Private property taken for private use is not public use. Or at least wasn't until recently. Obviously all taxed properties in a cities tax base are for city the to use because they collect taxes, and of course taxes are for public use. Bamm dangerous prescient (Which I'm certain you agree with)

      The other issue I have is with just compensation. If the land, which is taxed, is being taken then given to someone else so it can be taxed more, then what compensation should that person receive? I don't think just compensation means the cost of the property. It means the loss of liberty, the cost of moving, all expenses associated with being force out of your property, cost of employment, sentimental value, the cost of a new property (Which now wouldn't be yours anyway because it would be taxed and all things taxed in the city is now for public use.) It is very dangerous and I don't think the City of New London will be justly compensating any of the people/land owners force for forfit.

      On a side note, if they would just plant some Chaffseed, Gerardia, or Pogonia which are considered endangered, it might make the property even more of a hard pill to swallow, since it would require yet another expensive law suit, since the property is already planned to be mowed over with new development.

    4. Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by bratwiz · · Score: 2, Funny



      I think New London and the surrounding area would be an excellent place for a Nuclear Waste Dump site; a Toxic Waste Dump site; a National Crematorium; an Industrial-sized Water & Sewage Treatmentf facility; a combined-forces military proving ground, ordanance-testing facility, and live-fire practice ground; a Super-Max Prison for Extra-Violent Sexual Offenders (Mother Stabbers and Father Rapers); a Minute-Man Nuclear Missle facility; and a shelter for abandoned and wayward buzzards & skunks...

      It would be in the public's interest to concentrate all of these facilities in one place-- way out of the way of the rest of the country...

      And I'm sure that once the news gets out, property prices will quickly become affordable... all around a good deal for everyone... ... everyone that is except for the poor folks in New London and surrounding areas.... they'll get royally screwed-- but hey, its all for the public good. They should feel proud they were able to do their civic duty and show they believe in the American values that made some rich bastard great...

    5. Re:Kelo as viewed from the perspective of a local by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it wasn't.
      Displacing people for a private company is wrong no matter how much money it brings into the community. Of course, I doubt they (pfizer) will be paying that much in taxes, so the tax will be generated by taxing the goods the workers purchase. Now, how to you garantee all those purchases happen in new London?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. If true, NASA is terminally ill by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:If true, NASA is terminally ill by lostchicken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with these sort of things is that NASA is placed in an absolutely impossible situation if someone cries wolf to the press, and there isn't a wolf to be found. The same sort of thing happened with the A380.

      This engineer felt that there was a fundamental design issue with an IC used in the pressurization system of an airliner. His bosses and fellow engineers, all the way up the chain felt otherwise. This has been an absolute nightmare for Airbus, and even if we assume that the directors have no sense of morals and are just looking at the bottom line, it would likely have been cheaper just to fix whatever problem was there than deal with the aftermath of some engineer writing to any newspaper that'll print him, so they looked. And, in the opinion of all the other engineers in the program, there wasn't a problem. Now what? You either keep him on and let this guy spout off forever about how dangerous your product is, likely causing the shareholders to demand a vendor switch even with nothing at all wrong just because it will look bad for the airframe, a hugely expensive gamble for the Airbus group, or you fire him and try to shut him up, and now everybody screams cover-up.

      I'm not necessarily saying this is an analogous situation. I don't know what went on in the meetings where he got transferred, or what he said to piss people off. I am saying that it's not always as simple as people think.

      --
      -twb
  24. Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Government by usurper_ii · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  25. Protecting the Java trademark:No Problem by rfc1394 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  26. Re:Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Governm by tambo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So why is there never a word said about the fourth branch of the federal government: the unconstitutional and entirely illegal regulatory branch?

    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.

    :shrug: Webster's is for colloquial English; I recommend trying Black's Law Dictionary. Unfortunately, my copy isn't here, but I'd bet my eye teeth that it does more than merely suggest that "law" and "regulation" are synonyms.

    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:

    1. You must submit an annual federal income tax payment; and
    2. The IRS is responsible for creating a tax formula that adheres to the dictates of the legislature; and
    3. 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.
  27. Re:If it's a hit in Sweden, US will hopefully foll by tambo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    Two flaws in this argument:

    1. The RIAA's settlements are already calculated to maximize their return. These are business decisions based on how much money they can extract from you without a fight. If you'd decline any settlement over or equal to $100, then they're going to offer you $99.99. The mechanics of this decision are driven by (1) their costs in fighting the suit, (2) their odds of winning at trial, and (3) their perception of your likelihood to settle - if none of these things change, then their settlement offer won't, either.

      As for their perception of your likelihood to settle:

    2. 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.)

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  28. Re:4th of July fireworks for the shuttle by mjwx · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see, this is how NASA plans a fireworks show.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  29. Re:Not subcomment in story by cei · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Paramount Wins 'The War of the World' Rights
    Fri Apr 19, 2002, 7:41 PM ET

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - The grandchildren of author H.G. Wells lost their bid to control "The War of the Worlds" when Paramount Pictures was granted exclusive television rights to the science fiction novel in a ruling made public on Friday.

    Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman, in a six-page decision, said the Wells grandchildren, who filed a suit against Paramount nearly 18 months ago, "are unable to sell the right to produce and distribute a television motion picture/miniseries based on the novel to Hallmark Cards Entertainment Productions LLC."

    The novel earned a place in pop culture after actor Orson Welles set off a nationwide panic with his famed radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds" in 1938.

    When H.G. Wells died in 1946, he left all his rights and interests in the novel to his son, Frank. After his death, Frank Wells' children, Martin and Robin Wells as trustees of their father's estate, began negotiations with Hallmark to produce and distribute a TV miniseries based on the novel.

    When Paramount learned of the negotiations in 1988, it asserted exclusive ownership of the television rights, based on a 1951 contract signed by Frank Wells.

    The grandchildren and Hallmark as plaintiffs in the action had argued that while the 1951 contract gave Paramount "extensive motion picture rights" this was "not television rights."

    But the judge ruled that "any motion pictures that Paramount has the right to produce, it also has the right to televise."

    The grandchildren in their suit had attempted to draw a distinction between "motion pictures" and "television miniseries."

    "Such a distinction is untenable," the judge wrote.

    Paramount is owned by Viacom Inc.
    WotW was first published in 1898. Wells died in 1946. His heirs signed a contract in 1951. Is contract law trumping copyright law now? Shouldn't WotW be in the public domain, and thus allowing anyone to make derivative works regardless of medium?
    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
  30. Re:Returning to a Constitutionally Limited Governm by thebdj · · Score: 2, Informative

    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."
  31. Open Source Java by HitScan · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know what they're worried about, Java threatens Java's "write once, run anywhere" mantra.

    --
    HitScan
  32. Re:I'm Illiterate by Rick.C · · Score: 2, Funny
    For a moment I was amazed that the DoJ was able to detain a major deity.

    Deities who don't show up for the weekly DoJ prayer meetings are automatically placed on the "potential terrorists" list and subject to detention/interrogation whenever or wherever they are found.

    It's in the DoJ bylaws somewhere.
    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford