You have misunderstood the problem. If copyright was not excessively long, by the time something became an "orphan" work, it would be out of copyright (or at worst, only a few years away from being out of copyright). The problem here is that copyright lasts too long.
The correct answer is one that Google won't like, but it is the only one that truly respects the rigths that we as a society have decided to give an author. Google (or whoever wants to do this) needs to locate the person who controls the copyright and get permission. If they cannot locate the copyright holder, they cannot use the work. Of course, if copyright were reduced to a reasonable length of time, this wouldn't be a problem. They could just wait the few years until it entered public domain.
Well, in Pennsylvania and Maryland the courts have stepped pretty hard on authorities who have persecuted people for recording the police in public (of course that was partly because the authorities did it within the jurisdiction of the same court that had already ruled that the state wiretapping law did not apply to recording the police acting in their official capacity).
I would tend to agree that 30 years is too long, but it is in the vicinity of the correct length. Two-three years is not long enough. I am not sure why, but for some reason, I go for some multiple of 7 years.
The problem is that Google wants to both include books that are still under copyright and charge a fee for access to them. Further, Google wants to include books that are still under copyright where the holder of copyright is either unknown, or no one knows where to find them. Just because Google does not know how to find an author does not give them the right to make copies of the author's work without permission.
Of course, this problem would go away if copyright only lasted for a reasonable amount of time (say something on the order of 10-30 years).
Have you seen the way that minorities have been forced out of most parts of the Bay Area over the last 40 years? This is a standard that is used by liberals all the time to measure racism. Liberals tell us all the time that if a policy disproportionately negatively effects minorities, it is a racist policy. The percentage of the population in the Bay Area that is minority other than Asian has decreased sginificantly while the various municipalities in the Bay Area have implemented liberal policies.
No, it is much more likely to vote for the Democratic Party than even New York City in general, after all, most of the people on Wall Street are rich and a quick review of the richest parts of the U.S. reveals that they consistently vote for Democrats. A review of campaign donations reveals that Wall Street consistently gives more money to Democratic candidates than to Republican Candidates. Basically, while Democrats talk about helping the poor, a review of the actual results of their policies demonstrate that they are much more interested in helping those who give to their campaigns.
Then why did you include the bit about "conclude that the economy is just fine", since that had nothing to do with his point? If your point was that a single anecdote does not prove a point, why didn't you address the point the poster was attempting to make, which was that people feel less pressure to find/take another job when unemployment compensation pays enough for them to get by rather than imply that you thought he was saying that nothing was wrong with the economy?
OK, the same group who made this statement, also, predicts that human population will peak at 9 billion and then start to decline. This prediction is based on current demographic trends. That is, currently, the number of children that adults have is declining in almost all parts of the world. In developed countries, the number of children born is not enough to replace the existing population, so populations are declining (unless this is being made up for via immigration). Even in the majority of developing countries the number of children being born relative to the existing population is declining (and has been for several generations).
Finally, the average daily caloric intake in developing countries has been increasing for quite some time. In the 1960s, the average daily caloric intake in developing countries was below the minimum to avoid stravation (by a lot). The last report I saw on this subject indicates that the average daily caloric intake in developing countries is now at the level considered necessary for survival or marginally above it. My recollection is that in the 60s the average daily caloric intake in developing countries was somewhere aroung 500 calories, while today it is somewhere around 2800 calories. I don't remember exactly, but those numbers are in the ballpark of the real numbers.
Wall Street, that's in New York. Sorry, you're not going to find many conservatives there.
Of course, the Bay Area is also one of the most subtly racist areas of the country as well. They talk about how they are big on "social justice" issues, then pass laws that force minorities out. The San Francisco Bay area has become one of the significantly more segregated over the last 30 years as a result of zoning ordinances.
You do realize that our current President has borrowed so much money that it makes that "shitload of money" look like pocket change? And his plan for the future is to keep on increasing the amount of money the government spends (look at the budget he submitted to Congress, since he has not produced any sort of specific plan since then, it is the only thing we have to judge his intentions by).
You are missing the OP's point. His point was not that the economy is just fine. His point was that many people see no reason to seriously look for work until their unemployment benefits are close to running out.
Very good point, I would just like to add that the 3/5 was about increasing the voting power of slave owners. So, if the constitution had been written the way those who now use the 3/5 number as an indication of racism would like, slavery would likely still exist in this country (the slave owners might have had enough political power to expand slavery and prevent the things that lead them to seccede).
I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster). Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer. If you have, then perhaps, you have support for your argument that a cop would win by default. Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.
You are correct, he should have said "Democrat" rather than "Keynesian". Since Democrats only use the parts of Keynes' theories that support their desire for more government spending, and ignore the parts that don't (such as lowering tax rates during an economic downturn).
"I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.
State law, in every state I am aware of, requires radar guns to be calibrated by an outside company that is certified to do this, so, no, the cop's word has nothing to do with that.
You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.
And you've ignored the fact that court's have repeatedly ruled that a cop's "estimate" of speed is not enough to issue a speeding ticket. If the cop is not properly trained to use a radar gun (or other speed calculating device), as recorded in a training record kept by the police department that is properly documented, and issues a ticket based on his "trained estimate", the court will certainly take my word as to what my speedometer said my speed was over his word as to what he estimated my speed to be.
Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen, if you do not agree with that, why are you arguing with the person who challenged that position?
I like how when presented with a real world situation, you say that other factors apply and that your theory is true, even though the real world, where government regulation and corporate power and wealth have increased in tandem suggests otherwise.
According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court. So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.
However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine, only that I, also, believe it likely that they would. Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did, which was the point of the original post I replied to.
I don't have any evidence. Of course, if I was driving less than 65 mph and went to court. I would ask for the records for the radar gun. I would also ask for the records of his training to use the radar gun. So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false. Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.
I have never been questioned by a lawyer about jury duty because I have never been called for jury duty (and by the way, my answer to that question is "no". I do not trust a cop more than a private citizen. In most instances, if I was on a jury I would trust them less). However, I have received several summons for jury duty that included a list of questions to be answered and returned before the day I was supposed to report. I, also, received instructions to call the courthouse the night before I was supposed to report to find out if they wanted me to come in for jury duty (they never have). On each of those questionaires that question was there. I have been informed by several usually reliable sources that answering that question in the affirmative will result in the person not being called to even come in for the jury pool.
My apologies, I thought you were the original poster who was complaining that a police officer's word would be taken over an average citizen's and that this represented a defect in our justice system.
So, you think that corporations are less powerful today, when we have much more government regulation, than they were in the 1950s when there was less government regulation? Or is it really the other way around, as government regulations have increased, so has corporate power?
What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word.
The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.
So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another? It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true. Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.
I have been stopped several times for broken tail-lights. In every case I was issued a warning that would turn into a ticket if I did not get it fixed within a set amount of time and show up at the police station to have an officer inspect it to confirm that it was indeed fixed. Since I complied with those instructions, there was no fine in any of those cases.
Slashdot Mirror
You have misunderstood the problem. If copyright was not excessively long, by the time something became an "orphan" work, it would be out of copyright (or at worst, only a few years away from being out of copyright). The problem here is that copyright lasts too long.
Who opts in (or out) for orphaned works?
The correct answer is one that Google won't like, but it is the only one that truly respects the rigths that we as a society have decided to give an author. Google (or whoever wants to do this) needs to locate the person who controls the copyright and get permission. If they cannot locate the copyright holder, they cannot use the work. Of course, if copyright were reduced to a reasonable length of time, this wouldn't be a problem. They could just wait the few years until it entered public domain.
Well, in Pennsylvania and Maryland the courts have stepped pretty hard on authorities who have persecuted people for recording the police in public (of course that was partly because the authorities did it within the jurisdiction of the same court that had already ruled that the state wiretapping law did not apply to recording the police acting in their official capacity).
Brought about by increased government regulation.
I would tend to agree that 30 years is too long, but it is in the vicinity of the correct length. Two-three years is not long enough. I am not sure why, but for some reason, I go for some multiple of 7 years.
The problem is that Google wants to both include books that are still under copyright and charge a fee for access to them. Further, Google wants to include books that are still under copyright where the holder of copyright is either unknown, or no one knows where to find them. Just because Google does not know how to find an author does not give them the right to make copies of the author's work without permission.
Of course, this problem would go away if copyright only lasted for a reasonable amount of time (say something on the order of 10-30 years).
Have you seen the way that minorities have been forced out of most parts of the Bay Area over the last 40 years? This is a standard that is used by liberals all the time to measure racism. Liberals tell us all the time that if a policy disproportionately negatively effects minorities, it is a racist policy. The percentage of the population in the Bay Area that is minority other than Asian has decreased sginificantly while the various municipalities in the Bay Area have implemented liberal policies.
No, it is much more likely to vote for the Democratic Party than even New York City in general, after all, most of the people on Wall Street are rich and a quick review of the richest parts of the U.S. reveals that they consistently vote for Democrats. A review of campaign donations reveals that Wall Street consistently gives more money to Democratic candidates than to Republican Candidates. Basically, while Democrats talk about helping the poor, a review of the actual results of their policies demonstrate that they are much more interested in helping those who give to their campaigns.
Then why did you include the bit about "conclude that the economy is just fine", since that had nothing to do with his point? If your point was that a single anecdote does not prove a point, why didn't you address the point the poster was attempting to make, which was that people feel less pressure to find/take another job when unemployment compensation pays enough for them to get by rather than imply that you thought he was saying that nothing was wrong with the economy?
OK, the same group who made this statement, also, predicts that human population will peak at 9 billion and then start to decline. This prediction is based on current demographic trends. That is, currently, the number of children that adults have is declining in almost all parts of the world. In developed countries, the number of children born is not enough to replace the existing population, so populations are declining (unless this is being made up for via immigration). Even in the majority of developing countries the number of children being born relative to the existing population is declining (and has been for several generations).
Finally, the average daily caloric intake in developing countries has been increasing for quite some time. In the 1960s, the average daily caloric intake in developing countries was below the minimum to avoid stravation (by a lot). The last report I saw on this subject indicates that the average daily caloric intake in developing countries is now at the level considered necessary for survival or marginally above it. My recollection is that in the 60s the average daily caloric intake in developing countries was somewhere aroung 500 calories, while today it is somewhere around 2800 calories. I don't remember exactly, but those numbers are in the ballpark of the real numbers.
Wall Street, that's in New York. Sorry, you're not going to find many conservatives there.
Of course, the Bay Area is also one of the most subtly racist areas of the country as well. They talk about how they are big on "social justice" issues, then pass laws that force minorities out. The San Francisco Bay area has become one of the significantly more segregated over the last 30 years as a result of zoning ordinances.
You do realize that our current President has borrowed so much money that it makes that "shitload of money" look like pocket change? And his plan for the future is to keep on increasing the amount of money the government spends (look at the budget he submitted to Congress, since he has not produced any sort of specific plan since then, it is the only thing we have to judge his intentions by).
You are missing the OP's point. His point was not that the economy is just fine. His point was that many people see no reason to seriously look for work until their unemployment benefits are close to running out.
Barnes & Noble is still in business and it is not yet clear that they will suffer the same fate as Borders. I would not give up on the Nook just yet.
Very good point, I would just like to add that the 3/5 was about increasing the voting power of slave owners. So, if the constitution had been written the way those who now use the 3/5 number as an indication of racism would like, slavery would likely still exist in this country (the slave owners might have had enough political power to expand slavery and prevent the things that lead them to seccede).
I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster). Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer. If you have, then perhaps, you have support for your argument that a cop would win by default. Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.
You are correct, he should have said "Democrat" rather than "Keynesian". Since Democrats only use the parts of Keynes' theories that support their desire for more government spending, and ignore the parts that don't (such as lowering tax rates during an economic downturn).
It doesn't. His point was that one size fits all solutions, don't (either fit all, or actually solve problems).
"I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.
State law, in every state I am aware of, requires radar guns to be calibrated by an outside company that is certified to do this, so, no, the cop's word has nothing to do with that.
You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.
And you've ignored the fact that court's have repeatedly ruled that a cop's "estimate" of speed is not enough to issue a speeding ticket. If the cop is not properly trained to use a radar gun (or other speed calculating device), as recorded in a training record kept by the police department that is properly documented, and issues a ticket based on his "trained estimate", the court will certainly take my word as to what my speedometer said my speed was over his word as to what he estimated my speed to be. Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen, if you do not agree with that, why are you arguing with the person who challenged that position?
I like how when presented with a real world situation, you say that other factors apply and that your theory is true, even though the real world, where government regulation and corporate power and wealth have increased in tandem suggests otherwise.
According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court. So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.
However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine, only that I, also, believe it likely that they would. Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did, which was the point of the original post I replied to.
I don't have any evidence. Of course, if I was driving less than 65 mph and went to court. I would ask for the records for the radar gun. I would also ask for the records of his training to use the radar gun. So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false. Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.
I have never been questioned by a lawyer about jury duty because I have never been called for jury duty (and by the way, my answer to that question is "no". I do not trust a cop more than a private citizen. In most instances, if I was on a jury I would trust them less). However, I have received several summons for jury duty that included a list of questions to be answered and returned before the day I was supposed to report. I, also, received instructions to call the courthouse the night before I was supposed to report to find out if they wanted me to come in for jury duty (they never have). On each of those questionaires that question was there. I have been informed by several usually reliable sources that answering that question in the affirmative will result in the person not being called to even come in for the jury pool.
My apologies, I thought you were the original poster who was complaining that a police officer's word would be taken over an average citizen's and that this represented a defect in our justice system.
So, you think that corporations are less powerful today, when we have much more government regulation, than they were in the 1950s when there was less government regulation? Or is it really the other way around, as government regulations have increased, so has corporate power?
What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word.
The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.
So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another? It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true. Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.
I have been stopped several times for broken tail-lights. In every case I was issued a warning that would turn into a ticket if I did not get it fixed within a set amount of time and show up at the police station to have an officer inspect it to confirm that it was indeed fixed. Since I complied with those instructions, there was no fine in any of those cases.