Having read your link, I see nothing in it against terraforming Mars, just a provision against claiming it as part of the US and a provision against "militarizing" it..
No, the Department of Energy was created in order to increase the power of the Federal Government. Any other result was merely a fortuitous side effect.
So, you get hired by Joe Schmoe. He gets fired. John (the guy in the next cubicle) comes in and tells you that he has been given Joe's job, your fired, and he wants you to give him all the company passwords that you have. What do you do? Oh yeah, when John did this, he came into your office with three people you have never met.
That is what happened to Terry Childs.
I know, you'd think though with the FCC being what it is and the mandate it has, that it would have the jurisdiction, but the court said nope.
It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what laws Congress has passed. The court said that Congress has not passed any laws giving the FCC jurisdiction. The FCC is part of the Administrative branch, that means they can only regulate those things that Congress has explicitly passed a law giving them the authority to regulate.
Note, the court did not say that some other federal agency had jurisdiction. The court said that the FCC had failed to point to any law giving it jurisdiction.
The FCC has the jurisdiction, they should be enforcing the rules. But since they don't have the teeth, let the FTC do it, those guys are sharks.
A court has recently rule that the FCC does not have the jurisdiction. I have two problems with theway this is being done. First, this expansion of the power of the FTC over the Internet is being stuck into an omnibus bill that I have heard is yet another 1,000+ page monstrosity. If this is a good idea, this should be a stand alone bill. Second, this does seem more like the sort of thing that belongs in the FCC. A court has ruled that the FCC has, at most, limited authority to regulate the Internet, if Congress believes that they should regulate the Internet more strongly, they should pass a bill for that purpose, not stick a provision in some mega-bill to expand government regulation of the Internet.
The problem with what you arelooking for is that you will now be increasing the level of skills that you are requiring of your employees. That means that you will be increasing the cost of hiring them and probably the wage that you need to pay them. Does the cost of fixing the problems when your current level of employees mess up exceed the cost of hiring employees who won't make those mistakes? I'll be perfectly honest, if the office manager cannot learn not to repeat the mistakes that lead to the virus infection, they are incompetent as an office manager in other ways as well.
So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
Your driver's license is
proof of legal residence in this country for the purposes of this law. It says so right in the law itself.
the nutty "president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws) and this, plus the fact that Sherrif Arpaio *STILL* isn't in Jail for massive breaches of every god damn law regulating police powers and police brutality ever concieved,
The AZ law requires a birth certificate in order to get on the ballot for President in AZ, and yes, under the US Constitution, AZ does have the authority to set the standards to get on the ballot in AZ (now whether or not the courts will allow this condition is a different question).
As for Sherrif Arpaio, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating him for 6 months to a year and have yet to file charges. I am not sure how they would have failed to do so if he was committing "massive breaches" of the law (although that does not mean that he is not violating the law at all, just that the violations are not "massive" and they have yet to find sufficient evidence to convict)
You know that H1B holders also mostly do have other ids (like state ids or driving license), right? But according to this law, it wont be sufficient for them.
I sure hope you are part of minority, because this law is nothing but a redneck reaction in disguise of a law.
Actually, according to this law, those IDs are perfectly adequate as proof of legal residence. All this law does is that it requires that if the police have a reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal immigrant (and the law spells out the sorts of things that qualify as "reasonable"), they may require you to produce an ID supporting the claim that you are not.
If I understand the backstory article correctly, Omega registered a copyright on its logo in order to fall under this exception to the First Sale Doctrine. I believe Costco made a mistake in not challenging the copyright. The Omega logo does not appear to me to be something that is copyrightable. I don't know if they can change their tactics at this point, but if they can, they should. The Omega logo is not distinct from hundreds of other expressions of Omega that have been used for years. When I did a search of "Omega logo" I found a computer company that uses almost exactly the same logo except with the word "Systems" added. Additionally I saw several other similar logos that I did not bother to follow to see what company they were for (but it wasn'tthe watch company).
Satire is perfectly legal. What the summary is saying is that you cannot repackage someone else's copyrighted works in a satire against a third party.
Of course both songs were written and recorded over 20 years ago, they should both be in the public domain by now if copyright had a reasonable duration (Ok I would consider it reasonable if their copyright expired in 2012).
Personally, I think this case is a perfect example of why copyright should be shorter. These songs sum up the message that DeVore wants to convey about Barbara Boxer and our culture would be much richer if such songs could be used for the purpose intended here.
Change in and of itself is bad. In a perfect world there would be no change. However, since we do not live in a perfect world, it is sometimes necessary to change things to make them better. The problem is that the changes are not always an improvement on the existing. It is important to examine a change before implementing it to make sure it improves over the existing system. The only exception to that is when the existing system is completely broken.
We have it here, there are several webapps we use that are built for IE6. They have rolled out IE8 to select users to see if compatibility mode works for those apps. It appears to, so now they are scheduling a roll out of IE8 for later this year or early next. There is a more business critical roll out going on right now and they don't want to make such a change until the higher priority system has had all the bugs worked out.
Well, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Although I think they are a bunch of wuses, all they are doing is saying they won't have any children. If they were really dedicated to ridding the world of humans, they would commit suicide.
"Think of the children" describes a type of rhetoric where the speaker uses the effects of X on children to attempt to strengthen his point. I am surprised you did not find this out by googling, the #1 result for "Think of the children" is this Wikipedia page that describes this technique.
So, you are saying that, "Think of the Children" isn't a group but an argument. Then how can they be "part of the usual crowd", since it isn't a group of people but is a type of rhetoric?
What group is he talking about when he mentions "Think of the Children" as one of the "usual crowd gathered in opposition"? When I googled for a non-profit called "Think of the Children", the only thing that came up is a group that works to help orphans in Vietnam. I really can't see them taking a stand on this (and I checked their website.
Part of the problem with the summary (besides listing a group that as far as I can tell doesn't exist) is that it lumps all of the opposition to this into one group. Focus on the Family opposes this because of the documented negative effects that gambling often has on families when one or both of the parents gamble away the money needed to take care of their children (whether that is a sufficient reason to outlaw gambling is another question, as is whether outlawing gambling actually addresses the real problem in those situations). The point is that it makes sense for Focus on the Family to oppose anything that moves gambling further into the "acceptable" social area.
Republicans in general are more likely to oppose this as a new tax than because of its legalizing online gambling. Do you really think that this won't be used as an excuse for the government to monitor everyone's internet usage because some people are avoiding the tax?
What changes place Arizona in a negative light? The only thing I have heard about Arizona lately is that they have decided to protect their citizens against illegal aliens, since the federal government won't. Every place I have seen it discussed by regular citizens (as opposed to the special interest groups and hard-core Democrats--most reporters) it has been viewed as a positive.
Republicans are against this because this about getting more money from the people. How exactly is this suggestion "fewer regulations" as far as I can see it is just different regulations. Of course, it will also be set up in such a way so as to make it harder for new people to enter the business, thus protecting the entrenched interests.
What this all means though is that the small startup/merchant/mom-and-pop Internet operations will find it more and more expensive to swim in these waters infested with little fiefdoms everywhere with delusions of hegemony.
What, you thought this law was passed for some purpose other than that? Laws like this serve two purposes: One, to be able to put a sound bite into ads and two is to help big companies keep small competitors out of the field.
Ever wonder why we have to haggle on prices? Because motherfuckers are greedy.
There is something to what you say, of course the necessary corollary is that they are also stupid. I run into this quite a bit. A company that charges a "fair" markup on its costs will do better in the long run than a company that haggles to get every dime. It is why haggling went away for a long time in America (and elsewhere, but I am less familiar with the economics of this sort elsewhere). Quaker merchants in the colonial era sold their merchandise for what they believed to be a fair markup over their cost. Everybody knew that when you went to a Quaker merchant, you paid the same amount as the next guy no matter how good of a haggler you were. They also knew that the Quaker's markup was not excessive. Additionally, the Quaker merchants response to people who wanted to haggle was, "That's my price, if you don't want to pay it, go to somebody else." This meant that the merchants who haggled only got the customers who were good hagglers (eventually, as people who weren't good hagglers realized they were paying more than from the Quaker merchants) and therefore could not make as much money as the Quakers (or other non-Quakers who followed the same model).
Yes, Exxon is giving millions of dollars to those who are researching to disprove AGW, but Exxon is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to those who are proponents of AGW. Sorry to disrupt your nice little world view, but there is much more money in being an AGW proponent than in being an AGW skeptic.
Because they add to the overall experience of the game.
That's great. In a couple of months they will announce that you can buy the manual for a "small additional fee" to go along with the small fee they are charging for demos of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Having read your link, I see nothing in it against terraforming Mars, just a provision against claiming it as part of the US and a provision against "militarizing" it..
No, the Department of Energy was created in order to increase the power of the Federal Government. Any other result was merely a fortuitous side effect.
See, you refused to give him the password, you are now a criminal.
So, you get hired by Joe Schmoe. He gets fired. John (the guy in the next cubicle) comes in and tells you that he has been given Joe's job, your fired, and he wants you to give him all the company passwords that you have. What do you do? Oh yeah, when John did this, he came into your office with three people you have never met.
That is what happened to Terry Childs.
I know, you'd think though with the FCC being what it is and the mandate it has, that it would have the jurisdiction, but the court said nope.
It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what laws Congress has passed. The court said that Congress has not passed any laws giving the FCC jurisdiction. The FCC is part of the Administrative branch, that means they can only regulate those things that Congress has explicitly passed a law giving them the authority to regulate.
Note, the court did not say that some other federal agency had jurisdiction. The court said that the FCC had failed to point to any law giving it jurisdiction.
The FCC has the jurisdiction, they should be enforcing the rules. But since they don't have the teeth, let the FTC do it, those guys are sharks.
A court has recently rule that the FCC does not have the jurisdiction. I have two problems with theway this is being done. First, this expansion of the power of the FTC over the Internet is being stuck into an omnibus bill that I have heard is yet another 1,000+ page monstrosity. If this is a good idea, this should be a stand alone bill. Second, this does seem more like the sort of thing that belongs in the FCC. A court has ruled that the FCC has, at most, limited authority to regulate the Internet, if Congress believes that they should regulate the Internet more strongly, they should pass a bill for that purpose, not stick a provision in some mega-bill to expand government regulation of the Internet.
All that ruling showed is that Congress has not given the FCC authority to regulate ISPs.
The problem with what you arelooking for is that you will now be increasing the level of skills that you are requiring of your employees. That means that you will be increasing the cost of hiring them and probably the wage that you need to pay them. Does the cost of fixing the problems when your current level of employees mess up exceed the cost of hiring employees who won't make those mistakes? I'll be perfectly honest, if the office manager cannot learn not to repeat the mistakes that lead to the virus infection, they are incompetent as an office manager in other ways as well.
So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
Your driver's license is
proof of legal residence in this country for the purposes of this law. It says so right in the law itself.
the nutty "president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws) and this, plus the fact that Sherrif Arpaio *STILL* isn't in Jail for massive breaches of every god damn law regulating police powers and police brutality ever concieved,
The AZ law requires a birth certificate in order to get on the ballot for President in AZ, and yes, under the US Constitution, AZ does have the authority to set the standards to get on the ballot in AZ (now whether or not the courts will allow this condition is a different question).
As for Sherrif Arpaio, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating him for 6 months to a year and have yet to file charges. I am not sure how they would have failed to do so if he was committing "massive breaches" of the law (although that does not mean that he is not violating the law at all, just that the violations are not "massive" and they have yet to find sufficient evidence to convict)
You know that H1B holders also mostly do have other ids (like state ids or driving license), right? But according to this law, it wont be sufficient for them. I sure hope you are part of minority, because this law is nothing but a redneck reaction in disguise of a law.
Actually, according to this law, those IDs are perfectly adequate as proof of legal residence. All this law does is that it requires that if the police have a reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal immigrant (and the law spells out the sorts of things that qualify as "reasonable"), they may require you to produce an ID supporting the claim that you are not.
If I understand the backstory article correctly, Omega registered a copyright on its logo in order to fall under this exception to the First Sale Doctrine. I believe Costco made a mistake in not challenging the copyright. The Omega logo does not appear to me to be something that is copyrightable. I don't know if they can change their tactics at this point, but if they can, they should. The Omega logo is not distinct from hundreds of other expressions of Omega that have been used for years. When I did a search of "Omega logo" I found a computer company that uses almost exactly the same logo except with the word "Systems" added. Additionally I saw several other similar logos that I did not bother to follow to see what company they were for (but it wasn'tthe watch company).
Satire is perfectly legal. What the summary is saying is that you cannot repackage someone else's copyrighted works in a satire against a third party.
Of course both songs were written and recorded over 20 years ago, they should both be in the public domain by now if copyright had a reasonable duration (Ok I would consider it reasonable if their copyright expired in 2012).
Personally, I think this case is a perfect example of why copyright should be shorter. These songs sum up the message that DeVore wants to convey about Barbara Boxer and our culture would be much richer if such songs could be used for the purpose intended here.
Change in and of itself is bad. In a perfect world there would be no change. However, since we do not live in a perfect world, it is sometimes necessary to change things to make them better. The problem is that the changes are not always an improvement on the existing. It is important to examine a change before implementing it to make sure it improves over the existing system. The only exception to that is when the existing system is completely broken.
We have it here, there are several webapps we use that are built for IE6. They have rolled out IE8 to select users to see if compatibility mode works for those apps. It appears to, so now they are scheduling a roll out of IE8 for later this year or early next. There is a more business critical roll out going on right now and they don't want to make such a change until the higher priority system has had all the bugs worked out.
Well, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Although I think they are a bunch of wuses, all they are doing is saying they won't have any children. If they were really dedicated to ridding the world of humans, they would commit suicide.
"Think of the children" describes a type of rhetoric where the speaker uses the effects of X on children to attempt to strengthen his point. I am surprised you did not find this out by googling, the #1 result for "Think of the children" is this Wikipedia page that describes this technique.
So, you are saying that, "Think of the Children" isn't a group but an argument. Then how can they be "part of the usual crowd", since it isn't a group of people but is a type of rhetoric?
What group is he talking about when he mentions "Think of the Children" as one of the "usual crowd gathered in opposition"? When I googled for a non-profit called "Think of the Children", the only thing that came up is a group that works to help orphans in Vietnam. I really can't see them taking a stand on this (and I checked their website.
Part of the problem with the summary (besides listing a group that as far as I can tell doesn't exist) is that it lumps all of the opposition to this into one group. Focus on the Family opposes this because of the documented negative effects that gambling often has on families when one or both of the parents gamble away the money needed to take care of their children (whether that is a sufficient reason to outlaw gambling is another question, as is whether outlawing gambling actually addresses the real problem in those situations). The point is that it makes sense for Focus on the Family to oppose anything that moves gambling further into the "acceptable" social area.
Republicans in general are more likely to oppose this as a new tax than because of its legalizing online gambling. Do you really think that this won't be used as an excuse for the government to monitor everyone's internet usage because some people are avoiding the tax?
What changes place Arizona in a negative light? The only thing I have heard about Arizona lately is that they have decided to protect their citizens against illegal aliens, since the federal government won't. Every place I have seen it discussed by regular citizens (as opposed to the special interest groups and hard-core Democrats--most reporters) it has been viewed as a positive.
Republicans are against this because this about getting more money from the people. How exactly is this suggestion "fewer regulations" as far as I can see it is just different regulations. Of course, it will also be set up in such a way so as to make it harder for new people to enter the business, thus protecting the entrenched interests.
What this all means though is that the small startup/merchant/mom-and-pop Internet operations will find it more and more expensive to swim in these waters infested with little fiefdoms everywhere with delusions of hegemony.
What, you thought this law was passed for some purpose other than that? Laws like this serve two purposes: One, to be able to put a sound bite into ads and two is to help big companies keep small competitors out of the field.
Ever wonder why we have to haggle on prices? Because motherfuckers are greedy.
There is something to what you say, of course the necessary corollary is that they are also stupid. I run into this quite a bit. A company that charges a "fair" markup on its costs will do better in the long run than a company that haggles to get every dime. It is why haggling went away for a long time in America (and elsewhere, but I am less familiar with the economics of this sort elsewhere). Quaker merchants in the colonial era sold their merchandise for what they believed to be a fair markup over their cost. Everybody knew that when you went to a Quaker merchant, you paid the same amount as the next guy no matter how good of a haggler you were. They also knew that the Quaker's markup was not excessive. Additionally, the Quaker merchants response to people who wanted to haggle was, "That's my price, if you don't want to pay it, go to somebody else." This meant that the merchants who haggled only got the customers who were good hagglers (eventually, as people who weren't good hagglers realized they were paying more than from the Quaker merchants) and therefore could not make as much money as the Quakers (or other non-Quakers who followed the same model).
That is, you will play "unbreakable" games remotely.
No, I won't. At least, not if they are charging for it.
Yes, Exxon is giving millions of dollars to those who are researching to disprove AGW, but Exxon is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to those who are proponents of AGW. Sorry to disrupt your nice little world view, but there is much more money in being an AGW proponent than in being an AGW skeptic.
Because they add to the overall experience of the game.
That's great. In a couple of months they will announce that you can buy the manual for a "small additional fee" to go along with the small fee they are charging for demos of the game.