There are actually correct. There have been several studies showing that group decisions are markedly improved when done over the Internet rather than face to face. The charisma of the individual holding a particular position is less of an influence over the Internet as opposed to face to face. This allows people to evaluate an argument on the merits of the argument rather than on the "likability" of the person making the argument.
The problem is that the "pay product printed on dead trees" was losing subscribers at a steady pace before they started producing the free digital product. The NYT's problem is that there are not enough people who want to pay for what they are selling to cover thier costs.
The reasoning is that it is not in the public domain since it was never broadcast, and thus the copyright date will be the first time it is broadcast or "published" as the law says. Perhaps if you read TFA you would know that.
If you had read the article you would know that it said they are "currently uncirculated", not "never broadcast".
The only thing that gives the Constitution any power at all is our collective acceptance of it.
Intent is vitally important. If we interpret the Constitution according to the whim of the moment, we no longer have Rule of Law. Once we lose Rule of Law, the whole system breaks down.Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the majority from abusing the minority (Yes, I know about the clause you mentioned, but that was a special case codifying an abuse that was already in place).
For instance, the founders also intended that only landowning men could vote and that humans could be property (perhaps not universally, but they did all sign that document).
Yes and later the American people decided that that was bad and changed the Constitution according to the procedure laid out in the Constitution for changing it. They didn't just decide that they didn't like that and re-interpret it to something they liked. They followed the rules laid out in the Constitution and amended the Constitution.
If you think the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment should be extended to border crossings, start a movement to Amend the Constitution. Don't try and re-interpret the Fourth Amendment to apply, since it clearly was never intended to do so.
When I was growing up, lots of kids road bikes to school. My understanding is that that stopped because of fear of perverts, not because of problems with traffic. Of course, I could be mistaken and it may not have stopped, but I seem to recall a story about a kid who got into trouble for riding to school even though one of his parents rode along (on a second bike).
Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?
Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.
The logic has never applied when entering U.S. borders (or any other country for that matter). Searches that would be disallowed within the country have been ruled by the Supreme Court as allowed since the founding of the country. The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.
As for government regulation, I'd rather have too much than too little when it comes to my body and diagnosing and treating illnesses/injuries, as opposed to having to sift through various Dr. Crackpot's Magical Curative Diagnostical Boards.
Then don't complain when prices for medical equipment are much higher than they would be for the same product not used as medical equipment. There is a place for some government regulation when it comes to medical equipment, but when you have too much prices are higher than they need to be. You explicitly expressed a preference for excessive government regulation.
The people on this board who are pointing out the role of government regulation on the cost of medical equipment are responding to people who think that medical equipment prices are high simply because of greed. There are two ways that government regulation increases the cost of a medical device (and many other products). First is straightforward, government regulations will increase the cost to produce a device, the amount varying according to the complexity of the regulations. The second is indirect and less easily predicted, government regulations introduce a barrier to entry to the market, reducing the amount of competition in a particular market.
In the example you are also paying for the cost of being certified as an approved vendor for the U.S. Navy. There are expenses for selling a product as medical equipment. In addition to the costs of insurance against liability, there are also costs of meeting government regulations. Finally, a large factor effecting the cost of medical equipment is the fact that the ultimate decision maker as to whether or not to make use of a particular device (the patient) rarely pays the cost of said device.
3. Some companies (e.g. Verizon) are an amalgamation of other companies, and their services vary greatly. (Verizon *in this area* formerly Cellular One formerly Bell Atlantic)
In the Bell Atlantic regions, Cellular One became Cingular which became AT&T (That last change is amusing because Cingular bought AT&T Wireless about two years before SBC--one of Cingular's parent companies--bought AT&T and and Bell South--the other of Cingular's parent companies-- and then changed the name of the whole company to AT&T) . Also, Verizon is not an "amalgamation of other companies", it is a single company. Verizon is the name that Bell Atlantic adopted as part of its merger with GTE.
I' Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news,
The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news. The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s. The reason that the NYT and other newspapers are having a problem is because they are failing to provide the service that they claim to be in business to provide.
Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.
Actually, it wouldn't be. Slave labor is actually significantly less productive than free labor, even after you factor in the wages.
Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.
Violence is down in Israel and the occupied territories, particularly in the West Bank.
Yes, violence is down, but tension isn't. The Israelis started 2009 by a massive assault against Gaza to suppress rocket attacks. The reduction in violence has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with Israel's demonstrated willingness to kill those who are attacking them. The Palestinians have maintained their rhetoric about destroying Israel.
The relationship between Russia and the US have thawed somewhat.
Yes, the relationship between Russia and the U.S. has thawed, because Obama has demonstrated a willingness to allow Russia to re-conquer the Soviet Empire.
U.S.-E.U. relations are definitely warmer now than they were before Obama took office.
They are? Of course, their really wasn't tension between the U.S. and the E.U..
The North Korea situation is better than it was under Bush, ditto for Cuba-U.S. relations.
oh is it. the whole history of u.s.a belies your comment. it is one of the two countries with bureaucratic tradition, and up till last decade it was the most free place on earth.
china is not bureaucratic. it doesnt have bureaucratic tradition. a bureaucrat cant resist any unreasonable order from the elected officials there
The U.S. does not have a bureaucratic tradition. China has a 2,000 plus year tradition of bureaucracy. You have a terrible understanding of history. There is no point in further discussion.
I will repeat one final point. In my life time, no law that has been passed by Congress in less than 6 months has been a bad law that has had consequences that horrified those who supported the law.
Or they accurately realize that GWB's leaving office and Obama entering it caused a noticeable easing of tension in world politics. This isn't so much because of the job Obama's done, but rather because of the destructive nature of GWB's administration.
Where has there been an "easing of tension in world politics"? Please name one tense situation that has become less tense in the last year.
The thing people don't realize is that most people "killed" by the flu actually die from opportunistic infection. The reason that so many people died during the 1918-1920 flu pandemic is because medical science had not yet developed effective means of treating these opportunistic infections. That is, sulfa drugs and later penicillin. This is the third flu pandemic since the 1918-1920 one and each has kiled fewer people worldwide than the previous even though world population has increased.
It is time to stop being afraid of a repeat of the 1918-1920 pandemic. If people would stop hyping the 1918-1920 pandemic, governments would stop overreacting to every new flu.
I blame the overreaction of the governments on the press, not drug companies, not the WHO. The press sensationalized the pandemic and attempted to spread panic. This meant that politicians had to be seen to be "doing something".
Sorry, I just found an article from May 23, 2009 where Dr. Fukuda of the WHO discusses changing the definition of pandemic to one with criteria that would include "substantial risk of harm to people". http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2009/05/who-rewrites-the-definition-of-pandemic.html
This was at a time when the last update to the way pandemic was defined had been made in 2005.
So, they did not change the definition of "pandemic" to make it apply to diseases that were less serious, they were actually disucssing changing the definition to only apply to diseases that were more serious than the definition that applied at the time.
A flu that will kill millions of people is going to happen sooner or later.
Why do you believe that? What evidence is there that such a thing will happen?
This is the third flu pandemic since 1920. The one in 1957-1958 killed between one and four million. The one in 1968-1969 killed around 1 million wordwide. This current pandemic (which appears to be over) is estimated to have killed just under 500,000. Notice a pattern here?
The 1918-1920 flu pandemic is always pointed to as an example of what could happen. However, that pandemic occured during World War I (which led to people being moved around the world more rapidly and to a greater extent than ever before) but before the advent of modern medicine (which I would argue began with the development of sulfa drugs in the 1930s).
He proposed not just blocking content, but actually banning certain content. In particular, he proposed banning "conspiracy theories". He outright admits that some of the "conspiracy theories" that he would ban could be true. He gives examples of several things that would meet his definition of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true (Watergate for one). This is not someone reading his definition and saying it would apply, he says himself that, by his definition, discussion of these would have been banned.
is how long the iPhone and such have been on the market already. If someone markets a product in violation of your patent, especially when it is so popular as the iPhone, then you best ship up pretty quick and get it cleared up instead of waiting a couple years to make a fuss. That just shows that you finally realized you could make a quick buck and not that you just realized the patent was being violated.
Or perhaps, Kodak has been trying to reach an agreement with Apple without going to court since the iPhone was released and now filed suit after deciding that Apple was unwilling to license the technology. I don't know either way, but we don't have enough information to decide.
Okay, the article has almost no information. All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US. The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies. WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time? It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in. Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article. I hope I never understand business types....
You do know that the reporter is probably not a "business type"? There are very few reporters who have a clue about business. The reporter probably included the stock prices because it was one of the few facts he/she had.
Slashdot Mirror
There are actually correct. There have been several studies showing that group decisions are markedly improved when done over the Internet rather than face to face. The charisma of the individual holding a particular position is less of an influence over the Internet as opposed to face to face. This allows people to evaluate an argument on the merits of the argument rather than on the "likability" of the person making the argument.
Doesn't mean people wouldn't be willing to pay for high quality content.
And there is the NYT's problem in a nutshell, most people who have been exposed to its product don't believe it is high quality.
The problem is that the "pay product printed on dead trees" was losing subscribers at a steady pace before they started producing the free digital product. The NYT's problem is that there are not enough people who want to pay for what they are selling to cover thier costs.
The reasoning is that it is not in the public domain since it was never broadcast, and thus the copyright date will be the first time it is broadcast or "published" as the law says. Perhaps if you read TFA you would know that.
If you had read the article you would know that it said they are "currently uncirculated", not "never broadcast".
What does their intent matter?
The only thing that gives the Constitution any power at all is our collective acceptance of it.
Intent is vitally important. If we interpret the Constitution according to the whim of the moment, we no longer have Rule of Law. Once we lose Rule of Law, the whole system breaks down.Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the majority from abusing the minority (Yes, I know about the clause you mentioned, but that was a special case codifying an abuse that was already in place).
For instance, the founders also intended that only landowning men could vote and that humans could be property (perhaps not universally, but they did all sign that document).
Yes and later the American people decided that that was bad and changed the Constitution according to the procedure laid out in the Constitution for changing it. They didn't just decide that they didn't like that and re-interpret it to something they liked. They followed the rules laid out in the Constitution and amended the Constitution.
If you think the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment should be extended to border crossings, start a movement to Amend the Constitution. Don't try and re-interpret the Fourth Amendment to apply, since it clearly was never intended to do so.
When I was growing up, lots of kids road bikes to school. My understanding is that that stopped because of fear of perverts, not because of problems with traffic. Of course, I could be mistaken and it may not have stopped, but I seem to recall a story about a kid who got into trouble for riding to school even though one of his parents rode along (on a second bike).
Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders? Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.
The logic has never applied when entering U.S. borders (or any other country for that matter). Searches that would be disallowed within the country have been ruled by the Supreme Court as allowed since the founding of the country. The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.
Of course that didn't stop them from having Jayson Blair on staff, even promoting him after one of his supervisor's questioned his reporting.
As for government regulation, I'd rather have too much than too little when it comes to my body and diagnosing and treating illnesses/injuries, as opposed to having to sift through various Dr. Crackpot's Magical Curative Diagnostical Boards.
Then don't complain when prices for medical equipment are much higher than they would be for the same product not used as medical equipment. There is a place for some government regulation when it comes to medical equipment, but when you have too much prices are higher than they need to be. You explicitly expressed a preference for excessive government regulation.
The people on this board who are pointing out the role of government regulation on the cost of medical equipment are responding to people who think that medical equipment prices are high simply because of greed. There are two ways that government regulation increases the cost of a medical device (and many other products). First is straightforward, government regulations will increase the cost to produce a device, the amount varying according to the complexity of the regulations. The second is indirect and less easily predicted, government regulations introduce a barrier to entry to the market, reducing the amount of competition in a particular market.
In the example you are also paying for the cost of being certified as an approved vendor for the U.S. Navy. There are expenses for selling a product as medical equipment. In addition to the costs of insurance against liability, there are also costs of meeting government regulations. Finally, a large factor effecting the cost of medical equipment is the fact that the ultimate decision maker as to whether or not to make use of a particular device (the patient) rarely pays the cost of said device.
3. Some companies (e.g. Verizon) are an amalgamation of other companies, and their services vary greatly. (Verizon *in this area* formerly Cellular One formerly Bell Atlantic)
In the Bell Atlantic regions, Cellular One became Cingular which became AT&T (That last change is amusing because Cingular bought AT&T Wireless about two years before SBC--one of Cingular's parent companies--bought AT&T and and Bell South--the other of Cingular's parent companies-- and then changed the name of the whole company to AT&T) . Also, Verizon is not an "amalgamation of other companies", it is a single company. Verizon is the name that Bell Atlantic adopted as part of its merger with GTE.
I' Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news,
The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news. The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s. The reason that the NYT and other newspapers are having a problem is because they are failing to provide the service that they claim to be in business to provide.
Case in point: It would be very profitable to chain your workers to the factory floor and have them work 18 hours a day for no money, and consumers would be able to buy the wares much cheaper, yet it would not be ethical.
Actually, it wouldn't be. Slave labor is actually significantly less productive than free labor, even after you factor in the wages.
Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.
Tell that to Baen Books. http://www.baen.com/library/
Violence is down in Israel and the occupied territories, particularly in the West Bank.
Yes, violence is down, but tension isn't. The Israelis started 2009 by a massive assault against Gaza to suppress rocket attacks. The reduction in violence has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with Israel's demonstrated willingness to kill those who are attacking them. The Palestinians have maintained their rhetoric about destroying Israel.
The relationship between Russia and the US have thawed somewhat.
Yes, the relationship between Russia and the U.S. has thawed, because Obama has demonstrated a willingness to allow Russia to re-conquer the Soviet Empire.
U.S.-E.U. relations are definitely warmer now than they were before Obama took office.
They are? Of course, their really wasn't tension between the U.S. and the E.U..
The North Korea situation is better than it was under Bush, ditto for Cuba-U.S. relations.
How so?
oh is it. the whole history of u.s.a belies your comment. it is one of the two countries with bureaucratic tradition, and up till last decade it was the most free place on earth.
china is not bureaucratic. it doesnt have bureaucratic tradition. a bureaucrat cant resist any unreasonable order from the elected officials there
The U.S. does not have a bureaucratic tradition. China has a 2,000 plus year tradition of bureaucracy. You have a terrible understanding of history. There is no point in further discussion.
I will repeat one final point. In my life time, no law that has been passed by Congress in less than 6 months has been a bad law that has had consequences that horrified those who supported the law.
Or they accurately realize that GWB's leaving office and Obama entering it caused a noticeable easing of tension in world politics. This isn't so much because of the job Obama's done, but rather because of the destructive nature of GWB's administration.
Where has there been an "easing of tension in world politics"? Please name one tense situation that has become less tense in the last year.
Hold it a second, are they implying it is possible to embarrass someone who thinks they are "electrosensitive" and is wiling to say so publicly?
The thing people don't realize is that most people "killed" by the flu actually die from opportunistic infection. The reason that so many people died during the 1918-1920 flu pandemic is because medical science had not yet developed effective means of treating these opportunistic infections. That is, sulfa drugs and later penicillin. This is the third flu pandemic since the 1918-1920 one and each has kiled fewer people worldwide than the previous even though world population has increased.
It is time to stop being afraid of a repeat of the 1918-1920 pandemic. If people would stop hyping the 1918-1920 pandemic, governments would stop overreacting to every new flu.
I blame the overreaction of the governments on the press, not drug companies, not the WHO. The press sensationalized the pandemic and attempted to spread panic. This meant that politicians had to be seen to be "doing something".
Sorry, I just found an article from May 23, 2009 where Dr. Fukuda of the WHO discusses changing the definition of pandemic to one with criteria that would include "substantial risk of harm to people". http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2009/05/who-rewrites-the-definition-of-pandemic.html This was at a time when the last update to the way pandemic was defined had been made in 2005.
So, they did not change the definition of "pandemic" to make it apply to diseases that were less serious, they were actually disucssing changing the definition to only apply to diseases that were more serious than the definition that applied at the time.
A flu that will kill millions of people is going to happen sooner or later.
Why do you believe that? What evidence is there that such a thing will happen?
This is the third flu pandemic since 1920. The one in 1957-1958 killed between one and four million. The one in 1968-1969 killed around 1 million wordwide. This current pandemic (which appears to be over) is estimated to have killed just under 500,000. Notice a pattern here?
The 1918-1920 flu pandemic is always pointed to as an example of what could happen. However, that pandemic occured during World War I (which led to people being moved around the world more rapidly and to a greater extent than ever before) but before the advent of modern medicine (which I would argue began with the development of sulfa drugs in the 1930s).
He proposed not just blocking content, but actually banning certain content. In particular, he proposed banning "conspiracy theories". He outright admits that some of the "conspiracy theories" that he would ban could be true. He gives examples of several things that would meet his definition of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true (Watergate for one). This is not someone reading his definition and saying it would apply, he says himself that, by his definition, discussion of these would have been banned.
is how long the iPhone and such have been on the market already. If someone markets a product in violation of your patent, especially when it is so popular as the iPhone, then you best ship up pretty quick and get it cleared up instead of waiting a couple years to make a fuss. That just shows that you finally realized you could make a quick buck and not that you just realized the patent was being violated.
Or perhaps, Kodak has been trying to reach an agreement with Apple without going to court since the iPhone was released and now filed suit after deciding that Apple was unwilling to license the technology. I don't know either way, but we don't have enough information to decide.
Okay, the article has almost no information. All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US. The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies. WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time? It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in. Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article. I hope I never understand business types....
You do know that the reporter is probably not a "business type"? There are very few reporters who have a clue about business. The reporter probably included the stock prices because it was one of the few facts he/she had.
They expected China to at least pretend to play by the rules of international netiquette.