The political side of owning real estate one the Moon or elsewhere in the rest of the non-terrestrial solar system is also something that desperately needs to be addressed in legal circles, with a strong hint to legislators coming up with these laws to realize that it is eventually going to happen, with or without them drawing up the rules for development of these hunks of rock. Without the laws being passed, however, there will be no rule of law in space.
The Outer Space Treaty already exists. What's more it has much better support than the treaties on Antarctica, which curiously looks like it offends Islam for some reason (Dunno why Mexico hasn't signed on to the Antarctica treaties, but the rest of Africa was still under European colonial rule for the most part when the subject came up). The Outer Space Treaty covers the Moon in particular and Solar System bodies in general. It is much firmer than the Antarctic model because it outright denies any claims to territoriality. There is a Moon Treaty, but no spacefaring country has ratified it because it outlaws exploration without approval of the other state signators and prohibits altering the environment of any celestial body. Kind of a non-starter.
An oil drilling group in Antarctica would never be able to sell their oil on the world market, for example.
Oil is quite fungible. OTOH, any oil tanker would likely be blockaded on environmental grounds.
Because the real intent is behaviour modification of the sheeple. Playing whackamole going after the real offenders would get a shrug. "Eh, had it comin' to 'im. Shouldna been doing that." By going after the librarians who catalog the forbidden knowledge, they cause people to shy away from seeking the knowledge. The RIAA suits in the US are meant to first turn everyone into a leech so that the P2P networks have less utility.
Another near parallel example of this is the demonisation of certain drugs. There is little factual rationale for fear of marijuana and of those that can point to a life ruined because of it, it's entirely due to its illegality not its inherent properties. Either someone had their life disrupted because of an arrest or the artificially inflated price and scarcity prompted a separate crime. New crime is being created where none would exist merely to please one favored group.
So, the 'authorities' trot out these PR cases 'pour encourager les autres' to go along.
Unfortunately you invested a lot of words only to get the issue completely wrong. This doesn't have anything to do with search keywords. It doesnt even involve adWords keywords. Moveon.org proactively asked Google to not allow any ads that use its trademark. Pro or Con. That's a strategic move anyone can make. Walmart could do the same.
If Google had no policy here, we would likely be hearing about moveon.org suing google because neocon groups were buying all the ad space for ads criticising moveon.org. While both ideas are relatively neutral from Google's point of view, Google's current policy at least gives the owner of the mark first crack at telling its story.
The Norwegian Nobel Comittee should be modded flamebait -500.
No. No. Not because of any opinion I have on their nomination. Simply because whichever side you take here, there will be molotovs headed in your direction. You can already see people getting modded troll for saying congratulations or questioning whether there were others that may have had a more concrete impact on global peace.
2000 comments by noon EST. Only those aiming for funny will be able to tread water above 4.
"sends in an AP article featuring interviews with the [b]old men [/b]who launched the first satellite 50 year ago." Real impolite summary. How about just men? People? Brilliant men who accomplished an amazing feat 50 years ago? Calling them "old" is insulting and unnecessary.
The man who seems to be the main focus of the article(the crown jewel, if you will) is 95. I'm sure he is quite comfortable with the term, whether in Russian, English or French. But hey, you got to act all self-righteous and gain a mod point for fighting the good fight on his behalf, so his 95 years really amounted to something.
Now remind us why old is supposed to be derogatory.
Well sure there's recommended homework, but it's never checked. We are adults after all, we're paying customers and it's our responsibility to be ready for the tests. If I can pass the tests without doing homework, what's the point of checking my homework? To punish me for being smart? Only a real jackass checks homework in college.
Harvard has one of the most respected Law Schools in the country and the world. Mr. Class of '73 apparently never attended.
I think the proper response to this outrage is a day-long flashmob. Organize students and sympathetic members of the public to go in and retrieve ISBNs and prices. What better civil disobedience than excercizing your rights en masse so that it is impractical and impossible to take action against individuals.
by Ajehais
Whoever arranged the procurement of those aircraft in the first place wasn't terribly smart. Who would spend Millions of AU$'s on something that in effect doesn't work, and not just some feature is missing, but the primary use of the thing is impaired, oh and the supplier wont help.
I hope that when metamodded, whoever modded the parent troll gets their comeuppance. For now, somebody mod the parent informative or underrated to do great justice.
"Leftist" drivel...? He posts shit in general, but I don't think it's particularly lefty stuff. I *wish* it was; I'm what most people would call a leftist, and I think/. could use a bit more (but I know this place leans towards U.S.-style capitalistic libertarianism, so whatever). But did you catch kdawson's gem from a couple of days ago? That's some pretty crazy right wing nutso land crap he posted to the front page.
No, kdawson just posts crud. Period.
G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero?
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday September 07, @10:37PM
from the pussification-of-the-modern-male dept.
Without taking an opinion on the premise of yours and the GPs posts, I've got to wonder about the mods who gave your rant a +5 informative.
You know.... reading this, made me wonder exactly why it was that we never heard a huge fuss from the RIAA back when places like KMart and Zayre and Caldor and other potential discount houses would sell cassettes for $1.99 or.99 cents. I know a lot of you won't remember those bargain bins for music, but I am pretty sure that the record companies did not authorize the drop in price. I'm pretty sure it was the store chain that authorized the drop in price, to move the inventory.
In short, no. Those A-frame displays with the $0.49 cassettes and $1.99 CDs were stocked with what are known as cutouts. Cutouts are distributor overstock and non-defective returns to the distributor. What happened is that as these returns were piled up they would be sold off to cutout houses who would open the cases and using a hole punch cut out a portion of the original SKU or destructively mask it off with ink or stickers marking it as such.
The contract with the retailers was such that they would purchase the frame and then receive anonymous boxes of stock purchased by the 500 or 1000 or so at the retail store level. No cherry-picking allowed. The individual titles could not be advertised and the presence of the bins could not be advertised. It's a separate revenue stream. The artists would be billed for the production cost of these "damaged" items. Since there was no way to track individual sales, the artists would not be credited for these sales, however. Think of it as if supermarket chains sold off their rejected produce as cut-rate prices to food banks like Senior Gleaners, but didn't pay the growers for the produce that didn't meet their standards for display. Not entirely equivalent since the retailers aren't charities, but close. This is one way that record companies skim from their most productive artists. The artist gets billed for the 500,000 production run and the 220,000 that didn't get sold from that clunker album gets sold off to the cutout houses. Did I mention that these cutout houses tended to be incestuous? Sometimes even wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Incidentally, the reason you wouldn't see many Sony titles in those bins after 1992 was that Sony quit accepting open returns, defective or not, after about June that year. The stores had to find a way to dispose of them. Many chains started used CD sections to deal with that.
What did used to happen with retail music store was this. The normal wholesale price of a CD that sold for $15.99 was $11.74. The retail chain typically did their own distribution or had a contract with a one-stop to handle distribution to the stores. Mom and Pops could not buy directly from the labels. That distribution and the marketing, staffing, rent, utilities all came out of the remaining $4.25. (An $11.99 CD wholesaled for ~$9.90, IIRC, took up the same shelf space, required the same labor to merchandise and probably sat on that shelf longer) When you saw a CD go on sale for $12.99 it was usually co-operative advertising that paid for it. The label would pay half to all of the advertising cost and what you would see was copy like "Select BMG artists on sale at Tower now through Sunday! Get (insert top artist name here)'s new release, (insert album title here) for just $12.99!, etc." Of course when the retailers started plans(not roll-out just plans) for used CDs they threatened to withold the Co-Op advertising dollars chain by chain, pitting one against another.
When Wal-Mart jumped into the retail music market with both feet, they went to the la...invited the labels to Bentonville, Arkansas and said "We're huge. Our personal electronics sales dwarfs your entire industry. Sell us your most popular titles for $2 less and we'll sell your prime product as side item in quantities you never dreamed of. We'll both make more money." This cut the heart out of the music retail chains because Wal-Mart could now sell their bread and butter for less that what they were paying wholesale. And they got t
Slashdot Mirror
Now you are starting to understand why we don't have a moral clause in our copyright.
Or, you know, he could be pointing out where we got the idea from in the first place as a reminder to the brits about what is really important.
I'll bet the parent thought that whooshing sound over his head was a flight of jets in missing man formation.
Confronted with a marriage in trouble, most seem to think of it as an opportunity to scam on the wife
Ayup, and wondered how the trademark lawyers felt about it.
Another near parallel example of this is the demonisation of certain drugs. There is little factual rationale for fear of marijuana and of those that can point to a life ruined because of it, it's entirely due to its illegality not its inherent properties. Either someone had their life disrupted because of an arrest or the artificially inflated price and scarcity prompted a separate crime. New crime is being created where none would exist merely to please one favored group. So, the 'authorities' trot out these PR cases 'pour encourager les autres' to go along.
But what if you were the human destined to be that greasy spot? What's your opinion now?
Oops
If Google had no policy here, we would likely be hearing about moveon.org suing google because neocon groups were buying all the ad space for ads criticising moveon.org. While both ideas are relatively neutral from Google's point of view, Google's current policy at least gives the owner of the mark first crack at telling its story.
The Norwegian Nobel Comittee should be modded flamebait -500. No. No. Not because of any opinion I have on their nomination. Simply because whichever side you take here, there will be molotovs headed in your direction. You can already see people getting modded troll for saying congratulations or questioning whether there were others that may have had a more concrete impact on global peace. 2000 comments by noon EST. Only those aiming for funny will be able to tread water above 4.
Perhaps these moons, which do orbit retrograde, are captured objects?
Now remind us why old is supposed to be derogatory.
Harvard has one of the most respected Law Schools in the country and the world. Mr. Class of '73 apparently never attended. I think the proper response to this outrage is a day-long flashmob. Organize students and sympathetic members of the public to go in and retrieve ISBNs and prices. What better civil disobedience than excercizing your rights en masse so that it is impractical and impossible to take action against individuals.
I hope that when metamodded, whoever modded the parent troll gets their comeuppance. For now, somebody mod the parent informative or underrated to do great justice.
In short, no. Those A-frame displays with the $0.49 cassettes and $1.99 CDs were stocked with what are known as cutouts. Cutouts are distributor overstock and non-defective returns to the distributor. What happened is that as these returns were piled up they would be sold off to cutout houses who would open the cases and using a hole punch cut out a portion of the original SKU or destructively mask it off with ink or stickers marking it as such.
The contract with the retailers was such that they would purchase the frame and then receive anonymous boxes of stock purchased by the 500 or 1000 or so at the retail store level. No cherry-picking allowed. The individual titles could not be advertised and the presence of the bins could not be advertised. It's a separate revenue stream. The artists would be billed for the production cost of these "damaged" items. Since there was no way to track individual sales, the artists would not be credited for these sales, however. Think of it as if supermarket chains sold off their rejected produce as cut-rate prices to food banks like Senior Gleaners, but didn't pay the growers for the produce that didn't meet their standards for display. Not entirely equivalent since the retailers aren't charities, but close. This is one way that record companies skim from their most productive artists. The artist gets billed for the 500,000 production run and the 220,000 that didn't get sold from that clunker album gets sold off to the cutout houses. Did I mention that these cutout houses tended to be incestuous? Sometimes even wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Incidentally, the reason you wouldn't see many Sony titles in those bins after 1992 was that Sony quit accepting open returns, defective or not, after about June that year. The stores had to find a way to dispose of them. Many chains started used CD sections to deal with that.
What did used to happen with retail music store was this. The normal wholesale price of a CD that sold for $15.99 was $11.74. The retail chain typically did their own distribution or had a contract with a one-stop to handle distribution to the stores. Mom and Pops could not buy directly from the labels. That distribution and the marketing, staffing, rent, utilities all came out of the remaining $4.25. (An $11.99 CD wholesaled for ~$9.90, IIRC, took up the same shelf space, required the same labor to merchandise and probably sat on that shelf longer) When you saw a CD go on sale for $12.99 it was usually co-operative advertising that paid for it. The label would pay half to all of the advertising cost and what you would see was copy like "Select BMG artists on sale at Tower now through Sunday! Get (insert top artist name here)'s new release, (insert album title here) for just $12.99!, etc." Of course when the retailers started plans(not roll-out just plans) for used CDs they threatened to withold the Co-Op advertising dollars chain by chain, pitting one against another.
When Wal-Mart jumped into the retail music market with both feet, they went to the la...invited the labels to Bentonville, Arkansas and said "We're huge. Our personal electronics sales dwarfs your entire industry. Sell us your most popular titles for $2 less and we'll sell your prime product as side item in quantities you never dreamed of. We'll both make more money." This cut the heart out of the music retail chains because Wal-Mart could now sell their bread and butter for less that what they were paying wholesale. And they got t