Even the most basic understanding of contracts modern or historical gives simple clarity. If I make an agreement with my neighbors for the purpose of landscaping in order to create a more perfect neighborhood and the general welfare of the street, to reduce cost, time, and effort to that need, we would need to specify what that means. For example, within the contract we specify that ABC Landscaping will be the agent to the contract, and they have the right to determine how many times a month on which days our lawns will be mowed, so long as they are specified in advance; the amount of water and fertilizer necessary to promote healthy growth. If ABC Landscaping informs us that the best lawn is one mowed every other day, that was left to their discretion because it is specified in the contract. If we think this is excessive, it is not a contract violation per se, but a fault of the parties. In such a case you would probably want to notify that even if it is in the best interest of the lawn that you really didn't want the lawns mowed 15 times a month. If on the other hand, if ABC landscaping installed fences and lawn gnomes in every yard and converted one persons lawn to be a community pool, they have clearly violated the contract no matter how much they may argue that it contributes to the general welfare of the neighborhood as specified in the preamble.
The situation we have is to imagine a neighborhood of renters where the contract is made between the landlords, ABC Landscaping is still the agent but the cost of the landscaping is not included in the rent. Further, ABC Landscaping can sue you if you do not pay them. The problem we have is that ABC Landscaping has decided to convert all our yards into a giant admission free amusement park. And as if the Landlord we almost never see not caring wasn't enough, any complaints about this possibly having gone a bit too far are met with the kids throwing a fit over loosing their free amusement park and redouble that with the Union of Amusement Park Ride Operators crying that you are trying to kill jobs and put people out on the street.
This really isn't what you bargained for, but you are providing jobs, and the teenagers are reasonably well behaved, it is a bit on the expensive side, but hell, you even enjoy the rides every so often.
Now ABC Landscaping puts on their thinking caps. There really isn't any room for any more rides, but still they would like to make the amusement park better. So they get the brilliant idea of adding concession stands with free food for anyone visiting the amusement park! Everyone is thrilled, right? And anyone that complains must want people to starve to death or at very least just be miserable, right? "Buy your own damn food!" How cold is that? What possible reason could people really have for not wanting free food when everyone can get some?
This also does not "provide for the general welfare" but is a health management and redistribution system built entirely on the philosophy of (or desire for) centralized control of the health and related industries is inherently superior. If it made regular the exchange of health or insurance services across state lines then I would take that as to provide for the general welfare in so far as is implied by the commerce clause. Obama said it repeatedly in his interviews on Chicago Radio criticizing the founding fathers for having created a constitution of, in his words, "negative liberties" without considering the necessity the government might have for wealth redistribution for the purpose of social justice. The Constitution outline the limited duties of the Federal Government as an agent to the contract between the states leaving the sovereignty of the land ultimately in the hands of the states. If you want a welfare state, go to your state legislature. That is what they are there for.
The last and final check for power is clearly outlined in Article V, Section 2 convention (Thank you George Mason) that outlines the procedure for states to propose and ratify amendments on their own that can not be trumped by any branch(s) of the federal government.
yeah, but its two orders of magnitude. That's significant. All with you on fuck the new red revolution, but this is real savings to people that actually do stuff. It isn't like they converted the savings to tons of carbon dioxide, dihydrogen monoxide or polar bear.
Yeah, I doubt there is much money or real involved in the creation of a world government tax and military authority. Personally, I think being an emperor or senator of the world would just be a big administrative headache trying to manage how much every person moves and how much CO2 they produce through their actions. I doubt they would put in so much effort if it wasn't with the best of intentions.
Agreed. Every doctor reinventing every tool and only being able to sell the drugs they designed and such much more closely parallels the proprietary world. Makes me wonder what the oldest piece of code Microsoft has that is regularly reviewed, maintained and updated. I wonder how much code dies and never gets reused, but gets getting reinvented poorly. I find it very unlikely that all their code is so well documented that if someone needs to do something they can easily find similar code used in the past to help them do better this time around.
medicine is open source. You can go to a library and look shit up yourself. Trade secrets in drugs is only allowed so far. Doctors don't put chips in you that will kill you if you try and visit a different doctor.
And just like any other open source, freedom always comes with personal responsibility; you need to put in a lot of effort to make any sense of what is out there or how the information can be used to improve your quality of life. BUT I do know that people that take time to do some research and ask their doctor informed questions and work with their doctor about the treatment or care they need, the better the care provided. If you just go to a doctor because you think something might be wrong and you just let them 'do their thing because they are the doctor', care is going to be very expensive, if you can afford it, and it is unlikely you will be very happy with the results. And how could you, you don't even know what they are doing.
Completely aside, proprietary software tends to reinvent everything with every project. Security in open source software has a few independently developed components that can be reused across a range of software. Teams focus on that one component, and when that project updates every connected piece of software improves. In proprietary software all compatibility and integration is explicit; every application seems to live in its own special bubble rather than being integrated. For cross project integration and compatibility, nothing comes close to Linux/FLOSS environment.
This is their opinion of what the law should be, not what it is. My opinion is that the RIAA is giving legal advice because the RIAA frames what they say as if it were the law. They should be liable for damages to anyone that took their advice.
Well whatever mommy says I am sure is in your best interest. That is the great thing about France is that nobody needs to worry their pretty little head about such things.
People living under power lines are more likely to get cancer. True, but people in poverty are more likely to get cancer too, and the higher chance of cancer for living under power lines is equal to the higher chance that you are poor.
So technically it would be more appropriate to say that people that are at higher risk for cancer are more likely to live under power lines. If I remember correctly, there is a similar risk for people that live near trains. Another funny one is that it has been found that if you are uber rich you are at higher risk for cancer. Reason is that people only have cancer if they are diagnosed with it, at least when it comer to statistics. The real correlation was that the better your health care, the more likely it is that you will get diagnosed rather than just "be sick" or "die of old age".
I think you misunderstand the original quote. There is nothing wrong with vilifying incompetence. Lets say a store over charges you. If it is EQUALLY as likely that they are just stupid and not thieves, it is most practical to treat them as stupid and take appropriate action. If there is evidence to support the theory that they are systematically ripping people off blind then that is not necessarily an equal argument for stupidity. But in either case, you can just not shop there if you don't think the problem is going to be fixed.
Not sure your revision is going to show up in fortune cookies any time soon, imo.
Ah, constitutional principles. I remember reading about that in some history book somewhere. Sounds like a great idea in theory. Someone should write congress and tell them about these things. It might help them.
Music companies believed they should have the right to restrict the making of mix tapes and such. That was not the law but the RIAA agreed that the tax would "settle the issue". Also, the tax is only on music CDRs, not all CDRs. That is why they are more expensive.
The tax legalized using the medium for making mix CDs and non-commercial distribution. This doesn't legalize otherwise illegal methods for acquiring that music.
Music CD tax legalized mix tape distribution for non commercial purposes. Of course that doesn't mean that doesn't have anything to do with downloading music online. Not going to write a thesis on copyright law, but if this is an issue you are interested in the subject and are interested in educating people I might recommend on getting your information from more than just the MPAA or RIAA. Just because someone calls something theft or illegal does not magically make it so no matter how many times they say it.
No, the tax is only on blank music CD's. Ever notice that those cd's are a bit more expensive? The only difference is that the tax is paid to the music companies and it makes your mix tapes legal. regular CDRs do not have the tax and do not get the protection. So unless you are buying music CDs and using them for data storage, you are safe:) Of course this is not legal advice and IANAL.
The tax on blank music CD's DID legalize the duplicating of CD's for the purpose of distributing them for non-commercial purposes. It doesn't "allow illegal things". What does that even mean? It is either illegal or not. This tax was heavily debated in Congress and you can watch the videos from c-span or read the transcript. The question presented to [the recording industry] that the debate ended on was "Will this settle the issue?", and the response was a strong affirmative "yes". For Congress, the purpose and intent was legalizing copying (for non commercial distribution). Also, it was a two way street; it was a compromise. Not going to go into it, but you may be interested in reading about something called Social Contract Theory of Law.
Things are not illegal just because you don't like something.
... because they are grossly misrepresenting the law. Indecent in terms of the application of this law has meant children being presented in a sexual context. Children don't need to be naked in pictures for the law to be broken and just because there is a picture of a naked child does not automatically make it indecent.
In the United States there were a number of significant cases that set precedent for the US. 'The Color Purple' is a good example of a real controversy, 'Lolita', nudist colonies, parent taking pictures of their kids playing in bathtubs, anatomy books, and such. An issue that even came up in 'The Color Purple' controversy was if therapist and psychologist could be charged with possession of child porn if they wrote things down they were told by abused children. Also, is it child porn if a doctor or nurse takes pictures as part of a rape kit? After a lot of debate, to my understanding it came back to the spirit of the law. Are children being abused? Child porn laws are meant to protect children and prosecuting good doctors, good parents, and authors sharing their experiences does not do anything to protect children from abuse. You have a better argument for saying this practice would put more children at harm. However, it is possible to take something legal and present the same thing differently and make it illegal. For example, if a doctor took pictures from rape kits and sold them to people that got off on that kind of material should [be prosecuted]. But for the sake of argument, selling the pictures and information with parental consent to researchers in order to compile a model for identifying sexual abuse if not the same thing.
Anyway, I find it unlikely that the amusement over blurry near naked like pictures of people running through an airport wears off within hours. Also, just like any search, respect needs to be given to those being searched. Look at the 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This is exactly what they are doing. I know this is not European law, but it goes to the philosophy. These scanners are more effective and less evasive than actually stripping people down and searching them. Also, you can opt out of being scanned get a body search. Shouldn't people be happy about this?
But back to the respect issue, if security personnel are being crude or disrespectful such as point or laughing, they should be disciplined and possibly fired depending on the severity. If they are collecting pictures and giving them to Nambla, they should [be prosecuted].
Other than that, thank them for trying to keep you safe and let them do their job. And if you are worried about your kids safety or mental well being, or what might bother them, compare these scanners to full body cavity search. What would you like to subject your kids to? If you don't think there is any reason to have strict security at airports or that government is over stepping their bounds, that is a totally different issue. I honestly think this is argument is a troll for people worried about these near nakedness of these pictures. To say that this would be production of child pornography is silly, and if the law hasn't caught up somewhere, it needs to.
I am no fan of invasive government, but if we believe TSA does a real job, these scanners enhance their ability to do their job of protecting people, including children, and in a less invasive manner.
Because contributing is not zero sum. For example, if I see something I like that I want to contribute to, I will. I contribute if and when it is fun. Other people do it for different reasons, and it is all open source. If you give people the freedom to do what they want, they will, and other than that you can only discourage people from contributing. Developers for the purpose of furthering a specific feature are only limited in proprietary / employment positions where the limit is money. Encourage people to contribute or let people know that no contribution is too small, and people will open up to the idea of contributing. Tell them "your contribution sucks, why don't you do 'xyz'", at best they will ignore you, but they may also just shrug and say "f*** it".
Though I guess this is also unsolicited advice you are going to ignore which was exactly my point. Just because a developer works for "free" doesn't make them a slave. They work on what benefits / rewards them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the most basic understanding of contracts modern or historical gives simple clarity. If I make an agreement with my neighbors for the purpose of landscaping in order to create a more perfect neighborhood and the general welfare of the street, to reduce cost, time, and effort to that need, we would need to specify what that means. For example, within the contract we specify that ABC Landscaping will be the agent to the contract, and they have the right to determine how many times a month on which days our lawns will be mowed, so long as they are specified in advance; the amount of water and fertilizer necessary to promote healthy growth. If ABC Landscaping informs us that the best lawn is one mowed every other day, that was left to their discretion because it is specified in the contract. If we think this is excessive, it is not a contract violation per se, but a fault of the parties. In such a case you would probably want to notify that even if it is in the best interest of the lawn that you really didn't want the lawns mowed 15 times a month. If on the other hand, if ABC landscaping installed fences and lawn gnomes in every yard and converted one persons lawn to be a community pool, they have clearly violated the contract no matter how much they may argue that it contributes to the general welfare of the neighborhood as specified in the preamble.
The situation we have is to imagine a neighborhood of renters where the contract is made between the landlords, ABC Landscaping is still the agent but the cost of the landscaping is not included in the rent. Further, ABC Landscaping can sue you if you do not pay them. The problem we have is that ABC Landscaping has decided to convert all our yards into a giant admission free amusement park. And as if the Landlord we almost never see not caring wasn't enough, any complaints about this possibly having gone a bit too far are met with the kids throwing a fit over loosing their free amusement park and redouble that with the Union of Amusement Park Ride Operators crying that you are trying to kill jobs and put people out on the street.
This really isn't what you bargained for, but you are providing jobs, and the teenagers are reasonably well behaved, it is a bit on the expensive side, but hell, you even enjoy the rides every so often.
Now ABC Landscaping puts on their thinking caps. There really isn't any room for any more rides, but still they would like to make the amusement park better. So they get the brilliant idea of adding concession stands with free food for anyone visiting the amusement park! Everyone is thrilled, right? And anyone that complains must want people to starve to death or at very least just be miserable, right? "Buy your own damn food!" How cold is that? What possible reason could people really have for not wanting free food when everyone can get some?
This also does not "provide for the general welfare" but is a health management and redistribution system built entirely on the philosophy of (or desire for) centralized control of the health and related industries is inherently superior. If it made regular the exchange of health or insurance services across state lines then I would take that as to provide for the general welfare in so far as is implied by the commerce clause. Obama said it repeatedly in his interviews on Chicago Radio criticizing the founding fathers for having created a constitution of, in his words, "negative liberties" without considering the necessity the government might have for wealth redistribution for the purpose of social justice. The Constitution outline the limited duties of the Federal Government as an agent to the contract between the states leaving the sovereignty of the land ultimately in the hands of the states. If you want a welfare state, go to your state legislature. That is what they are there for.
The last and final check for power is clearly outlined in Article V, Section 2 convention (Thank you George Mason) that outlines the procedure for states to propose and ratify amendments on their own that can not be trumped by any branch(s) of the federal government.
No, I am sure it would sell well along with the final book of the trilogy "No I am not a hypocrite, just look at the book I am reading".
Sounds like you got a book brewing. I am sure every Starbucks will be clamoring to sell it.
yeah, but its two orders of magnitude. That's significant. All with you on fuck the new red revolution, but this is real savings to people that actually do stuff. It isn't like they converted the savings to tons of carbon dioxide, dihydrogen monoxide or polar bear.
In a better world it would have been more obvious I was being sarcastic. *sigh*
Yeah, I doubt there is much money or real involved in the creation of a world government tax and military authority. Personally, I think being an emperor or senator of the world would just be a big administrative headache trying to manage how much every person moves and how much CO2 they produce through their actions. I doubt they would put in so much effort if it wasn't with the best of intentions.
Agreed. Every doctor reinventing every tool and only being able to sell the drugs they designed and such much more closely parallels the proprietary world. Makes me wonder what the oldest piece of code Microsoft has that is regularly reviewed, maintained and updated. I wonder how much code dies and never gets reused, but gets getting reinvented poorly. I find it very unlikely that all their code is so well documented that if someone needs to do something they can easily find similar code used in the past to help them do better this time around.
medicine is open source. You can go to a library and look shit up yourself. Trade secrets in drugs is only allowed so far. Doctors don't put chips in you that will kill you if you try and visit a different doctor.
And just like any other open source, freedom always comes with personal responsibility; you need to put in a lot of effort to make any sense of what is out there or how the information can be used to improve your quality of life. BUT I do know that people that take time to do some research and ask their doctor informed questions and work with their doctor about the treatment or care they need, the better the care provided. If you just go to a doctor because you think something might be wrong and you just let them 'do their thing because they are the doctor', care is going to be very expensive, if you can afford it, and it is unlikely you will be very happy with the results. And how could you, you don't even know what they are doing.
Completely aside, proprietary software tends to reinvent everything with every project. Security in open source software has a few independently developed components that can be reused across a range of software. Teams focus on that one component, and when that project updates every connected piece of software improves. In proprietary software all compatibility and integration is explicit; every application seems to live in its own special bubble rather than being integrated. For cross project integration and compatibility, nothing comes close to Linux/FLOSS environment.
"Music theft can take various forms: individuals who illegally upload or download music online, online companies who build businesses based on theft and encourage users to break the law, or criminals manufacturing mass numbers of counterfeit CDs for sale on street corners, in flea markets or at retail stores."
This is their opinion of what the law should be, not what it is. My opinion is that the RIAA is giving legal advice because the RIAA frames what they say as if it were the law. They should be liable for damages to anyone that took their advice.
Well whatever mommy says I am sure is in your best interest. That is the great thing about France is that nobody needs to worry their pretty little head about such things.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001467.htm?
Sun allergy: Xeroderma pigmentosa. Not his symptoms, but this is what most people I know mean when they are talking about severe sunlight allergy.
People living under power lines are more likely to get cancer. True, but people in poverty are more likely to get cancer too, and the higher chance of cancer for living under power lines is equal to the higher chance that you are poor.
So technically it would be more appropriate to say that people that are at higher risk for cancer are more likely to live under power lines. If I remember correctly, there is a similar risk for people that live near trains. Another funny one is that it has been found that if you are uber rich you are at higher risk for cancer. Reason is that people only have cancer if they are diagnosed with it, at least when it comer to statistics. The real correlation was that the better your health care, the more likely it is that you will get diagnosed rather than just "be sick" or "die of old age".
My argument is that the EM is always there, but radio and such are just organizing what would otherwise be white noise.
I think you misunderstand the original quote. There is nothing wrong with vilifying incompetence. Lets say a store over charges you. If it is EQUALLY as likely that they are just stupid and not thieves, it is most practical to treat them as stupid and take appropriate action. If there is evidence to support the theory that they are systematically ripping people off blind then that is not necessarily an equal argument for stupidity. But in either case, you can just not shop there if you don't think the problem is going to be fixed.
Not sure your revision is going to show up in fortune cookies any time soon, imo.
Ah, constitutional principles. I remember reading about that in some history book somewhere. Sounds like a great idea in theory. Someone should write congress and tell them about these things. It might help them.
Music companies believed they should have the right to restrict the making of mix tapes and such. That was not the law but the RIAA agreed that the tax would "settle the issue". Also, the tax is only on music CDRs, not all CDRs. That is why they are more expensive.
The tax legalized using the medium for making mix CDs and non-commercial distribution. This doesn't legalize otherwise illegal methods for acquiring that music.
Music CD tax legalized mix tape distribution for non commercial purposes. Of course that doesn't mean that doesn't have anything to do with downloading music online. Not going to write a thesis on copyright law, but if this is an issue you are interested in the subject and are interested in educating people I might recommend on getting your information from more than just the MPAA or RIAA. Just because someone calls something theft or illegal does not magically make it so no matter how many times they say it.
No, the tax is only on blank music CD's. Ever notice that those cd's are a bit more expensive? The only difference is that the tax is paid to the music companies and it makes your mix tapes legal. regular CDRs do not have the tax and do not get the protection. So unless you are buying music CDs and using them for data storage, you are safe :) Of course this is not legal advice and IANAL.
The tax on blank music CD's DID legalize the duplicating of CD's for the purpose of distributing them for non-commercial purposes. It doesn't "allow illegal things". What does that even mean? It is either illegal or not. This tax was heavily debated in Congress and you can watch the videos from c-span or read the transcript. The question presented to [the recording industry] that the debate ended on was "Will this settle the issue?", and the response was a strong affirmative "yes". For Congress, the purpose and intent was legalizing copying (for non commercial distribution). Also, it was a two way street; it was a compromise. Not going to go into it, but you may be interested in reading about something called Social Contract Theory of Law.
Things are not illegal just because you don't like something.
In the United States there were a number of significant cases that set precedent for the US. 'The Color Purple' is a good example of a real controversy, 'Lolita', nudist colonies, parent taking pictures of their kids playing in bathtubs, anatomy books, and such. An issue that even came up in 'The Color Purple' controversy was if therapist and psychologist could be charged with possession of child porn if they wrote things down they were told by abused children. Also, is it child porn if a doctor or nurse takes pictures as part of a rape kit? After a lot of debate, to my understanding it came back to the spirit of the law. Are children being abused? Child porn laws are meant to protect children and prosecuting good doctors, good parents, and authors sharing their experiences does not do anything to protect children from abuse. You have a better argument for saying this practice would put more children at harm. However, it is possible to take something legal and present the same thing differently and make it illegal. For example, if a doctor took pictures from rape kits and sold them to people that got off on that kind of material should [be prosecuted]. But for the sake of argument, selling the pictures and information with parental consent to researchers in order to compile a model for identifying sexual abuse if not the same thing.
Anyway, I find it unlikely that the amusement over blurry near naked like pictures of people running through an airport wears off within hours. Also, just like any search, respect needs to be given to those being searched. Look at the 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This is exactly what they are doing. I know this is not European law, but it goes to the philosophy. These scanners are more effective and less evasive than actually stripping people down and searching them. Also, you can opt out of being scanned get a body search. Shouldn't people be happy about this?
But back to the respect issue, if security personnel are being crude or disrespectful such as point or laughing, they should be disciplined and possibly fired depending on the severity. If they are collecting pictures and giving them to Nambla, they should [be prosecuted].
Other than that, thank them for trying to keep you safe and let them do their job. And if you are worried about your kids safety or mental well being, or what might bother them, compare these scanners to full body cavity search. What would you like to subject your kids to? If you don't think there is any reason to have strict security at airports or that government is over stepping their bounds, that is a totally different issue. I honestly think this is argument is a troll for people worried about these near nakedness of these pictures. To say that this would be production of child pornography is silly, and if the law hasn't caught up somewhere, it needs to.
I am no fan of invasive government, but if we believe TSA does a real job, these scanners enhance their ability to do their job of protecting people, including children, and in a less invasive manner.
You must work for the government.
Because contributing is not zero sum. For example, if I see something I like that I want to contribute to, I will. I contribute if and when it is fun. Other people do it for different reasons, and it is all open source. If you give people the freedom to do what they want, they will, and other than that you can only discourage people from contributing. Developers for the purpose of furthering a specific feature are only limited in proprietary / employment positions where the limit is money. Encourage people to contribute or let people know that no contribution is too small, and people will open up to the idea of contributing. Tell them "your contribution sucks, why don't you do 'xyz'", at best they will ignore you, but they may also just shrug and say "f*** it".
Though I guess this is also unsolicited advice you are going to ignore which was exactly my point. Just because a developer works for "free" doesn't make them a slave. They work on what benefits / rewards them.