While it would be within Google's right to not include webpages if they choose not to, it does leave a bad taste with me. I don't like the idea of my search results being censored.
The court didn't order Google to remove linking to the publishers when someone performed a Google search. It would seem that Google did that out of spite.
However, I have not read the article yet to have a more informed opinion.
However, if you live in a republic then the elected officials can continue to do what is deemed best for society - even if the society doesn't want it anymore.
Assuming it is valid, there is nothing to say it is symmetric and the article you linked to supports the curve being around 70%. So following the Laffer Curve, we need to raise taxes up quiet a bit to reach that point.
From the article: "in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue"
The Democrats want to drive down tax collection further by raising rates (since it happens every. single. time. it is tried you'd think they would change the tune),
Any proof to back up the claim that increased taxes on the rich* (lets set the bench mark at 250k/year) reduces overall tax collection?
On one hand, you are stopping a crime from happening - that's good.
However, if you allow the crime to happen, then arrest the the criminal, you are stopping that criminal from committing future crimes for the duration of his/her sentence - this also seems good.
You are correct in saying that "Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge", in so far as to let the holder recoup R&D costs and turn a profit before the information becomes public.
Who would spend R&D resources just to have others duplicate the finished product with no investment? Patents ensure that creators will have time to recoup costs.
Now, there is a good argument that the length of Patents (and copyrights) have become too long and they need to be shortened so they do not decrease advancement.
They might not care if the person next to them wins. However, they still need to hear that rings all around that people are winning. It drives the belief that their big win is just around the corner.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't mention removing links to the official website
" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"
dont think that really leaves much to link to........
You can link to the official website, you just can re host it.
It says "the articles, photographs and graphic representations", not links. Links it seems would still be permitted.
You're right: No where in what you quoted does it say to withdraw a link to them from Google's search engine.
Makes me think of someone getting a generic copyright for "Romantic Comedy Movie"
While it would be within Google's right to not include webpages if they choose not to, it does leave a bad taste with me. I don't like the idea of my search results being censored.
The court didn't order Google to remove linking to the publishers when someone performed a Google search. It would seem that Google did that out of spite.
However, I have not read the article yet to have a more informed opinion.
Now that sounds like a Free Market solution!
The art school I can see.
What school requires a Mac?
This is the land where your wallet is made with Smith & Wesson, right?
Do you feel that a driving an automobile does not require a license that shows at least minimum capacity to actually operate said vehicle?
However, if you live in a republic then the elected officials can continue to do what is deemed best for society - even if the society doesn't want it anymore.
soylent green?
It feels like it is on the edge of being accepted. DVD's still feel more popular for some reason. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
Assuming it is valid, there is nothing to say it is symmetric and the article you linked to supports the curve being around 70%. So following the Laffer Curve, we need to raise taxes up quiet a bit to reach that point.
From the article: "in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue"
The Democrats want to drive down tax collection further by raising rates (since it happens every. single. time. it is tried you'd think they would change the tune),
Any proof to back up the claim that increased taxes on the rich* (lets set the bench mark at 250k/year) reduces overall tax collection?
You could probably argue both sides pretty well.
On one hand, you are stopping a crime from happening - that's good.
However, if you allow the crime to happen, then arrest the the criminal, you are stopping that criminal from committing future crimes for the duration of his/her sentence - this also seems good.
The cost was the R&D that went into it.
You are correct in saying that "Patents and copyrights are designed from the beginning to restrict the transfer and sharing of knowledge", in so far as to let the holder recoup R&D costs and turn a profit before the information becomes public.
Who would spend R&D resources just to have others duplicate the finished product with no investment? Patents ensure that creators will have time to recoup costs.
Now, there is a good argument that the length of Patents (and copyrights) have become too long and they need to be shortened so they do not decrease advancement.
If only there was some sort of way the employees could group together to increase their bargaining power with employers to avoid these situations.
Those traffic stops are not implemented by Arizona, but by Border Patrol. They also occur in other border states, not just Arizona.
Three negatives goes back to being a negative. Don't you remember anything from Middle School Math?
They might not care if the person next to them wins. However, they still need to hear that rings all around that people are winning. It drives the belief that their big win is just around the corner.
or the Schwartz
http://modernvespa.com/pix/uploads/good_luck_im_behind_7_proxies_118.jpg