It's even worse than that. The ESA sections really muddy up the waters. The ESA and the EU have no legal personality in international law. Which member nation of the ESA would have legal responsibility? All, or none? Who the hell knows.
Why would you? It's in a zip file. Let's stop trying to justify this. Over 60% were given the opportunity to pay for the music, at any price, and didn't. That puts the lie to the "oh, it's overcharged" argument. There's always lots of talk about "greedy corporations" here, but let's face it. Slashdotters are willing to take without compensating their favorite artists without blinking an eye. That's greed.
Once again, your flaming fanboyism blinds you to the fact that what caught your eye was a flippant remark and the least important part of the sentence. Your reading comprehension skills are handicapped, at best.
I wasn't a criticism, it was mental ejaculation. I was criticising Stallman's lack of decorum, respect for his forum, general hygiene, and manners. But all you saw was "OMG! Free as in Speech!" Fanboyism at its worst.
When one side has a decided advantage that allows them to defeat the defenses of the enemy and inflict sufficient damage to get the enemy to submit quickly, that saves lives. The goal of warfare isn't to kill people, it is to get the other side to realize they can't achieve their political goals and surrender. The more effective your defenses are, the less net loss of life.
Kind of like my response to Slashdotters objecting to an automated weapon designed to shoot down cruise missiles, which leave too little reaction time for human-controlled defenses to counter, which save lives of soldiers, airmen, and sailors from massive loss of life.
Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits
Immunity allows the defendant telcos to get an immediate dismissal of the suit on a motion to dismiss. One filing, a hearing, and the suit is out the door, saving millions defending frivolous lawsuits.
BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
The Supreme Court of the United States says so.
I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority
I'm guessing that people that know the law, like other attorneys such as myself, don't go for the "it's illegal because I think it is" conclusions of people such as yourself.
Walmart sales are based on estimated inventory demand from past performance and current market trends. A unique contract between two parties for services cannot be "estimated". This should be plainly obvious.
Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal
Analyzing data, like calling patterns, in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy requires no warrant either. Like pen registers, the government does not need a warrant for this type of monitoring.
Telcos need immunity to prevent frivolous strike suits by people like you that think "these guys were doing something illegal."
Data mining *your own data* isn't spying. The phone companies data mining the phone records of their own customers isn't spying. The federal government data mining the phone records of tens of millions of US citizens is spying
No. The government can look at pen register information, which is nothing more than data mining call connection information, all it wants and no warrant is required, for example. It isn't spying. So sayeth the Supreme Court. Analyzing national calling patterns is as much spying as the U.S. Census. That is, it isn't.
However, the article does support the allegations made in the summary
It only supports the allegations if you make unwarranted assumptions. There's nothing in the article that supports the allegations but the CEO's own allegations.
it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue
Really? Qwest's accountants are considering non-existent contracts as future earnings for financial statements? The SEC will be happy to know that, why don't you suggest that over there?
(2) Replacing Merry with Eowyn at Theoden's death scene
Which is one of my greatest disappointments with the film. Eowyn's duel with the Witch King is one of the best moments in the Return of the King, and Jackson botched it royally. It had no gravity whatsoever, and the death of the Lord of the Nazgul was sort of a "so what?" moment instead of a major turn in the book. Eowyn's tragic heroism is cheapened into a "ooh, another Mortal Kombat moment!"
You still missed the point. The point is that it doesn't matter how many are listening to a single radio because the broadcaster pays the royalty, full stop.
I'll ignore medicine, but with respect to the topic of debate regarding grad school and non-us students, I would bet that approximately 0% of the law school graduate students are foreign. In fact, I would bet that approximately 0% are non-judeo/christian white people
We sure do care about proper usage of the apostrophe, though. Dude, the possessive form is not called for there. It should be "Americans", as in plural American.
For one thing, Americans generally don't want to work that hard. They just want the money, like you say the doctors or lawyers
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, that's it. People that don't want to work that hard go into the two hardest grad programs for the two professions that put in the longest hours. I'm sure you hit it right on the head there, friend.
This actually is true. Advanced societies that are governed by the rule of law and that require complex rules will naturally require more lawyers. Most people think of Law and Order when someone says "lawyer", but that ignores the far larger practice area of corporate and commercial law that governs extremely complex commercial behavior that makes a modern capitalism economy hum. Nobody thinks about the Uniform Commercial Code as a vital piece of maintaining civilization, but it is.
Besides that, medicine and law are recession proof. Hell, they are nuclear-war proof.
Really this is just silly. If 9.8% of US families is considered "the majority", then you'd be right. But you're wrong. Besides that fact, US GDP per capita is several times that of India or China, so by your logic there should be no Indian or Chinese grad students because not only are a majority of Indians and Chinese truly poor, they are much poorer than the average American.
Most Americans don't go to grad school because there is little economic incentive to do so. The US economy only supports so many technocrats. The presence of so many Indian and Chinese students in US science and technical grad programs is a natural function of those nations' evolving manufacturing and services sectors. They simply need to train more technocrats because their sectors are growing compared to those sectors in the US, which are economically mature.
As to India or China "surpassing" the US, what does that mean? Surpassing the US in what? Manufacturing? Good! That's economic specialization that creates efficiencies for everyone. Not only is talk of "surpassing" mere economic scare-mongering (did we learn nothing from such silliness when the Japanese were supposed to "surpass us" in the 1980s? Where are the Japanese today? Economic stagnation), it makes erroneous straight-line projections that ignore very important long term considerations of demographics and other factors. The US economy will be a large and important factor in the global economy for the foreseeable future. But the global economy continues to grow and evolve and the US economy continues to change from its post-WWII dominance (unsurprising since it was the only intact industrial economy on the planet) to an important player in a dynamic specialized global economy.
Non-obviousness is a legal requirement for a patent. The Examiner is required to make his determination based on a reasoned finding of fact and conclusions of law. If the Examiner failed to make his reasoning clear that the legal requirement of non-obviousness has not been met, then his determination is legally deficient. This doesn't mean that the Board doesn't see the obviousness; it means at the minimum that the Examiner did not adequately do his job in defending his determination in writing as required.
If you are resisting arrest - it is violent force. Moving your arm to avoid being grabbed is violent force. The police do not have to be in danger of harm to use a tazer or any other force to subdue a suspect. A tazer is used to subdue a resisting perp. Period. The guy was forcefully resisting arrest and the officers were privileged to use force - in this case a contact shock from a tazer - to stop him from resisting. Period. So stop defending this clown who was clearly looking to cause a scene. You're exactly the kind of useful idiot that he was looking to manipulate with this stunt.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even worse than that. The ESA sections really muddy up the waters. The ESA and the EU have no legal personality in international law. Which member nation of the ESA would have legal responsibility? All, or none? Who the hell knows.
Why would you? It's in a zip file. Let's stop trying to justify this. Over 60% were given the opportunity to pay for the music, at any price, and didn't. That puts the lie to the "oh, it's overcharged" argument. There's always lots of talk about "greedy corporations" here, but let's face it. Slashdotters are willing to take without compensating their favorite artists without blinking an eye. That's greed.
I made just that point recently. The US economy is mature and our schools churn out more technocrats than needed.
Once again, your flaming fanboyism blinds you to the fact that what caught your eye was a flippant remark and the least important part of the sentence. Your reading comprehension skills are handicapped, at best.
I wasn't a criticism, it was mental ejaculation. I was criticising Stallman's lack of decorum, respect for his forum, general hygiene, and manners. But all you saw was "OMG! Free as in Speech!" Fanboyism at its worst.
Wow, another Stallman zealot/fanboy on Slashdot. Imagine that. Here's a clue, fanboy. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
Richard Stallman wants everything to be free because he's a shoeless, shirtless, tieless bum. What a neanderthal.
When one side has a decided advantage that allows them to defeat the defenses of the enemy and inflict sufficient damage to get the enemy to submit quickly, that saves lives. The goal of warfare isn't to kill people, it is to get the other side to realize they can't achieve their political goals and surrender. The more effective your defenses are, the less net loss of life.
Kind of like my response to Slashdotters objecting to an automated weapon designed to shoot down cruise missiles, which leave too little reaction time for human-controlled defenses to counter, which save lives of soldiers, airmen, and sailors from massive loss of life.
ISS has cost roughly $100 billion dollars. At $3.5 mill a year, something on that scale would recoup in roughly 28,000 years...
Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits
Immunity allows the defendant telcos to get an immediate dismissal of the suit on a motion to dismiss. One filing, a hearing, and the suit is out the door, saving millions defending frivolous lawsuits.
BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
The Supreme Court of the United States says so.
I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority
I'm guessing that people that know the law, like other attorneys such as myself, don't go for the "it's illegal because I think it is" conclusions of people such as yourself.
Walmart sales are based on estimated inventory demand from past performance and current market trends. A unique contract between two parties for services cannot be "estimated". This should be plainly obvious.
Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal
Analyzing data, like calling patterns, in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy requires no warrant either. Like pen registers, the government does not need a warrant for this type of monitoring.
Telcos need immunity to prevent frivolous strike suits by people like you that think "these guys were doing something illegal."
Data mining *your own data* isn't spying. The phone companies data mining the phone records of their own customers isn't spying. The federal government data mining the phone records of tens of millions of US citizens is spying
No. The government can look at pen register information, which is nothing more than data mining call connection information, all it wants and no warrant is required, for example. It isn't spying. So sayeth the Supreme Court. Analyzing national calling patterns is as much spying as the U.S. Census. That is, it isn't.
However, the article does support the allegations made in the summary
It only supports the allegations if you make unwarranted assumptions. There's nothing in the article that supports the allegations but the CEO's own allegations.
it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue
Really? Qwest's accountants are considering non-existent contracts as future earnings for financial statements? The SEC will be happy to know that, why don't you suggest that over there?
(2) Replacing Merry with Eowyn at Theoden's death scene
Which is one of my greatest disappointments with the film. Eowyn's duel with the Witch King is one of the best moments in the Return of the King, and Jackson botched it royally. It had no gravity whatsoever, and the death of the Lord of the Nazgul was sort of a "so what?" moment instead of a major turn in the book. Eowyn's tragic heroism is cheapened into a "ooh, another Mortal Kombat moment!"
You still missed the point. The point is that it doesn't matter how many are listening to a single radio because the broadcaster pays the royalty, full stop.
I'll ignore medicine, but with respect to the topic of debate regarding grad school and non-us students, I would bet that approximately 0% of the law school graduate students are foreign. In fact, I would bet that approximately 0% are non-judeo/christian white people
You'd lose that bet.
And yes, IAAL (I am a lawyer)
See: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawdiv_brief.php
Also, US law schools include a significant percentage of foreign students attending for US LLM degrees.
Don't think American's use collective nouns?
We sure do care about proper usage of the apostrophe, though. Dude, the possessive form is not called for there. It should be "Americans", as in plural American.
Just saying..
For one thing, Americans generally don't want to work that hard. They just want the money, like you say the doctors or lawyers
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, that's it. People that don't want to work that hard go into the two hardest grad programs for the two professions that put in the longest hours. I'm sure you hit it right on the head there, friend.
This actually is true. Advanced societies that are governed by the rule of law and that require complex rules will naturally require more lawyers. Most people think of Law and Order when someone says "lawyer", but that ignores the far larger practice area of corporate and commercial law that governs extremely complex commercial behavior that makes a modern capitalism economy hum. Nobody thinks about the Uniform Commercial Code as a vital piece of maintaining civilization, but it is.
Besides that, medicine and law are recession proof. Hell, they are nuclear-war proof.
Really this is just silly. If 9.8% of US families is considered "the majority", then you'd be right. But you're wrong. Besides that fact, US GDP per capita is several times that of India or China, so by your logic there should be no Indian or Chinese grad students because not only are a majority of Indians and Chinese truly poor, they are much poorer than the average American.
Most Americans don't go to grad school because there is little economic incentive to do so. The US economy only supports so many technocrats. The presence of so many Indian and Chinese students in US science and technical grad programs is a natural function of those nations' evolving manufacturing and services sectors. They simply need to train more technocrats because their sectors are growing compared to those sectors in the US, which are economically mature.
As to India or China "surpassing" the US, what does that mean? Surpassing the US in what? Manufacturing? Good! That's economic specialization that creates efficiencies for everyone. Not only is talk of "surpassing" mere economic scare-mongering (did we learn nothing from such silliness when the Japanese were supposed to "surpass us" in the 1980s? Where are the Japanese today? Economic stagnation), it makes erroneous straight-line projections that ignore very important long term considerations of demographics and other factors. The US economy will be a large and important factor in the global economy for the foreseeable future. But the global economy continues to grow and evolve and the US economy continues to change from its post-WWII dominance (unsurprising since it was the only intact industrial economy on the planet) to an important player in a dynamic specialized global economy.
Non-obviousness is a legal requirement for a patent. The Examiner is required to make his determination based on a reasoned finding of fact and conclusions of law. If the Examiner failed to make his reasoning clear that the legal requirement of non-obviousness has not been met, then his determination is legally deficient. This doesn't mean that the Board doesn't see the obviousness; it means at the minimum that the Examiner did not adequately do his job in defending his determination in writing as required.
If you are resisting arrest - it is violent force. Moving your arm to avoid being grabbed is violent force. The police do not have to be in danger of harm to use a tazer or any other force to subdue a suspect. A tazer is used to subdue a resisting perp. Period. The guy was forcefully resisting arrest and the officers were privileged to use force - in this case a contact shock from a tazer - to stop him from resisting. Period. So stop defending this clown who was clearly looking to cause a scene. You're exactly the kind of useful idiot that he was looking to manipulate with this stunt.