Because people way smarter than privileged pricks like you have a LOT to contribute to society if only given a chance.
I worked full time to pay for my college education; I did not receive a cent of aid or funding or loans outside the standard in-state tuition that is available to all. I am not certain of what "privilege" that you are acrimoniously referring to. I was afforded the privilege of working to pay my own way and earning my current level of success without the assistance of the federal government. I invested in myself and the return on my investment has been significant. I am glad that your education has enabled you to become such an example of astute and open minded dialog as your reply to my post clearly illustrates.
I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.
Please remember that those tax dollars were taken by force from people who worked very hard to earn them. Government can not create wealth, the only thing government can do is distribute the wealth of others. It would be better that the money was not taken from the original earner in the first place.
I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?
Mostly because he would probably end our ongoing attempts at maintaining an overseas empire. His history of opposition to offensive warfare is pretty welldocumented. As are his positions on military spending.
Their money is exactly that, theirs. The government in the USA has enumerated powers and it has the right to levy taxes and duties to finance those ends. The scope of government has far exceeded its constitutional mandate by engaging in undeclared wars, a welfare state and a global empire. So to pay for its abuses of authority, the government has propagandized that "we" have a right to the possessions e.g. wealth of others, that somehow they owe more than the rest. Remember, governments do not produce anything. Everything the government does, it does with money taken by force from another. Robbing the wealthy simply reduces the efficiency of the economy by putting government in control of the private capital market and encouraging further violations of its constitutional mandate.
That very old document happens to be the source of all of the authority of our government, at least nominally. Without the constitution, the government has no power, the fundamental basis of our system is that rights are given to the people by their creator, the people lend some of their rights to the government for certain enumerated tasks, all other powers are reserved to the people and the various states. The funding of a great number of things (including undeclared wars) is _not_ in the list of enumerated powers.
You are right, excepting of course the fact that in the section you cited, it clearly states the copies or phonorecords of the work havenotbeen commercially distributed has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public
Okay, so before we play internet lawyers, let's at least have a factual basis to our comments.
Mind you, working in a movie theater, copying the film to your laptop and then putting it on the pirate bay falls under this section. However, by virtue of the content being protected by HDCP, it pretty much invalidates the use of this particular section of law due to the content having already been sold.
My original query was more in relation to what degree of control authority that they could exert based on differential pressure. If one side was turned off completely and the other completely on, what moment would be generated?
Also, I'm guessing they use the on-board supply of hydrazine for delta-v only then?
Storage is so cheap anymore that it is quite reasonable that any agency (or entity for that matter) that had the desire to monitor the complete transaction history of any particular individual on the internet could do so easily and very cheaply assuming they had the proper access. Mind you, ISPs and phone companies could already be doing such things, I don't think that there is a particular law against doing so. If that is the case, then true privacy is, since telephones have been around forever, and has been an illusion for many decades. The only real question that remains is what are the permissible use cases for the data that is collected.
The DMCA is another example of the widening disconnect between the citizenry and the special interest dollars that drive our politics, particularly with respect to matters of IP. I assert that, had the law been brought to a vote by the average citizen in terms of its implications, it would never have become law.
The author is arguing that the DMCA legislates to private citizens the disallowed behaviors that they have with technology devices that they have purchased themselves which may be necessary to simply use the device. The author disagrees with the premise that there should be laws that dictate to private citizens what they can do with their own technology. The final line in the article sums that point up pretty well:
"The exemptions are fine; they hardly matter. It's the fact that we need them at all that's the problem."
Slashdot Mirror
Because people way smarter than privileged pricks like you have a LOT to contribute to society if only given a chance.
I worked full time to pay for my college education; I did not receive a cent of aid or funding or loans outside the standard in-state tuition that is available to all. I am not certain of what "privilege" that you are acrimoniously referring to. I was afforded the privilege of working to pay my own way and earning my current level of success without the assistance of the federal government. I invested in myself and the return on my investment has been significant. I am glad that your education has enabled you to become such an example of astute and open minded dialog as your reply to my post clearly illustrates.
I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.
Please remember that those tax dollars were taken by force from people who worked very hard to earn them. Government can not create wealth, the only thing government can do is distribute the wealth of others. It would be better that the money was not taken from the original earner in the first place.
I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?
Mostly because he would probably end our ongoing attempts at maintaining an overseas empire. His history of opposition to offensive warfare is pretty well documented. As are his positions on military spending.
Find an old copy of norton disk doctor and use it to do bad sector recovery on those disks. I remember it working pretty well back in the day.
Their money is exactly that, theirs. The government in the USA has enumerated powers and it has the right to levy taxes and duties to finance those ends. The scope of government has far exceeded its constitutional mandate by engaging in undeclared wars, a welfare state and a global empire. So to pay for its abuses of authority, the government has propagandized that "we" have a right to the possessions e.g. wealth of others, that somehow they owe more than the rest. Remember, governments do not produce anything. Everything the government does, it does with money taken by force from another. Robbing the wealthy simply reduces the efficiency of the economy by putting government in control of the private capital market and encouraging further violations of its constitutional mandate.
This is going to make it that much harder to get a bag of crap off of woot.
That very old document happens to be the source of all of the authority of our government, at least nominally. Without the constitution, the government has no power, the fundamental basis of our system is that rights are given to the people by their creator, the people lend some of their rights to the government for certain enumerated tasks, all other powers are reserved to the people and the various states. The funding of a great number of things (including undeclared wars) is _not_ in the list of enumerated powers.
A social media post without replies? Irony.
You are right, excepting of course the fact that in the section you cited, it clearly states
the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed
has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public
Okay, so before we play internet lawyers, let's at least have a factual basis to our comments.
Mind you, working in a movie theater, copying the film to your laptop and then putting it on the pirate bay falls under this section. However, by virtue of the content being protected by HDCP, it pretty much invalidates the use of this particular section of law due to the content having already been sold.
I was always leery of trusting the glowing reviews of nature's come back in that area. It seems I was right.
It never ceases to amaze me how smart people seem to achieve greatness in spite of the many failings of our education system.
My original query was more in relation to what degree of control authority that they could exert based on differential pressure. If one side was turned off completely and the other completely on, what moment would be generated?
Also, I'm guessing they use the on-board supply of hydrazine for delta-v only then?
Well played good sir.
I wonder what amount of torque they were able to develop with this? It seems like it was pretty effective.
Storage is so cheap anymore that it is quite reasonable that any agency (or entity for that matter) that had the desire to monitor the complete transaction history of any particular individual on the internet could do so easily and very cheaply assuming they had the proper access. Mind you, ISPs and phone companies could already be doing such things, I don't think that there is a particular law against doing so. If that is the case, then true privacy is, since telephones have been around forever, and has been an illusion for many decades. The only real question that remains is what are the permissible use cases for the data that is collected.
People don't care about Africa but don't get between them and their Heroes season 1 dvd set.
The DMCA is another example of the widening disconnect between the citizenry and the special interest dollars that drive our politics, particularly with respect to matters of IP. I assert that, had the law been brought to a vote by the average citizen in terms of its implications, it would never have become law.
The author is arguing that the DMCA legislates to private citizens the disallowed behaviors that they have with technology devices that they have purchased themselves which may be necessary to simply use the device. The author disagrees with the premise that there should be laws that dictate to private citizens what they can do with their own technology. The final line in the article sums that point up pretty well:
"The exemptions are fine; they hardly matter. It's the fact that we need them at all that's the problem."
The first thing government tends to do after creating regulations is to grant itself exemptions from the same.
Noone on here has anything to worry about!! It is an STD.
You downloaded the full text of those articles?
The archive is not free.. you have to login and then you have to be a sigops member or have digital library access.