Though I agree with you on this matter, SCOTUS does not -- and (*sigh) SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.
No offense, but you're both wrong and SCOTUS is right. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to create copyright laws, and the preliminary statement as to the purpose of copyright law does not create a Constitutional mandate that only "useful arts and sciences" be protected.
The Second Amendment has a similar preface; does that mean restricting gun ownership is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with a well-regulated militia?
As a Constitutional matter I would be a lot more worried about the government deciding what constitutes "useful" when it comes to science and art.
Physics, in contrast, makes it too tempting to memorize a half-dozen formulas per test. While there's certainly deeper material there, teaching math through science seems as if it would focus on the formulaic aspects of the topic, and so be lacking. Just my $0.02.
That was a complaint of an ex of mine, she taught calculus at a university, and said her least favorite students were the engineering majors because they resisted learning the math in any sort of abstract or theoretical way, and insisted everything be given to them in practical terms they could use. Obviously engineers aren't scientists, but the same problem would arise I think.
I should have said "lenders" instead of banks. My point is completely the same, of course.
This gives a good analysis of the sub-prime loan/CRA relationship.
Yes, there was plenty of greed involved. But that, by itself, would not have caused the current train wreck. It's not as if bankers and investors suddenly got greedy in the last 10 years. It's just that in the past, their GREED required sound loan underwriting. Then the feds decided they were being mean to poor people, hence the CRA.
So you're asserting that the CRA somehow weakened lending standards so the banks suddenly didn't need sound loan underwriting? Because that's the only way what you're saying has any consistent logic. And of course, that assertion would be wrong. I dare you to find anything in the CRA mandating lenders to lend to high-risk borrowers. Unfortunately these CRA arguments usually go nowhere, because I'm usually the only person in the argument that's actually read the CRA.
Do you understand yet? The free market HAD good lending practices precisely BECAUSE the bankers were greedy. The government decided to tell them to "loosen up." What the gov't demands, it generally gets.
Since when? The government may demand things, but unless they actually make a law mandating certain behavior businesses will ignore it if it's to their advantage.
And I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the CRA is. It didn't lower standards and it didn't say that banks were required to lend to high-risk borrowers--all it said was if they're doing business in a neighborhood, they must provide loans to people in that neighborhood. The thing is, loans made under the CRA were made more responsibly than the standard sub-prime loans, had lower rates than other sub-prime loans, and were less likely to be rolled into
I mean, look at it logically; independent mortgage companies aren't subject to the CRA. Why then were all these independent mortgage companies making subprime loans?
I will listen to that. CONVINCE me that your viewpoint is the correct viewpoint. I won't listen to "he's a weirdo" non-arguments.
I don't have to convince you of anything.
But let me ask a simple question; if it was the mean ol' government forcing these noble banks to make loans to people who wouldn't pay them back...
Why were so many of these bad loans made by banks that weren't being told to make them by the government? Why were so many of these loans made that had zero connection to either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Why won't any of you the-free-market-always-works types answer these questions?
Ron Paul is completely unreliable. He's hardcore libertarian so whenever he talks about these sorts of things there's an inherent dishonesty; he will never admit the free market failed, so he will always be scrambling to come up with an alternate, no matter how implausible. Besides which, he's shown himself to have a very faulty understanding of how the economy works, with a penchant for advocating fringe weirdness.
But that's the problem. How do you mitigate the risk of "No chance in hell of ever getting the money back"? Which is basically what the government wanted them to do in many cases.
The CRA never mandated giving loans to people who wouldn't be able to pay them back. I dare you to find me a provision in the CRA that mandates that.
Don't forget that it wasn't just the mortgage brokers, but the government requiring banks to loan to people who normally wouldn't qualify for a loan and couldn't afford to pay it back.
No, that's not what happened. The banks and mortgage companies were actively trolling for mortgages from anyone they could get, and they didn't care if the person couldn't pay the mortgage because those banks and mortgage companies weren't at risk: they were immediately pooling and selling the mortgages up the chain to someone else. That's why the companies that weren't subject to the CRA were making the same kinds of loans.
We all knew this; having a geek site say it doesn't mean much. Now, if the New York Times did an analysis and came up with the same information, and published it, that would actually be news.
To punish companies that *knowingly* target loans to people who can't pay them back. These companies deserve to have their loans defaulted for targeting $6 an hour workers with $300,000 loans which they could never, ever repay. These companies need to learn to say "no" and if they don't, then the victims deserve a way to escape that kind of predatory lending.
In a lot of cases these companies have been wiped off the face of the earth. A lot of the worst offenders were little fly-by-night mortgage companies that just wanted to get enough mortgages together to sell up the chain. They were heavily leveraged with almost no liquidity; when the banks up the chain stopped buying their mortgages they were caught with a lot of debt and almost no assets.
There was an interesting piece I read profiling these companies; one of the mortgage brokers was some kid straight out of college who had been making 25-50k a month, and predictably blowing it all as soon as it came in. He went from having a mansion and a huge NYC apartment to living with his dad. Was kind of funny.
Only no net neutrality can be reversed. If laws are passed allowing ISPs to set priority for different traffic and sources, that would suck but down the road it could be reversed. A 20 trillion dollar deficit is harder to reverse. A war with Iran is harder to reverse. A 10 year depression that permanently moves the US out of its spot as the most powerful nation in the world is harder to reverse.
Net neutrality deals with administrative rights. It really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.
I'd love to see the law changed so that H-1B visas are not awarded to candidates from countries that don't have a similar program that admits Americans.
That is when you blew it. All perjurers should be prosecuted. That Clinton and Kilpatrick were covering up extra-marital affairs is irrelevant.
Context is what determines whether it is perjury or not. As an above poster correctly noted, perjury isn't lying under oath, it's lying under oath about a material fact.
Isn't this only true if the tape is not introduced in reaction to testimony. IE once the plaintiff and defendant have both entered contradictory statements of the event, then a tape could be introduced to add some credentials to one side. But as standalone evidence (IE in place of testimony) then it is almost never admitted. So in the case of perjury in a civil suit it would makes sense? In his other example where the defendant didn't show, the Judge was absolutely correct to not even consider entering it in evidence.
Technically, yes, the tape could theoretically be introduced suddenly at if it is presented purely as rebuttal to something suddenly asserted by the defense. However in a real civil case all these assertions on both sides would have come out long before any testimony was to take place, since the issue is central to the case.
Surely somebody here is a lawyer and can explain how Haselton (and others of us who might be so inclined) ought to go about suing spammers?
He's apparently had success doing what he's doing in small claims court; all he seems to be complaining about is that he doesn't win on every point he brings up. That's how it works, and I'm sure once he realizes that he'll be much happier.
In Small Claims, the Rules of Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?
You're missing the point I think. Rules of Evidence introduce a level of formality that really would derail small claims court. In standard civil trials it's not uncommon for there to be a half-dozen hearings on evidentiary matters before trial. Plunking down what you claim to be a tape of the defendant would not be allowed; it would have to go on the pretrial exhibit list and both sides would have a copy. The defendant would be able to attack its validity in a pretrial hearing. The judge was in her rights to ignore it in this case.
I have read it. You are wrong. Nowhere does it allow the President to remain in office past his term. In fact, throughout the declaration it states quite plainly that it does not abrogate the Constitution or American law. Even if it did either of these things it would have no legal validity.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I agree with you on this matter, SCOTUS does not -- and (*sigh) SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.
No offense, but you're both wrong and SCOTUS is right. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to create copyright laws, and the preliminary statement as to the purpose of copyright law does not create a Constitutional mandate that only "useful arts and sciences" be protected.
The Second Amendment has a similar preface; does that mean restricting gun ownership is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with a well-regulated militia?
As a Constitutional matter I would be a lot more worried about the government deciding what constitutes "useful" when it comes to science and art.
Physics, in contrast, makes it too tempting to memorize a half-dozen formulas per test. While there's certainly deeper material there, teaching math through science seems as if it would focus on the formulaic aspects of the topic, and so be lacking. Just my $0.02.
That was a complaint of an ex of mine, she taught calculus at a university, and said her least favorite students were the engineering majors because they resisted learning the math in any sort of abstract or theoretical way, and insisted everything be given to them in practical terms they could use. Obviously engineers aren't scientists, but the same problem would arise I think.
Which banks were those, exactly?
I should have said "lenders" instead of banks. My point is completely the same, of course.
This gives a good analysis of the sub-prime loan/CRA relationship.
Yes, there was plenty of greed involved. But that, by itself, would not have caused the current train wreck. It's not as if bankers and investors suddenly got greedy in the last 10 years. It's just that in the past, their GREED required sound loan underwriting. Then the feds decided they were being mean to poor people, hence the CRA.
So you're asserting that the CRA somehow weakened lending standards so the banks suddenly didn't need sound loan underwriting? Because that's the only way what you're saying has any consistent logic. And of course, that assertion would be wrong. I dare you to find anything in the CRA mandating lenders to lend to high-risk borrowers. Unfortunately these CRA arguments usually go nowhere, because I'm usually the only person in the argument that's actually read the CRA.
Do you understand yet? The free market HAD good lending practices precisely BECAUSE the bankers were greedy. The government decided to tell them to "loosen up." What the gov't demands, it generally gets.
Since when? The government may demand things, but unless they actually make a law mandating certain behavior businesses will ignore it if it's to their advantage.
And I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the CRA is. It didn't lower standards and it didn't say that banks were required to lend to high-risk borrowers--all it said was if they're doing business in a neighborhood, they must provide loans to people in that neighborhood. The thing is, loans made under the CRA were made more responsibly than the standard sub-prime loans, had lower rates than other sub-prime loans, and were less likely to be rolled into
I mean, look at it logically; independent mortgage companies aren't subject to the CRA. Why then were all these independent mortgage companies making subprime loans?
I will listen to that. CONVINCE me that your viewpoint is the correct viewpoint. I won't listen to "he's a weirdo" non-arguments.
I don't have to convince you of anything.
But let me ask a simple question; if it was the mean ol' government forcing these noble banks to make loans to people who wouldn't pay them back...
Why were so many of these bad loans made by banks that weren't being told to make them by the government? Why were so many of these loans made that had zero connection to either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Why won't any of you the-free-market-always-works types answer these questions?
Ron Paul is completely unreliable. He's hardcore libertarian so whenever he talks about these sorts of things there's an inherent dishonesty; he will never admit the free market failed, so he will always be scrambling to come up with an alternate, no matter how implausible. Besides which, he's shown himself to have a very faulty understanding of how the economy works, with a penchant for advocating fringe weirdness.
But that's the problem. How do you mitigate the risk of "No chance in hell of ever getting the money back"? Which is basically what the government wanted them to do in many cases.
The CRA never mandated giving loans to people who wouldn't be able to pay them back. I dare you to find me a provision in the CRA that mandates that.
Don't forget that it wasn't just the mortgage brokers, but the government requiring banks to loan to people who normally wouldn't qualify for a loan and couldn't afford to pay it back.
No, that's not what happened. The banks and mortgage companies were actively trolling for mortgages from anyone they could get, and they didn't care if the person couldn't pay the mortgage because those banks and mortgage companies weren't at risk: they were immediately pooling and selling the mortgages up the chain to someone else. That's why the companies that weren't subject to the CRA were making the same kinds of loans.
Wrong: the demand is vanishing. The astounding rise in consumer p2p reduces the demand for the physical CD, DVD, pay-for download, etc.
People don't demand the physical CD, DVD, etc., they demand the content. How that content is delivered is secondary.
Your analogy completely breaks down; buggy whip manufacturers went out business because demand vanished. Here, demand isn't vanishing.
We all knew this; having a geek site say it doesn't mean much. Now, if the New York Times did an analysis and came up with the same information, and published it, that would actually be news.
To punish companies that *knowingly* target loans to people who can't pay them back. These companies deserve to have their loans defaulted for targeting $6 an hour workers with $300,000 loans which they could never, ever repay. These companies need to learn to say "no" and if they don't, then the victims deserve a way to escape that kind of predatory lending.
In a lot of cases these companies have been wiped off the face of the earth. A lot of the worst offenders were little fly-by-night mortgage companies that just wanted to get enough mortgages together to sell up the chain. They were heavily leveraged with almost no liquidity; when the banks up the chain stopped buying their mortgages they were caught with a lot of debt and almost no assets.
There was an interesting piece I read profiling these companies; one of the mortgage brokers was some kid straight out of college who had been making 25-50k a month, and predictably blowing it all as soon as it came in. He went from having a mansion and a huge NYC apartment to living with his dad. Was kind of funny.
We so need this on Slashdot...
Only no net neutrality can be reversed. If laws are passed allowing ISPs to set priority for different traffic and sources, that would suck but down the road it could be reversed. A 20 trillion dollar deficit is harder to reverse. A war with Iran is harder to reverse. A 10 year depression that permanently moves the US out of its spot as the most powerful nation in the world is harder to reverse.
Net neutrality deals with administrative rights. It really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.
This is a minor issue, not a vital one. I'm glad they don't waste debate time talking about it.
Because you can totally remain popular for decades on hype alone while selling products nobody actually likes!
Decades? Apple's been popular maybe a decade. Before that they were struggling for 2 decades.
I'd love to see the law changed so that H-1B visas are not awarded to candidates from countries that don't have a similar program that admits Americans.
That is when you blew it. All perjurers should be prosecuted. That Clinton and Kilpatrick were covering up extra-marital affairs is irrelevant.
Context is what determines whether it is perjury or not. As an above poster correctly noted, perjury isn't lying under oath, it's lying under oath about a material fact.
Isn't this only true if the tape is not introduced in reaction to testimony. IE once the plaintiff and defendant have both entered contradictory statements of the event, then a tape could be introduced to add some credentials to one side. But as standalone evidence (IE in place of testimony) then it is almost never admitted. So in the case of perjury in a civil suit it would makes sense? In his other example where the defendant didn't show, the Judge was absolutely correct to not even consider entering it in evidence.
Technically, yes, the tape could theoretically be introduced suddenly at if it is presented purely as rebuttal to something suddenly asserted by the defense. However in a real civil case all these assertions on both sides would have come out long before any testimony was to take place, since the issue is central to the case.
Surely somebody here is a lawyer and can explain how Haselton (and others of us who might be so inclined) ought to go about suing spammers?
He's apparently had success doing what he's doing in small claims court; all he seems to be complaining about is that he doesn't win on every point he brings up. That's how it works, and I'm sure once he realizes that he'll be much happier.
In Small Claims, the Rules of Evidence are sometimes relaxed in the other direction -- evidence that would be excluded from a regular trial is sometimes allowed to be presented -- but what's the point of making Small Claims more restrictive, excluding evidence that is explicitly allowed under the rules?
You're missing the point I think. Rules of Evidence introduce a level of formality that really would derail small claims court. In standard civil trials it's not uncommon for there to be a half-dozen hearings on evidentiary matters before trial. Plunking down what you claim to be a tape of the defendant would not be allowed; it would have to go on the pretrial exhibit list and both sides would have a copy. The defendant would be able to attack its validity in a pretrial hearing. The judge was in her rights to ignore it in this case.
I have read it. You are wrong. Nowhere does it allow the President to remain in office past his term. In fact, throughout the declaration it states quite plainly that it does not abrogate the Constitution or American law. Even if it did either of these things it would have no legal validity.
There's actually a good explanation here.
Then once they've fully entered the atmosphere astronomers refer to them as "Cosmic World Destroyers." It's all very scientific.
As I predicted a week ago, it looks as if the third quarter was ugly for software vendors, due to the economic crisis.
Truly you are a modern day Nostradamus.
Oops, ignore the HTML typo, meant to do line break instead of bold...