It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable:
Caveats
* Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
* Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work. Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work. Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government.
* The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments. Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.
* Copyright laws differ internationally. While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions. Outside of the United States, the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works.
While in the micro, you are correct, in that much of the Constitution's power has been bogged down in bureaucracy and interpretation; and many of our representatives are by their deeds and actions clearly looking out for their own and their friends best interests...In the macro, we are still bound by the constitution and we still have the power to throw the corrupt politicians out. We still have by far the best system of government in the world. It just needs it's populace to become better informed and more active in their own government. It is every citizens job to help enlighten and motivate their peers to participate in this government. Saying it's all broken or they're all the same or even we need a revolution is unrealistic and gets us nowhere.
First off, I apologize for leaving out 'People's'. It was a glaring omission. Thank you for fixing that for me.
I guess my point is the fact that a republic merely signifies a representative government, when what makes our government relatively unique is that our representatives are not appointed nor inherited, but chosen by the people. This helps mitigate problems associated with both types of government, as well as differentiating our government from Monarchies and Dictatorships.
I still believe that calling our government a republic is inaccurate and potentially dishonest by omission... the omission of Democratic in mention of our Democratic Republic is almost as glaring of an omission as omitting People's from Republic of China.
That's why the US is a republic and not a democracy. Always has been and always will be.
I always laugh when I see and hear people spout this misnomer... Go Republics! Republics are so awesome... lets take a look at some other Republics...especially those which lost touch with their populace: Republic of Rome - Crashed and burned United Soviet Socialist Republic - Crashed... whether it burns or not still may be yet to be seen Republic of China - Owns much of the US's debt. Human Rights record is abominable.
We are not a Republic. We are a Democratic Republic. This is a very important distinction. Our representatives are not appointed and they are not royalty; they are elected.
And as long as we're singin':
You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out
...Alll these threats against our freedoms, are largely unfounded...
Yeah, corporations would never favor their traffic over independent web sites, or gaming, or bittorrent, or any other non-corporate usage of the internet. (/heavy sarcasm)
WTF are you smoking???
A personal attack. Unsurprising.
libertarians believe in the power of the individual
That's what they profess to believe, yes. And there are some that seem to truly believe that, such as Ron Paul. However, most the so-called 'libertarians' I've run into have been closet Republicans.
giving corporations the right to speak freely is wrong?? lol
Without a doubt. If you want to be free from liability, then you should give up certain rights. No person or entity should have full rights with no liability. That's how we've gotten into our current culture of corruption. Corporations have no conscience and no personal responsibility or liability. If they make a 'mistake' that hurts people or our society and yet makes them money, you can bet they will make that 'mistake' over and over again as long as it is making them money.
I don't know about you, but I live in NYC, have a choice of at least three different providers (two cable, one DSL, maybe more since I last checked). The policies imposed are nearly identical between the three, and, as in the case of Comcast, I have no doubt that the stated policy and the de facto policy differ. Exactly which one am I supposed to "flock" to?
blueg3 said:
You're supposed to flock to the theoretical Libertarian ideal that provides exactly what you want at a reasonable price. Barring that, stick with something you don't like and complain on the Internet that government regulation must be responsible for the situation.
Or you could write letter to the president and your representatives telling them that net neutrality means that all traffic is dealt with neutrally, and that they would be violating our rights by assuming all bit-torrent traffic is illegal. And you could write to editors at various publications in hopes of raising awareness. And you could contribute to the EFF. And you could even run for office or support those candidates who support your point of view. And you could start a grass-roots organization.
I can't guarantee that all or even any of these things will in and of themselves change things, but despite what closet Republicans (who call themselves Libertarians) would have you believe, you are not helpless. Our founding fathers created the best government in the world, and despite the Right's best efforts to destroy it by doing things such as ruling that corporations have the right to free speech, you can still make it work for you, but you have to put in some kind of effort.
No prob, I can relate completely. Among other things I'm on the 8th day of a hospital stay after surgery, and still switching between massive pain and narcotic high with slightly dulled pain...which may have affected the tone of my post as well.
Since you're talking Fox News, let's talk about "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", if you prefer. Let's talk about a nation that has become addicted to technology, but mistrusting of science. This has progressed almost to the point of seeking out and killing basic science wherever it may be found, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of fiscal waste.
Sorry, I thought that's exactly what I WAS talking about, among other things.;-)
Yeah, and guards NEVER look the other way or fail to notice it happening, and these guards NEVER rationalize their malfeasance to themselves or others by saying, in effect, 'well, they're here to be punished...'
Agreed, maybe they would better serve us all if they spent our time, money, and energy solving real problems of gangs and rape rather than deciding a non-issue such as whether D&D 'mimics gang structure'.
You've obviously drank the kool-aide. Did you get all that directly from Rambus.org? Sure looks like it. First off, their record in court has been mixed at best, and while there have been multiple settlements, a settlement is not the same thing as a win, and the settlements would not likely have occurred if not for the illegal willful destruction of evidence. Second, if they are so undeniably the innocent victim, why did they destroy evidence? It was a travesty of justice that just the Micron lawsuit was dismissed in light of the willful destruction of evidence by Rambus, as that evidence was just as relevant to the other cases.
Without a doubt, they participated in bad faith in JDEC, they willfully and illegally destroyed evidence contrary to their rewriting of history, and they tried to shove RDRAM down our throats at exorbitant prices. The 600 Mhz RDRAM was complete crap, and the 800 Mhz was not all that much better. There is no doubt in my mind that we have been much better off with DDR from both a performance and price perspective, despite alleged price fixing.
Some of us have been following this case from the beginning, and don't merely swallow the latest crap being spewed.
When I looked at this from that perspective, it makes quite a lot of sense. Prison isn't supposed to be fun, folks.
"Hey! I never have to work again, my room and board are provided for me and I get to play D&D all fucking day!" This is most old-school gamers wet dream. The only thing missing is Mom cleaning up the basement for you once a month.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is ridiculous.
So...having 99% of you civil rights taken from you is not punishment enough? So...becoming institutionalized to the point that many cannot function in society for any amount of time is not punishment enough? So...not being able to see you friends and family except for in extremely controlled circumstances is not punishment enough? So...becoming stigmatized by society to the point that it is extremely difficult to get a decent job, get a decent apartment, or to some extent have any interaction with the public without being pre-judged is not punishment enough? So...getting beaten and or raped on a regular basis is not punishment enough? So...eating prison food isn't punishment enough? So...being forced to spend large amounts of time surrounded by sociopaths isn't punishment enough? I could go on and on...
No way! We don't need no Gummint largess on edumucation or that fancy research! Our free market is going to provide everything for us, especially as long as those socialists (who never succeed at anything) keep funding our debt like they have for the last decade. I'm just going to bury my head back into the sand and turn Fox news back on, so I don't have to think about this reality.
Most of Rambus' SDRAM and DDR patents were lifted from the early SDRAM discussions at JEDEC without disclosure as required by JEDEC. They then made a monopolistic deal with Intel to try to shove their overpriced flaky RAM down consumer's throats. Meanwhile, they tried to sue Micron, Infineon, and Hyundai for royalties, in some cases on their own IP. By the time RAMBUS and Intel actually got RDRAM to perform decently, DDR was coming out with inherently cheaper prices, helped by the fact that the manufacturers actually designed their memory for manufacturing. Any supposed 'collusion' only slightly hastened the inevitable.
An unreasonable assertion with a lack of any pertinent information. Seems to me the Wyoming Republican expects you all to fall for his straw-man argument.
From ripping off countless artists, to collusion on CD prices, to attempting to shove mass-market crap down the public's throat; the music industry deserves whatever it gets. I consider this a much needed correction. Maybe someday they'll start signing real musicians and create a fair usage distribution model acceptable to consumers and artists alike (without skimming the vast majority of the proceeds). To me, this would either be lossless compression digital files at 50-99 cents per song with no DRM (with artists getting at least half), or a lifelong guaranteed license with DRM that allows fair usage (for approximately the same price).
On a slightly off-topic note, has anyone else watched "It might get loud"? "The Edge" is a complete joke next to Jack and Jimmy. Not that I ever thought much of U2 to begin with, but it was pathetic. I cant believe he let them publish it.
That argument was neither stated nor unstated in my post. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statement. I mention the Founding Fathers out of respect and to give credit where it is due. I believe you are engaging in inconsistency ad hominem by the argument that because the value statement was not followed to the letter immediately, (I am assuming you are referring to slavery) then the writers or the statement itself is flawed. I believe I was clear in asserting that that statement was a summary of America's values, which was strong enough to wage a war for, and to build a government upon. America did not lose these values when they won the war, and it is upon these values that the US Constitution and thus all of our laws are based. The true fallacy at hand is that all moral judgments are subjective and equal. This is a fallacy that seems to actually be propped up by those who profess to be engaging in, supporting, or teaching 'critical thinking'; but it begs the question.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence.
Upon that very clear value statement America's founding fathers overthrew Colonial rule and founded what is still in-arguably, despite recent lapses, THE model for Democracy. They did not assert political or religious authority, as clearly evidenced by the very carefully chosen words 'their Creator.' The words 'We hold these truths to be self evident' are a clear indication that there are principles that transcend even a law that is 'democratically' implemented. In other words, tyranny that is implemented Democratically is still tyranny.
Nature vs nurture is an extremely old argument, not likely to be resolved either simply or easily. While I understand the reasoning behind your statements, I believe they falsely assume that your feelings of lust, etc. are exactly the same for you as they they would be for someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors, and that your reactions to these feelings are exactly the same as someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors. I believe these are unsupported assumptions and as such contain the fallacy of false cause.
You're not applying the proper spin. They are trying to spin it so the pirates look like the problem, when in reality they are holding everyone's security hostage in hopes of scaring a few users into buying a legit copy of Windows.
Well said. One of the things that troubled me about the article is that it didn't state whether the participants were assigned a room or chose the room. Kind of along the lines of your post, could it be that ethical people choose to be in cleaner environments?
Anyone ever stop to consider that there might be many more people with chronic pain than anyone realized? Or that many of those people don't go to the doctor for their pain because they know they're going to get an opiate, which does more harm than good? Since pot was decriminalized and made legal for medical purposes in my area, there has been ONE case of someone doing stupid things (and he likely had other issues). On the other hand, EVERY DAY you can look at the police notes in the paper and see idiots doing stupid things while under the influence of alcohol. History has proven that prohibition of widely popular substances does not work. As long as they are not giving cards to juveniles without good reason, (most of whom have not lived long enough to experience the type or amount of injuries that can create a state of chronic pain, which largely limits MM to those that are undergoing chemo or have some other chronic or fatal condition) who cares?
This was simply compare and contrast. After Bush's supreme idiocy, Obama coming out and endorsing intelligence, diplomacy, and common sense looked genius.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable:
Caveats
* Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
* Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work. Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work. Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government.
* The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments. Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.
* Copyright laws differ internationally. While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions. Outside of the United States, the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works.
(from: http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml)
I wonder if any of those caveats apply here.
While in the micro, you are correct, in that much of the Constitution's power has been bogged down in bureaucracy and interpretation; and many of our representatives are by their deeds and actions clearly looking out for their own and their friends best interests...In the macro, we are still bound by the constitution and we still have the power to throw the corrupt politicians out. We still have by far the best system of government in the world. It just needs it's populace to become better informed and more active in their own government. It is every citizens job to help enlighten and motivate their peers to participate in this government. Saying it's all broken or they're all the same or even we need a revolution is unrealistic and gets us nowhere.
First off, I apologize for leaving out 'People's'. It was a glaring omission. Thank you for fixing that for me.
I guess my point is the fact that a republic merely signifies a representative government, when what makes our government relatively unique is that our representatives are not appointed nor inherited, but chosen by the people. This helps mitigate problems associated with both types of government, as well as differentiating our government from Monarchies and Dictatorships.
I still believe that calling our government a republic is inaccurate and potentially dishonest by omission... the omission of Democratic in mention of our Democratic Republic is almost as glaring of an omission as omitting People's from Republic of China.
That's why the US is a republic and not a democracy. Always has been and always will be.
I always laugh when I see and hear people spout this misnomer... Go Republics! Republics are so awesome... lets take a look at some other Republics...especially those which lost touch with their populace:
Republic of Rome - Crashed and burned
United Soviet Socialist Republic - Crashed... whether it burns or not still may be yet to be seen
Republic of China - Owns much of the US's debt. Human Rights record is abominable.
We are not a Republic. We are a Democratic Republic. This is a very important distinction. Our representatives are not appointed and they are not royalty; they are elected.
And as long as we're singin':
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Yeah, corporations would never favor their traffic over independent web sites, or gaming, or bittorrent, or any other non-corporate usage of the internet. (/heavy sarcasm)
WTF are you smoking???
A personal attack. Unsurprising.
libertarians believe in the power of the individual
That's what they profess to believe, yes. And there are some that seem to truly believe that, such as Ron Paul. However, most the so-called 'libertarians' I've run into have been closet Republicans.
giving corporations the right to speak freely is wrong?? lol
Without a doubt. If you want to be free from liability, then you should give up certain rights. No person or entity should have full rights with no liability. That's how we've gotten into our current culture of corruption. Corporations have no conscience and no personal responsibility or liability. If they make a 'mistake' that hurts people or our society and yet makes them money, you can bet they will make that 'mistake' over and over again as long as it is making them money.
Well maybe we should consider the possibility that punishment is not the answer.
ShadowRangerRIT said:
I don't know about you, but I live in NYC, have a choice of at least three different providers (two cable, one DSL, maybe more since I last checked). The policies imposed are nearly identical between the three, and, as in the case of Comcast, I have no doubt that the stated policy and the de facto policy differ. Exactly which one am I supposed to "flock" to?
blueg3 said:
You're supposed to flock to the theoretical Libertarian ideal that provides exactly what you want at a reasonable price. Barring that, stick with something you don't like and complain on the Internet that government regulation must be responsible for the situation.
Or you could write letter to the president and your representatives telling them that net neutrality means that all traffic is dealt with neutrally, and that they would be violating our rights by assuming all bit-torrent traffic is illegal. And you could write to editors at various publications in hopes of raising awareness. And you could contribute to the EFF. And you could even run for office or support those candidates who support your point of view. And you could start a grass-roots organization.
I can't guarantee that all or even any of these things will in and of themselves change things, but despite what closet Republicans (who call themselves Libertarians) would have you believe, you are not helpless. Our founding fathers created the best government in the world, and despite the Right's best efforts to destroy it by doing things such as ruling that corporations have the right to free speech, you can still make it work for you, but you have to put in some kind of effort.
You got me there, heh.
No prob, I can relate completely. Among other things I'm on the 8th day of a hospital stay after surgery, and still switching between massive pain and narcotic high with slightly dulled pain...which may have affected the tone of my post as well.
Since you're talking Fox News, let's talk about "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", if you prefer. Let's talk about a nation that has become addicted to technology, but mistrusting of science. This has progressed almost to the point of seeking out and killing basic science wherever it may be found, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of fiscal waste.
Sorry, I thought that's exactly what I WAS talking about, among other things. ;-)
Yeah, and guards NEVER look the other way or fail to notice it happening, and these guards NEVER rationalize their malfeasance to themselves or others by saying, in effect, 'well, they're here to be punished...'
Agreed, maybe they would better serve us all if they spent our time, money, and energy solving real problems of gangs and rape rather than deciding a non-issue such as whether D&D 'mimics gang structure'.
You've obviously drank the kool-aide. Did you get all that directly from Rambus.org? Sure looks like it. First off, their record in court has been mixed at best, and while there have been multiple settlements, a settlement is not the same thing as a win, and the settlements would not likely have occurred if not for the illegal willful destruction of evidence. Second, if they are so undeniably the innocent victim, why did they destroy evidence? It was a travesty of justice that just the Micron lawsuit was dismissed in light of the willful destruction of evidence by Rambus, as that evidence was just as relevant to the other cases.
Without a doubt, they participated in bad faith in JDEC, they willfully and illegally destroyed evidence contrary to their rewriting of history, and they tried to shove RDRAM down our throats at exorbitant prices. The 600 Mhz RDRAM was complete crap, and the 800 Mhz was not all that much better. There is no doubt in my mind that we have been much better off with DDR from both a performance and price perspective, despite alleged price fixing.
Some of us have been following this case from the beginning, and don't merely swallow the latest crap being spewed.
When I looked at this from that perspective, it makes quite a lot of sense. Prison isn't supposed to be fun, folks.
"Hey! I never have to work again, my room and board are provided for me and I get to play D&D all fucking day!" This is most old-school gamers wet dream. The only thing missing is Mom cleaning up the basement for you once a month.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is ridiculous.
So...having 99% of you civil rights taken from you is not punishment enough?
So...becoming institutionalized to the point that many cannot function in society for any amount of time is not punishment enough?
So...not being able to see you friends and family except for in extremely controlled circumstances is not punishment enough?
So...becoming stigmatized by society to the point that it is extremely difficult to get a decent job, get a decent apartment, or to some extent have any interaction with the public without being pre-judged is not punishment enough?
So...getting beaten and or raped on a regular basis is not punishment enough?
So...eating prison food isn't punishment enough?
So...being forced to spend large amounts of time surrounded by sociopaths isn't punishment enough?
I could go on and on...
No way! We don't need no Gummint largess on edumucation or that fancy research! Our free market is going to provide everything for us, especially as long as those socialists (who never succeed at anything) keep funding our debt like they have for the last decade. I'm just going to bury my head back into the sand and turn Fox news back on, so I don't have to think about this reality.
Most of Rambus' SDRAM and DDR patents were lifted from the early SDRAM discussions at JEDEC without disclosure as required by JEDEC. They then made a monopolistic deal with Intel to try to shove their overpriced flaky RAM down consumer's throats. Meanwhile, they tried to sue Micron, Infineon, and Hyundai for royalties, in some cases on their own IP. By the time RAMBUS and Intel actually got RDRAM to perform decently, DDR was coming out with inherently cheaper prices, helped by the fact that the manufacturers actually designed their memory for manufacturing. Any supposed 'collusion' only slightly hastened the inevitable.
An unreasonable assertion with a lack of any pertinent information. Seems to me the Wyoming Republican expects you all to fall for his straw-man argument.
From ripping off countless artists, to collusion on CD prices, to attempting to shove mass-market crap down the public's throat; the music industry deserves whatever it gets. I consider this a much needed correction. Maybe someday they'll start signing real musicians and create a fair usage distribution model acceptable to consumers and artists alike (without skimming the vast majority of the proceeds). To me, this would either be lossless compression digital files at 50-99 cents per song with no DRM (with artists getting at least half), or a lifelong guaranteed license with DRM that allows fair usage (for approximately the same price).
On a slightly off-topic note, has anyone else watched "It might get loud"? "The Edge" is a complete joke next to Jack and Jimmy. Not that I ever thought much of U2 to begin with, but it was pathetic. I cant believe he let them publish it.
That argument was neither stated nor unstated in my post. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statement. I mention the Founding Fathers out of respect and to give credit where it is due. I believe you are engaging in inconsistency ad hominem by the argument that because the value statement was not followed to the letter immediately, (I am assuming you are referring to slavery) then the writers or the statement itself is flawed. I believe I was clear in asserting that that statement was a summary of America's values, which was strong enough to wage a war for, and to build a government upon. America did not lose these values when they won the war, and it is upon these values that the US Constitution and thus all of our laws are based. The true fallacy at hand is that all moral judgments are subjective and equal. This is a fallacy that seems to actually be propped up by those who profess to be engaging in, supporting, or teaching 'critical thinking'; but it begs the question.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence.
Upon that very clear value statement America's founding fathers overthrew Colonial rule and founded what is still in-arguably, despite recent lapses, THE model for Democracy. They did not assert political or religious authority, as clearly evidenced by the very carefully chosen words 'their Creator.' The words 'We hold these truths to be self evident' are a clear indication that there are principles that transcend even a law that is 'democratically' implemented. In other words, tyranny that is implemented Democratically is still tyranny.
Nature vs nurture is an extremely old argument, not likely to be resolved either simply or easily. While I understand the reasoning behind your statements, I believe they falsely assume that your feelings of lust, etc. are exactly the same for you as they they would be for someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors, and that your reactions to these feelings are exactly the same as someone with a biological tendency towards such behaviors. I believe these are unsupported assumptions and as such contain the fallacy of false cause.
You're not applying the proper spin. They are trying to spin it so the pirates look like the problem, when in reality they are holding everyone's security hostage in hopes of scaring a few users into buying a legit copy of Windows.
Well said. One of the things that troubled me about the article is that it didn't state whether the participants were assigned a room or chose the room. Kind of along the lines of your post, could it be that ethical people choose to be in cleaner environments?
Anyone ever stop to consider that there might be many more people with chronic pain than anyone realized? Or that many of those people don't go to the doctor for their pain because they know they're going to get an opiate, which does more harm than good? Since pot was decriminalized and made legal for medical purposes in my area, there has been ONE case of someone doing stupid things (and he likely had other issues). On the other hand, EVERY DAY you can look at the police notes in the paper and see idiots doing stupid things while under the influence of alcohol. History has proven that prohibition of widely popular substances does not work. As long as they are not giving cards to juveniles without good reason, (most of whom have not lived long enough to experience the type or amount of injuries that can create a state of chronic pain, which largely limits MM to those that are undergoing chemo or have some other chronic or fatal condition) who cares?
This was simply compare and contrast. After Bush's supreme idiocy, Obama coming out and endorsing intelligence, diplomacy, and common sense looked genius.