I'll let you do the counting, but the majority of the felonies in the federal system are in Title 18.
Maybe if you consider all the different combinations of specifications and amounts, etc. as different offense you might get to 40,000, but otherwise, I have a feeling it's nowhere close to that.
The right thing to do is not for Google to disobey the law, but for Google not to do business in such places.
If you want to do business anywhere, you must obey the laws there. If you disagree with those laws, you do not do business there. Whether you're talking about another state among the several United States, or another country.
In the end, Google, as a public corporation, has only one duty, and that is to give its shareholders the greatest profits possible. That means being able to continue doing business in India, and that means following the laws of India.
If Google were to disobey Indian law, it would be putting shareholders at risk for its own purposes, and likely could be liable to those shareholders for losses incurred as a result. It's just like when a corporation gives to charity. If the corporation cannot prove that giving to charity will likely result in a net benefit to shareholders, it will be in trouble.
Corporations are not morality police. Governments are. Probably neither should be.
I find it interesting when looking at passwords because it tells you a lot about the person.
Most passwords tell you one or two things, not "a lot." They tell you whether the person has a clue about security or not. If they have a clue, their password will either be unintelligible to you or pure nonsense. If they don't have a clue, their password will be a word or phrase that is familiar to them and likely reveal very little to you other than their dog's name.
I find it amusing that the "changes" to the painting that people don't like they attribute to outside sources instead of the artist. Who is to say he isn't the one that made those changes while he was painting the work? I'm not really a fan of looking behind works of art to see how they were created and what ideas the artist didn't like or covered over. The artist only intended for us to see the final layer of paint, and he hid the others from view intentionally.
On the other hand, it does make artists more human, in that we can see they didn't paint it the way they wanted perfectly the first time.
If by "as the painting ages" you mean it gets covered in unnatural materials like soot and smoke and dirt and dust and oils and who knows what else, then I'd have to disagree with you. No painting will never look exactly as it did when the painter's brush last touched it, but that moment is the moment the artist decided the painting was finished. If he wanted his painting to look so dark and drab and dreary, he would have used darker tones. Walk around your local art museum and you'll either come away with the impression that everyone painted with real dark materials or you'll realize how terribly "age" has treated all of those paintings.
The thing is I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people being here for 200,000 years and not really doing anything.
If all of their basic needs were met, would they have need to do much more? I think one of the driving forces behind "advances" in civilization in technology are not an inert desire to have more and better things, but to better meet our needs. If they were able to fill their bellies with food and procreae at will, why would they need to be bothered with trying to invent anything?
Just an idea. For all we know there's a 170,000 year old Slashdot out there where someone already made these exact same comments, but all has be lost to time.
Not that I know anything about how the Australian Senate works, except that it probably involves drinking a lot of beer, it seems to me that there is much more to the job of a senator beyond sitting there and voting. Senators help draft bills, decide which bills should be drafted and what they should say, sit on committees and take testimony and figure out what should and shouldn't be done, etc. I'm in the U.S., and if I sent my senator to Washington, D.C. and all he did was vote and nothing else, he'd be coming back home pretty quickly.
I won't fault you for not actually reading anything, no one on Slashdot ever does, but he got the award for "raising global awareness" on the issue, not for actually finding or solving the problem.
Global warming has the real potential to greatly reduce the sustainable population level of the planet. The problems you treat as unrelated are very closely connected. Global warming can disrupt food and water supplies and turn once fertile land inhabitable.
Chance of a catastrophic meteor collision in the next 100 years: 1:1,000,000,000,000. Chance that global warming will have a real impact on the earth in the next 10 years: 1:1.
Maybe that's why Al Gore got the prize, and not the NASA scientists watching rocks spinning in space?
Well, if all the doom and gloom about global warming is correct, then in the very near future, the entire world may have to get together, set aside our differences, and work on the problem. Who cares about what your great-great-grandfather did to his great-great-grandfather when both of your villages are 20 feet underwater?
It's too bad the snopes article wasn't update when Al Gore spent a ton of money making his house greener and more energy efficient, including the addition of solar panels. For what it's worth, at the time the article came out, he was already participating in his power company's "green energy" plan, where you pay a little more for your electricity and the company then is able to get its energy from more planet-friendly sources.
Damn shame that he lost to the current asshat Bush by a vote of 4 to 5.
Environmentally speaking, the world may be better off with Gore having lost. Not because Bush did anything wonderful, but because of what Gore has been driven to do since then. If he had won the presidency, I'm afraid he never would have made it as far as he did. Back in 2000, many people felt Gore's commitment to environmentalism was merely the usual Democratic Party lip service, and it very well may have been. Today, he's actually working for a change beyond trying to win votes.
Of course, there was no absolute guarantee what would be in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution was signed, and the wording of it changed quite a bit and many proposals never saw the light of day.
If you're really interested, you should read the early Annals of Congress containing the debates on the Bill of Rights. There was some discussion about whether the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the document as it stood, tacked on at the end in a list, or added at the beginning. In the end, they went with tacking them on at the end of sorts, and in doing so, I believe, gave them an incredible prominence they might not have had if they were simply incorporated into the text of the Constitution.
And yes, I know the First Amendment does not give us any rights, but rather explicitly restricts the power of Congress. One problem with enumerating "rights" as such is that it tends to give the impression that the list is exclusive, a problem the founders were well aware of.
Anyway, enough of that. My point was that the right of copyright must have been important enough to the founders that they saw it fit to stick into the Constitution, while at the same time, leaving Congress considerable latitude in how to actually implement it. The fact that copyright was already in the Constitution at the time the First Amendment was enacted, means that you have to read the First Amendment as being somewhat limited by that copyright. It's not like the founders didn't know what the Constitution said when they were drafting the Bill of Rights.
The quality of a defense can also depend upon how deep the client's pockets are. If she wasn't willing to pay a few hundred an hour to put an expert on the stand, then there isn't much the lawyer could have done.
Kyllo v. U.S. is probably what you're looking for. The legal standard has fluctuated a bit in recent years, but right now the Court is sticking with "general public use," for determining whether a particular type of technology constitutes a search.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_.html
I'll let you do the counting, but the majority of the felonies in the federal system are in Title 18.
Maybe if you consider all the different combinations of specifications and amounts, etc. as different offense you might get to 40,000, but otherwise, I have a feeling it's nowhere close to that.
The right thing to do is not for Google to disobey the law, but for Google not to do business in such places.
If you want to do business anywhere, you must obey the laws there. If you disagree with those laws, you do not do business there. Whether you're talking about another state among the several United States, or another country.
In the end, Google, as a public corporation, has only one duty, and that is to give its shareholders the greatest profits possible. That means being able to continue doing business in India, and that means following the laws of India.
If Google were to disobey Indian law, it would be putting shareholders at risk for its own purposes, and likely could be liable to those shareholders for losses incurred as a result. It's just like when a corporation gives to charity. If the corporation cannot prove that giving to charity will likely result in a net benefit to shareholders, it will be in trouble.
Corporations are not morality police. Governments are. Probably neither should be.
Perhaps procastrinate is some strange portmanteau of procreate and castrate. It kind of fits the situation.
I find it interesting when looking at passwords because it tells you a lot about the person.
Most passwords tell you one or two things, not "a lot." They tell you whether the person has a clue about security or not. If they have a clue, their password will either be unintelligible to you or pure nonsense. If they don't have a clue, their password will be a word or phrase that is familiar to them and likely reveal very little to you other than their dog's name.
I find it amusing that the "changes" to the painting that people don't like they attribute to outside sources instead of the artist. Who is to say he isn't the one that made those changes while he was painting the work? I'm not really a fan of looking behind works of art to see how they were created and what ideas the artist didn't like or covered over. The artist only intended for us to see the final layer of paint, and he hid the others from view intentionally.
On the other hand, it does make artists more human, in that we can see they didn't paint it the way they wanted perfectly the first time.
If by "as the painting ages" you mean it gets covered in unnatural materials like soot and smoke and dirt and dust and oils and who knows what else, then I'd have to disagree with you. No painting will never look exactly as it did when the painter's brush last touched it, but that moment is the moment the artist decided the painting was finished. If he wanted his painting to look so dark and drab and dreary, he would have used darker tones. Walk around your local art museum and you'll either come away with the impression that everyone painted with real dark materials or you'll realize how terribly "age" has treated all of those paintings.
behind "advances" in civilization and technology are not an innate desire
Fixed it myself before someone else complains.
The thing is I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people being here for 200,000 years and not really doing anything.
If all of their basic needs were met, would they have need to do much more? I think one of the driving forces behind "advances" in civilization in technology are not an inert desire to have more and better things, but to better meet our needs. If they were able to fill their bellies with food and procreae at will, why would they need to be bothered with trying to invent anything?
Just an idea. For all we know there's a 170,000 year old Slashdot out there where someone already made these exact same comments, but all has be lost to time.
A good elected official will take a piece of legislation . . .
A good elected offical's staff will take a piece of legislation . . .
I fixed it for ya.
Not that I know anything about how the Australian Senate works, except that it probably involves drinking a lot of beer, it seems to me that there is much more to the job of a senator beyond sitting there and voting. Senators help draft bills, decide which bills should be drafted and what they should say, sit on committees and take testimony and figure out what should and shouldn't be done, etc. I'm in the U.S., and if I sent my senator to Washington, D.C. and all he did was vote and nothing else, he'd be coming back home pretty quickly.
I won't fault you for not actually reading anything, no one on Slashdot ever does, but he got the award for "raising global awareness" on the issue, not for actually finding or solving the problem.
Global warming has the real potential to greatly reduce the sustainable population level of the planet. The problems you treat as unrelated are very closely connected. Global warming can disrupt food and water supplies and turn once fertile land inhabitable.
Chance of a catastrophic meteor collision in the next 100 years: 1:1,000,000,000,000.
Chance that global warming will have a real impact on the earth in the next 10 years: 1:1.
Maybe that's why Al Gore got the prize, and not the NASA scientists watching rocks spinning in space?
He's working to solve the problem now, before it gets so bad that our only option will be to kill our neighbor to save ourselves.
Well, if all the doom and gloom about global warming is correct, then in the very near future, the entire world may have to get together, set aside our differences, and work on the problem. Who cares about what your great-great-grandfather did to his great-great-grandfather when both of your villages are 20 feet underwater?
It's too bad the snopes article wasn't update when Al Gore spent a ton of money making his house greener and more energy efficient, including the addition of solar panels. For what it's worth, at the time the article came out, he was already participating in his power company's "green energy" plan, where you pay a little more for your electricity and the company then is able to get its energy from more planet-friendly sources.
Damn shame that he lost to the current asshat Bush by a vote of 4 to 5.
Environmentally speaking, the world may be better off with Gore having lost. Not because Bush did anything wonderful, but because of what Gore has been driven to do since then. If he had won the presidency, I'm afraid he never would have made it as far as he did. Back in 2000, many people felt Gore's commitment to environmentalism was merely the usual Democratic Party lip service, and it very well may have been. Today, he's actually working for a change beyond trying to win votes.
That article wins the "Best Headline Pun of the Year" award.
There's some scat action in the current video already.
Of course, there was no absolute guarantee what would be in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution was signed, and the wording of it changed quite a bit and many proposals never saw the light of day.
If you're really interested, you should read the early Annals of Congress containing the debates on the Bill of Rights. There was some discussion about whether the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the document as it stood, tacked on at the end in a list, or added at the beginning. In the end, they went with tacking them on at the end of sorts, and in doing so, I believe, gave them an incredible prominence they might not have had if they were simply incorporated into the text of the Constitution.
And yes, I know the First Amendment does not give us any rights, but rather explicitly restricts the power of Congress. One problem with enumerating "rights" as such is that it tends to give the impression that the list is exclusive, a problem the founders were well aware of.
Anyway, enough of that. My point was that the right of copyright must have been important enough to the founders that they saw it fit to stick into the Constitution, while at the same time, leaving Congress considerable latitude in how to actually implement it. The fact that copyright was already in the Constitution at the time the First Amendment was enacted, means that you have to read the First Amendment as being somewhat limited by that copyright. It's not like the founders didn't know what the Constitution said when they were drafting the Bill of Rights.
Copyright was in the Constitution before the freedom of speech.
Good luck trying to argue to an appellate court, "the trial judge wouldn't let me use a witness to argue jury nullification."
The quality of a defense can also depend upon how deep the client's pockets are. If she wasn't willing to pay a few hundred an hour to put an expert on the stand, then there isn't much the lawyer could have done.
The peso and dollar were closer together 10 years ago, and slowly slipping apart again.
It's hovered around 1:10 / 1:11 for awhile now.
Kyllo v. U.S. is probably what you're looking for. The legal standard has fluctuated a bit in recent years, but right now the Court is sticking with "general public use," for determining whether a particular type of technology constitutes a search.