The unique identification of many (soon to me most or all) inkjets and color lasers was not done for you or me. It was done quietly for law enforcement to be able to *find* the owner of any printed document.
IMO, it would make more sense to put everything that is funded wholly or in the majority by tax dollars into the public domain, unless specifically exempted for national security or other bona fide public interest reasons.
The license that is granted to the U.S. doesn't mean it has the power to hand over the IP to anyone it wants for any purpose, and doesn't mean the IP is public domain.
The government can obtain licenses to IP, and can have IP given to it, in which case it has the same rights in it as anyone else would.
IP created by the government, cannot be protected, and that is something all together different.
They shouldn't be using encyclopedias in this way at all. They are a good place to start your research and point you in the right direction, but you probably shouldn't actually be using them as a source in your writing...
Starbucks coffee is already overpriced, so I imagine there is plenty of room in their profit margin to absorb paying the farmers a little bit more if they wanted to.
Somehow every other coffee place I've been to charges 50-75% less than Starbucks and tastes just as good if not better, and I doubt it's because those coffee places are stiffing their suppliers any more than Starbucks is.
Either 11,000 football fields Or 1/50th the size of Rhode Island
Which one seems bigger to you?
I think the real question is, which one will more Americans understand?
Plus, this came out of Ohio State. It should not be surprising that they use such a unit of measurement, because approximately 1/2 of the school's budget is dedicated to sports, as opposed to education.
It closely resembles a typical Mayan hammock. They can sleep families of 4 or 5 in one hammock even. Little kids don't usually sleep in them alone. It's not really a design flaw, it's just not supposed to be a child's toy. It's a BED!
Tell me, Senator, what do the words Congress shall make no law mean to you?
First of all, since right about the time the First Amendment was past, no one, save a very slim minority, has taken "no law" literally.
Second of all, the definition you should be looking for is "freedom of speech," since it is how we define that phrase that is important, and is how we have so many laws related to speech. If freedom of speech is not absolute, then passing laws restricting certain speech do not necessarily infringe on it, and considering that the many members of the same Congress which passed the First Amendment also voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I'm guessing they didn't consider freedom of speech to be all that absolute.
It's obvious the original intent of the Founders had nothing to do with weapons. They wanted to outlaw the practice of removing people's arms for sport. A bunch of citizens running around with no arms is a bunch of unproductive citizens.
By the way, I find all of you armchair constitutional scholars amusing.
Democracy does, to an extent, rely on the government being more powerful than the people. Otherwise, surely, the government is powerless to legislate and you might as well not have a government.
Look at the Article of Confederation. While they left all of the power with the states, you still had the same problem. The federal government was so weak it was useless.
Laywers are under oath from the day they are admitted to the bar, an oath that usually involves loyalty to the client and a statement regarding conduct as an officer of the court, among other things such as upholding the laws and constitutions of whereever they may practice. Those laws include things like legal ethics codes.
There is a difference between lying and presenting your client's side of things. If my client tells me his story, and I don't have concrete proof the contrary, then presenting that story to the court is not lying. If my client tells me he did it, but I help him make up some alibi and put on witnesses to lie for him saying he was 100 miles away at the time of the crime, then I am lying.
Legal ethics codes prohibit lawyers from making false statements of law or fact to a court. This includes in writing. Lawyers are also prohibited from advancing arguments they know have no basis in law. If they get caught, they can lose their license to practice, possibly forever. It does happen. I have an RSS feed for the Ohio Supreme Court and there are several attorneys getting their licenses yanked weekly.
The adversarial legal system is often thought to be one of the best for providing a jury with what is closest to the actual truth. You have two different sides presenting possibly two different stories, and if both sides to a real good job, then you'll probably end up with the real truth being somewhere in the middle.
Slashdot Mirror
People on the Internet often overstate their own importance.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large majority of Colbert Report viewers the first season have never watched a single Colbert Report episode on Youtube.
Composers are artists. In fact, they are probably much more deserving of the title "artist" than "recording artists."
But anyway, you pay royalties to the copyright holder for the composition. It could be anyone, and probably more than likely is a record label.
Low cubicle walls also make it harder to do things you're not supposed to do at work.
The unique identification of many (soon to me most or all) inkjets and color lasers was not done for you or me. It was done quietly for law enforcement to be able to *find* the owner of any printed document.
Good thing I'm safe with my mono laser printer.
IMO, it would make more sense to put everything that is funded wholly or in the majority by tax dollars into the public domain, unless specifically exempted for national security or other bona fide public interest reasons.
What about works funded by the NEA?
The license that is granted to the U.S. doesn't mean it has the power to hand over the IP to anyone it wants for any purpose, and doesn't mean the IP is public domain.
The government can obtain licenses to IP, and can have IP given to it, in which case it has the same rights in it as anyone else would.
IP created by the government, cannot be protected, and that is something all together different.
Glad to know I'm not the only one, it took me about a minute after reading the blurb to realize this had nothing do with SCO.
They shouldn't be using encyclopedias in this way at all. They are a good place to start your research and point you in the right direction, but you probably shouldn't actually be using them as a source in your writing...
Sneakernet. I've said too much.
They're looking at "statutory maximums" and adding together terms that more than likely will be served concurrently.
In other words, while he could theoretically get 100 years, in reality he's going to probably get 1-2 years tops.
Starbucks coffee is already overpriced, so I imagine there is plenty of room in their profit margin to absorb paying the farmers a little bit more if they wanted to.
Somehow every other coffee place I've been to charges 50-75% less than Starbucks and tastes just as good if not better, and I doubt it's because those coffee places are stiffing their suppliers any more than Starbucks is.
I left a steaming sub in each of the men's rooms the night I quit.
I'm hoping this was a fairly small office you worked for. If not, I am very impressed with your bowels.
Either 11,000 football fields
Or 1/50th the size of Rhode Island
Which one seems bigger to you?
I think the real question is, which one will more Americans understand?
Plus, this came out of Ohio State. It should not be surprising that they use such a unit of measurement, because approximately 1/2 of the school's budget is dedicated to sports, as opposed to education.
The original intent of the founding fathers was that regular people would run for office and represent the best interests of their constituents
That's why the common folk were all sitting in Philadelphia writing the Constitution, right?
It closely resembles a typical Mayan hammock. They can sleep families of 4 or 5 in one hammock even. Little kids don't usually sleep in them alone. It's not really a design flaw, it's just not supposed to be a child's toy. It's a BED!
Not to mention how to properly use an em dash.
Although, personally, I'd prefer 6655321.
54601
Don't you mean 24601?
Here I thought they were announcing they were actually going to support their customers.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Tell me, Senator, what do the words Congress shall make no law mean to you?
First of all, since right about the time the First Amendment was past, no one, save a very slim minority, has taken "no law" literally.
Second of all, the definition you should be looking for is "freedom of speech," since it is how we define that phrase that is important, and is how we have so many laws related to speech. If freedom of speech is not absolute, then passing laws restricting certain speech do not necessarily infringe on it, and considering that the many members of the same Congress which passed the First Amendment also voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I'm guessing they didn't consider freedom of speech to be all that absolute.
he's doing this to undermine the blogosphere
And that's a bad thing, because?
It's obvious the original intent of the Founders had nothing to do with weapons. They wanted to outlaw the practice of removing people's arms for sport. A bunch of citizens running around with no arms is a bunch of unproductive citizens.
By the way, I find all of you armchair constitutional scholars amusing.
Democracy does, to an extent, rely on the government being more powerful than the people. Otherwise, surely, the government is powerless to legislate and you might as well not have a government.
Look at the Article of Confederation. While they left all of the power with the states, you still had the same problem. The federal government was so weak it was useless.
Laywers are under oath from the day they are admitted to the bar, an oath that usually involves loyalty to the client and a statement regarding conduct as an officer of the court, among other things such as upholding the laws and constitutions of whereever they may practice. Those laws include things like legal ethics codes.
There is a difference between lying and presenting your client's side of things. If my client tells me his story, and I don't have concrete proof the contrary, then presenting that story to the court is not lying. If my client tells me he did it, but I help him make up some alibi and put on witnesses to lie for him saying he was 100 miles away at the time of the crime, then I am lying.
Legal ethics codes prohibit lawyers from making false statements of law or fact to a court. This includes in writing. Lawyers are also prohibited from advancing arguments they know have no basis in law. If they get caught, they can lose their license to practice, possibly forever. It does happen. I have an RSS feed for the Ohio Supreme Court and there are several attorneys getting their licenses yanked weekly.
The adversarial legal system is often thought to be one of the best for providing a jury with what is closest to the actual truth. You have two different sides presenting possibly two different stories, and if both sides to a real good job, then you'll probably end up with the real truth being somewhere in the middle.
Of course the profession is not as effectively self-policing as doctors. That is why there are more lawyer jokes than doctor jokes.
That's because doctors bury their screwups six feet under ground.