The quote refers to the old Liberal party, not the Lib Dems. The Liberals were the traditionally party of business interests (and so favoured the Commons) and the urban/suburban middle class. They supported free trade, and had the support of several protestant churches.
For comparison, the Conservatives were the party of old money (and so favoured the Lords), the rural middle and upper class, the aristocracy, and those associated with them. They were protectionist, imperialist, and were closer to the High Church. Labour were the party of the industrial working class, and were generally socialist
-Those care to get a product that is sold as legit is legit. (eg. Those who want a REAL Rolex watch for $5000 not a FAKE one for $5000)
Isn't this what existing local trademark laws are supposed to be about? Also, trade practices and fraud laws would cover this, if you are purchasing from a readily-pursuable source (if the source isn't easy to pursue, ACTA won't help anyway).
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly.
For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
Rupert? Is that you? No content provider will sell non-DRM HD content. If the BBC is not able to implement DRM, then the only purchaser of HD content will be Sky.
A government with (enormous) balls could deal with that problem, if they were prepared to confront Murdoch. Since Sky relies on satellite transmissions, they could refuse to grant a licence for the frequencies used to Sky without a requirement that no DRM be used, or that no HD content be transmitted, or anything else.
Unfortunately, this leaves the problem that rights-holders could refuse to licence anything for broadcast there, so to do that, you'd have to ban all DRM, and then declare that there is no loss of profit when anything not legitimately available is pirated.
All that seems to be permitted under existing treaties, but I'm sure that ACTA will "fix" that, and I'm sure that no party likely to get elected in any significant country would ever dare to do all that, because they all depend on the support of the major content providers, especially News Corp. It is a nice dream though.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540 They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag, and that will provide support for h264. From skimming the comments, it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5, which is yet to be updated for 3.6.
I don't know the US tax laws, but where I am, corporation tax is 30 of net, whereas for an individual pays a progressive tax on gross income, and the effective rate is over 30% for those earning over ~US$106k (3 times the median income), increasing asymptotically to 45%. With a bit of handwaving, it is obvious that most corporations would have more than 3 employees, and so even apart from the greatly increased tax bill involved in the switch from net to gross income, they would almost all be paying a higher rate.
Of course, if both individuals and corporations were taxed on the same system, the system would need to be massively redesigned.
And by explicitly circumscribing what governments may not do, they implicitly give the government the right to do everything else.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, abuse of the Commerce Clause weakens this, but in theory you are wrong.
Jews were supposed to grow beards, (Lev 19:27), but most of Leviticus got implicitly revoked by Jesus, and explicitly so by the Apostles in Acts 15 (and Galatians 2).
The bit about not looking like women I had assumed to be a rule against transvestitism, but I haven't really studied it, so I could be wrong.
That still doesn't beat the idiocy of one former Australian state government. They sold the government-owned monopoly bookmaker to another state government for less than the annual profit it made. Whilst the state was in a financial crisis at the time, the price was ludicrously low.
They seem to have forgotten they are dealing with students, too. A sign saying "Free BBQ", or, better yet, "Free Beer", would be noticed by almost everyone who can see it.
A clown riding around on a unicycle is unlikely to offer any free stuff, and probably won't be very entertaining either, so they'll get ignored.
IANAL, but wouldn't implementing an explicit requirement to investigate under federal law be acting in the capacity of the States. If not, then any entity other than a government department could be ordered to investigate anything, including non-criminal activity (as fileshaing generally is), without any restraints from the Bill of Rights. That would effectively revoke the Bill of Rights, so any sane judge should realise that that is not at all what the intent of the FFs was.
Agreed. IM(NS)HO, it would be better if the only gTLDs were.arpa,.tel, and.int..eu should be deprecated as it isn't a country, and EU sites belong under eu.int..gov and.mil should be under.us, and so probably should all the other gTLDs, except.cat (I have no idea what to do with that). For the other gTLDs, there should be the option of free transfer to the corresponding.us domain, and a ban on any further registrations of transferrals of ownership, so that they die out.
In this way, local prejudices, customs, and taboos can be respected by the registrar, without all the arguments over.xxx and so on.
given that he's restricted the women by region already, limiting the population used for estimating attractiveness makes his results better, not worse.
I wonder if, given his age, he has taken the correlation between higher education and appearance into account. In my city, if you go to a mall in an area where few people have a degree, most of the over-25 women look pretty bad, whereas in areas where most people have degrees, most ladies in the 30-40 age range are still have at least some of their looks. Partly, this would be greater wealth allowing better food and more exercise, and partly that far fewer are smokers, but there are also things like better poise and more subtle use of makeup.
Of course not, one is a pile of inane crazy over-politicised dross and the other is a reliable news source[1]. Which is which I leave as an exercise for the reader.
ISTR seeing a greasemonkey script around which replaces the flash object with an embedded mp4 video. I have also seen bookmarklets around which do the same thing manually.
The patent issue is my biggest objection to GMOs but one solution would be legislation stating that inserting a gene is not a novel invention, because any expert in the field would consider that obvious once its function is known, and the function is a discovery and hence not patentable.One could then still patent a technique for performing the modification, but that wouldn't affect the end-users directly, because the actual seeds would not be patentable.
They could also make a difference to the PRC by putting free adverts on their results pages to human rights groups (perhaps next to the Sponsored Links), pro-RoC groups, and so on. This would cost Google virtually nothing, but would get them loads of publicity for standing up to China, and because the PRC is so keen to protect its image, it could be a powerful bargaining tool.
If it was a security council resolution, instead of a general assembly resolution, then the PRC would not be able to veto it, because one of the rules is that a country cannot vote on a resolution against it.
A subscription like/.'s would work, so journalists and so on can pay to get the leaks in advance, but everyone gets to see the leaks after, say, 48 hours.
Whilst I happen to prefer using a newsreader to a web discussion interface, the/. system is probably the best blog comment system I have come accross. The content of the comments (and sometimes the quality of the moderation) are less good, and the javascript should be made faster, but the design is good.
There is also the RSS feed to consider. Firefox has a maximum width for menus, and has since 0.9 at least, and that includes live bookmarks. For me, that means that I can only see the first 50 or so characters in the title without waiting for the tooltip text. I don't know if other browsers have this "feature", but it does mean that short headlines are worthwhile.
Semi-unrelated (and now utterly off-topic) but is there anyone else who hates having the site name at the start of the page title instead of the end. Doing that would make the titles on tabs far more useful, and the favicon (if used) already tells you the site.
Slashdot Mirror
Cadbury have trademarked the colour purple. It only applies to that specific product type, so it isn't that bad.
The quote refers to the old Liberal party, not the Lib Dems. The Liberals were the traditionally party of business interests (and so favoured the Commons) and the urban/suburban middle class. They supported free trade, and had the support of several protestant churches.
For comparison, the Conservatives were the party of old money (and so favoured the Lords), the rural middle and upper class, the aristocracy, and those associated with them. They were protectionist, imperialist, and were closer to the High Church. Labour were the party of the industrial working class, and were generally socialist
-Those care to get a product that is sold as legit is legit. (eg. Those who want a REAL Rolex watch for $5000 not a FAKE one for $5000)
Isn't this what existing local trademark laws are supposed to be about? Also, trade practices and fraud laws would cover this, if you are purchasing from a readily-pursuable source (if the source isn't easy to pursue, ACTA won't help anyway).
For a supposed free to air channel (subject to paying the BBC tax), the BBC have acted appallingly.
For a regulator of UK television that was started up by the current corrupt government, they are acting exactly to type, bought off by corporate interests instead of viewers interests.
Rupert? Is that you? No content provider will sell non-DRM HD content. If the BBC is not able to implement DRM, then the only purchaser of HD content will be Sky.
A government with (enormous) balls could deal with that problem, if they were prepared to confront Murdoch. Since Sky relies on satellite transmissions, they could refuse to grant a licence for the frequencies used to Sky without a requirement that no DRM be used, or that no HD content be transmitted, or anything else.
Unfortunately, this leaves the problem that rights-holders could refuse to licence anything for broadcast there, so to do that, you'd have to ban all DRM, and then declare that there is no loss of profit when anything not legitimately available is pirated.
All that seems to be permitted under existing treaties, but I'm sure that ACTA will "fix" that, and I'm sure that no party likely to get elected in any significant country would ever dare to do all that, because they all depend on the support of the major content providers, especially News Corp. It is a nice dream though.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540
They are working on a Gstreamer backend for the video tag, and that will provide support for h264. From skimming the comments, it seems that there is a working but slow patch for 3.5, which is yet to be updated for 3.6.
I don't know the US tax laws, but where I am, corporation tax is 30 of net, whereas for an individual pays a progressive tax on gross income, and the effective rate is over 30% for those earning over ~US$106k (3 times the median income), increasing asymptotically to 45%.
With a bit of handwaving, it is obvious that most corporations would have more than 3 employees, and so even apart from the greatly increased tax bill involved in the switch from net to gross income, they would almost all be paying a higher rate.
Of course, if both individuals and corporations were taxed on the same system, the system would need to be massively redesigned.
And by explicitly circumscribing what governments may not do, they implicitly give the government the right to do everything else.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, abuse of the Commerce Clause weakens this, but in theory you are wrong.
Jews were supposed to grow beards, (Lev 19:27), but most of Leviticus got implicitly revoked by Jesus, and explicitly so by the Apostles in Acts 15 (and Galatians 2).
The bit about not looking like women I had assumed to be a rule against transvestitism, but I haven't really studied it, so I could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX
It seems that there is (almost) source compatible POSIX interface for windows in some editions, but you would have to compile all the coreutils yourself.
That still doesn't beat the idiocy of one former Australian state government. They sold the government-owned monopoly bookmaker to another state government for less than the annual profit it made. Whilst the state was in a financial crisis at the time, the price was ludicrously low.
They seem to have forgotten they are dealing with students, too. A sign saying "Free BBQ", or, better yet, "Free Beer", would be noticed by almost everyone who can see it.
A clown riding around on a unicycle is unlikely to offer any free stuff, and probably won't be very entertaining either, so they'll get ignored.
IANAL, but wouldn't implementing an explicit requirement to investigate under federal law be acting in the capacity of the States. If not, then any entity other than a government department could be ordered to investigate anything, including non-criminal activity (as fileshaing generally is), without any restraints from the Bill of Rights. That would effectively revoke the Bill of Rights, so any sane judge should realise that that is not at all what the intent of the FFs was.
Agreed. IM(NS)HO, it would be better if the only gTLDs were .arpa, .tel, and .int. .eu should be deprecated as it isn't a country, and EU sites belong under eu.int. .gov and .mil should be under .us, and so probably should all the other gTLDs, except .cat (I have no idea what to do with that). For the other gTLDs, there should be the option of free transfer to the corresponding .us domain, and a ban on any further registrations of transferrals of ownership, so that they die out.
In this way, local prejudices, customs, and taboos can be respected by the registrar, without all the arguments over .xxx and so on.
given that he's restricted the women by region already, limiting the population used for estimating attractiveness makes his results better, not worse.
Those on the low end may have to sample outside their species.
Maybe New Zealand should use his research in their next search for skilled migrants. Baaaa:)
I wonder if, given his age, he has taken the correlation between higher education and appearance into account. In my city, if you go to a mall in an area where few people have a degree, most of the over-25 women look pretty bad, whereas in areas where most people have degrees, most ladies in the 30-40 age range are still have at least some of their looks. Partly, this would be greater wealth allowing better food and more exercise, and partly that far fewer are smokers, but there are also things like better poise and more subtle use of makeup.
Of course not, one is a pile of inane crazy over-politicised dross and the other is a reliable news source[1].
Which is which I leave as an exercise for the reader.
[1] well, relatively.
ISTR seeing a greasemonkey script around which replaces the flash object with an embedded mp4 video. I have also seen bookmarklets around which do the same thing manually.
The patent issue is my biggest objection to GMOs but one solution would be legislation stating that inserting a gene is not a novel invention, because any expert in the field would consider that obvious once its function is known, and the function is a discovery and hence not patentable.One could then still patent a technique for performing the modification, but that wouldn't affect the end-users directly, because the actual seeds would not be patentable.
They could also make a difference to the PRC by putting free adverts on their results pages to human rights groups (perhaps next to the Sponsored Links), pro-RoC groups, and so on. This would cost Google virtually nothing, but would get them loads of publicity for standing up to China, and because the PRC is so keen to protect its image, it could be a powerful bargaining tool.
If it was a security council resolution, instead of a general assembly resolution, then the PRC would not be able to veto it, because one of the rules is that a country cannot vote on a resolution against it.
A subscription like /.'s would work, so journalists and so on can pay to get the leaks in advance, but everyone gets to see the leaks after, say, 48 hours.
Whilst I happen to prefer using a newsreader to a web discussion interface, the /. system is probably the best blog comment system I have come accross. The content of the comments (and sometimes the quality of the moderation) are less good, and the javascript should be made faster, but the design is good.
Despite the crappy article, there was at least some actual (visible) effort put in by Katz to edit it. That has to count for something.
There is also the RSS feed to consider. Firefox has a maximum width for menus, and has since 0.9 at least, and that includes live bookmarks. For me, that means that I can only see the first 50 or so characters in the title without waiting for the tooltip text. I don't know if other browsers have this "feature", but it does mean that short headlines are worthwhile.
Semi-unrelated (and now utterly off-topic) but is there anyone else who hates having the site name at the start of the page title instead of the end. Doing that would make the titles on tabs far more useful, and the favicon (if used) already tells you the site.