There used to be such a thing. Ask your grandparents about the "magic of compounding interest" sometime. If you bought a home, or property, or some stocks in postwar America, you made a lot of money over time, pretty much automatically.
This is pretty much the case now. As long as one isn't speculating, real estate and the stock market are still quite lucrative over the long-term.
It takes multiple views to even begin to understand the plot.
Better than the book series (I use that term loosely), which took multiple reads for me to realize the plot was actually indecipherable. Oh Frank Herbert, what cruel tricks you play upon me.
You can do quite a bit more than that as Colbert showed.
Step1: Donate to charity controlled by your friend/uncle/misstress
Step2: Claim tax deduction
Step3: Charity buys service from shell company A
Step4: Shell company A donates to SuperPAC
Step5: Super pac spends a small fraction of acquired money on campaigning to seem legitimate
Step6: SuperPAC closes and sends the money to shell company B
Step7: Shell company B send money to shell company C, not even the IRS needs to know
Step8: Enjoy your tax free income.
I like this, but the logic falls apart on inspection. How do shell companies A, B, and C avoid paying taxes on their profits? They could use hollywood accounting to make their profits appear nonexistent, but that would defeat the purpose of the whole 8-step shuffle. Might as well just hollywood it from the beginning.
no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections
17 USC 512 - c.1.
(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity;
Megaupload stored files for a substantial period of time, publicly available, seems to have had knowledge that the material was infringing, and seems to have generally ignored takedown requests.
Megaupload certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use.
The same could be said for nearly anything. For example:
-VCRs certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use.
-Firearms certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use.
-Automobiles certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use.
Maybe we should start banning everything that is used for piracy?
If you use a particular automobile or firearm illegally, it can certainly be confiscated. This does not cause a ban of all automobiles, just as megaupload's "crimes" did not cause a ban on all such sites.
Another difference is that Megaupload's business model was likely based on piracy, their legitimate use was a very small percentage of total use, and they would (admitted debatably) not even exist without it.
as well as the more mundane currency erosion that we have seen in the US dollar over the last few decades.
Bah... where the heck were you in the early 1980s, when all those gold prices plummeted? Sure, right now the "shiny rock" strategy seems to be edging out the "green pieces of paper" strategy, but I would bet a substantial amount of my life savings that people will stop liking those "shiny rocks" AGAIN at some point in the next couple decades, and all that "inherent value" of a non-fiat currency will go down the drain.
Even if your survivalist scenario were true, I think the chances are far greater that we'll see more cycles of precious metal prices to come before we get that collapse... making investment in those shiny rocks not very great as a long-term strategy.
In support of this point, gold actually has a rather poor long-term track record. Gold investing on a personal scale is useful only as speculation due to price volatility, and is not good for actual long-term investing.
The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.
No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.
Well, the reporter possibly checked some of the links in questions, found they were still up, and used "many" as opposed to "all" since they couldn't verify "all".
It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
Do I know for certain that vaccines cause absolutely no harm? No, and nor does anyone else.
Well, it is known that vaccines cause at least some harm..., but it's not even comparable to other things, such as...riding in cars, and most parents don't have a problem transporting their children by automobile.
Yes, but let's look at which ones are needed early and which ones are not. Hep B is not really needed early if mother is not infected.
Hep B is considered an "optional" vaccine for this very reason - there is a very low risk of contracting it. But, shit happens, so some people like to get it just in case (and some doctors recommend it), since your baby getting Hep B would be a nightmare, and there are virtually no side-effects.
But I have a concern. We know that mercury is poison. Why is it needed for vaccine? Perhaps someone here actually knows the answer and would share? Surely there are other elements or chemicals which could be used in place of mercury?
You are referring to Thiomersal. It was used as a preservative, but is no longer used, largely due to a thought process similar to the one you present.
Based on what I have seen about US citizens on the news I would assume they like to drink a lot and show their parts to strangers, they start shooting people randomly at schools, theaters or workplaces, most of them are ignorant.
I think it's very difficult to talk about the ethics of abortions as the situations that people find themselves in and the ramifications of the decisions are incredibly complicated and difficult. To lump all the scenarios together and say that it's right or wrong is far too simplistic for my taste.
I agree, I believe you have struck the root of the problem there.
So, how does the law come into play when a woman chooses to lawfully terminate or lawfully keep a fetus?
It seems you have answered your own question there...
However, regarding the matter at hand, when someone (e.g. the anonymous coward you were originally addressing) implies that allowing women to receive elective abortions is unethical, he means that society should not allow it. The vehicle for this is law.
Taking the position that it is unethical to discuss the ethics of some act seems somewhat circular.
Personally, I don't care about the ethics of what a woman chooses to do. To my mind, making a choice on behalf of someone else is unethical - especially when you phrase is as "allowing". Why should a woman have to ask your permission to do anything?
What? There are all sorts of things that we don't "allow" people to do. Hence, Law.
That site seems pretty cool in concept but I am a little dubious on their price-gathering methodology. I checked into the Opteron that is top of the list currently, and I can't seem to find it new anywhere. I didn't check any of the other cpu's in the list but I have a feeling some of the ones on top are going to be due to certain retailers having them discounted or only available used.
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ?
If not it has nothing to do with the case.
Uh, false?
Certainly there are numerous ways that facebook communications could have something significant to do with the case, without being the specific venue for harassment.
If only the article mentioned something specifi...OH LOOK:
Statements that discuss her financial expectations in [the] lawsuit; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her); musings about her emotional state in having lost a beloved pet as well as having suffered a broken relationship; other writings addressing her positive outlook on how her life was post-termination; her self-described sexual aggressiveness; statements about actions she engaged in as a supervisor with Defendant . . . ; sexually amorous communications with other class members; her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition . . .
Works published before 1978 are protected until 95 years after publication. The "Life+70" only applies to works published post-1978. See the table here.
How long has that guy been dead? Surely these books are public domain by now.
If not, please let me know. I have been making some cool middle-earth art that is completely unrelated to the movies. I understand that the movies should have their stuff protected for several more years.
At the risk of feeding the troll, J.R.R. died in 1973. Though, due to the variances of copyright law, it appears that LOTR is protected until 95 years after date of publication, which would be around 2050 (LOTR was published in the UK and US in three volumes in the mid-fifties).
Slashdot Mirror
There used to be such a thing. Ask your grandparents about the "magic of compounding interest" sometime. If you bought a home, or property, or some stocks in postwar America, you made a lot of money over time, pretty much automatically.
This is pretty much the case now. As long as one isn't speculating, real estate and the stock market are still quite lucrative over the long-term.
It takes multiple views to even begin to understand the plot.
Better than the book series (I use that term loosely), which took multiple reads for me to realize the plot was actually indecipherable. Oh Frank Herbert, what cruel tricks you play upon me.
You can do quite a bit more than that as Colbert showed.
Step1: Donate to charity controlled by your friend/uncle/misstress Step2: Claim tax deduction Step3: Charity buys service from shell company A Step4: Shell company A donates to SuperPAC Step5: Super pac spends a small fraction of acquired money on campaigning to seem legitimate Step6: SuperPAC closes and sends the money to shell company B Step7: Shell company B send money to shell company C, not even the IRS needs to know Step8: Enjoy your tax free income.
I like this, but the logic falls apart on inspection. How do shell companies A, B, and C avoid paying taxes on their profits? They could use hollywood accounting to make their profits appear nonexistent, but that would defeat the purpose of the whole 8-step shuffle. Might as well just hollywood it from the beginning.
If the DMCA, safe harbor provisions are meaningless, then we're all fucked.
Megaupload likely did not qualify for safe harbor, based on the following sections of the DMCA:
17 USC 512 - a.4
no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections
17 USC 512 - c.1.
(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; (2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity;
Megaupload stored files for a substantial period of time, publicly available, seems to have had knowledge that the material was infringing, and seems to have generally ignored takedown requests.
Megaupload certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use.
The same could be said for nearly anything. For example: -VCRs certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. -Firearms certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. -Automobiles certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. Maybe we should start banning everything that is used for piracy?
If you use a particular automobile or firearm illegally, it can certainly be confiscated. This does not cause a ban of all automobiles, just as megaupload's "crimes" did not cause a ban on all such sites.
Another difference is that Megaupload's business model was likely based on piracy, their legitimate use was a very small percentage of total use, and they would (admitted debatably) not even exist without it.
as well as the more mundane currency erosion that we have seen in the US dollar over the last few decades.
Bah... where the heck were you in the early 1980s, when all those gold prices plummeted? Sure, right now the "shiny rock" strategy seems to be edging out the "green pieces of paper" strategy, but I would bet a substantial amount of my life savings that people will stop liking those "shiny rocks" AGAIN at some point in the next couple decades, and all that "inherent value" of a non-fiat currency will go down the drain.
Even if your survivalist scenario were true, I think the chances are far greater that we'll see more cycles of precious metal prices to come before we get that collapse... making investment in those shiny rocks not very great as a long-term strategy.
In support of this point, gold actually has a rather poor long-term track record. Gold investing on a personal scale is useful only as speculation due to price volatility, and is not good for actual long-term investing.
The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.
No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.
Well, the reporter possibly checked some of the links in questions, found they were still up, and used "many" as opposed to "all" since they couldn't verify "all".
It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.
Interesting, I just looked this up to verify and you are correct. It seems that I happen to live in one of the 3 backward states that does not mandate it.
Do I know for certain that vaccines cause absolutely no harm? No, and nor does anyone else.
Well, it is known that vaccines cause at least some harm..., but it's not even comparable to other things, such as...riding in cars, and most parents don't have a problem transporting their children by automobile.
Yes, but let's look at which ones are needed early and which ones are not. Hep B is not really needed early if mother is not infected.
Hep B is considered an "optional" vaccine for this very reason - there is a very low risk of contracting it. But, shit happens, so some people like to get it just in case (and some doctors recommend it), since your baby getting Hep B would be a nightmare, and there are virtually no side-effects.
But I have a concern. We know that mercury is poison. Why is it needed for vaccine? Perhaps someone here actually knows the answer and would share? Surely there are other elements or chemicals which could be used in place of mercury?
You are referring to Thiomersal. It was used as a preservative, but is no longer used, largely due to a thought process similar to the one you present.
I think you just got wooooshed. I hope.
We have the same thing here. It is based on your system.
Based on what I have seen about US citizens on the news I would assume they like to drink a lot and show their parts to strangers, they start shooting people randomly at schools, theaters or workplaces, most of them are ignorant.
Seems pretty accurate to me.
I think it's very difficult to talk about the ethics of abortions as the situations that people find themselves in and the ramifications of the decisions are incredibly complicated and difficult. To lump all the scenarios together and say that it's right or wrong is far too simplistic for my taste.
I agree, I believe you have struck the root of the problem there.
So, how does the law come into play when a woman chooses to lawfully terminate or lawfully keep a fetus?
It seems you have answered your own question there...
However, regarding the matter at hand, when someone (e.g. the anonymous coward you were originally addressing) implies that allowing women to receive elective abortions is unethical, he means that society should not allow it. The vehicle for this is law.
Taking the position that it is unethical to discuss the ethics of some act seems somewhat circular.
Personally, I don't care about the ethics of what a woman chooses to do. To my mind, making a choice on behalf of someone else is unethical - especially when you phrase is as "allowing". Why should a woman have to ask your permission to do anything?
What? There are all sorts of things that we don't "allow" people to do. Hence, Law.
That's too bad. I already have Darksiders, and wanted to gift away the new copy.
Just buy an extra gift copy from HumbleBundle for 1$ or whatever and then gift it.
That site seems pretty cool in concept but I am a little dubious on their price-gathering methodology. I checked into the Opteron that is top of the list currently, and I can't seem to find it new anywhere. I didn't check any of the other cpu's in the list but I have a feeling some of the ones on top are going to be due to certain retailers having them discounted or only available used.
.AMD make better CPUs anyway
What definition of "better" are you using here...?
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
Uh, false?
Certainly there are numerous ways that facebook communications could have something significant to do with the case, without being the specific venue for harassment.
If only the article mentioned something specifi...OH LOOK:
Statements that discuss her financial expectations in [the] lawsuit; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her); musings about her emotional state in having lost a beloved pet as well as having suffered a broken relationship; other writings addressing her positive outlook on how her life was post-termination; her self-described sexual aggressiveness; statements about actions she engaged in as a supervisor with Defendant . . . ; sexually amorous communications with other class members; her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition . . .
Copyright != Patent != Trademark
^This.
:)
I mistakenly linked to patents (instead of trademarks) with my succinct reply previously, but this is precisely the point I was trying to make.
Works published before 1978 are protected until 95 years after publication. The "Life+70" only applies to works published post-1978. See the table here.
How long has that guy been dead? Surely these books are public domain by now. If not, please let me know. I have been making some cool middle-earth art that is completely unrelated to the movies. I understand that the movies should have their stuff protected for several more years.
At the risk of feeding the troll, J.R.R. died in 1973. Though, due to the variances of copyright law, it appears that LOTR is protected until 95 years after date of publication, which would be around 2050 (LOTR was published in the UK and US in three volumes in the mid-fifties).
The problem with copyright is that you either defend it or lose it
No.