The fact is, demonstrations on private property are not outlawed, only the wearing of masks at those demonstrations. So, no, it's not about private property; it's precisely about the right to conceal your identity at demonstrations (and I agree with the other poster; this was most likely directed at klan activity, which there has always been a lot of in florida).
Religions are tax exempt! Unfortunately for Jobs, his salary is taxed... that means a working stiff like him can only expect to take home about 60 cents a year!!
That is exactly the point of the copyright regime -- promote the progress of the arts by promoting the creation of new works. The question today is whether we promote more and better new works by letting people freely copy bits of old works and incorporate them into new ones, or whether we promote them by allowing an artist to retain a monopoly on their creation and sue others for trying to use it.
(this point stands whether or not the resulting work is actually "derivative" -- that's another whole debate, since sampling or quoting another work is not enough to make the new work derivative, IMHO)
the problem is it gives too much credence to the advertisers' argument. You're saying, as long as their ads aren't too annoying, they have the right to demand I look at them. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. It's my computer, my browser, and my eyes. Whether your ad resizes my browser and cranks up the sound and plays the 1812 overture or whether it's a tiny line of 6-point text at the bottom of the page, it's my right to view what I want to and not view what I don't want to. I don't care if you have based your entire business model on me vewing your ads; I don't care if you will get deported or gang-raped if you don't get enough click-throughs... That is just not my problem. You don't want to share your content with me, then don't. But if you do share it, don't act like you have the right to tell my computer what to do with it. This entire discussion is a canard -- the premise that advertisers have a right to intrude on my browsing experience in any way whatsoever is one I reject unconditionally. If I can block your ads, I will, and if I can't and your ad annoys me, I won't visit your page. Calling me a thief is not going to guilt trip me into allowing you to control my viewing experience. If I could install adblock on my car windshield so I could ignore billboards I would do that too; when I read magazine articles I don't feel a twinge of guilt when I skip the ads and head straight for page 34 where the article I want to read is. What's that? You say magazines have already paid for advertising, whereas websites depend on ad views for their revenue? Too bad. As someone else said here, your revenue model is not my problem, and I resent your attempt to make it my problem by trying to guilt trip me.
...unless it turns out that it's actually NOT a US spy satellite, and in fact belongs to China. At which point your career prospects become veeery dubious. Only if you're Chinese.
WTF is up with this article? Some wingnut freeper whining in his blog about the demise of G.I. Joe? Get a grip (yeah, like the GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip). I present you GI Joe's real finest moments:
Mr. Thompson, you're in luck. Your suit against the President is just the thing I need to rebuild my shattered practice! Care to join me in a belt of scotch?
I think what's needed after the disbarment is a 30 day psychiatric review in a closed facility. Might I suggest a closed facility on a nice tropical island; say, Cuba?
as long as that idiot is doing his baboon act on television on a regular basis everyone will point, laugh, and ignore No, no, he was talking about Thompson.
Part of the reason for fair use is to make copyright law compatible with the US Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, but also the part that allows companies to hold copyrights for a limited time in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Fair use attempts to ensure that copyright law actually promotes the progress of the arts rather than restricts it, allowing other artists and writers to fairly use copyrighted material to create their own works. It also attempts to ensure that copyright law does not run afoul of the first amendment, allowing people to fairly use copyrighted works for news, criticism, scholarship, commentary, etc. So, yes, it can and should be considered a "right" in this sense. And thus laws like DMCA which criminalize the attempted fair use of copyrighted works are extremely problematic.
Wow, sorry, dude, looks like you got decapitated!! Luckily there is this technology for wheelchairs that can be retrofitted to hats in order to help you out with that....
The problem was, they didn't know the nukes were on board. It may or may not make sense to fly instead of drive them, but you have to agree that transporting nukes without knowing the nature of your cargo is a pretty dicey business.
Greyhound buses, amusement parks, airports, or pretty much anywhere else where you implicitly waive your right to privacy in exchange for being allowed to walk through the door.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is, demonstrations on private property are not outlawed, only the wearing of masks at those demonstrations. So, no, it's not about private property; it's precisely about the right to conceal your identity at demonstrations (and I agree with the other poster; this was most likely directed at klan activity, which there has always been a lot of in florida).
Religions are tax exempt! Unfortunately for Jobs, his salary is taxed... that means a working stiff like him can only expect to take home about 60 cents a year!!
Proof at last that the imperial system of weights and measures is superior to that silly "metric" fad....
...or at least drank its pee...
That is exactly the point of the copyright regime -- promote the progress of the arts by promoting the creation of new works. The question today is whether we promote more and better new works by letting people freely copy bits of old works and incorporate them into new ones, or whether we promote them by allowing an artist to retain a monopoly on their creation and sue others for trying to use it. (this point stands whether or not the resulting work is actually "derivative" -- that's another whole debate, since sampling or quoting another work is not enough to make the new work derivative, IMHO)
Dude! You're getting a De... ummmm, HP?
Export to PDF? WTF? That comes as a standard option in every single application on the OS!
What's that now? It doesn't?
Wow. It must suck to have to use an OS like that....
the problem is it gives too much credence to the advertisers' argument. You're saying, as long as their ads aren't too annoying, they have the right to demand I look at them. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. It's my computer, my browser, and my eyes. Whether your ad resizes my browser and cranks up the sound and plays the 1812 overture or whether it's a tiny line of 6-point text at the bottom of the page, it's my right to view what I want to and not view what I don't want to. I don't care if you have based your entire business model on me vewing your ads; I don't care if you will get deported or gang-raped if you don't get enough click-throughs... That is just not my problem. You don't want to share your content with me, then don't. But if you do share it, don't act like you have the right to tell my computer what to do with it. This entire discussion is a canard -- the premise that advertisers have a right to intrude on my browsing experience in any way whatsoever is one I reject unconditionally. If I can block your ads, I will, and if I can't and your ad annoys me, I won't visit your page. Calling me a thief is not going to guilt trip me into allowing you to control my viewing experience. If I could install adblock on my car windshield so I could ignore billboards I would do that too; when I read magazine articles I don't feel a twinge of guilt when I skip the ads and head straight for page 34 where the article I want to read is. What's that? You say magazines have already paid for advertising, whereas websites depend on ad views for their revenue? Too bad. As someone else said here, your revenue model is not my problem, and I resent your attempt to make it my problem by trying to guilt trip me.
...unless it turns out that it's actually NOT a US spy satellite, and in fact belongs to China. At which point your career prospects become veeery dubious. Only if you're Chinese.Here's a better link that demonstrates the basic premise of the article.
How many bunches in a Library of Congress?
How much is that in Libraries of Congress?
Attorney Lionel Hutz!
Mr. Thompson, you're in luck. Your suit against the President is just the thing I need to rebuild my shattered practice! Care to join me in a belt of scotch?
Part of the reason for fair use is to make copyright law compatible with the US Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, but also the part that allows companies to hold copyrights for a limited time in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Fair use attempts to ensure that copyright law actually promotes the progress of the arts rather than restricts it, allowing other artists and writers to fairly use copyrighted material to create their own works. It also attempts to ensure that copyright law does not run afoul of the first amendment, allowing people to fairly use copyrighted works for news, criticism, scholarship, commentary, etc. So, yes, it can and should be considered a "right" in this sense. And thus laws like DMCA which criminalize the attempted fair use of copyrighted works are extremely problematic.
Wow, sorry, dude, looks like you got decapitated!! Luckily there is this technology for wheelchairs that can be retrofitted to hats in order to help you out with that....
The problem was, they didn't know the nukes were on board. It may or may not make sense to fly instead of drive them, but you have to agree that transporting nukes without knowing the nature of your cargo is a pretty dicey business.
I thought that was only in Korea?
Greyhound buses, amusement parks, airports, or pretty much anywhere else where you implicitly waive your right to privacy in exchange for being allowed to walk through the door.