Drug use is a political crime. The criminalization of recreational chemicals have long been political, and the victims of such actions often differ substantially from the politics of those in power.
Why does it matter? We have more to fear from bath tubs than Al Quada, and it seems like they lost every competent agent about 12 years ago. The only people more inept are working in intelligence.
Since a patent exists, it won't be the simple "Case dismissed," which was claimed. Invalidating a patent requires significant legal work.
I think you are taking thing a bit too literally. It would case dismissed in an ideal world where companies don't get legal monopolies on trivial bullshit.
And, the patent has already been successfully licensed to Palm (who at the time was much bigger than a celebrity startup), a strong indicator that others believe it to have some validity.
Or, that the cost and risks involved with defending/invalidating the patent are greater than the licensing costs.
It's not a compelling argument against the claim of non-obvious or novelty, the lack of either meaning that the patent is invalid. I know that it's sometimes difficult to understand exactly what another poster is meaning, but when mbstone said "No copyright, no patent, no trademark," they most likely meant that there is no valid reason for it have any of those, not that they haven't been granted one.
Ecuador was actually on the fence about asylum, and at a much later stage in the game, so they were by no means a safe bet. And regarding Vietnam, as I understand it, they don't really care all that much about the war we fought there, since they have a number of other things in their history since then, including military conflicts. While India may not be our puppet, they are friendly enough with the US to be likely to turn him over. You need someone who is on a relatively even playing field and will be happy to tell the US to fuck off. That does make it a pretty short list, especially if you want to reduce risk by being geographically close.
I'm not saying I have evidence he betrayed us to Russia and should be shot on sight, what I'm saying is there's no way to rule this out as long as he's in Russia and his leaks seem focused on outing the US and Five Eyes rather then the Russians.
You can't rule it out, but it would be among the stupidest course of actions to take. Snowden is one of the most well known people in the world now, and the NSA is doing everything they can to find out what exactly he leaked. That's not anywhere near the best tactic for Snowden or Russian intelligence. The only reason that he would take this path would be that it's just crazy enough to work, which has a much better success rate in film than real life.
Where else could Snowden have reasonably fled to in the early stages of this saga? There are very few countries that won't take shit from the US, China and Russia being at the top of the list. Remember, a PRESIDENT couldn't land his plane in a few European countries because Snowden MIGHT have been aboard.
Also, believe it or not, Russians are humans, and thus have human rights, even if they aren't recognized by the government. Same goes for politicians.
I didn't say that companies wouldn't kill people. I'm saying that it would be uncommon relative to now. Paid killers largely come in two flavors: the military and organized crime based upon contraband, which is a result of government actions. The former creates a lot of cheap death and numbers that easily outweigh the number of contract kills, and a number of people with skills that aren't useful in much else other than contract killing. The latter creates people with similar skill sets as well. Increasing the supply reduces the cost, and cost plays into one of the most common reasons for paid killing outside of wars and drugs: insurance fraud. It doesn't make sense to pay someone a million dollars to collect a 200K policy, so the market is greatly affected.
They would exist, but they would be very, very unpopular and probably less common than they are today. Killing people is hard and dangerous. In a free market, it would be very expensive for anyone good at it, and anybody bad at it wouldn't stay in business very long. That's why you see violent organized crime pop up when there is highly profitable contraband. The rewards, or at least the potential rewards, are great in those markets, so you can convince someone to kill for that.
A private organization can exist for any number of reasons, and the means through which they get money from you don't need to involve you getting screwed. Believe it or not, a transaction can exist for mutual benefit.
While true, it's not a very good justification, as that concern is largely the result of treaties that said industries pushed. These problems are part of the devious design of these agreements, so letting that stop us would mean that their strategy paid off. Fortunately, most of the countries that would raise objections have strong enough ties to the US that we would be able to maintain healthy and fairly uninhibited trade there.
If you want to avoid economic fallout, one possible alternative would be to draft a treaty that supercedes Berne for member states, that actually requires states to have exceptions similar to fair use, makes DRM and legal protections for copying mutually exclusive, allows countries to reduce their copyright terms without penalty, and so on.
It's also bigoted to have life based terms. Any factor that has you living longer than other people on average, gender, ethnicity, social class, a number of medical conditions, even being right handed, creates further arbitrary bias.
J.D. Salinger's original agreement with the US government was satisfied in 2007. He only won the lawsuit because of unconstitutional extensions to copyright. Also, a living author is often one of the worst parties to give control to, especially decades down the line.
Doyle has been dead since 1930. That means that Sherlock Holmes has been in the public domain in Scotland since 2000. If something is PD in the country of origin, it is PD to all Berne signatories. That's part of how the CTEA was sold to the US public, as our authors would be 'disadvantaged' if we kept a shorter term.
You are assuming that there is no benefit in going beyond the scope of your duty. If you work at a level beyond what you need to get your project done, you might have more 'breathing room', as it were, and be able to write better code.
If you want people to be responsible individuals, treat them like responsible individuals. If you want people to be dependent little piglets that need to suckle, treat them like dependent little piglets that need to suckle.
It's also worth considering how he got the money in the first place. You have to weigh the harm of his prior actions against the benefits of his current actions.
Normal people do not mind hardcore pornography. When new technology comes out that can be reasonably used for porn, it is used for porn very soon, and in many cases even if it can just be unreasonably used for porn.
While closeness is important, repeated closeness is a much bigger factor. You could have a child with your sister with a fairly small chance of birth defects, but if those offspring had offspring, the chances increase dramatically. IIRC, cousin marriages were common in the middle east, but it's a system of parallel cousin marriage with rules that prevent repeatedly drawing from the same small gene pool. It's an interesting mechanism of staying within the tribe without most of the adverse effects of incest.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing in the world more dangerous than an idiot with a weapon, and the NSA has a big weapon.
Drug use is a political crime. The criminalization of recreational chemicals have long been political, and the victims of such actions often differ substantially from the politics of those in power.
Why does it matter? We have more to fear from bath tubs than Al Quada, and it seems like they lost every competent agent about 12 years ago. The only people more inept are working in intelligence.
I think you are taking thing a bit too literally. It would case dismissed in an ideal world where companies don't get legal monopolies on trivial bullshit.
Or, that the cost and risks involved with defending/invalidating the patent are greater than the licensing costs.
It's not a compelling argument against the claim of non-obvious or novelty, the lack of either meaning that the patent is invalid. I know that it's sometimes difficult to understand exactly what another poster is meaning, but when mbstone said "No copyright, no patent, no trademark," they most likely meant that there is no valid reason for it have any of those, not that they haven't been granted one.
That's not a compelling argument. USPTO is quite easy to fool.
You can't rule it out, but it would be among the stupidest course of actions to take. Snowden is one of the most well known people in the world now, and the NSA is doing everything they can to find out what exactly he leaked. That's not anywhere near the best tactic for Snowden or Russian intelligence. The only reason that he would take this path would be that it's just crazy enough to work, which has a much better success rate in film than real life.
Where else could Snowden have reasonably fled to in the early stages of this saga? There are very few countries that won't take shit from the US, China and Russia being at the top of the list. Remember, a PRESIDENT couldn't land his plane in a few European countries because Snowden MIGHT have been aboard.
Also, believe it or not, Russians are humans, and thus have human rights, even if they aren't recognized by the government. Same goes for politicians.
I didn't say that companies wouldn't kill people. I'm saying that it would be uncommon relative to now. Paid killers largely come in two flavors: the military and organized crime based upon contraband, which is a result of government actions. The former creates a lot of cheap death and numbers that easily outweigh the number of contract kills, and a number of people with skills that aren't useful in much else other than contract killing. The latter creates people with similar skill sets as well. Increasing the supply reduces the cost, and cost plays into one of the most common reasons for paid killing outside of wars and drugs: insurance fraud. It doesn't make sense to pay someone a million dollars to collect a 200K policy, so the market is greatly affected.
They would exist, but they would be very, very unpopular and probably less common than they are today. Killing people is hard and dangerous. In a free market, it would be very expensive for anyone good at it, and anybody bad at it wouldn't stay in business very long. That's why you see violent organized crime pop up when there is highly profitable contraband. The rewards, or at least the potential rewards, are great in those markets, so you can convince someone to kill for that.
A private organization can exist for any number of reasons, and the means through which they get money from you don't need to involve you getting screwed. Believe it or not, a transaction can exist for mutual benefit.
While true, it's not a very good justification, as that concern is largely the result of treaties that said industries pushed. These problems are part of the devious design of these agreements, so letting that stop us would mean that their strategy paid off. Fortunately, most of the countries that would raise objections have strong enough ties to the US that we would be able to maintain healthy and fairly uninhibited trade there.
If you want to avoid economic fallout, one possible alternative would be to draft a treaty that supercedes Berne for member states, that actually requires states to have exceptions similar to fair use, makes DRM and legal protections for copying mutually exclusive, allows countries to reduce their copyright terms without penalty, and so on.
Then we should leave the Berne convention so we can base our laws on policy instead of a being dictated to by a ratchet mechanism.
It's also bigoted to have life based terms. Any factor that has you living longer than other people on average, gender, ethnicity, social class, a number of medical conditions, even being right handed, creates further arbitrary bias.
J.D. Salinger's original agreement with the US government was satisfied in 2007. He only won the lawsuit because of unconstitutional extensions to copyright. Also, a living author is often one of the worst parties to give control to, especially decades down the line.
Doyle has been dead since 1930. That means that Sherlock Holmes has been in the public domain in Scotland since 2000. If something is PD in the country of origin, it is PD to all Berne signatories. That's part of how the CTEA was sold to the US public, as our authors would be 'disadvantaged' if we kept a shorter term.
You are ignoring the effect of air resistance or assuming that these people are in an vacuum, which would probably solve the problem by itself.
How about we let the market decide instead of lawyers?
You are assuming that there is no benefit in going beyond the scope of your duty. If you work at a level beyond what you need to get your project done, you might have more 'breathing room', as it were, and be able to write better code.
If you want people to be responsible individuals, treat them like responsible individuals. If you want people to be dependent little piglets that need to suckle, treat them like dependent little piglets that need to suckle.
It's also worth considering how he got the money in the first place. You have to weigh the harm of his prior actions against the benefits of his current actions.
Normal people do not mind hardcore pornography. When new technology comes out that can be reasonably used for porn, it is used for porn very soon, and in many cases even if it can just be unreasonably used for porn.
While closeness is important, repeated closeness is a much bigger factor. You could have a child with your sister with a fairly small chance of birth defects, but if those offspring had offspring, the chances increase dramatically. IIRC, cousin marriages were common in the middle east, but it's a system of parallel cousin marriage with rules that prevent repeatedly drawing from the same small gene pool. It's an interesting mechanism of staying within the tribe without most of the adverse effects of incest.
Or the Westermarck effect, apparently.
How about we let parents be parents instead of the government?