Not true. If someone shorted, then yes, he gains (when he covers the short), but someone who sold the day before isn't any _richer_ if stocks decline today, he just avoided getting poorer.
Um, you do know that the NYT article you cited comes to the conclusion that (a) the best translation, in context, of what he said is "wiped off the map," and (b) the Iranian government's own translators said that's the correct interpretation of what he said, right?
The Logan Act prohibits PRIVATE CITIZENS from attempting to influence policies of FOREIGN powers in ways contrary to the efforts of the US government. In other words, you can't run your own personal foreign policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of US public officials to meet with private citizens to discuss policy in secret.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > 953
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Um, it's Her Majesty's CUSTOMS. They can open any or all packages that come into the UK looking for contraband, which includes pirated DVDs. This isn't domestic mail we're talking about. Do they probably have better things to be doing? Yup. Are they completely within the law to do this? Yup.
"I'm not saying the parent is right, but don't think for a moment that someone ripping a DVD has a damn thing to do with the cost you pay for "Star Wars Episode 20, Revenge of the Jar-Jar"."
No, but it does have something to do with the fact that I can't easily exercise my fair use rights for Episode 21, "All Ewoks, All The Time."
Hate Hollywood content? Fair enough, don't buy it. The "this stuff is such crap, I'm going to copy it illegally because it isn't worth paying for" argument just doesn't hold water, though.
Congratulations, you're not officially the MPAA's poster child. Ever stop to think that your ripping of rentals is what causes the industry to keep trying to ramp up copy protection?
Thanks to your behavior, my ability to make convenient use of content I _am_ willing to pay for is reduced.
I suggest you look up the names of those who have been put to death and later found innocent.
I tried to look it up, and can't find a single name of someone executed in the US but later determined to be innocent. The site to which you link doesn't include any either.
Frankly, if you're storing 10 episodes of Ricki Lake, I think a trip to Gitmo is reasonable and appropriate. I'm all for free speech, but there's some conduct so reprehensible that we've just got to draw the line.:)
That's not what the guideline say. They're designed to ensure that the body itself doesn't become a vehicel for violation of antitrust laws (i.e. in the course of the meetings, everybody decides "let's raise prices for our software and services by 20%"), which could endanger the body's existence.
"Corporations in particular don't give a crap about whats best for the electorate. Their millions in donations are, first to convince a candidate to turn his back on the people, and second to win that candidate the election."
Um, you do know that corporations give $0 to candidates, right? Individual employees of corporations do (PACs), but corporate contributions to federal candidates are prohibited by law.
Frankly, the major purpose of donations isn't your first point, but your second. Find somebody who believes that tax rates on the rich should be cut, or EPA standards relaxed, or non-union workplaces banned, or gay marriage legalized, or whatever, and help to get him/her elected.
"derivatives contracts out there (17 trillion of which are interest rate related and doomed to fail)"
I'm going to leave the rest of the rant alone, other than to point out that, for every "failed" derivatives contract, the entity on the other side of the contract wins...
Looks like there may be a reason for this behavior. That package hasn't been available from its creators for nearly a year, and it seems (as indicated by this site) that there may be versions of the installer floating around that have had trojans attached to them...
Like it or not, US law (as interpreted by the courts) places a higher value on political speech than commercial speech. As a result, the restrictions that can be placed on political speech are less strict than those that can be placed on commercial speech.
Are we saying that it's OK that I'm "too poor" to be able to afford some simple entertainment because the industry keeps jacking up the prices with no justification other than lining their pockets?
Slashdot Mirror
"My wife calls them "Matrix Chickens", and claims that KFC grows them in a warehouse without heads or feet."
Are you by any chance married to Margaret Atwood? Her book _Oryx and Crake_ features just such a critter, the Chickie-Knob.
"Pigs are just too close to people in my mind."
On the farm, some pigs are WAY too close to the people. And not because the pigs want it that way.
It's exactly where you left it - nobody's going to steal that thing. :)
Not true. If someone shorted, then yes, he gains (when he covers the short), but someone who sold the day before isn't any _richer_ if stocks decline today, he just avoided getting poorer.
"That's why it good that it's more expensive for him: the point is that it should sting the same amount for everyone."
By this same logic, rich people should serve shorter prison sentences, since prison is a bigger decline in lifestyle for them than for poor people.
Um, you do know that the NYT article you cited comes to the conclusion that (a) the best translation, in context, of what he said is "wiped off the map," and (b) the Iranian government's own translators said that's the correct interpretation of what he said, right?
The Logan Act prohibits PRIVATE CITIZENS from attempting to influence policies of FOREIGN powers in ways contrary to the efforts of the US government. In other words, you can't run your own personal foreign policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of US public officials to meet with private citizens to discuss policy in secret.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > 953
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Um, it's Her Majesty's CUSTOMS. They can open any or all packages that come into the UK looking for contraband, which includes pirated DVDs. This isn't domestic mail we're talking about. Do they probably have better things to be doing? Yup. Are they completely within the law to do this? Yup.
The two biggest Venture Capitals are the Bay Area and Boston. :)
"I'm not saying the parent is right, but don't think for a moment that someone ripping a DVD has a damn thing to do with the cost you pay for "Star Wars Episode 20, Revenge of the Jar-Jar"."
No, but it does have something to do with the fact that I can't easily exercise my fair use rights for Episode 21, "All Ewoks, All The Time."
Hate Hollywood content? Fair enough, don't buy it. The "this stuff is such crap, I'm going to copy it illegally because it isn't worth paying for" argument just doesn't hold water, though.
Congratulations, you're not officially the MPAA's poster child. Ever stop to think that your ripping of rentals is what causes the industry to keep trying to ramp up copy protection?
Thanks to your behavior, my ability to make convenient use of content I _am_ willing to pay for is reduced.
Bialik's great. He writes the Journal's "Numbers Guy" column, which is almost reason enough to pony up the $100/yr for Online Journal all by itself.
I suggest you look up the names of those who have been put to death and later found innocent.
I tried to look it up, and can't find a single name of someone executed in the US but later determined to be innocent. The site to which you link doesn't include any either.
That depends - how do you look in orange?
Frankly, if you're storing 10 episodes of Ricki Lake, I think a trip to Gitmo is reasonable and appropriate. I'm all for free speech, but there's some conduct so reprehensible that we've just got to draw the line. :)
1. Pay the workers more than min wage. That way they're be cheerful and friendly to me.
Which will cost more.
2. Don't make me pay insane prices for food/drink.
Which will bring in less revenue.
3. Start to use digital projectors. (Make the experience better with better looking films.)
Which will cost more.
4. Show better films. (Talk to your friends in Hollywood, tell them to spend less of their budgets on marketing and more on the script.)
Theater owners don't really control this, they wish they did.
5. Move the seats further apart. Make it a comfortable experience.
Which will bring in less revenue.
6. Fewer commericals. (More trailers instead.)
Which will bring in less revenue.
Great suggestions for the consumer, but unless they're going to cause you to go to the movies _a lot_ more, lousy for the operators.
That's not what the guideline say. They're designed to ensure that the body itself doesn't become a vehicel for violation of antitrust laws (i.e. in the course of the meetings, everybody decides "let's raise prices for our software and services by 20%"), which could endanger the body's existence.
"Corporations in particular don't give a crap about whats best for the electorate. Their millions in donations are, first to convince a candidate to turn his back on the people, and second to win that candidate the election."
Um, you do know that corporations give $0 to candidates, right? Individual employees of corporations do (PACs), but corporate contributions to federal candidates are prohibited by law.
Frankly, the major purpose of donations isn't your first point, but your second. Find somebody who believes that tax rates on the rich should be cut, or EPA standards relaxed, or non-union workplaces banned, or gay marriage legalized, or whatever, and help to get him/her elected.
"derivatives contracts out there (17 trillion of which are interest rate related and doomed to fail)"
I'm going to leave the rest of the rant alone, other than to point out that, for every "failed" derivatives contract, the entity on the other side of the contract wins...
Looks like there may be a reason for this behavior. That package hasn't been available from its creators for nearly a year, and it seems (as indicated by this site) that there may be versions of the installer floating around that have had trojans attached to them...
Yeah, because you pay nothing for ESPN/TNT/TBS because they all carry ads.
T"azmania is an Island State to the south of Australia."
No, it isn't. Tasmania is an island south of Australia. Tazmania describes a bipolar cartoon character when he's not depressed.
"Who needs girls when you have Mars Saga and Basic."
This may be the saddest thing I have ever read.
Like it or not, US law (as interpreted by the courts) places a higher value on political speech than commercial speech. As a result, the restrictions that can be placed on political speech are less strict than those that can be placed on commercial speech.
Are we saying that it's OK that I'm "too poor" to be able to afford some simple entertainment because the industry keeps jacking up the prices with no justification other than lining their pockets?
Yes.