With all the obvious fraud going on, I would argue that over the last 10 years, the FTC hasn't been doing the job with the powers it already has. It shouldn't matter whether the company advertises via newspaper, internet, tv, etc., nor should it matter if they sell by mail order, internet, or phone, the FTC is _supposed_ to insure that the playing field is level for consumers and businesses. Perhaps they should work on enforcing EXISTING laws with their EXISTING powers, which would already include internet companies.
If you want overly technical scifi-babble about the technology and methods used in Star Trek, I suggest you watch Voyager instead. The stories aren't nearly as good, but they use lots of $2 words.
Where copyright is counter to free political speech, copyright gives way.
Wrong. You can still make your message without using someone else's work, so it would in no way infringe your first amendment rights. You don't lose your rights to your own work simply because someone else has a political bone to pick.
You also don't have the right to walk into my house and make a political speech. Your first amendment rights don't "trump" my property rights. You have the right to make your speech in a public place, your home, or the home of anyone who allows you permission to gain access. Whether you, me, the copyright owner, the satirist, whoever, is a Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Librarian or whatever, is meaningless in the context of rights.
And on the main point, it is pretty simple: Parody makes fun of the work you are borrowing from (Wierd Al), Satire is when what you are making fun of is not related to the material being used at all. Why this is an issue when they are clearly defined in law is beyond me. This is why most legal satire uses familiar music that is in the public domain (the tune from Yankee Doodle, etc.) Mark Russell is an old school political satirist who seems to have understood this.
The question is: will they simply pay a fine, or will someone actually get to face a criminal charge? All too often (in the US) people get off free because the offense is blamed on the Corporation® and not the individual acting on behalf of the corporation. If this is knowingly purchasing stolen goods, then it should be treated like any other case of the same.
Exactly what I was thinking, that they would give you "free" extended coverage for the "life of the machine", which of course, is -3 days since they killed them.
"Redneck" is racially charged, as I have never met a black redneck, only white. There are other negative terms used for blacks who fit the same level of ignorance and laziness that is attributed for "rednecks". The word "redneck" does NOT have the same negative power, rightfully so, but it is still a term used to speak disparagingly about poor whites, particularly in the southeastern US, similar to "hillbilly" in more mountainous areas of the US.
Comedians have claimed the word as their own (Jeff Foxworthy in particular) but it is still a negative term. Blacks have also claimed disparaging words as their own, as a form of empowerment. In both cases, when used by someone who doesn't "belong" to the group, it is done as a racially indicative insult.
The people I am talking about preferring US beef aren't afraid of paying $100 for a steak. These are business owners, industry leaders, etc. People of means. I have done limited traveling in Europe, mainly Belgium and Eastern Europe. Comparing to Eastern Europe is not valid, as you can't find the quantity or quality of food you would find in the West. As for Belgium, the food there was certainly good but not above what I would expect in any US city. I did notice they were quite sparing with the meat in dishes, but I didn't eat enough beef to get a real comparison. Anyway, I wasn't making the claim, I was simply saying that I know many Europeans who say so, and have never worked with one who felt the opposite was true.
So you could say that... the situation between climate scientists and the anti-climate-change crowd is heating up?
I read somewhere that the situation isn't really heating up, and that the information was cherry picked to make it LOOK like it was. Besides, the relationship between anti-climate people and scientists naturally heats up and cools down, so you can't really attribute the the current state to these articles, it could be part of a larger, natural cycle...
That seems to be the point of Nimoy retiring, and this is partly his way of saying Spock > Nimoy. He has certainly earned the right to a private retirement. I will miss him on future Futurama episodes, however.
I'm not convinced that Europe has better beef than America. As a matter of fact, every European I know, the first thing they want when they take business trips here is a good T-bone steak. They say the beef in Europe is tasteless compared to US beef. Might be all the hormones we use, however. Either way, Europeans who have compared the two, prefer US beef for flavor.
Comedy Central isn't an over the air broadcast corporation, they are cable/satellite only. The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction.
CC can air whatever they want that is protected. The first amendment doesn't just protect the artist, but the publication/distribution/airing of the content as well. Someone can sue, but people sue all the time, that is why they have a legal team. This is a clear cut 1st Amendment issue.
They didn't air it out of fear of getting sued, they didn't air it out of fear of getting bombed. Which of course, means it was effective, and all Muslim extremists now are confident that this the course of action they should take: make threats, because it works.
No thanks. You stay in your world, I will stay in mine.
Wrong. Please read the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for citation. The actual content being aired easily passes the test for free and responsible speech. You can't yell "fire" in a movie house, you can't incite a riot, but you certainly can make a point about religious tolerance. This is exactly why the 1st Amendment exists.
How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault?
All of them. Obviously this guy wasnt drunk, disorderly and didn't commit assault. The cops didn't even accuse him of such. He was arrested because the cops had his wallet and didn't want to open it to ID him and he wouldn't give them the ID, which is perfectly legal.
If they felt they needed to arrest people for being drunk and disorderly, they would have, but they didn't. They weren't even capable of finding the guy who did the assault, who later apologized for the very, very minor assault. (foam ball to the face.)
Actually, you are correct. If there was criminal intent (the most likely scenario) then there would absolutely be a cause of action. The chief *should* be reviewed, and likely replaced, whether or not he knew about this specific incident. This type of widespread criminality doesn't happen unless it is condoned at the top. (the end justifies the means)
It isn't about porn (the last think I would do with a cell phone), it is about liberty. And yes, Apple is late to the party. I've been complaining about the others for years now.
The more I read the article (yes, some of us do), the more obvious that this is a systemic issue with the Seattle police dept, and this was a bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)
And falsifying police document. Perhaps perjury as well, if the cops told this to a judge. This is one of those times when "making an example" is the right answer. Otherwise, wtf should we trust the police?
Slashdot Mirror
With all the obvious fraud going on, I would argue that over the last 10 years, the FTC hasn't been doing the job with the powers it already has. It shouldn't matter whether the company advertises via newspaper, internet, tv, etc., nor should it matter if they sell by mail order, internet, or phone, the FTC is _supposed_ to insure that the playing field is level for consumers and businesses. Perhaps they should work on enforcing EXISTING laws with their EXISTING powers, which would already include internet companies.
If you want overly technical scifi-babble about the technology and methods used in Star Trek, I suggest you watch Voyager instead. The stories aren't nearly as good, but they use lots of $2 words.
iKarOS?
Sounds like an open source project to replace the faulty code in the oft crashing Toyotas. Using a Darwin kernel.
Best answer so far. Yes they can. The real question should be "SHOULD they do this".
They outed the almighty Google...
Google is gay?
Except that your cell phone probably takes better pictures.
Bigger != Better
isn't sco dead yet?
You aren't dead unless Netcraft says you're dead.
As long as both groups are using equally-inflated numbers, the effect evens out. :)
So the net loss to the music industry because of piracy is about $132 then?
Where copyright is counter to free political speech, copyright gives way.
Wrong. You can still make your message without using someone else's work, so it would in no way infringe your first amendment rights. You don't lose your rights to your own work simply because someone else has a political bone to pick.
You also don't have the right to walk into my house and make a political speech. Your first amendment rights don't "trump" my property rights. You have the right to make your speech in a public place, your home, or the home of anyone who allows you permission to gain access. Whether you, me, the copyright owner, the satirist, whoever, is a Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Librarian or whatever, is meaningless in the context of rights.
And on the main point, it is pretty simple: Parody makes fun of the work you are borrowing from (Wierd Al), Satire is when what you are making fun of is not related to the material being used at all. Why this is an issue when they are clearly defined in law is beyond me. This is why most legal satire uses familiar music that is in the public domain (the tune from Yankee Doodle, etc.) Mark Russell is an old school political satirist who seems to have understood this.
Corporations do end up paying tax, 35%, which is why so many are moving offshore, as the tax system in the US is already overly socialist.
The question is: will they simply pay a fine, or will someone actually get to face a criminal charge? All too often (in the US) people get off free because the offense is blamed on the Corporation® and not the individual acting on behalf of the corporation. If this is knowingly purchasing stolen goods, then it should be treated like any other case of the same.
Exactly what I was thinking, that they would give you "free" extended coverage for the "life of the machine", which of course, is -3 days since they killed them.
"Redneck" is racially charged, as I have never met a black redneck, only white. There are other negative terms used for blacks who fit the same level of ignorance and laziness that is attributed for "rednecks". The word "redneck" does NOT have the same negative power, rightfully so, but it is still a term used to speak disparagingly about poor whites, particularly in the southeastern US, similar to "hillbilly" in more mountainous areas of the US.
Comedians have claimed the word as their own (Jeff Foxworthy in particular) but it is still a negative term. Blacks have also claimed disparaging words as their own, as a form of empowerment. In both cases, when used by someone who doesn't "belong" to the group, it is done as a racially indicative insult.
The people I am talking about preferring US beef aren't afraid of paying $100 for a steak. These are business owners, industry leaders, etc. People of means. I have done limited traveling in Europe, mainly Belgium and Eastern Europe. Comparing to Eastern Europe is not valid, as you can't find the quantity or quality of food you would find in the West. As for Belgium, the food there was certainly good but not above what I would expect in any US city. I did notice they were quite sparing with the meat in dishes, but I didn't eat enough beef to get a real comparison. Anyway, I wasn't making the claim, I was simply saying that I know many Europeans who say so, and have never worked with one who felt the opposite was true.
So you could say that... the situation between climate scientists and the anti-climate-change crowd is heating up?
I read somewhere that the situation isn't really heating up, and that the information was cherry picked to make it LOOK like it was. Besides, the relationship between anti-climate people and scientists naturally heats up and cools down, so you can't really attribute the the current state to these articles, it could be part of a larger, natural cycle...
Spock must live on!
That seems to be the point of Nimoy retiring, and this is partly his way of saying Spock > Nimoy. He has certainly earned the right to a private retirement. I will miss him on future Futurama episodes, however.
I'm not convinced that Europe has better beef than America. As a matter of fact, every European I know, the first thing they want when they take business trips here is a good T-bone steak. They say the beef in Europe is tasteless compared to US beef. Might be all the hormones we use, however. Either way, Europeans who have compared the two, prefer US beef for flavor.
Comedy Central isn't an over the air broadcast corporation, they are cable/satellite only. The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction.
CC can air whatever they want that is protected. The first amendment doesn't just protect the artist, but the publication/distribution/airing of the content as well. Someone can sue, but people sue all the time, that is why they have a legal team. This is a clear cut 1st Amendment issue.
They didn't air it out of fear of getting sued, they didn't air it out of fear of getting bombed. Which of course, means it was effective, and all Muslim extremists now are confident that this the course of action they should take: make threats, because it works.
No thanks. You stay in your world, I will stay in mine.
Wrong. Please read the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for citation. The actual content being aired easily passes the test for free and responsible speech. You can't yell "fire" in a movie house, you can't incite a riot, but you certainly can make a point about religious tolerance. This is exactly why the 1st Amendment exists.
Its not like making fun of religious figures is illegal.
It is in Saudi Arabia and all other Muslim countries. Of course it isn't in America, which is what should matter but doesn't to CC.
Perhaps CC doesn't want to miss out on all the advertisers who have Muslim specific products, who might pull their ads.......
How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault?
All of them. Obviously this guy wasnt drunk, disorderly and didn't commit assault. The cops didn't even accuse him of such. He was arrested because the cops had his wallet and didn't want to open it to ID him and he wouldn't give them the ID, which is perfectly legal.
If they felt they needed to arrest people for being drunk and disorderly, they would have, but they didn't. They weren't even capable of finding the guy who did the assault, who later apologized for the very, very minor assault. (foam ball to the face.)
RTFA
Actually, you are correct. If there was criminal intent (the most likely scenario) then there would absolutely be a cause of action. The chief *should* be reviewed, and likely replaced, whether or not he knew about this specific incident. This type of widespread criminality doesn't happen unless it is condoned at the top. (the end justifies the means)
It isn't about porn (the last think I would do with a cell phone), it is about liberty. And yes, Apple is late to the party. I've been complaining about the others for years now.
The more I read the article (yes, some of us do), the more obvious that this is a systemic issue with the Seattle police dept, and this was a bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)
And falsifying police document. Perhaps perjury as well, if the cops told this to a judge. This is one of those times when "making an example" is the right answer. Otherwise, wtf should we trust the police?