So... if an Italian was accused of committing a crime in the United States and for some reason the Italians were unhappy with the way the justice system in the United States worked would you be happy for Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to intervene in the US justice system - to "step in and put an end to the whole matter?"
Now I know this is hard for you to understand but many people in the world do not consider 'the way we do it in America' to be synonymous with 'the right, only and best way'. This sort of attitude is one of quite a few reasons why you're not very well liked.
So let's see how they did. Overthrow the Shah - oil price spike. We can argue about whether the Iran-Iraq war and another price spike would have happened without that meddling - I tend to suspect not. Invade Iraq - oil price spike. Invade Iraq again - bigger oil price spike.
Now US meddling is not the only factor affecting oil prices but it looks like the aim was to destabilise oil production so that the price went high enough that the US oil industry could make some profits too.
The logical solution would seem to be to give a discount on renewing your drivers licence and registration if you agree to be an organ donor. I'm sure a Nobel Prize winning economist could calculate the economic benefit of getting more people off transplant lists to see how much of a discount we could give and remain revenue neutral.
Allow the family to overrule a person's decision to be an organ donor but if they do the estate becomes liable for the amount discounted plus interest. If the estate cannot pay they have to. I suspect that the number of people with some sort of objection to a decision by a relative to donate their organs will decrease significantly if it bites them in the hip pocket.
Standing may not be so hard to come by if a lot of this material truly can't be copyrighted. Crowdsource the licence fee and the cost of a decent lawyer, make the material available for free in a very public manner, and wait for them to come to you.
I also wonder if this agreement would get them around being hit with a FOI request every time something new is released.
Or they can start their own businesses. That's a huge option you completely missed. It's not the market economy which punishes people for creating new businesses and hiring people. It's the zero sum people who think that there's only a fixed amount of work to go around and then set political policies based on that assumption.
Nope, didn't miss it. In theory they could - but for any given skillset there is only a finite amount of demand in the job market. So in this world where everyone has gone and started their own business are we just going to abandon the aged to their fate and not have anyone wait tables?
Let's give an example. Say society creates or raises a minimum wage. By zero sum thinking, this means that there's more money being paid in wages - because the number of jobs hasn't changed. In reality, people whose labor was worth less than minimum wage become unemployed and the quantity of jobs shrinks.
I do see where you are coming from but let me give you a counter-example.
Let's say company X employs 100 people at the absolute minimum they can get away with. Management is well rewarded for keeping costs down and a profit is made. Come Friday night the owner and management can afford to go out for dinner and a movie and do so. The owners of the local cinema and restaurant look around, see about six bums on seats, decide they can't afford this crap and let staff go and doesn't provide much business.
Alternately, company X is forced to pay a livable wage and come Friday night everyone can afford to go out. The local restaurant owner sees a full house and a queue any says, 'hell, I'm going to need another cook and a couple more waitstaff.' Come Monday morning, he's on the phone to company X to place a good sized order.
My point is, concentrating wealth tends to limit consumption in many ways. Even if that money is reinvested it's likely going elsewhere and still bleeding the local economy dry.
Protective tariffs and other forms of protectionism are more classic examples. The jobs are being taken by foreigners. So barriers are raised. By zero sum thinking, that should keep jobs from running away. In reality, it weakens the global economy making less jobs for everyone. And because one economy which already was operating at a disadvantage is hamstringing itself with protectionist barriers, new economic growth goes to the rest of the world.
And so begins a race to the bottom. We can make more profit employing people at cents per hour fourteen hours a day, seven days a week so if you want to work that's what we're offering... and back to my point about wealth concentration. I'm happy for trade to be flowing in all directions but I would be delighted if my government would say that if you're not meeting minimum work standards with regard to work hours, pay against the cost of living, safety, etc then you're not selling that crap in my country directly or indirectly. That aside I'm not a fan of protectionism. I've seen first-hand the effects of US farm subsidies on markets and how that affects other people.
I call bullshit. Show me anywhere in the capitalist western world where anyone is forced to labor. If you've taken a job, I suspect it's because you're better off taking it than not taking it. If you have a valuable skill to sell, then you have options. If you have a lack of options, that indicates you have a lack of valuable skills. Your failure to better your skills isn't the fault of the market economy.
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that everybody went and got these magical skills which gave us all 'options'. I doubt that very much would change. The guy working in aged care might be a skilled structural engineer, the guy picking fruit in the scorching heat might be a diesel mechanic and the poor girl who has to serve coffee to self-righteous fools probably has a better grasp of computer science than most of us will ever dream of. Why? Because there are only so many jobs available and a significant proportion of them are crappy, low-paying jobs - and that is the fault of how the market economy is set up.
So you don't view the raping, pillaging, and generally making an ass of yourselves as a problem? After all no Frenchman could have a problem with GIs bursting into his home at night demanding women or accosting "anything with a skirt" on the street could they? The French had a saying along the lines of with the Germans we camouflaged the men but with the Americans we had to hide the women.
Now don't get me wrong - the liberation of France was a tremendous thing and well worthy of gratitude from the French people despite the fact that they suffered horribly in the bombings leading up to Normandy. We can argue about whose army behaved more or less abominably but to claim that nothing wrong was done to the French is simply laughable.
If the money is still in the account, no. But if the bank that received the transfer has transferred that money out of the jurisdiction or exchanged that record in a database for a briefcase full of large denomination notes they're not going to be particularly keen on rolling the original transaction back.
Purely out of curiosity, are you familiar with the case you're referencing?
Because a mother losing her baby daughter to a dingo attack and then being falsely convicted of her murder (with the outlandish suggestion it was a cult sacrifice from certain media outlets) hardly seems the subject for humor. In terms of justice the initial trial was comparable to the Salem witch trials complete with racism, bad forensics, mishandled evidence, dubious expert witness testimony, religious hatred, and a large dose of media sensationalism. The mother did several years of a life with hard labor sentence before she was finally exonerated. It's the Lindy/Azaria Chamberlain case for the record.
Indeed. I had an American friend visiting and it was decided that a group of us would go to the beach. The guy who was going to drive announced that he would be ready just as soon as he got his thongs on. Now to an Australian that would be referring to a pair of cheap footwear. Our American guest understood something very different by thongs and was having second thoughts about whether this trip was something he wanted to participate in if that's what the guys were going to be wearing.
It is inherently worse, in my opinion, because it takes up a great chunk of screen real estate. It also makes it harder when you're trying to do phone support for a relative novice. Trying to describe the appearance and location of a particular icon (assuming they're even on the right tab) takes longer than telling them to select this from this menu.
Don't laugh. There was a bit of a scandal a while back when a New Zealand job agency that was presumably paid to get people off unemployment benefits was paying for plane tickets to send long term unemployed to Australia.
That's a very simplistic view. Consider the situation where militants enter an area they don't like - such as the Christian quarter, fire their rocket and go home. An Israeli military response, be it firing back or occupation, at the source of the rocket is pretty much a win-win for them. This is not a hypothetical situation. It happened repeatedly and probably will again.
While this is undoubtedly bad for author/artist/etc rights I see the far greater attack being on anonymous speech. There are many, many really good reasons why someone would speak anonymously through a variety of mediums.
Consider a woman who writes satirical prose on female rights from Saudi Arabia, a citizen attempting to bring down a despotic government, a person who happens to photograph a powerful person doing something they shouldn't or a three letter agency involved in arguably treasonous activities, or simply a person who would be fired if their boss found out about the views they were expressing; should they lose the right to control their work to a commercial free-for-all simply because it wasn't prudent for them to identify themselves as the creators of their work at the time?
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.
So you want the kid who works hard, pulls overtime, and gets promotions and bonuses to pay an order of magnitude more for the same education as compared to the one who puts in an indifferent effort at a mediocre job? That sounds fair.
Now if the DHS is a trusted system to banking, infrastructure, utilities, etc then all your enemies have to do is compromise the DHS and they get the keys to everything.
Ask yourself a silly question. Why would a country that is awash in oil go to these lengths, including being the subject of sanctions, merely to build a few nuclear power plants? It makes no sense. The only answer reason that a country would go through all this is to obtain a nuclear weapon, because that changes everything. Come on folks, are you all really that naive?
Why? Well, there is the little matter of Iran having some of the worst air pollution in the world. See for yourself. It is so bad that the Iranian health ministry attributed approximately 5,000 deaths last year to air pollution. Is it so inconceivable that Iran might want to go to a less polluting form of power generation?
As far as the sanctions go, I think Iran would look at what happened in Iraq and wonder if they would be lifted even if they did cooperate.
Australia has a government that desperately needs some wins in an election year. Given Australia's previous form on matters of importation this may well be an attempt by Adobe to head off further weakening of parallel import restrictions. This is a token gesture - note that it only seems to apply to a few mostly consumer grade products.
Australia has already removed parallel import restrictions on quite a few things and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says that any attempt to enforce DVD region codes may well be illegal. Any legislation that weakened parallel import restrictions on software would probably be a badly needed popularity boost for the government and a major headache for Adobe.
Yeah, their browse petitions section doesn't seem to work very well. Out of interest, what were the featured petitions on the home page that you went past to get to there? I would class your post as possibly technically accurate but misleading based on what I saw of the site - and I checked quite a few of the regional variations.
For the record I some of the featured petitions I saw were for:
soldiers who are killed while on peacekeeping duties to be included on the honour roll with those who died at war - 19k signatures
mandatory swimming lessons as part of schooling - 11k signatures
justice for a man who was beaten and died in police custody - 19k signatures
a Nobel Peace Prize for the Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban for speaking out in support of education for women - 133k signatures.
It may well be a bit more complicated than that. It appears that the subtitles in question were translated from English by amateurs, not produced in the US. There is precedent for translations being considered to contain sufficient creativity for their own copyright. If you look you will find lots of examples of copyrighted translations of works in the public domain.
While the translation is (almost certainly) technically infringing on the original subtitles (I'm not if fair use could be applicable but I doubt it) it itself is probably a copyright derivative work. The original rights holder can probably take legal action against the parties who translated/distributed the Finnish subtitles but without gaining control of the rights I don't believe they could authorise their use.
Slashdot Mirror
So... if an Italian was accused of committing a crime in the United States and for some reason the Italians were unhappy with the way the justice system in the United States worked would you be happy for Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to intervene in the US justice system - to "step in and put an end to the whole matter?"
Now I know this is hard for you to understand but many people in the world do not consider 'the way we do it in America' to be synonymous with 'the right, only and best way'. This sort of attitude is one of quite a few reasons why you're not very well liked.
So let's see how they did. Overthrow the Shah - oil price spike. We can argue about whether the Iran-Iraq war and another price spike would have happened without that meddling - I tend to suspect not. Invade Iraq - oil price spike. Invade Iraq again - bigger oil price spike.
Now US meddling is not the only factor affecting oil prices but it looks like the aim was to destabilise oil production so that the price went high enough that the US oil industry could make some profits too.
The logical solution would seem to be to give a discount on renewing your drivers licence and registration if you agree to be an organ donor. I'm sure a Nobel Prize winning economist could calculate the economic benefit of getting more people off transplant lists to see how much of a discount we could give and remain revenue neutral.
Allow the family to overrule a person's decision to be an organ donor but if they do the estate becomes liable for the amount discounted plus interest. If the estate cannot pay they have to. I suspect that the number of people with some sort of objection to a decision by a relative to donate their organs will decrease significantly if it bites them in the hip pocket.
replying to undo incorrect moderation
Standing may not be so hard to come by if a lot of this material truly can't be copyrighted. Crowdsource the licence fee and the cost of a decent lawyer, make the material available for free in a very public manner, and wait for them to come to you.
I also wonder if this agreement would get them around being hit with a FOI request every time something new is released.
Or they can start their own businesses. That's a huge option you completely missed. It's not the market economy which punishes people for creating new businesses and hiring people. It's the zero sum people who think that there's only a fixed amount of work to go around and then set political policies based on that assumption.
Nope, didn't miss it. In theory they could - but for any given skillset there is only a finite amount of demand in the job market. So in this world where everyone has gone and started their own business are we just going to abandon the aged to their fate and not have anyone wait tables?
Let's give an example. Say society creates or raises a minimum wage. By zero sum thinking, this means that there's more money being paid in wages - because the number of jobs hasn't changed. In reality, people whose labor was worth less than minimum wage become unemployed and the quantity of jobs shrinks.
I do see where you are coming from but let me give you a counter-example.
Let's say company X employs 100 people at the absolute minimum they can get away with. Management is well rewarded for keeping costs down and a profit is made. Come Friday night the owner and management can afford to go out for dinner and a movie and do so. The owners of the local cinema and restaurant look around, see about six bums on seats, decide they can't afford this crap and let staff go and doesn't provide much business.
Alternately, company X is forced to pay a livable wage and come Friday night everyone can afford to go out. The local restaurant owner sees a full house and a queue any says, 'hell, I'm going to need another cook and a couple more waitstaff.' Come Monday morning, he's on the phone to company X to place a good sized order.
My point is, concentrating wealth tends to limit consumption in many ways. Even if that money is reinvested it's likely going elsewhere and still bleeding the local economy dry.
Protective tariffs and other forms of protectionism are more classic examples. The jobs are being taken by foreigners. So barriers are raised. By zero sum thinking, that should keep jobs from running away. In reality, it weakens the global economy making less jobs for everyone. And because one economy which already was operating at a disadvantage is hamstringing itself with protectionist barriers, new economic growth goes to the rest of the world.
And so begins a race to the bottom. We can make more profit employing people at cents per hour fourteen hours a day, seven days a week so if you want to work that's what we're offering... and back to my point about wealth concentration. I'm happy for trade to be flowing in all directions but I would be delighted if my government would say that if you're not meeting minimum work standards with regard to work hours, pay against the cost of living, safety, etc then you're not selling that crap in my country directly or indirectly. That aside I'm not a fan of protectionism. I've seen first-hand the effects of US farm subsidies on markets and how that affects other people.
I call bullshit. Show me anywhere in the capitalist western world where anyone is forced to labor. If you've taken a job, I suspect it's because you're better off taking it than not taking it. If you have a valuable skill to sell, then you have options. If you have a lack of options, that indicates you have a lack of valuable skills. Your failure to better your skills isn't the fault of the market economy.
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that everybody went and got these magical skills which gave us all 'options'. I doubt that very much would change. The guy working in aged care might be a skilled structural engineer, the guy picking fruit in the scorching heat might be a diesel mechanic and the poor girl who has to serve coffee to self-righteous fools probably has a better grasp of computer science than most of us will ever dream of. Why? Because there are only so many jobs available and a significant proportion of them are crappy, low-paying jobs - and that is the fault of how the market economy is set up.
So you don't view the raping, pillaging, and generally making an ass of yourselves as a problem? After all no Frenchman could have a problem with GIs bursting into his home at night demanding women or accosting "anything with a skirt" on the street could they? The French had a saying along the lines of with the Germans we camouflaged the men but with the Americans we had to hide the women.
Now don't get me wrong - the liberation of France was a tremendous thing and well worthy of gratitude from the French people despite the fact that they suffered horribly in the bombings leading up to Normandy. We can argue about whose army behaved more or less abominably but to claim that nothing wrong was done to the French is simply laughable.
Of course not. Back then kids learned about guns and respected them... or rather acted like stupid juveniles with access to firearms
I have a hunch that the dog and the robot aren't going to get on very well
If the money is still in the account, no. But if the bank that received the transfer has transferred that money out of the jurisdiction or exchanged that record in a database for a briefcase full of large denomination notes they're not going to be particularly keen on rolling the original transaction back.
Purely out of curiosity, are you familiar with the case you're referencing?
Because a mother losing her baby daughter to a dingo attack and then being falsely convicted of her murder (with the outlandish suggestion it was a cult sacrifice from certain media outlets) hardly seems the subject for humor. In terms of justice the initial trial was comparable to the Salem witch trials complete with racism, bad forensics, mishandled evidence, dubious expert witness testimony, religious hatred, and a large dose of media sensationalism. The mother did several years of a life with hard labor sentence before she was finally exonerated. It's the Lindy/Azaria Chamberlain case for the record.
Indeed. I had an American friend visiting and it was decided that a group of us would go to the beach. The guy who was going to drive announced that he would be ready just as soon as he got his thongs on. Now to an Australian that would be referring to a pair of cheap footwear. Our American guest understood something very different by thongs and was having second thoughts about whether this trip was something he wanted to participate in if that's what the guys were going to be wearing.
It is inherently worse, in my opinion, because it takes up a great chunk of screen real estate. It also makes it harder when you're trying to do phone support for a relative novice. Trying to describe the appearance and location of a particular icon (assuming they're even on the right tab) takes longer than telling them to select this from this menu.
Do they use torches when they frequent online forums, you know to illuminate the shady websites?
Given that we're talking about online forums the odds are you'll find plenty of heat. Illumination, not so much. Oh, and plenty of pitchforks.
Don't laugh. There was a bit of a scandal a while back when a New Zealand job agency that was presumably paid to get people off unemployment benefits was paying for plane tickets to send long term unemployed to Australia.
That's a very simplistic view. Consider the situation where militants enter an area they don't like - such as the Christian quarter, fire their rocket and go home. An Israeli military response, be it firing back or occupation, at the source of the rocket is pretty much a win-win for them. This is not a hypothetical situation. It happened repeatedly and probably will again.
While this is undoubtedly bad for author/artist/etc rights I see the far greater attack being on anonymous speech. There are many, many really good reasons why someone would speak anonymously through a variety of mediums.
Consider a woman who writes satirical prose on female rights from Saudi Arabia, a citizen attempting to bring down a despotic government, a person who happens to photograph a powerful person doing something they shouldn't or a three letter agency involved in arguably treasonous activities, or simply a person who would be fired if their boss found out about the views they were expressing; should they lose the right to control their work to a commercial free-for-all simply because it wasn't prudent for them to identify themselves as the creators of their work at the time?
The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.
So you want the kid who works hard, pulls overtime, and gets promotions and bonuses to pay an order of magnitude more for the same education as compared to the one who puts in an indifferent effort at a mediocre job? That sounds fair.
Is this all happening in the same case? Any chance there's something that's shorting the board?
Now if the DHS is a trusted system to banking, infrastructure, utilities, etc then all your enemies have to do is compromise the DHS and they get the keys to everything.
Ask yourself a silly question. Why would a country that is awash in oil go to these lengths, including being the subject of sanctions, merely to build a few nuclear power plants? It makes no sense. The only answer reason that a country would go through all this is to obtain a nuclear weapon, because that changes everything. Come on folks, are you all really that naive?
Why? Well, there is the little matter of Iran having some of the worst air pollution in the world. See for yourself. It is so bad that the Iranian health ministry attributed approximately 5,000 deaths last year to air pollution. Is it so inconceivable that Iran might want to go to a less polluting form of power generation?
As far as the sanctions go, I think Iran would look at what happened in Iraq and wonder if they would be lifted even if they did cooperate.
Australia has a government that desperately needs some wins in an election year. Given Australia's previous form on matters of importation this may well be an attempt by Adobe to head off further weakening of parallel import restrictions. This is a token gesture - note that it only seems to apply to a few mostly consumer grade products.
Australia has already removed parallel import restrictions on quite a few things and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says that any attempt to enforce DVD region codes may well be illegal. Any legislation that weakened parallel import restrictions on software would probably be a badly needed popularity boost for the government and a major headache for Adobe.
Yeah, their browse petitions section doesn't seem to work very well. Out of interest, what were the featured petitions on the home page that you went past to get to there? I would class your post as possibly technically accurate but misleading based on what I saw of the site - and I checked quite a few of the regional variations.
For the record I some of the featured petitions I saw were for:
soldiers who are killed while on peacekeeping duties to be included on the honour roll with those who died at war - 19k signatures
mandatory swimming lessons as part of schooling - 11k signatures
justice for a man who was beaten and died in police custody - 19k signatures
a Nobel Peace Prize for the Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban for speaking out in support of education for women - 133k signatures.
It may well be a bit more complicated than that. It appears that the subtitles in question were translated from English by amateurs, not produced in the US. There is precedent for translations being considered to contain sufficient creativity for their own copyright. If you look you will find lots of examples of copyrighted translations of works in the public domain.
While the translation is (almost certainly) technically infringing on the original subtitles (I'm not if fair use could be applicable but I doubt it) it itself is probably a copyright derivative work. The original rights holder can probably take legal action against the parties who translated/distributed the Finnish subtitles but without gaining control of the rights I don't believe they could authorise their use.