The FCC has authority derived from the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Technically they have no authority to govern intrastate radio emissions.
You are incorrect. See WICKARD v. FILBURN
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/111.html
In this case, a man who owned a farm was prohibitied from growing wheat for local use only because of a national agricultural adjustment act. The US supereme court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the regulation of intrastate goods. Because in this case the wheat produced, even when produced for self-susitance purposes, meant those people using the wheat didn't by from the national supply, the court ruled that the US congress could regulate it.
I think if the FCC's regulations can be construed as an impact on business of any kind, local or national, that they have the power to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.
Yes, I am. My main interests are IP law. I also am interested in constitutional law. I would ideally like to work for the EFF and try to set a few wrongs right.
I am an American, I prefer the Brittish (which I guess that term isn't right if you are from Northern Ireland?) spelling of words and many Brittish words (like "loft") to their American counterparts. When I was in 10th grade, I tried the Brittish spelling for some words in a paper and got marked off:(.
UK is cool. At least if I lived there, I could visit all the other cool places in Europe! (The Brittish are acknowledging this month that they are a part of Europe, right?)
The FTC says Childs and Lightfoot promoted a "get rich quick" chain mail scheme via spam and Web sites, promising participants they'd receive $10,000 in "gifts" within a "short period." Recipients of the e-mail and visitors to the Web sites were asked to pay a one-time $41 membership fee.
"But sharp business is something different, it is playing the game of business so close to the boundary of good faith and legality that it is hard to tell where that boundary is or if there even is such a boundary. "
This is also sometimes refered to as a Coup de Jarnac. Jarnac won a dual against Francois de Vivonne in 1547. Jarnac got to pick the weapon, and instead of one, he picked several fo that Francois wouldn't know which one. Jarnac also knew that Francois was famous for a particular move when he fought that would expose his hamstring. So, Jarnac just played the dual to a draw until Francois exposed himself, and then he cut his hamstrings and Francois bled to death.
While technically within the rules, it was considered dirty, and hense Coup de Jarnac is a term that can be used to describe this.
You know what? Screw you. Seriously. You work for me. I buy your software. That money pays you. I know as much about tech as you do. Every once in a while, I don't know how to do something. We all forget.
Your are one of those asses that I reach on the other end that other people are talking about. Thanks for your piss poor attitude. I will be calling. Feel free to hang up on me. I will be looking forward to filing a complaint.
I am technically competent and do not like to be coddled or trifled with.
See, my statement means it is impossible that if I am holding an Umbrella that it is not raining. But, we simply don't know what it means if I am NOT holding the umbrella. It might be raining, it might not be.
Ex 2. "If an only if"
"If and only if I am holding an umbrella, then it is raining."
In addition to other insightful comments that have listed why this is a good thing, I would like to add that the web is volital, and the article could be removed from its current location. By imbedding the article in the comment of the article itself, it presents much needed context for someone who comes back to read these comments well down the road (in case they are doing research or are trying to see a history of a particular topic, etc.)
I hear you. I saw a Galaga machine in a pizza place the other day and dumped $3 in quarters I had on me into it. Got up to level 34 I think. I have gotten rusty, but it is still one of my favorites.
Basically, once there has been a ruling, it lasts forever and can never be changed, except when superceded by law.
You are mostly right, but there is at least one clear time when the US Supreme Court overruled itself. The case was Hammer v. Dagenhart in 1918, which was overruled by United States v. Barby, decided in 1941. To read more about how some justices view the constrain of precident, read O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania v. Casey, decided in 1992. Here is a link to that opinion.
There is almost zero chance that this case will be overruled though. But, Congress change change this rulling fortunatly, so this ruling isn't final for all time.
In a recent ZDNet article, ZDNet write/predicts that Linux will this year or perhaps next overtake Apple's OS to become the second most common desktop OS. Microsoft simply seems to be reponding to this increasing pressure, which as the ZDNet article point out, is coming as more government's switch over to Linux.
Does that mean that every program written for Win32 belongs to Microsoft? Or that they could sue the developers?
Can you really write a win32 application using only your code? Without linking to any library?
I wouldn't know, since I don't develop programs, but I would think that the terms of use for those libraries allow you to use them "freely". I was saying that if you used a library, you had to use the terms that the library was created under. I would suspect the terms for MS library allow for relativly free use, so there is no conflict against what I said earlier. The GPL library terms are not a "free" in this sense, so if you use a GPL library, I would think that means you must have your program be GPLed, whereas if you used a Microsoft library, I suspect there is no such quid pro quo.
This opinion is probably not legally sound, but it would seem to me that anything would be derivative. Linking to a library, calling a function of a library, etc. The lawyer in the article says (paraphrasing since I can't get an exact quote since the site is/.ed) that surely calling the sqrt() function isn't derivative.
Why not? If it is a sqrt() function in a free software library, I think that does count. If the author of the package doesn't want it to count, he can write his own sqrt() function and own library. If he write it from scratch, no copyright, and no legal problem. Then he can call sqrt() all day long.
As has been said previously, if we had open software package X that "accidentally" used a library copyrighted by Microsoft, does anyone thing that Microsoft wouldn't sue us? Write your own code. If you "use" someone else's code, it only seems logical that you have to agree to their terms, no matter how small the piece of code. If it is truly that small, write it yourself, and there are no issues.
and then I sunk to the bottom of the pool and sat there thinking that I was really screwed.
That made me laugh! Did you tell your dad about how you thought you were screwed? "Aw-shit!" Lol.
Three in my life, I can recall thinking I was going to drown, so I know what you are talking about. Your story brought back all kinds of memories (the irony) that cracked me up.
Slashdot Mirror
You are incorrect. See WICKARD v. FILBURN
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/111.html
In this case, a man who owned a farm was prohibitied from growing wheat for local use only because of a national agricultural adjustment act. The US supereme court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the regulation of intrastate goods. Because in this case the wheat produced, even when produced for self-susitance purposes, meant those people using the wheat didn't by from the national supply, the court ruled that the US congress could regulate it.
I think if the FCC's regulations can be construed as an impact on business of any kind, local or national, that they have the power to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.
[IANAL, this is not legal advice]
This goes straight into one of my iron clad personal rules:
Never, ever, ever, ever, sign a video release wavier.
Yes, I am. My main interests are IP law. I also am interested in constitutional law. I would ideally like to work for the EFF and try to set a few wrongs right.
I'll have a JD in 3 years, and I have a CS undergrad degree. Think they would be interested in me?
"Chief Council - Google" Mmmmmm. Sounds yummy.
I am an American, I prefer the Brittish (which I guess that term isn't right if you are from Northern Ireland?) spelling of words and many Brittish words (like "loft") to their American counterparts. When I was in 10th grade, I tried the Brittish spelling for some words in a paper and got marked off
UK is cool. At least if I lived there, I could visit all the other cool places in Europe! (The Brittish are acknowledging this month that they are a part of Europe, right?)
Deal with it.
The FTC says Childs and Lightfoot promoted a "get rich quick" chain mail scheme via spam and Web sites, promising participants they'd receive $10,000 in "gifts" within a "short period." Recipients of the e-mail and visitors to the Web sites were asked to pay a one-time $41 membership fee.
$250,000 is more then $10,000. Profit!
If that is the case, what are the names for the appeal and "supreme" courts in NY?
"But sharp business is something different, it is playing the game of business so close to the boundary of good faith and legality that it is hard to tell where that boundary is or if there even is such a boundary. "
This is also sometimes refered to as a Coup de Jarnac. Jarnac won a dual against Francois de Vivonne in 1547. Jarnac got to pick the weapon, and instead of one, he picked several fo that Francois wouldn't know which one. Jarnac also knew that Francois was famous for a particular move when he fought that would expose his hamstring. So, Jarnac just played the dual to a draw until Francois exposed himself, and then he cut his hamstrings and Francois bled to death.
While technically within the rules, it was considered dirty, and hense Coup de Jarnac is a term that can be used to describe this.
So ends your history lesson for today.
You know what? Screw you. Seriously. You work for me. I buy your software. That money pays you. I know as much about tech as you do. Every once in a while, I don't know how to do something. We all forget.
Your are one of those asses that I reach on the other end that other people are talking about. Thanks for your piss poor attitude. I will be calling. Feel free to hang up on me. I will be looking forward to filing a complaint.
I am technically competent and do not like to be coddled or trifled with.
These are completely different statements, assuming the speaker is using the terms correctly.
I think I can best demonstrate by example.
Ex 1: "If"
"If I am holding an umbrella, then it is raining."
Logically: Umbrella -> Raining
FALSE : Umbrella -> !Raining
UNSURE : !Umbrella -> !Raining
UNSURE : !Umbrella -> Raining
See, my statement means it is impossible that if I am holding an Umbrella that it is not raining. But, we simply don't know what it means if I am NOT holding the umbrella. It might be raining, it might not be.
Ex 2. "If an only if"
"If and only if I am holding an umbrella, then it is raining."
Logically: Umbrella -> Raining
FALSE : Umbrella -> !Raining
Logically: !Umbrella -> !Raining
FALSE : !Umbrella -> Raining
So, everything is example one still holds, but now the if->then statement applys BOTH WAYS.
"If and only if I am holding an umbrella, then it is raining."
is the same as saying:
"If I am holding an umbrella, then it is raining."
AND
"If it is raining, then I am holding an umbrella."
I hope that clears things up a bit.
In addition to other insightful comments that have listed why this is a good thing, I would like to add that the web is volital, and the article could be removed from its current location. By imbedding the article in the comment of the article itself, it presents much needed context for someone who comes back to read these comments well down the road (in case they are doing research or are trying to see a history of a particular topic, etc.)
From the www.la page.....
Premium Names
coke.la $100.00
hooker.la $100.00
pharmaceutical.la $100.00
consultancy.la $100.00
Could raise some "red" flags.
Discussion on this bill begins at 1:12:40 into the RM video.
I hear you. I saw a Galaga machine in a pizza place the other day and dumped $3 in quarters I had on me into it. Got up to level 34 I think. I have gotten rusty, but it is still one of my favorites.
Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?
No problem...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I really want to know to, as I am looking to do the same thing.
Basically, once there has been a ruling, it lasts forever and can never be changed, except when superceded by law.
You are mostly right, but there is at least one clear time when the US Supreme Court overruled itself. The case was Hammer v. Dagenhart in 1918, which was overruled by United States v. Barby, decided in 1941. To read more about how some justices view the constrain of precident, read O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania v. Casey, decided in 1992. Here is a link to that opinion.
There is almost zero chance that this case will be overruled though. But, Congress change change this rulling fortunatly, so this ruling isn't final for all time.
In a recent ZDNet article, ZDNet write/predicts that Linux will this year or perhaps next overtake Apple's OS to become the second most common desktop OS. Microsoft simply seems to be reponding to this increasing pressure, which as the ZDNet article point out, is coming as more government's switch over to Linux.
Does that mean that every program written for Win32 belongs to Microsoft? Or that they could sue the developers?
Can you really write a win32 application using only your code? Without linking to any library?
I wouldn't know, since I don't develop programs, but I would think that the terms of use for those libraries allow you to use them "freely". I was saying that if you used a library, you had to use the terms that the library was created under. I would suspect the terms for MS library allow for relativly free use, so there is no conflict against what I said earlier. The GPL library terms are not a "free" in this sense, so if you use a GPL library, I would think that means you must have your program be GPLed, whereas if you used a Microsoft library, I suspect there is no such quid pro quo.
This opinion is probably not legally sound, but it would seem to me that anything would be derivative. Linking to a library, calling a function of a library, etc. The lawyer in the article says (paraphrasing since I can't get an exact quote since the site is
Why not? If it is a sqrt() function in a free software library, I think that does count. If the author of the package doesn't want it to count, he can write his own sqrt() function and own library. If he write it from scratch, no copyright, and no legal problem. Then he can call sqrt() all day long.
As has been said previously, if we had open software package X that "accidentally" used a library copyrighted by Microsoft, does anyone thing that Microsoft wouldn't sue us? Write your own code. If you "use" someone else's code, it only seems logical that you have to agree to their terms, no matter how small the piece of code. If it is truly that small, write it yourself, and there are no issues.
and then I sunk to the bottom of the pool and sat there thinking that I was really screwed.
That made me laugh! Did you tell your dad about how you thought you were screwed? "Aw-shit!" Lol.
Three in my life, I can recall thinking I was going to drown, so I know what you are talking about. Your story brought back all kinds of memories (the irony) that cracked me up.
I am waiting for Progress Quest to come out for Linux.
Can you explain who Natalie Portman is?
Sure, she is the actress who plays Queen Padmé Amidala in the new Star Wars movies.
In Soviet Russia, all your base are belong to a Beowulf cluster. Profit!
Throw Steven King and Grits into that somehow, and I thibk you will have a winner.
You made me laugh. Thanks.