How is it that it is okay to inject totally non-related riders into bills in this fashion? Shouldn't this kind of behavior be disallowed?
Go ahead and try to draft a definition of "substantionally related" that you can use to restrict which riders can be attached to which bills. I dare you. And oh yeah, try to find a constitutional basis for striking down such riders by the Supreme Court, which after all can only exert judicial review over matters concerning the constitution.
Someone please explain why our legistlative bodies haven't put a stop to this kind of thing?
Why? Because they're precisely the ones who are committing this fraud, and it's in their every incentive to do so, since it helps them get laws passed that couldn't get passed if standing on their own (or would get vetoed, for that matter). You don't expect one branch of government to police itself effectively, out of the goodness of its collective figurative heart, do you?
Unfortunately, empirically speaking, it's also a tax on the poor, many of whom spend upwards of half or more of their disposable income on lotto tickets, since while they may not have much money, they do have much hope. The richer one gets, the less sense it makes to risk the dollar one has for the diminishing potential dollar, even less sense than the entire enterprise to begin with. So while lottos usually support services for the poor (like schools), it's largely being paid by the poor themselves, which is hardly the redistribution of wealth some would hope it to be, which might strike some as completely fair.
Hey, Timothy, why does Slashdot tell me that my page was generated for me by a "flock of rabid geese"? Geese come in gaggles, not flocks, and they're avians, not mammals, so they can't get rabies. It's randomly generated, I know, but you have to fix this one. It's a showstopper.
Are you afraid that if a particularly buggy version of TUX slips out the door and trashes people's systems and loses valuable data, that a certain angry penguin will open a whole can of whoopass on you for defamation of character? Are you investing in reserves of herring and icecubes in anticipation of this event? Perhaps an adapted Ursus anti-bear suit?
I just wish there were some way of breaking down the submissions by category as rejected by the editorial staff. There's a big difference between having lots of reviews being submitted but rejected as and having what few reviews submitted get posted.
I'm hard pressed to remember the last time there was a book review on slashdot that had a negative opinion of the book reviewed. Is this because of self-selection by reviewers, either to bother writing reviews about only books that matter or to promote books that reviewers prefer? I would find it more useful to have reviews that also say "This book, while it may look like a winner on the shelf, is really a steaming pile of crap and should be avoided."
Robert Putnam just wrote Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, addressing this issue. His conclusion, as suggested from the title, is that in fact, we have more leisure time than ever, and that we engage in more leisurely activities than ever before. The wrinkle is, though, that we're no longer doing them in the sorts of social groups we have, historically. People are moving from place to place and no longer making the same sorts of social bonds, and while the internet has allowed for more social interaction, it has encouraged us to stay home and participate alone. We're still bowling, but we're doing it alone.
PS, the amazon.com link is for reference use only. Please continue to boycott them owing to their abuse of software patents.
When Congress enacts this sort of program, they always give it a name like "The Freedom of Infants and Children Act" or the "Prevention of Violence to Puppies Act" with a rider that slips in the big-brother grants of power.
The FBI, on the other hand, gives it a name that can't help but encourage visions of a government run-amok eating its citizens. Which, come to think of it, is not too far from the truth.
For a second there, I was afraid this would be an "Ask Slashdot" feature:
Ask Slashdot: Why Are We Still Stuck On Earth? Posted by Hemos on 07:15 AM July 11th, 2000 from the wanna-go-to-mars dept. Anonymous Coward writes: "Me and my friends were sitting around and we started wondering, hey! Why can't we go and live on Mars?! I wanna live on Mars. Don't you? Does anyone here have any experience with living on planets other than earth and maybe can give us some pointers?" Anonymous Coward raises some important points. Maybe someone working at Transmeta can steal some tech from work and help us along?
For some reason, in this country it's illegal to distribute trade secrets obtained in violation of NDAs (even not one's own), in spite of the 1st amendment. Just look at the mess with DeCSS and sites being sued who distribute the source code, even though they were not a party to any trade-secret violation. (Nevermind that it's debateable as to whether trade secrets were ever violated by anyone).
I'm not separating; I'm distinguishing. It's a natural distinction, since the constitutional mandate for copyrights perceives two benefits secured thereby: the benefit to individual authors/inventors for the protection of their works and the benefit to society at large by encouraging authors/inventors to produce works. If, however, Congress's current enactments prevent society from receiving the fruits of their half of the agreement, then there are severe constitutional issues afoot.
The grant of federal power to secure patents isn't in the bill of rights. It's in Article I, along with all the other clauses about legislative power. Your quote is also horribly paraphrased.
Apple has argued that the information published on the website was only available to people who had signed an NDA, and that therefore regardless of how MOSR got the rumor, it must have been in violation of an NDA. Apple isn't pursuing an action against MOSR per se, but against whichever person leaked the info to MOSR.
The benefit of MAME doesn't lie just in preserving the playing experience. It's also in providing an incentive for people to preserve the roms themselves. Bit rot is consuming old arcade machines like there's no tomorrow, and the problem is only going to get worse as the iron gets older.
This exposes a real problem with the way copyright is currently enforced. Yes, after a century, the roms will be in the public domain (unless Rep Sonny Bono comes back from the grave and hands another century to Disney). But if you're not allowed to copy the rom in the meantime, then the rom won't still be around. And don't just say that individuals have a fair-use right to make backups, since I'm talking about the harm to society as a whole by lost works in the public domain, not the harm to individuals.
... For the simple reason that Toysmart is in bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore anything that they do must be approved by a judge and given the imprimatur of the state. It's one thing for a company to reneg on an agreement. It's another thing for a judge to be holding the pooperscooper when it does.
It's not that they'll sell the data to such a company. It's that they'll sell all of Toysmart to such a company, thereby sweeping the customer data issue under the rug. Selling the data by themselves would be rather senseless if the receiving company isn't allowed to make use of them.
It means eWatch will contact the maintainers of such sites and demand that the offending post be removed. Most of the time, the maintainers will cave in and comply.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it that it is okay to inject totally non-related riders into bills in this fashion? Shouldn't this kind of behavior be disallowed?
Go ahead and try to draft a definition of "substantionally related" that you can use to restrict which riders can be attached to which bills. I dare you. And oh yeah, try to find a constitutional basis for striking down such riders by the Supreme Court, which after all can only exert judicial review over matters concerning the constitution.
Someone please explain why our legistlative bodies haven't put a stop to this kind of thing?
Why? Because they're precisely the ones who are committing this fraud, and it's in their every incentive to do so, since it helps them get laws passed that couldn't get passed if standing on their own (or would get vetoed, for that matter). You don't expect one branch of government to police itself effectively, out of the goodness of its collective figurative heart, do you?
Unfortunately, empirically speaking, it's also a tax on the poor, many of whom spend upwards of half or more of their disposable income on lotto tickets, since while they may not have much money, they do have much hope. The richer one gets, the less sense it makes to risk the dollar one has for the diminishing potential dollar, even less sense than the entire enterprise to begin with. So while lottos usually support services for the poor (like schools), it's largely being paid by the poor themselves, which is hardly the redistribution of wealth some would hope it to be, which might strike some as completely fair.
Think about it - who's more likely to show up at the polls - the average apathetic american voter, or the rapid right-wing one?
I would hardly call them rapid, since the Republicans' mascot is, after all, the elephant.
But have they started enrolling in Hope College?
Hey, Timothy, why does Slashdot tell me that my page was generated for me by a "flock of rabid geese"? Geese come in gaggles, not flocks, and they're avians, not mammals, so they can't get rabies. It's randomly generated, I know, but you have to fix this one. It's a showstopper.
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I didn't read your comment as scathing at all; just frank. But then, people think I'm arrogant, so what do I know?...
Are you afraid that if a particularly buggy version of TUX slips out the door and trashes people's systems and loses valuable data, that a certain angry penguin will open a whole can of whoopass on you for defamation of character? Are you investing in reserves of herring and icecubes in anticipation of this event? Perhaps an adapted Ursus anti-bear suit?
I just wish there were some way of breaking down the submissions by category as rejected by the editorial staff. There's a big difference between having lots of reviews being submitted but rejected as and having what few reviews submitted get posted.
I'm hard pressed to remember the last time there was a book review on slashdot that had a negative opinion of the book reviewed. Is this because of self-selection by reviewers, either to bother writing reviews about only books that matter or to promote books that reviewers prefer? I would find it more useful to have reviews that also say "This book, while it may look like a winner on the shelf, is really a steaming pile of crap and should be avoided."
Robert Putnam just wrote Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, addressing this issue. His conclusion, as suggested from the title, is that in fact, we have more leisure time than ever, and that we engage in more leisurely activities than ever before. The wrinkle is, though, that we're no longer doing them in the sorts of social groups we have, historically. People are moving from place to place and no longer making the same sorts of social bonds, and while the internet has allowed for more social interaction, it has encouraged us to stay home and participate alone. We're still bowling, but we're doing it alone.
PS, the amazon.com link is for reference use only. Please continue to boycott them owing to their abuse of software patents.
When Congress enacts this sort of program, they always give it a name like "The Freedom of Infants and Children Act" or the "Prevention of Violence to Puppies Act" with a rider that slips in the big-brother grants of power.
The FBI, on the other hand, gives it a name that can't help but encourage visions of a government run-amok eating its citizens. Which, come to think of it, is not too far from the truth.
For a second there, I was afraid this would be an "Ask Slashdot" feature:
Ask Slashdot: Why Are We Still Stuck On Earth?
Posted by Hemos on 07:15 AM July 11th, 2000
from the wanna-go-to-mars dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "Me and my friends were sitting around and we started wondering, hey! Why can't we go and live on Mars?! I wanna live on Mars. Don't you? Does anyone here have any experience with living on planets other than earth and maybe can give us some pointers?" Anonymous Coward raises some important points. Maybe someone working at Transmeta can steal some tech from work and help us along?
For some reason, in this country it's illegal to distribute trade secrets obtained in violation of NDAs (even not one's own), in spite of the 1st amendment. Just look at the mess with DeCSS and sites being sued who distribute the source code, even though they were not a party to any trade-secret violation. (Nevermind that it's debateable as to whether trade secrets were ever violated by anyone).
Step outside games for a moment. How could Sony be anything but a content powerhouse with their domination in music and other industries?
I'm not separating; I'm distinguishing. It's a natural distinction, since the constitutional mandate for copyrights perceives two benefits secured thereby: the benefit to individual authors/inventors for the protection of their works and the benefit to society at large by encouraging authors/inventors to produce works. If, however, Congress's current enactments prevent society from receiving the fruits of their half of the agreement, then there are severe constitutional issues afoot.
The grant of federal power to secure patents isn't in the bill of rights. It's in Article I, along with all the other clauses about legislative power. Your quote is also horribly paraphrased.
Apple has argued that the information published on the website was only available to people who had signed an NDA, and that therefore regardless of how MOSR got the rumor, it must have been in violation of an NDA. Apple isn't pursuing an action against MOSR per se, but against whichever person leaked the info to MOSR.
This is about NDAs and trade secret. Not libel. Please reread the article.
The benefit of MAME doesn't lie just in preserving the playing experience. It's also in providing an incentive for people to preserve the roms themselves. Bit rot is consuming old arcade machines like there's no tomorrow, and the problem is only going to get worse as the iron gets older.
This exposes a real problem with the way copyright is currently enforced. Yes, after a century, the roms will be in the public domain (unless Rep Sonny Bono comes back from the grave and hands another century to Disney). But if you're not allowed to copy the rom in the meantime, then the rom won't still be around. And don't just say that individuals have a fair-use right to make backups, since I'm talking about the harm to society as a whole by lost works in the public domain, not the harm to individuals.
No, we need to start our own FTC and bring some competition to this market long dominated by a single monopolistic player.
... For the simple reason that Toysmart is in bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore anything that they do must be approved by a judge and given the imprimatur of the state. It's one thing for a company to reneg on an agreement. It's another thing for a judge to be holding the pooperscooper when it does.
It's not that they'll sell the data to such a company. It's that they'll sell all of Toysmart to such a company, thereby sweeping the customer data issue under the rug. Selling the data by themselves would be rather senseless if the receiving company isn't allowed to make use of them.
A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Both become libertarians, come April 15.
It means eWatch will contact the maintainers of such sites and demand that the offending post be removed. Most of the time, the maintainers will cave in and comply.
Whoah, there. Be more careful with your hypotheticals. You don't want the X Consortiom to sue you for that post.