You think anyone is going to take you seriously when you write like that?
Allow me to fix your words as my brain parses them before I reply:
We need a national ID system that people can choose to take part of. Those taking part could force all credit card transactions or other sensitive transactions to require it. The ID system should be opt-in for each citizen, but required for all information holders.
It should be based on a PKCS#11 tokens, and allow people to select the token that they like. So, the ultra paranoid (me) can use a biometericlly locked token.
The only reason thieves are interested in our personal data is that it allows them to become us. Without that there is no interest and our privacy can return. Forcing the banks to support a common PKI will not be hard: no PKI, no FDIC insurance. That will get all the financial institutions on board. And where they go, everyone will follow.
These people that think we don't need a national identity system are retarded - they don't see that we already have one with all the flaws and none of the protections a good one will give us. A national ID system could stop ID theft, put a huge clamp down on spam, and reduce the value of our personal information thus increasing real privacy levels.
Okay, now to reply:
We need a national ID system that people can choose to take part of.
We already do. It's called a state driver's license or ID card.
Those taking part could force all credit card transactions or other sensitive transactions to require it. The ID system should be opt-in for each citizen, but required for all information holders.
That would be a bit difficult, and you can bet it will be met with fierce resistance by liberty-minded individuals like myself, and the financial institutions.
Besides, how long is the "opt-in" part going to last? It isn't difficult to find examples where so-called optional things have become effectively mandatory.
It should be based on a PKCS#11 tokens, and allow people to select the token that they like. So, the ultra paranoid (me) can use a biometericlly locked token.
Yeah, mandate the technology so when something better comes along, we're stuck with the old stuff. Not to mention the sheer expense.
The only reason thieves are interested in our personal data is that it allows them to become us. Without that there is no interest and our privacy can return. Forcing the banks to support a common PKI will not be hard: no PKI, no FDIC insurance. That will get all the financial institutions on board. And where they go, everyone will follow.
What does FDIC insurance have to do with credit card fraud and identity theft? You are aware that no FDIC insurance covers credit cards, right? The major credit card institutions aren't even banks. Your bank issues the card, but the card company is not a bank.
Besides, it's not that thieves want to become us, it's just that it makes it easier to steal. No system is thief-proof, and no thief-proof society can be built. There is always a point of weakness.
These people that think we don't need a national identity system are retarded - they don't see that we already have one with all the flaws and none of the protections a good one will give us. A national ID system could stop ID theft, put a huge clamp down on spam, and reduce the value of our personal information thus increasing real privacy levels.
We don't need a national ID system. What we need is for credit cards to be sent via registered mail and for an end to the mailing of unrequested courtesy checks. Additionally, full account numbers should not be printed on account statements. A simple hash of the account number, delivered initially with the registered mail, could easily protect the real number and still identify a statement to an account.
(and as a minor issue, it'd be "legally", not "technically", there is no technical issue in me playing my ripped copies while lending the CDs, there are legal ones)
Well, technically in a legal sense.:)
You dare to challenge my use of language? You're only going to win on a technicality.
1- With your CD, you can do whatever pleases you and are not as such restricted in the destination media (for example i can use my CDs to fill my computer, my iRiver and my car sound system) 2- You own your CD, i can lend my CDs to my friends, i can't lend my DRM-infected media files
Keep in mind that if music is to be treated like software, then your copy can only be played on one player at a time. If you loan the CD to a friend, you can't technically use the MP3 you made on your computer when the CD is lent out.
This culminates from a variety of court cases, but cheifly results from the ability to make an "archival copy", which the courts have affirmed.
Why do you think the president can sign executive orders?
Funny, I always thought it might have something to do with the fact that the President is in charge of the entire executive branch of the federal government and, just like the CEO of a major corporation, is free to issue top-level orders to any part of the executive branch of the government. Where Congress has authorized an agency to have "administrative rules" that carry the force of law, that can include changing administrative law.
Imagine I'm the President, and as such, am in charge of every executive agency in the federal government including... let's pick one... the U.S. Department of Transportation. I want to give them a firm written order to change the design of, say, freeway medians for one reason or another. I write the order on a piece of Presidential letterhead, sign it, and send it over. It also goes into the Federal Register, and is given a serial number. Instant recipe for an executive order. (FYI: This is 200-level political science. The president, as chief executive, can order any part of the executive branch to do anything that is within the law as provided by Congress.)
Why exactly did you think the President had the ability to sign executive orders?
We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.
Just because the word "war" isn't used in the official congressional authorization, doesn't mean that Congress hasn't approved a state of war. Congress is free to use its power to make a state of war, declared or not, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution in whatever way it sees fit, including conceding the ability to make war to the President under circumstances prescribed by specific laws passed by the same Congress that has this constitutional power.
May I bring to your attention HJR 114, that specifically authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.
Now, assuming you trust the Marriam-Webster definition for "war", in sense (1), HJR 114 certainly declares "a state... of open and declared armed hostile conflict" between the United States and Iraq, and in sense (2) we are certainly in "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" as a result of the actions authorized by HJR 114 being taken.
Just because HJR 114 doesn't say "We Declare a State of War with Iraq" doesn't mean that the United States is not in a state of war with Iraq. It just hasn't been formalized into those words (which activate a sequence of other laws that are entirely unnecessary for our purposes in this conflict.) While HJR 114 does not declare war, and is rather specific on reporting and such as related to the War Powers Act, its overall effect isn't much different from this, except that "the full resources" of the United States and its people are not formally committed.
An interesting take on the "formal" declaration of war and its use (and possible obsolescence) can be found here. More reading material on the subject of war and who can declar it can be found here.
The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."
You're right, because as another astute Slashdot reader pointed out, there is a strong argument that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs under the Geneva convention. On the other hand, there are *actual* POWs being held in Iraq that do meet the definition.
President Bush didn't wield his veto pen for the first 4 years he was in office. Not once! No president since Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) has such a spending-bill veto record -- not even that socialist pinko FDR.
I know. Bush isn't particularly fiscally conservative. (Neither are so-called "conservative" congresspeople, in many cases.)
Blame Congress all you like (and they certainly deserve a LOT of blame for not doing a damn thing to shrink the size of govn't spending), but regardless, the bills must still pass the President's approval.
They deserve almost all the blame. One of the reasons that Bush didn't veto some of those bills is that they had 2/3 support in a lot of cases.
It's always been my opinion that the President thinks that the law is something that can be "lived with", he/she should not veto the law, since the Congress is supposed to be the representative body anyway. Vetos should be used when a law is just so awful or was passed with such haste and rashness that the President has no choice but to veto. I think this is more in line with how Ben Franklin, et al, envisioned it.
Of course, I come from Oregon, where our last governor set records for bills vetoed.
* relative poverty -- the people who are living below the average income level of a nation, which hence means that fully half of EVERY nation lives in "relative poverty"
Hah, that's like the Brady Campaign's definition of a child. From birth to 25.
This is just so they can include gang and drug violence in their statistics about how many "children" are injured or killed "by guns".
If we tell the truth about how many children from birth to the day before their 18th birthday that are injured or killed by attackers that used a gun, we suddenly have smaller numbers.
President Bush himself in the last 5 years has added 10,000 pages to what currently sits at 60,000 pages of tax code. And this is somehow "tax simplification"?
All by himself, huh? Congress didn't pass a single bill requiring the changes?
Yes, but how is copying a CD a service? Cable TV is a service. The telephone is a service. iTunes is a service. A CD is not a service.
I know it's a stretch, but in effect when you buy a CD you are *licensed* to listen to the music. It's the ability that is the service.
I think I mentioned (or meant to mention), that this law would probably never be applied this way. I was trying to point out the presence of a legal concept of theft that does not deprive the original owner of anything.
Repetition does not make you right. A counter example: Taking photos is not theft. The parenthesis is to clarify. To prevent the confusion you have.
Different sense of the word. My Websters lists over a dozen meanings, not all of them tangible, and some of them specifically referring to intellectual products.
And it is, in fact, copyright infringement to take pictures of copyrighted pictures or paintings. Or jewelry, in fact. (My mother-in-law is a jewelry-maker and the design can be copyrighted, and a picture is infringement. This has been upheld in court.) It is also infringement to take pictures of a book.
The main thing I see about why we even argue is that somehow it doesn't "feel" as bad when you can say that you didn't take anyone's physical thing.
That is, most people think stealing a car is wrong because they would feel guilty afterward. Many people don't think copyright infringement is wrong, simply because they feel that there is nothing to be guilty about. We see it in every one of these discussions: "Nobody lost anything, I didn't deprive anyone of its use, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
The fact that someone actually *worked*, and probably *worked hard* (I have quite a few friends who are or were professional musicians, I know what kind of work they do to produce an album), doesn't seem to bother the people who benefit from the work without paying for it.
I'll let you have the last word if you want it, but the TFA has dropped off the main page, so I might not get back to a reply.
What's wong with copyright infringement as a term!?
Nothing. I never said there was. I'm just saying that in the common use (as defined by a dictionary), theft is a perfectly reasonable term to use in this situation.
"Theft" is a loaded term. It distracts from the real argument. It's misleading and suggests that copyright infringement should be considered the same as physical theft.
Ask someone who's been the victim of copyright infringement what they think the difference is.
So which "real" argument are you referring to? Most of the "real" arguments I've seen on Slashdot are:
"Information wants to be free! It doesn't matter that someone invested a long time (and possibly money) working on this song/movie/software. Copyrights sux0r!" - Typical attitude of someone who wants something and doesn't want to pay for it.
"I never would have bought it anyway." - proof that you don't need it. Why break the law for something you don't need?
"By committing infringement I didn't deprive anyone else of the use of the work..." - well, it devalues the work as a whole. Just imagine a counterfeiter using this argument: "I didn't deprive anyone else of their money..."
About the only legitimate thing anyone has ever said about copyrights on slashdot (and I agree with them) is that Congress has gone way past any reasonable definition of the Constitution's requirement of "limited time".
What are you talking about? This does not imply copying of software.
The law specifically mentions "entertainment". It says that accessing entertainment for which someone is entitled fair payment for is "theft of service". If you copy a CD that you don't own (from a friend, for instance), and then entertained yourself by listening to it, you have *exactly* done this. The law will probably never be applied this way since copyright is dealt with by the federal government, but the legal concept is there. Since all copyright infringement is inherently the same, the legal concept (but not this particular law) extends to software as well.
(although I feel the legislators are stretching the definition of the word "theft" here as well)
After everything I wrote, you still can't be bothered to look in a dictionary. Amazing. I'm not sure why I bother.
Your main problem is that you are confusing "theft" and "larceny".
I'll repeat it again: "theft" means an act fo stealing. "Steal" means to take *ANYTHING* without permission. That includes intangible things like original ideas. If a dictionary even mentions property, it is in parenthesis in order to prevent the confusion you obviously have.
A particular dictionary I have even defines this as a sense for "steal": "... 2. To approproate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgement."
Violating copyright is appropriating something (by photocopying a book, ripping a CD you don't own and then listening to the music, copying a DVD you don't own and then watching the movie) without right, certainly without permission, and involves appropriating something you didn't have before.
Larceny, on the other hand, is *specifically* the taking of property with the intent to deprive the owner of its use.
Didn't see any mention of the word "community" there. You have to distribute to the recipient who may or may not be part of the community.
Depends on what you consider "the" community. The people that the software is distributed to are the community under one arbitrary definition. If they receive the binaries, they must be provided with access and redistribution rights to the source.
Theft implies the original owner is deprived of the property (As does the word "Take").
Theft also has a specific legal meaning which does not cover IP infringement.
No matter how much you say this, it will never be true.
In the common usage (e.g. what dictionaries say), "theft" is the "act or instance of stealing."
So, now we look up "steal": "to take without right or permission"
Ah, so now we look up "take": ah... "to assume for oneself" happens to be one of the senses that does not include removal of the original item. Such sense is exactly what is implied when, for example, you "take credit" for someone else's work. Such usage is very old, even pre-RIAA.
According to what you believe about 'take', that should imply that the original person no longer has the ability to be credited, since the credit is now gone. This is clearly not the case. QED.
(You may also want to consider "take a picture", as well, as an example of a non-removal sense. Taking a picture of a copyrighted picture is still taking.)
Also, in Oregon, copyright infringement on music could, in some circumstances, be considered thef t of services. See clause (2) where it says "entertainment". Under your definition, how does one commit theft of entertainment if it cannot be procured without depriving the entertainment from someone else? Kidnap the band? I know this is mostly talking about sneaking into movie theaters, and such, but this could be applied to recording concerts or movies for bootleg distribution. (Or even for private viewing.)
Disclaimer: IANAL.
There's no clause in the GPL requiring changes are returned to the community.
Yes there is, if you distribute binaries that were created from that source code. See GPL v2 Terms and Conditions section 3.
(Credit for definitions: dictionary.reference.com and American Heritage Dictionary.)
Actually, it's not true that nobody figured on the eruption. Author Tim Cahill went to Mt. St. Helens shortly before the major eruption and asked geologists what could possibly happen; their worst-case scenario was so accurate that his article (republished in Jaguars Ripped My Flesh) was widely hailed as a perfect prediction-- right down to the body found of someone wearing a t-shirt that read "I survived Mt. St. Helens." This, of course, caused great embarrassment to Mr. Cahill, who didn't want to take credit for someone else's expertise.
The geologists knew what could happen, but either nobody listened or the scientists were dismissed as alarmists. People take them more seriously now.
This is true, but I don't think a lot of scientists thought that there would be a lateral blast quite like this (nearly horizontal). From my understanding, the general expectation was that the magma would get through and most of the energy would go upward. Most of it went sideways instead.
The eruption was immediately preceeded by the largest landslide in (recorded) history. According to what I learned in Geo Hazards, nobody figured on that part. The landslide contributed largely to directing the blast near horizontally.
This happened before...quite recently in the grand scheme of things. Lives were lost, lives were ruined, towns destroyed. There's a small vial of dust sitting on a shelf in my parents' house.
If by "this" you mean today's steam-and-ash explosion, and by "before" you mean the 1980 lateral blast (plinian eruption), you are wrong.
Relatively, "this" was a firecracker and the 1980 eruption was a stick of dynamite.
I'd be interested in hearing about the new technology since then as well as what they plan to do. Detailed info seems scarce on the geological site.
New technology really isn't what's making a difference. GPS clinometers are nice, but keep in mind that in 1980 there was a visible bulge on the side of the mountain before the lateral blast. At the time, nobody figured it'd suddenly fall away and do what it did.
Specifically, magma with a high gas content was building up inside the mountain due to a plugged vent. It caused visible (to the naked eye) surface deformation on the flank of the hill. Eventually, the slope of this deformation reached a critical point. Finally, coincidentally with a magnitude 5 earthquake, the unstable slope collapsed. This released the pressure on the gas-filled magma, causing instant degassing. Very much like popping the cork on a hot bottle of champaigne.
What happened today was either a dome collapse or a minor stoppage that was overcome. A very small event.
Mostly what's changed since 1980 is refined observation and monitoring. Believe me, they are watching for deformation, along with other factors that indicate the character of the eruption sequence. These factors include gas concentrations, surface temperature, lava extrusion rates, seismicity, and others. Instruments to monitor most of these existed in rudimentary form in 1980, they just weren't used like they are today. The huge eruption was a wake-up call: Monitoring and observation are key.
Today's monitoring instruments are most certainly refined, of course, as technology has progressed. Accuracy has improved quite a bit, and information exchange in the age of the internet and digital communications has improved monitoring quite a bit.
As for current monitoring technology, geophones that detect low-frequency tremors that indicate rising magma are now emplaced on the mountain and GPS clinometers measure surface deformation on the new dome and sides of the mountain. Regular flyovers also measure surface deformation with LIDAR, sense gas presense of carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds, and measure surface temperature.
As for what "they" (the USGS is whom I presume you mean) plan to do, I imagine it is sit down and watch, issuing warnings if and when they are needed.
Disclaimer: I am not a USGS employee, I'm a geek who considered a major in, but took a minor in Geology.
What happened to all of George W. Bush's promises he made during election time about a several fold increase of our education budget? Except his controversial "no child left behind" plans none of his promises have materialized. Looks like we have been fooled in terms of education as well.
I was going to moderate you as a troll (which you are), but decided to correct your own lie instead.
If you look at the Department of Education Budget History", you will notice that the 2000 presidential budget request by Bill Clinton for the department was about $37.5 billion (yeah, billion, read the numbers carefully), and about $1 billion more than that was actually appropriated. The 2006 budget request is about $69.5 billion. Based on history, about $68.5 billion will actually be appropriated.
The fact is that George W. Bush has almost doubled the budget in six years.
By way of comparison, the 1993 president's budget for the department was about $33.8 billion, of that about $1 billion less was appropriated. This means that in the "unprecedented economic growth" of the '90s, Clinton increased the department's budget by a mere $3 billion.
Interestingly enough, under George Bush (41), he immediately raised the budget of the Department of Education by $7 billion, more than double what Clinton did in eight years. In fact, by the time he had left office in four years, he had doubled the department's budget.
You can fault the Bush presidents for a lot of things, but you can't fault them for this.
The record speaks for itself... the Bush presidents were good for education funding, and Clinton was bad for it.
Surgical techniques can't be patented (despite a push a few years ago); yet research into surgical technique progresses.
Mostly because surgical techniques are academic, and there are few who are (1) smart enough and disciplined enough to learn them (2) talented enough to apply them and (3) can afford the time and/or money commitments to learn.
Therefore, profits can be made by those who learn them, and the people researching them tend to be academic experts who are paid to research them.
You are talking about the service industry vs. the retail industry. Surgeons are in the service industry. Drug companies are producing a product.
You are comparing apples (albeit expensive, heavily-developed and patented apples, perhaps) and consultants.
Even better analogy: you are comparing mathematicians and math tools. (Doctors vs. doctoring tools). You can't patent new mathematical techniques, yet research continues (because the academics are making a living doing research). You can certainly patent a new calculator, though, but why put the money and effort into building it if you can't turn a profit? The same applies to pharmaceuticals: Research continues (because the academics doing the research are paid to do it), but you aren't going to put any effort into producing a product if you can't turn a profit. (Because someone has to pay for engineering.)
Certainly lifestyle patterns can't be patented (Dean Ornish can't patent his method for reversing heart disease), yet research continues.
I couldn't get the link you supplied to load (surrounding stuff loads, article doesn't... gotta love the internet), but I suspect that it's the kind of "research" that sells books and speaking tours... the research isn't the product... the books and speaking tours are. It's still profit-driven.
Patents are a state intervention in the marketplace. When they don't serve the public interest, they ought to be revoked.
My point was, though, that without patents the drugs never would have been developed in the first place. I once heard that treatment with injections of human HDL could literally dissolve arterial plaque from the walls of your circulatory system. The problem is, human HDL is unpatentable, so nobody makes such a treatment. If this is true (even if it's not), how many drugs out there are not made because there's no reason to make them?
Anyway, a great deal of medically research is already publicly funded; big pharma just rakes the profits.
Now on that point I can agree. If tax dollars were involved in the original research for the drug, then the government should have a say in price setting. Not that the drug companies shouldn't turn a profit (you can't develop new drugs without profiting from drugs you've already made).
Come to think of it, the government could just get its fair share of the profits based on its investment in the drug, then give a tax credit to purchasers of qualified drugs. (Note I said credit, not deduction. A tax credit means that it's against your tax due, and thus you could receive it even if you paid no taxes).
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)
You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?
Let a private business go through all the work and expense of developing a drug, and then simply procure it because of "public good."
That'll keep drug companies in business developing new drugs. In fact, if I was president of a drug company, I'd make sure I got my products to market faster after this happened the first time. I would just love deals like this. Here, let me bend over for you... do you mind if I lean on my desk?
There were a couple of years of anti-French propaganda going on; I'm not sure who was behind it, but the "France Surrenders At The Smallest Threat" meme metastasized for a while while they were doing it.
It was me!
Q: Why are the streets of Paris lined with trees? A: Germans like to march in the shade.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." --Norman Schwartzkopf
(And before anyone brings up Napoleon, he was a Corsican.)
Q. Why do we need France on our side against Saddam and Osama? A. So the French can show them how to surrender.
Q. How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? A. No one knows. It's never been tried.
Q: Do you know why Electricite de France's generators failed during the heat wave? A: Because they run on Iraqi oil.
Just to be fair to France:
Q: "What is your opinion of American civilization?" A by Mohandas K Ghandi: "I think it would be an excellent idea."
Also, Lafayette was a great general. That's why he was smart enough to leave France and lead and fight for the U.S. Army.
Hundreds of comments, and I'm the first to pick this up?
Item number 36: 36. PULSAR QUARTZ DIGITAL WATCH, 1972 Shortly after the discovery of the stars for which it's named, the Pulsar digital watch took the guesswork out of timekeeping. Eschewing spring mechanisms, the Pulsar kept time through the precise vibrations of a quartz crystal buried in its innards. While its marketers may have been exaggerating when they called this a "time computer," we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
Ah, but in Java, for any a and b that are instances of subclasses of Object, "a isNot b" is equivalent to "a != b", since the object references are merely addresses. So there is an example where obtaining the addresses with another operator (& is a unary operator) is unnecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to fix your words as my brain parses them before I reply:
Okay, now to reply:
We need a national ID system that people can choose to take part of.
We already do. It's called a state driver's license or ID card.
Those taking part could force all credit card transactions or other sensitive transactions to require it. The ID system should be opt-in for each citizen, but required for all information holders.
That would be a bit difficult, and you can bet it will be met with fierce resistance by liberty-minded individuals like myself, and the financial institutions.
Besides, how long is the "opt-in" part going to last? It isn't difficult to find examples where so-called optional things have become effectively mandatory.
It should be based on a PKCS#11 tokens, and allow people to select the token that they like. So, the ultra paranoid (me) can use a biometericlly locked token.
Yeah, mandate the technology so when something better comes along, we're stuck with the old stuff. Not to mention the sheer expense.
The only reason thieves are interested in our personal data is that it allows them to become us. Without that there is no interest and our privacy can return. Forcing the banks to support a common PKI will not be hard: no PKI, no FDIC insurance. That will get all the financial institutions on board. And where they go, everyone will follow.
What does FDIC insurance have to do with credit card fraud and identity theft? You are aware that no FDIC insurance covers credit cards, right? The major credit card institutions aren't even banks. Your bank issues the card, but the card company is not a bank.
Besides, it's not that thieves want to become us, it's just that it makes it easier to steal. No system is thief-proof, and no thief-proof society can be built. There is always a point of weakness.
These people that think we don't need a national identity system are retarded - they don't see that we already have one with all the flaws and none of the protections a good one will give us. A national ID system could stop ID theft, put a huge clamp down on spam, and reduce the value of our personal information thus increasing real privacy levels.
We don't need a national ID system. What we need is for credit cards to be sent via registered mail and for an end to the mailing of unrequested courtesy checks. Additionally, full account numbers should not be printed on account statements. A simple hash of the account number, delivered initially with the registered mail, could easily protect the real number and still identify a statement to an account.
There are plenty of simple solutions that would
(and as a minor issue, it'd be "legally", not "technically", there is no technical issue in me playing my ripped copies while lending the CDs, there are legal ones)
:)
Well, technically in a legal sense.
You dare to challenge my use of language? You're only going to win on a technicality.
1- With your CD, you can do whatever pleases you and are not as such restricted in the destination media (for example i can use my CDs to fill my computer, my iRiver and my car sound system)
2- You own your CD, i can lend my CDs to my friends, i can't lend my DRM-infected media files
Keep in mind that if music is to be treated like software, then your copy can only be played on one player at a time. If you loan the CD to a friend, you can't technically use the MP3 you made on your computer when the CD is lent out.
This culminates from a variety of court cases, but cheifly results from the ability to make an "archival copy", which the courts have affirmed.
Why do you think the president can sign executive orders?
Funny, I always thought it might have something to do with the fact that the President is in charge of the entire executive branch of the federal government and, just like the CEO of a major corporation, is free to issue top-level orders to any part of the executive branch of the government. Where Congress has authorized an agency to have "administrative rules" that carry the force of law, that can include changing administrative law.
Imagine I'm the President, and as such, am in charge of every executive agency in the federal government including... let's pick one... the U.S. Department of Transportation. I want to give them a firm written order to change the design of, say, freeway medians for one reason or another. I write the order on a piece of Presidential letterhead, sign it, and send it over. It also goes into the Federal Register, and is given a serial number. Instant recipe for an executive order. (FYI: This is 200-level political science. The president, as chief executive, can order any part of the executive branch to do anything that is within the law as provided by Congress.)
Why exactly did you think the President had the ability to sign executive orders?
We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.
... of open and declared armed hostile conflict" between the United States and Iraq, and in sense (2) we are certainly in "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" as a result of the actions authorized by HJR 114 being taken.
Just because the word "war" isn't used in the official congressional authorization, doesn't mean that Congress hasn't approved a state of war. Congress is free to use its power to make a state of war, declared or not, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution in whatever way it sees fit, including conceding the ability to make war to the President under circumstances prescribed by specific laws passed by the same Congress that has this constitutional power.
May I bring to your attention HJR 114, that specifically authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.
Now, assuming you trust the Marriam-Webster definition for "war", in sense (1), HJR 114 certainly declares "a state
Just because HJR 114 doesn't say "We Declare a State of War with Iraq" doesn't mean that the United States is not in a state of war with Iraq. It just hasn't been formalized into those words (which activate a sequence of other laws that are entirely unnecessary for our purposes in this conflict.) While HJR 114 does not declare war, and is rather specific on reporting and such as related to the War Powers Act, its overall effect isn't much different from this, except that "the full resources" of the United States and its people are not formally committed.
An interesting take on the "formal" declaration of war and its use (and possible obsolescence) can be found here. More reading material on the subject of war and who can declar it can be found here.
The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."
You're right, because as another astute Slashdot reader pointed out, there is a strong argument that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs under the Geneva convention. On the other hand, there are *actual* POWs being held in Iraq that do meet the definition.
President Bush didn't wield his veto pen for the first 4 years he was in office. Not once! No president since Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) has such a spending-bill veto record -- not even that socialist pinko FDR.
I know. Bush isn't particularly fiscally conservative. (Neither are so-called "conservative" congresspeople, in many cases.)
Blame Congress all you like (and they certainly deserve a LOT of blame for not doing a damn thing to shrink the size of govn't spending), but regardless, the bills must still pass the President's approval.
They deserve almost all the blame. One of the reasons that Bush didn't veto some of those bills is that they had 2/3 support in a lot of cases.
It's always been my opinion that the President thinks that the law is something that can be "lived with", he/she should not veto the law, since the Congress is supposed to be the representative body anyway. Vetos should be used when a law is just so awful or was passed with such haste and rashness that the President has no choice but to veto. I think this is more in line with how Ben Franklin, et al, envisioned it.
Of course, I come from Oregon, where our last governor set records for bills vetoed.
* relative poverty -- the people who are living below the average income level of a nation, which hence means that fully half of EVERY nation lives in "relative poverty"
Hah, that's like the Brady Campaign's definition of a child. From birth to 25.
This is just so they can include gang and drug violence in their statistics about how many "children" are injured or killed "by guns".
If we tell the truth about how many children from birth to the day before their 18th birthday that are injured or killed by attackers that used a gun, we suddenly have smaller numbers.
President Bush himself in the last 5 years has added 10,000 pages to what currently sits at 60,000 pages of tax code. And this is somehow "tax simplification"?
All by himself, huh? Congress didn't pass a single bill requiring the changes?
Yes, but how is copying a CD a service? Cable TV is a service. The telephone is a service. iTunes is a service. A CD is not a service.
I know it's a stretch, but in effect when you buy a CD you are *licensed* to listen to the music. It's the ability that is the service.
I think I mentioned (or meant to mention), that this law would probably never be applied this way. I was trying to point out the presence of a legal concept of theft that does not deprive the original owner of anything.
Repetition does not make you right. A counter example: Taking photos is not theft. The parenthesis is to clarify. To prevent the confusion you have.
Different sense of the word. My Websters lists over a dozen meanings, not all of them tangible, and some of them specifically referring to intellectual products.
And it is, in fact, copyright infringement to take pictures of copyrighted pictures or paintings. Or jewelry, in fact. (My mother-in-law is a jewelry-maker and the design can be copyrighted, and a picture is infringement. This has been upheld in court.) It is also infringement to take pictures of a book.
The main thing I see about why we even argue is that somehow it doesn't "feel" as bad when you can say that you didn't take anyone's physical thing.
That is, most people think stealing a car is wrong because they would feel guilty afterward. Many people don't think copyright infringement is wrong, simply because they feel that there is nothing to be guilty about. We see it in every one of these discussions: "Nobody lost anything, I didn't deprive anyone of its use, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
The fact that someone actually *worked*, and probably *worked hard* (I have quite a few friends who are or were professional musicians, I know what kind of work they do to produce an album), doesn't seem to bother the people who benefit from the work without paying for it.
I'll let you have the last word if you want it, but the TFA has dropped off the main page, so I might not get back to a reply.
What's wong with copyright infringement as a term!?
Nothing. I never said there was. I'm just saying that in the common use (as defined by a dictionary), theft is a perfectly reasonable term to use in this situation.
"Theft" is a loaded term. It distracts from the real argument. It's misleading and suggests that copyright infringement should be considered the same as physical theft.
Ask someone who's been the victim of copyright infringement what they think the difference is.
So which "real" argument are you referring to? Most of the "real" arguments I've seen on Slashdot are:
"Information wants to be free! It doesn't matter that someone invested a long time (and possibly money) working on this song/movie/software. Copyrights sux0r!" - Typical attitude of someone who wants something and doesn't want to pay for it.
"I never would have bought it anyway." - proof that you don't need it. Why break the law for something you don't need?
"By committing infringement I didn't deprive anyone else of the use of the work..." - well, it devalues the work as a whole. Just imagine a counterfeiter using this argument: "I didn't deprive anyone else of their money..."
About the only legitimate thing anyone has ever said about copyrights on slashdot (and I agree with them) is that Congress has gone way past any reasonable definition of the Constitution's requirement of "limited time".
What are you talking about? This does not imply copying of software.
The law specifically mentions "entertainment". It says that accessing entertainment for which someone is entitled fair payment for is "theft of service". If you copy a CD that you don't own (from a friend, for instance), and then entertained yourself by listening to it, you have *exactly* done this. The law will probably never be applied this way since copyright is dealt with by the federal government, but the legal concept is there. Since all copyright infringement is inherently the same, the legal concept (but not this particular law) extends to software as well.
(although I feel the legislators are stretching the definition of the word "theft" here as well)
After everything I wrote, you still can't be bothered to look in a dictionary. Amazing. I'm not sure why I bother.
Your main problem is that you are confusing "theft" and "larceny".
I'll repeat it again: "theft" means an act fo stealing. "Steal" means to take *ANYTHING* without permission. That includes intangible things like original ideas. If a dictionary even mentions property, it is in parenthesis in order to prevent the confusion you obviously have.
A particular dictionary I have even defines this as a sense for "steal": "... 2. To approproate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgement."
Violating copyright is appropriating something (by photocopying a book, ripping a CD you don't own and then listening to the music, copying a DVD you don't own and then watching the movie) without right, certainly without permission, and involves appropriating something you didn't have before.
Larceny, on the other hand, is *specifically* the taking of property with the intent to deprive the owner of its use.
Didn't see any mention of the word "community" there. You have to distribute to the recipient who may or may not be part of the community.
Depends on what you consider "the" community. The people that the software is distributed to are the community under one arbitrary definition. If they receive the binaries, they must be provided with access and redistribution rights to the source.
Theft implies the original owner is deprived of the property (As does the word "Take").
Theft also has a specific legal meaning which does not cover IP infringement.
No matter how much you say this, it will never be true.
In the common usage (e.g. what dictionaries say), "theft" is the "act or instance of stealing."
So, now we look up "steal": "to take without right or permission"
Ah, so now we look up "take": ah... "to assume for oneself" happens to be one of the senses that does not include removal of the original item. Such sense is exactly what is implied when, for example, you "take credit" for someone else's
work. Such usage is very old, even pre-RIAA.
According to what you believe about 'take', that should imply that the original person no longer has the ability to be credited, since the credit is now gone. This is clearly not the case. QED.
(You may also want to consider "take a picture", as well, as an example of a non-removal sense. Taking a picture of a copyrighted picture is still taking.)
Also, in Oregon, copyright infringement on music could, in some circumstances, be considered thef t of services. See clause (2) where it says "entertainment". Under your definition, how does one commit theft of entertainment if it cannot be procured without depriving the entertainment from someone else? Kidnap the band? I know this is mostly talking about sneaking into movie theaters, and such, but this could be applied to recording concerts or movies for bootleg distribution. (Or even for private viewing.)
Disclaimer: IANAL.
There's no clause in the GPL requiring changes are returned to the community.
Yes there is, if you distribute binaries that were created from that source code. See GPL v2 Terms and Conditions section 3.
(Credit for definitions: dictionary.reference.com and American Heritage Dictionary.)
Actually, it's not true that nobody figured on the eruption. Author Tim Cahill went to Mt. St. Helens shortly before the major eruption and asked geologists what could possibly happen; their worst-case scenario was so accurate that his article (republished in Jaguars Ripped My Flesh) was widely hailed as a perfect prediction-- right down to the body found of someone wearing a t-shirt that read "I survived Mt. St. Helens." This, of course, caused great embarrassment to Mr. Cahill, who didn't want to take credit for someone else's expertise.
The geologists knew what could happen, but either nobody listened or the scientists were dismissed as alarmists. People take them more seriously now.
This is true, but I don't think a lot of scientists thought that there would be a lateral blast quite like this (nearly horizontal). From my understanding, the general expectation was that the magma would get through and most of the energy would go upward. Most of it went sideways instead.
The eruption was immediately preceeded by the largest landslide in (recorded) history. According to what I learned in Geo Hazards, nobody figured on that part. The landslide contributed largely to directing the blast near horizontally.
This happened before...quite recently in the grand scheme of things. Lives were lost, lives were ruined, towns destroyed. There's a small vial of dust sitting on a shelf in my parents' house.
If by "this" you mean today's steam-and-ash explosion, and by "before" you mean the 1980 lateral blast (plinian eruption), you are wrong.
Relatively, "this" was a firecracker and the 1980 eruption was a stick of dynamite.
I'd be interested in hearing about the new technology since then as well as what they plan to do. Detailed info seems scarce on the geological site.
New technology really isn't what's making a difference. GPS clinometers are nice, but keep in mind that in 1980 there was a visible bulge on the side of the mountain before the lateral blast. At the time, nobody figured it'd suddenly fall away and do what it did.
Specifically, magma with a high gas content was building up inside the mountain due to a plugged vent. It caused visible (to the naked eye) surface deformation on the flank of the hill. Eventually, the slope of this deformation reached a critical point. Finally, coincidentally with a magnitude 5 earthquake, the unstable slope collapsed. This released the pressure on the gas-filled magma, causing instant degassing. Very much like popping the cork on a hot bottle of champaigne.
What happened today was either a dome collapse or a minor stoppage that was overcome. A very small event.
Mostly what's changed since 1980 is refined observation and monitoring. Believe me, they are watching for deformation, along with other factors that indicate the character of the eruption sequence. These factors include gas concentrations, surface temperature, lava extrusion rates, seismicity, and others. Instruments to monitor most of these existed in rudimentary form in 1980, they just weren't used like they are today. The huge eruption was a wake-up call: Monitoring and observation are key.
Today's monitoring instruments are most certainly refined, of course, as technology has progressed. Accuracy has improved quite a bit, and information exchange in the age of the internet and digital communications has improved monitoring quite a bit.
As for current monitoring technology, geophones that detect low-frequency tremors that indicate rising magma are now emplaced on the mountain and GPS clinometers measure surface deformation on the new dome and sides of the mountain. Regular flyovers also measure surface deformation with LIDAR, sense gas presense of carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds, and measure surface temperature.
As for what "they" (the USGS is whom I presume you mean) plan to do, I imagine it is sit down and watch, issuing warnings if and when they are needed.
Disclaimer: I am not a USGS employee, I'm a geek who considered a major in, but took a minor in Geology.
I'm sure this will humble the man.
Then again, maybe his head will balloon to the size where he will finally float off into the upper atmosphere and suffocate.
Proof that the best way to accelerate an Itanium is at 9.8 m/s^2.
(That's 32 ft/s^2 in ye olde units.)
What happened to all of George W. Bush's promises he made during election time about a several fold increase of our education budget? Except his controversial "no child left behind" plans none of his promises have materialized. Looks like we have been fooled in terms of education as well.
I was going to moderate you as a troll (which you are), but decided to correct your own lie instead.
If you look at the Department of Education Budget History", you will notice that the 2000 presidential budget request by Bill Clinton for the department was about $37.5 billion (yeah, billion, read the numbers carefully), and about $1 billion more than that was actually appropriated. The 2006 budget request is about $69.5 billion. Based on history, about $68.5 billion will actually be appropriated.
The fact is that George W. Bush has almost doubled the budget in six years.
By way of comparison, the 1993 president's budget for the department was about $33.8 billion, of that about $1 billion less was appropriated. This means that in the "unprecedented economic growth" of the '90s, Clinton increased the department's budget by a mere $3 billion.
Interestingly enough, under George Bush (41), he immediately raised the budget of the Department of Education by $7 billion, more than double what Clinton did in eight years. In fact, by the time he had left office in four years, he had doubled the department's budget.
You can fault the Bush presidents for a lot of things, but you can't fault them for this.
The record speaks for itself... the Bush presidents were good for education funding, and Clinton was bad for it.
Surgical techniques can't be patented (despite a push a few years ago); yet research into surgical technique progresses.
Mostly because surgical techniques are academic, and there are few who are (1) smart enough and disciplined enough to learn them (2) talented enough to apply them and (3) can afford the time and/or money commitments to learn.
Therefore, profits can be made by those who learn them, and the people researching them tend to be academic experts who are paid to research them.
You are talking about the service industry vs. the retail industry. Surgeons are in the service industry. Drug companies are producing a product.
You are comparing apples (albeit expensive, heavily-developed and patented apples, perhaps) and consultants.
Even better analogy: you are comparing mathematicians and math tools. (Doctors vs. doctoring tools). You can't patent new mathematical techniques, yet research continues (because the academics are making a living doing research). You can certainly patent a new calculator, though, but why put the money and effort into building it if you can't turn a profit? The same applies to pharmaceuticals: Research continues (because the academics doing the research are paid to do it), but you aren't going to put any effort into producing a product if you can't turn a profit. (Because someone has to pay for engineering.)
Certainly lifestyle patterns can't be patented (Dean Ornish can't patent his method for reversing heart disease), yet research continues.
I couldn't get the link you supplied to load (surrounding stuff loads, article doesn't... gotta love the internet), but I suspect that it's the kind of "research" that sells books and speaking tours... the research isn't the product... the books and speaking tours are. It's still profit-driven.
Patents are a state intervention in the marketplace. When they don't serve the public interest, they ought to be revoked.
My point was, though, that without patents the drugs never would have been developed in the first place. I once heard that treatment with injections of human HDL could literally dissolve arterial plaque from the walls of your circulatory system. The problem is, human HDL is unpatentable, so nobody makes such a treatment. If this is true (even if it's not), how many drugs out there are not made because there's no reason to make them?
Anyway, a great deal of medically research is already publicly funded; big pharma just rakes the profits.
Now on that point I can agree. If tax dollars were involved in the original research for the drug, then the government should have a say in price setting. Not that the drug companies shouldn't turn a profit (you can't develop new drugs without profiting from drugs you've already made).
Come to think of it, the government could just get its fair share of the profits based on its investment in the drug, then give a tax credit to purchasers of qualified drugs. (Note I said credit, not deduction. A tax credit means that it's against your tax due, and thus you could receive it even if you paid no taxes).
With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution.
That's funny, I could have sworn that an amendment to the Constitution addressed the taking of private property for public use:
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)
You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?
Let a private business go through all the work and expense of developing a drug, and then simply procure it because of "public good."
That'll keep drug companies in business developing new drugs. In fact, if I was president of a drug company, I'd make sure I got my products to market faster after this happened the first time. I would just love deals like this. Here, let me bend over for you... do you mind if I lean on my desk?
There were a couple of years of anti-French propaganda going on; I'm not sure who was behind it, but the "France Surrenders At The Smallest Threat" meme metastasized for a while while they were doing it.
It was me!
Q: Why are the streets of Paris lined with trees?
A: Germans like to march in the shade.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." --Norman Schwartzkopf
(And before anyone brings up Napoleon, he was a Corsican.)
Q. Why do we need France on our side against Saddam and Osama?
A. So the French can show them how to surrender.
Q. How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A. No one knows. It's never been tried.
Q: Do you know why Electricite de France's generators failed during the heat wave?
A: Because they run on Iraqi oil.
Just to be fair to France:
Q: "What is your opinion of American civilization?"
A by Mohandas K Ghandi: "I think it would be an excellent idea."
Also, Lafayette was a great general. That's why he was smart enough to leave France and lead and fight for the U.S. Army.
I'm the only true geek here.
I take that back, I refreshed the comments and saw that there are, in fact, three of us.
Hundreds of comments, and I'm the first to pick this up?
Item number 36: 36. PULSAR QUARTZ DIGITAL WATCH, 1972
Shortly after the discovery of the stars for which it's named, the Pulsar digital watch took the guesswork out of timekeeping. Eschewing spring mechanisms, the Pulsar kept time through the precise vibrations of a quartz crystal buried in its innards. While its marketers may have been exaggerating when they called this a "time computer," we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
I'm the only true geek here.
Ah, but in Java, for any a and b that are instances of subclasses of Object, "a isNot b" is equivalent to "a != b", since the object references are merely addresses. So there is an example where obtaining the addresses with another operator (& is a unary operator) is unnecessary.
I fail to see how they've invented anything.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense.
To you and the original AC who wrote it, thanks for the info and the reference.