If everything started with a Big Bang from a singularity roughly 10-20 billion years ago, how is it that things came to be physcially 13 billion or more light years apart? I understand that the "Doppler" redshift is caused by great speed away from us. But is the universe seriously expanding at anything near lightspeed?
Some suggest that initial expansion was faster than light speed, and that the Hubble expansion is accelerating.
No, the real news is that the number of male nurses is increasing, gradually, and that there is a looming nursing shortage. More men would be welcomed, but many are turned off the inferior pay characteristic of female-dominated fields, and the supposed social stigma of being insufficiently masculine.. Maybe more men should be encouraged to apply?
As you can see, the thick-skulled are not easily cowed.
A useful argument my wife offered is that discrimination is bigotry backed by power. It's the power and its arbitrary exercise that count. If someone with no power over others chooses to be bigoted, let them be, perhaps with pity.
Men here have the power if only by virtue of their numbers. Prevalent social attitudes that women are simply incapable of doing certain things provide ample accomplices. The abuse of science for this is no different from those who insist blacks or asians or whatever are imherently superior or inferior. They get the science wrong, too.
You'd think the harm and self-fulfilling prophesy of hostile environment would be self-evident, but for many it is not. Discrimination in either direction is wrong, but only against women does it sting.
However, as an unabashed free-market liberal (so there), this interests me:
Instead, I think that colleges could do a better job of providing better support systems for females that do enter fields like CS.
Even the slightest effort to aid one gender over the other, any hint of targeting women because they are women, indeed even mere encouragement, is (gasp) affirmative action. Affirmative action simply means righting a historic wrong by doing something about it. It does not equate with quotas, though quotas have at times been part of the action taken (quotas are double-edged: they were once used to keep "undesirables" out, as with the Jewish and black quotas at Harvard 70 years ago). Quotas are a last resort that is unnecessary and unwise here.
Like most of us I believe arbitrary discrimination is wrong; and equally that passively tolerating the legacy of discrimination is wrong. Inaction is discrimination, and affirmative action is an effort to restore neutrality until such a time that the system runs fine all by itself.
Also, it would be naive to ignore than sexism is alive and well. The posts here offer ample evidence of the hostility and sexist ignorance women face entering this unfamiliar ground. Even if specific encouragement and recruitment of qualifed women in a gender-skewed environment is simplistically called "discriminatory," I see it as the only moral choice.
Anyway... my point is that you already support affirmative action, albeit cautiously.:) If it makes yopu feel better, I think that's consistent with thoughtful libertarianism. If you see someone knocked to the ground, you help them up, right? But... you didn't provide that same assistance to the people still standing! That's discrimination! What to do...
Remedial justice should be the goal of all political faiths.
Hyperfocus is also a classic symptom of attention deficit disorder (ADD). There are many, many good resources on this topic for the interested.
It is increasingly suspected that ADD/ADHD have a genetic origin, involving one or several genes. The genetic trait may be sex-linked as well, given that the disorders are predominantly found in boys.
For most people, ADD does not translate into a competitive edge, more like a learning disability. The afflicted appear to have a normal range of intelligence. Although ADD is more prevalent than previously suspected, I don't suggest that it accounts for some fundamental difference between the sexes!
I spin this out a little because ADD/ADHD are so grossly mischaracterized in popular opinion. I studied psych and was startled to hear about the hyperfocus symptom a couple of years ago, because it seems so counterintuitive (actually, it's not: ADD is a disorder of regulating attention, and cuts both ways). Lastly, the most common medication used happen to be stimulants, but are in dosages too small and release profiles too long to act as "speed." Moreover, a new nonstimulant drug has been developed with nearly identical effectiveness; if it pans out, it will likely displace the controlled substances and their problems.
Judging from the AP exam statistic -- who takes the test -- fewer than 13% are female. Not even the studies that have shown disporportionate ability among boys would support this difference. These girls are being discouraged, and discouraged early -- despite showing greater math aptitude before about age 12. Women gravitate, but they are also guided.
You have D&C confused with so-called "partial-birth" abortion ("D&X"). These are completely different. Also, "partial-birth" is a term used only by abortion detractors, most of whom see it as a wedge to introduce broader legislative prohibitions. Late-term abortion is probably one of the most difficult moral quandaries, especially when the choice is whether to save the life of the mother. Most recently, Nebraska's attempt at a ban was struck down by a divided Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, which explores the issues in great detail. I propose no answer but *do* want to keep the terms of the debate straight.
As for the rest of your list of Q's, most have been dealt with for many years. Those that have not will be dealt with as they arise, when sufficient facts are know. Last, corporations are best thought of as a legal entity that may engage in certain activities by law and is accorded limited constitutional protection against manipulation by the state (e.g., freedom of speech).
The irony of meeting in Beijing did occur to me. However, China probably lobbied for it, and lately has been starting to act against bootleggers and counterfeiters in response to foreign pressure it has long ignored. I think they see greater profit in stronger relations with the copyprotected West, and besides they probably aren't collecting taxes from the illegal production.
A dose of cynicism can explain everything. Thanks for speaking in favor of IP -- to me a "no-brainer" -- which it practically taboo around here.
I agree with you, just offering a few refinements that I hope are helpful...
Re 1st A., the "malice" standard of regard for truthfulness is for cases of defamatory speech re public figures. For otehr circumstances, mere negligence (carelessness) can yield liability.
An individual can make commercial speech just as much as a corporation. Whether one is a corporatiion is irrelevant.
Didn't know about the sauce and water. Who won?
At issue is something a bit more subtle -- under CA trade law, Nike can get tagged for making truthful statements that through their context are misleading. This is far greater liability that sweeps up many mere mistakes.
Businesses can make pure political statements which may or may not have profit motive. (I also know somne individuals who act only out of profit motive. They have the same rights I do.) Disney spoke up in favor of the Sonny Bono Act, for example (profit motive); an incorporated church group might register its opinions about abortion; NBC might comment on a proposed censorship law; and so on.
It seems to me copanies should held to their word what they write on a product label, and more leniently when commenting on the state of the Union. The line between ad and political statement is getting blurry, esp. with large companies wielding so much economic and political influence today. This is not necessarily a bad thingh; frankly I'm interested in hearing what an employer of 500,000 people thinks of the economy.
Did you ever sell something, a used car or whatever? Did you speak? You engaged in commercial speech. You don't have to be a corporation to be affected, indeed the vast majority of business in the U.S. are sole propietorships, which basically means one person owns it and acts without corporate insulation.
Well... here the fun thing is that after-the-fact grammarians come up with rules to browbeat other with, then turn out to be wrong. That you "can't" split infinitives is another one. I used to do a lot of editing, and was sensitive to which rules were real and useful.
I assume viri was never a popular term in the decades we actually known about them. Octopi is just plain dumb.:)
Someone reminded me that this issue is not about corporate speech, rather commercial speech. Everyone in any business is affected, not just corporations, so Nike being a corporation is merely a distraction.
The Santa Clara story is interesting, but I can find no support for it anti-corporation sites that are more or less quoting each other. In legal sources I see nothing. Also, not only does the decision itself not address personhood, it quotes the Chief Justice as saying, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
It would be error to cite the decision for the proposition of "personhood" -- editorial headnotes indeed carry no weight -- but sloppy citation doesn't mean corporations are believed "persons" thanks to some long-forgotten error. The courts are not that goofy, and believe me every litigant who might benefit would have been raising it in their arguments ever since. All that's left is conspiracy theory.
I don't recall the actual origin or corporate rights, though I assume they for example have been able to sue and be sued from day 1. As for personhood, it may be just a bad metaphor. I am interested in learning its origin.
Many do consider corporate personhood a blunder, though to be picky the law technically sees them as quasi-persons with some, not all, of the rights of citizens, and those that they do have are often reduced in scope and strength.
I don't know of any stirring defenses of corporate personhood. However, when the 1st A. says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is talks of the speech, not the person. The right might be argued to belong to society as well as the individual, and is the right not to have government filter what we are allowed to hear. Also, though corporation are not real persons, neither are they independent automatons. They are collections of human beings who act through the corporation form; just as the corporation has the right to sue and be sued, and in a number of other ways act as a proxy for its constituents, it should "speak."
I don't have any great love of corporations, but can see some evil in the government manipulating what they can say, perhaps doing so out of selfish self-interest. Oh wait, I'm anthropomorphizing again....:) Surely we do not need to apply the same rules to Nike's denying it uses sweatshops as we do to regulating precisely what "low fat" on packaging must mean -- yet that is what California would do.
Commercial speech had no protection until a Supreme Court decision 30 years ago. Here is a helpful timeline. The theory is that corporations are not real people, and there is a compelling public interest in regulating commercial speech to protect the health and welfare of the public -- such as the FDA requirement that drug makers as least briefly disclose side effects in those uplifting TV ads for their products. With individuals, you would not be able to compel additional speech like that. (There are doubtlessly better examples.:)
If you look at the cases in the timeline -- esp. Hudson -- it may make better sense.
Well, that's not so easy. Several of our local shows are syndicated, but are not treated the same at the NPR site. For example, the Diane Rehm Show and Kojo Nnamdi Show are both locally produced at WAMU. Both are nationally syndicated. But at npr.org it takes some work to find Nnamdi; he's not in the main pop-up menu, though Rehm is. Even if they have some brilliant reason for this, it is aggravating, and a bit like/. Google is a better navigational tool. They need to spruce up.
Good question! Answer: I have no idea. I know very little about private international law, that is, private entities suing each other.
It appears to be a question in flux -- this symposium looks specifically at jurisdiction (the ability to bring cases) and enforcement (the ability to get another country to help you collect).
As for best/worst case scenarios, the US is the 800-lb. gorilla here, and has a ton of intellectual property. The US will have to decide what it thinks the rules should be, then twist arms to get others to sign or or else go it alone. The flip side is that countries like China have not cared much about enforcing IP rights; piracy is a regular business there. This will be a hot issue between the world's have and have-nots, as well as between those on each side of the intellectual property debate.
Re:Bacterion in Greek, bacterium in fake Latin
on
Conan the Bacterium
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I took French. And German.
I think generally questions like this should governed by rules of the sdopting language, English. Different rules for different root languages are just unfair, as I see teaching my son to spell!
There wil always be SOME countries who claim jurisdiction over whatever you do. But some time soon this will HAVE to be settled by treaty. Until then the question is how far one's country decides to go, or any country one visits or have assets in.
I guarantee the U.S. will not stretch jurisdiction are far as did the Australia Dow Jones decision, but it will go farther then some would like. We must have jurisdiction over actions of people in other countries with significant domestic effects; just how much is the question, esp. the relevance of intent.
The answers will introduce some very interesting refinements in the current law of jurisdiction. The internet presents really the ultimate test of "effects" jurisdiction.
YMMV -- who knows, this is a brave new world, with such wonderful people in it.
You can trust I'll be mentioning this to MY library! The LOC should offer something like this, though I shudder to guess what the licensing would cost.
I've used their site from time to time and wish it was easier to navigate. I also tend to get confused what is local content and what is national; because I'm in Washington, a lot of what seems local is actually syndicated everywhere. So it can be difficult to track down the file you need. But complain -- who me? It's free.
Hmm, I see they're a little slow to pick up the Illinois death penalty pardons story on their web page -- though I did hear it on the air as fast as anyone else had the story. (No, this isn't an invitation for anyone's views on the DP -- it's just a major breaking story.)
One argument for the types of laws and number of lawyers in America is that we have a very complex society that happens to provide a very good environment for business. Only a small percentage of lawyers are litigators, the majority are part of business. Business benefits not just from laws and lawyers to protect its interests, but also from predictability of its relationships. That's why all the big companies are incorporated in Delaware -- its corporation law is considered very good, and it is a consistent standard.
Anyway, businesses ask themselves all the time whether what they're doing will increase profit (that's about *all* Enron, Worldcom, et al. apparently did) rather than suing over an abstraction of intellectual property theft. The DMCA and Sonny Bono Art were pushed because it was thought they would be profitable.
BTW, it is frequently represented that the U.S. has many time more lawyers than Japan, overlooking another cultural difference. Many Japanese "lawyers" work for companies and perform the sorts of tasks that in the U.S. would be done by someone with a JD. We have this in the U.S. to a lesser extent, as with accountants who are in a gray area of practicing law by interpreting, applying, and advising clients on the tax code.
I welcome the cultural comparisons. It's always interesting to see how the next guy does things. Isn't is funny, though, how quickly all the calls of the 80's for America to follow the Japanese business model evaporated several years ago? Different tactics work at different times -- and different philosophies for different cultures.
On copyright violations -- it's a shame that the maturation of fair use signalled by Acuff-Rose has been reversed by recent legislation.
I work at an educational institution so we get it for free.
I hate you.
If I had it in electronic form I know I'd waste all kinds of time browsing. The paper version is not quite so diverting, which for me is a good thing.
I see the CD-ROM is down to $295. One-fourth that and Mac compatibility, I'd be interested.... Heck, if they cut the price they might make *more* money. On the other hand, how many people have heard of the thing?
it sounds too much like "walruses" to me.
Um, you prefer... walri?
Interesting that viruses and bacteria, which people confuse anyway, both have confusing pluralization rules.
20% is the cap. They only recover reasonable expenses. I linked to this before but it didn't take. Also, these were government lawyers -- they only get their regular salaries regardless of the settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
If everything started with a Big Bang from a singularity roughly 10-20 billion years ago, how is it that things came to be physcially 13 billion or more light years apart? I understand that the "Doppler" redshift is caused by great speed away from us. But is the universe seriously expanding at anything near lightspeed?
Some suggest that initial expansion was faster than light speed, and that the Hubble expansion is accelerating.
No, the real news is that the number of male nurses is increasing, gradually, and that there is a looming nursing shortage. More men would be welcomed, but many are turned off the inferior pay characteristic of female-dominated fields, and the supposed social stigma of being insufficiently masculine.. Maybe more men should be encouraged to apply?
As you can see, the thick-skulled are not easily cowed.
A useful argument my wife offered is that discrimination is bigotry backed by power. It's the power and its arbitrary exercise that count. If someone with no power over others chooses to be bigoted, let them be, perhaps with pity.
Men here have the power if only by virtue of their numbers. Prevalent social attitudes that women are simply incapable of doing certain things provide ample accomplices. The abuse of science for this is no different from those who insist blacks or asians or whatever are imherently superior or inferior. They get the science wrong, too.
You'd think the harm and self-fulfilling prophesy of hostile environment would be self-evident, but for many it is not. Discrimination in either direction is wrong, but only against women does it sting.
I like what you have to say.
... my point is that you already support affirmative action, albeit cautiously. :) If it makes yopu feel better, I think that's consistent with thoughtful libertarianism. If you see someone knocked to the ground, you help them up, right? But ... you didn't provide that same assistance to the people still standing! That's discrimination! What to do...
However, as an unabashed free-market liberal (so there), this interests me:
Instead, I think that colleges could do a better job of providing better support systems for females that do enter fields like CS.
Even the slightest effort to aid one gender over the other, any hint of targeting women because they are women, indeed even mere encouragement, is (gasp) affirmative action. Affirmative action simply means righting a historic wrong by doing something about it. It does not equate with quotas, though quotas have at times been part of the action taken (quotas are double-edged: they were once used to keep "undesirables" out, as with the Jewish and black quotas at Harvard 70 years ago). Quotas are a last resort that is unnecessary and unwise here.
Like most of us I believe arbitrary discrimination is wrong; and equally that passively tolerating the legacy of discrimination is wrong. Inaction is discrimination, and affirmative action is an effort to restore neutrality until such a time that the system runs fine all by itself.
Also, it would be naive to ignore than sexism is alive and well. The posts here offer ample evidence of the hostility and sexist ignorance women face entering this unfamiliar ground. Even if specific encouragement and recruitment of qualifed women in a gender-skewed environment is simplistically called "discriminatory," I see it as the only moral choice.
Anyway
Remedial justice should be the goal of all political faiths.
Hyperfocus is also a classic symptom of attention deficit disorder (ADD). There are many, many good resources on this topic for the interested.
It is increasingly suspected that ADD/ADHD have a genetic origin, involving one or several genes. The genetic trait may be sex-linked as well, given that the disorders are predominantly found in boys.
For most people, ADD does not translate into a competitive edge, more like a learning disability. The afflicted appear to have a normal range of intelligence. Although ADD is more prevalent than previously suspected, I don't suggest that it accounts for some fundamental difference between the sexes!
I spin this out a little because ADD/ADHD are so grossly mischaracterized in popular opinion. I studied psych and was startled to hear about the hyperfocus symptom a couple of years ago, because it seems so counterintuitive (actually, it's not: ADD is a disorder of regulating attention, and cuts both ways). Lastly, the most common medication used happen to be stimulants, but are in dosages too small and release profiles too long to act as "speed." Moreover, a new nonstimulant drug has been developed with nearly identical effectiveness; if it pans out, it will likely displace the controlled substances and their problems.
Judging from the AP exam statistic -- who takes the test -- fewer than 13% are female. Not even the studies that have shown disporportionate ability among boys would support this difference. These girls are being discouraged, and discouraged early -- despite showing greater math aptitude before about age 12. Women gravitate, but they are also guided.
You have D&C confused with so-called "partial-birth" abortion ("D&X"). These are completely different. Also, "partial-birth" is a term used only by abortion detractors, most of whom see it as a wedge to introduce broader legislative prohibitions. Late-term abortion is probably one of the most difficult moral quandaries, especially when the choice is whether to save the life of the mother. Most recently, Nebraska's attempt at a ban was struck down by a divided Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, which explores the issues in great detail. I propose no answer but *do* want to keep the terms of the debate straight.
As for the rest of your list of Q's, most have been dealt with for many years. Those that have not will be dealt with as they arise, when sufficient facts are know. Last, corporations are best thought of as a legal entity that may engage in certain activities by law and is accorded limited constitutional protection against manipulation by the state (e.g., freedom of speech).
The irony of meeting in Beijing did occur to me. However, China probably lobbied for it, and lately has been starting to act against bootleggers and counterfeiters in response to foreign pressure it has long ignored. I think they see greater profit in stronger relations with the copyprotected West, and besides they probably aren't collecting taxes from the illegal production.
A dose of cynicism can explain everything. Thanks for speaking in favor of IP -- to me a "no-brainer" -- which it practically taboo around here.
I agree with you, just offering a few refinements that I hope are helpful...
Re 1st A., the "malice" standard of regard for truthfulness is for cases of defamatory speech re public figures. For otehr circumstances, mere negligence (carelessness) can yield liability.
An individual can make commercial speech just as much as a corporation. Whether one is a corporatiion is irrelevant.
Didn't know about the sauce and water. Who won?
At issue is something a bit more subtle -- under CA trade law, Nike can get tagged for making truthful statements that through their context are misleading. This is far greater liability that sweeps up many mere mistakes.
Businesses can make pure political statements which may or may not have profit motive. (I also know somne individuals who act only out of profit motive. They have the same rights I do.) Disney spoke up in favor of the Sonny Bono Act, for example (profit motive); an incorporated church group might register its opinions about abortion; NBC might comment on a proposed censorship law; and so on.
It seems to me copanies should held to their word what they write on a product label, and more leniently when commenting on the state of the Union. The line between ad and political statement is getting blurry, esp. with large companies wielding so much economic and political influence today. This is not necessarily a bad thingh; frankly I'm interested in hearing what an employer of 500,000 people thinks of the economy.
Did you ever sell something, a used car or whatever? Did you speak? You engaged in commercial speech. You don't have to be a corporation to be affected, indeed the vast majority of business in the U.S. are sole propietorships, which basically means one person owns it and acts without corporate insulation.
Well ... here the fun thing is that after-the-fact grammarians come up with rules to browbeat other with, then turn out to be wrong. That you "can't" split infinitives is another one. I used to do a lot of editing, and was sensitive to which rules were real and useful.
:)
I assume viri was never a popular term in the decades we actually known about them. Octopi is just plain dumb.
Nicely put.
:)
However, your chosen website being thought-control.org is a tad distracting....
Someone reminded me that this issue is not about corporate speech, rather commercial speech. Everyone in any business is affected, not just corporations, so Nike being a corporation is merely a distraction.
The Santa Clara story is interesting, but I can find no support for it anti-corporation sites that are more or less quoting each other. In legal sources I see nothing. Also, not only does the decision itself not address personhood, it quotes the Chief Justice as saying, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
It would be error to cite the decision for the proposition of "personhood" -- editorial headnotes indeed carry no weight -- but sloppy citation doesn't mean corporations are believed "persons" thanks to some long-forgotten error. The courts are not that goofy, and believe me every litigant who might benefit would have been raising it in their arguments ever since. All that's left is conspiracy theory.
I don't recall the actual origin or corporate rights, though I assume they for example have been able to sue and be sued from day 1. As for personhood, it may be just a bad metaphor. I am interested in learning its origin.
Ah, the variety on the Internet! There's a site just for you. (Thanks, Google.) More here. And even more here.
... abridging the freedom of speech" is talks of the speech, not the person. The right might be argued to belong to society as well as the individual, and is the right not to have government filter what we are allowed to hear. Also, though corporation are not real persons, neither are they independent automatons. They are collections of human beings who act through the corporation form; just as the corporation has the right to sue and be sued, and in a number of other ways act as a proxy for its constituents, it should "speak."
:) Surely we do not need to apply the same rules to Nike's denying it uses sweatshops as we do to regulating precisely what "low fat" on packaging must mean -- yet that is what California would do.
Many do consider corporate personhood a blunder, though to be picky the law technically sees them as quasi-persons with some, not all, of the rights of citizens, and those that they do have are often reduced in scope and strength.
I don't know of any stirring defenses of corporate personhood. However, when the 1st A. says "Congress shall make no law
I don't have any great love of corporations, but can see some evil in the government manipulating what they can say, perhaps doing so out of selfish self-interest. Oh wait, I'm anthropomorphizing again....
Commercial speech had no protection until a Supreme Court decision 30 years ago. Here is a helpful timeline. The theory is that corporations are not real people, and there is a compelling public interest in regulating commercial speech to protect the health and welfare of the public -- such as the FDA requirement that drug makers as least briefly disclose side effects in those uplifting TV ads for their products. With individuals, you would not be able to compel additional speech like that. (There are doubtlessly better examples. :)
If you look at the cases in the timeline -- esp. Hudson -- it may make better sense.
Well, that's not so easy. Several of our local shows are syndicated, but are not treated the same at the NPR site. For example, the Diane Rehm Show and Kojo Nnamdi Show are both locally produced at WAMU. Both are nationally syndicated. But at npr.org it takes some work to find Nnamdi; he's not in the main pop-up menu, though Rehm is. Even if they have some brilliant reason for this, it is aggravating, and a bit like /. Google is a better navigational tool. They need to spruce up.
Good question! Answer: I have no idea. I know very little about private international law, that is, private entities suing each other.
It appears to be a question in flux -- this symposium looks specifically at jurisdiction (the ability to bring cases) and enforcement (the ability to get another country to help you collect).
Here is WIPO commentary on digital rights issues, mentioning 2 recent "Internet treaties." In April WIPO will have a Summit on Intellectual Property and the Knowledge Economy in Beijing.
As for best/worst case scenarios, the US is the 800-lb. gorilla here, and has a ton of intellectual property. The US will have to decide what it thinks the rules should be, then twist arms to get others to sign or or else go it alone. The flip side is that countries like China have not cared much about enforcing IP rights; piracy is a regular business there. This will be a hot issue between the world's have and have-nots, as well as between those on each side of the intellectual property debate.
Hey, I took French. And German.
I think generally questions like this should governed by rules of the sdopting language, English. Different rules for different root languages are just unfair, as I see teaching my son to spell!
There wil always be SOME countries who claim jurisdiction over whatever you do. But some time soon this will HAVE to be settled by treaty. Until then the question is how far one's country decides to go, or any country one visits or have assets in.
I guarantee the U.S. will not stretch jurisdiction are far as did the Australia Dow Jones decision, but it will go farther then some would like. We must have jurisdiction over actions of people in other countries with significant domestic effects; just how much is the question, esp. the relevance of intent.
The answers will introduce some very interesting refinements in the current law of jurisdiction. The internet presents really the ultimate test of "effects" jurisdiction.
YMMV -- who knows, this is a brave new world, with such wonderful people in it.
You can trust I'll be mentioning this to MY library! The LOC should offer something like this, though I shudder to guess what the licensing would cost.
I've used their site from time to time and wish it was easier to navigate. I also tend to get confused what is local content and what is national; because I'm in Washington, a lot of what seems local is actually syndicated everywhere. So it can be difficult to track down the file you need. But complain -- who me? It's free.
Hmm, I see they're a little slow to pick up the Illinois death penalty pardons story on their web page -- though I did hear it on the air as fast as anyone else had the story. (No, this isn't an invitation for anyone's views on the DP -- it's just a major breaking story.)
One argument for the types of laws and number of lawyers in America is that we have a very complex society that happens to provide a very good environment for business. Only a small percentage of lawyers are litigators, the majority are part of business. Business benefits not just from laws and lawyers to protect its interests, but also from predictability of its relationships. That's why all the big companies are incorporated in Delaware -- its corporation law is considered very good, and it is a consistent standard.
Anyway, businesses ask themselves all the time whether what they're doing will increase profit (that's about *all* Enron, Worldcom, et al. apparently did) rather than suing over an abstraction of intellectual property theft. The DMCA and Sonny Bono Art were pushed because it was thought they would be profitable.
BTW, it is frequently represented that the U.S. has many time more lawyers than Japan, overlooking another cultural difference. Many Japanese "lawyers" work for companies and perform the sorts of tasks that in the U.S. would be done by someone with a JD. We have this in the U.S. to a lesser extent, as with accountants who are in a gray area of practicing law by interpreting, applying, and advising clients on the tax code.
I welcome the cultural comparisons. It's always interesting to see how the next guy does things. Isn't is funny, though, how quickly all the calls of the 80's for America to follow the Japanese business model evaporated several years ago? Different tactics work at different times -- and different philosophies for different cultures.
On copyright violations -- it's a shame that the maturation of fair use signalled by Acuff-Rose has been reversed by recent legislation.
I work at an educational institution so we get it for free.
... walri?
I hate you.
If I had it in electronic form I know I'd waste all kinds of time browsing. The paper version is not quite so diverting, which for me is a good thing.
I see the CD-ROM is down to $295. One-fourth that and Mac compatibility, I'd be interested.... Heck, if they cut the price they might make *more* money. On the other hand, how many people have heard of the thing?
it sounds too much like "walruses" to me.
Um, you prefer
Interesting that viruses and bacteria, which people confuse anyway, both have confusing pluralization rules.
20% is the cap. They only recover reasonable expenses. I linked to this before but it didn't take. Also, these were government lawyers -- they only get their regular salaries regardless of the settlement.