I'm pretty sure industrial espionage isn't on anyone's list of rights...
Hehheh... read some of the other posts.
There are a number of people who are hostile to intellectual property in any form, until it bited them. "Information just wants to be free" is like "you can't legislate morality" -- sounds nice, but carried to the extreme it's absurd. The legislation jingle could be intelligently limited to private, consensual acts; and the first? Well, that's a hot issue, but it should be easy here. Where the secret-holder doesn't want to share -- do you then have a right to break in? Maybe if you steal without disturbing anything?
I'm amused that a 19 y.o. is suddenly a "kid." Because he can't drink?
I knew if I just shut up, someone else would make the point for me.:)
One analytical correction that I only realized recently -- a parody is a derivative work, just a kind that's OK. It's derivative because it uses similar characters or plot elements or whatever. The parody must address and comment on the original in some way; it would not be enough, for example, to parody space shows in general, it has to be Trek specifically if you're going to adopt their material.
Also, you can't use any more material than necessary, and various other provisos spelled out in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. The basic idea with parody is that you really have to carve out enough space in copyright for free speech to allow criticism and commentary, and maybe a little more. Even if your product clearly did not come from the copyright holder, you still can't get a leg up on their product.
There are some similar rules for trademark. EFF.org and chillingeffects.org have some good materials on this difficult topic that I'm still trying to understand.
I started laughing as soon as I saw their uniforms and ship -- I mean, really. Their problem here is not legal so much as creative.
Here is a typical-sounding C&D sent for what looks like some college kid's fansite. You'd think this sort of this would be irrelevant, but, well...
No, I think these dolts keep a stable of halfwitted tirades around for a quick copy-and-paste. This one lacked the energy or presence of mind to edit "Star Wars" and "George Lucas" references.
If I were going to write a right- or left-baiting comment, I could do a heck of a better job than this. Show some self-respect AC.
Paramount is touchy about this stuff. I don't see any evidence the producers got permission -- in fact they claim copyright on the credits page. Permission is easier to get before than after. There are some trademark issues here, too, I think.
One hopes of course that Paramount has a sense of humor and goes along. Technically all that fanfic stuff violates copyright and trademark, too. Paramount should formally give permission to prove it is policing its stuff. Maybe Exeter did get permission and hid it somewhere....
It does look like they did a nice job (which is exactly what possibly gets them in trouble) but what bothers me is the sort of stranglehold on scifi creativity Star Treak has had by virtue of its success. Everyobody seemed to have transporters, "energy weapons", and annoying characters with apostrophes in their names (like ah'Choo or Phtt'tt). It took real creativity to break out of this mold, as in shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape, not that these are perfect (Trek sure wasn't).
Maybe these folks should have gone where no nerd had gone before?
*Please* don't accuse Democrats of being uniquely dumb when it comes to taxes. I respect the basic desire of many conservervatives to cut taxes, and even to favor the rich (why not), but their methods and logic in many cases defy comprehension. Goofiness and political disingenuousness are no one's monopoly.:)
The Mass turnpike was funded with bonds (as it should have been); the toll was to pay off the bonds, at which point the authority that collects the fees would be disbanded. I was amused by the rumor that the tolls were continued anyway -- to pay for repairs. Of course, the repairs do have to be paid for. I wonder why some roads get federal $ and others not? LA has certainly been a beneficiary of the former.
Interestingly, we've all accepted toll bridges for a long while.
Yeah, Pluto is the "bastard planet," its origins unclear. It could be a former satellite of Neptune.
Have you heard the suggestion that the Moon really orbits the Sun, and to a lesser extent interacts with Earth? The idea is that the Moon's size plus its slow speed around Earth relative to Earth's speed around the Sun (so there is no retrograde motion) result in the Moon always "falling" towards the Sun. I don't have the math and physics background to evaluate this myself, and was of course startled to read it. read this
On a funny side note one guy in one of my classes WAS looking up pr0n while in class, all the people behind him were wide-eyed looking at it... that's how he got busted.
A rare example of legitimate social Darwinism.:)
A manager at a major newspaper (I knew the general counsel) got canned for watching porn at work -- in his glass office. To me, it would have been perfectly fair to fire him for being an idiot.:) Had they retained him, the paper could have been liable to other employees for condoning a hostile atmosphere, but I hope remedies short of termination were properly considered. Again, we can surmise he was an idiot.
Yes, that seems fair. In general I don't favor earmarked taxes -- e.g., a 0.5% sales tax increase for transportation that we just shot down, thanks to a historic coalition of environmental liberals and anti-tax conservatives -- but with roads it usually seems to make sense, just as toll roads make sense (I've only seen these in the Northeast for some reason, plus a couple elsewhere... NE roads do cost more to maintain). People who get excited about taxing the heck out of commercial vehicles should remember that those costs get passed to consumers, as with the gas price spike a year or so ago causing temporary shipping surcharges with FedEx and UPS. But the charges should be apportioned fairly.
Flat taxes are also highly regressive, but that's another topic.:)
Re:Another vote against "The Yes Men"
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
Cute.:) Well, Dow did exercise their rights regardless.
...that the miles have to be driven on public roads, or the proceeds spent on said roads? A tax is a tax, it doesn't necessarily matter what's being taxed or why, so long as it's legal. Also, the tax could be said to encourage certain social goals of less pollution. I'm guessing.:)
On the other hand, road taxes are refundable -- if the gas is not used on the roads. Aviation fuel (I don't know about jet) carries a road tax strangely enough. Most casual flyers don't apply for the refund, but my flight school boss was cheap enough to collect other people's fuel receipts as donations. I don't think the refund is a matter of right; it's the gov't being nice. For example, you pay tax on a pack of cigarettes, but they don't care whether you actually smoke them.
The horses are probably OK, despite the methane. (Maybe they should have licenses, like dogs?)
Well, state gas taxes are already pretty high. Doubling is would put the price of gas over $2 in some places, and you can imagine the riots.:)
If you look at the DOT report, they seem to believe fuel taxes will become useless or very unfair in the future, esp. with electrics, so start transitioning now. I think they're probably right, though I don't know the solution.
Actually, it's Full Faith. Nothing requires states to act in good faith.:)
Someone else mentions the right to travel, which refers not to travel so much as discrimination against out-of-state immigrants with respect to things like welfare benefits and voter registration. Irrelevant here; there is nothing discriminatory about requiring everyone to pay for the road they drive on.
If you look at the OR DOT preliminary report the basic reason is that fuel tax revenue are declining. Why? Increased fuel efficiency of all things! They are particularly concerned about hybrids which you know get double mileage -- and so pay half the tax. You can imagine what horror electric vehicles would bring.
So I guess they are trying not to discriminate against older and larger cars, who would pay much more fuel tax than hybrid, esp. as they raised the tax rate to compensate. An alternative might be a direct ad valorum tax on each automobile, paid with registration -- that would cut against expensive and new cars, unfortunately discouraging trading up.
I am sympathetic with their need to maintain constant income, it's how they maintain the roads. As for their methods?
Are you sure your library wipes its disks?:) Good policy, though.
I was pretty alarmed at the pathetic effort of the Starr inquiry to get the lists of who bought what at a local bookstore here in Washington, named Politics & Prose. The store resisted divulging Lewinsky's purchases; I don't recall the outcome.
I don't of course know whether they would have gotten the warrant had they been allowed to present the case to the intelligence court. Hindsight is always distorting. But the reason cited by the central office was concern they might not get it, and I think up to now they've gotten just about everything they asked for and are worried about wearing out their welcome.
This will all be easier to judge once the 9/11 commission issues its report. What? There's no 9/11 commission? But it's been more thann a year! How could that be? (shock, outrage) My point is that the facts are there for the taking but a certain administration is actively resisting unearthing them. Not a conspiracy, just politics as usual.
Irony -- I meant it is ironic they didn't search when they should have, whereas elsewhere they have searched where they should not.
Applications for this special warrant are only granted by a special "secret" court that sits in Washington, per the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and apparently the FBI central office has veto authority.
Note that the FBI, charged by so many with violating people's privacy in every way imaginable, here dropped the ball by bring too cautious about someone's privacy.
You can't win -- bungling cuts both ways.
Anyone wonder why the heck the Minnesota FBI office went to Washington for a piddly search warrant, instead of their friendly local court? Because this was not an ordinary warrant, but a national security warrant designed to investigate suspected terrorists who might not have committed any crime to provide probable cause for a regular warrant. (You know, like Minority Report. OK, it's not that bad.:)
It will be interesting to see who gets blamed once all of the finger-pointing is over.
According to Ms. Rowley's letter and other bureau officials, the Minneapolis field office believed that the French report on Mr. Moussaoui provided enough troubling information about his ties to Islamic extremism to go to court to obtain a search warrant under the federal law that allows the government to carry out searches and surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases. Under the statute, investigators do not have to show that a subject committed a crime, only that they have reason to believe the suspect is engaged in terrorist activity or espionage on behalf of a foreign power or a terrorist organization.
* Another little note -- James Risen with Jeff Gerth were the NYT reporters blamed with stoking the fire over Wen Ho Lee debacle. Of course, lots of people were blamed -- sound familiar?
I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but I'm fairly sure every single one of your attributions to him is false. Also bear in mind that the President cannot single-handedly enact every policy.
* Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).
Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately after taking office.
* Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).
* Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
President Bush deserves the blame for repudiating action on arsenic permanently, Clinton for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the mining interests.
* Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Age-old? CAFE has been essentially frozen since President Reagan. Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of a very hostile Congress.
* Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
No. The "exemption" (lower standard actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were invented in the eighties, not the other way around. Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards, disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's.
UNION CARBIDE, NOT DOW!!!
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 2
Dow is 100% liable for Union Carbide obligations, that comes with the purchase, but did not "kill" anybody at Bhopal in 1984 -- nearly 20 years ago.
Re:Another vote against "The Yes Men"
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 2
Not that Dow is squeaky clean... but that's beside the point. You don't get a free pass to break whatever law no matter how good your cause, even for civil disobedience. Worst of all, it is so unnecessary.
The only reason I was studying the site for hints was the warning I received in advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a corporation to operate.
Parody can be protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't pretend to be Dow. No brainer.
"Doctors enter prescription details directly into the pharmacy computer."
Judging from my doctor's handwriting, not to mention computer skills, this is a very bad sign. If a pharmacist serves a function, it's decoding the doctor's intentions from chicken-scratch heiroglyphics.
*
I should add that computers have been doublechecking dosages and interactions for quite a while, and are probably better at it than human pharmacists. I've seen the computer flag a couple of my prescriptions, and god knows my insurance company is very careful that I don't get my refills more than 5 days in advance. (It's about money not safety: I'm welcome to pay cash and apply for reimbursement later. No, I don't see how this saves them money.)
Slashdot Mirror
Does Hotmail really think that I have friends named things like ilikeitinthebutt?
:)
Someone does. Or are you Mr. Subliminal?
Ultimate weapon? Tell you what, a duel: You get weather control and I get the nukes. :)
I just think we've crossing the "ultimate weapon" line.
Storm is not the most powerful of the X-Men, after all -- though close. (Who is? Hmm. A major theme there is teamwork.)
I'm pretty sure industrial espionage isn't on anyone's list of rights...
... read some of the other posts.
Hehheh
There are a number of people who are hostile to intellectual property in any form, until it bited them. "Information just wants to be free" is like "you can't legislate morality" -- sounds nice, but carried to the extreme it's absurd. The legislation jingle could be intelligently limited to private, consensual acts; and the first? Well, that's a hot issue, but it should be easy here. Where the secret-holder doesn't want to share -- do you then have a right to break in? Maybe if you steal without disturbing anything?
I'm amused that a 19 y.o. is suddenly a "kid." Because he can't drink?
I knew if I just shut up, someone else would make the point for me. :)
One analytical correction that I only realized recently -- a parody is a derivative work, just a kind that's OK. It's derivative because it uses similar characters or plot elements or whatever. The parody must address and comment on the original in some way; it would not be enough, for example, to parody space shows in general, it has to be Trek specifically if you're going to adopt their material.
Also, you can't use any more material than necessary, and various other provisos spelled out in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. The basic idea with parody is that you really have to carve out enough space in copyright for free speech to allow criticism and commentary, and maybe a little more. Even if your product clearly did not come from the copyright holder, you still can't get a leg up on their product.
There are some similar rules for trademark. EFF.org and chillingeffects.org have some good materials on this difficult topic that I'm still trying to understand.
I started laughing as soon as I saw their uniforms and ship -- I mean, really. Their problem here is not legal so much as creative.
Here is a typical-sounding C&D sent for what looks like some college kid's fansite. You'd think this sort of this would be irrelevant, but, well...
YEAH. It's THEIR fault! :)
Spelling is funny; I can't stand it, but I really can't stand bad spelling -- in final-form works, not here.
No, I think these dolts keep a stable of halfwitted tirades around for a quick copy-and-paste. This one lacked the energy or presence of mind to edit "Star Wars" and "George Lucas" references.
If I were going to write a right- or left-baiting comment, I could do a heck of a better job than this. Show some self-respect AC.
Seize is another weird one.
:)
The improved i-before-e rule.
(Now, a rule with too many exceptions is useless, but hey, it's English.)
If you're convinced you're a champion speller, try this and this -- then post your results here.
Paramount is touchy about this stuff. I don't see any evidence the producers got permission -- in fact they claim copyright on the credits page. Permission is easier to get before than after. There are some trademark issues here, too, I think.
One hopes of course that Paramount has a sense of humor and goes along. Technically all that fanfic stuff violates copyright and trademark, too. Paramount should formally give permission to prove it is policing its stuff. Maybe Exeter did get permission and hid it somewhere....
It does look like they did a nice job (which is exactly what possibly gets them in trouble) but what bothers me is the sort of stranglehold on scifi creativity Star Treak has had by virtue of its success. Everyobody seemed to have transporters, "energy weapons", and annoying characters with apostrophes in their names (like ah'Choo or Phtt'tt). It took real creativity to break out of this mold, as in shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape, not that these are perfect (Trek sure wasn't).
Maybe these folks should have gone where no nerd had gone before?
*Please* don't accuse Democrats of being uniquely dumb when it comes to taxes. I respect the basic desire of many conservervatives to cut taxes, and even to favor the rich (why not), but their methods and logic in many cases defy comprehension. Goofiness and political disingenuousness are no one's monopoly. :)
The Mass turnpike was funded with bonds (as it should have been); the toll was to pay off the bonds, at which point the authority that collects the fees would be disbanded. I was amused by the rumor that the tolls were continued anyway -- to pay for repairs. Of course, the repairs do have to be paid for. I wonder why some roads get federal $ and others not? LA has certainly been a beneficiary of the former.
Interestingly, we've all accepted toll bridges for a long while.
Yeah, Pluto is the "bastard planet," its origins unclear. It could be a former satellite of Neptune.
Have you heard the suggestion that the Moon really orbits the Sun, and to a lesser extent interacts with Earth? The idea is that the Moon's size plus its slow speed around Earth relative to Earth's speed around the Sun (so there is no retrograde motion) result in the Moon always "falling" towards the Sun. I don't have the math and physics background to evaluate this myself, and was of course startled to read it. read this
On a funny side note one guy in one of my classes WAS looking up pr0n while in class, all the people behind him were wide-eyed looking at it... that's how he got busted.
:)
:) Had they retained him, the paper could have been liable to other employees for condoning a hostile atmosphere, but I hope remedies short of termination were properly considered. Again, we can surmise he was an idiot.
A rare example of legitimate social Darwinism.
A manager at a major newspaper (I knew the general counsel) got canned for watching porn at work -- in his glass office. To me, it would have been perfectly fair to fire him for being an idiot.
Yes, that seems fair. In general I don't favor earmarked taxes -- e.g., a 0.5% sales tax increase for transportation that we just shot down, thanks to a historic coalition of environmental liberals and anti-tax conservatives -- but with roads it usually seems to make sense, just as toll roads make sense (I've only seen these in the Northeast for some reason, plus a couple elsewhere ... NE roads do cost more to maintain). People who get excited about taxing the heck out of commercial vehicles should remember that those costs get passed to consumers, as with the gas price spike a year or so ago causing temporary shipping surcharges with FedEx and UPS. But the charges should be apportioned fairly.
:)
Flat taxes are also highly regressive, but that's another topic.
Cute. :) Well, Dow did exercise their rights regardless.
...that the miles have to be driven on public roads, or the proceeds spent on said roads? A tax is a tax, it doesn't necessarily matter what's being taxed or why, so long as it's legal. Also, the tax could be said to encourage certain social goals of less pollution. I'm guessing. :)
On the other hand, road taxes are refundable -- if the gas is not used on the roads. Aviation fuel (I don't know about jet) carries a road tax strangely enough. Most casual flyers don't apply for the refund, but my flight school boss was cheap enough to collect other people's fuel receipts as donations. I don't think the refund is a matter of right; it's the gov't being nice. For example, you pay tax on a pack of cigarettes, but they don't care whether you actually smoke them.
The horses are probably OK, despite the methane. (Maybe they should have licenses, like dogs?)
Well, state gas taxes are already pretty high. Doubling is would put the price of gas over $2 in some places, and you can imagine the riots. :)
If you look at the DOT report, they seem to believe fuel taxes will become useless or very unfair in the future, esp. with electrics, so start transitioning now. I think they're probably right, though I don't know the solution.
"Good Faith and Credit Clause"
:)
Actually, it's Full Faith. Nothing requires states to act in good faith.
Someone else mentions the right to travel, which refers not to travel so much as discrimination against out-of-state immigrants with respect to things like welfare benefits and voter registration. Irrelevant here; there is nothing discriminatory about requiring everyone to pay for the road they drive on.
If you look at the OR DOT preliminary report the basic reason is that fuel tax revenue are declining. Why? Increased fuel efficiency of all things! They are particularly concerned about hybrids which you know get double mileage -- and so pay half the tax. You can imagine what horror electric vehicles would bring.
So I guess they are trying not to discriminate against older and larger cars, who would pay much more fuel tax than hybrid, esp. as they raised the tax rate to compensate. An alternative might be a direct ad valorum tax on each automobile, paid with registration -- that would cut against expensive and new cars, unfortunately discouraging trading up.
I am sympathetic with their need to maintain constant income, it's how they maintain the roads. As for their methods?
A bizarre side effect of a good thing, I'll say.
Are you sure your library wipes its disks? :) Good policy, though.
I was pretty alarmed at the pathetic effort of the Starr inquiry to get the lists of who bought what at a local bookstore here in Washington, named Politics & Prose. The store resisted divulging Lewinsky's purchases; I don't recall the outcome.
I don't of course know whether they would have gotten the warrant had they been allowed to present the case to the intelligence court. Hindsight is always distorting. But the reason cited by the central office was concern they might not get it, and I think up to now they've gotten just about everything they asked for and are worried about wearing out their welcome.
This will all be easier to judge once the 9/11 commission issues its report. What? There's no 9/11 commission? But it's been more thann a year! How could that be? (shock, outrage) My point is that the facts are there for the taking but a certain administration is actively resisting unearthing them. Not a conspiracy, just politics as usual.
Irony -- I meant it is ironic they didn't search when they should have, whereas elsewhere they have searched where they should not.
Well, it was a rhetorical question. :)
Applications for this special warrant are only granted by a special "secret" court that sits in Washington, per the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and apparently the FBI central office has veto authority.
You can't win -- bungling cuts both ways.
Anyone wonder why the heck the Minnesota FBI office went to Washington for a piddly search warrant, instead of their friendly local court? Because this was not an ordinary warrant, but a national security warrant designed to investigate suspected terrorists who might not have committed any crime to provide probable cause for a regular warrant. (You know, like Minority Report. OK, it's not that bad.
It will be interesting to see who gets blamed once all of the finger-pointing is over.
From NYT by James Risen*:
* Another little note -- James Risen with Jeff Gerth were the NYT reporters blamed with stoking the fire over Wen Ho Lee debacle. Of course, lots of people were blamed -- sound familiar?
I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but I'm fairly sure every single one of your attributions to him is false. Also bear in mind that the President cannot single-handedly enact every policy.
* Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).
Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately after taking office.
* Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).
* Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
President Bush deserves the blame for repudiating action on arsenic permanently, Clinton for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the mining interests.
* Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Age-old? CAFE has been essentially frozen since President Reagan. Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of a very hostile Congress.
* Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
No. The "exemption" (lower standard actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were invented in the eighties, not the other way around. Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards, disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's.
Please everyone, condemn the right party.
** Dow bought Union Carbide 2 years ago. **
Dow is 100% liable for Union Carbide obligations, that comes with the purchase, but did not "kill" anybody at Bhopal in 1984 -- nearly 20 years ago.
Not that Dow is squeaky clean ... but that's beside the point. You don't get a free pass to break whatever law no matter how good your cause, even for civil disobedience. Worst of all, it is so unnecessary.
The "parody" site is deliberately misleading, and downright offensive. When I looked for at least a disclaimer, I find instead "Copyright © The Dow Company." The entire site appears to be structured similarly. This insults our intelligence. What, the critics' argument aren't good enough to stand alone? We won't appreciate it unless fooled?
The only reason I was studying the site for hints was the warning I received in advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a corporation to operate.
Parody can be protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't pretend to be Dow. No brainer.
"Doctors enter prescription details directly into the pharmacy computer."
Judging from my doctor's handwriting, not to mention computer skills, this is a very bad sign. If a pharmacist serves a function, it's decoding the doctor's intentions from chicken-scratch heiroglyphics.
*
I should add that computers have been doublechecking dosages and interactions for quite a while, and are probably better at it than human pharmacists. I've seen the computer flag a couple of my prescriptions, and god knows my insurance company is very careful that I don't get my refills more than 5 days in advance. (It's about money not safety: I'm welcome to pay cash and apply for reimbursement later. No, I don't see how this saves them money.)