"Precedes codification"? I'm not sure what that means. Codification is just the assembly of multiple laws in readable form. So instead of a law plus five amendments, you just set down the law as amended. Much more readable, no legal significance (unless botched).
Fair use was construed in the statute not the constitution by judges. Congress is free to override that construction, but instead it wrote it into the law. Another example is the entrapment defense, which does not appear in criminal law but Congress lets stand.
Your latter 2 sentences are policy arguments that may be good but don't control.
Fair use is not God-given, it's just a regular law added to the copyright statutes (before that a judicial construction). The DMCA, despite its protestations to the contrary, appears to screen out part of fair use. There is a core fair use that is First Amendment and can't be overridden, but I don't think the amendment goes to making backup copies.
So I assume a judge would say, yeah, the DMCA is badly written (there's a first) but it is clear what it proscribes and they'll just have to rewrite it rather than have me guess at the correct wording.
Just a minitangent: Plastic polishes such as Novus 1-2-3 can take out superficial scratches and contamination pretty reliably.
I wish whoever broadcasts Enterprise here would get some. Theie (evidently digital) broadcasts go blocky all the time, like 4-5 times per episode. I can practically see the tech's fingerprints.
"Copy" is a perfectly neutral term.We can't let the MPAA dictate our language.
Likewise naming backup wouldn't provide a shred of protection. It's what it does, not its name, that governs legality. (Lawyers aren't quite that stupid.)
So I can call it a kid's novelty, but if it's actually a joint, I haven't changed anything.:)
it'd be like if you buried your garbage in the public alley behind your house
I don't quite think so. Not that there isn't an analogy for every occasion (don't tell/.) but I'm not sure what old rule should become the new rule. With file-fishing, if you don't put the file on the Web, then you express an expectation of privacy, and the person is not stumbling on it but consciously hunting using specialized knowledge. That you are a resourceful thief or the victim uses crummy locks is no defense. I'm curious how this one goes, I know there have been a couple of recent incidents. (Even the stuff you do display is not abandoned: you retain copyright unless you say otherwise. I realize to one respects that, but it is there.)
As for deep-linking, as I understand it the worry is misrepresentation, as by my "framing" the cover of your book with my name pasted over yours. There's also the problem of making someone else server do all the work. I would just lock the door better with some annoying scheme of dynamic links to sensitive stuff. Annoying.
All this stuff about privacy may sound like petty commercial crap, but it will apply to the internet surveillance scheme, too. Are your unencypted internet packets on public display? Although they're easy to sniff, I don't think that's the expectation, and I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. (There, can I get a +1 insighful for that? I'm assuming some moderator would have the nerve to read our private conversation.:)
I learned about "paddy wagon" in Chicago, which is well-known for St. Patrick's Day drunkenness. With that and spades, I figure if I'm going to insult someone, I want to do it intentionally.
On gems -- the aluminum oxide base is called corundum and can be either ruby or sapphire. The tidbit I know about domestic corundum is that it was used to make the finishing touch on the National Monument, a cap made of aluminum, at the time the hot new metal and expensive as heck.
I'm still learning about parody, and it's kind of hard to do from the web because, or course, everyone has slightly different interpretation, most of them wrong. (not you!) Almost everyone gets something wrong, certainly including me.
Your comments on resemblance remind me of an insight I finally had into the interaction between parody and fair use. Copyright protects the original work and derivative works. Parody is by definition a derivative work -- if it doesn't reference the original work, it makes no sense. So parody is an infringing derivative work unless it meets the factors set forth rather clearly in Acuff-Rose, which I linked elsewhere here.
As for resemblance, you look how much is "borrowed" to make that parody connection, in both quantity and quality. So however much you alter or disguise images or text might not protect you. In Acuff-Rose the guitar riff itself struck at the essence of the song. The quantity and quality of the copying are equally important.
There are of course further requirements -- I commend the opinion to anyone's reading. The Kennedy concurrence is also interesting. Something most people get wrong about the decision is that it did not actually say that the Pretty Woman derivative was fair use; rather it remanded for more evidence to be collected. I don't know what happened then, except the parties probably settled.
I don't see how your site could be mistaken for theirs, but it is still a derivative work that could violate copyright. I think they just want your site to go away, and will grasp at whatever will make you do it.
Don't forget to call the press! These officials are elected, right?:)
P.S. As mentioned by others, this isn't legal advice, just background. If you need a lawyer get a lawyer.
Which was really that inventions of the past 85 years (Forbes' time frame) are kind of hard to label revolutionary.
Imagine how long the list of inventions superior to the cellphone would be. IMHO the pager blows it out of the water -- does anyone remember what a sensation those were? and think of the lives that were saved by ruining the dinners of innumerable doctors -- the cellphone was merely a later step.
To be fair, I should have picked items from Forbes's 85-year period. I bet there are quite a few superior to the cellphone in the at period -- think of the life-changing advances in medical technology alone -- yet the number that can be called revolutionary is an historical sense is small.
For fun, here is a fun catalog of inventions large and small. Count how many beat "cellphone."
BTW, the cotton gin was kind of a disasterous revolution if you happened to have been an African-American slave. It saved cotton plantations from financial ruin. Nor did Eli make much off of it; the patent was one of the most widely-disregarded in American history, with the states themselves handing out gins. (I can already hear someone making bizarre "fair use" arguments and complaining about the RIAA monopoly on gin technology.)
After all, nothing assures freedom like constant, unchecked surveillance.
Sounds like familiar doublespeak. Perhaps you meant "Freedom is Slavery."
You know, I used to think all references to 1984 were over-the-top black helicopter crowd nonsense, but Bush has brought me around. Did you know he was born just a couple of years before the book came out? Maybe it was his bedtime reading as a toddler.
Remember when the White House proposed an office of disinformation -- and got driven back? Wouldn't they have done better with "Ministry of Truth"?
Yes, what you say needs context. White calls black nigger, bad idea, brings up 500 years of history. Black calls black nigger, may be affectionate (or a way of saying you're trash). Black call white nigger, puzzlement.
Chris Rock I haven't seen that much of, though what I have had some of the few lines I ever quote. An early one was his career-changing role as "political correspondent" for Politically Incorrect; from the Buchanan convention he reported, "It's just like Cheers, except nobody knows my name and nobody's glad I came."
Asked on NPR why it was OK for him to use racial cracks no white comic could get away with, he said it's like your mother calling you an idiot -- you know she's just messing around (depending on your family:). He's good at walking the line between funny and not, and is trying to reveal some social truth, too. Oddly I've heard semi-racist white cops love him. He also knows to adjust his routine for white or black audiences.
Stereotypes -- I think they're generally none too bright, but worst are the ones designed to establish power or superiority of one group over another. Even well-meaning whites tend to be intensely clueless on the pain of stereotypes because of their immunity; so they come up with bright lines like, "Oh, I don't think of you as black." Thoughtless on one side of the conversation, devastating on the other.
Nigger is particularly funky example. I think saying "N-word" when trying to be polite is weird. It just underscores the power of the word and whit unwillingness to deal with racial discomfort -- more than sparing anyone's feelings. How many racial epithets can you think of that have a magic code-word? To use the word "politely" is to rob it of its power. The gay community figured that out a while ago. None of this means I make a practice of talking about it, but if it's relevant then call a spade a spade. (I still haven't figured out if that one's racist. I didn't realize "paddy wagon" was problematic... I thought the wagons were padded!)
My wife and in-laws are all black (seems to run in the family), I'm white, it's been a subtle adjustment. It is an odd experience to be the only white person in the room, something she experiences all the time. (No, they didn't mug me.;-) I can't say that I "get it," but I'm aware of a lot more than I used to be. And whereas before I might have debated speaking up at the usual dumb-ass nigger jokes, now I don't have the option: they're talking about my f'ing family! (One of the thing I love is that white people will confide in me their thoughts about race... then I confide mine. Heh-heh. Landmine!)
Last summer my 6 y.o. asks me what color he is while were looking at a display about slavery at the Lincoln Memorial. I was like, um, can we talk about this later. But I asked him what color is your mom, and your dad... so what does that make you? When in doubt, pass the buck. He decided on black person, and went dancing away saying, yay, I'm a black person! (Maybe you had to be there. He's a funny kid.)
I think you can tell I don't take myself too seriously.
On the diamonds, I just scratch my head. Sapphires are cool. But where do they come from, anyway? The thing is to talk to your fiancee over time, people do adjust their preferences if given new information and time to think it over. Have you priced diamond rings? That may affect your thinking, too!
When I used to work on GA aircraft, I spent a lot of time picking pieces of lead out of the spark plugs (they cost $10 apiece, and so were worth saving).
Interestingly these many of the engines, which in design dated from about WWII, ran perfectly well on "low-lead" gas with a fraction the original lead. I don't know if anyone put much thought into minimizing the lead.
I have heard anything about MTBE? It was patented and earning whatever oil company a fortune. Sadly, it is also incredibly toxic and can leach into groundwater from leaking tanks -- like a gallon could destroy an aquifer. I'm not yet convinced it is as bad as described, but what I heard was very disturbing.
Actually, adjusted for inflation the price of gas has not changed much since 1950. I'm not sure how much it was before that, but my impression is that it was the cost of the vehicle then more than now that was the major stumbling block, hence the success of Ford. The heavy taxes that account for about a third of the price of gas also had not yet been invented.
I can see how boosting mileage would be a competitive advantage but am not so convinced the industry would have died without it. Then there's all the adverse health effects to factor in -- those cost money, too, even if they are externalized and subtle.
How did the cellphone revoluntionize the world? Did it double crop outputs or cure a disease or what?
It does sound just a tad pompous. Even the microprocessor computer has taken a while to come into its own, and it is a far more flexible device. But for real impact on people's lives, it has been argued that the inventions of a century ago, from the cotton gin to the steam engine to modern pesticides to the assembly line to the combine and automobile and airplane to safe surgery WITH anesthesia and antiseptics (even the discovery of the GERM was, well, revolutionary) to the Edison electric light bulb -- all before or about 1900. While we're at it, how about the invention of the telephone?
I'm just rattling off semirandom industrial things that I hope are in the right time period, but you see the fundamental changes these inventions wrought, versus the more subtle improvements of the second half of the 20th century. I do think we're slowing down because so many of the great inventions are taken, yet maybe are too impressed with what has happened in our lifetimes. Another poster wisely pointed out that recent pickings may seem slim because we haven't had time to figure out which inventions are great, just as it takes about 50 years to assess the significance of a President.
But really, the cellphone? An enhanced cordless phone? Half "the world" has probably never even used one. They're wonderful and all, but incremental and transitory. Eventually we'll have the goddamn things implanted in our skulls, linked not to cells but satellites that manipulate our every thought... oops, scratch that last part. (I have a nondisclosure agreement with Microsoft.)
As for:
How long did it take for [the cellphone] to revolutionize the world?
Answer: Not yet.
Postscript: Does it horrify anyone else here that historians will refer to us as living "at the turn of the century"? All my life that has meant 1901.
Yes, of course China could claim jurisdiction. We've already tangled with a list of countries on free speech issues.
If so I hope China doesn't go after a US citizen for running a pro-democracy journal.
I hope they do. That would be a case worth fighting. The Communists versus the Americans -- it would be like a Rocky movie or something. The US itself is supposed to be a pro-democracy journal.
To be serious, the brutal Chinese gov't treatment of Tibet, the Falun Gong, internet surfers (a few are believed to have did in police custody), Tienamen Square, even tax evaders (death penalty!) collectively are overwhelming, yet out trade and other entanglements with them discourage our official protest. Details and details.
To give you an idea of the trade issue, I'm trying nearly in vain to find sneakers not made in China (there are a few).
You're grasping at straws. The states can fiddle with the law in their courts and allow jurors to judge state laws, true, but the federal rule has been stated with perfect clarity.
Actually I looked at it. You've wrong about its holding, as are the rest of the nullification nuts. Also, it's just a circuit court opinion. Feel frre to prove otherwise; you can't.
Why waste time looking for more cites? Because you might learn somthing valuable.
(1) I didn't say the federal gov't had a general police power. I said "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement." Get it? Enforcement of federal law.
(2) You completely misunderstand the 4th A. point: sure states can under state constitutions and laws impose greater restraints on their own law enforcement, but they have no power to do so to the feds who answer only to the federal constitution. So they can enact what they like, it won't impede the feds.
"Get the message??" I'm glad you're not practicing.
I think (don't quote me on this) that you are more hosed than I. Your easement is a partial property right held by the gov't -- they don't own the land but they can do certain things on it -- while our setback is just a "heads up" that if we build on it and they decide to condemn it, we're hosed. I can build fences and such all the way out to the line, but they may someday be ripped out. I will, however, get some $$$ for the loss in propoerty value. the same happened one street over, where we own a rental; years ago they ripped out the trees to widen the road and compensated the then-owner with... flower bushes. (I didn't say it was a *great* deal.)
Legally, the Internet is "certified trash." And, yeah, once you stick it on the web you've pretty much sacrificed any expectation of privacy, but not copyright and related rights. More controversial have been deep-linking and "guessing" filenames to pick up stuff someone doesn't want seen.
From a dozen years ago, in bio class I think. Really amazing.
Now, what I really wanted was some footage and nervous response from the perspective of the hapless crustacean. Can you imagine? No! No! Go away! Argggghhhhhhh!
highly readable and extremely illuminating for the common reader with no prior knowledge of extraterrestrial existence
In other words read this book, and you'll know ET exists, too.
I have no doubt there are UFO's. I think it's far more than likely there is life "out there." But conspiracy theories about simmering gov't schemes to keep us from the truth... make me ill. How can we go from the scientific proposition that extraterrestrial life and exists to the unscientific speculation and leap of faith demanded in these volumes?
Also explored in great detail is the intelligence of our sea life
OK, there's a creative twist. Methinks they needed more pages to call it a book.
The author's use of a plethora of written documentation ably enhances his description of personal civilian and military accounts...
"Plethora" actually means excess or superabundance. Here the plan appears to be that if you pile enough of it on...
Forgive me for skepticism, but speculations like these are not a whit different from theories that man did not land of the Moon or that President Bush orchestrated 9/11, and so on. They sound kind of interesting, suggestive evidence can be shown, but the web of speculation leads nowhere. I'm tired of con artists like this.
I emphasize that these people are not mere wackos, if they are wacko at all. They are scam artists who do not deserve your money. Visit the good old library instead, or drink deep of the wonderful nonsense available for free on the Web.
Slashdot Mirror
"Precedes codification"? I'm not sure what that means. Codification is just the assembly of multiple laws in readable form. So instead of a law plus five amendments, you just set down the law as amended. Much more readable, no legal significance (unless botched).
Fair use was construed in the statute not the constitution by judges. Congress is free to override that construction, but instead it wrote it into the law. Another example is the entrapment defense, which does not appear in criminal law but Congress lets stand.
Your latter 2 sentences are policy arguments that may be good but don't control.
Gee, I just thought the writer/editor was an idiot or typo-ist ... but yeah, I skipped that clause, too. We just have different prejudices.
:) (Although I do kind of like Yahoo!.)
Another dumb tech-era company name. Good thing they go out of business so fast.
Yes, I know, some say "they all look alike," but let's be open-minded. ;-)
Fair use is not God-given, it's just a regular law added to the copyright statutes (before that a judicial construction). The DMCA, despite its protestations to the contrary, appears to screen out part of fair use. There is a core fair use that is First Amendment and can't be overridden, but I don't think the amendment goes to making backup copies.
So I assume a judge would say, yeah, the DMCA is badly written (there's a first) but it is clear what it proscribes and they'll just have to rewrite it rather than have me guess at the correct wording.
YMMV.
Just a minitangent: Plastic polishes such as Novus 1-2-3 can take out superficial scratches and contamination pretty reliably.
I wish whoever broadcasts Enterprise here would get some. Theie (evidently digital) broadcasts go blocky all the time, like 4-5 times per episode. I can practically see the tech's fingerprints.
"Copy" is a perfectly neutral term.We can't let the MPAA dictate our language.
:)
Likewise naming backup wouldn't provide a shred of protection. It's what it does, not its name, that governs legality. (Lawyers aren't quite that stupid.)
So I can call it a kid's novelty, but if it's actually a joint, I haven't changed anything.
something I've spent my life dwelling on
/.) but I'm not sure what old rule should become the new rule. With file-fishing, if you don't put the file on the Web, then you express an expectation of privacy, and the person is not stumbling on it but consciously hunting using specialized knowledge. That you are a resourceful thief or the victim uses crummy locks is no defense. I'm curious how this one goes, I know there have been a couple of recent incidents. (Even the stuff you do display is not abandoned: you retain copyright unless you say otherwise. I realize to one respects that, but it is there.)
:)
Very punny. (pained smiley)
it'd be like if you buried your garbage in the public alley behind your house
I don't quite think so. Not that there isn't an analogy for every occasion (don't tell
As for deep-linking, as I understand it the worry is misrepresentation, as by my "framing" the cover of your book with my name pasted over yours. There's also the problem of making someone else server do all the work. I would just lock the door better with some annoying scheme of dynamic links to sensitive stuff. Annoying.
All this stuff about privacy may sound like petty commercial crap, but it will apply to the internet surveillance scheme, too. Are your unencypted internet packets on public display? Although they're easy to sniff, I don't think that's the expectation, and I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. (There, can I get a +1 insighful for that? I'm assuming some moderator would have the nerve to read our private conversation.
A couple of trivialities:
I learned about "paddy wagon" in Chicago, which is well-known for St. Patrick's Day drunkenness. With that and spades, I figure if I'm going to insult someone, I want to do it intentionally.
On gems -- the aluminum oxide base is called corundum and can be either ruby or sapphire. The tidbit I know about domestic corundum is that it was used to make the finishing touch on the National Monument, a cap made of aluminum, at the time the hot new metal and expensive as heck.
On Al and corrosion. (I'll read most anything.)
I'm still learning about parody, and it's kind of hard to do from the web because, or course, everyone has slightly different interpretation, most of them wrong. (not you!) Almost everyone gets something wrong, certainly including me.
:)
Your comments on resemblance remind me of an insight I finally had into the interaction between parody and fair use. Copyright protects the original work and derivative works. Parody is by definition a derivative work -- if it doesn't reference the original work, it makes no sense. So parody is an infringing derivative work unless it meets the factors set forth rather clearly in Acuff-Rose, which I linked elsewhere here.
As for resemblance, you look how much is "borrowed" to make that parody connection, in both quantity and quality. So however much you alter or disguise images or text might not protect you. In Acuff-Rose the guitar riff itself struck at the essence of the song. The quantity and quality of the copying are equally important.
There are of course further requirements -- I commend the opinion to anyone's reading. The Kennedy concurrence is also interesting. Something most people get wrong about the decision is that it did not actually say that the Pretty Woman derivative was fair use; rather it remanded for more evidence to be collected. I don't know what happened then, except the parties probably settled.
I don't see how your site could be mistaken for theirs, but it is still a derivative work that could violate copyright. I think they just want your site to go away, and will grasp at whatever will make you do it.
Don't forget to call the press! These officials are elected, right?
P.S. As mentioned by others, this isn't legal advice, just background. If you need a lawyer get a lawyer.
Exactly my point! :)
Which was really that inventions of the past 85 years (Forbes' time frame) are kind of hard to label revolutionary.
Imagine how long the list of inventions superior to the cellphone would be. IMHO the pager blows it out of the water -- does anyone remember what a sensation those were? and think of the lives that were saved by ruining the dinners of innumerable doctors -- the cellphone was merely a later step.
To be fair, I should have picked items from Forbes's 85-year period. I bet there are quite a few superior to the cellphone in the at period -- think of the life-changing advances in medical technology alone -- yet the number that can be called revolutionary is an historical sense is small.
For fun, here is a fun catalog of inventions large and small. Count how many beat "cellphone."
BTW, the cotton gin was kind of a disasterous revolution if you happened to have been an African-American slave. It saved cotton plantations from financial ruin. Nor did Eli make much off of it; the patent was one of the most widely-disregarded in American history, with the states themselves handing out gins. (I can already hear someone making bizarre "fair use" arguments and complaining about the RIAA monopoly on gin technology.)
Sounds like familiar doublespeak. Perhaps you meant "Freedom is Slavery."
You know, I used to think all references to 1984 were over-the-top black helicopter crowd nonsense, but Bush has brought me around. Did you know he was born just a couple of years before the book came out? Maybe it was his bedtime reading as a toddler.
Remember when the White House proposed an office of disinformation -- and got driven back? Wouldn't they have done better with "Ministry of Truth"?
Remember:
* War Is Peace
* Freedom Is Slavery
* Ignorance Is Strength
* Big Brother Is Watching You
(The SOS site has other useful tips.)
Yes, what you say needs context. White calls black nigger, bad idea, brings up 500 years of history. Black calls black nigger, may be affectionate (or a way of saying you're trash). Black call white nigger, puzzlement.
:). He's good at walking the line between funny and not, and is trying to reveal some social truth, too. Oddly I've heard semi-racist white cops love him. He also knows to adjust his routine for white or black audiences.
... I thought the wagons were padded!)
;-) I can't say that I "get it," but I'm aware of a lot more than I used to be. And whereas before I might have debated speaking up at the usual dumb-ass nigger jokes, now I don't have the option: they're talking about my f'ing family! (One of the thing I love is that white people will confide in me their thoughts about race ... then I confide mine. Heh-heh. Landmine!)
... so what does that make you? When in doubt, pass the buck. He decided on black person, and went dancing away saying, yay, I'm a black person! (Maybe you had to be there. He's a funny kid.)
Chris Rock I haven't seen that much of, though what I have had some of the few lines I ever quote. An early one was his career-changing role as "political correspondent" for Politically Incorrect; from the Buchanan convention he reported, "It's just like Cheers, except nobody knows my name and nobody's glad I came."
Asked on NPR why it was OK for him to use racial cracks no white comic could get away with, he said it's like your mother calling you an idiot -- you know she's just messing around (depending on your family
Stereotypes -- I think they're generally none too bright, but worst are the ones designed to establish power or superiority of one group over another. Even well-meaning whites tend to be intensely clueless on the pain of stereotypes because of their immunity; so they come up with bright lines like, "Oh, I don't think of you as black." Thoughtless on one side of the conversation, devastating on the other.
Nigger is particularly funky example. I think saying "N-word" when trying to be polite is weird. It just underscores the power of the word and whit unwillingness to deal with racial discomfort -- more than sparing anyone's feelings. How many racial epithets can you think of that have a magic code-word? To use the word "politely" is to rob it of its power. The gay community figured that out a while ago. None of this means I make a practice of talking about it, but if it's relevant then call a spade a spade. (I still haven't figured out if that one's racist. I didn't realize "paddy wagon" was problematic
My wife and in-laws are all black (seems to run in the family), I'm white, it's been a subtle adjustment. It is an odd experience to be the only white person in the room, something she experiences all the time. (No, they didn't mug me.
Last summer my 6 y.o. asks me what color he is while were looking at a display about slavery at the Lincoln Memorial. I was like, um, can we talk about this later. But I asked him what color is your mom, and your dad
I think you can tell I don't take myself too seriously.
On the diamonds, I just scratch my head. Sapphires are cool. But where do they come from, anyway? The thing is to talk to your fiancee over time, people do adjust their preferences if given new information and time to think it over. Have you priced diamond rings? That may affect your thinking, too!
When I used to work on GA aircraft, I spent a lot of time picking pieces of lead out of the spark plugs (they cost $10 apiece, and so were worth saving).
Interestingly these many of the engines, which in design dated from about WWII, ran perfectly well on "low-lead" gas with a fraction the original lead. I don't know if anyone put much thought into minimizing the lead.
I have heard anything about MTBE? It was patented and earning whatever oil company a fortune. Sadly, it is also incredibly toxic and can leach into groundwater from leaking tanks -- like a gallon could destroy an aquifer. I'm not yet convinced it is as bad as described, but what I heard was very disturbing.
Actually, adjusted for inflation the price of gas has not changed much since 1950. I'm not sure how much it was before that, but my impression is that it was the cost of the vehicle then more than now that was the major stumbling block, hence the success of Ford. The heavy taxes that account for about a third of the price of gas also had not yet been invented.
I can see how boosting mileage would be a competitive advantage but am not so convinced the industry would have died without it. Then there's all the adverse health effects to factor in -- those cost money, too, even if they are externalized and subtle.
I do think leaded gas was an odd pick.
How did the cellphone revoluntionize the world? Did it double crop outputs or cure a disease or what?
... oops, scratch that last part. (I have a nondisclosure agreement with Microsoft.)
It does sound just a tad pompous. Even the microprocessor computer has taken a while to come into its own, and it is a far more flexible device. But for real impact on people's lives, it has been argued that the inventions of a century ago, from the cotton gin to the steam engine to modern pesticides to the assembly line to the combine and automobile and airplane to safe surgery WITH anesthesia and antiseptics (even the discovery of the GERM was, well, revolutionary) to the Edison electric light bulb -- all before or about 1900. While we're at it, how about the invention of the telephone?
I'm just rattling off semirandom industrial things that I hope are in the right time period, but you see the fundamental changes these inventions wrought, versus the more subtle improvements of the second half of the 20th century. I do think we're slowing down because so many of the great inventions are taken, yet maybe are too impressed with what has happened in our lifetimes. Another poster wisely pointed out that recent pickings may seem slim because we haven't had time to figure out which inventions are great, just as it takes about 50 years to assess the significance of a President.
But really, the cellphone? An enhanced cordless phone? Half "the world" has probably never even used one. They're wonderful and all, but incremental and transitory. Eventually we'll have the goddamn things implanted in our skulls, linked not to cells but satellites that manipulate our every thought
As for:
How long did it take for [the cellphone] to revolutionize the world?
Answer: Not yet.
Postscript: Does it horrify anyone else here that historians will refer to us as living "at the turn of the century"? All my life that has meant 1901.
Yes, of course China could claim jurisdiction. We've already tangled with a list of countries on free speech issues.
If so I hope China doesn't go after a US citizen for running a pro-democracy journal.
I hope they do. That would be a case worth fighting. The Communists versus the Americans -- it would be like a Rocky movie or something. The US itself is supposed to be a pro-democracy journal.
To be serious, the brutal Chinese gov't treatment of Tibet, the Falun Gong, internet surfers (a few are believed to have did in police custody), Tienamen Square, even tax evaders (death penalty!) collectively are overwhelming, yet out trade and other entanglements with them discourage our official protest. Details and details.
To give you an idea of the trade issue, I'm trying nearly in vain to find sneakers not made in China (there are a few).
You're grasping at straws. The states can fiddle with the law in their courts and allow jurors to judge state laws, true, but the federal rule has been stated with perfect clarity.
Actually I looked at it. You've wrong about its holding, as are the rest of the nullification nuts. Also, it's just a circuit court opinion. Feel frre to prove otherwise; you can't.
Why waste time looking for more cites? Because you might learn somthing valuable.
You have *no* idea what you're talking about.
(1) I didn't say the federal gov't had a general police power. I said "legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement." Get it? Enforcement of federal law.
(2) You completely misunderstand the 4th A. point: sure states can under state constitutions and laws impose greater restraints on their own law enforcement, but they have no power to do so to the feds who answer only to the federal constitution. So they can enact what they like, it won't impede the feds.
"Get the message??" I'm glad you're not practicing.
I think (don't quote me on this) that you are more hosed than I. Your easement is a partial property right held by the gov't -- they don't own the land but they can do certain things on it -- while our setback is just a "heads up" that if we build on it and they decide to condemn it, we're hosed. I can build fences and such all the way out to the line, but they may someday be ripped out. I will, however, get some $$$ for the loss in propoerty value. the same happened one street over, where we own a rental; years ago they ripped out the trees to widen the road and compensated the then-owner with ... flower bushes. (I didn't say it was a *great* deal.)
Legally, the Internet is "certified trash." And, yeah, once you stick it on the web you've pretty much sacrificed any expectation of privacy, but not copyright and related rights. More controversial have been deep-linking and "guessing" filenames to pick up stuff someone doesn't want seen.
I mean, there is no legitimate evidence whatsoever.
Hey -- you saw it on TV, didn't you? The Simpsons has been my principal news source for a dozen years now. The rest is just cartoons.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo
:)
Actually I think the one after Jury is traditionally "Jail."
From a dozen years ago, in bio class I think. Really amazing.
Now, what I really wanted was some footage and nervous response from the perspective of the hapless crustacean. Can you imagine? No! No! Go away! Argggghhhhhhh!
highly readable and extremely illuminating for the common reader with no prior knowledge of extraterrestrial existence
... make me ill. How can we go from the scientific proposition that extraterrestrial life and exists to the unscientific speculation and leap of faith demanded in these volumes?
In other words read this book, and you'll know ET exists, too.
I have no doubt there are UFO's. I think it's far more than likely there is life "out there." But conspiracy theories about simmering gov't schemes to keep us from the truth
Also explored in great detail is the intelligence of our sea life
OK, there's a creative twist. Methinks they needed more pages to call it a book.
The author's use of a plethora of written documentation ably enhances his description of personal civilian and military accounts...
"Plethora" actually means excess or superabundance. Here the plan appears to be that if you pile enough of it on...
Forgive me for skepticism, but speculations like these are not a whit different from theories that man did not land of the Moon or that President Bush orchestrated 9/11, and so on. They sound kind of interesting, suggestive evidence can be shown, but the web of speculation leads nowhere. I'm tired of con artists like this.
I emphasize that these people are not mere wackos, if they are wacko at all. They are scam artists who do not deserve your money. Visit the good old library instead, or drink deep of the wonderful nonsense available for free on the Web.