A shop is private property. If the owner doesn't want you on it for any reason, though luck.
No. A shop is not private property in the same sense as your home. It is a place of public accommodation, and as such is required not to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
a common law right...of shopkeeper's privilege that, under certain circumstances, allows a shopkeeper or their agent to detain and conduct a search of someone suspected of stealing.
Not much different than "citizens' arrest" - if I see somebody stealing, I can grab 'em and hold 'em till the cops show up. Fine. If a storekeeper has reseasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts that I've stolen something (and mere refusal to submit to an arbitrary search is not grounds for such), they can detain me for a few minutes while they count widgets and figure out that not, I didn't take one, or until they the police arrive. I'll wait, and I'll even cooperate if there is reseasonable grounds for the suspicion.
This, however, is very different that forcing arbitrary searches on people.
Nearly every protest/demonstration I've gone to...takes the atmosphere of a party or some other social event. You'll see kids banging on drums, playing music, dancing, or whatever.
Sure. There's two ways to get John Q. Public to join your side: 1) threats of violence, or 2) promises of a good time.
My point (though I couldn't quite phrase it right) was that, no, denying the transfer of rights to the employers/assignees *itself* is a violation of the creator's copyright.
Not at all. Creators have only what copy-rights we give them. If we don't give them a transferable right, it's not a violation of anything.
To limit how much of the right can be transferred weaken's the creator's rights.
"Weaken" only compared to current practice. Fine. Good. Current practice is bad from both a practical and constitutional perspective.
Assignees deserve the rights not because Congress is authorized to secure copyrights for *them*, but as an extension of Congress's protection of the copyright of the creator.
Congress doesn't "protect" the copyright, it creates it de novo. And it has no Constitutional power for such an "extension".
(A similar argument can be made in defense of inherited wealth.)
Well, that ought to be a big clue that you're on the wrong track. Inherited power of any sort - economic, political - is a horrendous idea.
The Constitution only requires that copyrights be initially vested in authors; it doesn't prohibit later transfers.
But it doesn't enable them.
"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The structure of the Constitutional powers of the federal government is "everything that is not explicitly permitted, is prohibited."
Creating a transferable right is a different thing than "securing" a right to "Authors and Inventors". "Are you an Author or Inventor?" "No." "Then Article I Section 8 doesn't authorize us to do anything for you. Next."
It seems unlikely that the Constitution means what you think it means in light of the practice of the day.
It was only a few years after the Bill of Rights was ratified that the Sedition Act was passed. "Practice of the day" in no way overrides the meaning of the text.
If heirs and assignees can't hold copyrights, that means copyrights expire on death.
Yes.
Kill the author so the item enters the public domain.
Uh, right. "I love your work so much that I will kill you so that it enters the public domain and I can share it with everyone!" Never mind that this will preclude the author from producing any other work...
Once you accept that the author has the exclusive right to copy, you accept that he may implement this by e.g. "Any copying corporation X does is okay."
Of course. But allowing copying != transferring copyright. The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright on GNU Emacs, but we can all copy it.
Being able to sell the copyright to others...
Apples, oranges. Giving you permission to copy is very different from selling the copyright.
...to others adds value for the creator.
Debatable, but irrelevant. The purpose of copyright is not to add value for the creator, it is to benefit us all by promoting the arts. Policies which allow the concentration of control of works few, run coutner to that goal.
They also include a lot of software, which is the livelihood of many slashdot posters. Are you sure we can live without commercial software development?
The majority of software is bespoke. We could (and should) eliminate copyright on computer software and still have plenty of jobs.
I've been developing software, and getting paid for it, since 1990. Only about one year of that time was spend developing software that was "sold" as a commerical product, and even there we probably could have arranged it to give away the software and selling support contracts.
Some company exec will just hold the copyright personally
That's the heart of the problem. Congress is authorized only to secure copyrights to creators ("Authors and Inventors") - not to employers, assignees, or heirs.
Recognizing that any copyright claim by someone who didn't create the work is bogus would go a long way to fixing the problem. (And would align copyright law with the Constitution as a bonus.)
How many different linux os's are there? "Linux", in it's perpetual drive to get everywhere at once, will fail to get anywhere.
Uh, no. Linux is getting everywhere. It's in DVRs, cell phones, desktops, servers, and PDAs. It's "perpetual drive to get everywhere at once" is in fact succeeding.
The "fragmentation" you speak of is actually diversity. Diversity is a prerequisite for evolution. It's a positive, not a negative, attribute!
The idea of storing heat in the summer and cold in the winter is viable technically...To keep my house cool over the hot summer months would take many cubic yards of ice.
Which is why you use the ground instead. It spends all winter getting cool and remains cooler than the air in summer; it spends all summer getting warm and remains warmer than the air in winter.
The keyboard is really difficult to use, and the lack of power from the USB port means you need a powered hub to use an external keyboard.
Curious - I have a an C3000 and have no trouble using a folding USB keyboard with it, without a hub.
Yes, the built-in keyboard is tiny, but you can't get a bigger one without sacrificing portability. I think it's quite good for its size. (And it's certainly bigger and easier to use than the one on my Centro!)
The Asus Eee looks nifty but would fit a different niche - I wouldn't mind having something bigger than my Zaurus but smaller than my notebook. But I'm really hoping its success will drive Linux on to handheld UMPC-class devices.
Did they offer some subjects a tiger-team-style $100 if they could tell the difference between RF and no RF on? Was this a double-blind experiment?
According to the full text, linked from TFA, the experiment was double-blinded, and "Participants were not able to differentiate RF exposure conditions from sham exposures more often than would have been expected by statistical chance alone."
While that would be horrible and I can't condone the taking of innocent lives (such as the Pepsi machine refill guy who happens to be there at that moment)
I dunno - is someone supplying aid and comfort to a organization of Pure Concentrated Evil really "innocent"?
It's sort of like the contractors on the Death Star. A Pepsi machine refill guy's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
Will the police break into people's homes, and search their computers, mp3 players, etc? No.
What, you don't think so? They're already willing to break into your house, tear open the walls, and strip search you to make sure you're not in possession of unauthoried plant material. Or to batter down your door to check for vitamins - though that's become less fashionable lately, it shows what sort of organization we're dealing with when the federal government gets involved.
I'm sure the War on Copying will work just as well as the War on Drugs. They already have the K-9 corps set up. I'm just waiting for the violent black market to spring up.
And hey - this could provide a great opportunity for geeks to have a lucrative and exciting career in organized crime.
There were no red-headed Irishmen
before the Vikings landed in Ireland
How many Romans had dark curly hair
before they brought slaves from Africa?
No race of man is completely pure,
nor is anyone's mind, that's for sure
The winds mix the dust of every land,
and so will woman and man.
Therefore, if something is not named in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government, the federal government should keep their stinkin' noses and hands OUT of it.
One thing named in the Constitution (Amendment XIV) as an enumerated power of the federal government is making the state governments respect the rights and liberties of citizens. Another thing mentioned in the Constitution (Article III) is "judicial Power" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".
It is entirely fitting and Constitutional for the federal courts to hear cases and render decisions regarding whether state laws interfere with individual rights, both enumerated and unenumerated.
We can legitimately disagree on whether individual cases are decided soundly, whether judges and justices are literate or a bunch of baboons, whether the doctrine of stare decisis is a good or a foolish idea. But to complain about the role of the courts in the process itself, and at the same time to identify as a "Constitutionalist", is to contradict oneself.
When his constituents come to him and ask him to submit an earmark, he passes it on to the Appropriations Cmte. Then, he votes AGAINST the bill.
Hah! What a wonderful way to have his cake and eat it too. Let others make the appropriation then make a vote against it he knows will be ineffectual. What a politician!
But m is not a constant, its a parameter in our model.
And what model is this? I admit it's been a while since grad school and my last classes in theory, but I don't recall any model used for studying algorithmic complexity or computabilty in which "number of processors" was a parameter.
In other words, we are looking at how the running time changes as the input size, and number of processors, increases.
A single Turing-complete system can emulate any finite set of others; from the perspective of complexity and computabilty theory, it makes no difference how many chips there are. You might as well make processor speed a parameter.
Wait a minute. You seem to think that the Supreme Court has the authority to operate outside of the Constitution. Is that it?
No.
Wait a minute. You seem to think that the Supreme Court preventing state governments from trampling individual rights is outside of the Constitution. Is that it? Perhaps we just need to catch you up.
Amendment XIV, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added, obviously]
Under the Constitution as amended, states have to respect the rights of individuals. Enforcing the Constitution is the domain of the federal government.
What we have going on is a bunch of activist judges who seem to think that it is up to them to make law, rather than Congress, as the Constitution says.
Congress, and state legistatures, make laws. Occasionally - far too often - they make laws that violate the Constitution, either by exceeding the rightful power of the government or by trampling on the rights of citizens. Under the Constitution, federal courts' "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". So when questions arise as to whether laws are constitutional, it is not "activist" for federal judges to consider them. It's exactly the process called for by the Constitution.
Laws against abortion were one such case, where state governments trampled on the rights of citizens.
In recent years Federal judges regularly have struck down State and local laws in subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion.
If those laws were against the Constitution, that's exactly their job.
Slashdot Mirror
No. A shop is not private property in the same sense as your home. It is a place of public accommodation, and as such is required not to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Not much different than "citizens' arrest" - if I see somebody stealing, I can grab 'em and hold 'em till the cops show up. Fine. If a storekeeper has reseasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts that I've stolen something (and mere refusal to submit to an arbitrary search is not grounds for such), they can detain me for a few minutes while they count widgets and figure out that not, I didn't take one, or until they the police arrive. I'll wait, and I'll even cooperate if there is reseasonable grounds for the suspicion.
This, however, is very different that forcing arbitrary searches on people.
Sure. There's two ways to get John Q. Public to join your side: 1) threats of violence, or 2) promises of a good time.
Not at all. Creators have only what copy-rights we give them. If we don't give them a transferable right, it's not a violation of anything.
"Weaken" only compared to current practice. Fine. Good. Current practice is bad from both a practical and constitutional perspective.
Congress doesn't "protect" the copyright, it creates it de novo. And it has no Constitutional power for such an "extension".
Well, that ought to be a big clue that you're on the wrong track. Inherited power of any sort - economic, political - is a horrendous idea.
But it doesn't enable them.
"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The structure of the Constitutional powers of the federal government is "everything that is not explicitly permitted, is prohibited."
Creating a transferable right is a different thing than "securing" a right to "Authors and Inventors". "Are you an Author or Inventor?" "No." "Then Article I Section 8 doesn't authorize us to do anything for you. Next."
It was only a few years after the Bill of Rights was ratified that the Sedition Act was passed. "Practice of the day" in no way overrides the meaning of the text.
Yes.
Uh, right. "I love your work so much that I will kill you so that it enters the public domain and I can share it with everyone!" Never mind that this will preclude the author from producing any other work...
Of course. But allowing copying != transferring copyright. The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright on GNU Emacs, but we can all copy it.
Apples, oranges. Giving you permission to copy is very different from selling the copyright.
Debatable, but irrelevant. The purpose of copyright is not to add value for the creator, it is to benefit us all by promoting the arts. Policies which allow the concentration of control of works few, run coutner to that goal.
The majority of software is bespoke. We could (and should) eliminate copyright on computer software and still have plenty of jobs.
I've been developing software, and getting paid for it, since 1990. Only about one year of that time was spend developing software that was "sold" as a commerical product, and even there we probably could have arranged it to give away the software and selling support contracts.
That's a modern error, post-dating the Constitutional authorization of copyrights.
Of course. A work-for-hire is one thing; Sony claiming to own the rights to the songs Lennon and McCartney wrote for the Beatles catalog is another.
Suits me fine...the corporation as we know it must be destroyed.
There is a vast gulf between allowing someone to copy a work to which you hold copyright, and transferrring the copyright to someone.
That's the heart of the problem. Congress is authorized only to secure copyrights to creators ("Authors and Inventors") - not to employers, assignees, or heirs.
Recognizing that any copyright claim by someone who didn't create the work is bogus would go a long way to fixing the problem. (And would align copyright law with the Constitution as a bonus.)
Uh, no. Linux is getting everywhere. It's in DVRs, cell phones, desktops, servers, and PDAs. It's "perpetual drive to get everywhere at once" is in fact succeeding.
The "fragmentation" you speak of is actually diversity. Diversity is a prerequisite for evolution. It's a positive, not a negative, attribute!
Which is why you use the ground instead. It spends all winter getting cool and remains cooler than the air in summer; it spends all summer getting warm and remains warmer than the air in winter.
Curious - I have a an C3000 and have no trouble using a folding USB keyboard with it, without a hub.
Yes, the built-in keyboard is tiny, but you can't get a bigger one without sacrificing portability. I think it's quite good for its size. (And it's certainly bigger and easier to use than the one on my Centro!)
The Asus Eee looks nifty but would fit a different niche - I wouldn't mind having something bigger than my Zaurus but smaller than my notebook. But I'm really hoping its success will drive Linux on to handheld UMPC-class devices.
According to the full text, linked from TFA, the experiment was double-blinded, and "Participants were not able to differentiate RF exposure conditions from sham exposures more often than would have been expected by statistical chance alone."
Check out the Sharp Zaurus C3000 series. Beats the N810 on having USB and CF, but it doesn't have built-in Wifi or Bluetooth.
I dunno - is someone supplying aid and comfort to a organization of Pure Concentrated Evil really "innocent"?
It's sort of like the contractors on the Death Star. A Pepsi machine refill guy's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
What, you don't think so? They're already willing to break into your house, tear open the walls, and strip search you to make sure you're not in possession of unauthoried plant material. Or to batter down your door to check for vitamins - though that's become less fashionable lately, it shows what sort of organization we're dealing with when the federal government gets involved.
I'm sure the War on Copying will work just as well as the War on Drugs. They already have the K-9 corps set up. I'm just waiting for the violent black market to spring up.
And hey - this could provide a great opportunity for geeks to have a lucrative and exciting career in organized crime.
Uh, my lineage is pure. For at least a hundred generations back, all of my ancestors have been human beings. That's as pure as it gets.
As for "race", I think Pete Seeger said it well:
Officially? Yes, mostly. De facto? No, discriminatory hiring practices still exist, as do race-based blocks to voting.
They've started running these.
I don't know for how long. When I'm at home I skip commercials with my DVR. I only saw one by chance on the TV at the laundromat last Monday.
Broadcast television has never been a free market. Heavy regulations have been in place since day one.
Paul claims to be a Constitutionalist.
One thing named in the Constitution (Amendment XIV) as an enumerated power of the federal government is making the state governments respect the rights and liberties of citizens. Another thing mentioned in the Constitution (Article III) is "judicial Power" in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".
It is entirely fitting and Constitutional for the federal courts to hear cases and render decisions regarding whether state laws interfere with individual rights, both enumerated and unenumerated.
We can legitimately disagree on whether individual cases are decided soundly, whether judges and justices are literate or a bunch of baboons, whether the doctrine of stare decisis is a good or a foolish idea. But to complain about the role of the courts in the process itself, and at the same time to identify as a "Constitutionalist", is to contradict oneself.
Hah! What a wonderful way to have his cake and eat it too. Let others make the appropriation then make a vote against it he knows will be ineffectual. What a politician!
And what model is this? I admit it's been a while since grad school and my last classes in theory, but I don't recall any model used for studying algorithmic complexity or computabilty in which "number of processors" was a parameter.
A single Turing-complete system can emulate any finite set of others; from the perspective of complexity and computabilty theory, it makes no difference how many chips there are. You might as well make processor speed a parameter.
No.
Wait a minute. You seem to think that the Supreme Court preventing state governments from trampling individual rights is outside of the Constitution. Is that it? Perhaps we just need to catch you up.
Amendment XIV, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added, obviously]
Under the Constitution as amended, states have to respect the rights of individuals. Enforcing the Constitution is the domain of the federal government.
Congress, and state legistatures, make laws. Occasionally - far too often - they make laws that violate the Constitution, either by exceeding the rightful power of the government or by trampling on the rights of citizens. Under the Constitution, federal courts' "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". So when questions arise as to whether laws are constitutional, it is not "activist" for federal judges to consider them. It's exactly the process called for by the Constitution.
Laws against abortion were one such case, where state governments trampled on the rights of citizens.
If those laws were against the Constitution, that's exactly their job.