The difference is that those people weren't breaking our laws to be here.
Of course they weren't breaking our laws to be here. We had an open immigration policy then. As long as you weren't a member of a disfavored race, anyway.
The selfish ones are the people who insist on being here against our wishes.
Who is this "our"? Do you own the land illegal immigrants are standing on?
Some analysis of that: Position (where we are right now) we rank 1st, let's say. Speed (what's being done right now) we are going in the wrong direction, and we are heading there quickly. Acceleration (what's going to happen to the speed) is also headed in the wrong direction, and its also getting more negative quickly.
Yeah, but jerk is off the charts, as this story proves.
Right, it's "socialism" that's hurting our county. Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas.
Much of the constant and gratuitous government spending is socialist. As many who use the term include nanny-statism as part and parcel of socialism, some of that erosion of rights goes there too.
If someone isn't willing to do it the right way perhaps they should reconsider how much they want to be here.
Perhaps the "right way" is unavailable to some people. I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.
Phased array antennas can detect the 3D position of the source of a signal, distinguished from other transmitter locations sending on the same frequency. It's how humans with eyes can tell there's two blades of grass in front of them, not just "it's green out".
Problem is that at VHF and UHF frequencies, the atmosphere looks like wavy glass (often in motion) and there's funhouse mirrors everywhere.
1. Most of the time channels could share a single transport stream, but it will be quite difficult to get competing media corps to do that.
And you have to either throw away HD, or switch to MPEG-4 (obseleting receivers, etc). A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels, so either you go with 480p or you overcompress to the point that it looks worse than 480p.
You seem to be assuming that every channel completely consumes all available bandwidth between itself and it's surrounding channels.
Essentially, they do. There are very narrow guard bands without useful information, but they're full of noise. There's a gap between 4 and 5, and 6 and 7, and 13 and 14, but those spaces are not empty; they are used for other services.
Congress already took away channels 53-83; TV space is _crowded_ in the Northeast. And they want to take away another 200Mhz to give to Verizon, which will start seriously cutting down the number of channels.
I have the same oven I had in Germany (Bosch); it cost 600 euro in Hamburg and almost 2K here in the US; same model feature for feature.
So your German oven was cheaper in Germany than it was in the US. This is a surprise?
Or take the Ford Escort diesel I had, can't be found here in the US but awesomely reliable and got way better mileage than anything in the US (including the Prius). The US just has no tolerance for quality.
Look, I have to live in North America for a few years. Now I can see the consequences of the absence of gov regulations on efficiency. The washing machine is a model which is technologically on par with the cheapest model on sale in supermarkets in Morocco (I shit you not).
Probably similar to the one I had. Made in 1982 or thereabouts. Tub rusted out, so I replaced it with a Whirlpool. Made in Mexico based on a New Zealand design. I can't help it if you bought the cheapest piece of crap around.
It was hell getting a cooking surface in vitro-ceramics. Convection oven? No can do unless you import it from Germany and sell a couple organs.
My convection oven cost $600 and was made by GE (again in Mexico), though it was quite small. Someone I know spend a couple grand on his large one, which I believe was a Jenn-Aire, not from Germany.
I dunno, maybe they'll eventually come up with phosphor formulations that are more pleasant, but until they do, I rather like my incandescent lamp (only one, and only 60w, but it's so nice and relaxing...).
They've been trying for decades and they still haven't. You can get fluorescents with color rendering indices in the 90s, but they don't last as long and they are less efficient. You can't get CFLs that good. I like a color temperature around 3000-3200, but most fluorescents tend to be well above that (probably to disguise their inability to produce red light), and the ones which aren't just look bad.
Halogen and halogen-infrared are really nice, but hard to get as regular bulbs; most of them are MR or PAR type spots and floods. There's supposed to be Phillips Halogena capsule-in-a-bulb, but I haven't seen it in a store.
Wait, you mean that asking an author to not print something, getting that author's agreement, and then paying for the printing cost of books that had the material the author agreed to remove is censorship?
That depends. Did you put a gun to the author's head any time in this process? Threaten his livelihood or his family? Offer to imprison him if he failed to comply? If so, then YES, it damn well is censorship.
Way to go! You completely ignored my core point, which is that the price of the product was specifically chosen based on the (legally binding) assumption that it would only benefit the original purchaser.
You don't have a core point. If J.K. Rowling sells "Harry Potter and The Farts of Bedlam" for $20 and insists only the original purchaser read it, that's tough shit on her. The original purchaser can buy it, loan it out, sell it, whatever -- almost everything but make additional copies of it. The assumption that the original purchaser will be the only beneficiary is NOT legally binding, because the First Sale doctrine says it isn't.
You violated their pricing assumption when you violated the end user license agreement.
Boo hoo. They made a poor assumption, which failed to take into account centuries of precedent regarding sales of tangible property: namely, once I buy something, it's mine, it's no longer the previous owner's, and I can sell it. If they wanted to lease it they should have said so.
The quantity of oil is not the problem. It's the RATE at which we can extract them that's the problem. These "unconventional sources" as they are euphemistically called do not give a nice gusher like the Saudi fields did.
Let BP do some more drilling; they seem to be good at making gushers.
Its so simple. 'You' were wrong in 1970 - "haha" - therefore any prediction of oil running out, including the fact that oil is running out right now and has ran out any many places already, will be automatically dismissed and ridiculed by us no matter what. No analysis, no fact checking,
Boy who cried "wolf." First time, much investigation is done, much searching around for wolf tracks, wolf prints. Everyone not searching stays indoors. No wolf is found, everyone relaxes. Second time, some investigation is still done, not quite as thorough. Third time, maybe a quick check of the area. After that, it's "yeah, right". Refusing to spend significant resources to investigate claims which have turned out to be false before is rational. Sure, maybe there is a wolf this time, but there's a pretty heavy burden on the wolf-criers to demonstrate why THIS time is different than all the others.
From personal observation and observation of professionals in the oil industry longer than I've been alive; dry holes refill and may be retapped in the same place and perform as a NEW oil well does. It takes about 50 years. Blew my mind.(begin redneck accent) I notice however that this is never factored into all these college boy "intellectooall" studies.
Current mainstream theories of oil origins do not allow for this refilling process. Therefore they do not happen. (um, wait...)
If you really want to troll a peak-oiler, assert that the earth was pretty much loaded with oil before the great oxygenation event... and that it still is, the great oxygenation event having simply consumed the oil very close to the surface.
*sigh* fisher-tropsh is a way to ADD energy to coal to make oil. Nobody doubts it's going to work, IF we find this outside energy source. Nuclear *might* work.
The outside energy source can simply be more coal.
How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?
For innovation, start by relaxing the standards for prior art. At the very minimum, if a piece of prior art would infringe the patent if it were to have been invented later, the patent should be denied. None if this "if it differs from the prior art in some minor way, the prior art doesn't count".
This is inaccurate. A typical purchase of boxed software has two parts. First, you buy the box. That transaction is between you and the retailer, and it is complete when you pay for the box. The box will typically include a notice that installing the software requires accepting the terms of a license. This ruling does not affect that transaction. You are free to transfer the box to someone else because you are not yet bound by the license.
The problem with this analysis is that the box typically includes a shiny disc. When I buy the software from the retailer, I buy not just the box, but the shiny disc contained therein. The shiny disc is, according to 17 USC 101, a copy of a work of software, made with the authorization of the copyright holder. The copyright holder sold that shiny-disc-in-a-box to the retailer, who then sold it to me. I now have the right as the owner of the shiny disc to install that software (17 USC 117) or to resell it (17 USC 109). The Ninth Circuit chose to ignore all that and accept that a simple statement from the manufacturer that software is licensed and not sold makes it so. In doing so, they even ignored their own precedent on movie prints, which had a few more rational tests as to whether a transaction was a license or a sale.
What is the fundamental difference between selling software that you purchased and selling several copies of it that you make? I think we all agree that the latter case definitely should not be allowed without the owner's consent as you are selling someone else's intellectual property for your own monetary gain.
Actually, we don't.
But what about the former case where you essentially sell one copy and stop using (even retaining) your copy? If you are able to get near full price for your secondary sale, which you often can with software, then you have essentially used the original owner's product for free for some period of time. Worse, this process can continue ad infinitum -- many people can derive whatever value they need from this product (e.g. - think video games with limited replay value) and then pass it along to the next person who wants it and (nearly) recoup whatever their monetary investment was.
Congratulations, if you think that rationale holds any water, you've just claimed that it is unreasonable to resell any item which isn't consumed in its use, including, but not limited to, automobiles, furniture, real estate, books, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, computer hardware, beanie babies, firearms, etc.
Fortunately, of course, that rationale is entirely ridiculous. The fact that someone can get benefit from an item and still be able to resell it is not theft from the manufacturer.
Well, games are a type of software, right? I'm not familiar with the exact licensing language used, but would this decision potentially make reselling video games illegal as well?
Yes, the manufacturer need only include a notice saying "This software is licensed, not sold. You may not transfer this software. You may not use this software in Iran." and they've eliminated your right to resell the video game.
What you buy is a license, and the contract you sign is the EULA you click through when you install the software.
Piss on that, and piss on the Ninth Circuit (in whose jurisdiction I do not reside). What I buy is a copy of a piece of software. The thing in the box is merely an impermissible attempt to restrict my rights post sale.
And the First Sale Doctrine is just that, a doctrine - not a federally protected right.
No, that's not what the Court said. Here's a more accurate sound bite:
That's exactly what the court said. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is when they decided that a transaction is a license rather than a sale. And their decision is basically "whenever the software maker says so". The three part test is
We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.
But (2) and (3) are completely circular. The case was about whether or not the software manufacturer could restrict the user's ability to transfer the software (first sale rights), and (3) is also dependent on whether there is a license or not. So it comes down to "it's a license if the seller says it is a license", completely vitiating first sale. All software makers have to do to get around first sale is say the software licensed rather than sold, and that you can't resell the software, and that you can't use it in some circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they weren't breaking our laws to be here. We had an open immigration policy then. As long as you weren't a member of a disfavored race, anyway.
Who is this "our"? Do you own the land illegal immigrants are standing on?
Not me. I thought it was a classic kleptocracy.
Most definitely not.
It means that crying that Linus came here legally, therefore Jose could have too if only he was willing to do so, is disingenuous.
And in neither case is that "old english". Speaking with thees, thys, and thous is simply using obsolete forms of modern English.
Yeah, but jerk is off the charts, as this story proves.
Much of the constant and gratuitous government spending is socialist. As many who use the term include nanny-statism as part and parcel of socialism, some of that erosion of rights goes there too.
Perhaps the "right way" is unavailable to some people. I would imagine the process of getting a green card was a lot easier for Linus Torvalds than it would be for some random Jose Gonzales with not so much as a high school degree.
Problem is that at VHF and UHF frequencies, the atmosphere looks like wavy glass (often in motion) and there's funhouse mirrors everywhere.
And you have to either throw away HD, or switch to MPEG-4 (obseleting receivers, etc). A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels, so either you go with 480p or you overcompress to the point that it looks worse than 480p.
Essentially, they do. There are very narrow guard bands without useful information, but they're full of noise. There's a gap between 4 and 5, and 6 and 7, and 13 and 14, but those spaces are not empty; they are used for other services.
Congress already took away channels 53-83; TV space is _crowded_ in the Northeast. And they want to take away another 200Mhz to give to Verizon, which will start seriously cutting down the number of channels.
So your German oven was cheaper in Germany than it was in the US. This is a surprise?
No, the US has no tolerance for diesels.
Probably similar to the one I had. Made in 1982 or thereabouts. Tub rusted out, so I replaced it with a Whirlpool. Made in Mexico based on a New Zealand design. I can't help it if you bought the cheapest piece of crap around.
My convection oven cost $600 and was made by GE (again in Mexico), though it was quite small. Someone I know spend a couple grand on his large one, which I believe was a Jenn-Aire, not from Germany.
They've been trying for decades and they still haven't. You can get fluorescents with color rendering indices in the 90s, but they don't last as long and they are less efficient. You can't get CFLs that good. I like a color temperature around 3000-3200, but most fluorescents tend to be well above that (probably to disguise their inability to produce red light), and the ones which aren't just look bad.
Halogen and halogen-infrared are really nice, but hard to get as regular bulbs; most of them are MR or PAR type spots and floods. There's supposed to be Phillips Halogena capsule-in-a-bulb, but I haven't seen it in a store.
That depends. Did you put a gun to the author's head any time in this process? Threaten his livelihood or his family? Offer to imprison him if he failed to comply? If so, then YES, it damn well is censorship.
You don't have a core point. If J.K. Rowling sells "Harry Potter and The Farts of Bedlam" for $20 and insists only the original purchaser read it, that's tough shit on her. The original purchaser can buy it, loan it out, sell it, whatever -- almost everything but make additional copies of it. The assumption that the original purchaser will be the only beneficiary is NOT legally binding, because the First Sale doctrine says it isn't.
Boo hoo. They made a poor assumption, which failed to take into account centuries of precedent regarding sales of tangible property: namely, once I buy something, it's mine, it's no longer the previous owner's, and I can sell it. If they wanted to lease it they should have said so.
Let BP do some more drilling; they seem to be good at making gushers.
Boy who cried "wolf." First time, much investigation is done, much searching around for wolf tracks, wolf prints. Everyone not searching stays indoors. No wolf is found, everyone relaxes. Second time, some investigation is still done, not quite as thorough. Third time, maybe a quick check of the area. After that, it's "yeah, right". Refusing to spend significant resources to investigate claims which have turned out to be false before is rational. Sure, maybe there is a wolf this time, but there's a pretty heavy burden on the wolf-criers to demonstrate why THIS time is different than all the others.
Current mainstream theories of oil origins do not allow for this refilling process. Therefore they do not happen. (um, wait...)
If you really want to troll a peak-oiler, assert that the earth was pretty much loaded with oil before the great oxygenation event... and that it still is, the great oxygenation event having simply consumed the oil very close to the surface.
The outside energy source can simply be more coal.
For innovation, start by relaxing the standards for prior art. At the very minimum, if a piece of prior art would infringe the patent if it were to have been invented later, the patent should be denied. None if this "if it differs from the prior art in some minor way, the prior art doesn't count".
The problem with this analysis is that the box typically includes a shiny disc. When I buy the software from the retailer, I buy not just the box, but the shiny disc contained therein. The shiny disc is, according to 17 USC 101, a copy of a work of software, made with the authorization of the copyright holder. The copyright holder sold that shiny-disc-in-a-box to the retailer, who then sold it to me. I now have the right as the owner of the shiny disc to install that software (17 USC 117) or to resell it (17 USC 109). The Ninth Circuit chose to ignore all that and accept that a simple statement from the manufacturer that software is licensed and not sold makes it so. In doing so, they even ignored their own precedent on movie prints, which had a few more rational tests as to whether a transaction was a license or a sale.
Actually, we don't.
Congratulations, if you think that rationale holds any water, you've just claimed that it is unreasonable to resell any item which isn't consumed in its use, including, but not limited to, automobiles, furniture, real estate, books, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, computer hardware, beanie babies, firearms, etc.
Fortunately, of course, that rationale is entirely ridiculous. The fact that someone can get benefit from an item and still be able to resell it is not theft from the manufacturer.
Yes, the manufacturer need only include a notice saying "This software is licensed, not sold. You may not transfer this software. You may not use this software in Iran." and they've eliminated your right to resell the video game.
Piss on that, and piss on the Ninth Circuit (in whose jurisdiction I do not reside). What I buy is a copy of a piece of software. The thing in the box is merely an impermissible attempt to restrict my rights post sale.
It's in the copyright code, 17 USC 109.
That's exactly what the court said. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is when they decided that a transaction is a license rather than a sale. And their decision is basically "whenever the software maker says so". The three part test is
But (2) and (3) are completely circular. The case was about whether or not the software manufacturer could restrict the user's ability to transfer the software (first sale rights), and (3) is also dependent on whether there is a license or not. So it comes down to "it's a license if the seller says it is a license", completely vitiating first sale. All software makers have to do to get around first sale is say the software licensed rather than sold, and that you can't resell the software, and that you can't use it in some circumstance.