Anybody got a link to the actual judges ruling? I mean, it's nice to get a press release, but much better to get the actual ruling. There's nothing to show the actual merits to which the judge is opining on.
"Also, the only time the debt hasn't been wildly growing out of control since 1980 was during the Clinton Admin."
Yes, when the Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress for 6 of those 8 years... The "Peace Dividend" was in full swing, with the President making deeper cuts in military personnel. We weren't fighting one or two wars. Yada, yada.
Debt to GDP rates were slightly flat under the younger Bush until the Dems got Congress back.
"That has a ton more to do with the federal government's failure of the public education system than it does rich parents."
And this is proof positive of a deficient education. The Federal Government, under the Constitution, has no authority to legislate education. Under the Tenth Amendment, it remains with the State, not Federal, Governments. That we've let the Federal Government usurp its authority through spending is another story. If you want the Federal Government to take over education, then pass an amendment and make it legitimate.
Private school educations evinces the failure of public schools? Public schools are an example of what happens when we allow any monopoly, State, Federal or otherwise, to succeed in an industry. Private schools are an effort by the market economy to restore efficiency and efficacy in that industry; with home schooling filling the gap where income does not support a private school education. Our governments should be fostering policies that enable quality education through competition, rather than kowtowing to groups interested in maintaining their monopoly.
Healthy competition is always a good thing for all of us. Monopolies (or monopolistic power) are good for those in control of the monopoly. Just ask Billy "Trey" Gates.
IIRC, in 2000 Gore's site was taken down because it used Microsoft. So, he switched to Apache. So, OSS has been used in previous campaigns. I'll bet Apache has been used enough to invalidate your assumption that OSS is only now in the ascent in politics.
The real problem you are going to have with the immigration to Canada is overcoming the language hurdle. I lived near Canada for a few years and you could always tell a Canadian by his foreign tongue and tendency to try to use Canadian money as if it were real money.
I recommend that you go to a book store or library and pick up a Canadian/English dictionary and a few phrase books. Also, game stores have supplies of Canadian money in neat bags. It's even used in a popular board game from the Depression Era.
"Er... all of us were born atheist. Many of us were later taught theism, and then some of us still later rejected that. Nobody is born believing in God, any more than they are born believing in Father Christmas."
And, we were all born crapping our pants. Most of us later learned to use a toilet. The rest of us still crap our pants.
Yours is a naive comment. Imagine I invent a better mousetrap. It will save lives, reverse global warming, whatever. I start "MouseTraps Inc." and start manufacturing the mousetrap. The Acme corporation buys a copy of my invention, then using it's massive economy of scale drives me out of business. Sure, society benefits, but the inventor is harmed. Therefore, I am less willing to innovate.
If I invent something and sell at an outrageous prices, that's the market economy. If you don't want to pay $1,000; then don't buy it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. You cite drugs as an example of outrageous cost that harms society. Do you realize that of the 40 years of prolonged life expectancy we've gained over the past century, 35 of those years are from sanitation? The other 5 are from clinical medicine.
Wouldn't it be better to live a better quality life than quality? Put more life into the years you have, rather than extend them. Besides, living a longer life puts a burden on Medicare and Social Security. The original idea of Social Security is most people wouldn't life long enough to enjoy it. That's not the case now. Medicare makes matters worse: you pay to help them live longer, then you pay because they are living longer.
What's worse is they are finding out that many of these great new drugs are not as effective than some generics.
On top of that, there's an article carping about the 6,666,666,666 billion people on the earth today. Three times the population 80 years ago. Six times the population of 1850. Twelve times the population of 1750. I should think prolonging life expectancy is counter-productive. Too many people puts a burden on our infrastructure. We have more cars because we have more people. We have more oil consumption because we have more people. Maybe we should wipe 5 billion off the map so we can have cheaper oil and clearer roads!
"However, from what I have observed (a bit), the fields of anthropology, archeology and paleontology are filled with people fighting little turf wars. I have heard of people hiding material that they have discovered so that no one else would have a chance to describe it at all. Then they fight any reinterpretation of their results without regard for facts. This is why progress in these fields can be so slow. Any new interpretation is heresy. Even worse, most of the time, they have a tooth, or middle toe or something to hang entire new species on."
Why can this be the case in these fields but not in other fields of science? I imagine the current view on global warming could be just as petty with any attempt to explain the phenomena as non-human caused would be deemed heresy. The fact that where I live was once under a glacier seems lost on that field of research.
I don't think intelligence came from self-selection breding. Look at it this way: we don't go after the smart chick. We go after the hot chick. Sometimes the smart chick is the hot chick, but stereotypes suggest this is the exception rather than the rule.
"What I see happening is, effectively, and end-run around the 'Limited Time' set forth in the constitution."
While I believe copyrights should be short (more like 28 years than 90), I have to disagree with this one phrase. The Constitution says limited time. We might ask the courts to interpret that to mean "reasonably limited time," which is what we all seem to think it should mean. However, under the Constitution, Congress has the prerogative to legislate in this arena. Being an Originalist, I believe this means Congress gets to make the decision here---it is a Political, not Judicial, Question.
The problem is the remedy for a run amok Congress is the ballot box, not the courtroom. If Congress is doing silly things like making Copyright extend to "the life of the Sun plus 1 million years," then we are supposed to be good citizens and vote the bozos out (and vote new bozos in). This is a problem because we Americans don't pay enough attention to Congress and are otherwise disinclined to ousting them for doing things. Even if we are, there are plenty of others who aren't.
As for others saying that it is our IP that makes us (or, rather, California) prosper, think about it. The reason we want IP terms to be short is to encourage growth and innovation. O'Reilly will make Learning Perl 1ed public domain in a reasonable time (14 or 28 years, I can't remember the original statement) because that book will be overcome by events. If I told you that you have to come up with a better idea every 14 years or your are out on your bum, would you do it? What if I told you it would be nice if you did, but you're safe for your lifetime---and so are your heirs for 70 years after.
At the very least, copyrights should not pass to heirs for that long. They did nothing to innovate, why should they profit?
You have to think the various treaties we entered into that apply to copyright law. Some nations have different legal philosophies about the property rights that exist in intellectual property. Our own nation has changed its standard on property rights (making them economic rights). The result is longer copyrights that cover more things than before. (I'm commenting on some things he said in his speech).
There was an earlier/. article where a fellow showed that economically the nation is better served by shorter copyrights. The fact that Yoko Ono can be a near-billionaire for John's shaking his head and playing music should reveal how far gone copyright has become. Under the old-old standard (14 years plus 14 years), the Beatles' music would have all been public domain already.
Or, perhaps we should limit corporate ownership of copyright? For example, limit a corporation to only being able to license an author's work (rather than receive a transfer of ownership). This is excepted where the owner is an employee or work-for-hire. Limit the license to a one-time 10 year license. Works-for-hire are good for only 20 years.
"Tesla won't build its cars in SV. I understand they have a plant in Florida."
That's all well and good. I was commenting on the analysis that SV would become Detroit from a manufacturing point of view. Your comment fails to address anything I said, other than the fact that manufacturing is in Florida...
"The San Jose Mercury News is speculating about Silicon Valley's potential for becoming the Detroit of a future electric car industry."
That is unlikely. Silicon Valley is not cheap real estate. I'm sure California's laws are also rather restrictive regarding employment law. The trend in automobile manufacturing is to move to rural areas where the real estate is much cheaper, unions are farther away, or the state's employment laws are less favorable to the employee. Thus, you have more manufacturing jobs showing up in rural Indiana and the Southern States.
Based on that model, I disagree with that conclusion. Sure, SilVal is good for innovation, but manufacturing is not innovation. Development of new electric car solutions may happen there, but the day-to-day construction (i.e., "Detroit") will not be there. Too darn expensive.
Which country owns the airlock to the shuttle? Let's say it is the U.S. You can't enter or exit except through there. So, they have control. Otherwise, I commit murder in the Russian section and flee to the U.S. section. There's no court up there that exercises jurisdiction, so no extradition... The perfect crime. Oh, wait. Taxation is the perfect crime.
"You may register with either the state or with the USPTO once you register you [get] the circle R mark."
The federal registration symbol "®" is issued only after the USPTO actually registers a mark, and not while an application is pending. Therefore, registering with your state registrar does not entitle you to "the circle R."
This is why one should never solicit legal advice from/.
Back in 2000-2003, I would routinely enter in the numbers for the MegaMillions and run them to see which numbers came up more often. That's essentially the same thing he's doing here. I stopped because it really seemed pointless. Later, the MegaMillions *released* the numbers, which means they encourage this sort of activity.
So, I pondered what this could mean. I assumed that certain numbers came up more frequently because some balls had trivial differences in weight which resulted in some balls being favored. When they released the numbers, I realized they could afford to change the balls out every time. Think about how much a few score ping-pong balls cost in light of how much the corporation that manages MegaMillions rakes in.
This means that the numbers aren't really the same every time. They weight of the "1" ball changes each time, which means that one time it's 1.0001 and the next time it's 1.0120.
I say this suit should be dismissed because of Laches. WiFi has been out for quite a while, and the patent holder has not sought law suits sooner. Therefore, they slept on their rights.
I am not familiar with the 1.5 year lawsuit between a blogger and a corporation. However, I heard of a similar 18-month lawsuit where the corporation sued an individual and lost. Could these two lawsuits be related?
"Well, maybe at first, however, in TFA, I got the idea, that BB had already accepted the return, and the customer had bought and paid for a NEW harddrive and had that in hand."
Why would you pay for a hard drive which is based on an exchange? He returns a HDD because it's tile and pays for a new HDD? No. If it is returned, the credit card is debited before you pay for the new merchandise. I've returned many things in many places, and the narrative is very different from anything I've encountered. Standard practice is to first validate the return, process the return, then transact the new merchandise. If this were an exchange, then he would pay nothing.
Furthermore, we have only the word of the consumer that the package contained tile instead of the HDD. Why are we taking his word for it? How is he more credible than a manager only because he is complaining?
This is the same situation as Marbury v. Madison, which I mentioned before. Congress enacted legislation allowing the Executive to enact regulations to enforce the legislation. These regulations probably affect interstate commerce, which allows Congress to legislate. States cannot sue the President to compel him to act.
Remember, in Marbury, a man sued the Secretary of State to have the letter allowing the man to take office as Justice of the Peace for DC. The previous Secretary of State (a Federalist) neglected to send the letter. The incoming Secretary of State (Anti-Federalist by the name of James Madison) chose not to send the letter so the President could appoint one of his cronies instead. So, there was a defect in presentment of the letter and the President's office could not be compelled to act.
Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations. Just because the current regulation prevents a state from doing something does not mean they can sue so they can do something. This is a matter of Interstate Commerce (manufacture of automobiles), which is the sovereign authority of Congress.
You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation. You cannot sue the state legislature to change the speed limit. You cannot sue Congress to make them change the tax rate. the Federal Government cannot sue the state legislature to change state sales tax. You can't sue the President to not veto legislation. While the states are not a part of the three branches of Federal Government, they are still bound by the Constitution and the concept of sovereign government. I oversimplified my original answer because I figured a rational person would get the point.
The whole Marbury v. Madison case, which SCOTUS cites to give it jurisdiction to determine constitutionality, involved a man who sued the Secretary of State to compel him to allow the man to occupy his office (D.C. Justice of the Peace). The Court said the issue was political in nature and not an issue of law; and therefore the remedy was in the political branches (Congress & President).
The reason why this lawsuit is the wrong answer is because the fundamental issue is political in nature; not legal. Political issues are resolved via the legislative process and political efforts. Some believe that when politics fails then lawsuits can be used to force the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody got a link to the actual judges ruling? I mean, it's nice to get a press release, but much better to get the actual ruling. There's nothing to show the actual merits to which the judge is opining on.
Hmm. You have a point. Test-Driven eDucation. :-)
"Also, the only time the debt hasn't been wildly growing out of control since 1980 was during the Clinton Admin."
Yes, when the Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress for 6 of those 8 years... The "Peace Dividend" was in full swing, with the President making deeper cuts in military personnel. We weren't fighting one or two wars. Yada, yada.
Debt to GDP rates were slightly flat under the younger Bush until the Dems got Congress back.
"That has a ton more to do with the federal government's failure of the public education system than it does rich parents."
And this is proof positive of a deficient education. The Federal Government, under the Constitution, has no authority to legislate education. Under the Tenth Amendment, it remains with the State, not Federal, Governments. That we've let the Federal Government usurp its authority through spending is another story. If you want the Federal Government to take over education, then pass an amendment and make it legitimate.
Private school educations evinces the failure of public schools? Public schools are an example of what happens when we allow any monopoly, State, Federal or otherwise, to succeed in an industry. Private schools are an effort by the market economy to restore efficiency and efficacy in that industry; with home schooling filling the gap where income does not support a private school education. Our governments should be fostering policies that enable quality education through competition, rather than kowtowing to groups interested in maintaining their monopoly.
Healthy competition is always a good thing for all of us. Monopolies (or monopolistic power) are good for those in control of the monopoly. Just ask Billy "Trey" Gates.
IIRC, in 2000 Gore's site was taken down because it used Microsoft. So, he switched to Apache. So, OSS has been used in previous campaigns. I'll bet Apache has been used enough to invalidate your assumption that OSS is only now in the ascent in politics.
The real problem you are going to have with the immigration to Canada is overcoming the language hurdle. I lived near Canada for a few years and you could always tell a Canadian by his foreign tongue and tendency to try to use Canadian money as if it were real money.
I recommend that you go to a book store or library and pick up a Canadian/English dictionary and a few phrase books. Also, game stores have supplies of Canadian money in neat bags. It's even used in a popular board game from the Depression Era.
"Er... all of us were born atheist. Many of us were later taught theism, and then some of us still later rejected that. Nobody is born believing in God, any more than they are born believing in Father Christmas."
And, we were all born crapping our pants. Most of us later learned to use a toilet. The rest of us still crap our pants.
Yours is a naive comment. Imagine I invent a better mousetrap. It will save lives, reverse global warming, whatever. I start "MouseTraps Inc." and start manufacturing the mousetrap. The Acme corporation buys a copy of my invention, then using it's massive economy of scale drives me out of business. Sure, society benefits, but the inventor is harmed. Therefore, I am less willing to innovate.
If I invent something and sell at an outrageous prices, that's the market economy. If you don't want to pay $1,000; then don't buy it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. You cite drugs as an example of outrageous cost that harms society. Do you realize that of the 40 years of prolonged life expectancy we've gained over the past century, 35 of those years are from sanitation? The other 5 are from clinical medicine.
Wouldn't it be better to live a better quality life than quality? Put more life into the years you have, rather than extend them. Besides, living a longer life puts a burden on Medicare and Social Security. The original idea of Social Security is most people wouldn't life long enough to enjoy it. That's not the case now. Medicare makes matters worse: you pay to help them live longer, then you pay because they are living longer.
What's worse is they are finding out that many of these great new drugs are not as effective than some generics.
On top of that, there's an article carping about the 6,666,666,666 billion people on the earth today. Three times the population 80 years ago. Six times the population of 1850. Twelve times the population of 1750. I should think prolonging life expectancy is counter-productive. Too many people puts a burden on our infrastructure. We have more cars because we have more people. We have more oil consumption because we have more people. Maybe we should wipe 5 billion off the map so we can have cheaper oil and clearer roads!
A little off topic, but my use of non-text tools is a bit limited. :) How would one go about mimicing the ability to make that Botnet map?
"However, from what I have observed (a bit), the fields of anthropology, archeology and paleontology are filled with people fighting little turf wars. I have heard of people hiding material that they have discovered so that no one else would have a chance to describe it at all. Then they fight any reinterpretation of their results without regard for facts. This is why progress in these fields can be so slow. Any new interpretation is heresy. Even worse, most of the time, they have a tooth, or middle toe or something to hang entire new species on."
Why can this be the case in these fields but not in other fields of science? I imagine the current view on global warming could be just as petty with any attempt to explain the phenomena as non-human caused would be deemed heresy. The fact that where I live was once under a glacier seems lost on that field of research.
I don't think intelligence came from self-selection breding. Look at it this way: we don't go after the smart chick. We go after the hot chick. Sometimes the smart chick is the hot chick, but stereotypes suggest this is the exception rather than the rule.
Except, I drive a Chevy. My wife's Ford was built in Georgia.
"What I see happening is, effectively, and end-run around the 'Limited Time' set forth in the constitution."
While I believe copyrights should be short (more like 28 years than 90), I have to disagree with this one phrase. The Constitution says limited time. We might ask the courts to interpret that to mean "reasonably limited time," which is what we all seem to think it should mean. However, under the Constitution, Congress has the prerogative to legislate in this arena. Being an Originalist, I believe this means Congress gets to make the decision here---it is a Political, not Judicial, Question.
The problem is the remedy for a run amok Congress is the ballot box, not the courtroom. If Congress is doing silly things like making Copyright extend to "the life of the Sun plus 1 million years," then we are supposed to be good citizens and vote the bozos out (and vote new bozos in). This is a problem because we Americans don't pay enough attention to Congress and are otherwise disinclined to ousting them for doing things. Even if we are, there are plenty of others who aren't.
As for others saying that it is our IP that makes us (or, rather, California) prosper, think about it. The reason we want IP terms to be short is to encourage growth and innovation. O'Reilly will make Learning Perl 1ed public domain in a reasonable time (14 or 28 years, I can't remember the original statement) because that book will be overcome by events. If I told you that you have to come up with a better idea every 14 years or your are out on your bum, would you do it? What if I told you it would be nice if you did, but you're safe for your lifetime---and so are your heirs for 70 years after.
At the very least, copyrights should not pass to heirs for that long. They did nothing to innovate, why should they profit?
You have to think the various treaties we entered into that apply to copyright law. Some nations have different legal philosophies about the property rights that exist in intellectual property. Our own nation has changed its standard on property rights (making them economic rights). The result is longer copyrights that cover more things than before. (I'm commenting on some things he said in his speech).
/. article where a fellow showed that economically the nation is better served by shorter copyrights. The fact that Yoko Ono can be a near-billionaire for John's shaking his head and playing music should reveal how far gone copyright has become. Under the old-old standard (14 years plus 14 years), the Beatles' music would have all been public domain already.
There was an earlier
Or, perhaps we should limit corporate ownership of copyright? For example, limit a corporation to only being able to license an author's work (rather than receive a transfer of ownership). This is excepted where the owner is an employee or work-for-hire. Limit the license to a one-time 10 year license. Works-for-hire are good for only 20 years.
"Tesla won't build its cars in SV. I understand they have a plant in Florida."
That's all well and good. I was commenting on the analysis that SV would become Detroit from a manufacturing point of view. Your comment fails to address anything I said, other than the fact that manufacturing is in Florida...
"The San Jose Mercury News is speculating about Silicon Valley's potential for becoming the Detroit of a future electric car industry."
That is unlikely. Silicon Valley is not cheap real estate. I'm sure California's laws are also rather restrictive regarding employment law. The trend in automobile manufacturing is to move to rural areas where the real estate is much cheaper, unions are farther away, or the state's employment laws are less favorable to the employee. Thus, you have more manufacturing jobs showing up in rural Indiana and the Southern States.
Based on that model, I disagree with that conclusion. Sure, SilVal is good for innovation, but manufacturing is not innovation. Development of new electric car solutions may happen there, but the day-to-day construction (i.e., "Detroit") will not be there. Too darn expensive.
Which country owns the airlock to the shuttle? Let's say it is the U.S. You can't enter or exit except through there. So, they have control. Otherwise, I commit murder in the Russian section and flee to the U.S. section. There's no court up there that exercises jurisdiction, so no extradition... The perfect crime. Oh, wait. Taxation is the perfect crime.
"You may register with either the state or with the USPTO once you register you [get] the circle R mark."
/.
The federal registration symbol "®" is issued only after the USPTO actually registers a mark, and not while an application is pending. Therefore, registering with your state registrar does not entitle you to "the circle R."
This is why one should never solicit legal advice from
Back in 2000-2003, I would routinely enter in the numbers for the MegaMillions and run them to see which numbers came up more often. That's essentially the same thing he's doing here. I stopped because it really seemed pointless. Later, the MegaMillions *released* the numbers, which means they encourage this sort of activity.
So, I pondered what this could mean. I assumed that certain numbers came up more frequently because some balls had trivial differences in weight which resulted in some balls being favored. When they released the numbers, I realized they could afford to change the balls out every time. Think about how much a few score ping-pong balls cost in light of how much the corporation that manages MegaMillions rakes in.
This means that the numbers aren't really the same every time. They weight of the "1" ball changes each time, which means that one time it's 1.0001 and the next time it's 1.0120.
I say this suit should be dismissed because of Laches. WiFi has been out for quite a while, and the patent holder has not sought law suits sooner. Therefore, they slept on their rights.
I am not familiar with the 1.5 year lawsuit between a blogger and a corporation. However, I heard of a similar 18-month lawsuit where the corporation sued an individual and lost. Could these two lawsuits be related?
"Yes, leave it to the governments of the world to protect us and keep us "safe". "Safe" as in safely glowing in your grave."
Um, how can I be glowing in my grave if I've been vaporized?
"Well, maybe at first, however, in TFA, I got the idea, that BB had already accepted the return, and the customer had bought and paid for a NEW harddrive and had that in hand."
Why would you pay for a hard drive which is based on an exchange? He returns a HDD because it's tile and pays for a new HDD? No. If it is returned, the credit card is debited before you pay for the new merchandise. I've returned many things in many places, and the narrative is very different from anything I've encountered. Standard practice is to first validate the return, process the return, then transact the new merchandise. If this were an exchange, then he would pay nothing.
Furthermore, we have only the word of the consumer that the package contained tile instead of the HDD. Why are we taking his word for it? How is he more credible than a manager only because he is complaining?
This is /.. I don't need to read the article. :-)
This is the same situation as Marbury v. Madison, which I mentioned before. Congress enacted legislation allowing the Executive to enact regulations to enforce the legislation. These regulations probably affect interstate commerce, which allows Congress to legislate. States cannot sue the President to compel him to act.
Remember, in Marbury, a man sued the Secretary of State to have the letter allowing the man to take office as Justice of the Peace for DC. The previous Secretary of State (a Federalist) neglected to send the letter. The incoming Secretary of State (Anti-Federalist by the name of James Madison) chose not to send the letter so the President could appoint one of his cronies instead. So, there was a defect in presentment of the letter and the President's office could not be compelled to act.
Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations. Just because the current regulation prevents a state from doing something does not mean they can sue so they can do something. This is a matter of Interstate Commerce (manufacture of automobiles), which is the sovereign authority of Congress.
You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation. You cannot sue the state legislature to change the speed limit. You cannot sue Congress to make them change the tax rate. the Federal Government cannot sue the state legislature to change state sales tax. You can't sue the President to not veto legislation. While the states are not a part of the three branches of Federal Government, they are still bound by the Constitution and the concept of sovereign government. I oversimplified my original answer because I figured a rational person would get the point.
The whole Marbury v. Madison case, which SCOTUS cites to give it jurisdiction to determine constitutionality, involved a man who sued the Secretary of State to compel him to allow the man to occupy his office (D.C. Justice of the Peace). The Court said the issue was political in nature and not an issue of law; and therefore the remedy was in the political branches (Congress & President).
The reason why this lawsuit is the wrong answer is because the fundamental issue is political in nature; not legal. Political issues are resolved via the legislative process and political efforts. Some believe that when politics fails then lawsuits can be used to force the issue.