What amazes me the most is how the media has fallen all over themselves to report how Lucas used ROTS as a vehicle to comment on the Bush administration. Now, I know it shocks you that someone in Hollywood would dislike the Republicans. The two lines that are quoted by the media are: Padme: "So, this is how liberty dies;" and later in the film Vader: "If you are not with me, you are my enemy."
Fine, while I fail to see, especially given the context of its place in the film, how the first line as a commentary on Bush. I can see that it is very quotable. The second line is really unmissable as a parody of the infamous, "With us or against us" Bush line.
But, I want to note that the movie's only voice of tolerance and relativism was Palpatine, advising Anakin that the only way to be truly great is to understand all aspects of the Force! That is multi-culturalism right there.
So, here we have the Emperor giving the traditional Democratic view of things and Vader dropping the Bush parody lines. I thought both the Emperor and Vader were evil. I am very confused about exactly what political commentary Lucas is making. I can only assume that one of two conclusions is true, either, (a) Lucas is totally inept at political commentary, or (b) the Media critics are projecting their own emotions on to the film, i.e. the film is acting like a Rorschach test. Either way, I'd really appreciate it both Lucas, the media, and anyone else leave their Damn political opinions off my entertainment.
Maybe the political arguments would have held more water is Lucas had taken the trouble to give the Sith and Jedi an constant philosophy through out the films and between characters. But, as nice as the feeling of the Jedi/Sith philosophies are they are just too inconsistent to withstand close scrutiny. Which is why is is better to just enjoy the movies than study them like they are the Torah.
SyntheticLife, meanwhile, gives the guy who sat next to him a pretty harsh review: "I would've said something but then I got scared when he started talking to the characters in the movie."
The reviewer's problem seems that AoE3 doesn't go along with the revisionist history supported by the reviewers.
From TFA 'The crux is that the Native Americans in AoE III "are not so much a peoples to be exploited and killed off with pox-infected blankets as they are partners in your war against the other countries," according to Kotaku.'
So, the reviewer has the racist view that Native Americans are weak social incompetents whose only purpose is to be exploited and killed. To the reviewr's Native Americans are not fully realized human being (capable of both selfishness and charity, both good and evil) but instead the reviers complains that they are not seen only as victims.
When in reality (not the reviewer's politically correct fantasy) the Indians were a number of unallied and often mutually antagonist tribes/countries that frequently allied with the Europeans. For example, the Anti-Aztec Indians that allied with the Spanish in order to topple their Aztec masters. These Indians did this, not solely for the Spaniards benefit (although the Spanish did benefit) but because these Indians hated their Aztec rulers.
Another example, would be the French and English Indian allies during the French-Indian War. Once again various Indian tribes and mercenaries sided with either the French or English in the hopes of increasing their (the Indians) wellbeing and domination over an opposing Indian tribe.
Did the Europeans do bad things to the Indians? Yes, both as individual settlers and as organized acts of imperialism. But they also acted in a way roughly (it is hard to tell without the game being published yet) in accordance with AOE3's portrayal. The Europeans took the Indians on as allies when needed or convenient.
It is revisionist to re-write the history of the Native Americans to exclude their acts of savagery and genocide, leaving them only as objects of pity, too incompetent to fend for themselves or produce noble achievements. This revisionism which denies the Native Americans their true history and their ability & potential to share in the both the horrors and grandeurs of basic human nature is racist.
The review's problem seems to be that AOE3 does not exclude the self-interested actions in favour of the reviewer's political point of view. The reviewer's view of history is more revisionist than AOE3s.
Look I know it is trendy to treat any relationship as a partnership but (speaking as an attorney) it just isn't.
You two are not filing an IRS form 1065 to declare your partnership income tax. You are not getting flow-through treatment for that income. You are either (non-married) filing separate income tax forms, or (married) a joint tax return.
You two are not keeping capital accounts. When you go to divorce court, they are not going to look at your capital accounts to divvy up the funds. They'll divide them up based, not on partnership law, but on the "equity of the situation." And, when they do that 2 things. (1) The family court will care very much who is the husband and who is the wife. (Even though they are not supposed to.) (2) There will certainly be remuneration for services taken into account, which is a big no-no for partnership law.
When the "partnership" ends you are not going to go into a court of general jurisdiction and go through a "winding up" process. You'll go into _Family court_ and get a divorce.
It would nice, in some nirvana, if the law allowed domestic partnerships between two or more people. That would sidestep the entire gay marriage/polygamy thing. And, the idea of capital accounts and "no remuneration for services" would make divorces much cleaner. But, that isn't the world we live in.
She is either your "girlfirend" or "wife," but (unless you have a joint business) she is not your "partner."
However, the USPTO pedency for softwrae cases is about 4-5 years. So, 99% of your patent time will be wasted in the PTO fighting for your patent.
Changing software patents to 5 years after issue, just leads to submarine patents.
In either case, you have the difficulty of defining what is a software patent and what isn't. How much hardware can be in a software claim before it isn't software anymore? Because if we have a "one drop" rule, I am always adding some peice of HW to the claim, which will at least allow me to litigate the issue of SW claim.
So, just shortening the time period doesn't solve the problem.
I didn't bother to look up the specific line the statute you're talking about but,...
The UCC is the baseline or "gap filler" for commercial contracts. It is what you get if you don't specify anything else. So, you can opt-out of the UCC's provisions anytime you want.
I'd assume the Netflix contract opts you out of whatever part of the UCC they don't like. I also assume Netflix sets the contract in the jurisdiction it likes the most.
The reaction on the board is the typical hypocrite response.
Your post ignores how some people (cough, the Left, cough) was all excited about the Netherlands Universal Jurisdiction idea. The ICC is another example. When these people get to weild power and try/harass US personnel, Universal Jurisdiction is the best idea, Hell it is even a Human Right.
Now, the US does something equivalent to Universal Jurisdiction (not identical but comparable). Now, when Europe (cough, the Left, cough) isn't in power the idea is horrible.
I would have expected our "enlightened" supporters of Universal Jurisdiction to be thrilled that the US has come around to their way of thinking. But the way people are reacting I am left with the assumption that they don't really care about universal justice (despite their claims) but about bitching about the US, and that they'll change the rules to make sure they can always bitch.
Feel whatever way you want, just be consistent about it. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
College & University are both 4 year institutions. A University is usually larger and is broken into managerial units called Colleges, which are usually based on subject (i.e. College of Engineering, College of Science, College of Music, etc.). Examples of Universities being: Arizona State, MIT, etc. But small "universities" are simply referred to as colleges, and do not have that extra layer of management the University has. Both Colleges & Universities grant 4 year Bachelors degree. The degree is given the same certification weight/respect regardless of the institution. Now, people respect a Harvard degree more than a Lebanon Valley College degree, but the certification level is the same. In the same way you 'd respect someone who got a good grade from Prof. A vs Prof. B, but the 2 grades on the students' transcripts are still equal. Both Colleges & Universities usually have living facilities and often require students to in "on-campus" the first 1 or 2 years. Cost (ball park): State run: $10-20k/yr in tuition + room & board + textbooks Private run: $20-30k/yr in tuition + room & board + textbooks
Community Colleges, on the other hand, are schools often run by the State or City. These provide 2 year Associate degrees, and are noticeably cheaper. The Canadian College idea seems to map well to the US Community College system. Community Colleges are looked down upon as high school with ash trays. That said, due to quickly rising costs of College/University may people now go to Community College for 2 yrs and then transfer to a full 4 year College. Community Colleges usually have no living facilities and are designed to provide job retraining and general education opportunities to the community at large (e.g. you can take a class of oil painting there without being enrolled as an Art Major) Cost (ball park): Almost all State run: $3k-5k/yr + textbooks
The degree ladder in the US is typically: Associate (2 years) Bachelors (4 years, or Associate + 2 years) Masters (Bachelors + 1-2 year) Ph.d (Doctor of Philosophy) (Bachelors + 5-6 yrs)
The main problem w/ a suit like this is that it doesn't matter who is legally correct. Direct/RIAA just assume that they can afford the frivolous suit and you can't. That you'll panic a fold. And this is true in most cases. However, if you can front the money, and win I have a suggestion on how you can make Direct/RIAA pay for your litigation costs in the end (i.e. make the court work as a loser-pays system), assuming you're in Federal court.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow for you to make a settlement offer, and if rejected the rejector may have to pay your legal fees.
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability. (emphasis added)
So, as soon as you get the "we're suing" papers, and you are completely, "no F'ing way" innocent make a Offer in Judgment of $1. If Direct/RIAA takes the $1 offer, your legal worries are over. If they don't take the offer, you go to trial knowing that if you win, Direct/RIAA must pay your legal fees (from the offer forward). Now you pay up front while they sue you and it takes your time, but ultimately you get the cash back (provided you win).
People believe what they want to and conveniently ignore that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of reality.
Doesn't matter if they are left or right wing, people ignore what doesn't fit their view of the world.
Take the Florida 2000 elections. Plenty of TV coverage and each side thoroughly believed that something was going on just outside of the cameras to sway the "vote" in a way that was unfavorable to their side. Why, because we believe only the other side does underhanded things, and we are also well aware of how anything on TV can be faked.
We live in the Silver Age of the Conspiracy Theory. It seems like everyone has some story about what the Dems/Reps did that comes from the Twilight Zone that is the political paranormal.
Seeing things isn't going to matter.
Being intimately involved would matter, but 300 Million people can't be intimately involved.
Star Wars is barely related to the Hidden Fortress.
Hidden Fortress: Two peasant farmers are refugees, trying to return home after a war. They find gold, and join with a mysterious powerful-looking man and a mysterious beautiful girl. Together they attempt to smuggle the gold across the border and evade capture.
Star Wars: Farmboy Luke Skywalker finds more than he bargained for when he gains possession of two androids, who lead him on the adventure of his life to save a beautiful princess, befriend a devil-may-care space smuggler, and save the galaxy from the evil clutches of Darth Vader. Tutored by the mysterious Obi Wan Kenobi, Luke must "Learn the ways of the Force" and destroy the Death Star.
Key differences: There is a powerful virile General (Mifune) in HF. In SW you have an aged magician (Kenobi) and an untrained boy (Luke). In HF the princess is on the run to an allied province. In SW, the princess is captured and must be rescued. In HF, the whole point is to get the princess safely to the allied province. In SW, the whole point is to blow up the Death Star. SW has super powers (The Force). In HF, everyone is obvious merely human. SW is a much more action oriented affair. HF is based more upon the interaction between the characters.
Similarities: There is a princess in both. There is a comic relief duo in both. SW, the droids. HF, the peasant farmers.
I know Lucas wants to compare himself to Kurosawa but he really copied 30s movie serials, not Hidden Fortress. About the only thing he took from HF is the comedy duo.
Also, Hidden Fortress really isn't Kurosawa's best work. Rashômon, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and even Ran are far surperior to Hidden Fortress. However, they are much better known and Lucas wouldn't have been able to get away with claiming ripping them off.
companies passing their own cost of doing business to customers
You have to be kidding me!
Every company in the entire world since the beginning of time has tried to do this. Even St. Thomas Aquinas thought passing your cost of business on to your customers was OK. And, Thomas was the champion of the idea that a merchant should charge only just enough to cover his labor expenses (sacrifices).
The complaint that "companies pass their cost of business along" is the same as arguing that either (a) the company owes you something, and you should get something for nothing, or (b) the company's charges to you should be totally arbitrary and capricious and have nothing to do with want the service costs to provide. I'll admit that the cost-plus model of pricing is just a starting point, but the cost of goods usually sets the floor as to the price of the good.
From the article: In truth, many of the surcharges like those imposed this year by DSL and wireless providers reflect real costs related to each company's compliance and payments in support of government-mandated "public goods."
So, these really are costs imposed by the government (i.e. taxes). The telco companies have just made the decision to let the customer know how much the government regulation is adding to the cost of the phone service. I fail to see how this is different from advertising the price of your goods non-inclusive of sales tax.
Is the argument against this that people should not know how much their government charges them in taxes? Granted the "tax included" pricing philosophy is easier to budget for, and I assume that is the "moral outrage" that the price you agreed to isn't what you are charged, but the rest is effectively sales taxes. It is annoying but talk to your government about it.
My local libraries (I live close to 2 districts) have turned into my personal (and free) P2P & Netflix service.
Go on-line to library's website. Place as many CDs/DVDs as they let you on hold. Wait. Get an email telling you when the holds are in. Check them out and enjoy.
One district's library service even allows me to put holds in an "inactive" state, where I move up in the queue but don't get sent the item. This allows me to manage when I get the DVDs (i.e. season 2 doesn't arrive before season 1).
I have built a wonderful MP3 collection without much risk of the RIAA hunting me down (until I opened my mouth just now). Also, I have cancelled cable TV as I have hours upon hours of free DVDs to watch. Unlike the 5 days video rental places, the library gives me 3 weeks to watch the DVDs. I don't even browse the physical shelves anymore. I just search the library website, like I would Amazon.
The downside is that this has become so popular that 1 district (Portland, OR, USA) has started to limit the number of holds per patron to 15 at a time. Also, if your library's selection sucks (e.g. Chapill Hill, NC where my brother lives), you are SOL.
Laws get passed by legislatures & monarchs. We don't have an international legislature or an international monarch, now do we? So, we can't really have international laws. Maybe someday we'll have a world government but not now.
What we have in the real world are Treaties. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries. In reality the treaties are almost NEVER symmetrical. As an example, the US/UK pass a tax treaty. Well at the negotiating table, the treaty said W, X & Y. Put when parliament passed it they didn't like W. So, the UK law passed by parliament says V, X & Y. Same type of silliness in the US Congress. They don't like what the negotiators did and pass the US law with W, X, & Z. So, now we have "treaty" but they don't match.
The most important thing to notice here, is that no international law was passed, only 2 national laws. One for the UK. One for the US. I can't go into a US court and sue over the fact that the UK law lets me have rights to V, X & Y, because this is the US and our law says you have rights to W, X, & Z. Vice versa for the UK. I can't go into NZ and sue on either the treaty, the US law, or the UK law. Why? Because the treaty was never a law, it was merely and agreement "in principle" made by bureaucrats. The US law is a US law and therefore unenforceable in NZ. Same with the UK law.
So, you see, the "international law" really isn't very international at all. It is merely a group of inconsistent laws cobbled together from a bunch of countries.
It gets worse, since this "international law" is merely a group of national laws that have no effect outside the jurisdictions of those nation states, any country that doesn't pass a similar law isn't bound by that "international law." And nothing stops a nation from changing its laws. So, if the UK doesn't find the tax treaty to its advantage, it can easily pass a new law revoking the old V, X & Y law. Laws based on treaties aren't any more important than laws NOT based on treaties. If the US doesn't like that the UK revoked the law it really only has two options: change the US law, or suck eggs.
There is no International body that forces a nation to have a particular law. We have a few administrative courts that can "suggest" the types on retaliatory laws passed by the offended country, but no real involuntary enforcement mechanism on an international scale. This is really why armed conflict (one nation imposing its will on another) is still a part of international relations.
So, if the US (or any other country) is "violating an international law," the quickest and LEGAL solution to the "problem" is to just repeal the US law enacting the treaty.
"International Law" is a nice short hand phrase, but so is "treaty." And treaty is closer to what actually happens in the real world. At least a document called a "treaty" was put tighter at some point. No one with any power ever actually wrote something entitled "international law." When someone talks to me of "international laws," I know they either (a) don't know what they are talking about, or (b) have an agenda and are selecting the phrase as part of a rhetorical device and not based on facts.
In fact, "The Left" (i.e. the Democrats) are the ones beholden to the MPAA/RIAA and pushing for more Draconian copyright terms and penalties. Our "good buddy" Fritz Hollings is/was a Democrat. I would argue that a significant chunk of those in favour of the CopyLeft scheme have a tendency to be more Libertarian, than Left. Of course, I am cynical enough to believe that either party would make bad copyright laws if you paid them enough. It just so happens that the Democrats are already in the MPAA/RIAA's pocket and the Republicans are not invited to Hollywood parties (well, except for Tom Selleck's rocking Hollywood parties).
You know this is what dead drop email accounts are for. It is an address that I use to send information but never to receive it, or just receive things once. Simple reuseable 1 way communication.
Free email accounts like Yahoo/Hotmail are great for this.
My Slashdot email, a dead drop yahoo account. That email account I need for registration that sends me a temp password in the email, drop dead account. MSN Messenger and the MS Passport thing, drop dead account.
People I WANT to talk to, my personal email account. People work pays me to talk to, my work email account.
Running my own email server allows another level of indirection. Every company I do business with gets their own email address (well alias to a mail_order@myemail.com address).
The Open Source community (in general) doesn't have the money to pay:
$10k per application in attorney fees plus;
the USPTO fee to file a patent application;
... and then you have fees for each country you want to foreign file in;
(e.g. Agency fees, plus translation, plus attorney fees)...
plus you have fees for every time the various Patent Offices rejects the application and the attorney has to respond to that (should be about 2-4 times, plus any continuation or appeal fees);
an issuance fee once the patent is allowed and issues;
and finally you have maintenance fees on your issued patents.
And you need a few million dollars to litigate the patent. Of course, some attorneys may be willing to do it on a contingency basis.
There is a reason patents are referred to as the "legal sport of kings."
When I (and most Open Source writers) write something Open Source (granted my stuff is rinky-dinky) I just write it in my spare time with no desire or capability to invest money into it. I just can't afford to patent things on my own. That is why most patents are assigned to a major company. You need money to get patents.
I don't know what the financial situation is for the major projects (Linux kernel, Mozilla, KDE, etc.) but they'd have to make a serious commitment of money and time (as it takes ~5yrs to get a software patent now a days) to get patents. Until recently, the majority of MSFT's patent portfolio was in keyboards and mice! It wasn't until they got scared with the recent patent attacks against them that they started to build their software portfolio.
Another small problem for the Open Source community is that many countries bar you from getting a patent if you have published the idea before filing the application. Given the open nature of Open Source, you might run into a statutory bar on your patent if you put the code in CVS before you file the application.
And as a side issue... A good example would be the pop up blocker (It probably isn't patentable from proir-art but for argument sake).
A good patent attorney should be able to find a way to patent MSFT's implementation of the pop-up blocker. It'll be a narrow damn near worthless patent I'll grant you, but it can be done.
I am all for high-speed trains. The technologically is great. Wish passenger trains were more useful in the US.
But, have they considered the social impact of this?
I mean isn't the EU having a real tough time dealing with asylum seekers and integrating Muslims into their culture? Look at the French "no head scarves" ban, as an example. While this would make tourism to North Africa easier and improve the economies of those countries, is the EU ready to handle allowing more people (and the percentage of them that will either be illegal immigrants or asylum seekers) to come into the EU? I doubt it. The EU keeps Turkey out of the EU, in large part because Turkey is a Muslim country, and therefore not European enough (despite removing all references to Christianity from the now failed EU Constitution). Also, with the huge AIDS crisis in Africa, will the increase in movement mean an increase in European AIDS cases?
These are all problems humanity should solve, but being human we aren't going to solve them.
{exasperated_sigh} You know, technology would work a lot better if we could just keeps the humans out of the equation. {/exasperated_sigh}
I have been a long time evangelist for Rockbox. They have really made the Archos a wonderful device. Far better than the official firmware.
That said, the quality assurance portion of Archos has really gone downhill. My local BestBuy stopped carrying the Archos due to too many returns. My old Player (6GB) is sound as a pound, and about as heavy. But, my FM Recorder (20GB) is an unmitigated POS. It has had a lovely clicking sound (HD, I assume; however, I returned it and had the HD replaced. Still clicks. Archos Return-guy said they were getting a ton of returned FM Recorders) And, the FM Recorder will occasionally go into a "never-ending reboot" cycle. Where it partially boots, then reboots, and repeat, until after being left alone for a few hours it decides to work properly. So, the FM Recorder (out of 90 day warranty) is now treated with kid gloves as a home stereo MP3 player, and the old Jukebox is for the car and airplane. Someday I'll replace the HD in the Player.
So, Archos is nice, if it works. Looks just like a USB HD without any needed proprietary software like the other HD MP3 players. I just suggest you stick with the Player or plain-old Recorder and avoid the FM Recorder. If I had to do it again, I'd still get the Player but the SliMP3 (or newer) would work better than what I use the FM Recorder for.
I know it is selfish, but SpamAssassin does such a good job of killing of my spam, especially with Bayan (sp?) filtering, that I no longer care about spam. It eats up some bandwidth, but I have so few email addresses and emails are so small, I'll accept it.
Now my main concern is not getting rooted (or the equiv').
University students are not stealing products sold by the electronics industry (hardware). They are infringing on the copyrights of the content industry.
So, I see no reason why the hardware manufactures will think that their bottom lines will be affected. Quite the contrary, many hardware companies have profited from the widespread availability of content. Hence, Sony's schizophrenic reaction to all this. Their hardware unit profits and their content unit losses from piracy.
One thing the article points out is that the hardware manufactures are rushing to provide a technology that does not benefit them (i.e. profit). It only benefits the content industry. Users and hardware manufactures pay the cost of DRM. Government and users pay the cost of Draconian copyright laws.
So, even if you disregard the idea that people are basically honest, it does not make economic sense for the electronics industry (i.e. hardware manufactures) to essentially make a charitable contribution to the content industry.
Mixed companies like Sony have a rational for doing it, but they are still just shifting profit from one business unit to another.
It might stop some downloaders, but at this point it has become political for me.
I want to bankrupt the bastards. They had every opportunity to replace their outdated failing business model with a new successful model. Now after 5+ years, Draconian laws, and plenty of lawsuits, life is a bit worse and Apple brought them kicking and screaming into a successful form of on-line business.
Let them fail. Let a more successful business rise in their place.
Let me see MSFT gets embarrassed over old emails in a few lawsuits and suddenly they come out with an email program that self-destructs email and won't let other people read/forward the email. It sounds like a CYA feature for MSFT to say what they want and keep incriminating statements out of court.
Imagine how much the tobacco companies would have loved it if their reports and internal memos could have been kept out of court. (Not that that would have stopped billion dollars jury awards. Public opinion had turned against them.) That is just one example.
It seems like we are entering an era where "smart" companies will be able to hide their criminal or tortious behaviour using DRM. "Sorry your honour. I'd love to open that email as you ordered, but it can't be printed or forwarded, and the other emails... well damn if they just didn't delete themselves. I want to obey that court order, but this computer? (shrugs)." So, it will be harder for people to police corporate behaviour, and it wasn't easy to police when you had discovery of internal memos.
Your theory was advanced in the 2nd comment to the article and addressed in the 3rd comment (see bottom of the page).
An interesting theory, that these are "gifts," and I'm sure that's what the Clintons would say if audited (which will never happen). But the IRS and the experts disagree.
In order for a transfer to be a "gift" for federal income tax purposes, the transeror's motive must be "detached and disinterested generosity." It has long been held that gratuities collected in the course of one's employment -- such as the tip you leave at the Tube Bar or the Tunnel Dinner (gosh, I miss that place) -- are not "gifts," and are taxable income to the recipient.
Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons. Their relationship with them is only as constituents -- as people whom the Clintons have affected in their business of being politicians. That means the transfers are highly unlikely to be properly treated as "gifts" for income tax purposes.
It's not like my friends and family paying for my kid's medical needs. It's more like I was the CEO of a large company whose suppliers and customers chipped in to pay them. That's income, folks.
The one thing I'd add to that "detached and distinerested generosity" standard is that there is an exception to that if you are within a close circle of family and friends. And, "Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons." So, they aren't within the IRS category of close family and friends.
So, to not be considered income to RECEIVER, the DONOR must give from either (a) "detached and disinterested generosity", or (b) be in a close circle of family and friends. The Gift Tax provisions hit the DONOR with a tax (a gift tax, not an income tax) if the gift is more than $10k per person, per year. (I think the $10k is indexed for inflation in $1k increments, but not sure). The gift tax is really a loophole closer that prevents people from avoiding the Estate tax and the income tax (you can't turn every piece of income into a gift).
The United Way example works like this. The United Way is a qualifing charity (I assume. I haven't looked at those Regulations in many a year). You (DONOR) get to deduct the contribution as a chairable contribution, because of UW's charity status. UW doesn't pay taxes because they are recognized by the state as a non-profit charity (Once again, I assume).
Slashdot Mirror
What amazes me the most is how the media has fallen all over themselves to report how Lucas used ROTS as a vehicle to comment on the Bush administration. Now, I know it shocks you that someone in Hollywood would dislike the Republicans.
The two lines that are quoted by the media are:
Padme: "So, this is how liberty dies;" and later in the film
Vader: "If you are not with me, you are my enemy."
Fine, while I fail to see, especially given the context of its place in the film, how the first line as a commentary on Bush. I can see that it is very quotable. The second line is really unmissable as a parody of the infamous, "With us or against us" Bush line.
But, I want to note that the movie's only voice of tolerance and relativism was Palpatine, advising Anakin that the only way to be truly great is to understand all aspects of the Force! That is multi-culturalism right there.
So, here we have the Emperor giving the traditional Democratic view of things and Vader dropping the Bush parody lines. I thought both the Emperor and Vader were evil. I am very confused about exactly what political commentary Lucas is making. I can only assume that one of two conclusions is true, either, (a) Lucas is totally inept at political commentary, or (b) the Media critics are projecting their own emotions on to the film, i.e. the film is acting like a Rorschach test.
Either way, I'd really appreciate it both Lucas, the media, and anyone else leave their Damn political opinions off my entertainment.
Maybe the political arguments would have held more water is Lucas had taken the trouble to give the Sith and Jedi an constant philosophy through out the films and between characters. But, as nice as the feeling of the Jedi/Sith philosophies are they are just too inconsistent to withstand close scrutiny. Which is why is is better to just enjoy the movies than study them like they are the Torah.
However, the funniest political commentary on the film comes from this guy who sees the Jedi council as the Catholic Church. Whatever...
SyntheticLife, meanwhile, gives the guy who sat next to him a pretty harsh review: "I would've said something but then I got scared when he started talking to the characters in the movie."
The reviewer's problem seems that AoE3 doesn't go along with the revisionist history supported by the reviewers.
From TFA
'The crux is that the Native Americans in AoE III "are not so much a peoples to be exploited and killed off with pox-infected blankets as they are partners in your war against the other countries," according to Kotaku.'
So, the reviewer has the racist view that Native Americans are weak social incompetents whose only purpose is to be exploited and killed. To the reviewr's Native Americans are not fully realized human being (capable of both selfishness and charity, both good and evil) but instead the reviers complains that they are not seen only as victims.
When in reality (not the reviewer's politically correct fantasy) the Indians were a number of unallied and often mutually antagonist tribes/countries that frequently allied with the Europeans. For example, the Anti-Aztec Indians that allied with the Spanish in order to topple their Aztec masters. These Indians did this, not solely for the Spaniards benefit (although the Spanish did benefit) but because these Indians hated their Aztec rulers.
Another example, would be the French and English Indian allies during the French-Indian War. Once again various Indian tribes and mercenaries sided with either the French or English in the hopes of increasing their (the Indians) wellbeing and domination over an opposing Indian tribe.
Did the Europeans do bad things to the Indians? Yes, both as individual settlers and as organized acts of imperialism. But they also acted in a way roughly (it is hard to tell without the game being published yet) in accordance with AOE3's portrayal. The Europeans took the Indians on as allies when needed or convenient.
It is revisionist to re-write the history of the Native Americans to exclude their acts of savagery and genocide, leaving them only as objects of pity, too incompetent to fend for themselves or produce noble achievements. This revisionism which denies the Native Americans their true history and their ability & potential to share in the both the horrors and grandeurs of basic human nature is racist.
The review's problem seems to be that AOE3 does not exclude the self-interested actions in favour of the reviewer's political point of view. The reviewer's view of history is more revisionist than AOE3s.
My partner is
Look I know it is trendy to treat any relationship as a partnership but (speaking as an attorney) it just isn't.
You two are not filing an IRS form 1065 to declare your partnership income tax. You are not getting flow-through treatment for that income. You are either (non-married) filing separate income tax forms, or (married) a joint tax return.
You two are not keeping capital accounts. When you go to divorce court, they are not going to look at your capital accounts to divvy up the funds. They'll divide them up based, not on partnership law, but on the "equity of the situation." And, when they do that 2 things. (1) The family court will care very much who is the husband and who is the wife. (Even though they are not supposed to.) (2) There will certainly be remuneration for services taken into account, which is a big no-no for partnership law.
When the "partnership" ends you are not going to go into a court of general jurisdiction and go through a "winding up" process. You'll go into _Family court_ and get a divorce.
It would nice, in some nirvana, if the law allowed domestic partnerships between two or more people. That would sidestep the entire gay marriage/polygamy thing. And, the idea of capital accounts and "no remuneration for services" would make divorces much cleaner. But, that isn't the world we live in.
She is either your "girlfirend" or "wife," but (unless you have a joint business) she is not your "partner."
I agree with the 5 year duration.
However, the USPTO pedency for softwrae cases is about 4-5 years. So, 99% of your patent time will be wasted in the PTO fighting for your patent.
Changing software patents to 5 years after issue, just leads to submarine patents.
In either case, you have the difficulty of defining what is a software patent and what isn't. How much hardware can be in a software claim before it isn't software anymore?
Because if we have a "one drop" rule, I am always adding some peice of HW to the claim, which will at least allow me to litigate the issue of SW claim.
So, just shortening the time period doesn't solve the problem.
I didn't bother to look up the specific line the statute you're talking about but, ...
The UCC is the baseline or "gap filler" for commercial contracts. It is what you get if you don't specify anything else. So, you can opt-out of the UCC's provisions anytime you want.
I'd assume the Netflix contract opts you out of whatever part of the UCC they don't like. I also assume Netflix sets the contract in the jurisdiction it likes the most.
The reaction on the board is the typical hypocrite response.
Your post ignores how some people (cough, the Left, cough) was all excited about the Netherlands Universal Jurisdiction idea. The ICC is another example. When these people get to weild power and try/harass US personnel, Universal Jurisdiction is the best idea, Hell it is even a Human Right.
Now, the US does something equivalent to Universal Jurisdiction (not identical but comparable). Now, when Europe (cough, the Left, cough) isn't in power the idea is horrible.
I would have expected our "enlightened" supporters of Universal Jurisdiction to be thrilled that the US has come around to their way of thinking. But the way people are reacting I am left with the assumption that they don't really care about universal justice (despite their claims) but about bitching about the US, and that they'll change the rules to make sure they can always bitch.
Feel whatever way you want, just be consistent about it. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
No, in the US ...
College & University are both 4 year institutions.
A University is usually larger and is broken into managerial units called Colleges, which are usually based on subject (i.e. College of Engineering, College of Science, College of Music, etc.).
Examples of Universities being: Arizona State, MIT, etc.
But small "universities" are simply referred to as colleges, and do not have that extra layer of management the University has.
Both Colleges & Universities grant 4 year Bachelors degree. The degree is given the same certification weight/respect regardless of the institution. Now, people respect a Harvard degree more than a Lebanon Valley College degree, but the certification level is the same.
In the same way you 'd respect someone who got a good grade from Prof. A vs Prof. B, but the 2 grades on the students' transcripts are still equal.
Both Colleges & Universities usually have living facilities and often require students to in "on-campus" the first 1 or 2 years.
Cost (ball park):
State run: $10-20k/yr in tuition + room & board + textbooks
Private run: $20-30k/yr in tuition + room & board + textbooks
Community Colleges, on the other hand, are schools often run by the State or City. These provide 2 year Associate degrees, and are noticeably cheaper. The Canadian College idea seems to map well to the US Community College system. Community Colleges are looked down upon as high school with ash trays.
That said, due to quickly rising costs of College/University may people now go to Community College for 2 yrs and then transfer to a full 4 year College.
Community Colleges usually have no living facilities and are designed to provide job retraining and general education opportunities to the community at large (e.g. you can take a class of oil painting there without being enrolled as an Art Major)
Cost (ball park):
Almost all State run: $3k-5k/yr + textbooks
The degree ladder in the US is typically:
Associate (2 years)
Bachelors (4 years, or Associate + 2 years)
Masters (Bachelors + 1-2 year)
Ph.d (Doctor of Philosophy) (Bachelors + 5-6 yrs)
The main problem w/ a suit like this is that it doesn't matter who is legally correct. Direct/RIAA just assume that they can afford the frivolous suit and you can't. That you'll panic a fold. And this is true in most cases. However, if you can front the money, and win I have a suggestion on how you can make Direct/RIAA pay for your litigation costs in the end (i.e. make the court work as a loser-pays system), assuming you're in Federal court.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow for you to make a settlement offer, and if rejected the rejector may have to pay your legal fees.
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer . The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability. (emphasis added)
So, as soon as you get the "we're suing" papers, and you are completely, "no F'ing way" innocent make a Offer in Judgment of $1. If Direct/RIAA takes the $1 offer, your legal worries are over. If they don't take the offer, you go to trial knowing that if you win, Direct/RIAA must pay your legal fees (from the offer forward).
Now you pay up front while they sue you and it takes your time, but ultimately you get the cash back (provided you win).
People believe what they want to and conveniently ignore that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of reality.
Doesn't matter if they are left or right wing, people ignore what doesn't fit their view of the world.
Take the Florida 2000 elections. Plenty of TV coverage and each side thoroughly believed that something was going on just outside of the cameras to sway the "vote" in a way that was unfavorable to their side. Why, because we believe only the other side does underhanded things, and we are also well aware of how anything on TV can be faked.
We live in the Silver Age of the Conspiracy Theory. It seems like everyone has some story about what the Dems/Reps did that comes from the Twilight Zone that is the political paranormal.
Seeing things isn't going to matter.
Being intimately involved would matter, but 300 Million people can't be intimately involved.
Star Wars is barely related to the Hidden Fortress.
Hidden Fortress:
Two peasant farmers are refugees, trying to return home after a war. They find gold, and join with a mysterious powerful-looking man and a mysterious beautiful girl. Together they attempt to smuggle the gold across the border and evade capture.
Star Wars:
Farmboy Luke Skywalker finds more than he bargained for when he gains possession of two androids, who lead him on the adventure of his life to save a beautiful princess, befriend a devil-may-care space smuggler, and save the galaxy from the evil clutches of Darth Vader. Tutored by the mysterious Obi Wan Kenobi, Luke must "Learn the ways of the Force" and destroy the Death Star.
Key differences:
There is a powerful virile General (Mifune) in HF. In SW you have an aged magician (Kenobi) and an untrained boy (Luke).
In HF the princess is on the run to an allied province. In SW, the princess is captured and must be rescued.
In HF, the whole point is to get the princess safely to the allied province. In SW, the whole point is to blow up the Death Star.
SW has super powers (The Force). In HF, everyone is obvious merely human.
SW is a much more action oriented affair. HF is based more upon the interaction between the characters.
Similarities:
There is a princess in both.
There is a comic relief duo in both. SW, the droids. HF, the peasant farmers.
I know Lucas wants to compare himself to Kurosawa but he really copied 30s movie serials, not Hidden Fortress. About the only thing he took from HF is the comedy duo.
Also, Hidden Fortress really isn't Kurosawa's best work. Rashômon, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and even Ran are far surperior to Hidden Fortress. However, they are much better known and Lucas wouldn't have been able to get away with claiming ripping them off.
How to wire a Dutch neighborhood:
1) Steal bicycles
2) ???
3) Profit
Whatever solution you go for, you may want to RFID the neighborhood's bicycles just to know where they get off to (aside from the canals).
companies passing their own cost of doing business to customers
You have to be kidding me!
Every company in the entire world since the beginning of time has tried to do this. Even St. Thomas Aquinas thought passing your cost of business on to your customers was OK. And, Thomas was the champion of the idea that a merchant should charge only just enough to cover his labor expenses (sacrifices).
The complaint that "companies pass their cost of business along" is the same as arguing that either (a) the company owes you something, and you should get something for nothing, or (b) the company's charges to you should be totally arbitrary and capricious and have nothing to do with want the service costs to provide. I'll admit that the cost-plus model of pricing is just a starting point, but the cost of goods usually sets the floor as to the price of the good.
From the article:
In truth, many of the surcharges like those imposed this year by DSL and wireless providers reflect real costs related to each company's compliance and payments in support of government-mandated "public goods."
So, these really are costs imposed by the government (i.e. taxes). The telco companies have just made the decision to let the customer know how much the government regulation is adding to the cost of the phone service. I fail to see how this is different from advertising the price of your goods non-inclusive of sales tax.
Is the argument against this that people should not know how much their government charges them in taxes? Granted the "tax included" pricing philosophy is easier to budget for, and I assume that is the "moral outrage" that the price you agreed to isn't what you are charged, but the rest is effectively sales taxes. It is annoying but talk to your government about it.
My local libraries (I live close to 2 districts) have turned into my personal (and free) P2P & Netflix service.
Go on-line to library's website. Place as many CDs/DVDs as they let you on hold. Wait. Get an email telling you when the holds are in. Check them out and enjoy.
One district's library service even allows me to put holds in an "inactive" state, where I move up in the queue but don't get sent the item. This allows me to manage when I get the DVDs (i.e. season 2 doesn't arrive before season 1).
I have built a wonderful MP3 collection without much risk of the RIAA hunting me down (until I opened my mouth just now). Also, I have cancelled cable TV as I have hours upon hours of free DVDs to watch. Unlike the 5 days video rental places, the library gives me 3 weeks to watch the DVDs. I don't even browse the physical shelves anymore. I just search the library website, like I would Amazon.
The downside is that this has become so popular that 1 district (Portland, OR, USA) has started to limit the number of holds per patron to 15 at a time. Also, if your library's selection sucks (e.g. Chapill Hill, NC where my brother lives), you are SOL.
"International Law" is a fiction.
Laws get passed by legislatures & monarchs. We don't have an international legislature or an international monarch, now do we? So, we can't really have international laws.
Maybe someday we'll have a world government but not now.
What we have in the real world are Treaties. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries. In reality the treaties are almost NEVER symmetrical. As an example, the US/UK pass a tax treaty. Well at the negotiating table, the treaty said W, X & Y. Put when parliament passed it they didn't like W. So, the UK law passed by parliament says V, X & Y. Same type of silliness in the US Congress. They don't like what the negotiators did and pass the US law with W, X, & Z. So, now we have "treaty" but they don't match.
The most important thing to notice here, is that no international law was passed, only 2 national laws. One for the UK. One for the US. I can't go into a US court and sue over the fact that the UK law lets me have rights to V, X & Y, because this is the US and our law says you have rights to W, X, & Z. Vice versa for the UK. I can't go into NZ and sue on either the treaty, the US law, or the UK law. Why? Because the treaty was never a law, it was merely and agreement "in principle" made by bureaucrats. The US law is a US law and therefore unenforceable in NZ. Same with the UK law.
So, you see, the "international law" really isn't very international at all. It is merely a group of inconsistent laws cobbled together from a bunch of countries.
It gets worse, since this "international law" is merely a group of national laws that have no effect outside the jurisdictions of those nation states, any country that doesn't pass a similar law isn't bound by that "international law." And nothing stops a nation from changing its laws. So, if the UK doesn't find the tax treaty to its advantage, it can easily pass a new law revoking the old V, X & Y law. Laws based on treaties aren't any more important than laws NOT based on treaties. If the US doesn't like that the UK revoked the law it really only has two options: change the US law, or suck eggs.
There is no International body that forces a nation to have a particular law. We have a few administrative courts that can "suggest" the types on retaliatory laws passed by the offended country, but no real involuntary enforcement mechanism on an international scale. This is really why armed conflict (one nation imposing its will on another) is still a part of international relations.
So, if the US (or any other country) is "violating an international law," the quickest and LEGAL solution to the "problem" is to just repeal the US law enacting the treaty.
"International Law" is a nice short hand phrase, but so is "treaty." And treaty is closer to what actually happens in the real world. At least a document called a "treaty" was put tighter at some point. No one with any power ever actually wrote something entitled "international law." When someone talks to me of "international laws," I know they either (a) don't know what they are talking about, or (b) have an agenda and are selecting the phrase as part of a rhetorical device and not based on facts.
In fact, "The Left" (i.e. the Democrats) are the ones beholden to the MPAA/RIAA and pushing for more Draconian copyright terms and penalties. Our "good buddy" Fritz Hollings is/was a Democrat.
I would argue that a significant chunk of those in favour of the CopyLeft scheme have a tendency to be more Libertarian, than Left.
Of course, I am cynical enough to believe that either party would make bad copyright laws if you paid them enough. It just so happens that the Democrats are already in the MPAA/RIAA's pocket and the Republicans are not invited to Hollywood parties (well, except for Tom Selleck's rocking Hollywood parties).
You know this is what dead drop email accounts are for. It is an address that I use to send information but never to receive it, or just receive things once. Simple reuseable 1 way communication.
Free email accounts like Yahoo/Hotmail are great for this.
My Slashdot email, a dead drop yahoo account. That email account I need for registration that sends me a temp password in the email, drop dead account. MSN Messenger and the MS Passport thing, drop dead account.
People I WANT to talk to, my personal email account. People work pays me to talk to, my work email account.
Running my own email server allows another level of indirection. Every company I do business with gets their own email address (well alias to a mail_order@myemail.com address).
And you need a few million dollars to litigate the patent. Of course, some attorneys may be willing to do it on a contingency basis.
There is a reason patents are referred to as the "legal sport of kings."
When I (and most Open Source writers) write something Open Source (granted my stuff is rinky-dinky) I just write it in my spare time with no desire or capability to invest money into it. I just can't afford to patent things on my own. That is why most patents are assigned to a major company. You need money to get patents.
I don't know what the financial situation is for the major projects (Linux kernel, Mozilla, KDE, etc.) but they'd have to make a serious commitment of money and time (as it takes ~5yrs to get a software patent now a days) to get patents. Until recently, the majority of MSFT's patent portfolio was in keyboards and mice! It wasn't until they got scared with the recent patent attacks against them that they started to build their software portfolio.
Another small problem for the Open Source community is that many countries bar you from getting a patent if you have published the idea before filing the application. Given the open nature of Open Source, you might run into a statutory bar on your patent if you put the code in CVS before you file the application.
And as a side issue...
A good example would be the pop up blocker (It probably isn't patentable from proir-art but for argument sake).
A good patent attorney should be able to find a way to patent MSFT's implementation of the pop-up blocker. It'll be a narrow damn near worthless patent I'll grant you, but it can be done.
I am all for high-speed trains. The technologically is great. Wish passenger trains were more useful in the US.
But, have they considered the social impact of this?
I mean isn't the EU having a real tough time dealing with asylum seekers and integrating Muslims into their culture? Look at the French "no head scarves" ban, as an example. While this would make tourism to North Africa easier and improve the economies of those countries, is the EU ready to handle allowing more people (and the percentage of them that will either be illegal immigrants or asylum seekers) to come into the EU? I doubt it. The EU keeps Turkey out of the EU, in large part because Turkey is a Muslim country, and therefore not European enough (despite removing all references to Christianity from the now failed EU Constitution). Also, with the huge AIDS crisis in Africa, will the increase in movement mean an increase in European AIDS cases?
These are all problems humanity should solve, but being human we aren't going to solve them.
{exasperated_sigh} You know, technology would work a lot better if we could just keeps the humans out of the equation. {/exasperated_sigh}
I have been a long time evangelist for Rockbox. They have really made the Archos a wonderful device. Far better than the official firmware.
That said, the quality assurance portion of Archos has really gone downhill. My local BestBuy stopped carrying the Archos due to too many returns. My old Player (6GB) is sound as a pound, and about as heavy. But, my FM Recorder (20GB) is an unmitigated POS. It has had a lovely clicking sound (HD, I assume; however, I returned it and had the HD replaced. Still clicks. Archos Return-guy said they were getting a ton of returned FM Recorders) And, the FM Recorder will occasionally go into a "never-ending reboot" cycle. Where it partially boots, then reboots, and repeat, until after being left alone for a few hours it decides to work properly. So, the FM Recorder (out of 90 day warranty) is now treated with kid gloves as a home stereo MP3 player, and the old Jukebox is for the car and airplane. Someday I'll replace the HD in the Player.
So, Archos is nice, if it works. Looks just like a USB HD without any needed proprietary software like the other HD MP3 players. I just suggest you stick with the Player or plain-old Recorder and avoid the FM Recorder. If I had to do it again, I'd still get the Player but the SliMP3 (or newer) would work better than what I use the FM Recorder for.
I know it is selfish, but SpamAssassin does such a good job of killing of my spam, especially with Bayan (sp?) filtering, that I no longer care about spam. It eats up some bandwidth, but I have so few email addresses and emails are so small, I'll accept it.
Now my main concern is not getting rooted (or the equiv').
University students are not stealing products sold by the electronics industry (hardware).
They are infringing on the copyrights of the content industry.
So, I see no reason why the hardware manufactures will think that their bottom lines will be affected. Quite the contrary, many hardware companies have profited from the widespread availability of content. Hence, Sony's schizophrenic reaction to all this. Their hardware unit profits and their content unit losses from piracy.
One thing the article points out is that the hardware manufactures are rushing to provide a technology that does not benefit them (i.e. profit). It only benefits the content industry. Users and hardware manufactures pay the cost of DRM. Government and users pay the cost of Draconian copyright laws.
So, even if you disregard the idea that people are basically honest, it does not make economic sense for the electronics industry (i.e. hardware manufactures) to essentially make a charitable contribution to the content industry.
Mixed companies like Sony have a rational for doing it, but they are still just shifting profit from one business unit to another.
It might stop some downloaders, but at this point it has become political for me.
I want to bankrupt the bastards. They had every opportunity to replace their outdated failing business model with a new successful model. Now after 5+ years, Draconian laws, and plenty of lawsuits, life is a bit worse and Apple brought them kicking and screaming into a successful form of on-line business.
Let them fail.
Let a more successful business rise in their place.
It is not called piracy
It is called capitalism.
Let me see MSFT gets embarrassed over old emails in a few lawsuits and suddenly they come out with an email program that self-destructs email and won't let other people read/forward the email. It sounds like a CYA feature for MSFT to say what they want and keep incriminating statements out of court.
... well damn if they just didn't delete themselves. I want to obey that court order, but this computer? (shrugs)." So, it will be harder for people to police corporate behaviour, and it wasn't easy to police when you had discovery of internal memos.
Imagine how much the tobacco companies would have loved it if their reports and internal memos could have been kept out of court. (Not that that would have stopped billion dollars jury awards. Public opinion had turned against them.) That is just one example.
It seems like we are entering an era where "smart" companies will be able to hide their criminal or tortious behaviour using DRM. "Sorry your honour. I'd love to open that email as you ordered, but it can't be printed or forwarded, and the other emails
Your theory was advanced in the 2nd comment to the article and addressed in the 3rd comment (see bottom of the page).
An interesting theory, that these are "gifts," and I'm sure that's what the Clintons would say if audited (which will never happen). But the IRS and the experts disagree.
In order for a transfer to be a "gift" for federal income tax purposes, the transeror's motive must be "detached and disinterested generosity." It has long been held that gratuities collected in the course of one's employment -- such as the tip you leave at the Tube Bar or the Tunnel Dinner (gosh, I miss that place) -- are not "gifts," and are taxable income to the recipient.
Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons. Their relationship with them is only as constituents -- as people whom the Clintons have affected in their business of being politicians. That means the transfers are highly unlikely to be properly treated as "gifts" for income tax purposes.
It's not like my friends and family paying for my kid's medical needs. It's more like I was the CEO of a large company whose suppliers and customers chipped in to pay them. That's income, folks.
The one thing I'd add to that "detached and distinerested generosity" standard is that there is an exception to that if you are within a close circle of family and friends. And, "Most of the people who have donated to the Clinton legal defense fund have no personal connection to the Clintons." So, they aren't within the IRS category of close family and friends.
So, to not be considered income to RECEIVER, the DONOR must give from either (a) "detached and disinterested generosity", or (b) be in a close circle of family and friends. The Gift Tax provisions hit the DONOR with a tax (a gift tax, not an income tax) if the gift is more than $10k per person, per year. (I think the $10k is indexed for inflation in $1k increments, but not sure). The gift tax is really a loophole closer that prevents people from avoiding the Estate tax and the income tax (you can't turn every piece of income into a gift).
The United Way example works like this. The United Way is a qualifing charity (I assume. I haven't looked at those Regulations in many a year). You (DONOR) get to deduct the contribution as a chairable contribution, because of UW's charity status. UW doesn't pay taxes because they are recognized by the state as a non-profit charity (Once again, I assume).
See this article/comment Democrat tax cut (self-service).
Wonder if they set it up so a contribution is deductable? Probably not.