Of course by reproducing the material, he knowingly became part of the chain, and therefore also part of the abuse.
Gives them a nice little precedent. No more simple possession for marijuana users - now just find a few joints on somebody, and you can charge them with "manufacturing marijuana". That will get you 5-30.
My thought: we should start working on an Amendment to Constitution that makes a "Right to Privacy" explicit instead of depending on the judicial branch's interpretation of the 4th Amendment. At least it would be a worthwile campaign unlike the never ending battle to create an amendment to ban flag burning at gay marriage ceremonies. This is not my idea, by the way, this was proposed by Dan Savage in a NYT editorial last year (I think).
No. That will just exacerbate the problem. The twisted logic people keep using -- assuming that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you some right, then you don't have it -- is utterly wrong. It's backwards!! And it confirms the fear of the original framers that were opposed to adding the "bill of rights" in the first place: that it could be construed to mean that citizens' rights are limited to those that were spelled out.
So - where in the Constitution is the GOVERNMENT granted the right to know the identity of travellers? Where is this type of authority implied? Regulating interstate commerce is authorized, but that only applies to goods transported across state lines.
The point is, you have the right to travel anonymously because the government has NO RIGHT to stop you.
Tax break? You're kidding me, right? Even if he's in the 35% tax bracket, he's still giving away far more money than he gets from a tax deduction.
You obviously are not a corporate tax attorney. There's a lot more to setting up a non-profit charitable trust than a simple deduction for charitable contributions. Microsoft spent several of its most profitable years paying virtually no federal taxes at all. To quote (from prospect.org:
Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. Microsoft, in fact, actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pre-tax U.S. profits.
Who knows what Gate's motivations for his foundation contributions? There are probably many. And you can bet that every one of them are self-serving. I have a hard time believing that he's doing it because he has any genuine concern for the plight of 3rd-world peasants.
Or is this just the way modern business is going - money is made my sueing other people.
You hit the nail on the head, there. Just as the US economy transitioned years ago from an agrarian to manufacturing, then manufacturing to service-based industry, the new economy is moving from service-based to litigation-based.
You can tell this is happening in my home town (Richmond, VA), as the old 42-floor "Wachovia" bank building had the signs pulled down and is now the "McGuire Woods" (law firm) building. You can tell if you watch TV commercials, too, as the advertising dollars now paying for this (old) media is dominated by the lawyers looking for accident victims and users of certain prescription drugs ("even if you have had no problems from taking them" they say. WTF!?!?).
There are even ancillary businesses springing up. There are now places you can go to get an "advance" on money you think you're going to get from a pending lawsuit, sort of like a tax refund advance. Only these guys claim if you lose your case, you don't have to repay the money...
three federal judges have denied prosecutors the right to get cellphone tracking information from wireless companies without first showing "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.
What have the other judges been doing? They just allow this kind of tracking for no reason, or what?
Cop: "Judge, we want to track these guys by their cell phone."
Judge: "Oh, have they committed a crime?"
Cop: "Well, no, not that I'm aware of."
Judge: "Ah. But you think they're going to commit a crime?"
Cop: "Um. Well, it's possible. But, no real reason to think so, no."
Judge: "Uh-huh. And you want to track their movements because... ??"
Cop: "Well, look, they just seem odd, that's all. They seem, you know, suspicious"
Judge: "Ohhh... Why didn't you say so. Ok, here, I'll sign it"
Fair use covers quoting small portions of a work, not "quoting" the whole thing.
Still, just the lyrics is not the entire song. You aren't including the notes, the tempo, the instruments, etc. Even if you did, it would only be a representation of the work (a piece of performance art*, really), not the whole thing. So, you can certainly justify putting up a web page with "ok, I listened to this song on the radio, and here are the lyrics as I understood them" and calling it fair use.
*I use the word "art" loosely, here, as a large percentage of the recordings that the RIAA defends copyrights for is not anything that I would refer to as "art".
Meanwhile the US congress is busy pushing the state department to pressure China and India to do a better job protecting "Intellectual Property". I guess they want to make sure Microsoft keeps making plenty of profits so they can create more jobs... overseas
WTF!? Way to protect the interests of your citizens... NOT!
Ok, saved it as beer.c, I've been trying to compile, but no beer yet. Do you have a makefile?
Well, I don't have a makefile per se, but if you are ready for planning a production environment, I would happy to offer you a very reasonable support contract!
after they were big, the dead didn't really allow soundboards, so you can download aud's of the shows from the 60's-70's, but not the audience recorded soundboards (they used to let tapers tap into the board).
I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, here, but the Dead *never* stopped fans from recording from the soundboard (that is, there were plenty of people doing it). This was well into the 80's, and went on long past then, as far as I know.
The federal gov't's position is that regardless of how this is intended to be instate only, there is nothing stopping these drugs from eventually ending up out of the state and thus invoking the interstate commerce clause.
To be honest, I don't know what side of this I belong on...
Well, look at it this way: In the decision you are referring to, Justice Souter stated that federal regulation of the growing of a plant within single community, and given away (at no cost) to people in that community for private use within that community was justified as interstate commerce and a "legitimate excercise of federal power".
Now, I ask you: given that definition, what activity could possibly be considered as NOT a "legitimate exercise of federal power"? Hmm? Does this mean that there are NO bounds at all?
I do know that the open-source liquor industry has gone way downhill since Prohibition was lifted.
I think you're wrong about that, and I'll prove it with my Open Source Beer:
4 oz. Victory Malt
1 lb. Crystal Malt (10L)
1 1/2 oz. Nugget
1/2 oz. Nugget
1/2 oz. Perle
1 1/2 oz. Cascade
7 lb. Canadian Bulk Light Malt Extract
2 tsp. gypsum
White Labs California Yeast (WL001)
Mash grain at 150 degrees in 80 oz. water for 20 minutes.
Sparge with 80 oz. water at 170 degrees.
Add extract, 1 1/2 oz. Nugget, 2 tsp. gypsum. Add water to about 3 gallons.
Bring to a boil. Boil for 15 min., add 1/2 oz Nugget. Boil for 30
minutes, add 1/2 oz Perle. Boil for 15 minutes (total 1 hour boil).
Cool to 75 degrees, then pitch yeast.
Ferment for about 1 week, rack to secondary, add 1 1/2 oz. cascade.
Allow secondary to ferment for about 1 week. Rack to priming bucket, adding about 5 oz. priming sugar (preferred) or dry malt extract. Bottle. Allow about 30 days before refrigeration.
What I hate is the way it refuses to send attached executables, even inside a zip file, and silently drops them when incoming. I'd at least like to be told that someone *tried* to send me an email, but the attachment was deleted, or bounce it back to the sender, or something.
The easy work-around for this is to just rename mypgm.exe to mypgm.renametoexe and then it goes through just fine (zipped or not). But if I'm sending it *TO* a gmail account, I don't even know it got dropped...
I recommend Rogue brewery's I^2PA. That's really *really* hoppy though, so you might not like it.
An even better choice may be Dogfish Head brewery's 90 Minute IPA. Hops are added to the wort every 1-2 minutes throughout a 90-minute boil (thus the name). Very hoppy, and very strong (but so dry you'll have a hard time drinking to excess).
Wait a minute... I thought I was already using the ad-supported version (and paying for it). I get ads for MSN, AOL, Microsoft services, Microsoft software (even fully-functional "limited time" evaluation versions), games, photo services, 3rd party add-ins, plus all kinds of cross-promotional promotions from the PC vendor, the printer vendor, etc., etc. right out of the box.
And every time I add a bit of hardware or software, or even visit a web site, I get additional advertising added on top. You mean they can actually fit in MORE advertising (without making the whole thing completely useless)?!?! What am I missing, here?
they were DECEIVED.. you know.. just like congress has been
Wow! I can't believe how gullable you are. Tell you what, bud. If you really believe the bullshit congressmen standing up going "We didn't know! Bush lied! He *made* us vote that way! We were deceived!" - then maybe you should vote for somebody less gullable than yourself in the next election.
then it's either being forced into accepting the contract (not sure about the legal term but I think it's not extortion when it involves contracts)
I'm not sure of the term either, but it basically means there should be some negotiation involved. The "negotiation" of "return it if you don't like this" has been deemed acceptable by the 8th Circuit.
I don't know that anyone has actually tried make use of this out, but generally retailers won't honor it. Supposedly, you can ship the package back to the publisher for a refund (probably not to include shipping costs), and they will send you a check in 8-10 weeks (most likely). Whether this actually works is up to debate. The court never heard the argument.
Unfortunately, I doubt they ever will. Courts seem to want to accept "it's *possible* to refuse the agreement" without consideration concerning how *practical* it is for the average consumer.
There is yes, but the EULA hasn't been truly tested, thus why it still stands.
I think the bnetd case pretty much gives software publishers carte-blanche in restricting what you can do. They held that (1) the EULA was enforceable (2) it removes the consumers rights granted by copyright and DMCA laws (3) The UCC covers the transaction because the software is goods sold (4) the software is licensed, not sold, because the EULA says so.
In short - EULAs are enforceable, even when they are wordy, vague, and contradictory. And, they are contracts since they say "if you don't agree, return this for a refund" - even though there is no realistic way to actually get your money back for opened software.
You will see better code in modern C# ASP.NET applications with codebehind and what-not.
Maybe - but MS also provides a weirdly bastardized VB for.NET. You should see some of the atrocious code VB programmers come up with... I actually saw this one today (I don't do VB.NET, so I'm paraphrasing):
Try ob a = new ob(); Catch anError = True End Try If anError DoSomething() DoSomethingElse() End IF
Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists: instead, I will continue to believe that tackling crime is the job of the police.
Then you are a fool, and since the GPP declined to site evidence, I will do so myself:
Slashdot Mirror
You may now mod this post off-topic, since it actually is.
Gives them a nice little precedent. No more simple possession for marijuana users - now just find a few joints on somebody, and you can charge them with "manufacturing marijuana". That will get you 5-30.
No. That will just exacerbate the problem. The twisted logic people keep using -- assuming that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you some right, then you don't have it -- is utterly wrong. It's backwards!! And it confirms the fear of the original framers that were opposed to adding the "bill of rights" in the first place: that it could be construed to mean that citizens' rights are limited to those that were spelled out.
So - where in the Constitution is the GOVERNMENT granted the right to know the identity of travellers? Where is this type of authority implied? Regulating interstate commerce is authorized, but that only applies to goods transported across state lines.
The point is, you have the right to travel anonymously because the government has NO RIGHT to stop you.
You obviously are not a corporate tax attorney. There's a lot more to setting up a non-profit charitable trust than a simple deduction for charitable contributions. Microsoft spent several of its most profitable years paying virtually no federal taxes at all. To quote (from prospect.org:
Who knows what Gate's motivations for his foundation contributions? There are probably many. And you can bet that every one of them are self-serving. I have a hard time believing that he's doing it because he has any genuine concern for the plight of 3rd-world peasants.
You hit the nail on the head, there. Just as the US economy transitioned years ago from an agrarian to manufacturing, then manufacturing to service-based industry, the new economy is moving from service-based to litigation-based.
You can tell this is happening in my home town (Richmond, VA), as the old 42-floor "Wachovia" bank building had the signs pulled down and is now the "McGuire Woods" (law firm) building. You can tell if you watch TV commercials, too, as the advertising dollars now paying for this (old) media is dominated by the lawyers looking for accident victims and users of certain prescription drugs ("even if you have had no problems from taking them" they say. WTF!?!?).
There are even ancillary businesses springing up. There are now places you can go to get an "advance" on money you think you're going to get from a pending lawsuit, sort of like a tax refund advance. Only these guys claim if you lose your case, you don't have to repay the money...
three federal judges have denied prosecutors the right to get cellphone tracking information from wireless companies without first showing "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.
What have the other judges been doing? They just allow this kind of tracking for no reason, or what?
Cop: "Judge, we want to track these guys by their cell phone."
Judge: "Oh, have they committed a crime?"
Cop: "Well, no, not that I'm aware of."
Judge: "Ah. But you think they're going to commit a crime?"
Cop: "Um. Well, it's possible. But, no real reason to think so, no."
Judge: "Uh-huh. And you want to track their movements because... ??"
Cop: "Well, look, they just seem odd, that's all. They seem, you know, suspicious"
Judge: "Ohhh... Why didn't you say so. Ok, here, I'll sign it"
?!?!?!
Still, just the lyrics is not the entire song. You aren't including the notes, the tempo, the instruments, etc. Even if you did, it would only be a representation of the work (a piece of performance art*, really), not the whole thing. So, you can certainly justify putting up a web page with "ok, I listened to this song on the radio, and here are the lyrics as I understood them" and calling it fair use.
*I use the word "art" loosely, here, as a large percentage of the recordings that the RIAA defends copyrights for is not anything that I would refer to as "art".
No, there are lots of clueless morons like you.
WTF!? Way to protect the interests of your citizens... NOT!
Well, I don't have a makefile per se, but if you are ready for planning a production environment, I would happy to offer you a very reasonable support contract!
I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, here, but the Dead *never* stopped fans from recording from the soundboard (that is, there were plenty of people doing it). This was well into the 80's, and went on long past then, as far as I know.
To be honest, I don't know what side of this I belong on...
Well, look at it this way: In the decision you are referring to, Justice Souter stated that federal regulation of the growing of a plant within single community, and given away (at no cost) to people in that community for private use within that community was justified as interstate commerce and a "legitimate excercise of federal power".
Now, I ask you: given that definition, what activity could possibly be considered as NOT a "legitimate exercise of federal power"? Hmm? Does this mean that there are NO bounds at all?
I think you're wrong about that, and I'll prove it with my Open Source Beer:
Mash grain at 150 degrees in 80 oz. water for 20 minutes. Sparge with 80 oz. water at 170 degrees. Add extract, 1 1/2 oz. Nugget, 2 tsp. gypsum. Add water to about 3 gallons. Bring to a boil. Boil for 15 min., add 1/2 oz Nugget. Boil for 30 minutes, add 1/2 oz Perle. Boil for 15 minutes (total 1 hour boil).
Cool to 75 degrees, then pitch yeast.
Ferment for about 1 week, rack to secondary, add 1 1/2 oz. cascade.
Allow secondary to ferment for about 1 week. Rack to priming bucket, adding about 5 oz. priming sugar (preferred) or dry malt extract. Bottle. Allow about 30 days before refrigeration.
THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.
There you go!
The easy work-around for this is to just rename mypgm.exe to mypgm.renametoexe and then it goes through just fine (zipped or not). But if I'm sending it *TO* a gmail account, I don't even know it got dropped...
An even better choice may be Dogfish Head brewery's 90 Minute IPA. Hops are added to the wort every 1-2 minutes throughout a 90-minute boil (thus the name). Very hoppy, and very strong (but so dry you'll have a hard time drinking to excess).
You mean they started seeing prostitutes after they got married? Or did they just marry a barnyard animal?
And every time I add a bit of hardware or software, or even visit a web site, I get additional advertising added on top. You mean they can actually fit in MORE advertising (without making the whole thing completely useless)?!?! What am I missing, here?
Wow! I can't believe how gullable you are. Tell you what, bud. If you really believe the bullshit congressmen standing up going "We didn't know! Bush lied! He *made* us vote that way! We were deceived!" - then maybe you should vote for somebody less gullable than yourself in the next election.
Yes, one of the best imbecile vs. imbecile segments I've ever seen...
I'm not sure of the term either, but it basically means there should be some negotiation involved. The "negotiation" of "return it if you don't like this" has been deemed acceptable by the 8th Circuit.
I don't know that anyone has actually tried make use of this out, but generally retailers won't honor it. Supposedly, you can ship the package back to the publisher for a refund (probably not to include shipping costs), and they will send you a check in 8-10 weeks (most likely). Whether this actually works is up to debate. The court never heard the argument.
Unfortunately, I doubt they ever will. Courts seem to want to accept "it's *possible* to refuse the agreement" without consideration concerning how *practical* it is for the average consumer.
I think the bnetd case pretty much gives software publishers carte-blanche in restricting what you can do. They held that (1) the EULA was enforceable (2) it removes the consumers rights granted by copyright and DMCA laws (3) The UCC covers the transaction because the software is goods sold (4) the software is licensed, not sold, because the EULA says so.
In short - EULAs are enforceable, even when they are wordy, vague, and contradictory. And, they are contracts since they say "if you don't agree, return this for a refund" - even though there is no realistic way to actually get your money back for opened software.
Maybe - but MS also provides a weirdly bastardized VB for .NET. You should see some of the atrocious code VB programmers come up with... I actually saw this one today (I don't do VB.NET, so I'm paraphrasing):
I shit you not.
Then you are a fool, and since the GPP declined to site evidence, I will do so myself:
That enough for you?
It won't open my XP Pro images... I tried all kinds of configuration changes to the vmc, but always get the same error!
Too bad there are no real clues about how to get it to work - but at least now I know it *can*.
Can't open mine either. It posts an error in the event log about "drive letter not located" or some such. Not helpful at all...