I've been waiting twenty-plus years to find a way to work the "Vegetable Lamb of Tartary" into a conversation.
Umm, you could have approached almost anyone and said "Oh I just love your shirt, what is that material, vegetable lamb?
Of course, the topic to which you replied, obscure names, was much better. My hat is off to you, I couldn't have waited that long. Vegetable lamb just sounds too funny.
Umm, we don't always give people a pass. For convicted child molestors and rapists, the US generally has registries.
Thing here is to decide if Wolfie warrents a pass or not. Since he played a very big role in starting a war that has killed 100,000s, I think not.
I think you're on to something - it comes down to which states/commonwealths have a right to tax a given individual. Physical presence is probably not necessary so long as the individual benefits from the state's or commonwealth's laws. At least three states/commonwealths have a claim that their laws benefit telecommuters: the one in which the telecommuter telecommutes to, the one where the corporations principle place of business is, and the one where the corporation is incorporated.
The state/commonweath where the principle place of business is or the incorporation is will not be able to tax telecommuters who work in and telecommute to other places as such laws would also apply to people who don't telecommute. Too many people would be affected. If the courts wouldn't stop it, Congress would be forced to act.
That leaves the places where people telecommute from and telecommute to (like NY here) who can likely get away with taxing. My guess is too few poeple are in the situation of telecommuting across state/commonwealth lines to cause Congress to act, so it is up to the courts.
I still think that a person telecommuting to another place certainly benefits from the other place's laws, so courts there will have jurisdiction over the person and will enforce the tax laws that apply.
An interesting somewhat parallel case is state/commonwealth taxation of profits. Scotus upheld, IIRC, a CA law taxing corporations with branches in state on their global income.
So honestly, under such a wide view of state/commonwealth taxation rights, why couldn't DE and NY both tax the same individual if one has the incorporation and the other the principle place of business?
Give me the right to vote, and I'll pay your damn taxes. Till then, up yours.
Unfortunately for you, if you telework for a NY company from Arizona, you will likely pay. Under the full faith and credit clause Arizona must give effect to any NY court judgement ordering you to pay back taxes.
I'm thinking scotus would uphold this ruling, so I think your only chance is for the feds to use the commerce clause to stop the practice. Either that, or stop working for a NY company.
As someone who has been a professional researcher, Google is just a tool, it can't be all things for everybody.
As search technology at all the competitors is constantly evolving, you owe it to yourself to occasionally evaluate varous players and get a handle on what they can do and what each do best. Also, do general searches for critique pages to find out about new entrants in searching.
The better your knowledge of what tools are available, the better you can attack any given search you have at hand.
In the early 1900s, a guy named Selmer? patented the Road Steamer, IIRC, which covered everything about the automobile. It was so comprehensive that no one could compete in the car industry without Selmer?'s license. Ford couldn't get one, so he manufactured anyway and fought the patent. In the end, he won and the USPTO withdrew the patent.
Note: I searched for the patent once and couldn't find it.
Hah! In thinking of interesting but unlikely topics, I thought of lawn ornament and was surprised that it didn't exist in Wikipedia yet (with all the fun of pontificating on the tackiness of pink flamingos and gnomes), so I started it. Anyone with good photographs, please help!
It is for reasons like this that I wish Wikipedia had a citations page. It should mirror the actual article, but allow entries of citiations for each and every fact, statement, etc. in the article. Perhaps with footnoting. As the article gets editied, the citation page would reflect this. Editing in the citation page would only be to add/change/delete citations.
As a first order, to many people this would increase the professionalism and believeability of the information, but to those wanting to get to original sources, they would find the inaccuracies, and as interested people, would likely correct the misinformation.
At law school, I saw many talks on Wikipedia where people did this same thing - inserted misinformation and waited to see how long it took to get corrected. In their cases, usually it never got corrected until they corrected it themselves.
That's just a function of the openness of Wikipedia - it comes with the nature of the beast. What I think is the true strength of Wikipedia is that, since there is no central authority deciding what does and what does not deserve an article, many wonderful topics are being treated that never have been before in any encyclopedia - Heavy Metal Umlaut, for examle.
If an ISP starts quashing VoIP traffic (or not handling it properly), consumers will, if it matters to them, move to someone who does things right.
That's part of the point here - if ISPs do it quietly enough, most consumers might not realize it. And for many that do, there's always that service contract - $99 if you stop the service before a year is up, for Verizon, IIRC. $99, I doubt that many will incur this cost in order to switch to a different ISP just for VOIP reasons only.
As for the patent, it would be invalid if the program was published without a "patent-pending" notice a year before the application was filed.
No.
In the US, public publishment of the invention more than 1 year before the application filing is a bar to patentability. See 35 USC 102(b).
What's further, is that the company would have difficulties if the invention claimed in the application was partly the creation of people other than the submitter, even if they have rights to the submitter's work. I mean, these others could grant free licenses for others to use the patent.
it must have hurt to have to register a nasty play on your corporation's name.
Corporations do this alot, to try and avoid good hate site names. Had a Verizon employee in one class, he said they had registered as many as they could think of. But of course they can't get them all. Verizonpathetic.com is in the article. Verizoneatspoop.com is another.
the biggest objection that I've received when suggesting OSS has been "If we reduce our licensing costs, they'll cut our budget for next year!?"
Obvious, but... So $ is saved by installing OSS and thus avoiding licenses. Then, the next year the budget is cut that amount. But again, with no licenses to pay, the cut $ isn't missed.
The only obvious downside is if the office wants to backpedal and repurchase licenses for non-OSS. Seems in such an outcome, the higher ups / accounting types would approve the reincrease of the budget as it is better to have a working department than one that can't due to inappropriate software. But if money can be saved, it seems worth the try.
Seems to me it is likely a rut mentality. Funny, I was listening to a radio program today. NPR maybe. A guy bought a farm, in NY I think, in an area where farmers have been having time staying solvent. He planted lots of crops and let chickens roam them eating the bugs, thus saving on the pesticide bills. The local farmers all watched this closely and saw his success. After the year, he gave (yes gave) the farm back to the original owner. His complaint was that none of the farmers implemented his program. He argued it was because while you can show a person a better way, you can't force their mind open.
A better analogy would be either a) if he lets guests stay over on a semi regular basis (analogy to where he knows his neighbors are using his connection) or b) where he lets his door unlocked and some person uses his apartment somehow without him knowing it (analogy to where he lets his connection open but doesn't know whether it is being used). In fact, the analogy for some people would be if he doesn't even know how to lock his apartment - or doesn't know of a second door which is open (analogy to those people who don't know how to secure their connection). Would he be liable for the activities of the person using his apartment? Depends on the statutory definition of the crime, the specific facts, and his knowledge and degree of looking the other way.
A specific term to not share? If he's doing this in violation of the agreement, then his ISP can terminate the contract.
Whether he is liable for any copyright infringements would fall under contributory infringement analysis. I can't imagine that his guilt of contributory infringement would have any connection to whether he was sharing his connection legally or not.
It has been held that investigators can misrepresent themselves in order to obtain information from citizens. I believe there was one case where a stalker used an investigator to track down a person who he later killed. The mother attempted to have the investigator held liable in that he called her and got information from her because she thought he was some official or whatnot. He was held not liable.
Similarly, law enforcement get confessions sometimes on the basis of misrepresenting what they know or what they can do. And, of course, when they go undercover.
Seems to me these are all variations on a similar theme. If it is to be made illegal for certain forms (on the internet) and for certain people (phishers), it should be illegal for all other forms and people as well. Since undercover police and fbi work will never be outlawed, I think this bill should not be allowed either.
I have an idea - lets protect the data. Give people privacy rights in their own data under certain circumstances. Let us start with the SSN, for example, let's rename it the PTIN (Personal Tax Identification Number), since that is what it is, and pass a federal statute that limits it's use for tax purposes (which the social security tax is), and disallow any business, school, or other party to ask for it unless they have a valid reason (as in they need to report taxable income on a person).
It is great to see patents dedicated to the open source movement. But will they be enforced against others who use them without returning their advancements?
More important, I would think, will they be enforced against others if the others begin to enforce their patents against open source? I.e., between battles of parties with a lot of patents, an often outcome is that the patents are cross-licensed.
I realize a dedication is a great step, but with some activity towards holding open source back due to patent infringement issues. Getting a patent stable would be a counter threat to this.
The coupon printed out in a full page of color. Having just bought an HP color cartridge, I'm wondering if it just isn't cheaper to buy the ice cream directly.
Anyone else think the writing was not too clear at times in the letter? And, to be a spelling nazi, a lawyer should know the difference between tortuous and tortious. I mean, really... that's too funny.
Interestingly enough, I know that Blockbuster, or at least other rental places, have already been sued under class actions for late fee issues. (Did some research on class actions once.)
Perhaps now that Bush has signed the class action reformation bill, corporations will not have to put up with such activism in the face of their honest attempts to make profits.
Have just recently been researching municipal provision of broadband. Kindof strikes close to home, in that I've been shopping around for an ISP I can live with. No matter with whom, to get decent speeds, it seems it will cost what to me is a lot of money each month. Seems one more source of competition could only be helpful.
That said, if the going thing is to prevent governmental operation in this area, then why not be consistent? Lets deregulate the snail mail industry. It's also an information delivery medium. I'm serious, most of the characteristics of modern mail were originally introduced by private mail companies in those few periods of history in which they were able to operate.
It is absolutely absurd that the citizens would be charged money to take pictures in their own damn park!
While I fully agree with you, how is this so different than my being required to pay a fee to swim at my local high school which was funded by local property taxes?
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, you could have approached almost anyone and said "Oh I just love your shirt, what is that material, vegetable lamb?
Of course, the topic to which you replied, obscure names, was much better. My hat is off to you, I couldn't have waited that long. Vegetable lamb just sounds too funny.
Umm, we don't always give people a pass. For convicted child molestors and rapists, the US generally has registries. Thing here is to decide if Wolfie warrents a pass or not. Since he played a very big role in starting a war that has killed 100,000s, I think not.
The state/commonweath where the principle place of business is or the incorporation is will not be able to tax telecommuters who work in and telecommute to other places as such laws would also apply to people who don't telecommute. Too many people would be affected. If the courts wouldn't stop it, Congress would be forced to act.
That leaves the places where people telecommute from and telecommute to (like NY here) who can likely get away with taxing. My guess is too few poeple are in the situation of telecommuting across state/commonwealth lines to cause Congress to act, so it is up to the courts.
I still think that a person telecommuting to another place certainly benefits from the other place's laws, so courts there will have jurisdiction over the person and will enforce the tax laws that apply.
So honestly, under such a wide view of state/commonwealth taxation rights, why couldn't DE and NY both tax the same individual if one has the incorporation and the other the principle place of business?
Unfortunately for you, if you telework for a NY company from Arizona, you will likely pay. Under the full faith and credit clause Arizona must give effect to any NY court judgement ordering you to pay back taxes.
I'm thinking scotus would uphold this ruling, so I think your only chance is for the feds to use the commerce clause to stop the practice. Either that, or stop working for a NY company.
As search technology at all the competitors is constantly evolving, you owe it to yourself to occasionally evaluate varous players and get a handle on what they can do and what each do best. Also, do general searches for critique pages to find out about new entrants in searching.
The better your knowledge of what tools are available, the better you can attack any given search you have at hand.
In the early 1900s, a guy named Selmer? patented the Road Steamer, IIRC, which covered everything about the automobile. It was so comprehensive that no one could compete in the car industry without Selmer?'s license. Ford couldn't get one, so he manufactured anyway and fought the patent. In the end, he won and the USPTO withdrew the patent.
Note: I searched for the patent once and couldn't find it.
Hah! In thinking of interesting but unlikely topics, I thought of lawn ornament and was surprised that it didn't exist in Wikipedia yet (with all the fun of pontificating on the tackiness of pink flamingos and gnomes), so I started it. Anyone with good photographs, please help!
As a first order, to many people this would increase the professionalism and believeability of the information, but to those wanting to get to original sources, they would find the inaccuracies, and as interested people, would likely correct the misinformation.
At law school, I saw many talks on Wikipedia where people did this same thing - inserted misinformation and waited to see how long it took to get corrected. In their cases, usually it never got corrected until they corrected it themselves.
That's just a function of the openness of Wikipedia - it comes with the nature of the beast. What I think is the true strength of Wikipedia is that, since there is no central authority deciding what does and what does not deserve an article, many wonderful topics are being treated that never have been before in any encyclopedia - Heavy Metal Umlaut, for examle.
That's part of the point here - if ISPs do it quietly enough, most consumers might not realize it. And for many that do, there's always that service contract - $99 if you stop the service before a year is up, for Verizon, IIRC. $99, I doubt that many will incur this cost in order to switch to a different ISP just for VOIP reasons only.
No.
In the US, public publishment of the invention more than 1 year before the application filing is a bar to patentability. See 35 USC 102(b).
What's further, is that the company would have difficulties if the invention claimed in the application was partly the creation of people other than the submitter, even if they have rights to the submitter's work. I mean, these others could grant free licenses for others to use the patent.
Yup. (scroll down somewhat.)
Oh, and under gallery 2004, there is a pdf of the top contenders with discussions of the philosophies behind their works.
Especially when I want to brush my teeth. Uggh.
Corporations do this alot, to try and avoid good hate site names. Had a Verizon employee in one class, he said they had registered as many as they could think of. But of course they can't get them all. Verizonpathetic.com is in the article. Verizoneatspoop.com is another.
Obvious, but ... So $ is saved by installing OSS and thus avoiding licenses. Then, the next year the budget is cut that amount. But again, with no licenses to pay, the cut $ isn't missed.
The only obvious downside is if the office wants to backpedal and repurchase licenses for non-OSS. Seems in such an outcome, the higher ups / accounting types would approve the reincrease of the budget as it is better to have a working department than one that can't due to inappropriate software. But if money can be saved, it seems worth the try.
Seems to me it is likely a rut mentality. Funny, I was listening to a radio program today. NPR maybe. A guy bought a farm, in NY I think, in an area where farmers have been having time staying solvent. He planted lots of crops and let chickens roam them eating the bugs, thus saving on the pesticide bills. The local farmers all watched this closely and saw his success. After the year, he gave (yes gave) the farm back to the original owner. His complaint was that none of the farmers implemented his program. He argued it was because while you can show a person a better way, you can't force their mind open.
A specific term to not share? If he's doing this in violation of the agreement, then his ISP can terminate the contract.
Whether he is liable for any copyright infringements would fall under contributory infringement analysis. I can't imagine that his guilt of contributory infringement would have any connection to whether he was sharing his connection legally or not.
Similarly, law enforcement get confessions sometimes on the basis of misrepresenting what they know or what they can do. And, of course, when they go undercover.
Seems to me these are all variations on a similar theme. If it is to be made illegal for certain forms (on the internet) and for certain people (phishers), it should be illegal for all other forms and people as well. Since undercover police and fbi work will never be outlawed, I think this bill should not be allowed either.
I have an idea - lets protect the data. Give people privacy rights in their own data under certain circumstances. Let us start with the SSN, for example, let's rename it the PTIN (Personal Tax Identification Number), since that is what it is, and pass a federal statute that limits it's use for tax purposes (which the social security tax is), and disallow any business, school, or other party to ask for it unless they have a valid reason (as in they need to report taxable income on a person).
More important, I would think, will they be enforced against others if the others begin to enforce their patents against open source? I.e., between battles of parties with a lot of patents, an often outcome is that the patents are cross-licensed.
I realize a dedication is a great step, but with some activity towards holding open source back due to patent infringement issues. Getting a patent stable would be a counter threat to this.
The coupon printed out in a full page of color. Having just bought an HP color cartridge, I'm wondering if it just isn't cheaper to buy the ice cream directly.
Anyone else think the writing was not too clear at times in the letter? And, to be a spelling nazi, a lawyer should know the difference between tortuous and tortious. I mean, really ... that's too funny.
Perhaps now that Bush has signed the class action reformation bill, corporations will not have to put up with such activism in the face of their honest attempts to make profits.
That said, if the going thing is to prevent governmental operation in this area, then why not be consistent? Lets deregulate the snail mail industry. It's also an information delivery medium. I'm serious, most of the characteristics of modern mail were originally introduced by private mail companies in those few periods of history in which they were able to operate.
While I fully agree with you, how is this so different than my being required to pay a fee to swim at my local high school which was funded by local property taxes?
The more who write, the better chance we have to successfully fight this.