"Why should the wheel be created. I am watching the TV debates and hearing about "job creators", which I guess are rich people. Then I watch birds flying around and realize they don't need anyone or anything to create jobs for them, they are self-sufficient. It's the majority of humans who in are social structure are dependent on these wealthy "job creators" to create jobs so that they can survive. A bizarre concept which early hunter-gatherers didn't have to worry about either - they were as free as birds in being self-sufficient and not dependent on these technology-empowered "job creators". No wonder the wheel wasn't invented for so many years."
These days the so-called "job creators" (with the help of the government) control or destroy so much natural resources that now most of us have to work for them to survive. From overfishing to toxic dumping to deforestation and land ownership and zoning, there isn't enough left for most people to live free as hunter-gatherers anymore.
If the hard drive was sold as new and had somebody's data on it, that's a strong case against Newegg.
But this is a used hard drive, and it's not Newegg's responsibility to wipe it unless they're advertising that it's been wiped. Newegg's responsibility is just to test it to see that it works (and fix it if necessary) before selling it as refurbished. Wiping the data is the responsibility of the previous owner of the hard drive.
Having said that, it would be a good idea for them to at least do a quickformat before selling it.
"I have no idea if the defendant REALLY can't remember the password or not. The only person who could possibly know for sure is the defendant."
And even she might not know for sure at this point. She can have a password in her mind, but when she tries it she finds that it doesn't work. After all, she hasn't used the particular computer in 2 years.
Copyrighted music is different because you're actually creating an original sequence of sound, whereas with photography of public domain objects you're capturing something that's already there.
If you're going to mention music, a better analogy would be recording something musical that is already in nature, like the mating calls of birds. Somebody else going into the same forest to record the same birds shouldn't have to be blocked by copyright just because somebody else was there to record it first.
That 2007 ruling was appealed by the govt., and the appeals court determined that he could be forced to reveal it because the customs officer had already seen the illegal contents. The computer was on and the encrypted partition was already mounted when the laptop was inspected at the border, but after it was restarted the government was unable to see the contents of the encrypted partition.
... down to 5 or 10 days after publication, and it wouldn't kill the incentives of journalists to research and write the articles, or of newspapers to publish them. Nearly all of their monetary value is realized in the first 48 hours after publication.
Cutting the copyright short would also make it easier for newspapers to make their archives of old articles available. In America some newspapers get cockblocked by journalists suing to collect royalties again on years-old articles just because the article is republished in a different medium.
"Sidenote: thanks to "Obamacare" it is much easier for kids to stay on their parents health insurance plan to an older age (26 I think?), which is great if (A) your parent has a job with health insurance and (B) putting you on your parents plan doesn't cost more than you and your parent can afford."
There is also the aspect of preexisting conditions. Somebody who picked up a major illness or injury while covered under their parent's policy would get rejected whenever they try to get a policy on their own, as the insurers would regard their illness/injury as a preexisting condition. Raising the age cutoff to 26 gives them more time to get a job that's good enough to offer health benefits (since employer group policies don't reject individual employees for preexisting conditions).
However, I think it would have been better to have a lower cutoff like 22, but make it illegal for insurers to disqualify for preexisting conditions when an individual is converting from dependent coverage to their own individual policy.
Those links don't include anything about the intensity of sunlight, which is a very important factor in generating electricity from solar. They probably can generate more electricity per acre than US cities that have more clear hours of sunlight.
"My global company (for example) doesn't differentiate pay geographically in the US because they claim they are competing "nationwide" for professional talent."
That's dumb. They forget that location is part of the competitive criteria. An offer for $90K in New York City is generally much less appealing than $90K in Atlanta, unless the candidate has particular ties to either area.
90% of $1 apps are crap. So you have to spend $10 to get one good app.
People are not agonizing over just $1; they're agonizing over having to spend $1 ten times and the time to download and evaluate ten apps to find a good one.
Some sites use Javascript to display what is semi-static data that should be assembled on the server side before transmitting to the user. For example, a news site where the stories are loaded by Javascript.
Some sites even have pages that are entirely blank if Javascript is turned off. It seems that some of these "web programmers" don't even know how to dynamically build a page with server-side scripting instead of Javascript.
"It isn't evil. Corporations exist to make money. Therefore, they'll make money however they can. This is entirely allowed by our patent system and isn't evil at all. Neither is faking a pass and then running the ball right down the middle."
Being legal doesn't mean it's not evil. If the government made it legal for corporations to hire hit-men to kill their competitors' employees, it's still evil if anybody that does it.
The patent system as currently structured allows for a legalized form of extortion. Which is evil.
He didn't get a real science degree. His Bachelor of Science degree was in education. And his Master's degrees are in education and educational psychology.
To avoid that nagging Windows message about formatting encrypted USB drives, don't use encrypted partitions. Just format it as FAT or NTFS, then create a big encrypted container file on it.
The more reputable offshore software development companies in India charge their clients $20-$35/hour. The programmers only get about $5/hour out of that, but the cost of overheads in India (e.g. electricity, running water, office real estate, computer hardware and software, Internet bandwidth etc.) is often more expensive than in the US. So if an Indian company is charging just $14/hr, either their programmers or infrastructure or both will seriously lack quality.
Of course you have the right to your own creations. You write a book or build a widget, you have the right to keep that specific book or widget and do whatever you want with it.
But when you want to take it a step further and use government force to block other people from making similar books or widgets using their own tools and materials on their own land, that's not a property right, that's a ban on certain uses of other people's property.
"By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property."
No. If I own a pen and a piece of paper, that pen and paper is my property, and that includes the right to write whatever I want on that paper. If somebody steps in and with government force they tell me I can't write certain sequences of words on it because they have a copyright on those sequences of words, they're banning specific uses of my property. That doesn't imply those words are anybody's property, it's just a ban. Like a ban on smoking in certain areas, or a ban saying that white SUVs cannot be driven on Sunday.
That's not to say that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist altogether. Heck, I'm a software developer and what I create needs copyright protection. I'm saying copyrights and patents are not property, they're bans. It just happens that the industries that profit from copyrights and patents have been successful in drumming the phrase "intellectual property" into society's collective heads so that they can leverage concepts from physical property to get laws that expand the reach of copyrights and patents.
What if they don't pay? GEMA would have to take them to court, right? Is a judge really going to make them pay, without GEMA pointing out even a single song played at the event that infringed one of their artists' copyright? Is there any precedent for that in Germany?
"No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy."
Copyrights aren't property rights. Copyrights are nothing but anti-property rights, telling people what they can't print/sing/say/play/etc. with their own hands and mouths and tools in their own house or place of business. Copyright law is a massive infringement of property rights.
Predictability isn't a good thing when it's based on biases. Suppose the court always rules against black men who appealed death sentences, but always granted clemency for white men who did the same.
Predictability based on looking at the Constitution would be a good thing. But predictability based on looking at which president appointed which justice is predictable bias, which is undesirable for a court.
More precisely, it shows the benefit of them not having to run for reappointment or reelection. Lifetime appointment isn't necessary to accomplish that -- instead of lifetime they could be appointed for one fixed-length term of (for example) 18 years.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why should the wheel be created. I am watching the TV debates and hearing about "job creators", which I guess are rich people. Then I watch birds flying around and realize they don't need anyone or anything to create jobs for them, they are self-sufficient. It's the majority of humans who in are social structure are dependent on these wealthy "job creators" to create jobs so that they can survive. A bizarre concept which early hunter-gatherers didn't have to worry about either - they were as free as birds in being self-sufficient and not dependent on these technology-empowered "job creators". No wonder the wheel wasn't invented for so many years."
These days the so-called "job creators" (with the help of the government) control or destroy so much natural resources that now most of us have to work for them to survive. From overfishing to toxic dumping to deforestation and land ownership and zoning, there isn't enough left for most people to live free as hunter-gatherers anymore.
If the hard drive was sold as new and had somebody's data on it, that's a strong case against Newegg.
But this is a used hard drive, and it's not Newegg's responsibility to wipe it unless they're advertising that it's been wiped. Newegg's responsibility is just to test it to see that it works (and fix it if necessary) before selling it as refurbished. Wiping the data is the responsibility of the previous owner of the hard drive.
Having said that, it would be a good idea for them to at least do a quickformat before selling it.
"I have no idea if the defendant REALLY can't remember the password or not. The only person who could possibly know for sure is the defendant."
And even she might not know for sure at this point. She can have a password in her mind, but when she tries it she finds that it doesn't work. After all, she hasn't used the particular computer in 2 years.
Except that the mass gained by him was transferred from the food that he ate, and not created from outer space.
Bringing in one species to eliminate another tends to result in the newly introduced species becoming the invasive one.
Copyrighted music is different because you're actually creating an original sequence of sound, whereas with photography of public domain objects you're capturing something that's already there.
If you're going to mention music, a better analogy would be recording something musical that is already in nature, like the mating calls of birds. Somebody else going into the same forest to record the same birds shouldn't have to be blocked by copyright just because somebody else was there to record it first.
That 2007 ruling was appealed by the govt., and the appeals court determined that he could be forced to reveal it because the customs officer had already seen the illegal contents. The computer was on and the encrypted partition was already mounted when the laptop was inspected at the border, but after it was restarted the government was unable to see the contents of the encrypted partition.
... the ships can use the gaiy instead.
... down to 5 or 10 days after publication, and it wouldn't kill the incentives of journalists to research and write the articles, or of newspapers to publish them. Nearly all of their monetary value is realized in the first 48 hours after publication.
Cutting the copyright short would also make it easier for newspapers to make their archives of old articles available. In America some newspapers get cockblocked by journalists suing to collect royalties again on years-old articles just because the article is republished in a different medium.
"Sidenote: thanks to "Obamacare" it is much easier for kids to stay on their parents health insurance plan to an older age (26 I think?), which is great if (A) your parent has a job with health insurance and (B) putting you on your parents plan doesn't cost more than you and your parent can afford."
There is also the aspect of preexisting conditions. Somebody who picked up a major illness or injury while covered under their parent's policy would get rejected whenever they try to get a policy on their own, as the insurers would regard their illness/injury as a preexisting condition. Raising the age cutoff to 26 gives them more time to get a job that's good enough to offer health benefits (since employer group policies don't reject individual employees for preexisting conditions).
However, I think it would have been better to have a lower cutoff like 22, but make it illegal for insurers to disqualify for preexisting conditions when an individual is converting from dependent coverage to their own individual policy.
Those links don't include anything about the intensity of sunlight, which is a very important factor in generating electricity from solar. They probably can generate more electricity per acre than US cities that have more clear hours of sunlight.
"My global company (for example) doesn't differentiate pay geographically in the US because they claim they are competing "nationwide" for professional talent."
That's dumb. They forget that location is part of the competitive criteria. An offer for $90K in New York City is generally much less appealing than $90K in Atlanta, unless the candidate has particular ties to either area.
Professors are not allowed to collect royalties for books sold at the same college where they teach.
90% of $1 apps are crap. So you have to spend $10 to get one good app.
People are not agonizing over just $1; they're agonizing over having to spend $1 ten times and the time to download and evaluate ten apps to find a good one.
Some sites use Javascript to display what is semi-static data that should be assembled on the server side before transmitting to the user. For example, a news site where the stories are loaded by Javascript.
Some sites even have pages that are entirely blank if Javascript is turned off. It seems that some of these "web programmers" don't even know how to dynamically build a page with server-side scripting instead of Javascript.
"It isn't evil. Corporations exist to make money. Therefore, they'll make money however they can. This is entirely allowed by our patent system and isn't evil at all. Neither is faking a pass and then running the ball right down the middle."
Being legal doesn't mean it's not evil. If the government made it legal for corporations to hire hit-men to kill their competitors' employees, it's still evil if anybody that does it.
The patent system as currently structured allows for a legalized form of extortion. Which is evil.
He didn't get a real science degree. His Bachelor of Science degree was in education. And his Master's degrees are in education and educational psychology.
Tests from 2005 to 2007 are available at http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatrelease.asp
To avoid that nagging Windows message about formatting encrypted USB drives, don't use encrypted partitions. Just format it as FAT or NTFS, then create a big encrypted container file on it.
The more reputable offshore software development companies in India charge their clients $20-$35/hour. The programmers only get about $5/hour out of that, but the cost of overheads in India (e.g. electricity, running water, office real estate, computer hardware and software, Internet bandwidth etc.) is often more expensive than in the US. So if an Indian company is charging just $14/hr, either their programmers or infrastructure or both will seriously lack quality.
Of course you have the right to your own creations. You write a book or build a widget, you have the right to keep that specific book or widget and do whatever you want with it.
But when you want to take it a step further and use government force to block other people from making similar books or widgets using their own tools and materials on their own land, that's not a property right, that's a ban on certain uses of other people's property.
"By claiming that copyrights are anti-property rights - therefore an infringement of property rights - your argument logically has to consider the material that copyrights cover as property."
No. If I own a pen and a piece of paper, that pen and paper is my property, and that includes the right to write whatever I want on that paper. If somebody steps in and with government force they tell me I can't write certain sequences of words on it because they have a copyright on those sequences of words, they're banning specific uses of my property. That doesn't imply those words are anybody's property, it's just a ban. Like a ban on smoking in certain areas, or a ban saying that white SUVs cannot be driven on Sunday.
That's not to say that copyrights and patents shouldn't exist altogether. Heck, I'm a software developer and what I create needs copyright protection. I'm saying copyrights and patents are not property, they're bans. It just happens that the industries that profit from copyrights and patents have been successful in drumming the phrase "intellectual property" into society's collective heads so that they can leverage concepts from physical property to get laws that expand the reach of copyrights and patents.
What if they don't pay? GEMA would have to take them to court, right? Is a judge really going to make them pay, without GEMA pointing out even a single song played at the event that infringed one of their artists' copyright? Is there any precedent for that in Germany?
"No, I think you're wrong. Property rights are a requisite to a functioning democracy."
Copyrights aren't property rights. Copyrights are nothing but anti-property rights, telling people what they can't print/sing/say/play/etc. with their own hands and mouths and tools in their own house or place of business. Copyright law is a massive infringement of property rights.
Predictability isn't a good thing when it's based on biases. Suppose the court always rules against black men who appealed death sentences, but always granted clemency for white men who did the same.
Predictability based on looking at the Constitution would be a good thing. But predictability based on looking at which president appointed which justice is predictable bias, which is undesirable for a court.
More precisely, it shows the benefit of them not having to run for reappointment or reelection. Lifetime appointment isn't necessary to accomplish that -- instead of lifetime they could be appointed for one fixed-length term of (for example) 18 years.