Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
All that means is that we were one of the major countries in the alliance that defeated Adolph Hitler. Nothing more. The United Nations is only the "allies" that formed to defeat fascism, and the people involved in the alliance decided to make that alliance permanent. The UN was born in war, and unfortunately there has been a bandwagon effect where everybody else in the world jumped in to give the organization a little more legitimacy.
The role of being a permanent member of the security council only means you have nukes to throw around as well (all five members have them and in numbers as well as delivery systems to make a mess of things). The only reason the rest of the world gives a damn is those nukes as well as the fact those countries also have large enough military organizations that you can't screw them over without a big fight. Is that really a reason to give somebody special privileges?
it certainly doesn't give any sort of "world policeman" title that you were a major military power to defeat the Nazi Party. Big whooping deal.
Here is a question: What the hell is going on in Syria? So far as I can see it is one group of idiots who are being destructive and killing innocent people attacking another group of stupid idiots who are also being destructive and killing innocent people, with a whole bunch of people who have no voice at all caught in the middle not knowing what the hell is going on and just trying to get out of the way.
There is no "righteous side" in this conflict, and indeed I see the current role of the U.S. government in this whole mess as just being a catalyst to cause even more death and destruction by supplying arms and "training" to various people on both sides of the conflict. Yes, both sides are getting these arms and training. Russia is doing the same damn thing as are other military powers.
Heck, this whole mess could even be considered a clean-up operation from World War I where the French failed to be responsible for their jurisdiction over Syria when it was their colony. At least if you want to get into historic roles, nearly every former French colony is quite screwed up, so why should Syria be any different?
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
Note: The judges of the FISA court are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to become federal judges in the first place... and serve in other positions in the federal judiciary, but their appointment to the FISA court itself is done by the Chief Justice. A minor triviality that still is stupid, but they are appointed and confirmed in a normal constitutional process to become judges in the first place as serving on the FISA court is seen as a "committee" and not a "real court" from a farcical constitutional perspective. (aka a court that really isn't a court)
Technically all you need for getting a search warrant is to have any federal judge (for at least federal prosecutors or law enforcement officers of any kind) agree to the search. Obviously those in law enforcement know of judges who are friendly to their viewpoint, and it is a common corruption on all levels of government in America to have police short-circuit the whole 4th amendment process by running to judges who are friendly to give out warrants for almost any cause the police (FBI, NSA, whatever) want. Police officers do this also with state courts and state judges as well quite frequently.
The FISA Court doesn't handle any actual judicial cases, which is where the rationale and justification for its role in the judiciary happens. Theoretically, they can also be overridden by the U.S. Supreme Court itself, but good luck on seeing that happen. I'm not justifying this abomination of a legal body, but I can see how members of congress sort of skirted around the constitutional procedures to get this to happen.
Interesting. I wonder how the Chief Justice can live with himself appointing such judges when that is clearly an unconstitutional act in and of itself? The more I hear about the FISA court, the more I hate it.
Heck, Congress didn't even have the authority to even pass such legislation in the first place. Of course unconstitutional legislation doesn't really matter to those guys, or to the judicial system itself either. It still boils down to the fact that the American people are no longer citizens but rather subjects. That is also an authority that the founders and authors of the Constitution of 1787 never intended to give to the Chief Justice.
For crying out loud, Congress has to confirm every 2nd Lieutenant, Ensign, and Postmaster of Podunksville. Why they gave up their role in confirming justices to this court is beyond stupid. Hell, how do these FISA judges even have any sort of legitimacy of any kind?
It's interesting to learn about Snowden's eating pizza. It's exciting to know he's successfully evading getting caught.
But the NSA is violating the Constitution, the executive branch is stepping on the gas to increase it, the legislative branch is asleep at the wheel, the judicial branch is represented by a few rubber stampers appointed by a Chief Justice who I don't think has the public's interests at heart, the fourth estate is facing persecution like never before, and the citizens are so materially comfortable they don't do anything.
Except for the last part in regards to the citizens, I agree with you.
Note also that the Chief Justice has very little actual authority except deciding very minor things that can also be overturned by the other justices... he is just the "first among equals" and his only real additional authority is to preside over the U.S. Senate in cases of impeachment of the President or Vice-President of the US.... and even that doesn't give him a vote since it requires a 2/3rd vote to accomplish anything in that situation other than for minor procedural and parliamentary rule issues. The Chief Justice also has the privilege by custom of being able to write the concurring or dissenting opinion (depending on his vote) for rulings made by the court. Then again, any justice can write such an opinion even if the the Chief Justice writes one too, so that is even minor. All judges are also appointed not by the Chief Justice, but by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). All the Chief Justice appoints are law clerks, staff, and having an influence on who is "admitted to the bar" and able to argue cases before the court.
As for why citizens are apathetic about what is happening to the American government, it has nothing to do with the luxury lifestyle (or lack thereof) they are enjoying. The problem is that citizens no longer have any influence on their government and even elections themselves don't matter. The whole thing with regards to elections is that the whole system is corrupt. A video I saw recently (it isn't that new of a video) sort of explains the problem here:
I don't know if the solution presented here will work, but it is an interesting idea by itself. I certainly come from a different political perspective than the presenter, but completely agree with his conclusions on this particular matter.
If you want a UK equivalent to this, a cold version of Burning Man would be like getting 50k people all going to Rockall and setting up a temporary city there for two weeks. I guess Blackrock City is a little bit larger, but the government services of the area are about the same and just as inhospitable for that many people.
Thank you. I hope people won't reply to you with "but of course 911 service works at Burning Man!" like they've been replying to me.... The point is that there's already an extremely good and tested system in place that doesn't depend on cellphones.
That is not what you were bitching about. Your complaint was that the local Sheriff's office wouldn't have a clue about the location of Burning Man, which was a flat out lie and you needed to be called out for fabricating that lie.
Yes, of course you don't "need" to use a cell phone. Police and EMTs got to places and helped out well before cell phones were invented, heck even before telephones or radios were invented. I'm impressed that the Burning Man organizers realize that when you get 30k people together, sometimes shit happens and you need some help. Frankly the whole thing is amazing in terms of organizing any sort of event with that degree of logistics in one of the most inhospitable places in the world that might as well be on Mars. In fact, I think working out the logistics to set up a colony on Mars might even be easier.
If you hate the cell phones, state that and be on your way. I think you are full of it to think that way, but I will let you have your opinion on the matter and not try to convince you otherwise other than to state I have come to another conclusion about the matter. The Open BTS guys think that way too and don't give a damn about what others think other than to stay out of their way at the Burning Man.
I take it you haven't RTFA. Try it sometime. Especially the OpenBTS stuff where the cell phone network is being run by participants at the Burning Man festival.
Most of what you think would be interesting or cool is in fact being done there. The guys running the cell phone network are just a bunch of geeks who think cell phone technology should be something more than what big corporations are cramming down your throat, and are doing some really interesting things with it.
When you connect to the OpenBTS network, you are assigned a "new number" that is intended to be used only internally. Phone calls are limited to 5 minutes in length, and incoming phone calls only get through for people who you've personally placed an outgoing phone call (presumably because it is likely a child/parent/sibling or significant other that you are worried about and want to have then call you back).
They do provide network (aka internet) access, but that is very limited as well.
I don't know about the other fun stuff, but the developers of this network said they included several "Easter eggs" in the system as well just for fun. The software they are using is open sourced and has been used in places other than the Burning Man as well. That is the part I'm even more impressed with, as they are using their experiences at Burning Man to not only better themselves, but to help the rest of the world as well and giving back the rest of the year too.
Funny thing, Elon Musk has several patents to his name. Look them up in the USPTO database if you don't believe me. I thought you had to actually design something in order to be credited with a patent. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Are you really sure he wasn't involved in the actual design part of the engineering here?
Yes, he also hires other engineers. His companies are far too big for him to do that all by himself. I'll also admit that even skilled engineers who end up getting "kicked upstairs" to become management (usually because they are so good that it is time to pick *somebody* to be manager and it might as well be the one with the best skills at the job) usually end up wasting most of their time doing administrative stuff rather than actual engineering/coding/getting hands dirty really making things. None the less, Elon Musk has been doing some actual design, even if he isn't doing all of the details himself. He sure as hell is sitting in the brainstorming sessions with the other engineers when they are coming up with all of the alternatives and Musk has been making the final big decisions on where to go after the appropriate feedback. That is sort of how engineering management works.
Besides, I have never seen Elon Musk fail to give credit to the other guys who are helping him out. He may be a brutal taskmaster and somebody who you don't want to slack off when he is anywhere nearby, but he has gone out of his way to know everything about the companies he is building and how all of the things work.
I certainly wouldn't want to challenge Elon Musk to take a Saturday (or some day of the week when the plant is otherwise shut down) and try to personally build a Tesla Model S by himself with maybe just a couple of people helping him out as he moves down the production line. He might even be able to pull that one off.
I'll agree that there are managers who really never learned engineering in the first place and mostly have an MBA, thus they were put in charge. Elon Musk just isn't one of those kind of managers though. Are you one of those people who insists that Werner Von Braun didn't design the Saturn V rocket? Or that Sergei Korolev had nothing to do with the design of the Vostock nor Soyuz rockets and was just some politician put in charge by the Politburo taking credit for the whole project?
I think the OP was commenting on what the masses want/need, not what Musk needs to do to get rich.
Do you think he really cares? He wants to do some cool stuff like build electric automobiles, and open a franchise on Mars so he can retire there in style. While he is at it, he wouldn't mind a few thousand other people joining him there too, mainly so he doesn't have to do all of the heavy lifting once he arrives on the red planet.
It sounds like a few people posting here on Slashdot wouldn't mind packing his bags to get rid of him too.
The OpenBTS guys also had the amazing luck (at least when they started) that the area of the Burning Man festival (Blackrock City) didn't have any commercial cell phone providers in the area, so the FCC was a whole lot more forgiving. The technical details include the actual FCC license for the event. Yes, they were and are licensed to perform this activity. These guys are real pros at doing this kind of thing, especially since they've been doing it for several years now.
When you're in the middle of nowhere, you aren't covered by anyone's 911 service. If the dispatcher didn't know about Burning Man, they might call out search & rescue I guess.
First of all, I don't know anywhere in North America where you aren't covered by some sort of government agency that provides emergency services. The Burning Man festival in particular has the attention of the local sheriff's office as well as area medical clinics and even hospitals that are... well at least "nearby" so far as any real emergency services are concerned. Some parts of North America might require a couple hour response and the dispatcher might just say "live with it" in some cases, but if a real life threatening emergency happened even in the remote Yellowstone wilderness or northern Alaska, you had better believe that somebody can get to you sooner or later.
Furthermore, the festival itself has its own security and medical corps (mostly volunteer) who are there to help out and can resolve most emergencies. It is utter bullshit to say that those who would receive such a call (and it is covered by the OpenBTS guys who do respond to 911 calls made on the system... they have made provisions just for that situation) would have no clue where to send those emergency services. I also promise that the local dispatchers who are there for the other 51 weeks of the year know exactly where the Burning Man festival is located at, and even know the major areas of the festival.
911 made on the OpenBTS systems goes to volunteers who dispatch the appropriate response, usually with the festival security guys. 911 made on the commercial services goes to the sheriff's office, who then usually contacts the festival security as well to coordinate a response. When you get 30,000 people together anywhere, the local law enforcement damn well knows what is going on and how to get there, especially for an annual event like this, even if it is what you might call "in the middle of nowhere". "That is not in my area" would not be said at all, ever.
The OpenBTS blog goes into some details about their system, although it will take some reading.
I am saying that the pension plans once upon a time were more than adequately funded, and furthermore those funds were untouchable and couldn't be spent on other things (like bonuses for CEOs or board members).
Unfortunately the U.S. Congress got involved and screwed it up. Congress changed the rules and basically turned all of these pensions into "free money" that could be spent wildly and changed the guidelines. If anything, I would dare say that when these rules changed, this is when CEOs started to have a salary inflation and pensions started to run dry. All for the sake of a few campaign contributions where those politicians also got a piece of the pension pie as it were cutting ordinary workers out to be left holding the bag with no retirement benefits as the pension disappeared.
The blame isn't CEOs... at least directly. I do blame the politicians who permitted this and the notion that "improved regulations" somehow were better. Just beware that any legislation changing commerce laws likely screws over ordinary people.
...(including noting what software I used to create the video)...
I've never uploaded anything to Youtube, but what does it matter what software you used to make your video?
As weird as it sounds, if you use some software to produce copyrightable content (computer software, music, movies, etc.), the author/publisher of that software has a claim upon your work. People who produce such software would wisely add a license that permits unlimited use of anything you make with that software, but none the less there is a copyright claim to be made.
Strangely this claim was originally asserted by compiler developers who established a precedence that they had a copyright claim upon any software produced by their compiler. Other kinds of copyrighted content also have this same problem. YouTube appreciates you noting every possible claimant of copyright upon anything you upload, and your demonstration that you have clearance and licenses for reusing that content.
Admittedly it isn't something that copyright trolls typically go after at the moment, but it is something of concern. By at least acknowledging that software, particularly for stuff that is GPL'd software, it is also a good karmic thing to do by giving back to those who have helped you out... especially if you include things like URLs and kudos to project leads or specific developers. I'm not really certain that you legally need to go that far, but I think it is a good thing and the better YouTubers who have done that are people I admire as well. Besides, what harm is there to spend another 5-10 seconds on a video thanking people who have produced software that is helpful to you? Furthermore, I don't mind showing those who are watching my videos that they can use that same software for their own purposes and make videos just like me with relatively low cost.
You miss the point. It isn't the length of the clip but rather how it is being used. There are other factors involved.
The point is these administrators and non-lawyers are trying to be lawyers and are in effect passing legislation and changing the law into something it simply isn't. I'll also point out that one thing lawyers almost never do is say "this is legal". They always hedge their bets and say "this could be illegal" or "this likely is legal". Part of that is because judges and juries are made of people that sometimes make arbitrary decisions that seemingly have no consistency at all sometimes. There are always exceptions to exceptions and one of the reasons why lawyers get paid good money for what they do.
Welcome to the real world. There is a reason why even for something that should be quite simple (the basic part of the fair-use section of copyright code is really just a couple paragraphs long) actually ends up being a whole library of books all to itself and could fill a bookshelf. The problem here is dogmatically asserting that the 30 second rule is the law when it isn't, in spite of claims like the GP post above that asserts the 30 second rule is a part of the law.
They weren't really underfunded. The rules covering pension plans got screwed over in the 1980's when companies were allowed to co-mingle funds from pensions or be able to set unrealistically low minimum requirements and then take the excess. This turned into a corporate merger mania where a "leveraged buy out" became a common term where many companies were purchased explicitly so their pension funds could be taken and used to pay off any loans used to acquire the stock to buy the companies in the first place.
That pretty much emptied any of the larger pension funds. Furthermore, additional work rules and tweaks in tax laws (usually written to "soak the rich") made what was left of pension funds to be abandoned and encouraged companies to completely abandon them as an employee benefit.
There are a number of musicians who still get screwed over by the major record labels, even if they haven't made their millions. Sometimes all they do is simply play songs perhaps for a wedding or bar mitzvah and then jam in a local park for fun most of the time.... and they still are required to pay fees to ASCAP or other similar "industry groups" even if they are performing original music they wrote themselves.
Life sucks sometimes, and it is hard to be a musician in America or even most of Europe right now and avoid getting entangled with the music industry at some level.
The problem wasn't the law, as the law itself was the thing being challenged in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The law was very specific with regards to how many years would pass before copyright was expired.
Also note the constitutional restriction on the laws, and what authority Congress had to pass the law:
The Congress shall have Power To:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
-- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that meant Congress could essentially make that limited time the heat death of the universe minus one day and would still therefore be "limited". It would eventually pass into the public domain, therefore this part of the constitution would be satisfied.
Yeah, it is stupid. Even worse, and the part of this case that really mattered, was the retroactive nature of the legislation that made things which would have expired and passed into the public domain to suddenly have the newer and longer copyright terms apply. Funny thing about that is this section of the Constitution:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
- Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3
The Supreme Court in this situation basically said that ex post facto laws can indeed be passed... as long as it covers copyrighted content.
The whole opinion turns my stomach. At least a couple of the judges saw there was a serious problem here. To solve this situation will take getting Congress to see that this situation is stupid, but they don't seem to care about the Constitution either.
If Lawrence Lessig is known as a failure on this case, it is a pretty epic failure and I think in the long run he will be on the righteous side of history. I certainly wouldn't complain if he was the representing counsel who lost Dred Scott v. Sandford, and I personally think SCOTUS did nearly the same kind of screw up as that case too, even if it was "just a copyright case".
Try to read the dissenting opinions in that case too. They are pretty powerful stuff, and with the kind of split decision made by SCOTUS, it definitely opens an opportunity for the concept to be revisited and the decision overturned in a future case. I'd call that something huge, even if it is just a modest victory after a fashion.
I'd also say that if Lessig ends up back in the Supreme Court, particular on this issue, he will be much better prepared and just nail the case. I seriously doubt he will even get that far as I think a federal judge is going to be doing a major smack down in this situation.
The 30 second rule is based upon some case law (numerous cases here) that have basically said that 30 seconds or 10% of a work clearly is on the righteous side of fair-use. In other words, if you are using about that amount of material, you are clearly doing something legal and any lawyer claiming otherwise should have their head smacked real hard by a judge and be told to sit in a corner to shut up. Ditto for the 300 word rule used for printed works.
It says nothing about the 31 second penalty that you are claiming here. It just means you are moving into grey areas where you need to be much more careful about what could be considered copyright infringement. Obviously there are people without a clue in regards to copyright law in the form of school administrators or other kinds of people that get bent out of shape when one of their employees, faculty, or even students tries to push the boundaries a little bit. No intelligent lawyer would dare claim that a 31 second clip where that extra second actually conveys some important information (thus why it still needs to be included) is in violation of copyright just because it is 31 seconds long and not 30.
Unfortunately school administrators and sometimes bosses can be anal and do all sorts of nasty things to you like get you fired or otherwise be jerks "because my lawyers said this is the law, thus it is". If these organizations have a no exception policy, they are just being stupid about this idea too.
Fair Use doesn't specify what percentage is ok. In some cases 100% of the original can still be fair use.
The situations that permit 100% content reuse are pretty narrow and typically fall under either personal fair use (it is legal to make personal copies of something you own as long as you don't give it to somebody else) or educational (such as a teacher making a hand-out in a classroom or showing a video to the class). These applications also have all kinds of weird exceptions to exceptions and is a minefield to walk through if you aren't careful. A great many times I've seen assertions of fair-use privileges claimed on YouTube and on web pages that simply don't even remotely apply.
Wikipedia used to be awful in some situations until some of the more clueful editors started to crack down on the situation and narrow the scope of permitted fair use considerably. I think they've gone too far in that regard in reaction to the previous loose standards, but that is another fight elsewhere. Most of the time when you see somebody who has copied something 100%, either they have an explicit license to make that copy or they are ignorant (perhaps willfully ignorant) of the laws involved.
The largest problem I've ever had on YouTube is having the commercials and banner ads stripped off of a video because I didn't include proper links to where I obtained licensing for supposed copyrighted content. Basically I had to cite everything or clearly claim that all of the content I was producing was original. By making those citations (including noting what software I used to create the video), YouTube didn't have a problem and accepted my videos.
Yeah, YouTube does have the system to put things back up in a copyright dispute, although I am going to treasure Lessig's reply as precisely what should be sent in response if I feel I have not violated copyright. I'm usually very careful about copyright infringement and prefer music and other content that is available under an open source license of some sort. I'm glad that YouTube makes you go through the hoops on stuff like that, as it really does make my videos a little more professional as well. Besides, the guys who stuff I'm using in this manner deserve credit for the effort they made that I reused... and I'm very careful about making sure I'm using a license that permits commercial reuse as well.
IAs it's not clear how long the clip was or how it was used (was it the subject of the lecture? was it background music? Was it intro music?) we're probably missing the most important facts. Fair use doesn't mean you get free backing or intro music, for it to be fair use, there has to be original content involving that song.
You ought to read the actual complaint. Lessig went over every single one of your points in detail, including how it was used, how long it was used, and went point by point over the Fair Use Doctrine about why his use of the clips were very clearly fair-use.
He even went further to state that Liberation Music has lawyers who are well versed in copyright law and practice that particular specialty of law on a full time basis, thus they should also be well versed in the fair-use doctrine in particular (or be made fools in front of a judge for their decided lack of knowledge in regards to that topic). Essentially, he wants to teach these guys an expensive lesson in copyright law and have a judge be the lecturer.
I would say every single complaint you have made here is based off of your own ignorance, not anything that Mr. Lessig failed to provide. Frankly, these guys stepped into the wrong bear trap here and went after the wrong person. For crying out loud, Lawrence Lessig has argued copyright cases before the effing U.S. Supreme Court. I'd say he knows what the hell he is talking about. He certainly would be willing to meet in person members of that court again and knows how to get a case there if necessary.
The best thing that Liberation Music could do right now is to simply drop the stick and back away real slowly..... with a million dollar donation to the EFF if they would be so kind. Otherwise, they are royally screwed and clueless as it sounds.
Yet, in Soviet Russia they didn't. They did use a ball point pen though. Graphite from pencils tends to flake off and short out contacts on switches in space and cause fires where you don't want them.
Your so-called toilet seat in space is hardly what you think. There are a number of problems with putting an ordinary toilet in an orbital spacecraft that is in a microgravity environment, not the least of which is that water isn't found in the toilet.
Watch this video and tell me that it can be solved with a $10 seat purchased at Home Depot:
There are also reasons why you need to spend months trying to find the right nut for a device, even if it may be something you pick up for a nickle at a local hardware store.
No doubt there is some substantial management overhead on space projects done by NASA. Just look at how much money it cost to build the Falcon 9 as opposed to the SLS (Sometimes called the Senate Launch System... comparable payloads and overall missions, and the SLS still isn't flying in spite of new incarnations that keep popping up and more money spent on them). I agree that the current culture at NASA tends to gild the lily, but it is also important to note sometimes there is increased complexity simply because stuff is happening in space. Furthermore, low production rates for stuff going into space means that you don't have economies of scale for components like you would for toilet seats purchased by people all over the world.
Besides, would you actually use a $10 toilet seat purchased at Home Depot? Those things last barely longer than it takes to screw them onto a toilet in the first place. Certainly don't turn one of those over to a bunch of teenagers, as they will destroy the thing in no time flat. Even at Home Depot there are much higher quality toilet seats to purchase, where money counts even for a mass consumer item like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
All that means is that we were one of the major countries in the alliance that defeated Adolph Hitler. Nothing more. The United Nations is only the "allies" that formed to defeat fascism, and the people involved in the alliance decided to make that alliance permanent. The UN was born in war, and unfortunately there has been a bandwagon effect where everybody else in the world jumped in to give the organization a little more legitimacy.
The role of being a permanent member of the security council only means you have nukes to throw around as well (all five members have them and in numbers as well as delivery systems to make a mess of things). The only reason the rest of the world gives a damn is those nukes as well as the fact those countries also have large enough military organizations that you can't screw them over without a big fight. Is that really a reason to give somebody special privileges?
it certainly doesn't give any sort of "world policeman" title that you were a major military power to defeat the Nazi Party. Big whooping deal.
Here is a question: What the hell is going on in Syria? So far as I can see it is one group of idiots who are being destructive and killing innocent people attacking another group of stupid idiots who are also being destructive and killing innocent people, with a whole bunch of people who have no voice at all caught in the middle not knowing what the hell is going on and just trying to get out of the way.
There is no "righteous side" in this conflict, and indeed I see the current role of the U.S. government in this whole mess as just being a catalyst to cause even more death and destruction by supplying arms and "training" to various people on both sides of the conflict. Yes, both sides are getting these arms and training. Russia is doing the same damn thing as are other military powers.
Heck, this whole mess could even be considered a clean-up operation from World War I where the French failed to be responsible for their jurisdiction over Syria when it was their colony. At least if you want to get into historic roles, nearly every former French colony is quite screwed up, so why should Syria be any different?
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
Note: The judges of the FISA court are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to become federal judges in the first place... and serve in other positions in the federal judiciary, but their appointment to the FISA court itself is done by the Chief Justice. A minor triviality that still is stupid, but they are appointed and confirmed in a normal constitutional process to become judges in the first place as serving on the FISA court is seen as a "committee" and not a "real court" from a farcical constitutional perspective. (aka a court that really isn't a court)
Technically all you need for getting a search warrant is to have any federal judge (for at least federal prosecutors or law enforcement officers of any kind) agree to the search. Obviously those in law enforcement know of judges who are friendly to their viewpoint, and it is a common corruption on all levels of government in America to have police short-circuit the whole 4th amendment process by running to judges who are friendly to give out warrants for almost any cause the police (FBI, NSA, whatever) want. Police officers do this also with state courts and state judges as well quite frequently.
The FISA Court doesn't handle any actual judicial cases, which is where the rationale and justification for its role in the judiciary happens. Theoretically, they can also be overridden by the U.S. Supreme Court itself, but good luck on seeing that happen. I'm not justifying this abomination of a legal body, but I can see how members of congress sort of skirted around the constitutional procedures to get this to happen.
Interesting. I wonder how the Chief Justice can live with himself appointing such judges when that is clearly an unconstitutional act in and of itself? The more I hear about the FISA court, the more I hate it.
Heck, Congress didn't even have the authority to even pass such legislation in the first place. Of course unconstitutional legislation doesn't really matter to those guys, or to the judicial system itself either. It still boils down to the fact that the American people are no longer citizens but rather subjects. That is also an authority that the founders and authors of the Constitution of 1787 never intended to give to the Chief Justice.
For crying out loud, Congress has to confirm every 2nd Lieutenant, Ensign, and Postmaster of Podunksville. Why they gave up their role in confirming justices to this court is beyond stupid. Hell, how do these FISA judges even have any sort of legitimacy of any kind?
It's interesting to learn about Snowden's eating pizza. It's exciting to know he's successfully evading getting caught.
But the NSA is violating the Constitution, the executive branch is stepping on the gas to increase it, the legislative branch is asleep at the wheel, the judicial branch is represented by a few rubber stampers appointed by a Chief Justice who I don't think has the public's interests at heart, the fourth estate is facing persecution like never before, and the citizens are so materially comfortable they don't do anything.
Except for the last part in regards to the citizens, I agree with you.
Note also that the Chief Justice has very little actual authority except deciding very minor things that can also be overturned by the other justices... he is just the "first among equals" and his only real additional authority is to preside over the U.S. Senate in cases of impeachment of the President or Vice-President of the US.... and even that doesn't give him a vote since it requires a 2/3rd vote to accomplish anything in that situation other than for minor procedural and parliamentary rule issues. The Chief Justice also has the privilege by custom of being able to write the concurring or dissenting opinion (depending on his vote) for rulings made by the court. Then again, any justice can write such an opinion even if the the Chief Justice writes one too, so that is even minor. All judges are also appointed not by the Chief Justice, but by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). All the Chief Justice appoints are law clerks, staff, and having an influence on who is "admitted to the bar" and able to argue cases before the court.
As for why citizens are apathetic about what is happening to the American government, it has nothing to do with the luxury lifestyle (or lack thereof) they are enjoying. The problem is that citizens no longer have any influence on their government and even elections themselves don't matter. The whole thing with regards to elections is that the whole system is corrupt. A video I saw recently (it isn't that new of a video) sort of explains the problem here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
I don't know if the solution presented here will work, but it is an interesting idea by itself. I certainly come from a different political perspective than the presenter, but completely agree with his conclusions on this particular matter.
If you want a UK equivalent to this, a cold version of Burning Man would be like getting 50k people all going to Rockall and setting up a temporary city there for two weeks. I guess Blackrock City is a little bit larger, but the government services of the area are about the same and just as inhospitable for that many people.
Thank you. I hope people won't reply to you with "but of course 911 service works at Burning Man!" like they've been replying to me.... The point is that there's already an extremely good and tested system in place that doesn't depend on cellphones.
That is not what you were bitching about. Your complaint was that the local Sheriff's office wouldn't have a clue about the location of Burning Man, which was a flat out lie and you needed to be called out for fabricating that lie.
Yes, of course you don't "need" to use a cell phone. Police and EMTs got to places and helped out well before cell phones were invented, heck even before telephones or radios were invented. I'm impressed that the Burning Man organizers realize that when you get 30k people together, sometimes shit happens and you need some help. Frankly the whole thing is amazing in terms of organizing any sort of event with that degree of logistics in one of the most inhospitable places in the world that might as well be on Mars. In fact, I think working out the logistics to set up a colony on Mars might even be easier.
If you hate the cell phones, state that and be on your way. I think you are full of it to think that way, but I will let you have your opinion on the matter and not try to convince you otherwise other than to state I have come to another conclusion about the matter. The Open BTS guys think that way too and don't give a damn about what others think other than to stay out of their way at the Burning Man.
I take it you haven't RTFA. Try it sometime. Especially the OpenBTS stuff where the cell phone network is being run by participants at the Burning Man festival.
Most of what you think would be interesting or cool is in fact being done there. The guys running the cell phone network are just a bunch of geeks who think cell phone technology should be something more than what big corporations are cramming down your throat, and are doing some really interesting things with it.
When you connect to the OpenBTS network, you are assigned a "new number" that is intended to be used only internally. Phone calls are limited to 5 minutes in length, and incoming phone calls only get through for people who you've personally placed an outgoing phone call (presumably because it is likely a child/parent/sibling or significant other that you are worried about and want to have then call you back).
They do provide network (aka internet) access, but that is very limited as well.
I don't know about the other fun stuff, but the developers of this network said they included several "Easter eggs" in the system as well just for fun. The software they are using is open sourced and has been used in places other than the Burning Man as well. That is the part I'm even more impressed with, as they are using their experiences at Burning Man to not only better themselves, but to help the rest of the world as well and giving back the rest of the year too.
Funny thing, Elon Musk has several patents to his name. Look them up in the USPTO database if you don't believe me. I thought you had to actually design something in order to be credited with a patent. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Are you really sure he wasn't involved in the actual design part of the engineering here?
Yes, he also hires other engineers. His companies are far too big for him to do that all by himself. I'll also admit that even skilled engineers who end up getting "kicked upstairs" to become management (usually because they are so good that it is time to pick *somebody* to be manager and it might as well be the one with the best skills at the job) usually end up wasting most of their time doing administrative stuff rather than actual engineering/coding/getting hands dirty really making things. None the less, Elon Musk has been doing some actual design, even if he isn't doing all of the details himself. He sure as hell is sitting in the brainstorming sessions with the other engineers when they are coming up with all of the alternatives and Musk has been making the final big decisions on where to go after the appropriate feedback. That is sort of how engineering management works.
Besides, I have never seen Elon Musk fail to give credit to the other guys who are helping him out. He may be a brutal taskmaster and somebody who you don't want to slack off when he is anywhere nearby, but he has gone out of his way to know everything about the companies he is building and how all of the things work.
I certainly wouldn't want to challenge Elon Musk to take a Saturday (or some day of the week when the plant is otherwise shut down) and try to personally build a Tesla Model S by himself with maybe just a couple of people helping him out as he moves down the production line. He might even be able to pull that one off.
I'll agree that there are managers who really never learned engineering in the first place and mostly have an MBA, thus they were put in charge. Elon Musk just isn't one of those kind of managers though. Are you one of those people who insists that Werner Von Braun didn't design the Saturn V rocket? Or that Sergei Korolev had nothing to do with the design of the Vostock nor Soyuz rockets and was just some politician put in charge by the Politburo taking credit for the whole project?
I think the OP was commenting on what the masses want/need, not what Musk needs to do to get rich.
Do you think he really cares? He wants to do some cool stuff like build electric automobiles, and open a franchise on Mars so he can retire there in style. While he is at it, he wouldn't mind a few thousand other people joining him there too, mainly so he doesn't have to do all of the heavy lifting once he arrives on the red planet.
It sounds like a few people posting here on Slashdot wouldn't mind packing his bags to get rid of him too.
The OpenBTS guys also had the amazing luck (at least when they started) that the area of the Burning Man festival (Blackrock City) didn't have any commercial cell phone providers in the area, so the FCC was a whole lot more forgiving. The technical details include the actual FCC license for the event. Yes, they were and are licensed to perform this activity. These guys are real pros at doing this kind of thing, especially since they've been doing it for several years now.
When you're in the middle of nowhere, you aren't covered by anyone's 911 service. If the dispatcher didn't know about Burning Man, they might call out search & rescue I guess.
First of all, I don't know anywhere in North America where you aren't covered by some sort of government agency that provides emergency services. The Burning Man festival in particular has the attention of the local sheriff's office as well as area medical clinics and even hospitals that are... well at least "nearby" so far as any real emergency services are concerned. Some parts of North America might require a couple hour response and the dispatcher might just say "live with it" in some cases, but if a real life threatening emergency happened even in the remote Yellowstone wilderness or northern Alaska, you had better believe that somebody can get to you sooner or later.
Furthermore, the festival itself has its own security and medical corps (mostly volunteer) who are there to help out and can resolve most emergencies. It is utter bullshit to say that those who would receive such a call (and it is covered by the OpenBTS guys who do respond to 911 calls made on the system... they have made provisions just for that situation) would have no clue where to send those emergency services. I also promise that the local dispatchers who are there for the other 51 weeks of the year know exactly where the Burning Man festival is located at, and even know the major areas of the festival.
911 made on the OpenBTS systems goes to volunteers who dispatch the appropriate response, usually with the festival security guys. 911 made on the commercial services goes to the sheriff's office, who then usually contacts the festival security as well to coordinate a response. When you get 30,000 people together anywhere, the local law enforcement damn well knows what is going on and how to get there, especially for an annual event like this, even if it is what you might call "in the middle of nowhere". "That is not in my area" would not be said at all, ever.
The OpenBTS blog goes into some details about their system, although it will take some reading.
I am saying that the pension plans once upon a time were more than adequately funded, and furthermore those funds were untouchable and couldn't be spent on other things (like bonuses for CEOs or board members).
Unfortunately the U.S. Congress got involved and screwed it up. Congress changed the rules and basically turned all of these pensions into "free money" that could be spent wildly and changed the guidelines. If anything, I would dare say that when these rules changed, this is when CEOs started to have a salary inflation and pensions started to run dry. All for the sake of a few campaign contributions where those politicians also got a piece of the pension pie as it were cutting ordinary workers out to be left holding the bag with no retirement benefits as the pension disappeared.
The blame isn't CEOs... at least directly. I do blame the politicians who permitted this and the notion that "improved regulations" somehow were better. Just beware that any legislation changing commerce laws likely screws over ordinary people.
...(including noting what software I used to create the video)...
I've never uploaded anything to Youtube, but what does it matter what software you used to make your video?
As weird as it sounds, if you use some software to produce copyrightable content (computer software, music, movies, etc.), the author/publisher of that software has a claim upon your work. People who produce such software would wisely add a license that permits unlimited use of anything you make with that software, but none the less there is a copyright claim to be made.
Strangely this claim was originally asserted by compiler developers who established a precedence that they had a copyright claim upon any software produced by their compiler. Other kinds of copyrighted content also have this same problem. YouTube appreciates you noting every possible claimant of copyright upon anything you upload, and your demonstration that you have clearance and licenses for reusing that content.
Admittedly it isn't something that copyright trolls typically go after at the moment, but it is something of concern. By at least acknowledging that software, particularly for stuff that is GPL'd software, it is also a good karmic thing to do by giving back to those who have helped you out... especially if you include things like URLs and kudos to project leads or specific developers. I'm not really certain that you legally need to go that far, but I think it is a good thing and the better YouTubers who have done that are people I admire as well. Besides, what harm is there to spend another 5-10 seconds on a video thanking people who have produced software that is helpful to you? Furthermore, I don't mind showing those who are watching my videos that they can use that same software for their own purposes and make videos just like me with relatively low cost.
You miss the point. It isn't the length of the clip but rather how it is being used. There are other factors involved.
The point is these administrators and non-lawyers are trying to be lawyers and are in effect passing legislation and changing the law into something it simply isn't. I'll also point out that one thing lawyers almost never do is say "this is legal". They always hedge their bets and say "this could be illegal" or "this likely is legal". Part of that is because judges and juries are made of people that sometimes make arbitrary decisions that seemingly have no consistency at all sometimes. There are always exceptions to exceptions and one of the reasons why lawyers get paid good money for what they do.
Welcome to the real world. There is a reason why even for something that should be quite simple (the basic part of the fair-use section of copyright code is really just a couple paragraphs long) actually ends up being a whole library of books all to itself and could fill a bookshelf. The problem here is dogmatically asserting that the 30 second rule is the law when it isn't, in spite of claims like the GP post above that asserts the 30 second rule is a part of the law.
They weren't really underfunded. The rules covering pension plans got screwed over in the 1980's when companies were allowed to co-mingle funds from pensions or be able to set unrealistically low minimum requirements and then take the excess. This turned into a corporate merger mania where a "leveraged buy out" became a common term where many companies were purchased explicitly so their pension funds could be taken and used to pay off any loans used to acquire the stock to buy the companies in the first place.
That pretty much emptied any of the larger pension funds. Furthermore, additional work rules and tweaks in tax laws (usually written to "soak the rich") made what was left of pension funds to be abandoned and encouraged companies to completely abandon them as an employee benefit.
There are a number of musicians who still get screwed over by the major record labels, even if they haven't made their millions. Sometimes all they do is simply play songs perhaps for a wedding or bar mitzvah and then jam in a local park for fun most of the time.... and they still are required to pay fees to ASCAP or other similar "industry groups" even if they are performing original music they wrote themselves.
Life sucks sometimes, and it is hard to be a musician in America or even most of Europe right now and avoid getting entangled with the music industry at some level.
The problem wasn't the law, as the law itself was the thing being challenged in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The law was very specific with regards to how many years would pass before copyright was expired.
Also note the constitutional restriction on the laws, and what authority Congress had to pass the law:
The Congress shall have Power To:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
-- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that meant Congress could essentially make that limited time the heat death of the universe minus one day and would still therefore be "limited". It would eventually pass into the public domain, therefore this part of the constitution would be satisfied.
Yeah, it is stupid. Even worse, and the part of this case that really mattered, was the retroactive nature of the legislation that made things which would have expired and passed into the public domain to suddenly have the newer and longer copyright terms apply. Funny thing about that is this section of the Constitution:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
- Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3
The Supreme Court in this situation basically said that ex post facto laws can indeed be passed... as long as it covers copyrighted content.
The whole opinion turns my stomach. At least a couple of the judges saw there was a serious problem here. To solve this situation will take getting Congress to see that this situation is stupid, but they don't seem to care about the Constitution either.
If Lawrence Lessig is known as a failure on this case, it is a pretty epic failure and I think in the long run he will be on the righteous side of history. I certainly wouldn't complain if he was the representing counsel who lost Dred Scott v. Sandford, and I personally think SCOTUS did nearly the same kind of screw up as that case too, even if it was "just a copyright case".
Try to read the dissenting opinions in that case too. They are pretty powerful stuff, and with the kind of split decision made by SCOTUS, it definitely opens an opportunity for the concept to be revisited and the decision overturned in a future case. I'd call that something huge, even if it is just a modest victory after a fashion.
I'd also say that if Lessig ends up back in the Supreme Court, particular on this issue, he will be much better prepared and just nail the case. I seriously doubt he will even get that far as I think a federal judge is going to be doing a major smack down in this situation.
The 30 second rule is based upon some case law (numerous cases here) that have basically said that 30 seconds or 10% of a work clearly is on the righteous side of fair-use. In other words, if you are using about that amount of material, you are clearly doing something legal and any lawyer claiming otherwise should have their head smacked real hard by a judge and be told to sit in a corner to shut up. Ditto for the 300 word rule used for printed works.
It says nothing about the 31 second penalty that you are claiming here. It just means you are moving into grey areas where you need to be much more careful about what could be considered copyright infringement. Obviously there are people without a clue in regards to copyright law in the form of school administrators or other kinds of people that get bent out of shape when one of their employees, faculty, or even students tries to push the boundaries a little bit. No intelligent lawyer would dare claim that a 31 second clip where that extra second actually conveys some important information (thus why it still needs to be included) is in violation of copyright just because it is 31 seconds long and not 30.
Unfortunately school administrators and sometimes bosses can be anal and do all sorts of nasty things to you like get you fired or otherwise be jerks "because my lawyers said this is the law, thus it is". If these organizations have a no exception policy, they are just being stupid about this idea too.
Fair Use doesn't specify what percentage is ok. In some cases 100% of the original can still be fair use.
The situations that permit 100% content reuse are pretty narrow and typically fall under either personal fair use (it is legal to make personal copies of something you own as long as you don't give it to somebody else) or educational (such as a teacher making a hand-out in a classroom or showing a video to the class). These applications also have all kinds of weird exceptions to exceptions and is a minefield to walk through if you aren't careful. A great many times I've seen assertions of fair-use privileges claimed on YouTube and on web pages that simply don't even remotely apply.
Wikipedia used to be awful in some situations until some of the more clueful editors started to crack down on the situation and narrow the scope of permitted fair use considerably. I think they've gone too far in that regard in reaction to the previous loose standards, but that is another fight elsewhere. Most of the time when you see somebody who has copied something 100%, either they have an explicit license to make that copy or they are ignorant (perhaps willfully ignorant) of the laws involved.
The largest problem I've ever had on YouTube is having the commercials and banner ads stripped off of a video because I didn't include proper links to where I obtained licensing for supposed copyrighted content. Basically I had to cite everything or clearly claim that all of the content I was producing was original. By making those citations (including noting what software I used to create the video), YouTube didn't have a problem and accepted my videos.
Yeah, YouTube does have the system to put things back up in a copyright dispute, although I am going to treasure Lessig's reply as precisely what should be sent in response if I feel I have not violated copyright. I'm usually very careful about copyright infringement and prefer music and other content that is available under an open source license of some sort. I'm glad that YouTube makes you go through the hoops on stuff like that, as it really does make my videos a little more professional as well. Besides, the guys who stuff I'm using in this manner deserve credit for the effort they made that I reused... and I'm very careful about making sure I'm using a license that permits commercial reuse as well.
IAs it's not clear how long the clip was or how it was used (was it the subject of the lecture? was it background music? Was it intro music?) we're probably missing the most important facts. Fair use doesn't mean you get free backing or intro music, for it to be fair use, there has to be original content involving that song.
You ought to read the actual complaint. Lessig went over every single one of your points in detail, including how it was used, how long it was used, and went point by point over the Fair Use Doctrine about why his use of the clips were very clearly fair-use.
He even went further to state that Liberation Music has lawyers who are well versed in copyright law and practice that particular specialty of law on a full time basis, thus they should also be well versed in the fair-use doctrine in particular (or be made fools in front of a judge for their decided lack of knowledge in regards to that topic). Essentially, he wants to teach these guys an expensive lesson in copyright law and have a judge be the lecturer.
I would say every single complaint you have made here is based off of your own ignorance, not anything that Mr. Lessig failed to provide. Frankly, these guys stepped into the wrong bear trap here and went after the wrong person. For crying out loud, Lawrence Lessig has argued copyright cases before the effing U.S. Supreme Court. I'd say he knows what the hell he is talking about. He certainly would be willing to meet in person members of that court again and knows how to get a case there if necessary.
The best thing that Liberation Music could do right now is to simply drop the stick and back away real slowly..... with a million dollar donation to the EFF if they would be so kind. Otherwise, they are royally screwed and clueless as it sounds.
Yet, in Soviet Russia they didn't. They did use a ball point pen though. Graphite from pencils tends to flake off and short out contacts on switches in space and cause fires where you don't want them.
See also: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Your so-called toilet seat in space is hardly what you think. There are a number of problems with putting an ordinary toilet in an orbital spacecraft that is in a microgravity environment, not the least of which is that water isn't found in the toilet.
Watch this video and tell me that it can be solved with a $10 seat purchased at Home Depot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1DYJIIqyQA
There are also reasons why you need to spend months trying to find the right nut for a device, even if it may be something you pick up for a nickle at a local hardware store.
No doubt there is some substantial management overhead on space projects done by NASA. Just look at how much money it cost to build the Falcon 9 as opposed to the SLS (Sometimes called the Senate Launch System... comparable payloads and overall missions, and the SLS still isn't flying in spite of new incarnations that keep popping up and more money spent on them). I agree that the current culture at NASA tends to gild the lily, but it is also important to note sometimes there is increased complexity simply because stuff is happening in space. Furthermore, low production rates for stuff going into space means that you don't have economies of scale for components like you would for toilet seats purchased by people all over the world.
Besides, would you actually use a $10 toilet seat purchased at Home Depot? Those things last barely longer than it takes to screw them onto a toilet in the first place. Certainly don't turn one of those over to a bunch of teenagers, as they will destroy the thing in no time flat. Even at Home Depot there are much higher quality toilet seats to purchase, where money counts even for a mass consumer item like that.