Really? Can't the kids sell the copyright, and then invest the sale proceeds?
As far as they're concerned, it's no different from any other type of property. You may think it has deleterious effects on society, but that's a separate point (and some would argue that other forms of property are socially harmful, e.g. land ownership, ownership of companies etc).
You are of course correct. The article is simplistic nonsense.
One would expect a correlation between areas experiencing high crime and areas choosing to install cameras. So if you want to consider the effect of cameras you need to control for the initial crime rate. For example, you could analyse across areas which initially had similar rates of crime, but where some chose to install cameras and some did not. Then compare the crime rates between the two groups sometime after installation.
Is that right? Plenty of people have read the bible to show that Jesus permits killing in a wide range of circumstances, and plenty of other people have read the bible to show that Jesus forbids killing, even in self defence...
"If they can access the Internet, they can get to anything," Hutchinson Police Chief Dick Heitschmidt said. "Anyone in the whole world could have access, if that's what really happened."
That is correct: legal rights are a type of property interest, be they land rights, contract rights, patents, copyrights or anything else. Exclusive possession and/or control is not a requirement for such rights - if I own land with my wife, and rent it to you for 20 years then I have neither exclusive possession or control. Indeed it is possible to own property which you don't possess or control at all - for example if you have an interest in a discretionary trust that could be applied in your favour if the trustee so decides.
You are correct that Madonna doesn't own any right in the property that is my Greatest Hits CD. But she does own the copyright in the recording on it (and, to be pedantic, that itself is composed of several rights: the performance right, the composition, samples owned by other people and licensed to her, etc etc) and she can therefore sue me if I breach her copyright in any dealings with the CD (e.g. copying it without her consent). This copyright is property, which she can sell to someone else and deal in a similar way to how she could as it was any other type of property.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter.
I've had the same experience, also with Microsoft UK.
I called them in the middle of the night when activation failed, got through to India (I think) and the chap I spoke to was entirely helpful and competent.
The problem is that the printer manufacturers are now caught in this model. Nobody dares go back to charging the "real" price for the printer and the ink, as their printers would immediately seem more expensive to the average customer.
In an ideal world the model would be unsustainable, as third party ink manufacturers would undercut the official ink packs. But the printer manufacturers have consistently abused their market position and IP law to prevent third party ink manufacturers competing on equal terms. Your average consumer doesn't even know he can get cheap alternatives, and life is increasingly difficult for even sophisticated consumers as the printer manufacturers build in IP-protected electronics into ink cartridges.
All in all, it's clearly bad for consumers and the kind of thing the competition/anti-trust authorities should be investigating.
another important causal link is a belief in conspiracies by powerful elites: evil atheist Darwinists conspiring to promote evolution and suppress creationism, and evil all-powerful Jews conspiring to control the world.
There is no serious demonstration the Grand Canyon could have been formed in 50 years.
Creationists often *claim* that it was caused by a catastrophic flood, but this is contradicted by the evidence: and in particular by the absence of the characteristic drainage patterns left by such floods.
Skimming the case, I would think that it could prevent Council of Europe members discriminating against Scientology on grounds of its religious beliefs. However discriminating against it on the grounds of its (non-religious) practices and past actions could be acceptable.
This is absolutely the point: safety is only in small part down to the technology used - the protocols, training and overall ethos are key. The US Naval nuclear programme was, from the start, obsessively focussed on safety. Anyone wanting to read more should google "Hyman Rickover"
Basically yes. If a claim of "mistake" succceeds then the contract is void; the buyer should return the item and the seller should return the money. It is of course open to the parties to agree that the buyer keeps the item but pays the excess.
Amazon's approach seems broadly consistent with this.
(Although again I have to stress this is the English law position - I have no knowledge of US contract law, and it's possible the US position is entirely different)
Under English common law you're not bound by a contract if you make a mistake on price (or something else) and the other party suspects you're making a mistake and takes advantage of it. Here, I think most people would have realised this was a mistake by Amazon's systems.
Disclaimer: I've no idea what the position is in the US (and whether it varies State by State). But safe to say your post is not necessarily correct.
I think the problem with the Nature study is that the coverage of significant science concepts/personalities in Wikipedia is one of its strengths and doesn't represent its overall accuracy/completeness.
Galileo was the first to find physical evidence of heliocentrism - the fact that Jupiter had moons which clearly orbited Jupiter. It was this that made clear that heliocentrism was more than a mere mathematical tool, and led him into conflict with Rome. Revisionism cannot hide the fact that Galileo was right, and the Church was wrong.
The law works in a slightly non-intuitive way here. As a legal matter there is generally no copyright in the appearance of your property; therefore taking a picture of it does not breach copyright law. There is, however, copyright in a picture of your property (no matter who takes it), and anyone copying this picture (even the original property owner) is potentially in breach of copyright.
It's not difficult to come up with specific counter-examples (e.g. if you have a work of art displayed in your garden) but this is the general case.
You may want to google "Peter Dicks" and "David Bermingham" before you claim that "laws apply to their country only". These are not isolated examples. If a country wishes to make a person's actions illegal - wherever they are - then it is free to do so. It may not be able to enforce unless the person visits there, or has property there, but that is a separate practical point.
It is a UK offence to cause an electronic copy to be made of an mp3 unless you are licensed to do so. Allofmp3.com does not have any UK licencing rights, and it follows that when you download from allofmp3.com, you and allofmp3.com are both breaking UK law.
You may think it humourous that a country can apply its laws outside its borders, but the director of sportingbet.com and a trio of British bankers will disagree with you.
The reason is that the ratio of surface area to volume for a small insect is very high, so they lose heat very quickly to the surrounding air (which, of course, the microwave doesn't heat).
Looks odd. 3000 launches times 10kg times $189 is less than $6m - peanuts. Large particle accelerators are costing $6bn or more these days, so unless they're amortising over 1,000 years I don't think it adds up. But, as you say, if the cost per kg is just ongoing costs then how can this drop so spectacularly when the number of launches rises? Surely this isn't an inaccurate popular science write-up of a duff idea that hasn't been thought through?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Can't the kids sell the copyright, and then invest the sale proceeds?
As far as they're concerned, it's no different from any other type of property. You may think it has deleterious effects on society, but that's a separate point (and some would argue that other forms of property are socially harmful, e.g. land ownership, ownership of companies etc).
You are of course correct. The article is simplistic nonsense.
One would expect a correlation between areas experiencing high crime and areas choosing to install cameras. So if you want to consider the effect of cameras you need to control for the initial crime rate. For example, you could analyse across areas which initially had similar rates of crime, but where some chose to install cameras and some did not. Then compare the crime rates between the two groups sometime after installation.
Is that right? Plenty of people have read the bible to show that Jesus permits killing in a wide range of circumstances, and plenty of other people have read the bible to show that Jesus forbids killing, even in self defence...
Obsidian made KOTOR 2 - Bioware provided some technical assistance but can't really be blamed for what went wrong...
Has there ever been a more stupid quote than:
"If they can access the Internet, they can get to anything," Hutchinson Police Chief Dick Heitschmidt said. "Anyone in the whole world could have access, if that's what really happened."
Almost all of history's brightest people who lived before Darwin were creationists of one stripe or other. Almost none were who lived after Darwin.
That is correct: legal rights are a type of property interest, be they land rights, contract rights, patents, copyrights or anything else. Exclusive possession and/or control is not a requirement for such rights - if I own land with my wife, and rent it to you for 20 years then I have neither exclusive possession or control. Indeed it is possible to own property which you don't possess or control at all - for example if you have an interest in a discretionary trust that could be applied in your favour if the trustee so decides.
You are correct that Madonna doesn't own any right in the property that is my Greatest Hits CD. But she does own the copyright in the recording on it (and, to be pedantic, that itself is composed of several rights: the performance right, the composition, samples owned by other people and licensed to her, etc etc) and she can therefore sue me if I breach her copyright in any dealings with the CD (e.g. copying it without her consent). This copyright is property, which she can sell to someone else and deal in a similar way to how she could as it was any other type of property.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter.
I've had the same experience, also with Microsoft UK.
I called them in the middle of the night when activation failed, got through to India (I think) and the chap I spoke to was entirely helpful and competent.
The problem is that the printer manufacturers are now caught in this model. Nobody dares go back to charging the "real" price for the printer and the ink, as their printers would immediately seem more expensive to the average customer.
In an ideal world the model would be unsustainable, as third party ink manufacturers would undercut the official ink packs. But the printer manufacturers have consistently abused their market position and IP law to prevent third party ink manufacturers competing on equal terms. Your average consumer doesn't even know he can get cheap alternatives, and life is increasingly difficult for even sophisticated consumers as the printer manufacturers build in IP-protected electronics into ink cartridges.
All in all, it's clearly bad for consumers and the kind of thing the competition/anti-trust authorities should be investigating.
Outstanding post - thank you
another important causal link is a belief in conspiracies by powerful elites: evil atheist Darwinists conspiring to promote evolution and suppress creationism, and evil all-powerful Jews conspiring to control the world.
There is no serious demonstration the Grand Canyon could have been formed in 50 years.
Creationists often *claim* that it was caused by a catastrophic flood, but this is contradicted by the evidence: and in particular by the absence of the characteristic drainage patterns left by such floods.
How about: Earth is hostile to both Cylons and Galactica?
It was a ECHR case - you can find it using the search engine at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?sessi onid=10093903&skin=hudoc-en if you put "scientology" in as the case name.
Skimming the case, I would think that it could prevent Council of Europe members discriminating against Scientology on grounds of its religious beliefs. However discriminating against it on the grounds of its (non-religious) practices and past actions could be acceptable.
This is absolutely the point: safety is only in small part down to the technology used - the protocols, training and overall ethos are key. The US Naval nuclear programme was, from the start, obsessively focussed on safety. Anyone wanting to read more should google "Hyman Rickover"
Basically yes. If a claim of "mistake" succceeds then the contract is void; the buyer should return the item and the seller should return the money. It is of course open to the parties to agree that the buyer keeps the item but pays the excess.
Amazon's approach seems broadly consistent with this.
(Although again I have to stress this is the English law position - I have no knowledge of US contract law, and it's possible the US position is entirely different)
Under English common law you're not bound by a contract if you make a mistake on price (or something else) and the other party suspects you're making a mistake and takes advantage of it. Here, I think most people would have realised this was a mistake by Amazon's systems.
Disclaimer: I've no idea what the position is in the US (and whether it varies State by State). But safe to say your post is not necessarily correct.
I think the problem with the Nature study is that the coverage of significant science concepts/personalities in Wikipedia is one of its strengths and doesn't represent its overall accuracy/completeness.
Galileo was the first to find physical evidence of heliocentrism - the fact that Jupiter had moons which clearly orbited Jupiter. It was this that made clear that heliocentrism was more than a mere mathematical tool, and led him into conflict with Rome. Revisionism cannot hide the fact that Galileo was right, and the Church was wrong.
The law works in a slightly non-intuitive way here. As a legal matter there is generally no copyright in the appearance of your property; therefore taking a picture of it does not breach copyright law. There is, however, copyright in a picture of your property (no matter who takes it), and anyone copying this picture (even the original property owner) is potentially in breach of copyright.
It's not difficult to come up with specific counter-examples (e.g. if you have a work of art displayed in your garden) but this is the general case.
You may want to google "Peter Dicks" and "David Bermingham" before you claim that "laws apply to their country only". These are not isolated examples. If a country wishes to make a person's actions illegal - wherever they are - then it is free to do so. It may not be able to enforce unless the person visits there, or has property there, but that is a separate practical point.
It is a UK offence to cause an electronic copy to be made of an mp3 unless you are licensed to do so. Allofmp3.com does not have any UK licencing rights, and it follows that when you download from allofmp3.com, you and allofmp3.com are both breaking UK law.
You may think it humourous that a country can apply its laws outside its borders, but the director of sportingbet.com and a trio of British bankers will disagree with you.
The reason is that the ratio of surface area to volume for a small insect is very high, so they lose heat very quickly to the surrounding air (which, of course, the microwave doesn't heat).
Looks odd. 3000 launches times 10kg times $189 is less than $6m - peanuts. Large particle accelerators are costing $6bn or more these days, so unless they're amortising over 1,000 years I don't think it adds up. But, as you say, if the cost per kg is just ongoing costs then how can this drop so spectacularly when the number of launches rises? Surely this isn't an inaccurate popular science write-up of a duff idea that hasn't been thought through?
But let's be safe and make it a sportsman's bet.