Copyright law isn't about physical property, it's about copies of intellectual property. In one case, you're making a copy of materials, in the other, you're watching a (presumably) legal copy that was made with the copyright holder's permission. The act of making a copy, or of distributing a copy that you made, is what is illegal. Moving around a single copy without creating new copies, or privately showing the content for a noncommercial purpose is not illegal.
Are you suggesting that Article I doesn't state that Congress can establish copyright laws, or is some other part of my comment supposed to be a troll?
See, I've read the founding documents of the United States. You sound like you haven't, but have some ideas of what they should say, and just assumes that's what's there. You're like a Christian who says that not judging people's flaws and stoning them for them would violate everything Jesus stood for.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Please show me the part of this that makes you think "sharing" copyrighted material with any random person on the Internet is fair use. You don't have the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. There are situations when copying isn't infringement, but these are extremely limited in scope, and argument by analogy doesn't work in law. You can't say "this is sort of like letting my best friend copy my CD, so it's legal" when you're distributing to countless people you've never met.
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws regarding copyright. How is making such laws a violation of "every precept of the founding documents"?
How exactly do they determine the value of restitution?
Maybe by reading the US Code and seeing what it says about how much they have to pay them for violating their copyright?
Of course, this is a plea bargain. They're probably not paying the full amount the victims could get in a lawsuit. But it shouldn't be hard to understand that the law provides for penalties, and doesn't care if you would have bought the copyrighted materials if you couldn't copy them for free.
if you misspell a word a squiggly red line appears under the work
Unless, of course, your misspelled word is also a word. Someone needs to invent a spelling/grammar checker that not only knows if what you typed is a real word, but if it was the word you meant to use. Anyone care to bet on whether Apple or Google will be the first to market?
First of all, "republic" doesn't mean "government with a representative legislature". Secondly, "Democracy" and "Republic" aren't mutually exclusive terms.
The United States is currently a Democracy and a Republic, as is France. China and Cuba are also Republics, although they are not Democracies. The United Kingdom is both a Monarchy (and, thus, not a Republic) and a Democracy.
It's hard to make a cogent argument if you don't know what the terms you're using mean.
The problem, which I thought was clear from what you quoted, is that in our system, a representative is representing an entire legislative district. If I live somewhere where 60% of the population disagrees with me on every issue, my opinion doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I voted for the representative or not, as long as a sufficiently large portion of my local community can be convinced to do so.
If representatives were chosen to vote on behalf of arbitrary blocks of voters (chosen by the voters, not by the legislators who draw district boundaries), and given a proportional number of votes in the legislature, there'd be no gerrymandering to magnify small majorities into big ones, and the 2 party system would be dead.
Consumer magazines have a ridiculous tendency to date their issues far in advance, probably so they don't seem old when they've been sitting on newstands for a long time.
You won't see articles from, say, the New England Journal of Medicine from next month popping up early. Coincidentally, if you do see a article there saying that 1000 year lifespans are coming soon, you'll probably be able to take it seriously, as it will be peer reviewed work by a team of actual biochemists, rather than the theory of some psycho computer scientist who hasn't even had formal training in biology, let alone any experimental evidence to back up his claims, which amount it little more than Fountain of Youth type stories that come from people unable to accept their own mortality.
Well clearly in grandparent poster's world, any biomedical advances that allow people to live longer would also eliminate all disabilities. Nevermind that right now we can hook someone up to machines that will keep them alive for years, increasing longevity but not allowing them to be a productive worker. Real life extension will clearly work magically and make everyone as fit as a 20 year old for their entire lifespan. hooray for made up science!
Simple solution to the time problem: allow voting by proxy, with representatives directly representing blocs of votes rather than legislative districts. Still direct democracy, but with the advantage that you can give your vote to someone who does know and care about the issues (and who agrees with you to whatever extent you care to go to in choosing your representative), instead of the present system, where you get a choice between 2 guys who will invariably vote their party line without reading the legislation they're voting on.
Any such reasonably well-designed site would allow someone adding listings to provide just a URL, not free-form HTML. The site engine itself should choose what attributes, if any, to add to the A tag.
A badly-designed version of what you describe might allow you to add whatever text and links you want, Wiki style, but it's hardly Google's job to protect you from your own bad design.
Note that I'm assuming Google's intent with this feature is to make comment spam less useful, not to improve PageRank itself. Less comment spam will, of course, improve every search engine, but it seems more like a measure to try to reduce the factors that tempt people to comment spam in the first place.
Oh the horrors. And what if I created a site with 5 million links to my competitor's website, then stuck it behind a firewall on my corporate intranet so google couldn't search it at all?! Just think of how much damage I'd be doing to them, with all of those unindexed links!
I don't think any credible source claims that Iran has ICBMs capable of reaching the United States.
I personally doubt their nuclear program has built a significant quantity of nuclear weapons, either, but I'm sure finding those weapons would be a large part of the justification for an invasion. In any event, I doubt they're capable of launching a satellite, let alone managing to build a weapon that could bring down a specific one.
If the FOAF in question is self-employed and committing tax fraud, sure it could be true. Otherwise, if it's written like an unban legend, it probably is.
A few years ago I heard a guy on the radio explaining that paying income tax in the US is voluntary, and you have a legal right to not pay it. Good luck explaining that to the federal judge when he's sentencing you.
Name a country that the US is likely to get into a war with that has the technology to shoot down satellites. Keep in mind that we're unlikely to try invading anyone with nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them at American cities.
In the US you can't even get a book or movie called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" out with that title; you expect our schools to start teaching the philosophy of science?
Actually, relativity has showed that Newton's "laws" are, in fact, not true in an absolute sense, yet they're still called "laws". This shows pretty clearly that the usage of "law" vs. "theory" isn't what the ID people would have you believe.
However, as to your assertions about logic, you're wrong. You don't need exhaustive testing to disprove a statement like Newton's 3rd law, you just need to find one action, somewhere in the universe, which doesn't have an equal and opposite reaction.
To definitely prove a statement containing the universal qualifier is, on the other hand, pretty much logically impossible. Empirical knowledge is necessarily based on inductive reasoning, which can't be used to definitively prove anything the way you can prove things in formal logic or mathematics (even math proofs using the Axiom of Induction are deductive proofs; the name is misleading.)
If the police have probable cause, they can kick in your door and enter your home. If I do it, I could be arrested and convicted of breaking and entering. Granted tracking someone for a month is different than an immediate action that an officer judges to be necessary, but "illegal for civilians" and "illegal for the police" are 2 very different things.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess online banking will never be appearing in Germany?
Copyright law isn't about physical property, it's about copies of intellectual property. In one case, you're making a copy of materials, in the other, you're watching a (presumably) legal copy that was made with the copyright holder's permission. The act of making a copy, or of distributing a copy that you made, is what is illegal. Moving around a single copy without creating new copies, or privately showing the content for a noncommercial purpose is not illegal.
See, I've read the founding documents of the United States. You sound like you haven't, but have some ideas of what they should say, and just assumes that's what's there. You're like a Christian who says that not judging people's flaws and stoning them for them would violate everything Jesus stood for.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Please show me the part of this that makes you think "sharing" copyrighted material with any random person on the Internet is fair use. You don't have the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. There are situations when copying isn't infringement, but these are extremely limited in scope, and argument by analogy doesn't work in law. You can't say "this is sort of like letting my best friend copy my CD, so it's legal" when you're distributing to countless people you've never met.
You're either a troll or an idiot.
Maybe by reading the US Code and seeing what it says about how much they have to pay them for violating their copyright?
Of course, this is a plea bargain. They're probably not paying the full amount the victims could get in a lawsuit. But it shouldn't be hard to understand that the law provides for penalties, and doesn't care if you would have bought the copyrighted materials if you couldn't copy them for free.
Unless, of course, your misspelled word is also a word. Someone needs to invent a spelling/grammar checker that not only knows if what you typed is a real word, but if it was the word you meant to use. Anyone care to bet on whether Apple or Google will be the first to market?
We all know that he wanted to run Linux on his camera, and couldn't figure out how.
The United States is currently a Democracy and a Republic, as is France. China and Cuba are also Republics, although they are not Democracies. The United Kingdom is both a Monarchy (and, thus, not a Republic) and a Democracy.
It's hard to make a cogent argument if you don't know what the terms you're using mean.
If representatives were chosen to vote on behalf of arbitrary blocks of voters (chosen by the voters, not by the legislators who draw district boundaries), and given a proportional number of votes in the legislature, there'd be no gerrymandering to magnify small majorities into big ones, and the 2 party system would be dead.
You won't see articles from, say, the New England Journal of Medicine from next month popping up early. Coincidentally, if you do see a article there saying that 1000 year lifespans are coming soon, you'll probably be able to take it seriously, as it will be peer reviewed work by a team of actual biochemists, rather than the theory of some psycho computer scientist who hasn't even had formal training in biology, let alone any experimental evidence to back up his claims, which amount it little more than Fountain of Youth type stories that come from people unable to accept their own mortality.
Well clearly in grandparent poster's world, any biomedical advances that allow people to live longer would also eliminate all disabilities. Nevermind that right now we can hook someone up to machines that will keep them alive for years, increasing longevity but not allowing them to be a productive worker. Real life extension will clearly work magically and make everyone as fit as a 20 year old for their entire lifespan. hooray for made up science!
Simple solution to the time problem: allow voting by proxy, with representatives directly representing blocs of votes rather than legislative districts. Still direct democracy, but with the advantage that you can give your vote to someone who does know and care about the issues (and who agrees with you to whatever extent you care to go to in choosing your representative), instead of the present system, where you get a choice between 2 guys who will invariably vote their party line without reading the legislation they're voting on.
A badly-designed version of what you describe might allow you to add whatever text and links you want, Wiki style, but it's hardly Google's job to protect you from your own bad design.
Note that I'm assuming Google's intent with this feature is to make comment spam less useful, not to improve PageRank itself. Less comment spam will, of course, improve every search engine, but it seems more like a measure to try to reduce the factors that tempt people to comment spam in the first place.
Are you suggesting that it's possible to crash a jet into a satellite?
Until then, you'll forgive us if we think Google knows more about search and scoring algorithms than you do.
Oh the horrors. And what if I created a site with 5 million links to my competitor's website, then stuck it behind a firewall on my corporate intranet so google couldn't search it at all?! Just think of how much damage I'd be doing to them, with all of those unindexed links!
I personally doubt their nuclear program has built a significant quantity of nuclear weapons, either, but I'm sure finding those weapons would be a large part of the justification for an invasion. In any event, I doubt they're capable of launching a satellite, let alone managing to build a weapon that could bring down a specific one.
A few years ago I heard a guy on the radio explaining that paying income tax in the US is voluntary, and you have a legal right to not pay it. Good luck explaining that to the federal judge when he's sentencing you.
A better question is why someone modded a link posted by an AC "Informative" without bothering to follow it and see if it was what it claimed to be.
That sentence would be more "comprehensible" if it contained a predicate.
Name a country that the US is likely to get into a war with that has the technology to shoot down satellites. Keep in mind that we're unlikely to try invading anyone with nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them at American cities.
In the US you can't even get a book or movie called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" out with that title; you expect our schools to start teaching the philosophy of science?
However, as to your assertions about logic, you're wrong. You don't need exhaustive testing to disprove a statement like Newton's 3rd law, you just need to find one action, somewhere in the universe, which doesn't have an equal and opposite reaction.
To definitely prove a statement containing the universal qualifier is, on the other hand, pretty much logically impossible. Empirical knowledge is necessarily based on inductive reasoning, which can't be used to definitively prove anything the way you can prove things in formal logic or mathematics (even math proofs using the Axiom of Induction are deductive proofs; the name is misleading.)
If the police have probable cause, they can kick in your door and enter your home. If I do it, I could be arrested and convicted of breaking and entering. Granted tracking someone for a month is different than an immediate action that an officer judges to be necessary, but "illegal for civilians" and "illegal for the police" are 2 very different things.