You mean cheaper for the supplier. It won't get passed to the consumer. Modt existing coal plants will be used until their end of life. The peasants would revolt if they were taxed enough to make the savings from wind strong enough to abandon functional coal or gas plants with all the sunk costs.
Another problem, some quick math showrs the scale we are looking at. I saw where a modern wind turbin can poeer the eqivilant of 500 homes. Germany has somethong like 40.076 million homes/households. Thats about 80,000 windmills needed for germany's residential power alone. Witha blade radius avraging 65 meters or ~213 feet, we can see the space needed is going to be huge before we even get to powering busyness and industry
But it was a secret leaked report. We don't even know why it wasn't just released- it iz obvious its accurate and insightful and completely truthful and ready for release.
Don't be a hater just because a report that was not intended for release got leaked. Its like you might be some sort of denier or something.
Why doesn't the sarcasm tage display on preview. I bet it is a conspiracy to make me look serious or something.
They do take that into account. Its called operating expenses. No one mines the coal or natural gas and transports it for free.
Of course the report- at least as far as the sumery is concerned placed an arbitrary value on some objects like enviromental damage and health that you really cannot quantify. Especially health- their taxes go into the same pool as everyone elses and that is just how socialized medicine works- you all share the cost. So there really isn't a health cost that can be figured outside the costs of actual treatment but thats already paid by taxes.
Now they can do something about this if they want. They can pick arbitrary amounts to recover and increase taxes on those power plants. Of course that cost will just get passed to the consumers and even if they did use more wind, they will more than likely keep the excess. If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is no real competition. You just pay more and i profit more. That's how life works.
According to the cdc and various other sources, a 1-10 solution of household bleach for 10min would work to disinfect ebola contaminated surfaces. It also seems to be killed by strong UV light.
Every biohazzard situation i have been through reqired a complete disinfection of the safety gear before you can remove it. It was similar on level 1 hazmat responses too, you stood in what looks like a kiddie pool anf an overhead shower sprayed down while people sprayed from side angles. What was sprayed depended on the hazzard- disinfectant/water/citric acid/or whatever was needed to neutralize the danger. This was the same for all your equiptment too.
I haven't worked in a field where i do this since the late 1990s- early 2000s but i cannot imagine much has changed on this. It was all regulated by OSHA, MSHA and usfmc dot regulation which helped developed most of the internation response proceedures and adopted those it didn't so it was pretty uniform across the board on anything that posed a risk of death from contamination.
Maybe they are not treating this as seriously as death being a result.
My argument is that the Constitution was designed to protect slavery. Your argument is that the Constitution "was never intended to give the Federal government that much control over states." In other words, you just agreed that it was specifically designed to protect slavery from the Federal government.
Not at all. Just like when you fail to prevent someone getting mugged in front of you, you did not protect the mugger. The US constitution did not ever protect slavery, it simply did not address it until later- outside of limiting the influence of non free people in taxes and representation.
This argument that if something doesn't act to stop something, it is automatically protecting it is silly in its own right. As we can see how silly it is with the mugging situation, it is just as silly with other situations too. You failed to clean the virus off you computer so you must be protecting the virus. You failed to weed your garden so you must be protecting invasive species. You failed to cut your carbon footprint so you must be protecting big oil's ability to pollute. Do you see how utterly silly this all looks when taking your insistence and not applying it to extreme examples, but any other example possible. You are simply wrong.
Apparently neither of us knows the Constitution as well as we thought. Or rather apparently I don't, and you didn't bother to check.
It's the Fifth Amendment we're talking about, and it's last clause is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Noted. I just assumed your numbering was correct and didn't check myself. Mistakes happen and this alone doesn't invalidate either of our point of views. So we shall continue.
That's a neat bit of legal reasoning, and it's largely the one Lincoln used. But it ignores the fact there was a fairly strong minority of southern slave-owners who remained loyal. Sherman's bodyguard on his March to the Sea was actually the First Alabama.
The emancipation proclamation did not set free any slaves in territories already held by the union or any areas controlled by the Union. Only in hostile territories held by belligerent entities. I imagine that would also include the home areas and homes of those people.
The emancipation proclamation was really limited in scope.
I'm not the one who said the income tax was Unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment.
I do not believe I was the one who said it either. But seeing how it is outside the scope of slavery, it is neither here nor there as of now.
If I've fallen for silly anti-American BS, why did you agree with me in the first sentence of this post?
I did not agree with you though. You see, I acknowledge the facts of the situation, you attempt to place a hidden meaning on them outside of the facts and this imposition turns out to be factually incorrect. It is true that some founders wanted to abolish slavery from the start while others refused to be part of the union if any of that was happening. So they ignored the issue. It is nothing more than that.
Not really. You see, if I give you a book, I can either give you my copy and no one violated copyright or I can make a copy and give it to you. Either way, I made the copy and distributed the book.
Now computers are a bit different in that the copy is so easily made but similar in that I still control whether I give you the original or a copy of it. It is all in my settings on my server or computer when I offer the file. Very few times will you ever have the ability to determine if the file on my server or computer is copied or deleted as it is transferred to your system. If you download a file and I remove it from my machine as the file is transferred (imagine a cut and paste process), no copy was made. But if I retained a copy of the file (imagine copy and past), then the copy made was because of my settings and by me. Therefore, a copy is made but you did not necessarily make it or cause it to be made because that is completely out of your control.
intentionally risking the infection of people in order to save your own ass is monumentally stupid. But people tend to act in ways of self preservation when the issue is pressed and you will see things like this often. It's no different than a criminal who rats on his buddies for a lesser term in prison or the conscripted soldier who flees to another country to avoid the conscription.
So aspirin, Pepto bismol, and hydrocodone or Vicodin will cover up most early symptoms of Ebola. I guess the issue is will the news coverage be such in ways that people in these infected countries think they can be cured by going to other countries. If so, expect a raid and looting on hospital clinics and people thinking their lives will be saved if they can only get to another country.
And this is not even touching the terrorism aspect of things. Imagine someone intentionally doing this knowing that their eventual symptoms will be discovered after it is already too late. Imagine if they worked at a food stall at a busy mall or subway or right outside the government offices or court rooms or something.
I saw a bumper sticker that said you can't fix stupid. I think that is right because a lot of these people do not want to learn the details and scary parts of a lot of these things. It's like the TV, they want to push the button or rotate the knob and have it come on and be useful to them (entertainment). They do not want to be bothered with how a signal is transmitted or how the TV translates that to something they might want to watch- they just want it to do it's magic behind the scenes so they can enjoy what it produces.
This is probably why most people do not care or even put the NSA on their radar. What would fix that might be a hollywood movie to TV show that depicts several teens getting busted for some serious crime they had no part in because of data mining by the NSA and some cleaver circumstantial evidence. But then again, they might just think it is some story line plot with special effects and ignore it if it causes them to think outside their comfort zone very much. So the tech involve will likely have to account for the fact that you can't fix stupid to some degree.
I'm currious if anyone is being exploited in the sense of exploiting children if they take their own pics and you end up seeing them.
I'm not saying it is ok to view them or anything, I'm just under the impression that the exploitation comes from children being forced or enticed into the photos and the viewer while not participating in the actual act, it enabling it by creating demand. So if a child takes a photo of themselves for their own reasons, is anyone actual being exploited?
Or is that a legal term that applied in all situations regardless of any inherent or lack of logical connection?
This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.
Not at all. You know perfectly well that muggers steal old ladies purses. The federal government was never intended to have that much control over the states. The US constitution united 13 different countries into a unified face for foreign relations with a limited set of powers regarding interaction between the states. The only nation building role the Constitution originally set out was creating a post office and roads. Everything else was left to the states because they were their own countries and only surrendered enough rights in order to have a strong presences internationally and protect themselves from international threats.
You idea that it should have been more but wasn't means it protects slavery is pure and simple nonesense. That is why claiming you are clueless is completely appropriate.
So it only applies to slave states, but it has nothing to do with slavery? I believe you just contradicted yourself.
Not at all. Slaves existed, people who had slaves existed, and together they practiced slavery. However, the 3/5th rule did nothing to that act or actions whatsoever at all. It certainly did not "Regulated to an extent, by the end of the foreign trade, and the 3/5 clause; but 100% protected."
Nothing in the US constitution can or ever could have been interpreted to allow, protect, promote, regulate or anything of the sorts concerning slavery outside of congress being able to limit bringing new slaves in after a period of time. Your insistence that because it did nothing that it protects it is illogical and ignorant of the founding of this country completely.
Just because statutes allow something that does not imply it's Constitutional.
Actually, it does imply exactly that until it is found not to be constitutional.
The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.
You can skip the third parties in your explanation of the emancipation proclamation. It isn't necessary at all. But the sixth amendment does not limit the government's actions against foreign entities especially when at war with them- just US entities. Now the south considered themselves to be foreign to the US, Lincoln and congress considered them a belligerent power (an entity of their own right) and states up to this time were actually countries who surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a central federal government but retained most of it. More importantly, the US north set a requirement of ratifying the 13th amendment to allow the south to "fully rejoin" the union during the reconstruction. Of course the rumor was Johnson used that threat was to force the 13th amendment before congress reconvened because he knew it would be hostile towards the south and limits their ability to rejoin the union.
The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.
I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with things. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was unconstitutional but supported in other courts. You aren't attempting to claim that because he
It's still not the downloader copying. All you do is ask another server for the file. The other computer or server can transfer that file while removing it from their system or it can create a copy of the file to give to you. The copy on your computer is only possible because the uploader transferred it to you.
Whether it is the entire original copy as in you are sent a book through the mail which would invoke the rights of first sale or there is a copy remaining on the server/other computer is entirely the function of the software on the server/uploader side.
For the downloader, it is no different than going to a book store and being given a book that the book store made copies of in the back room the night before.
So, viewing a movie on Youtube existentially causes copies to be present on your computer. Are we to assume that all viewers of websites, online video, or streaming music services are copyright infringers making illegal copies all over the place?
More importantly, wouldn't that make the internet a device primarily intended to enable copyright violations and illegal to manufacture, import or posses under copyright law?
Or does the copying result in to little more than the exceptions found in reasonable legal interpretations like the Sony Beta Max case and how does downloading a file someone else offer creatively become drastically different?
And yes, both were protected because the Constitution is specifically designed so that the Feds can't stop slave-owners from doing either.
Lol.. The constitution is specifically designed so that murder and rape cannot be prosecuted by the federal government regardless of who the victims are unless it happens on federal land or across state lines or in some other way which would give the federal government jurisdiction. If someone rapes your sister and kills your mother, the feds cannot do jack about it- the onus is on the state unless some circumstance provides the feds with jurisdiction. That in no way means the constitution is protecting any rapist or murderer, it means they do not have the ability to act.
You don't know the timeline very well. Seven of the South's 13 seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. They couldn't be reacting to Lincoln's tyranny.
You are confused. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Lincoln forced the issue of slavery to gain support of the abolitionist in order to get reelected. Before that, it was largely about preserving the Union and they (South Carolina) attacked our fort (Fort Sumter).
They were anticipating that the North would restrict slavery, and they wanted none of that
Yep, but the south seceding didn't start the civil war. The north just bitch and moaned about it until South Carolina laid siege to Fort Sumter. In fact, Lincoln actually ask the south for permission to resupply the fort which indicates he recognized them as separate entities from the US.
So you can make an academic argument that defending the Confederacy was not defending slavery prior to the Proclamation, but in reality the guy defending a Confederation of slave-holding states from the tyranny of a guy who might restrict slavery (but hasn't tried to yet) is defending slavery.
You can confabulate a lot of things and allow it to boil down to slavery. I'll give you that they were defending slavery but we would have to ignore the economic differences and the fear that federalism would be done away with in order to do such.
Note that the Proclamation was issued 17n months into a 48 month war. Since every southern soldier was by definition defending slaves from being freedx by the north after that, then almost 2/3 of a Southern officer's war was spent defending slaves from being freed.
lol.. So if I said arguing with me means "you cannot eat dirt" and "you cannot have sex with your sister", all your arguments from here on out is so you can eat dirt and sleep with your sister? Of course not so why would something already happening all the sudden be defined by something some person did after the initial facts?
Now of course the south was defending a way of life- that is part of their right to self determination. Several of those states were countries before becoming states. In fact, the term state held the same meaning as a nation state.
falsifying information on an application and illegal downloading music, movies and books. FBI employee Steve Dupre explained how the FBI will ask people during interviews how many songs, movies and books they have downloaded because the FBI considers it to be stealing.
The FBI considers downloading to be illegal despite any law making it so. Unless downloading has morphed into one of those words like CPU (the actual CPU or as some think, the computer tower itself) with several meanings and I have yet to discover the one in use in this sentence, there should be cause for concern.
Of course I find it interesting that this FBI employee Steve Dupre guy also says later in the article that "Grades are not an end all". I guess that would have to be so if we are making laws up and considering something as against the law when no law supports that concept.
Nope, the person offering it for download is making the copy and distributing it. To equate this with older tech, I write a paper in which I plagiarize the entire works of other people. You say you would like a copy of the paper so I leave copies at the door and you pick one up on your way in. You have violated no law even though it is essentially the same as if I offered it electronically and you accessed it.
You're also illegally making a copy of a song by transcribing the lyrics onto a sheet of paper with pen & pencil
No more so than if you were to use a tape record to copy music from the radio or a VCR to copy a movie or TV show.
I once read an account of a Supreme Court justice who was writing an opinion in a famous copyright case. The justice said something to the effect of, "if X was illegal, it would also be illegal to write down a poem I heard over the radio". He was attempting an argumentum ad absurdum. When the other justices informed him that, in fact, it was illegal to do just that, and it wasn't even remotely debatable, it was removed from his opinion before publication.
I would like to know more about this case. I can find no case in which the Supreme Court considered copyright in this was. Perhpas it was in questioning of the sony beta max case which was ultimately decided against the copyright holder. Justices are likely more apt to make an argumentum ad absurdum in case rather than opinion but draw from relevant conclusions within the opinion. But then again, I cannot find the case you are remembering so I do not know.
Under copyright law, people are behaving illegally all... the... time. The only reason the world doesn't end because of all the illegality is because the copyright holder cannot detect it, let alone prove it. If he could, technically the law gives him insane statutory damages. Also, in those cases where the holder can prove it, they often choose not to exercise that right, because if the big corporations (the ones most likely to be able to prove and prosecute such infringement) started suing every random Joe who simply copied something rather than distributed it, Congress would likely quickly change the law.
Well, changing the law is likely part of a concern, but decisions like the Sony Beta Max case would probably bar cases against most copying that didn't involve distribution or public performances. the later is somewhat in doubt too if the performance meets certain criteria as in no expectations of profit or gain from doing it. For instance, you walking down the street singing Lady Gaga tunes or listening to a radio playing it in which others could hear would not be a violation unless someone paid you to do it or you were advertising something and using that to attract attention or similar.
Of course there is. It's a copyright violation to do so.
Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.
The difference between uploading and downloading is that there are no statutory damages for downloading, only actual damages for the lost sale. So they could sue you for perhaps $30, but they'd lose money on every case. Uploading is subject to statutory (legally-defined) damages, which are quite a bit larger.
Nope. There is no provision in law about downloading or any activity close to it. If you purchase a DVD from a street merchant and it turns out to be counterfeit, you have broken no copyright law.
The formation of the Confederacy was largely about slavery, as can be seen by the secession proclamations and supported by the Confederate constitution, not to mention it seems to have been provoked by the election, as President, of a known abolitionist.,
Sure it was. But the secession did not start the civil war. South Carolina attacking Fort Sumter did.
The start of the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery directly, but was a result of secession.
Insomuch that South Carolina didn't want a Union fort in the middle of their territory. The north while not happy and speaking angrily, was not about to invade the confederacy. Of course you could say that Fort Sumter was just a ploy to push the issue, after all, Lincoln did ask to resupply it unmolested which is when South Carolina laid siege to it. Unfortunately, we cannot know if war over secession specifically would have happened or not. But for what we do know, a good cry and we would have been freindemies or something.
The Civil War was not really about slavery, although it was important for diplomatic reasons for Lincoln to have it seen as such. For example, Britain could have smashed the Union blockade, if it were not that, politically, it was impossible to intervene in favor of slavery.
how very true. And seeing how Brittan outlawed slavery a number of years before, it makes sense to frame it this way for those ends.
Domestically, there were quite a few people in the North that didn't care about slavery of blacks, including some that probably favored it, so presenting the Civil War as a crusade against slavery would have been counterproductive.
There was a good portion of abolitionist in the north but you are correct, it wasn't really an overriding issue. Lincoln even got slack for his support for slaves having rights in which he explained away in ways that would make us cringe today when he was running for the office of president. I would bet there were more people who were indifferent then in opposition to slavery before the civil war.
The only problem is that there is no federal law against downloading. There is about copying and distributing which whoever offers it for download would definitely be doing but no law against you downloading it. All the court cases you see about it stem from the illegal distribution.
The article says "illegal" downloading. I wonder how many applicants will answer no because they never shared anything and be disqualified because their sweep of meta data indicated otherwise? I wonder how many will admit to illegally downloading who has not according to the letter of the law? And since it is a government employer, I wonder what the constitutional implications are if they have a trove of data which was meant to catch terrorist that they use in validating your eligibility for employment.
Slashdot Mirror
You sure it is only 11 sqare miles?
An acre is 1/640 of a square mile. Assuming 640 per square mile, thats about 125 sqare miles.
Of course my math could be off.
You mean cheaper for the supplier. It won't get passed to the consumer. Modt existing coal plants will be used until their end of life. The peasants would revolt if they were taxed enough to make the savings from wind strong enough to abandon functional coal or gas plants with all the sunk costs.
Another problem, some quick math showrs the scale we are looking at. I saw where a modern wind turbin can poeer the eqivilant of 500 homes. Germany has somethong like 40.076 million homes/households. Thats about 80,000 windmills needed for germany's residential power alone. Witha blade radius avraging 65 meters or ~213 feet, we can see the space needed is going to be huge before we even get to powering busyness and industry
But it was a secret leaked report. We don't even know why it wasn't just released- it iz obvious its accurate and insightful and completely truthful and ready for release.
Don't be a hater just because a report that was not intended for release got leaked. Its like you might be some sort of denier or something.
Why doesn't the sarcasm tage display on preview. I bet it is a conspiracy to make me look serious or something.
They do take that into account. Its called operating expenses. No one mines the coal or natural gas and transports it for free.
Of course the report- at least as far as the sumery is concerned placed an arbitrary value on some objects like enviromental damage and health that you really cannot quantify. Especially health- their taxes go into the same pool as everyone elses and that is just how socialized medicine works- you all share the cost. So there really isn't a health cost that can be figured outside the costs of actual treatment but thats already paid by taxes.
Now they can do something about this if they want. They can pick arbitrary amounts to recover and increase taxes on those power plants. Of course that cost will just get passed to the consumers and even if they did use more wind, they will more than likely keep the excess. If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is no real competition. You just pay more and i profit more. That's how life works.
According to the cdc and various other sources, a 1-10 solution of household bleach for 10min would work to disinfect ebola contaminated surfaces. It also seems to be killed by strong UV light.
Perhaps someone needs to update something.
Every biohazzard situation i have been through reqired a complete disinfection of the safety gear before you can remove it. It was similar on level 1 hazmat responses too, you stood in what looks like a kiddie pool anf an overhead shower sprayed down while people sprayed from side angles. What was sprayed depended on the hazzard- disinfectant/water/citric acid/or whatever was needed to neutralize the danger. This was the same for all your equiptment too.
I haven't worked in a field where i do this since the late 1990s- early 2000s but i cannot imagine much has changed on this. It was all regulated by OSHA, MSHA and usfmc dot regulation which helped developed most of the internation response proceedures and adopted those it didn't so it was pretty uniform across the board on anything that posed a risk of death from contamination.
Maybe they are not treating this as seriously as death being a result.
I think he was talking about the other victim who likely killed this nurse by lies and knowingly placing the nurse in danger of catching the disease.
When the original story broke, people were blaming dincan for all sorts of things.
Not at all. Just like when you fail to prevent someone getting mugged in front of you, you did not protect the mugger. The US constitution did not ever protect slavery, it simply did not address it until later- outside of limiting the influence of non free people in taxes and representation.
This argument that if something doesn't act to stop something, it is automatically protecting it is silly in its own right. As we can see how silly it is with the mugging situation, it is just as silly with other situations too. You failed to clean the virus off you computer so you must be protecting the virus. You failed to weed your garden so you must be protecting invasive species. You failed to cut your carbon footprint so you must be protecting big oil's ability to pollute. Do you see how utterly silly this all looks when taking your insistence and not applying it to extreme examples, but any other example possible. You are simply wrong.
Noted. I just assumed your numbering was correct and didn't check myself. Mistakes happen and this alone doesn't invalidate either of our point of views. So we shall continue.
The emancipation proclamation did not set free any slaves in territories already held by the union or any areas controlled by the Union. Only in hostile territories held by belligerent entities. I imagine that would also include the home areas and homes of those people.
The emancipation proclamation was really limited in scope.
I do not believe I was the one who said it either. But seeing how it is outside the scope of slavery, it is neither here nor there as of now.
I did not agree with you though. You see, I acknowledge the facts of the situation, you attempt to place a hidden meaning on them outside of the facts and this imposition turns out to be factually incorrect. It is true that some founders wanted to abolish slavery from the start while others refused to be part of the union if any of that was happening. So they ignored the issue. It is nothing more than that.
Not really. You see, if I give you a book, I can either give you my copy and no one violated copyright or I can make a copy and give it to you. Either way, I made the copy and distributed the book.
Now computers are a bit different in that the copy is so easily made but similar in that I still control whether I give you the original or a copy of it. It is all in my settings on my server or computer when I offer the file. Very few times will you ever have the ability to determine if the file on my server or computer is copied or deleted as it is transferred to your system. If you download a file and I remove it from my machine as the file is transferred (imagine a cut and paste process), no copy was made. But if I retained a copy of the file (imagine copy and past), then the copy made was because of my settings and by me. Therefore, a copy is made but you did not necessarily make it or cause it to be made because that is completely out of your control.
intentionally risking the infection of people in order to save your own ass is monumentally stupid. But people tend to act in ways of self preservation when the issue is pressed and you will see things like this often. It's no different than a criminal who rats on his buddies for a lesser term in prison or the conscripted soldier who flees to another country to avoid the conscription.
So aspirin, Pepto bismol, and hydrocodone or Vicodin will cover up most early symptoms of Ebola. I guess the issue is will the news coverage be such in ways that people in these infected countries think they can be cured by going to other countries. If so, expect a raid and looting on hospital clinics and people thinking their lives will be saved if they can only get to another country.
And this is not even touching the terrorism aspect of things. Imagine someone intentionally doing this knowing that their eventual symptoms will be discovered after it is already too late. Imagine if they worked at a food stall at a busy mall or subway or right outside the government offices or court rooms or something.
I saw a bumper sticker that said you can't fix stupid. I think that is right because a lot of these people do not want to learn the details and scary parts of a lot of these things. It's like the TV, they want to push the button or rotate the knob and have it come on and be useful to them (entertainment). They do not want to be bothered with how a signal is transmitted or how the TV translates that to something they might want to watch- they just want it to do it's magic behind the scenes so they can enjoy what it produces.
This is probably why most people do not care or even put the NSA on their radar. What would fix that might be a hollywood movie to TV show that depicts several teens getting busted for some serious crime they had no part in because of data mining by the NSA and some cleaver circumstantial evidence. But then again, they might just think it is some story line plot with special effects and ignore it if it causes them to think outside their comfort zone very much. So the tech involve will likely have to account for the fact that you can't fix stupid to some degree.
I'm currious if anyone is being exploited in the sense of exploiting children if they take their own pics and you end up seeing them.
I'm not saying it is ok to view them or anything, I'm just under the impression that the exploitation comes from children being forced or enticed into the photos and the viewer while not participating in the actual act, it enabling it by creating demand. So if a child takes a photo of themselves for their own reasons, is anyone actual being exploited?
Or is that a legal term that applied in all situations regardless of any inherent or lack of logical connection?
Not at all. You know perfectly well that muggers steal old ladies purses. The federal government was never intended to have that much control over the states. The US constitution united 13 different countries into a unified face for foreign relations with a limited set of powers regarding interaction between the states. The only nation building role the Constitution originally set out was creating a post office and roads. Everything else was left to the states because they were their own countries and only surrendered enough rights in order to have a strong presences internationally and protect themselves from international threats.
You idea that it should have been more but wasn't means it protects slavery is pure and simple nonesense. That is why claiming you are clueless is completely appropriate.
Not at all. Slaves existed, people who had slaves existed, and together they practiced slavery. However, the 3/5th rule did nothing to that act or actions whatsoever at all. It certainly did not "Regulated to an extent, by the end of the foreign trade, and the 3/5 clause; but 100% protected."
Nothing in the US constitution can or ever could have been interpreted to allow, protect, promote, regulate or anything of the sorts concerning slavery outside of congress being able to limit bringing new slaves in after a period of time. Your insistence that because it did nothing that it protects it is illogical and ignorant of the founding of this country completely.
Actually, it does imply exactly that until it is found not to be constitutional.
You can skip the third parties in your explanation of the emancipation proclamation. It isn't necessary at all. But the sixth amendment does not limit the government's actions against foreign entities especially when at war with them- just US entities. Now the south considered themselves to be foreign to the US, Lincoln and congress considered them a belligerent power (an entity of their own right) and states up to this time were actually countries who surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a central federal government but retained most of it. More importantly, the US north set a requirement of ratifying the 13th amendment to allow the south to "fully rejoin" the union during the reconstruction. Of course the rumor was Johnson used that threat was to force the 13th amendment before congress reconvened because he knew it would be hostile towards the south and limits their ability to rejoin the union.
I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with things. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was unconstitutional but supported in other courts. You aren't attempting to claim that because he
It's still not the downloader copying. All you do is ask another server for the file. The other computer or server can transfer that file while removing it from their system or it can create a copy of the file to give to you. The copy on your computer is only possible because the uploader transferred it to you.
Whether it is the entire original copy as in you are sent a book through the mail which would invoke the rights of first sale or there is a copy remaining on the server/other computer is entirely the function of the software on the server/uploader side.
For the downloader, it is no different than going to a book store and being given a book that the book store made copies of in the back room the night before.
So, viewing a movie on Youtube existentially causes copies to be present on your computer. Are we to assume that all viewers of websites, online video, or streaming music services are copyright infringers making illegal copies all over the place?
More importantly, wouldn't that make the internet a device primarily intended to enable copyright violations and illegal to manufacture, import or posses under copyright law?
Or does the copying result in to little more than the exceptions found in reasonable legal interpretations like the Sony Beta Max case and how does downloading a file someone else offer creatively become drastically different?
Lol.. The constitution is specifically designed so that murder and rape cannot be prosecuted by the federal government regardless of who the victims are unless it happens on federal land or across state lines or in some other way which would give the federal government jurisdiction. If someone rapes your sister and kills your mother, the feds cannot do jack about it- the onus is on the state unless some circumstance provides the feds with jurisdiction. That in no way means the constitution is protecting any rapist or murderer, it means they do not have the ability to act.
You are confused. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Lincoln forced the issue of slavery to gain support of the abolitionist in order to get reelected. Before that, it was largely about preserving the Union and they (South Carolina) attacked our fort (Fort Sumter).
Yep, but the south seceding didn't start the civil war. The north just bitch and moaned about it until South Carolina laid siege to Fort Sumter. In fact, Lincoln actually ask the south for permission to resupply the fort which indicates he recognized them as separate entities from the US.
You can confabulate a lot of things and allow it to boil down to slavery. I'll give you that they were defending slavery but we would have to ignore the economic differences and the fear that federalism would be done away with in order to do such.
lol.. So if I said arguing with me means "you cannot eat dirt" and "you cannot have sex with your sister", all your arguments from here on out is so you can eat dirt and sleep with your sister? Of course not so why would something already happening all the sudden be defined by something some person did after the initial facts?
Now of course the south was defending a way of life- that is part of their right to self determination. Several of those states were countries before becoming states. In fact, the term state held the same meaning as a nation state.
From the summery
The FBI considers downloading to be illegal despite any law making it so. Unless downloading has morphed into one of those words like CPU (the actual CPU or as some think, the computer tower itself) with several meanings and I have yet to discover the one in use in this sentence, there should be cause for concern.
Of course I find it interesting that this FBI employee Steve Dupre guy also says later in the article that "Grades are not an end all". I guess that would have to be so if we are making laws up and considering something as against the law when no law supports that concept.
Nope, the person offering it for download is making the copy and distributing it. To equate this with older tech, I write a paper in which I plagiarize the entire works of other people. You say you would like a copy of the paper so I leave copies at the door and you pick one up on your way in. You have violated no law even though it is essentially the same as if I offered it electronically and you accessed it.
No more so than if you were to use a tape record to copy music from the radio or a VCR to copy a movie or TV show.
I would like to know more about this case. I can find no case in which the Supreme Court considered copyright in this was. Perhpas it was in questioning of the sony beta max case which was ultimately decided against the copyright holder. Justices are likely more apt to make an argumentum ad absurdum in case rather than opinion but draw from relevant conclusions within the opinion. But then again, I cannot find the case you are remembering so I do not know.
Well, changing the law is likely part of a concern, but decisions like the Sony Beta Max case would probably bar cases against most copying that didn't involve distribution or public performances. the later is somewhat in doubt too if the performance meets certain criteria as in no expectations of profit or gain from doing it. For instance, you walking down the street singing Lady Gaga tunes or listening to a radio playing it in which others could hear would not be a violation unless someone paid you to do it or you were advertising something and using that to attract attention or similar.
Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.
Nope. There is no provision in law about downloading or any activity close to it. If you purchase a DVD from a street merchant and it turns out to be counterfeit, you have broken no copyright law.
Sigh.. I have the gun too. Lots of them actually and in several different geographical locations.
This is getting too silly.
That is what contradicts reality.
And as to
Not if the reason they have it is because the law requires them to have it. laws about billing records and such do require them to have it.
Sure it was. But the secession did not start the civil war. South Carolina attacking Fort Sumter did.
The start of the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery directly, but was a result of secession.
Insomuch that South Carolina didn't want a Union fort in the middle of their territory. The north while not happy and speaking angrily, was not about to invade the confederacy. Of course you could say that Fort Sumter was just a ploy to push the issue, after all, Lincoln did ask to resupply it unmolested which is when South Carolina laid siege to it. Unfortunately, we cannot know if war over secession specifically would have happened or not. But for what we do know, a good cry and we would have been freindemies or something.
how very true. And seeing how Brittan outlawed slavery a number of years before, it makes sense to frame it this way for those ends.
There was a good portion of abolitionist in the north but you are correct, it wasn't really an overriding issue. Lincoln even got slack for his support for slaves having rights in which he explained away in ways that would make us cringe today when he was running for the office of president. I would bet there were more people who were indifferent then in opposition to slavery before the civil war.
You do appear confused. Perhaps you were writing a fictional book or something and forgot which plot line goes with reality?
The only problem is that there is no federal law against downloading. There is about copying and distributing which whoever offers it for download would definitely be doing but no law against you downloading it. All the court cases you see about it stem from the illegal distribution.
The article says "illegal" downloading. I wonder how many applicants will answer no because they never shared anything and be disqualified because their sweep of meta data indicated otherwise? I wonder how many will admit to illegally downloading who has not according to the letter of the law? And since it is a government employer, I wonder what the constitutional implications are if they have a trove of data which was meant to catch terrorist that they use in validating your eligibility for employment.
When looking at that much money, they likely could make more than the saving from not paying interest. Rich people love loans for this reason alone.
But then again, wealthy people tend to borrow at lower rates than normal people can because it is a low risk loan.