Again, everyone learned the stories and recited them.. It was a part of their daily life. If someone got something wrong, it was corrected. The first oral stories were supposedly dictated to Moses by God, so there is no real room for error there as Moses was educated and existed after writing had been around for a while.
In order for you to think that oral stories varied to any significant degree would also require the written versions to be in conflict to the same degrees and you would have splintering in the text with claims one of correct while the other is not. If there are five versions of the stories since their creation, there would be five texts written yet we have absolutely no evidence of that outside of a few discrepancies that aren't largely material.
It is pretty safe to say that we know the oral stories weren't corrupted even if they are older then the telling to Moses.
Actually, it was a response to a reporter who asked what insights she can gain from being so close to Russia in connection with NATIONAL SECURITY not foreign policy, here answer was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska": Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...
Exactly. The cure for inequality is to bring them down a bit. To hell with elevating everyone else up, it's too hard. But taking and taking and taking until they are like the rest is easy.
Your example in the first paragraph isn't really applicable: imagine if the majority of Iraq's population were Americans... completely different context.
lol.. not really applicable? The first gulf war didn't end, there was a cease fire with conditions that were not met to the satisfaction of parties to the war. You are correct it is not applicable to Russia invading Crimea which is why it isn't a precedence.
Also, keep in mind that the USA had several opportunities to resolve the WMD inspection problem (like allowing the EU to chose the inspectors) but they always chose the escalating "my way or the highway" option.
And the sanctions against Iraq would have been effective if France, Russia, and China hadn't scammed the UN oil for food program to get cheap oil in violation of sanctions they voted to put in place. OF course this wouldn't have been possible without the corruption in the UN also, Kofi Annan and his family made out pretty well on it too.
The only thing about the Iraq invasion that can be legitimately traced to oil is the strong opposition by the countries and people extorting Iraq for their oil before the invasion.
Just look at who controls all of Iraq's oil exports right now.
You mean China? After the US invasion, the UN still tightly controlled Iraqi oil and over the years released larger amounts to the control of the Iraqi government until finally, they lifted the restrictions on it. If you are going to imply the US controls it or at some time controlled it, you have absolutely no fact based evidence of such happenings. China moved in as soon as the oil became available and is purchasing the vast majority of it. The best you can do is somehow conflate a situation in which the US benefits and planned on benefiting from other countries buying up the Iraqi oil.
I'm sorry but your worldview on the subject simply does not match reality much.
lol.. I'm forming my basis on the law and my extensive knowledge of a BB or pellet guns in use today. I exaggerated a bit but there are air riffles on the market which have a.51 inch barrel diameter (.50 cal) that would make it fit this definition.
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; You can find videos of them on YouTube if you are curious about them.
Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.
It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.
Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.
As for a sovereign country, Iraq was still in a cease fire with the US under the conditions it followed certain rules. They weren't following those rules. And yes, it did matter if Iraq had WMDs, their promise to dispose of them and allow verification was the heart of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked the US to help them.
Precedence is a bitch? So Russia was in a war with Crimea and ceased hostilities on the basis Crimea followed a few rules and then resumed hostilities when it was obvious they didn't follow the rules?
That is the precedence after all. the first gulf war was ended on the conditions of full disarmament of specific weapons and the halting of programs to create or develop them. That failed to happen time and time again and the means to verify it happened failed time and time again.
You are correct in your other assessments though. The US definitely has nothing to stand on- we have a president that leads from behind, trying to make every gaff a planned operation (red line anyone) as if he was some kid who fell down and tried to look cool when jumping back up exclaiming "I meant to do that". I'm just glad there are no red lines in the dirt this time for I fear China might broker a deal to disarm Ukraine or something to ensure peace and allow the pres to save face again.
Giving examples of things that cannot create other things that are part of themselves does not disprove the ability of something to create something that is part of itself, any more than giving examples of blackbirds precludes the existance of bluebirds.
True, but can you explain how given and example of something that cannot create other things that are part of itself can also create things that are part of itself? That paradox would have to exist if a creator created the universe inside the universe not yet created.
A self-modifying program can create a subroutine. It is still part of the program.
Ahh... A complex repeat of the example I initially provided with the object on the paper. A subroutine is by definition limited to the subroutine and the program is outside it. But I see you go on missing this little tidbit of logic.
A catepillar can create a butterfly and still be the same organism.
Actually, no. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, nothing is created. It is a well known process of metamorphosis.
A hypothatical "god" could create the universe by forming itself or part of itself into the universe, and in so doing could leave evidence of either its prior state or of the anatomy of the whole accessible to the residents of that universe.
What would the god -hypothetical or not, exist in before it created the universe? What makes that different then the universe it created? Now a god could be created at the same time a universe is created but to claim that which did not exist created that which did not exist is a little illogical to say the least. And even then, creating something at the same time is just semantics as if one was born as the byproduct of the birth of the other. But that is inconsistent with the line of thought we are discussing because the assertion has been made that one created the other, not that both simultaneously appeared.
Now, if you want to argue the semantics about exactly what a universe is and what constraints the permeability or nonpermeability of the boundaries of that object put on interaction between a hypothetical "creator" and the contents of the universe, that could be a more meaningful conversation, but there we'd just be establishing the implications of unproven theories should they be proven true, and we are far from proving many of them.
I'll go one further and ask you how something can exist before it is created? I do think you are relying on the creation of objects within the universe for your misunderstandings and not the properties of the universe that we are or at least think we are subject to. But in order for something to have created our universe, we have to be an object with boundaries that apply to us- not the creator who acted to create. Otherwise, the logic can't flow.
WTF.. I goggled flesh light thinking it was something I should know but never heard of before. Surprisingly, it's a masturbation product. So why do you think only males who masturbate with a flashlight looking thing will be sent into the depths of the earth and what makes you think there are millions of them?
I mean hell, I can deal with the dinosaurs.. I just don't know about the flesh light things.
Exactly. Corporations do not absolve liability, it separates and limits liability from acts you have no control over. As a share holder of a company that does not in any way take actions or cause the company to take actions, you are only liable to the extent of the value of investment. As a CEO who order the books to be cooked, you are criminally and civilly liable for your part in the parade. As the CFO who decided safety harnesses for the guys working on scaffolding 200 feet in the air despite OSHA regulations were too costly and burdensome, you are criminally and civilly liable for the deaths of the two who fell last year.
Of course it is often hard to follow the trail back to hirer ups like the CEO and so it makes it appear as if they never get in trouble. But to suddenly demand they take punishment for something they should have had control over but didn't is like demanding the mother of some kid go to jail when her son of 21 years fails to stop at a stop sign and kills someone in a minivan that hits him. We don't or at least we are not supposed to convict people of crimes others commit and we are not supposed to punish by corruption of blood. It's basic principles in the constitution.
The glorified gym teacher gets paid with money generated by the sports programs that also pays for other glorified gym teachers and scholarships for students. Interestingly enough, those that spend money on the sport programs do so voluntarily and not as a condition of tuition or tax. The money for the sport programs are largely isolated from the educational funding of the schools and in the case of large programs, almost completely isolated and self sufficient.
The only way your outrage makes sense is if we ignore that.
As for the real estate and investments, I completely agree with you. But one of the causes of the CEO's seeking quarterly profits instead of long term health of the company comes down to tax strategies. When CEOs are paid in part by stock options and bonuses that avoid regular income taxes and instead are committed to capital gains taxes, its severely advantageous to take less pay and more options and bonuses because you get to keep more in the end. When you hear of CEOs making 500 million a year, it is not salary but salary, bonuses, and stock options combined. They call it performance based pay.
I don't know if it is currently used for conventions but it seems that specific funding was made available with the express intent of using the new stadium for conventions and similar activities at a reduced rate. So maybe that is part of the plan for the renovations or something.
I could agree with you on the decreased state funding if costs were only rising in proportion to the decreases. OF course that isn't happening so while what you suggest might be part of the problem, it certainly doesn't explain it.
No..lol. Too many jobs require simply degrees and they don't give a rats ass about what they are in. I worked for a company and most the employees dispatching trucks had degrees in elementary education or physical education. We joked that the top boss was finely educated in underwater basket weaving from the best schools around the world as the computers did 90% of the work.
Years ago, companies used to administer competency tests to it's prospective hires. If you passed, you had enough knowledge to do what they needed done and was considered a possible candidate. This is still somewhat done with the civil service exams administered before you are eligible for certain government jobs (even some not considered to be in the civil service). Those tests however fell out of favor when a couple people started using them to discriminate based on race and gender so the high school diploma became a standard decree that you possessed a certain amount of skills. Then the schools started going to shit- people who weren't educationally competent graduating based on attendance and not performance or knowledge retention- so this eventually lead to college degrees serving the same purpose.
In all of this, schools with reputations became a standard higher then those without which is largely where the "where you go to school matters" comes from. The reason degrees are needed revolve around the failings of primary and secondary education more then anything. People are finding that now degrees from common schools are scoffed at and unless you come from one of the schools with a reputation, you need actual job experience under that degree in order for it to mean something.
However, in a high unemployment time, employers can be extremely picky about who they employ making this point harder to find experience in order to get a job using your degrees. Its even worse when you have a lack of employment in your recent history. However, in times of low unemployment, employers will hire people without degrees based on their employment history with other companies. Holding the same job for 2 years or more meant stability and was a major plus back when unemployment was low. Now it's almost a necessity if you want a paycheck.
Um what? USC clears says "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright."
What does it say fair use is though? It is not something you just make up, it is a legal definition that employs concepts to be determined by an arbitrator on the subject for each specific case. It is a law limiting rights of copyright holders, not a definition.
No, the statute spells out conditions to be met before a use is considered fair use; however, once it is considered fair use it is also declared as not an infringement.
No, it spells out elements that can be fair use but leaves discretion over it to someone with the power to decide matters like this (a judge or arbitrator).
Or a lawyer reading USC 107 before filing a lawsuit against a defendant. If copyright holder needs a judge to intervene then they have to pay for a lawsuit.
What do you think RIAA and the MPAA are doing? A copyright holder can still claim a copyright violation without filing a lawsuit. The accused infringe won't likely be pursued outside of having his reputation damaged or a DMCA take down filed, but there is no concrete statements in the law defining fair use. As I originally said, in an ideal world, the copyright holder (their agent) would recognized fair use when it exists but they don't seem to see it.
Please explain how a school has fewer rights than an individual or news outlet when showing the same clip.
Simple, you post the clip to a website saying the message is ruining our moral values, the news reports you doing so showing the clip also, but the school uses it in a production or assembly as filler to entertain the audience while the main production is getting organized. But if you look at the statement you quoted, I specifically mentioned that a school using the clip to teach about fair use would be covered so I'm not sure why you question this unless it is because you are seriously confused.
Really? So no one in this world has any common sense? So Lessig using a small clip of music, talking in an educational lecture about how music in different cultures is classic Fair Use. It doesn't take a super computer to figure this out.
ahh.. so young and naive. Copyright is a right granted by law not common sense. All to often in law, there is absolutely no common sense. Lessig didn't get into a dispute about using the clip of a song in his lesson, he got into the dispute because he posted and distributed that lesson online. Had he been charging a fee for the lessons, his claim to fair use may have very well went against him.
My point again for which you didn't answer is this: The MPAA and the RIAA still have the stance that any use not authorized by them is an infringement. USC 107 clear codifies that Fair Use is authorized use (just not by the copyright holder but by law) and is not an infringement. If it takes a judge to say so for each and every case only if the MPAA and RIAA want to pursue each claim. But that does not change USC 107 or the legal interpretations of many previous cases like Lenz v Universal.
Your point is wrong though. All lenz V Universal says is that before issuing a DMCA take down notice, the copyright holder must consider fair use. However, there is no set definition for fair use and by law is determined upon a preponderance of facts relating to the use. This means that a claim of fair use can be challenged and found not to exist based solely on the opinion of a judge and the copyright holder. There is no defined fair use in legal terms, only situations in which fair use can but doesn't need to exist. For this reason, fair use is a defense against infringement. If the law would have said all uses in non-profit displays or all uses by person X, then it would be cut and dry. As it is now, it is all a determination of opinion based arou
You cannot create something you are already part of. It creates a paradox of existing before you created it. How can you use the hammer you are creating in order to create the hammer? How can you become your own grandfather when you have to be born and travel back in time in order to date your grandmother? You can build a house but until it becomes a house, you are living outside it.
logic does not equal you not understanding something. It just means you don't follow the process.
The dates of the stories going into writing is somewhat well known and the linguistic differences are also known. It isn't like someone found a play written by 3000 people over 50 centuries and read it front to back. It has been studied and studied and pored over. There are even concordances that list the meanings of the words in the original as well as interpretations along the way which are widely available to the public. One of the most comprehensive ones I know of was done by Dr. Strong and is refereed to as Dr. Strong's exhaustive concordance of the bible.
This going back to the original meaning isn't something new. The supreme court and most all courts do so in their interpretations of the US constitution as words changed meanings often. There are dictionaries we know of dating back to 2 centuries before Christ. This defined drift in language is not as you think. In fact, if it was, it would be even easier to explain the bible as being real because they could simply say the definitions drifted and this was meant instead making the word true. But instead, the philology is rather deep and complete- studied at most prestigious universities and has been for perhaps the beginning of their existences. This means that some of the stories have to be taken as understood and the wild and crazy parts cannot be shifted and ignored- making it harder to believe in the reality presented.
There are some differences but they are not material enough to change the stories.
This happens because unlike the telephone game, men and women of the jews were required to memorized the scrolls that made up the torah. When someone recited portions of it and got something wrong, they were corrected by the others who knew the correct versions. Almost all people in the villages participated in this so the stories are reasonable the same as they always were.
So there is little to no leading away from the originals until it started getting translated into other languages from translated versions. Then you see some differences that could be considered material but the stories seem to work out the same. BTW, the chapter and verse numbers everyone cites today are an artifact of copying that made it easy to double check translations and copies. But that does remind me of a joke. It has something to do with a monk asking to see the original scrolls because he thought if someone made a mistake, they would be copying that mistake. So he asked the Great Schema and he said go down and take a look for yourself, the originals are in the catacombs but it's dangerous down there. So the monk went and was gone for three days. Finally, they got worried and sent someone to look and he found the monk sitting in the corner crying while mumbling we missed the R we missed the R. After a few days rest, they asked him what was it about the R that he kept mentioning? He replied, we missed the R it says celebrate not celebate.
It's kind of perfect for setting up a command and control center and relaying assessments while larger quantities and supplies are being prepared and sent. I think this thing is meant to grab and go in order to establish communications while others are preparing more complete systems for shipping.
I just ate enough calories to create some fat cells, but I wouldn't say my body exists "outside" of them. Quite to the contrary, many of them tend to be a part of me much longer than I'd prefer.
so the fat cells made you eat excessive calories with the knowledge you would create them then? Or does your consciousness, abilities and so on exist outside those of the fat cells?
You are thinking too micro here. Take a piece of paper and draw any basic shape on it your want as long as all sides end up connecting. Now lets assume you picked a square, you can draw anything you want inside the square but it will always be limited by the dimensions of the square. Outside the square, you can draw much larger objects or lines. Now think of the universe as this square, you are confined within it but outside the bounds of this universe, the possibilities are much greater including the possibility to create a smaller universe with a limited set of rules. There may be more rules outside it, but for now, we are limited to certain ones. If you were to create a universe, you would initially be outside it too.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, everyone learned the stories and recited them.. It was a part of their daily life. If someone got something wrong, it was corrected. The first oral stories were supposedly dictated to Moses by God, so there is no real room for error there as Moses was educated and existed after writing had been around for a while.
In order for you to think that oral stories varied to any significant degree would also require the written versions to be in conflict to the same degrees and you would have splintering in the text with claims one of correct while the other is not. If there are five versions of the stories since their creation, there would be five texts written yet we have absolutely no evidence of that outside of a few discrepancies that aren't largely material.
It is pretty safe to say that we know the oral stories weren't corrupted even if they are older then the telling to Moses.
Actually, it was a response to a reporter who asked what insights she can gain from being so close to Russia in connection with NATIONAL SECURITY not foreign policy, here answer was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...
It was in response to a series of questioning about Russia invading another of it's neighbors Georgia. She also warns about Russia and the Ukraine in this same interview which she was laughed at. I would think in context, her comment on this was very rational where as yours is still completely ignorant of the facts.
Exactly. The cure for inequality is to bring them down a bit. To hell with elevating everyone else up, it's too hard. But taking and taking and taking until they are like the rest is easy.
lol.. not really applicable? The first gulf war didn't end, there was a cease fire with conditions that were not met to the satisfaction of parties to the war. You are correct it is not applicable to Russia invading Crimea which is why it isn't a precedence.
And the sanctions against Iraq would have been effective if France, Russia, and China hadn't scammed the UN oil for food program to get cheap oil in violation of sanctions they voted to put in place. OF course this wouldn't have been possible without the corruption in the UN also, Kofi Annan and his family made out pretty well on it too.
The only thing about the Iraq invasion that can be legitimately traced to oil is the strong opposition by the countries and people extorting Iraq for their oil before the invasion.
You mean China? After the US invasion, the UN still tightly controlled Iraqi oil and over the years released larger amounts to the control of the Iraqi government until finally, they lifted the restrictions on it. If you are going to imply the US controls it or at some time controlled it, you have absolutely no fact based evidence of such happenings. China moved in as soon as the oil became available and is purchasing the vast majority of it. The best you can do is somehow conflate a situation in which the US benefits and planned on benefiting from other countries buying up the Iraqi oil.
I'm sorry but your worldview on the subject simply does not match reality much.
Ok, take it easy now. It's not like they have a choice in the matter.
lol.. I'm forming my basis on the law and my extensive knowledge of a BB or pellet guns in use today. I exaggerated a bit but there are air riffles on the market which have a .51 inch barrel diameter (.50 cal) that would make it fit this definition.
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; You can find videos of them on YouTube if you are curious about them.
Only if you are an idiot who forms your opinion second hand from rumors and gossip instead of actually listening to what she says in its entirety.
Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.
It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.
Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.
hmm.. when did this happen?
As for a sovereign country, Iraq was still in a cease fire with the US under the conditions it followed certain rules. They weren't following those rules. And yes, it did matter if Iraq had WMDs, their promise to dispose of them and allow verification was the heart of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked the US to help them.
Precedence is a bitch? So Russia was in a war with Crimea and ceased hostilities on the basis Crimea followed a few rules and then resumed hostilities when it was obvious they didn't follow the rules?
That is the precedence after all. the first gulf war was ended on the conditions of full disarmament of specific weapons and the halting of programs to create or develop them. That failed to happen time and time again and the means to verify it happened failed time and time again.
You are correct in your other assessments though. The US definitely has nothing to stand on- we have a president that leads from behind, trying to make every gaff a planned operation (red line anyone) as if he was some kid who fell down and tried to look cool when jumping back up exclaiming "I meant to do that". I'm just glad there are no red lines in the dirt this time for I fear China might broker a deal to disarm Ukraine or something to ensure peace and allow the pres to save face again.
I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.
Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".
True, but can you explain how given and example of something that cannot create other things that are part of itself can also create things that are part of itself? That paradox would have to exist if a creator created the universe inside the universe not yet created.
Ahh... A complex repeat of the example I initially provided with the object on the paper. A subroutine is by definition limited to the subroutine and the program is outside it. But I see you go on missing this little tidbit of logic.
Actually, no. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, nothing is created. It is a well known process of metamorphosis.
What would the god -hypothetical or not, exist in before it created the universe? What makes that different then the universe it created? Now a god could be created at the same time a universe is created but to claim that which did not exist created that which did not exist is a little illogical to say the least. And even then, creating something at the same time is just semantics as if one was born as the byproduct of the birth of the other. But that is inconsistent with the line of thought we are discussing because the assertion has been made that one created the other, not that both simultaneously appeared.
I'll go one further and ask you how something can exist before it is created? I do think you are relying on the creation of objects within the universe for your misunderstandings and not the properties of the universe that we are or at least think we are subject to. But in order for something to have created our universe, we have to be an object with boundaries that apply to us- not the creator who acted to create. Otherwise, the logic can't flow.
Who did that?
WTF.. I goggled flesh light thinking it was something I should know but never heard of before. Surprisingly, it's a masturbation product. So why do you think only males who masturbate with a flashlight looking thing will be sent into the depths of the earth and what makes you think there are millions of them?
I mean hell, I can deal with the dinosaurs.. I just don't know about the flesh light things.
Exactly. Corporations do not absolve liability, it separates and limits liability from acts you have no control over. As a share holder of a company that does not in any way take actions or cause the company to take actions, you are only liable to the extent of the value of investment. As a CEO who order the books to be cooked, you are criminally and civilly liable for your part in the parade. As the CFO who decided safety harnesses for the guys working on scaffolding 200 feet in the air despite OSHA regulations were too costly and burdensome, you are criminally and civilly liable for the deaths of the two who fell last year.
Of course it is often hard to follow the trail back to hirer ups like the CEO and so it makes it appear as if they never get in trouble. But to suddenly demand they take punishment for something they should have had control over but didn't is like demanding the mother of some kid go to jail when her son of 21 years fails to stop at a stop sign and kills someone in a minivan that hits him. We don't or at least we are not supposed to convict people of crimes others commit and we are not supposed to punish by corruption of blood. It's basic principles in the constitution.
The glorified gym teacher gets paid with money generated by the sports programs that also pays for other glorified gym teachers and scholarships for students. Interestingly enough, those that spend money on the sport programs do so voluntarily and not as a condition of tuition or tax. The money for the sport programs are largely isolated from the educational funding of the schools and in the case of large programs, almost completely isolated and self sufficient.
The only way your outrage makes sense is if we ignore that.
As for the real estate and investments, I completely agree with you. But one of the causes of the CEO's seeking quarterly profits instead of long term health of the company comes down to tax strategies. When CEOs are paid in part by stock options and bonuses that avoid regular income taxes and instead are committed to capital gains taxes, its severely advantageous to take less pay and more options and bonuses because you get to keep more in the end. When you hear of CEOs making 500 million a year, it is not salary but salary, bonuses, and stock options combined. They call it performance based pay.
A google search showed this little treat.
http://wtaw.com/2013/07/11/cs-...
I don't know if it is currently used for conventions but it seems that specific funding was made available with the express intent of using the new stadium for conventions and similar activities at a reduced rate. So maybe that is part of the plan for the renovations or something.
I could agree with you on the decreased state funding if costs were only rising in proportion to the decreases. OF course that isn't happening so while what you suggest might be part of the problem, it certainly doesn't explain it.
No..lol. Too many jobs require simply degrees and they don't give a rats ass about what they are in. I worked for a company and most the employees dispatching trucks had degrees in elementary education or physical education. We joked that the top boss was finely educated in underwater basket weaving from the best schools around the world as the computers did 90% of the work.
Years ago, companies used to administer competency tests to it's prospective hires. If you passed, you had enough knowledge to do what they needed done and was considered a possible candidate. This is still somewhat done with the civil service exams administered before you are eligible for certain government jobs (even some not considered to be in the civil service). Those tests however fell out of favor when a couple people started using them to discriminate based on race and gender so the high school diploma became a standard decree that you possessed a certain amount of skills. Then the schools started going to shit- people who weren't educationally competent graduating based on attendance and not performance or knowledge retention- so this eventually lead to college degrees serving the same purpose.
In all of this, schools with reputations became a standard higher then those without which is largely where the "where you go to school matters" comes from. The reason degrees are needed revolve around the failings of primary and secondary education more then anything. People are finding that now degrees from common schools are scoffed at and unless you come from one of the schools with a reputation, you need actual job experience under that degree in order for it to mean something.
However, in a high unemployment time, employers can be extremely picky about who they employ making this point harder to find experience in order to get a job using your degrees. Its even worse when you have a lack of employment in your recent history. However, in times of low unemployment, employers will hire people without degrees based on their employment history with other companies. Holding the same job for 2 years or more meant stability and was a major plus back when unemployment was low. Now it's almost a necessity if you want a paycheck.
What does it say fair use is though? It is not something you just make up, it is a legal definition that employs concepts to be determined by an arbitrator on the subject for each specific case. It is a law limiting rights of copyright holders, not a definition.
No, it spells out elements that can be fair use but leaves discretion over it to someone with the power to decide matters like this (a judge or arbitrator).
What do you think RIAA and the MPAA are doing? A copyright holder can still claim a copyright violation without filing a lawsuit. The accused infringe won't likely be pursued outside of having his reputation damaged or a DMCA take down filed, but there is no concrete statements in the law defining fair use. As I originally said, in an ideal world, the copyright holder (their agent) would recognized fair use when it exists but they don't seem to see it.
Simple, you post the clip to a website saying the message is ruining our moral values, the news reports you doing so showing the clip also, but the school uses it in a production or assembly as filler to entertain the audience while the main production is getting organized. But if you look at the statement you quoted, I specifically mentioned that a school using the clip to teach about fair use would be covered so I'm not sure why you question this unless it is because you are seriously confused.
ahh.. so young and naive. Copyright is a right granted by law not common sense. All to often in law, there is absolutely no common sense. Lessig didn't get into a dispute about using the clip of a song in his lesson, he got into the dispute because he posted and distributed that lesson online. Had he been charging a fee for the lessons, his claim to fair use may have very well went against him.
Your point is wrong though. All lenz V Universal says is that before issuing a DMCA take down notice, the copyright holder must consider fair use. However, there is no set definition for fair use and by law is determined upon a preponderance of facts relating to the use. This means that a claim of fair use can be challenged and found not to exist based solely on the opinion of a judge and the copyright holder. There is no defined fair use in legal terms, only situations in which fair use can but doesn't need to exist. For this reason, fair use is a defense against infringement. If the law would have said all uses in non-profit displays or all uses by person X, then it would be cut and dry. As it is now, it is all a determination of opinion based arou
You cannot create something you are already part of. It creates a paradox of existing before you created it. How can you use the hammer you are creating in order to create the hammer? How can you become your own grandfather when you have to be born and travel back in time in order to date your grandmother? You can build a house but until it becomes a house, you are living outside it.
logic does not equal you not understanding something. It just means you don't follow the process.
The dates of the stories going into writing is somewhat well known and the linguistic differences are also known. It isn't like someone found a play written by 3000 people over 50 centuries and read it front to back. It has been studied and studied and pored over. There are even concordances that list the meanings of the words in the original as well as interpretations along the way which are widely available to the public. One of the most comprehensive ones I know of was done by Dr. Strong and is refereed to as Dr. Strong's exhaustive concordance of the bible.
This going back to the original meaning isn't something new. The supreme court and most all courts do so in their interpretations of the US constitution as words changed meanings often. There are dictionaries we know of dating back to 2 centuries before Christ. This defined drift in language is not as you think. In fact, if it was, it would be even easier to explain the bible as being real because they could simply say the definitions drifted and this was meant instead making the word true. But instead, the philology is rather deep and complete- studied at most prestigious universities and has been for perhaps the beginning of their existences. This means that some of the stories have to be taken as understood and the wild and crazy parts cannot be shifted and ignored- making it harder to believe in the reality presented.
There are some differences but they are not material enough to change the stories.
This happens because unlike the telephone game, men and women of the jews were required to memorized the scrolls that made up the torah. When someone recited portions of it and got something wrong, they were corrected by the others who knew the correct versions. Almost all people in the villages participated in this so the stories are reasonable the same as they always were.
So there is little to no leading away from the originals until it started getting translated into other languages from translated versions. Then you see some differences that could be considered material but the stories seem to work out the same. BTW, the chapter and verse numbers everyone cites today are an artifact of copying that made it easy to double check translations and copies. But that does remind me of a joke. It has something to do with a monk asking to see the original scrolls because he thought if someone made a mistake, they would be copying that mistake. So he asked the Great Schema and he said go down and take a look for yourself, the originals are in the catacombs but it's dangerous down there. So the monk went and was gone for three days. Finally, they got worried and sent someone to look and he found the monk sitting in the corner crying while mumbling we missed the R we missed the R. After a few days rest, they asked him what was it about the R that he kept mentioning? He replied, we missed the R it says celebrate not celebate.
It's kind of perfect for setting up a command and control center and relaying assessments while larger quantities and supplies are being prepared and sent. I think this thing is meant to grab and go in order to establish communications while others are preparing more complete systems for shipping.
so the fat cells made you eat excessive calories with the knowledge you would create them then? Or does your consciousness, abilities and so on exist outside those of the fat cells?
You are thinking too micro here. Take a piece of paper and draw any basic shape on it your want as long as all sides end up connecting. Now lets assume you picked a square, you can draw anything you want inside the square but it will always be limited by the dimensions of the square. Outside the square, you can draw much larger objects or lines. Now think of the universe as this square, you are confined within it but outside the bounds of this universe, the possibilities are much greater including the possibility to create a smaller universe with a limited set of rules. There may be more rules outside it, but for now, we are limited to certain ones. If you were to create a universe, you would initially be outside it too.