The only way to determine that is for someone to assert it as a defense against infringement. Even then it is not universal as a news broadcast might be able to assert fair use of a clip of a song or movie in its reporting of the sales of the song or movie where you who puts it on your web page claiming the song or movie sucks might not. Even worse, neither of you (you or the news) may be able to claim fair use, but a school using the same to explain fair use would be able to.
There is no defined specific use that is fair use. It is all a conglomeration of the facts that need to be asserted in defense of a claim. Stating something is fair use before a claim is made is still stating a defense against a claim- it's just attempting to head the claim off before it is made.
I have no idea why you put wrong in the title. This is no different from what i said. Copyright law doesn't just say if X happens, it says if X happens you apply certain factors then fair use applies. So it is a defense against infringment not an automatic.
fair use is typically only a defense against copyright infringement. This means that an infringement claim sort of needs to be recognized before fair use is useful. In an ideal world, the copyright owner would recognize the limitations for fair use and not bother going after someone who is taking advantage of the exceptions. But that would require some rational thinking which doesn't seem to exist very often when you find out someone has been using your copyright without your permission.
Retrain for what? The job that moved to a new location that they will not be willing to relocate in order to do? I think you might need to slow down a bit and allow some of what is written sink in before posting.
You can feel all you want. It's a matter of cost of doing business more or less and keeping business flexible to remain profitable. From time to time that means either restructuring or going out of business as costs increase.
Expect more and more of this as energy costs artificially rise due to global warming control efforts and businesses are attacked with taxes and so on because they can simply pass the costs to the consumer without it appearing that the population had it's taxes increased. There is a reason why we are largely a service economy now and it is not necessarily congress giving special benefits to specific businesses.
You may be right but it appears the biggest difference would be who is in charge of the remediation. Also, since this would be considered a hazzardous material, access to the superfund monies can bipass congress and simply use and administrative order. I'm sure it is more complex than i'm making it sound though.
That aside, they probably do not want to risk their already shrinking budget getting stuck with the cleanup. Instead, once it changes hands to another government entity, congress will allocate money through the superfund process already in place to deal with stuff like this. Its a wash to the tax payers as it would only be an accounting gimmack.
I think the trolling comes into play when a copyright holder seeds his own or has someone seed their works in order to collect IP addresses which they then attempt to sue but settle out of court. This seems to be common practice with the **AAs in the US at one point in time.
You lose your shit and I find it, it becomes my shit.
until someone claims it was stolen (because the loss could never be due to their incompetence) and you end up with 5 years in the pen for the fall back crime when they cannot pin theft on you but find you with the goods "receiving stolen property".
But hey, you might be able to spend enough money to have a lawyer argue your way out of it. But then you have problems with the legal definition between lost and misplaced and various requirements to report found property which differ from area to area.
In the situation described in the article, the item would likely have been deemed misplaced and not lost and taking the item could be considered theft. Do as you want, just be prepared for consequences should they arise.
I was being facetious on that point. What I was trying to say is that when people got hungry, they did something about it, now it seems like they complain until someone else does something about it for them. It's the difference between when life was good and now where everyone wants to recount their misery.
And please keep in mind, when I say everyone I'm not really talking about everyone. There are plenty of people who fail and work harder just to succeed. There are plenty of people who will be more than happy to do for themselves. Those people are not typically the ones you expect to see on the gov dole demanding more and more and more though.
Well if you're a whackjob that believes in 'a destiny of sorts' then my rationale will never make it through your selfish shield of emotional appeal will it?
Your rationales should have never made it through your ignorant mental state either. You are the one ascribing supernatural concepts here not me. I'm not the one who said the unborn are at peace.
Fact of the matter is we're all born to die due to a runaway genetic program that, due to the second law of thermodynamics, is clearly a dead end road. It doesn't care about you and uses you only for it's insanely dead-end process of creating more robot producing genetic robots to no real purpose. Through programmed death it discards us as only so much used-up tissue paper so why should we have any more respect or reverence for it than it has for us? We toil and labour under the guaranteed threat of our own demise and for what? This insane loop that seeks to preserve itself in a perpetual birth, life, and death process that will, ultimately, in the heat death of the universe, amount to nothing anyway except for maybe all of the suffering it laid waste to along the way?
For the amusement of others.. But what is your point? You have no control of impact on the universe or anything in that kind of scale so you should ignore it completely. People find what is important to them and work from there.
You can unthinkingly promote the subjucation of those who never needed to be subject to it in the first place if you like. I personally think a short circuiting of the entire process is far more (and pre-emptively) compassionate. That is all.
I would suggest killing yourself then. It is the same thing after all. But wait, if you do not want to kill yourself then you are essentially admitting your worldview is flawed and there is something worth more than yourself here that keeps you here. That something may only be your fears of dieing or it may be completely external to you but it certainly is something and it certainly negates your entire it's all pointless argument.
You should actually think about it sometime. It isn't hard to see, even if you cannot understand it. If you still insist it doesn't exist and kill yourself, I offer my condolences to your family and friends but the world will likely be better off without you.
The unborn are in a place of peace. Who are we to disturb that?
Well, that is if you are some sort of whackjob that thinks that which does not exist does exist. But then you would have to have some sort of doctrine or religion explaining the purpose of the existence before the existence and deviation from that doctrine or religion would be the only way you could say "Who are we to disturb that?".
Every year 2,000,000 people on this planet commit suicide and untold others make the attempt.
And what is your point? People are able to make their own choices.
Why bother taking the chance of subjecting some poor unfortunate soul to what amounts to misery and suffering? What gives you the right, especially in a day and age when effective and safe sterilization methods exist?
I'm sorry to put it to you this way but nature gives me the right. survival of the fittest and life goes on. If I wanted to be religious on your, then it is a moral duty to multiply. If you do not want to participate in either natural selection or religion decree, that is fine, the world may be better off without your genes swimming in the pool. But don't expect others to give up on what is either a 6000+ year old obligations or a natural obligation that has existed for millions of years.
Every day millions of unfertilized eggs get flushed down the toilets. There's nothing sad about that now is there?
Sure. And people can just decide not to eat for prolonged time whenever no acceptable way to generate income is available.
That was largely the way it worked back when America was great and there was supposed to have been plenty of opportunities that we can't seem to find now. Hunger seems to be a perfect motivation to try harder. But as it is now, hunger is the government's fault because they didn't give you enough food stamps in order to sell half for booze or drugs and feed yourself with the other half.
You mean, government activity like protection of lives? Protection of freedom? Or protection of any other human rights?
How can you claim it is protecting freedom when it costs something on the order of 10k just to legitimately open a business in government regulation and permits alone in some places today? Is that like how snooping on every citizen is also protecting your freedom and rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Here is your problem. Obviously he wasn't talking about protecting your freedom or whatever shady words you want to contrive into this. He was talking about over regulation and the unnecessary involvement of government that creates a limiting burden on the people who attempt to do more then work at McDonald's or Burger King flipping whoppers for a living. Why people like you think laws like no spitting on the side walk is some valiant effort to protect everyone's freedoms or lives or human rights or something. There is such thinking that there can be too much of a good thing and often the government falls right in line with that. But as an example, Warfarin- a common blood thinner given to humans is used as a pesticide for rats and mice. So a good thing can be too much.
So how about you use that cognitive reasoning ability and actually think about what you are replying to before doing so. Maybe it would be better is you actually think a bit about what it is that you believe in concerning your worldviews as they seem to be completely jaded from reality.
Screw that. I stored them so I can have clones made to harvest organs from as I age. I will likely live forever with the hopes of an entirely new body. And as soon as we can transplant a brain, 15 years later I will finally be able to get laid in high school.
Perhaps but it would be near perfect for prosthetics. I doubt the control could be like a regular body part but for an amputeee, automatically bending a leg at the knee of folding the forearm in order to hold something while opening the door or whatever could make a dramatic difference for some.
PITA has been known yo use octocopters to tresspass on private land durring hunting season to harrass game or hunters or record what they think is abhorent behavior. Slashdot even carried a story a while ago about a hunting club doing a pideon shoot being harrassed by them and shooting the copter.
If i wasn't on my phone i could post a link. I think you were joking but i wanted to reference that in case others didn't know about it.
Actually, they are paraded around. Its one of the main reasons we have them. It stabilizes the pricesof food so we don't have massive swings downward which would cause farmers to lose their farms and then massive swings upwards from the resulting shortages.
In the long run, the slight increase in food costs are strategic in that it allows enough standing production and reserve capacity that the midwest can flood, the south can drought, the west can catch fire, and your food bill doesn't end up costing more then your mortgage payments a month or two after one of those happens.
I don't think the intent was to provide for all riots, just ones that met their criteriA when the fao index climbed above 210.
In essence, they are saying when X happens, Y follows. Not that all of Y is created by X. In a car anology, it would be like a new person shows up in New York City. We know when people cross the George Wahongton bridge in their car fro. West to east, they end up in NYC. But we also know they can fly in and enter from other routes by car too.so while X is true for Y, but Y is not limited to only X
The Nazis were trialed ex post facto and the american prosecutor who was also a US supream court justice almost resigned in protest as he eventually saw it as a "victor's court". Similar claims were made about the mtfe involving japan.
As for the rest of your point, i don't know enough specifics to comment. From what i have found, i agree though.
Slashdot Mirror
It must be doing great. He has enough money to have enough free time to post about it on slashdot.
No, fair use is not an infringement by law, not definition. but the law does not in any way say you can explicitly do X and it is not infringement, it says for certain purposes, you can do X but you need to determine several things first. The law actually specifically says "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include"
The only way to determine that is for someone to assert it as a defense against infringement. Even then it is not universal as a news broadcast might be able to assert fair use of a clip of a song or movie in its reporting of the sales of the song or movie where you who puts it on your web page claiming the song or movie sucks might not. Even worse, neither of you (you or the news) may be able to claim fair use, but a school using the same to explain fair use would be able to.
There is no defined specific use that is fair use. It is all a conglomeration of the facts that need to be asserted in defense of a claim. Stating something is fair use before a claim is made is still stating a defense against a claim- it's just attempting to head the claim off before it is made.
I have no idea why you put wrong in the title. This is no different from what i said. Copyright law doesn't just say if X happens, it says if X happens you apply certain factors then fair use applies. So it is a defense against infringment not an automatic.
fair use is typically only a defense against copyright infringement. This means that an infringement claim sort of needs to be recognized before fair use is useful. In an ideal world, the copyright owner would recognize the limitations for fair use and not bother going after someone who is taking advantage of the exceptions. But that would require some rational thinking which doesn't seem to exist very often when you find out someone has been using your copyright without your permission.
Retrain for what? The job that moved to a new location that they will not be willing to relocate in order to do? I think you might need to slow down a bit and allow some of what is written sink in before posting.
You can feel all you want. It's a matter of cost of doing business more or less and keeping business flexible to remain profitable. From time to time that means either restructuring or going out of business as costs increase.
Expect more and more of this as energy costs artificially rise due to global warming control efforts and businesses are attacked with taxes and so on because they can simply pass the costs to the consumer without it appearing that the population had it's taxes increased. There is a reason why we are largely a service economy now and it is not necessarily congress giving special benefits to specific businesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
You may be right but it appears the biggest difference would be who is in charge of the remediation. Also, since this would be considered a hazzardous material, access to the superfund monies can bipass congress and simply use and administrative order. I'm sure it is more complex than i'm making it sound though.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
5usc section 2101 specifically exempts unifo2rmed services from civil servants
The navy isn't a public servant.
That aside, they probably do not want to risk their already shrinking budget getting stuck with the cleanup. Instead, once it changes hands to another government entity, congress will allocate money through the superfund process already in place to deal with stuff like this. Its a wash to the tax payers as it would only be an accounting gimmack.
I think the trolling comes into play when a copyright holder seeds his own or has someone seed their works in order to collect IP addresses which they then attempt to sue but settle out of court. This seems to be common practice with the **AAs in the US at one point in time.
No one said anything about abortion other then you.
until someone claims it was stolen (because the loss could never be due to their incompetence) and you end up with 5 years in the pen for the fall back crime when they cannot pin theft on you but find you with the goods "receiving stolen property".
But hey, you might be able to spend enough money to have a lawyer argue your way out of it. But then you have problems with the legal definition between lost and misplaced and various requirements to report found property which differ from area to area.
In the situation described in the article, the item would likely have been deemed misplaced and not lost and taking the item could be considered theft. Do as you want, just be prepared for consequences should they arise.
I was being facetious on that point. What I was trying to say is that when people got hungry, they did something about it, now it seems like they complain until someone else does something about it for them. It's the difference between when life was good and now where everyone wants to recount their misery.
And please keep in mind, when I say everyone I'm not really talking about everyone. There are plenty of people who fail and work harder just to succeed. There are plenty of people who will be more than happy to do for themselves. Those people are not typically the ones you expect to see on the gov dole demanding more and more and more though.
Your rationales should have never made it through your ignorant mental state either. You are the one ascribing supernatural concepts here not me. I'm not the one who said the unborn are at peace.
For the amusement of others.. But what is your point? You have no control of impact on the universe or anything in that kind of scale so you should ignore it completely. People find what is important to them and work from there.
I would suggest killing yourself then. It is the same thing after all. But wait, if you do not want to kill yourself then you are essentially admitting your worldview is flawed and there is something worth more than yourself here that keeps you here. That something may only be your fears of dieing or it may be completely external to you but it certainly is something and it certainly negates your entire it's all pointless argument.
You should actually think about it sometime. It isn't hard to see, even if you cannot understand it. If you still insist it doesn't exist and kill yourself, I offer my condolences to your family and friends but the world will likely be better off without you.
Exactly my point. Once the life has began, it's no longer a gamble, it is what it is.
Well, that is if you are some sort of whackjob that thinks that which does not exist does exist. But then you would have to have some sort of doctrine or religion explaining the purpose of the existence before the existence and deviation from that doctrine or religion would be the only way you could say "Who are we to disturb that?".
And what is your point? People are able to make their own choices.
I'm sorry to put it to you this way but nature gives me the right. survival of the fittest and life goes on. If I wanted to be religious on your, then it is a moral duty to multiply. If you do not want to participate in either natural selection or religion decree, that is fine, the world may be better off without your genes swimming in the pool. But don't expect others to give up on what is either a 6000+ year old obligations or a natural obligation that has existed for millions of years.
Nope, it's part of life. why do you bring it up?
That was largely the way it worked back when America was great and there was supposed to have been plenty of opportunities that we can't seem to find now. Hunger seems to be a perfect motivation to try harder. But as it is now, hunger is the government's fault because they didn't give you enough food stamps in order to sell half for booze or drugs and feed yourself with the other half.
How can you claim it is protecting freedom when it costs something on the order of 10k just to legitimately open a business in government regulation and permits alone in some places today? Is that like how snooping on every citizen is also protecting your freedom and rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Here is your problem. Obviously he wasn't talking about protecting your freedom or whatever shady words you want to contrive into this. He was talking about over regulation and the unnecessary involvement of government that creates a limiting burden on the people who attempt to do more then work at McDonald's or Burger King flipping whoppers for a living. Why people like you think laws like no spitting on the side walk is some valiant effort to protect everyone's freedoms or lives or human rights or something. There is such thinking that there can be too much of a good thing and often the government falls right in line with that. But as an example, Warfarin- a common blood thinner given to humans is used as a pesticide for rats and mice. So a good thing can be too much.
So how about you use that cognitive reasoning ability and actually think about what you are replying to before doing so. Maybe it would be better is you actually think a bit about what it is that you believe in concerning your worldviews as they seem to be completely jaded from reality.
Screw that. I stored them so I can have clones made to harvest organs from as I age. I will likely live forever with the hopes of an entirely new body. And as soon as we can transplant a brain, 15 years later I will finally be able to get laid in high school.
You mean as apposed to ending the life before it begins?
It is not someone else's life until such time it begins and can survive on it's own. At that point, it is not a gamble but destiny of sorts.
Perhaps but it would be near perfect for prosthetics. I doubt the control could be like a regular body part but for an amputeee, automatically bending a leg at the knee of folding the forearm in order to hold something while opening the door or whatever could make a dramatic difference for some.
PITA has been known yo use octocopters to tresspass on private land durring hunting season to harrass game or hunters or record what they think is abhorent behavior. Slashdot even carried a story a while ago about a hunting club doing a pideon shoot being harrassed by them and shooting the copter.
If i wasn't on my phone i could post a link. I think you were joking but i wanted to reference that in case others didn't know about it.
Actually, they are paraded around. Its one of the main reasons we have them. It stabilizes the pricesof food so we don't have massive swings downward which would cause farmers to lose their farms and then massive swings upwards from the resulting shortages.
In the long run, the slight increase in food costs are strategic in that it allows enough standing production and reserve capacity that the midwest can flood, the south can drought, the west can catch fire, and your food bill doesn't end up costing more then your mortgage payments a month or two after one of those happens.
Its probably just gas.
I don't think the intent was to provide for all riots, just ones that met their criteriA when the fao index climbed above 210.
In essence, they are saying when X happens, Y follows. Not that all of Y is created by X. In a car anology, it would be like a new person shows up in New York City. We know when people cross the George Wahongton bridge in their car fro. West to east, they end up in NYC. But we also know they can fly in and enter from other routes by car too.so while X is true for Y, but Y is not limited to only X
The Nazis were trialed ex post facto and the american prosecutor who was also a US supream court justice almost resigned in protest as he eventually saw it as a "victor's court". Similar claims were made about the mtfe involving japan.
As for the rest of your point, i don't know enough specifics to comment. From what i have found, i agree though.