You do understand that the DMCA was derived out of the two WIPO treaties WCT and WPPT right? Canada signed onto it in december of 1997 but has yet to ratify it and move into force. In contrast, the US signed onto it in april of 97, ratified it in sept of 1999, and went into force in 2002. The EU signed in 1996, ratified it in 2009 and went into force in 2010.
I think the pressure is coming from countries other then "just" the US but Canada won't hold it off forever as long as the treaties are in tact as they already showed their intentions to follow them.
And I'm not disputing your concept of muti-national corporations.
That's kind of dodging the question though, as the legality of copyright infringement is related to the establishment of those political treaties but is not contingent upon them.
No, it's not dodging it at all. The governments of the countries determine what is or what isn't a crime and the punishment or rememdies to that crime is describes the seriousness of it. The international treaties also attempt to get other nations to take it just as seriously--.
That's an interesting point, but how old a law is usually only comes into play when looking at the history of how the courts have ruled it to apply in different situations when discussing matters of law, not treaties.
When looking at how diplomacy is actually practiced, treaties are generally more for political/public/perceptual leverage in dealings between different countries than they are inviolable laws.
Sort of.. But you are missing key issues here. A treaty on something like the terms of copyright actually does get made into law because the treaties spell out a term and generally that each signatory needs to honor the copyright terms of the other. So in this context, it's more then just a public facade showing an agreement to be best friends for 20 years or something of the sort.
Um...No...Because often other countries have things that your country doesn't (such as Oil from the Middle East) or if they own a great deal of your debt (as is the case with China). Setting aside the copyright issue, the western world has stepped over the bodies of countless thousands murdered by dictators for decades (incidentally, that's not even counting the genocide done by those dictators that we help put into power) because they have something that we need.
I'm, not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seems to disprove or counter anything i have said other then you saying "umm no". Perhaps if your comment wasn't riddled with so much other tripe, you point would be more clear.
The thing to remember when learning about history/politics/international studies is, to paraphrase Kissinger, that countries don't have laws when dealing with each other, instead, they have interests.
Sure, and I reference one of the biggest interest ever known- trade.
While I have no idea what the existence of despotism in the world has to do with copyright policy, I would say that if the Arab Spring has taught us anything it's that the free (as in Freedom;) flow of information allows the overthrow of dictatorships, not restrictions (such as copyright).
What is has to do with things is that it's prevalent in every type of government. They are concerned with copyright, even the communist countries are concerned with copyright. Granted, they use violations of it as a way to impose sanctions on other countries, but that only reinforces the perceived values that all governments place on it.
What the mafiAA (and most other businesses) fail to grasp is that the majority of people in other countries simply cannot afford to pay $10-15 for a movie ticket when the average income is $3,000 a year, so of course piracy is going to be prevalent in a lot of countries!
I really don't care about the mafIAA or most businesses. I'm talking about the governments of the countries and how they consider copyright to be something serious. I have not seen a government yet that got rid of all copyright. We have seen governments put different terms and different values or conditions on it. But we have not seen any of them get rid of it. The governments of the world take copyright seriously and this transcends elected governments changing every few years as well as 40 year or longer dictatorships. The only people who seem to not take copyright seriously are the subjects of those governments.
However, other countries signed the same international copyright treaties the US is part of before the US did. In fact, the Two treaties that brought us the DMCA was signed and ratified by the European Union before the US signed on and created the DMCA as part of the ratification of them. The berne convention carried most of Europe and the rest of the world while the US was stuck on 20 years in bilateral treaties with it's trade partners until the mid to late 80's when we finally fixed an obligation from the 50's or 60's to come current with the berne convention because of trade pressure from Europe.
Please learn something about which you attempt to speak of. Copyright has long been a diplomatic tool for a lot of countries to force the honoring of their own intellectual rights in those foreign countries.
i think one of the biggest problems here is that the oversight the people generally trust the most (judicial) is removed when the cops act first.
It's sort of like having the police police themselves. Was it a valid shooting of the unarmed suspect, why yes it was because the officer thought he was armed when the guy ran away.
See where this runs? the judicial oversight is supposed to be that one catch that weeds out the off course he;s armed, he;s the bad guy justification.
I'm not sure you can claim a degree of separation if the site is designed to drive traffic to the offending site or another site designed to drive traffic to an offending site. Perhaps if it was masked as a news site or something but that's the basis of the torent and other search problems sites like packet news and iso hunt ran into.
"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."
The interesting thing is that it should be trivial for the cops to get a court order if there is any evidence that the site is involved in any of that.
Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?
As for copyright infringement, yes, it is so serious of a crime that international treaties have been created around it that give beneficial or detrimental trade preferences depending on how copyright is handled. Some of these treaties have been around longer then anyone you know was alive or anyone they could have known was alive.
In the small scheme of things, you giving or receiving a music recording or copying a book and passing it to a couple friends is meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, too much of that means other countries will restrict trade (even in non-related areas) and disregard the copyright of your county and possibly more.
Whether we want to think it is a big deal or not, it has been for over 150 years. At least it has with almost every tin pot dictator or elected body of government the western world has seen in that time. Copyright promotes the influx of ideas and content from other areas while exporting wealth and values.
When i gain employment at your company and you are not looking, the outside world is effectively inside the company.
Almost everywhere one of these databases will be used will have employees accessing the systems (remember manning?) and there may be a complete need to access the information remotely which even if the internet isn't involved (T1 loop or something) you have the potential of unauthorized access.
You simply cannot focus on one side of the equation. This focus is for where the other sides can't be effective either.
A lot of words and gestures in the US and likely other English speaking nations carry duel meanings. This is probably because of the expansions of the English speaking countries into other nations and territories as well as a one time liberal immigration policy over the years.
Take shag for instance, in some uses, it means sex, in others it describes the look and feel of something like shag carpet which is a thick loose pile of thread instead of a rug someone had sex on/with. That would be a shag on the carpet.
Not really. You won't lose much, plus you could go longer on no-till applications without worrying about matting and having to harrow the fields.
One of the problems with using silage as fertilizer is that the nitrogen is water soluble so depending on the area, you lose a lot over wintering and you are basically one year behind any values unless you are double cropping the field that year. Also, these nitrogen from decaying plant material escape the ground altogether by evaporation and sink into the ground water.
Organic Phosphorus has similar issues with runoff. Phosphorus also likes to attach to clay in the soil making it basically useless for production uses unless you saturate the grounds with it.
Calcium from organic matter is not without problems either. IT too bonds with clay making much of it inaccessible to plants. But the bigger problem with K is that plants will not take it up if the soil moisture is too low which is a problem you get with dumping silage on the field (matting) and is why you need to harrow every few years.
If you are looking for fertilizer from silage as a part of your fertilization scheme, you are better off dumping the silage into manure lagoons and spreading it over the fields or feeding it to livestock and letting them do the hard work. This is what is more or less already done when using straw (bailed silage) as animal bedding.
Now while there is some value to using silage as part of a fertilizer scheme, unless you are some organic green nut, the loss, especially if rotated (say 3 or 4 years off, 1 on), is not that significant of a concern. The extra costs would probably be more then made up by not having to harrow the field as often due to matting.
Why don't you hit the parent button a couple of times and look at the damn thread. The error is yours. The op specifically said he was releasing something but couldn't distribute the source code. The code will be copyrighted by default and you need a license to distribute the copyrighted materials with the exception of stuff you own the copyright to, but then the removal of a license is meaningless so we know he didn't mean that.
I guess my mistake was assuming a level of common sense. But every time I do, some idiot AC comes along and cries about something. They even know it's BS because they post AC instead of their regular account so the rest of slashdot won't know what complete morons they are trying to be.
Or, you could take the door off the car, keep the water and go searching for more water on foot. And if it get hot, just roll the window down on the car door you are carrying.
If you can do anything with it, there will be a license connected with it. It's a little disingenuous to compare GPL'ed code with no licensed code.
What is more proper is picking another license other then the GPL assuming the GPL doesn't exist, and you have several that is more permissive The op said if you can't distribute the source, you cannot touch GPLed code. So it's important to remain within the context of distributing code without the source.
Efficiency, profitability, convenience, and availability. WE can get way more efficient drive trains now if the energy delivery methods were more practical and cost effective. Gas and diesel is primarily used because of it's convenience but wastes a lot of energy. If we could come up with something that is just as portable and convenient but utilizes more efficient technology for about the same costs, then it's a win win.
One of the biggest problems with alternative energy is that it's trying to be shoehorned into a market that isn't ready for it while the technology isn't as capable or as cost effective as existing infrastructure. This can change over time, and we can have cheaper energy while also having cleaner energy and more efficient usage of it. We just need the right discoveries and and time to develop it.
We do not need to change, but we will because it will be better eventually. Something like this gives us time to wait for the better.
Sort of. Conversion generally doesn't pertain to the complete loss of the item or privilege, it's more of the loss of control over it.
A better example might be instead of someone selling the car they borrowed from the op, they rent it to someone else after the op said you could only drive it to and from the hospital to visit your sick mom.
Embezzlement might be a better way of describing it. Suppose you owned a business and I managed it. But instead of making nightly deposits, I saved them all and made 1 weekly deposit. You decide to do a mid week inspection to find none of the money was on site and after drilling me for the whereabouts, you find that I was depositing it into my bank account in order to collect interest on it before it was deposited into your bank account. You further find that I withdrew part of the quarterly budget and invested it into a short term CD, again to collect the interest for myself.
This is conversion, I used something of yours without your permission but you didn't lose anything you already had as the money was always deposited into the right accounts by the times it was supposed to be deposited. Another example along the same lines of embezzlement, suppose I have a company car that i am supposed to drive to and from work and use while working and when entertaining clients. But I use the car for personal things like taking the rug rats to soccer and going to my underwater basket weaving classes before hitting the clubs on the way home. That is conversion to and the company doesn't lose out on anything (other them maybe mileage on the car).
Actually, this would be very inefficient farming materials specifically for the cause. However, every existing food farm (that's right corn, wheat, and all) has a left over product called silage. This is the parts of the stalks and such that generally gets ground up and dumped back into the field. Some farmers will attempt to collect this and use it for animal bedding or feed. Not all of it is compatible with feed and most animals will snub it given the chance.
Anyways, an existing corn field in good growing conditions could yield as much as 16 tons of silage per acre. And that's while growing food crops (despite the majority of corn grown isn't meant for human consumption). Now don't confuse refuse silage as cover crop silage which is a bit different in strategy.
Either way, there is a lot of untapped cellulose wast that could be somewhat easily moved into a program like this.
You mean like a city fuel plant that process waste similar to the old trash burning electrical plants that were all the rage until the EPA regulations made then too expensive to operate?
I was thinking something similar but with silage that is produce by farmers.
IT also means that we take more time and develop a competitive an efficient alternative for them and phase these alternatives in over a period of time that wouldn't cause economic chaos and turmoil for the poor and lower end income people.
You're still off a bit. This case is more recent, circa 2007. It references a 1983 law and cases which brought the law into existence as well as recent cases that drive the point home. but the case comes from actions that happened on October 1 2007.
However, this isn't about whether the cops did wrong or not with this ruling. It's about whether they believed they were in the right at the time of the actions. You see, many law enforcement and government officials have an immunity to prosecution and civil suits if their actions were intended to be lawful but are somehow not. An example of this in action would be a cop speeding with his lights and sirens on to get to an accident scene and render assistance and getting into an accident of his own. He would be removed from liability for the accident and insurance would take care of property damage. But if he was speeding like that to get back to the station for shift change, then he's liable for all the crap you or i would be liable for should be do the same.
So the guy involved filed a suit, the cops said- we have immunity-, the judge said no you do not-, they appealed-, the appeals court said, not only do you not have immunity, there is good reason to believe you knew you were violating the constitutional rights of this kid when you took the actions you did.
The title of this story is a bit misleading. While the appeals court said there is a right to film police in public while on duty, it said so in the respect that the lawsuit against the police can go forward. But on another note, it pointed to where this constitutional right to film the cops has already been well settled by other case law and indicates that any law attempting to suppress it would meet the same problems their claim to immunity met.
Writing a statement like that on the internet which was, of course, started by the government, is like saying "Keep the government's hands off Medicare!". Breathtaking in its ignorance.
No, not at all. The internet have a strategic value to it that was important to military and the research/contractors working with it. BTW, Private businesses did fund parts of darpanet which became the internet. So let's not pretend its the same statement at all.
Have you ever heard of Google? Well, it was started by a grant from the US Government's National Science Foundation.
And take Akamai. It now delivers between 15 and 30% of all web traffic, and is used by all of the top 20 eCommerce sites. But when the founders tried to start it, no company or investor was interested. Instead, the government funded them and that is why they exist today.
You must have a comprehension problem or something. I didn't asked about Ecommerce or Google, I asked the AC who posted a snark comment to explain the relevance of his comment. You have failed in that task and turn this into a "so and so" did it so everything else must be justified. That's not a logical argument. And it wasn't the question asked.
Sshshhhh! Don't burst this guys bubble. I have heard variations of this story since the oil embargo of the late 1970's when gas shot to 4 dollars a gallon.
He changes a few things around, it was his uncle, and not secrete nazi documents recovered from World War II detailing how Hitler got 100 MPG using a special carb for their armored personnel carriers and ford stashed them in a warehouse to be destroyed. Or (insert whatever name you want) university professor who discovered how to get 50-80 miles a gallon with a (insert meaningless name here) ventrical modification that could be applied to any carb on any motor that Standard oil purchased for millions to bury which is why no one who ever looked for this professor could even find a record of him. He's in the Bahamas drinking daiquiris or something. Then there is my favorite version, the one where some uneducated back yard mechanic figured out something that no one else at the time could, filed a patent, then disappeared off the face of the earth along with the patent application and all his test motors.
That last one is my favorite because growing up, we had a neighbor who moved away in the middle of the night and my brother told me it was because he create a 100 MPG carb and GM came and took him away. Turned out that he had lost his job, borrowed some money from the wrong people, and was afraid of them finding him. OR so his kid said when I ran into him in another town about 15 years later.
Keep your sarcasm mode off for a bit and answer this for me. What exactly are the benefits of it? Will it continue to cost money paid for either by NASA or the US government?
And if it is so worth doing, then why hasn't private enterprise or even private charities funded it or part of it?
If the US government were shelling and bombing its own citizens in whole cities with tanks, artillery, bombs, and rockets, the US government would have lost any legitimacy and the UN could authorize other countries to intervene. I'm sure the (now illegitimate) US government would say it was an act of war and regard it as such. It wouldn't change the fact that they were no longer fit to lead after attacking their own civilians and that the justification for intervention is fairly clearly spelled out in the UN charter to which it is a signatory.
OMG, I can't believe you. The UN does not determine which country or government of a country has a right of sovereignty. The UN is not the world's decider on anything concerning a country unless it's somehow placed within their venue or they are participating in an act of war. In a civil war, you are not firing on your own citizens, you are firing on terrorist and hostile military. Nowhere in any UN charter does it state that a country cannot defend itself against armed insurrection.
Someone must be feeding you full of crap or something. Please cite where you get these ideas.
Yes. It was amply demonstrated that in order to stop Ghaddafi's forces from harming civilians it wasn't enough to tell them to stop. They did not heed warnings. They had to be physically stopped. Wherever they started shooting at civilians, Ghaddafi's forces became targets. If they laid down their weapons, they weren't.
Lol.. So because government forces wouldn't listen to loud yelling, we entered into military action against them. You are proving the GP's point here. We for all intents and purposes invaded Libya for the reasons you stated.
Well, and to add to that, the bible is not really a complete story, it's rather the story of God's covenant with Man.. More specifically, with Man that he created in his image, that caused the grief with Lucifer forcing him to be cast out of heaven and angels/demons mixing with humans which prompted the flood in the first place.
And with the entire story that we know with the bible, we do know that there was other people in the world when adam and eve left the garden because their children married them. We do know one of the reasons for the flood and destruction of the earth was because of the impurities in other people and that man had become evil. We know that fallen angels bread with humans creating the Nephilim and/or Rephaim (giants) both before and after the flood.
IT would appear to me that these biblical scholars possess less then a most basic understanding of a bible and creations story and are actually attempting to discredit it for the purpose of doing so instead of learning what they claim to know. It's the same simple mistake most Atheists make when they attempt to compare or contrast the wrath of the Jewish god with the love and peace of the Christian God. Yes, they are the same god, but the covenant is with a different set of people and contains different terms and the entire story of Jesus explains that quite well when he brought peace on earth. You just need to understand the old testament to some extent to get the big picture of the new testament. This is why the old testament is still taught even though it's been depreciated greatly.
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand that the DMCA was derived out of the two WIPO treaties WCT and WPPT right? Canada signed onto it in december of 1997 but has yet to ratify it and move into force. In contrast, the US signed onto it in april of 97, ratified it in sept of 1999, and went into force in 2002. The EU signed in 1996, ratified it in 2009 and went into force in 2010.
I think the pressure is coming from countries other then "just" the US but Canada won't hold it off forever as long as the treaties are in tact as they already showed their intentions to follow them.
And I'm not disputing your concept of muti-national corporations.
No, it's not dodging it at all. The governments of the countries determine what is or what isn't a crime and the punishment or rememdies to that crime is describes the seriousness of it. The international treaties also attempt to get other nations to take it just as seriously-- .
Sort of.. But you are missing key issues here. A treaty on something like the terms of copyright actually does get made into law because the treaties spell out a term and generally that each signatory needs to honor the copyright terms of the other. So in this context, it's more then just a public facade showing an agreement to be best friends for 20 years or something of the sort.
I'm, not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seems to disprove or counter anything i have said other then you saying "umm no". Perhaps if your comment wasn't riddled with so much other tripe, you point would be more clear.
Sure, and I reference one of the biggest interest ever known- trade.
What is has to do with things is that it's prevalent in every type of government. They are concerned with copyright, even the communist countries are concerned with copyright. Granted, they use violations of it as a way to impose sanctions on other countries, but that only reinforces the perceived values that all governments place on it.
I really don't care about the mafIAA or most businesses. I'm talking about the governments of the countries and how they consider copyright to be something serious. I have not seen a government yet that got rid of all copyright. We have seen governments put different terms and different values or conditions on it. But we have not seen any of them get rid of it. The governments of the world take copyright seriously and this transcends elected governments changing every few years as well as 40 year or longer dictatorships. The only people who seem to not take copyright seriously are the subjects of those governments.
I guess anything is possible in your mind.
However, other countries signed the same international copyright treaties the US is part of before the US did. In fact, the Two treaties that brought us the DMCA was signed and ratified by the European Union before the US signed on and created the DMCA as part of the ratification of them. The berne convention carried most of Europe and the rest of the world while the US was stuck on 20 years in bilateral treaties with it's trade partners until the mid to late 80's when we finally fixed an obligation from the 50's or 60's to come current with the berne convention because of trade pressure from Europe.
Please learn something about which you attempt to speak of. Copyright has long been a diplomatic tool for a lot of countries to force the honoring of their own intellectual rights in those foreign countries.
i think one of the biggest problems here is that the oversight the people generally trust the most (judicial) is removed when the cops act first.
It's sort of like having the police police themselves. Was it a valid shooting of the unarmed suspect, why yes it was because the officer thought he was armed when the guy ran away.
See where this runs? the judicial oversight is supposed to be that one catch that weeds out the off course he;s armed, he;s the bad guy justification.
I'm not sure you can claim a degree of separation if the site is designed to drive traffic to the offending site or another site designed to drive traffic to an offending site. Perhaps if it was masked as a news site or something but that's the basis of the torent and other search problems sites like packet news and iso hunt ran into.
The interesting thing is that it should be trivial for the cops to get a court order if there is any evidence that the site is involved in any of that.
As for copyright infringement, yes, it is so serious of a crime that international treaties have been created around it that give beneficial or detrimental trade preferences depending on how copyright is handled. Some of these treaties have been around longer then anyone you know was alive or anyone they could have known was alive.
In the small scheme of things, you giving or receiving a music recording or copying a book and passing it to a couple friends is meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, too much of that means other countries will restrict trade (even in non-related areas) and disregard the copyright of your county and possibly more.
Whether we want to think it is a big deal or not, it has been for over 150 years. At least it has with almost every tin pot dictator or elected body of government the western world has seen in that time. Copyright promotes the influx of ideas and content from other areas while exporting wealth and values.
When i gain employment at your company and you are not looking, the outside world is effectively inside the company.
Almost everywhere one of these databases will be used will have employees accessing the systems (remember manning?) and there may be a complete need to access the information remotely which even if the internet isn't involved (T1 loop or something) you have the potential of unauthorized access.
You simply cannot focus on one side of the equation. This focus is for where the other sides can't be effective either.
A lot of words and gestures in the US and likely other English speaking nations carry duel meanings. This is probably because of the expansions of the English speaking countries into other nations and territories as well as a one time liberal immigration policy over the years.
Take shag for instance, in some uses, it means sex, in others it describes the look and feel of something like shag carpet which is a thick loose pile of thread instead of a rug someone had sex on/with. That would be a shag on the carpet.
You're right. I was going from memory and it is potassium I intended to use.
I do not know why I went with calcium. Must be getting old or something.
Not really.
You won't lose much, plus you could go longer on no-till applications without worrying about matting and having to harrow the fields.
One of the problems with using silage as fertilizer is that the nitrogen is water soluble so depending on the area, you lose a lot over wintering and you are basically one year behind any values unless you are double cropping the field that year. Also, these nitrogen from decaying plant material escape the ground altogether by evaporation and sink into the ground water.
Organic Phosphorus has similar issues with runoff. Phosphorus also likes to attach to clay in the soil making it basically useless for production uses unless you saturate the grounds with it.
Calcium from organic matter is not without problems either. IT too bonds with clay making much of it inaccessible to plants. But the bigger problem with K is that plants will not take it up if the soil moisture is too low which is a problem you get with dumping silage on the field (matting) and is why you need to harrow every few years.
If you are looking for fertilizer from silage as a part of your fertilization scheme, you are better off dumping the silage into manure lagoons and spreading it over the fields or feeding it to livestock and letting them do the hard work. This is what is more or less already done when using straw (bailed silage) as animal bedding.
Now while there is some value to using silage as part of a fertilizer scheme, unless you are some organic green nut, the loss, especially if rotated (say 3 or 4 years off, 1 on), is not that significant of a concern. The extra costs would probably be more then made up by not having to harrow the field as often due to matting.
Why don't you hit the parent button a couple of times and look at the damn thread. The error is yours. The op specifically said he was releasing something but couldn't distribute the source code. The code will be copyrighted by default and you need a license to distribute the copyrighted materials with the exception of stuff you own the copyright to, but then the removal of a license is meaningless so we know he didn't mean that.
I guess my mistake was assuming a level of common sense. But every time I do, some idiot AC comes along and cries about something. They even know it's BS because they post AC instead of their regular account so the rest of slashdot won't know what complete morons they are trying to be.
Or, you could take the door off the car, keep the water and go searching for more water on foot. And if it get hot, just roll the window down on the car door you are carrying.
If you can do anything with it, there will be a license connected with it. It's a little disingenuous to compare GPL'ed code with no licensed code.
What is more proper is picking another license other then the GPL assuming the GPL doesn't exist, and you have several that is more permissive The op said if you can't distribute the source, you cannot touch GPLed code. So it's important to remain within the context of distributing code without the source.
Efficiency, profitability, convenience, and availability. WE can get way more efficient drive trains now if the energy delivery methods were more practical and cost effective. Gas and diesel is primarily used because of it's convenience but wastes a lot of energy. If we could come up with something that is just as portable and convenient but utilizes more efficient technology for about the same costs, then it's a win win.
One of the biggest problems with alternative energy is that it's trying to be shoehorned into a market that isn't ready for it while the technology isn't as capable or as cost effective as existing infrastructure. This can change over time, and we can have cheaper energy while also having cleaner energy and more efficient usage of it. We just need the right discoveries and and time to develop it.
We do not need to change, but we will because it will be better eventually. Something like this gives us time to wait for the better.
Sort of. Conversion generally doesn't pertain to the complete loss of the item or privilege, it's more of the loss of control over it.
A better example might be instead of someone selling the car they borrowed from the op, they rent it to someone else after the op said you could only drive it to and from the hospital to visit your sick mom.
Embezzlement might be a better way of describing it. Suppose you owned a business and I managed it. But instead of making nightly deposits, I saved them all and made 1 weekly deposit. You decide to do a mid week inspection to find none of the money was on site and after drilling me for the whereabouts, you find that I was depositing it into my bank account in order to collect interest on it before it was deposited into your bank account. You further find that I withdrew part of the quarterly budget and invested it into a short term CD, again to collect the interest for myself.
This is conversion, I used something of yours without your permission but you didn't lose anything you already had as the money was always deposited into the right accounts by the times it was supposed to be deposited. Another example along the same lines of embezzlement, suppose I have a company car that i am supposed to drive to and from work and use while working and when entertaining clients. But I use the car for personal things like taking the rug rats to soccer and going to my underwater basket weaving classes before hitting the clubs on the way home. That is conversion to and the company doesn't lose out on anything (other them maybe mileage on the car).
Actually, this would be very inefficient farming materials specifically for the cause. However, every existing food farm (that's right corn, wheat, and all) has a left over product called silage. This is the parts of the stalks and such that generally gets ground up and dumped back into the field. Some farmers will attempt to collect this and use it for animal bedding or feed. Not all of it is compatible with feed and most animals will snub it given the chance.
Anyways, an existing corn field in good growing conditions could yield as much as 16 tons of silage per acre. And that's while growing food crops (despite the majority of corn grown isn't meant for human consumption). Now don't confuse refuse silage as cover crop silage which is a bit different in strategy.
Either way, there is a lot of untapped cellulose wast that could be somewhat easily moved into a program like this.
You mean like a city fuel plant that process waste similar to the old trash burning electrical plants that were all the rage until the EPA regulations made then too expensive to operate?
I was thinking something similar but with silage that is produce by farmers.
IT also means that we take more time and develop a competitive an efficient alternative for them and phase these alternatives in over a period of time that wouldn't cause economic chaos and turmoil for the poor and lower end income people.
You're still off a bit. This case is more recent, circa 2007. It references a 1983 law and cases which brought the law into existence as well as recent cases that drive the point home. but the case comes from actions that happened on October 1 2007.
However, this isn't about whether the cops did wrong or not with this ruling. It's about whether they believed they were in the right at the time of the actions. You see, many law enforcement and government officials have an immunity to prosecution and civil suits if their actions were intended to be lawful but are somehow not. An example of this in action would be a cop speeding with his lights and sirens on to get to an accident scene and render assistance and getting into an accident of his own. He would be removed from liability for the accident and insurance would take care of property damage. But if he was speeding like that to get back to the station for shift change, then he's liable for all the crap you or i would be liable for should be do the same.
So the guy involved filed a suit, the cops said- we have immunity-, the judge said no you do not-, they appealed-, the appeals court said, not only do you not have immunity, there is good reason to believe you knew you were violating the constitutional rights of this kid when you took the actions you did.
The title of this story is a bit misleading. While the appeals court said there is a right to film police in public while on duty, it said so in the respect that the lawsuit against the police can go forward. But on another note, it pointed to where this constitutional right to film the cops has already been well settled by other case law and indicates that any law attempting to suppress it would meet the same problems their claim to immunity met.
No, not at all. The internet have a strategic value to it that was important to military and the research/contractors working with it. BTW, Private businesses did fund parts of darpanet which became the internet. So let's not pretend its the same statement at all.
You must have a comprehension problem or something. I didn't asked about Ecommerce or Google, I asked the AC who posted a snark comment to explain the relevance of his comment. You have failed in that task and turn this into a "so and so" did it so everything else must be justified. That's not a logical argument. And it wasn't the question asked.
Sshshhhh! Don't burst this guys bubble. I have heard variations of this story since the oil embargo of the late 1970's when gas shot to 4 dollars a gallon.
He changes a few things around, it was his uncle, and not secrete nazi documents recovered from World War II detailing how Hitler got 100 MPG using a special carb for their armored personnel carriers and ford stashed them in a warehouse to be destroyed. Or (insert whatever name you want) university professor who discovered how to get 50-80 miles a gallon with a (insert meaningless name here) ventrical modification that could be applied to any carb on any motor that Standard oil purchased for millions to bury which is why no one who ever looked for this professor could even find a record of him. He's in the Bahamas drinking daiquiris or something. Then there is my favorite version, the one where some uneducated back yard mechanic figured out something that no one else at the time could, filed a patent, then disappeared off the face of the earth along with the patent application and all his test motors.
That last one is my favorite because growing up, we had a neighbor who moved away in the middle of the night and my brother told me it was because he create a 100 MPG carb and GM came and took him away. Turned out that he had lost his job, borrowed some money from the wrong people, and was afraid of them finding him. OR so his kid said when I ran into him in another town about 15 years later.
Keep your sarcasm mode off for a bit and answer this for me. What exactly are the benefits of it? Will it continue to cost money paid for either by NASA or the US government?
And if it is so worth doing, then why hasn't private enterprise or even private charities funded it or part of it?
OMG, I can't believe you. The UN does not determine which country or government of a country has a right of sovereignty. The UN is not the world's decider on anything concerning a country unless it's somehow placed within their venue or they are participating in an act of war. In a civil war, you are not firing on your own citizens, you are firing on terrorist and hostile military. Nowhere in any UN charter does it state that a country cannot defend itself against armed insurrection.
Someone must be feeding you full of crap or something. Please cite where you get these ideas.
Lol.. So because government forces wouldn't listen to loud yelling, we entered into military action against them. You are proving the GP's point here. We for all intents and purposes invaded Libya for the reasons you stated.
hmm.. when did we do that? or are you talking about something Canada did?
Well, and to add to that, the bible is not really a complete story, it's rather the story of God's covenant with Man.. More specifically, with Man that he created in his image, that caused the grief with Lucifer forcing him to be cast out of heaven and angels/demons mixing with humans which prompted the flood in the first place.
And with the entire story that we know with the bible, we do know that there was other people in the world when adam and eve left the garden because their children married them. We do know one of the reasons for the flood and destruction of the earth was because of the impurities in other people and that man had become evil. We know that fallen angels bread with humans creating the Nephilim and/or Rephaim (giants) both before and after the flood.
IT would appear to me that these biblical scholars possess less then a most basic understanding of a bible and creations story and are actually attempting to discredit it for the purpose of doing so instead of learning what they claim to know. It's the same simple mistake most Atheists make when they attempt to compare or contrast the wrath of the Jewish god with the love and peace of the Christian God. Yes, they are the same god, but the covenant is with a different set of people and contains different terms and the entire story of Jesus explains that quite well when he brought peace on earth. You just need to understand the old testament to some extent to get the big picture of the new testament. This is why the old testament is still taught even though it's been depreciated greatly.