It doesn't really matter what the budget is there. We aren't really fighting a war for survival or to win it, we are fighting wars to change the behavior of a region. That involved keeping the region there and is totally different then fighting a war for survival.
I can guarantee you. If there ever was a serious as in the US may not exist when this is over, attack against the US, no holds would be barred. What we are doing right now isn't anything close to that. Beleive it or not, we actually do care about collateral damage and innocent lives being destroyed. But give an enemy we can hate, an enemy that we feel a need to annihilate, and they will have to move to Afghanistan just to not be destroyed.
Actually, most law places a requirement for a presence in a state or country in order to be considered operating in it. And then it's only bound to the laws of that country to the extent it's presence acts apron it.
Take mail order for instance. It may be legal for you to mail wine to someone under 18 where you are from. Lets assume I'm not in the same country and it's legal for me to do it. So you order wine from me, and have it sent to someone under 18 in your country. Now my offices in your country might not be able to mail the wine, but that doesn't stop my offices in my country from being able to mail the wine within my country or to other countries where it might be allowed.
In that scenario, the actions would have been illegal if taken within your country, but your country's laws had no effect on the legality in other countries. And to that extent, the presence in your country doesn't extend that to anything outside that presence.
That would only be true if the EU counter part took part in the actions.
The problem is that you are still attempting to file charges and penalize someone not in the country, for action not done in the country, by people who are not citizens of that country.
Now if an EU subsidiary did something, then yea, it's under their jurisdiction. But when none of the offending act happens within the country or by people directly within the jurisdiction of the country, then it's a lot like charging you for speeding when you are following the posted speed limit in Johannesburg because it's faster then the posted speed limit on the m4 in London.
I mean hell, even the article doesn't say the US violated EU laws, it says some group looking for another 15 minutes of fame is going to asked someone in power to tell them if they violated the law. And according to the article summery, they call these people the bosses wording it as if the entire group is still getting their asses handed to them in dodge ball on the playground at recess from middle school. I mean it's worded as if the question is true and it's attempting to make people believe it without paying attention to the rest of the stuff.
Crime rate and unemployment aren't linked [pajamasmedia.com].
A good, decent person doesn't become a desperate criminal when they lose their job, and a degenerate crook probably isn't all that employable anyway. Now you could argue that the presence of the benefits you (rightly) advocate is the reason they're not related, but I'd expect to see some sort of link, even if minor due to benefits.
I would claim that the reason is closely related to paying benefits. This stops people from becoming completely desperate. I don't have a link to show it, but from my understanding, a lot of crimes are crimes of opportunity driven by desperation.
I would note though, those unemployment numbers on the site you linked to aren't exactly accurate as far as unemployment is concerned. The numbers tracked by the feds is the numbers of unemployed applying for or receiving benefits. It isn't really an accurate measurement of the unemployed because quite a few people are completely disqualified from that accounting by either not working enough hours or months at an employer or by reaching the end of a set term limit for drawing benefits. You can search for the real unemployment numbers and get any number of articles with any number of estimates concerning them. I'll leave the reader to decide which is more accurate or not.
Now there's nothing wrong with that, unless you think you are only capable of performing the end-stage labor to deliver the product. That's what I'm calling the 'peasant mentality'- the underlying belief that you are only good enough to be a cog in someone else's machine.
In my case, my biggest problem was being broke and scraping up the cash to start contracting out on my own. In my area, you have to have a business license, insurance, some jobs require a performance bond, then there is advertising depending on what you are doing, making sure you have tools and so on. But a lot of people simply aren't skilled in much of anything that could transfer into an own your own business ordeal. Some people have been factory workers all their lives because that's what dad did and it worked for him as well as it's the best paying job around.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a lot of anxiety with the realization you are not employable and have to be your own boss. Some people finally realize it and get stepping, some, simply won't be able to.
And I say that as a person who went 20 years employed with no gaps outside of when I broke a leg and often worked more then one job with the least time on a job being 2 years. I thought I could literally get a job anywhere doing anything. Reality was hard to set in for a while. I made the change, others will too. But it's not always easy or obvious.
I don't think it really matters if he is getting more out then he paid in. While he was paying in, he enjoyed a lower crime rate and other benefits that comes from not throwing people to the street to do whatever they imagine in order to survive. And you or anyone else who is employed is probably enjoying the same right now when he's on the dole.
Also, somewhere in about 1956, the courts ruled that unemployment insurance, just like the name implies is actually an insurance program. The court ruled this in a SCOTUS ruling pertaining to Amish people having to pay into it and social security. Turns out, they don't under most circumstances and they can't take benefits either (because of some religious thing where their community takes care of itself).
So I guess the obvious answer to are you getting more out than you paid in might be a question of do you expect more then you paid in with any other insurance. If you have only made two payments on your auto insurance and total a 20k car, where is that money coming from? Someone else is paying for you to wreck. But that's how it is supposed to work.
I also don't think he applies to that many jobs unless he's reapplying to the same places. There simply isn't that many places to find a job in one location over a years time. That's like 1300 applications in a year.
Anyways, I'm not trying to stick up for him, he may be a loafer taking a vacation, he may not be. I don't know him. What I do know is that I had a hell of a time finding a job a few year back and ended up having to start my own business to become gainfully employed. I was either capable of doing the job but couldn't show any experience and when unemployment is high, they can pick the all the experience they want at rock bottom prices. Or, I was over qualified for the job and they wouldn't higher me because they didn't trust I would be comfortable with a lower position taking less money and eventually leave after they wasted time and resources training me. I also noticed that some employers wouldn't hire me because I had a large amount of time without a job. Yes, being unemployed disqualified me to an employer who ended up hiring me as a contractor later.
So it may not be that he's looking for the hand out as long as he can, it might be the simple fact that unemployment is sky high right now. And the average across the nation doesn't necessarily reflect the rate in his area. It may be higher in his area.
I used to think as you did. Then I was in his position and found it wasn't as easy as pulling yourself up by your boot straps and doing something. Trust me, walk into a buger hut with a masters in anything and try to get a job flipping burgers. Not only is the pay much lower then you would get staying home, they are going to look at you like you are crazy and laugh you out the door.
It's probably more like most of those employees need to be communicated with outside of the departments because their jobs take them outside their departments.
Two way radios traditionally filled this gap but they are expensive to purchase, maintain, and continue to operate (need repeaters or a repeater service, licensing, monitoring, and so on). Giving the cell phones out originally probably saved the government a ton of money. People were probably already using their personal cell phones to communicate back with the office and were getting upset because it was using all their minutes. Radios really only make sense now when you need to broadcast information to lots of people or don't care how confidential the information might be. But when your a CPS case worker wanting to know when the last physical checkup on a ward you are about to see in a home visit was, or the CHP officer taking a phone call from a witness who's concerned about her/his safety while he's on the other side of the state, you don't really want everyone picking that up with a scanner.
The article makes it appear that they are only going to allow department heads to have them. There is a good portion of the government jobs that are not traditional 9-5 behind the same desk every day jobs. Even the District Attorney's offices are typically located outside the court houses they work in.
Shh... If that gets out, this will be an even bigger non-story then it already is.
I mean we are talking about the probabilities of something happening after all. Not that anyone has claimed it is happening outside speculation that one country might be doing it so another might be.
If you look at who and why they are in there, you will find they are glorified POWs acting without a state and accused terrorists or people aiding them. And while they haven't had a trail in the sense of coming into America and spitting on a judge, they are given a review process once a year to determine if their detention is still legit.
You are stretching the imagination by far in your claim.
While you are right in that the espionage act/law does contain infractions in which the death penalty can be applied, nothing Assange has supposedly done or been accused in connection with directly links him to one of those specific offenses.
One of the key differences is in how he is known to of disseminated the information and continued possession of the information. What Assange would most likely be charged with if anything under it, would carry a series of 10 year prison sentences. You see, the Rosenberg's were directly delivering the information to a known enemy of the US. Wikileaks is simply putting it out there and if an enemy finds it, they do. They are in illegal continued possession of the information and acting recklessly with it to where an enemy could gain access to it.
I doubt they could get Assange for any of the death penalty stuff seeing how it happened while he was in another jurisdiction. He wasn't attempting to be a US citizen under cover or naturalized. There is still the question of if the law can apply to someone not in US jurisdiction even though the US pretty much extends jurisdiction to anything relating to them.
He could possibly still be charged on espionage, racketeering and related laws. Treason is actually very limited in the US by the US constitution even if he was a US citizen.
None of those carry a death penalty unless the violation of the laws directly result in someone's death. However, that still shouldn't be much of a concern because the US often agrees not to pursuit the death penalty as a condition to extradite someone from different countries.
What is happening here is little more then then stating a defense to guard against extradition out of England in the first place. They are stating every possible scenario including ones muttered by "prominent figures" who a good portion of the US thinks are crazy, ignorant, or bat-shit stupid. They are even arguing that the prosecutor who issued the warrant didn't even have authority to do so.
There is nothing new or revealing here. His lawyers are simply putting everything possible on the table to show extraditing Assange should not happen. If they don't bring it up in lower courts, they might not be able to in higher ones.
Lol.. Then it's not an externalization right now is it?
The problem I have with externalized theory spouted isn't the real and adverse effects that are regulated. The regulation stops the externalizing when it's dangerous or degrades the value of someone's property for the most part. It's the all the sudden something that's in existence and the norm becoming something bad, then the claim that X product could compete if Y industry had to pay for what they externalize. This is nothing more then a shell game to transfer wealth or market share.
In my situation with the hog farm, it's people who purchased land cheap claiming they didn't know why and now want to take my property rights away in order to increase the value of their land. And if the land would have remained commercial like it was intended in the first place as a condition of sale, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.
To me the BP incident shows a lack of regulation "enforcement". The fact that they had no working safety equipment and took months to close the well says that already.
Existing regulation and industry standards should have prevented the BP incident and/or reduced it's over all impact if the regulations and standards were followed.
In order for any regulation to be effective in any way, it needs to be enforced. Stacking more regulation on top of regulation when none of it is enforced or followed is nothing more then a feel good empty gesture,
Dude, calm the fuck down and pay attention to what you are reading. Stop assigning values which have not been expressed because of your own biases.
First, I never said a damn thing about polluting drinking water nor did I ever say that Capitalism didn't require regulation. Where in the hell did you even imagine that from what I said.
Second, acknowledging that over regulation has created a problem where competition cannot enter the market is not in any way shape or form a claim that regulation is bad or that it should be gotten rid of. It's nothing except an acknowledgment of the realities we are seeing. I mean fuck, we are talking about a deep water oil spill because regulation has prevented proven resources from being extracted in shallower waters so they started looking in deeper waters. How you equate the complexities added on to drilling for oil by locking safer and more accessible resources out of the game to wanting to pollute your drinking water is beyond me.
go read a book.
Why don't you read what you are replying to before showing the world how much of a fucking idiot you are instead.
You see, land fills are already regulated by the EPA and state authority pannels that have to at minimum comply with federal EPA regulation standards. A hydrological study would need to be done well before the landfill went into place to avoid ground water contamination in wells and the sorts. Furthermore, the landfill is not in any way shape or form exempt from any damages it might cause with respect to the degradation of your property or it's usability. Again, the EPA and most notably, zoning regulation sets limits for smell and other stuff. And any property use claims are settled before the landfil goes into operation.
There is a landfill near some property I farm. It expanded and ended up purchasing all the land in a 5 mile radius from the landfill's boundaries. It then had to go through a court process to determine the amounts it was liable to the people who didn't want to sell to it. People closer got 125% or the market value plus kept the land, people further away got 50% of market value and kept their land. This is all part of the approval process.
Another situation, I have a hog farm that's been in existence for 70+ years. It's a small operation generally focused on FFA and Four H students, giving them an opportunity they might not otherwise have to gain experience with farming and animals, but there are still come smells created by it. A neighbor sold some of his land for commercial development and somewhere down the line, it got rezoned for residential development. We didn't think anything of this and didn't contest it. So people built high dollar houses downwind of a hog farming operation, probably completely ignorant of the fact it was there (swindled by their Real estate Agent), and all the sudden, it's an externalized costs that equipment and procedures costing millions of dollars more then the any imaginable profit could be made from raising the hogs is the demand to keep them happy.
And it's not like we aren't already practicing industrially normal processes in dealing with this. They claim the smell degrades the value of their property. Well it's impossible to do so because the smell was there before and when they purchased it and it's all within perfectly acceptable EPA limits. Yet they are claiming externalizations and want to shut the operation down in order to improve their property values. You tell me that isn't a conspiracy?
In this, we need to look at both words, material in contract law means something effecting the terms of the contract in a way that changes something that is expected to be performed by the contract. Detriment, like it implies, degrades your portion of services, obligations, or position of the contract.
Of material detriment would mean something like charging the same fees for less service. If it is noticeable that you are receiving less then you were capable under the contract, it's a material detriment.
In contrast, if they change the contract to clarify a statement without changing the intent or effectiveness of any obligations by using "customer" instead of "he" or a new company logo or something, then it wouldn't be material or detrimental.
Man, I wish people would put the Externalities into perspective. They bring this up as if it's some magic bullet against what they don't like. The problem is that you can define anything as an externality and completely miss the benefit of it at the same time.
When there is a real externality, all that happens is the population trades dangers for cheaper products. And it's generally a small portion of the population to boot. Externalities are not a bad thing. It's just a club some people want to use on ideas they don't agree with because of whatever brainwashing they received to grab that ideal. This can be seen as people want to classify Co2 as an externality without any proof of any negative consequences from those actions.
Well, that's only true after the regulations made it that expensive. You are looking at a chicken and egg issue here.
And no, I didn't say removing all the regulation would change anything. I said that was the reality we are in. I purposed nothing as a solution to it and don't really care to. We are not really dealing with capitalism when it comes to oil.
And unless the definitions of words in your mind mean something completely different then to the rest of the world, your explanation more then what I said, shows that it's a contract for a license.
Let's explore this a little. "A license is unilateral permission to use someone's property." Well, a copyrighted work is definitely property under the law. There is a license associated with it. But wait, the GPL presses obligations in which if you don't follow, you don't get the license.
Now, lets look further into what you said. "A contract is an exchange of obligations". Hmm.. So copyright grants the copyright owner exclusive rights in copying and distribution of the original as well as derivatives of the original. That's fine, so what is it I need to do to get a license. Oh yea, that's it, I need to agree to be obligated to certain things in order to have the license.
and yes, it is inane because you tripped over the logic in order to spout the ideological line. Even the definitions at the groklaw site holds this to be the same- although it forgets logic and moves to ideological lines too.
So ask yourself this question. Can I take any GPLed work and do whatever the copyright law reserves as an exclusive right to the copyright holder without agree to, and fulfilling a set of obligations? Of course not, because you can't get the copyright license under the GPL without honoring the contract and if you stop honoring the contract to make the source and changes available, your license rights disappear too.
Now ask yourself, given the definitions you provides literally, as well as the definitions provided at groklaw in the article you linked to, how is this obligation not a contract setting obligations in exchange for a copyright license?
Capitalism works, except that's not really what we are dealing with when it comes to oil. We have placed the regulations so high that it's virtually impossible for anyone to enter in meaningful way. There are 5 major oil companies that touch about every gallon of oil in the US before it's used, shipped off, refined or whatever else. Of those 5, no more then 4 operate in any one state at a time.
There might be some independent operators out there who pump small quantities of oil or transport it to the refineries, but that's about it. They all got purchased by the larger companies or went under.
I'm not even sure why we would need to dissolve any company anyways. As long as they are made to pay the costs of the cleanup, the costs of lost business or reputation to areas effected, and fines associated with their failures, all should be fine. I mean dissolving the company is not going to make those who were harmed, hole again. It's not going to make sure the gulf is cleaned up. In fact, it's going to explicitly slam the costs of the cleanup into the tax payers lap when we find out 20 years from now that something really got screwed up and they aren't making any revenue to cover their costs.
Dissolving the company is probably the last thing we would want to do right now or in the next couple of decades.
Just because code from one is in the other, it doesn't mean the direction or flow of the code is obvious. It could be that the code came from WinMTR (I'm guessing so don't take it as I'm saying it did) and went into mtr. Or, the code that they share could have been developed by the same Vasile Stanimir who put it in mtr first then int WinMTR. However, in that case, Vasile Stanimir still owns the code in question and the sale of rights would be just as valid.
Perhaps it's different and it's just not right. Perhaps it's this way and all is fine while some don't agree with it. I think maybe someone should audit the code and check to see what exactly is going on before we get too much further into this. For all we know at this point, it might be something like the BSD/GPL stole it arguments where the shared code was originally BSD and the GPL was thrown on it somewhere down the line.
You're clearly not a lawyer. I'm not one either, but I do know that copyright doesn't regulate use. It regulates copying, and, I think, to some extent distribution. It doesn't regulate possession or use.
The GPL also doesn't regulate use. It depends strictly on the copyright law. It grants you rights additional to those that you would have in it's absence, but only if you agree to it's terms.
If you know this, then why is it you can't figure out that by USE, I mean copying, altering, and distribution? I mean I did try to limit the term use to "your use as copyright law is concerned" Use as a defined term can mean any number of things including legal possession and benefit from something.
Also, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand the law. It's not like there is some cryptic tome that only lawyers can understand. There is however a bunch of information that required people to pay attention to it. If you had done that, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.
P.S.: Quite possibly there *should* be a legal concept of abandonware. I personally feel that if something is out of publication for over two years that it should be deemed free of copyright until a new printing is made and being sold. (And that copies made during the period before it was being sold be allowed to continue to be sold.) But that's a "should be" rather than an "is". And there may well be good reasons why the approach I've outlined isn't practical. (E.g., an author may be trying to sell a work to a publisher, and all the publishers are refusing to buy. But that could be handled by self-publication. I'm sure, e.g., Lulu would help.) --
What we feel is often not what the law says. I personally think copyright should only be extended for 50 years or so and 10-15 for computer software programs. But as we know, the law simply doesn't account for that.
The abandon-ware argument rests severely on the abandoned real property law. The key differences is that in real property, in order to be considered abandoned, you either need to neglect the use of a right for a period of time, or fail to keep the property maintained from being declared in dereliction. A lot of times, simply paying property taxes is enough for this to be safeguarded from. When real property become abandoned, it doesn't automatically become someone else'. You need to file a claim of legal right to it. Most of the time, back taxes will take precedence over any claim. You can't just walk down the street, see a piece of property, and say that's mine now either. Your claim has to have some sort of legal backing behind it like the former owner owed you money, your a rightful and legal heir, or you have possession of the property for a length of time in which adverse possession rules can take effect. Most of the time, state eschew laws will simply take it.
But all that is somewhat meaningless when dealing with copyright. Why, because property rights in the US is largely a state issue. Copyright is a federal issue with the full backing and support of the US constitution. Federal laws, when constitutionally backed, trump state laws. Federal laws give the owner/holder or author of a copyrighted work specific rights for a specific length of time. State law can't take that away.
In copyright law, there is no provision for this and property in copyright law can only be abandoned voluntarily. That is to say, property cannot be assumed abandoned in copyright law, some entity has to surrender the rights to it, and make it known to anyone. This is why when someone wants to abandon a copyrighted work, they typically give it a copyright license that essentially put's it into the public domain. It doesn't actually place it there, it just gives the same effect of it being in the public domain.
So while it's a good idea, it's not quite the reality. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from planting the seed of this thought in their legal representative's head. Go ahead a lobby for some changes. perhpas there can be some sanity put back into copyright law.
The owners of the code in question can really do whatever they want with it. They will not be able to retroactively remove the GPL from previous versions but they can change future versions.
I guess some people get so wrapped up in the ideology, they can't see the forest for the trees.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't really matter what the budget is there. We aren't really fighting a war for survival or to win it, we are fighting wars to change the behavior of a region. That involved keeping the region there and is totally different then fighting a war for survival.
I can guarantee you. If there ever was a serious as in the US may not exist when this is over, attack against the US, no holds would be barred. What we are doing right now isn't anything close to that. Beleive it or not, we actually do care about collateral damage and innocent lives being destroyed. But give an enemy we can hate, an enemy that we feel a need to annihilate, and they will have to move to Afghanistan just to not be destroyed.
Yes, but only to the extent of the operations of those servers and services.
A simple presence doesn't make all operations in all countries all the sudden under that jurisdiction.
Actually, most law places a requirement for a presence in a state or country in order to be considered operating in it. And then it's only bound to the laws of that country to the extent it's presence acts apron it.
Take mail order for instance. It may be legal for you to mail wine to someone under 18 where you are from. Lets assume I'm not in the same country and it's legal for me to do it. So you order wine from me, and have it sent to someone under 18 in your country. Now my offices in your country might not be able to mail the wine, but that doesn't stop my offices in my country from being able to mail the wine within my country or to other countries where it might be allowed.
In that scenario, the actions would have been illegal if taken within your country, but your country's laws had no effect on the legality in other countries. And to that extent, the presence in your country doesn't extend that to anything outside that presence.
That would only be true if the EU counter part took part in the actions.
The problem is that you are still attempting to file charges and penalize someone not in the country, for action not done in the country, by people who are not citizens of that country.
Now if an EU subsidiary did something, then yea, it's under their jurisdiction. But when none of the offending act happens within the country or by people directly within the jurisdiction of the country, then it's a lot like charging you for speeding when you are following the posted speed limit in Johannesburg because it's faster then the posted speed limit on the m4 in London.
Give it up. It's little more then US bashing.
I mean hell, even the article doesn't say the US violated EU laws, it says some group looking for another 15 minutes of fame is going to asked someone in power to tell them if they violated the law. And according to the article summery, they call these people the bosses wording it as if the entire group is still getting their asses handed to them in dodge ball on the playground at recess from middle school. I mean it's worded as if the question is true and it's attempting to make people believe it without paying attention to the rest of the stuff.
I would claim that the reason is closely related to paying benefits. This stops people from becoming completely desperate. I don't have a link to show it, but from my understanding, a lot of crimes are crimes of opportunity driven by desperation.
I would note though, those unemployment numbers on the site you linked to aren't exactly accurate as far as unemployment is concerned. The numbers tracked by the feds is the numbers of unemployed applying for or receiving benefits. It isn't really an accurate measurement of the unemployed because quite a few people are completely disqualified from that accounting by either not working enough hours or months at an employer or by reaching the end of a set term limit for drawing benefits. You can search for the real unemployment numbers and get any number of articles with any number of estimates concerning them. I'll leave the reader to decide which is more accurate or not.
In my case, my biggest problem was being broke and scraping up the cash to start contracting out on my own. In my area, you have to have a business license, insurance, some jobs require a performance bond, then there is advertising depending on what you are doing, making sure you have tools and so on. But a lot of people simply aren't skilled in much of anything that could transfer into an own your own business ordeal. Some people have been factory workers all their lives because that's what dad did and it worked for him as well as it's the best paying job around.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a lot of anxiety with the realization you are not employable and have to be your own boss. Some people finally realize it and get stepping, some, simply won't be able to.
And I say that as a person who went 20 years employed with no gaps outside of when I broke a leg and often worked more then one job with the least time on a job being 2 years. I thought I could literally get a job anywhere doing anything. Reality was hard to set in for a while. I made the change, others will too. But it's not always easy or obvious.
I don't think it really matters if he is getting more out then he paid in. While he was paying in, he enjoyed a lower crime rate and other benefits that comes from not throwing people to the street to do whatever they imagine in order to survive. And you or anyone else who is employed is probably enjoying the same right now when he's on the dole.
Also, somewhere in about 1956, the courts ruled that unemployment insurance, just like the name implies is actually an insurance program. The court ruled this in a SCOTUS ruling pertaining to Amish people having to pay into it and social security. Turns out, they don't under most circumstances and they can't take benefits either (because of some religious thing where their community takes care of itself).
So I guess the obvious answer to are you getting more out than you paid in might be a question of do you expect more then you paid in with any other insurance. If you have only made two payments on your auto insurance and total a 20k car, where is that money coming from? Someone else is paying for you to wreck. But that's how it is supposed to work.
I also don't think he applies to that many jobs unless he's reapplying to the same places. There simply isn't that many places to find a job in one location over a years time. That's like 1300 applications in a year.
Anyways, I'm not trying to stick up for him, he may be a loafer taking a vacation, he may not be. I don't know him. What I do know is that I had a hell of a time finding a job a few year back and ended up having to start my own business to become gainfully employed. I was either capable of doing the job but couldn't show any experience and when unemployment is high, they can pick the all the experience they want at rock bottom prices. Or, I was over qualified for the job and they wouldn't higher me because they didn't trust I would be comfortable with a lower position taking less money and eventually leave after they wasted time and resources training me. I also noticed that some employers wouldn't hire me because I had a large amount of time without a job. Yes, being unemployed disqualified me to an employer who ended up hiring me as a contractor later.
So it may not be that he's looking for the hand out as long as he can, it might be the simple fact that unemployment is sky high right now. And the average across the nation doesn't necessarily reflect the rate in his area. It may be higher in his area.
I used to think as you did. Then I was in his position and found it wasn't as easy as pulling yourself up by your boot straps and doing something. Trust me, walk into a buger hut with a masters in anything and try to get a job flipping burgers. Not only is the pay much lower then you would get staying home, they are going to look at you like you are crazy and laugh you out the door.
It's probably more like most of those employees need to be communicated with outside of the departments because their jobs take them outside their departments.
Two way radios traditionally filled this gap but they are expensive to purchase, maintain, and continue to operate (need repeaters or a repeater service, licensing, monitoring, and so on). Giving the cell phones out originally probably saved the government a ton of money. People were probably already using their personal cell phones to communicate back with the office and were getting upset because it was using all their minutes. Radios really only make sense now when you need to broadcast information to lots of people or don't care how confidential the information might be. But when your a CPS case worker wanting to know when the last physical checkup on a ward you are about to see in a home visit was, or the CHP officer taking a phone call from a witness who's concerned about her/his safety while he's on the other side of the state, you don't really want everyone picking that up with a scanner.
The article makes it appear that they are only going to allow department heads to have them. There is a good portion of the government jobs that are not traditional 9-5 behind the same desk every day jobs. Even the District Attorney's offices are typically located outside the court houses they work in.
Sure it does. It mean a lot less people will be surfing slashdot and posting liberal opinions online during work hours from California.
Lol.. sorry had to do it.
Shh... If that gets out, this will be an even bigger non-story then it already is.
I mean we are talking about the probabilities of something happening after all. Not that anyone has claimed it is happening outside speculation that one country might be doing it so another might be.
If you look at who and why they are in there, you will find they are glorified POWs acting without a state and accused terrorists or people aiding them. And while they haven't had a trail in the sense of coming into America and spitting on a judge, they are given a review process once a year to determine if their detention is still legit.
You are stretching the imagination by far in your claim.
While you are right in that the espionage act/law does contain infractions in which the death penalty can be applied, nothing Assange has supposedly done or been accused in connection with directly links him to one of those specific offenses.
One of the key differences is in how he is known to of disseminated the information and continued possession of the information. What Assange would most likely be charged with if anything under it, would carry a series of 10 year prison sentences. You see, the Rosenberg's were directly delivering the information to a known enemy of the US. Wikileaks is simply putting it out there and if an enemy finds it, they do. They are in illegal continued possession of the information and acting recklessly with it to where an enemy could gain access to it.
I doubt they could get Assange for any of the death penalty stuff seeing how it happened while he was in another jurisdiction. He wasn't attempting to be a US citizen under cover or naturalized. There is still the question of if the law can apply to someone not in US jurisdiction even though the US pretty much extends jurisdiction to anything relating to them.
He could possibly still be charged on espionage, racketeering and related laws. Treason is actually very limited in the US by the US constitution even if he was a US citizen.
None of those carry a death penalty unless the violation of the laws directly result in someone's death. However, that still shouldn't be much of a concern because the US often agrees not to pursuit the death penalty as a condition to extradite someone from different countries.
What is happening here is little more then then stating a defense to guard against extradition out of England in the first place. They are stating every possible scenario including ones muttered by "prominent figures" who a good portion of the US thinks are crazy, ignorant, or bat-shit stupid. They are even arguing that the prosecutor who issued the warrant didn't even have authority to do so.
There is nothing new or revealing here. His lawyers are simply putting everything possible on the table to show extraditing Assange should not happen. If they don't bring it up in lower courts, they might not be able to in higher ones.
Lol.. Then it's not an externalization right now is it?
The problem I have with externalized theory spouted isn't the real and adverse effects that are regulated. The regulation stops the externalizing when it's dangerous or degrades the value of someone's property for the most part. It's the all the sudden something that's in existence and the norm becoming something bad, then the claim that X product could compete if Y industry had to pay for what they externalize. This is nothing more then a shell game to transfer wealth or market share.
In my situation with the hog farm, it's people who purchased land cheap claiming they didn't know why and now want to take my property rights away in order to increase the value of their land. And if the land would have remained commercial like it was intended in the first place as a condition of sale, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.
Let me fix this for you.
To me the BP incident shows a lack of regulation "enforcement". The fact that they had no working safety equipment and took months to close the well says that already.
Existing regulation and industry standards should have prevented the BP incident and/or reduced it's over all impact if the regulations and standards were followed.
In order for any regulation to be effective in any way, it needs to be enforced. Stacking more regulation on top of regulation when none of it is enforced or followed is nothing more then a feel good empty gesture,
Dude, calm the fuck down and pay attention to what you are reading. Stop assigning values which have not been expressed because of your own biases.
First, I never said a damn thing about polluting drinking water nor did I ever say that Capitalism didn't require regulation. Where in the hell did you even imagine that from what I said.
Second, acknowledging that over regulation has created a problem where competition cannot enter the market is not in any way shape or form a claim that regulation is bad or that it should be gotten rid of. It's nothing except an acknowledgment of the realities we are seeing. I mean fuck, we are talking about a deep water oil spill because regulation has prevented proven resources from being extracted in shallower waters so they started looking in deeper waters. How you equate the complexities added on to drilling for oil by locking safer and more accessible resources out of the game to wanting to pollute your drinking water is beyond me.
Why don't you read what you are replying to before showing the world how much of a fucking idiot you are instead.
That's nice and all except it's fallacious.
You see, land fills are already regulated by the EPA and state authority pannels that have to at minimum comply with federal EPA regulation standards. A hydrological study would need to be done well before the landfill went into place to avoid ground water contamination in wells and the sorts. Furthermore, the landfill is not in any way shape or form exempt from any damages it might cause with respect to the degradation of your property or it's usability. Again, the EPA and most notably, zoning regulation sets limits for smell and other stuff. And any property use claims are settled before the landfil goes into operation.
There is a landfill near some property I farm. It expanded and ended up purchasing all the land in a 5 mile radius from the landfill's boundaries. It then had to go through a court process to determine the amounts it was liable to the people who didn't want to sell to it. People closer got 125% or the market value plus kept the land, people further away got 50% of market value and kept their land. This is all part of the approval process.
Another situation, I have a hog farm that's been in existence for 70+ years. It's a small operation generally focused on FFA and Four H students, giving them an opportunity they might not otherwise have to gain experience with farming and animals, but there are still come smells created by it. A neighbor sold some of his land for commercial development and somewhere down the line, it got rezoned for residential development. We didn't think anything of this and didn't contest it. So people built high dollar houses downwind of a hog farming operation, probably completely ignorant of the fact it was there (swindled by their Real estate Agent), and all the sudden, it's an externalized costs that equipment and procedures costing millions of dollars more then the any imaginable profit could be made from raising the hogs is the demand to keep them happy.
And it's not like we aren't already practicing industrially normal processes in dealing with this. They claim the smell degrades the value of their property. Well it's impossible to do so because the smell was there before and when they purchased it and it's all within perfectly acceptable EPA limits. Yet they are claiming externalizations and want to shut the operation down in order to improve their property values. You tell me that isn't a conspiracy?
Of material detriment
In this, we need to look at both words, material in contract law means something effecting the terms of the contract in a way that changes something that is expected to be performed by the contract. Detriment, like it implies, degrades your portion of services, obligations, or position of the contract.
Of material detriment would mean something like charging the same fees for less service. If it is noticeable that you are receiving less then you were capable under the contract, it's a material detriment.
In contrast, if they change the contract to clarify a statement without changing the intent or effectiveness of any obligations by using "customer" instead of "he" or a new company logo or something, then it wouldn't be material or detrimental.
Man, I wish people would put the Externalities into perspective. They bring this up as if it's some magic bullet against what they don't like. The problem is that you can define anything as an externality and completely miss the benefit of it at the same time.
When there is a real externality, all that happens is the population trades dangers for cheaper products. And it's generally a small portion of the population to boot. Externalities are not a bad thing. It's just a club some people want to use on ideas they don't agree with because of whatever brainwashing they received to grab that ideal. This can be seen as people want to classify Co2 as an externality without any proof of any negative consequences from those actions.
Well, that's only true after the regulations made it that expensive. You are looking at a chicken and egg issue here.
And no, I didn't say removing all the regulation would change anything. I said that was the reality we are in. I purposed nothing as a solution to it and don't really care to. We are not really dealing with capitalism when it comes to oil.
And unless the definitions of words in your mind mean something completely different then to the rest of the world, your explanation more then what I said, shows that it's a contract for a license.
Let's explore this a little. "A license is unilateral permission to use someone's property." Well, a copyrighted work is definitely property under the law. There is a license associated with it. But wait, the GPL presses obligations in which if you don't follow, you don't get the license.
Now, lets look further into what you said. "A contract is an exchange of obligations". Hmm.. So copyright grants the copyright owner exclusive rights in copying and distribution of the original as well as derivatives of the original. That's fine, so what is it I need to do to get a license. Oh yea, that's it, I need to agree to be obligated to certain things in order to have the license.
and yes, it is inane because you tripped over the logic in order to spout the ideological line. Even the definitions at the groklaw site holds this to be the same- although it forgets logic and moves to ideological lines too.
So ask yourself this question. Can I take any GPLed work and do whatever the copyright law reserves as an exclusive right to the copyright holder without agree to, and fulfilling a set of obligations? Of course not, because you can't get the copyright license under the GPL without honoring the contract and if you stop honoring the contract to make the source and changes available, your license rights disappear too.
Now ask yourself, given the definitions you provides literally, as well as the definitions provided at groklaw in the article you linked to, how is this obligation not a contract setting obligations in exchange for a copyright license?
Capitalism works, except that's not really what we are dealing with when it comes to oil. We have placed the regulations so high that it's virtually impossible for anyone to enter in meaningful way. There are 5 major oil companies that touch about every gallon of oil in the US before it's used, shipped off, refined or whatever else. Of those 5, no more then 4 operate in any one state at a time.
There might be some independent operators out there who pump small quantities of oil or transport it to the refineries, but that's about it. They all got purchased by the larger companies or went under.
I'm not even sure why we would need to dissolve any company anyways. As long as they are made to pay the costs of the cleanup, the costs of lost business or reputation to areas effected, and fines associated with their failures, all should be fine. I mean dissolving the company is not going to make those who were harmed, hole again. It's not going to make sure the gulf is cleaned up. In fact, it's going to explicitly slam the costs of the cleanup into the tax payers lap when we find out 20 years from now that something really got screwed up and they aren't making any revenue to cover their costs.
Dissolving the company is probably the last thing we would want to do right now or in the next couple of decades.
Well, that might not be a problem still.
Just because code from one is in the other, it doesn't mean the direction or flow of the code is obvious. It could be that the code came from WinMTR (I'm guessing so don't take it as I'm saying it did) and went into mtr. Or, the code that they share could have been developed by the same Vasile Stanimir who put it in mtr first then int WinMTR. However, in that case, Vasile Stanimir still owns the code in question and the sale of rights would be just as valid.
Perhaps it's different and it's just not right. Perhaps it's this way and all is fine while some don't agree with it. I think maybe someone should audit the code and check to see what exactly is going on before we get too much further into this. For all we know at this point, it might be something like the BSD/GPL stole it arguments where the shared code was originally BSD and the GPL was thrown on it somewhere down the line.
If you know this, then why is it you can't figure out that by USE, I mean copying, altering, and distribution? I mean I did try to limit the term use to "your use as copyright law is concerned" Use as a defined term can mean any number of things including legal possession and benefit from something.
Also, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand the law. It's not like there is some cryptic tome that only lawyers can understand. There is however a bunch of information that required people to pay attention to it. If you had done that, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.
What we feel is often not what the law says. I personally think copyright should only be extended for 50 years or so and 10-15 for computer software programs. But as we know, the law simply doesn't account for that.
The abandon-ware argument rests severely on the abandoned real property law. The key differences is that in real property, in order to be considered abandoned, you either need to neglect the use of a right for a period of time, or fail to keep the property maintained from being declared in dereliction. A lot of times, simply paying property taxes is enough for this to be safeguarded from. When real property become abandoned, it doesn't automatically become someone else'. You need to file a claim of legal right to it. Most of the time, back taxes will take precedence over any claim. You can't just walk down the street, see a piece of property, and say that's mine now either. Your claim has to have some sort of legal backing behind it like the former owner owed you money, your a rightful and legal heir, or you have possession of the property for a length of time in which adverse possession rules can take effect. Most of the time, state eschew laws will simply take it.
But all that is somewhat meaningless when dealing with copyright. Why, because property rights in the US is largely a state issue. Copyright is a federal issue with the full backing and support of the US constitution. Federal laws, when constitutionally backed, trump state laws. Federal laws give the owner/holder or author of a copyrighted work specific rights for a specific length of time. State law can't take that away.
In copyright law, there is no provision for this and property in copyright law can only be abandoned voluntarily. That is to say, property cannot be assumed abandoned in copyright law, some entity has to surrender the rights to it, and make it known to anyone. This is why when someone wants to abandon a copyrighted work, they typically give it a copyright license that essentially put's it into the public domain. It doesn't actually place it there, it just gives the same effect of it being in the public domain.
So while it's a good idea, it's not quite the reality. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from planting the seed of this thought in their legal representative's head. Go ahead a lobby for some changes. perhpas there can be some sanity put back into copyright law.
Well, that makes a lot more sense.
The owners of the code in question can really do whatever they want with it. They will not be able to retroactively remove the GPL from previous versions but they can change future versions.
I guess some people get so wrapped up in the ideology, they can't see the forest for the trees.