NO, this is the point where you remind people that the constitution failed to address those points until later when the constitutional process called an amendment was used.
IF the ideals need changed, an amendment is the tool to make that change. It's got a built in special tool that requires a most of the country to agree with the changes. If we simply ignore the constitution, then just a majority or even worse, a minority who managed to get into power is all it would take to change those ideals.
Not really, Saddam claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling it's fields in Iraq but later admitted that his invasion into Kuwait was because some Kuwaiti diplomat equated Iraqi women with 10 dollar whores.
Stupid people do stupid things. Especially when they have the power and ability to do it.
How about if the brainwashing is wearing off but he doesn't want a bunch of terrorist killing his family because he now finds what they are doing and what they stand for abhorrent? How about because his sudden realization of the sanctity of life is just as important to US as it is him.
It's a serious crime to alert people that the government is lying?
was it a serious crime to alert people that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative when she was pretending to be a normal citizen?
Think about this. I know your pissed that the TSA can see your junk when you want to fly and will grab it if you try to stop them. But seriously, stop and think about this for a while. All governments need to have some secrets, even if those secrets are little more then confidential deliberations in order to determine a course of policy or to keep the identity of a classified agent hidden.
Furthermore, the UK Attorney General could only get the invasion to be legal in UK law through Resolution criteria dating back to the 1990 invasion [bbc.co.uk] of Kuwait.Actually, that's what the op said. He said that the armistice agreement was in violation therefore; legally old hostilities have never stopped and can continue.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was defending the corruption in the food for oil program that his own relatives were deeply involved with. It also appears that Kofi was making those statements as an attempt to manipulate the US elections. OF course this was also outlined in your own link.
I believe he is talking about the people who leaked the information originally and gave it to the foreign national. The main person might be this guy in the army who got busted in connection with it.
I hope whatever charge he is up for, it carries a capitol punishment.
Not really, parts of the truth can paint a picture entirely different then the whole truth. And timing the release to impact certain events can have a far more negative consequence then the documents on their own might at any other given time. IT might even have consequences that cost human lives.
I have to question if that might be the usefulness you were speaking of. Or did you not think about it and just believe they are the good guys no matter what happens?
That's right, we just ignore you if they don't already assist our confirmation bias.
As for independently verifying anything, well, that would require some critical though and some time; those are two things we don't like because it usually compromises geopolitical ideology or our limited capacity world view.
Nah, it's like Canada has been America's hat for so long, they don't really get the recognition they deserve. This tribit was just trying to correct that a little.
All corporations are owned by natural people. The founding fathers were capitalists and all owned some sort of business of their own. Stop trying to contradict history in order to remake some fictional world that suits your ideals better.
This is something that has been known for so long, it's actually in our constitution. Congress is the only entity that has a right to impose taxes across borders except for what is absolutely necessary for inspections and such.
And I'm not sure why you think that taxation without representation only applies to individuals. If I start a company, it might be a corporation, do I now loose all my rights in the great country? The answer to that is hell no. Corporations are nothing but collections of people combining to operate a business. Stop making them out to be something independent of a person when they are not.
All areas I know of that have a sales tax passes all the tax onto the consumer. In fact, any tax that any company pays gets passed onto the consumers. That's why it's pretty stupid to be charging taxes on companies as if it's some sort of magic bullet to cure the liberal need, all it does is increase the costs to consumers and while some might be able to point the finger and say "those evil corporations" that vast majority of people know better.
Well, fortunately for Amazon, the US constitution says that congress gets to regulate interstate commerce witch is essentially what Amazon is doing.
So if you really feel that way, then get some people together and change the US constitution. Otherwise, you should look at history and figure out that this has been going on since the beginning of the country in one form or another and is completely legit.
You don't want anything to be possible, you want there to be no tigers in your room. And the only way to ensure that your tiger repelling pebble is working is to inspect for tigers. And if it's not working for some reason (suppose my tiger repelling pebble canceling rock is in the same room), you can take any steps deemed neccesary to deal with a tiger in your room. And this was the point of the GP- at least they are looking. And this means that even if your tiger repelling pebble or the anti-terrorists pervert scanners stop working, at leas they are checking.
Knowing that the scanners were in place probably had just as much effect as if they were used or not.
If a terrorist knew he couldn't sneak anything past the scanners, they simply wouldn't plan an attack that way other then maybe blowing up the line for the scanners. At this point, it's trivial to use the things or not as it's main function has already been served. Unannounced stoppage of use would have little to no effect on the effectiveness of the scanner or it's supposed abilities or if it's needful or not.
It's like the speed trap areas. The locals know where the cops hide so it's mainly out of towners who get the speeding tickets there. The locals long ago learned their lessons and whether the cop is present or not in the speed trap, they will mind their speed in that area.
It's also a problem with using decimal points as a comma which is common in some areas.
From my perspective, it was written 18 point zero zero zero as in 18 years and no one thousandths of a year old. That's because we use commas to separate counting blocks and decimal points to distinguish between whole and fractional numbers.
The courts have let some treaties supersede- mainly the ones in existence at the time the constitution was created but the constitution says that the laws and treaties (except for the existing ones) shall be made in accordance with the constitution.
However, this is pointless as the constitution give congress the power to regulate copyright. All treaties the US enters in has to be implemented into law too.
Absolutely right, further profit isn't a qualifier for infringement.
Right, as profitability isn't in the scope of copyright's exclusive rights granted to the owner/author.
They have to prove 1) that the 'product' was damaged materially by the infringement, and 2) that the copying didn't qualify for one of the other fair use exemptions, THEN it qualifies as an infringement.
Well, no. They have to do that as part of setting their expectations for recovery of damages but not to show an infringement has occurred.
And the fair use thing, they don't have to show it wasn't fair use unless it's brought up by the accused as to why it's not infringement. Infringement is a specific legal term with a specific meaning.
Since they do not resell the articles, do not make ad revenue on web hits for the article, and receive the copyright from the newspaper in exchange for a license (but apparently no other monetary consideration, since the newspaper is working with Righthaven in this scheme), I would like to know how they can prove damage.
Damage can be shown as devaluing the service they offer if people are able to copy the works without restriction. Also, under the laws concerning theft by conversion, the copyright owner is entitled to a fee for the use of the property. And yes, copyright law makes copyright a piece of property.
But this is sort of pointless as there are statutory damages that can be used. You don't need to prove you have been damaged outside of one of the exclusive rights being infringed in order to sue for copyright violations/infringements.
If the one copying can prove they had no motive to profit, it didn't reduce profit of the original, and that they posted the article for educational reasons, to refute or criticize, to parody, or any of the other approved exemptions, then copying even the whole article is NOT an infringement.
Sure. But if you noticed, the burden is on the accused to show it has an exception not the copyright holder.
They had one of these suits thrown out already. In that case it was ruled an obvious case of fair use.
And I believe the accused also claimed fair use from the start. I'm not sure what the point is here. Fair use is a defense to infringement as specific delineations aren't actually spelled out in law, just examples that is supposed to be taken into consideration when determining if a use if fair use or not.
Several cases have been settled out of court, how many of those were obvious cases of fair use, but not pursued because the accused could not afford to fight the case in court?
We will never know.. This is because they were settled out of court. But it has no bearing on the jurisprudence of the case or this case in particular.
That is what I mean by copyright infringement for profit. The only way Righthaven makes money is by winning lawsuits against violators, or getting them to settle to avoid a trial. That is their only purpose for existing. They do not create content, do not truly license content, or do anything else to bring in revenue except sue.
OK, but this isn't illegal or anything. It just makes them a copyright troll in the same sense we have patent trolls. They use the crap for profit and that's about it.
Telling the teacher or clubbing him won't stop him from pissing you off either. what it does is make you feel good/better if not only for a short period of time.
Yea, it make you feel better when you are trapped and nothing you can do will change the situation so you do what little you can for payback. That's what I'm saying.
copyright laws have largely been address independent of the **AAs.
Those seem to be American organizations and copyright laws have all been started in Europe first then brought to the US. Even the infamous DMCA was the result of an international treaty.
Sure, the **AAs might encourage the stuff. They might even activly support it. But if you are going to concentrate on them, you will never win. You have to find the problem, not the front man in the operation taking advantage of the problems.
Slashdot Mirror
NO, this is the point where you remind people that the constitution failed to address those points until later when the constitutional process called an amendment was used.
IF the ideals need changed, an amendment is the tool to make that change. It's got a built in special tool that requires a most of the country to agree with the changes. If we simply ignore the constitution, then just a majority or even worse, a minority who managed to get into power is all it would take to change those ideals.
Not really, Saddam claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling it's fields in Iraq but later admitted that his invasion into Kuwait was because some Kuwaiti diplomat equated Iraqi women with 10 dollar whores.
Stupid people do stupid things. Especially when they have the power and ability to do it.
When did that happen?
Yep, it's been going on since the civil war and much largly since the 1930's.
Lol.. are you serious?
How about if the brainwashing is wearing off but he doesn't want a bunch of terrorist killing his family because he now finds what they are doing and what they stand for abhorrent? How about because his sudden realization of the sanctity of life is just as important to US as it is him.
was it a serious crime to alert people that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative when she was pretending to be a normal citizen?
Think about this. I know your pissed that the TSA can see your junk when you want to fly and will grab it if you try to stop them. But seriously, stop and think about this for a while. All governments need to have some secrets, even if those secrets are little more then confidential deliberations in order to determine a course of policy or to keep the identity of a classified agent hidden.
I believe he is talking about the people who leaked the information originally and gave it to the foreign national. The main person might be this guy in the army who got busted in connection with it.
I hope whatever charge he is up for, it carries a capitol punishment.
Not really, parts of the truth can paint a picture entirely different then the whole truth. And timing the release to impact certain events can have a far more negative consequence then the documents on their own might at any other given time. IT might even have consequences that cost human lives.
I have to question if that might be the usefulness you were speaking of. Or did you not think about it and just believe they are the good guys no matter what happens?
That's right, we just ignore you if they don't already assist our confirmation bias.
As for independently verifying anything, well, that would require some critical though and some time; those are two things we don't like because it usually compromises geopolitical ideology or our limited capacity world view.
Wait, did I just say that out loud?
Nah, it's like Canada has been America's hat for so long, they don't really get the recognition they deserve. This tribit was just trying to correct that a little.
All corporations are owned by natural people. The founding fathers were capitalists and all owned some sort of business of their own. Stop trying to contradict history in order to remake some fictional world that suits your ideals better.
No they don't.. or at least not for this reason.
This is something that has been known for so long, it's actually in our constitution. Congress is the only entity that has a right to impose taxes across borders except for what is absolutely necessary for inspections and such.
And I'm not sure why you think that taxation without representation only applies to individuals. If I start a company, it might be a corporation, do I now loose all my rights in the great country? The answer to that is hell no. Corporations are nothing but collections of people combining to operate a business. Stop making them out to be something independent of a person when they are not.
All areas I know of that have a sales tax passes all the tax onto the consumer. In fact, any tax that any company pays gets passed onto the consumers. That's why it's pretty stupid to be charging taxes on companies as if it's some sort of magic bullet to cure the liberal need, all it does is increase the costs to consumers and while some might be able to point the finger and say "those evil corporations" that vast majority of people know better.
Well, fortunately for Amazon, the US constitution says that congress gets to regulate interstate commerce witch is essentially what Amazon is doing.
So if you really feel that way, then get some people together and change the US constitution. Otherwise, you should look at history and figure out that this has been going on since the beginning of the country in one form or another and is completely legit.
You don't want anything to be possible, you want there to be no tigers in your room. And the only way to ensure that your tiger repelling pebble is working is to inspect for tigers. And if it's not working for some reason (suppose my tiger repelling pebble canceling rock is in the same room), you can take any steps deemed neccesary to deal with a tiger in your room. And this was the point of the GP- at least they are looking. And this means that even if your tiger repelling pebble or the anti-terrorists pervert scanners stop working, at leas they are checking.
Interesting. I didn't realize the comma was switched in those areas too. I guess that makes it a little more difficult then.
How do you know there are no tigers in your room? was it because you actually looked?
Knowing that the scanners were in place probably had just as much effect as if they were used or not.
If a terrorist knew he couldn't sneak anything past the scanners, they simply wouldn't plan an attack that way other then maybe blowing up the line for the scanners. At this point, it's trivial to use the things or not as it's main function has already been served. Unannounced stoppage of use would have little to no effect on the effectiveness of the scanner or it's supposed abilities or if it's needful or not.
It's like the speed trap areas. The locals know where the cops hide so it's mainly out of towners who get the speeding tickets there. The locals long ago learned their lessons and whether the cop is present or not in the speed trap, they will mind their speed in that area.
It's also a problem with using decimal points as a comma which is common in some areas.
From my perspective, it was written 18 point zero zero zero as in 18 years and no one thousandths of a year old. That's because we use commas to separate counting blocks and decimal points to distinguish between whole and fractional numbers.
Shouldn't that be Smugshot?
No it doesn't.
The courts have let some treaties supersede- mainly the ones in existence at the time the constitution was created but the constitution says that the laws and treaties (except for the existing ones) shall be made in accordance with the constitution.
However, this is pointless as the constitution give congress the power to regulate copyright. All treaties the US enters in has to be implemented into law too.
Right, as profitability isn't in the scope of copyright's exclusive rights granted to the owner/author.
Well, no. They have to do that as part of setting their expectations for recovery of damages but not to show an infringement has occurred.
And the fair use thing, they don't have to show it wasn't fair use unless it's brought up by the accused as to why it's not infringement. Infringement is a specific legal term with a specific meaning.
Damage can be shown as devaluing the service they offer if people are able to copy the works without restriction. Also, under the laws concerning theft by conversion, the copyright owner is entitled to a fee for the use of the property. And yes, copyright law makes copyright a piece of property.
But this is sort of pointless as there are statutory damages that can be used. You don't need to prove you have been damaged outside of one of the exclusive rights being infringed in order to sue for copyright violations/infringements.
Sure. But if you noticed, the burden is on the accused to show it has an exception not the copyright holder.
And I believe the accused also claimed fair use from the start. I'm not sure what the point is here. Fair use is a defense to infringement as specific delineations aren't actually spelled out in law, just examples that is supposed to be taken into consideration when determining if a use if fair use or not.
We will never know.. This is because they were settled out of court. But it has no bearing on the jurisprudence of the case or this case in particular.
OK, but this isn't illegal or anything. It just makes them a copyright troll in the same sense we have patent trolls. They use the crap for profit and that's about it.
Telling the teacher or clubbing him won't stop him from pissing you off either. what it does is make you feel good/better if not only for a short period of time.
Yea, it make you feel better when you are trapped and nothing you can do will change the situation so you do what little you can for payback. That's what I'm saying.
copyright laws have largely been address independent of the **AAs.
Those seem to be American organizations and copyright laws have all been started in Europe first then brought to the US. Even the infamous DMCA was the result of an international treaty.
Sure, the **AAs might encourage the stuff. They might even activly support it. But if you are going to concentrate on them, you will never win. You have to find the problem, not the front man in the operation taking advantage of the problems.