Yes I know this is a late reply, hadn't noticed your comment until now...
It happens. No bother to me.
As an example in Columbus Ohio (when I lived there 9 years ago) they had salary caps on where you could live... Government assisted housing was available for ~$400/month and your credit didn't really matter... But you had to make under 15k/year single or 32k/year for a couple. The only option above this (& I did a years worth of apartment looking so I know exactly how it was) were bigger apartments going for $1200-1600/month and they required good credit (& you signed a lease contract rather than a pure rental contract). You also had other limits in there and restrictions, but that is the simplified version... I made 23k/year at the time (during college) & had to look at the more expensive places as I wasn't even allowed to look at other apartments as I made to much...
Nine years ago, I was living in either Springfield Missouri or Kimberly Idaho, I spent about a year or so in both places after deciding California sucked too much. I was born and raised in Lancaster so if you were familiar with Columbus, you should know where I'm coming from.
Anyways, the salary caps were/are only for HUD owned homes and rentals. Sometimes HUD only owns part of them and sometimes they own the entire lot. I spent about 2 years in Columbus before following a job to Denver then relocating in Calexico CA then up to Barstow CA for a couple of years. Anyways, I made pretty decent money at the time, 40k a year. I had the problem of looking in the wrong places too until I realized the HUD was screwing things up. All you have to do is look for apartments that say HUD ok, these are apartments not owned by HUD but are meet the requirements that they can accept HUD vouchers. They don't care what your income is as long as you can show a minimum amount. I rented an entire house on the south side of Columbus (pretty crappy neighborhood) for $700 a month and I was the only resident there. All I had to do was show them a pay stub showing them that I had been working for more then 6 months and made over $15,000 a month (around 18 a year). You can get into the more expensive housing arrangements but your not limited to them.
I don't think you realize the big holes in the safety nets out there... I could own a 2 story good condition house where I live now for ~1000-1100/month... If I could afford that... I had to have a roommate in Columbus just to pay that bill... & when my roommate forfeited the lease I got a credit black eye for it (& lost the apartment)... I in fact had to move back in with my parents @ 21 years of age or I would very much have been homeless....
Maybe I have just been lucky or something. I mean I have had my share of hard times, I have had the room mate that takes the bill money and goes on a coke binge or give it to her new boyfriend or something. I have had the BS, but I have never been evicted. I have moved to new places without a credit check, I don't hold my standards too high though. I have never experienced what you say you have though. My biggest problem was coming up with expenses to pay a deposit, move, and get the utilities moved over or turned on into my name.
I don't really think there should be any safety nets out there. Those encourage people to take risks when they aren't willing or capable of putting the effort behind them to make it work. It isn't always the person's problem, but often it is. Some people are just stupid too. Take my mother for instance, she was looking at purchasing a home, I could tell it was over valued and she was all set to pay the list price. Her broker told her she couldn't get financing if she didn't. She told me this when I asked her is she low balled an offer. I went to the real estate agent's office and demanded to speak with him, I asked him where he got the notion that he could withhold financ
Even if the Earth is warming, the bias isn't in the facts, it's in whether or not this is a natural thing, and whether we can do anything about it.
Well, no. It's in the facts too. There have been a number of people point out that the Co2 levels are trailing the temperature increased meaning they can't be the cause of of something happening before them. However, the people running the models don't seem to care because they can tweak models to work with historic data. The obvious bias is that those same models aren't near as accurate if even close in making future predictions.
Whoever said the science is settled was being biased too.
And your argument is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the poster, which is equally worthless.
I'm not going to argue your premise, I will add to it but your wrong right here. It wasn't an Ad Hominem attack, it was a straight out attack. An Ad hominem attack needs to be a little sneaky or less obvious but have the same results. He went straight out on top and attacked the guy.
The rest of what your talking about is sort of a morph from the original politicising of global warming. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, there was a "humanitarian" push for first world countries to forgive the third world debt. Most of this debt was incurred during the 70's when OPEC embargoes oil from the US because of our support for Israel. These third world countries borrowed shitloads of money from the IMF and World banks and were backed by nations like the UK, US, France, Germany, and so on. The purpose was to explore their oil and other natural resources as well as improve their infrastructures.
Now, here is where global warming enters and how they are connected. In 1988, global warming pops up on the national stage, just 9 years after the famous Time Magazine article decrying we are entering an ice age. In the early 90's (94 I think) they started purposing to do something about global warming. The Kyoto accords were reached and it was specifically designed to enrich third world countries by making them exempt from emissions regulations that capped carbon emissions and then either forcing industrialized nations to export their industry (hello China and India) or by purchasing direct carbon credits that the third world countries didn't use to offset all carbon production over the imposed limits. Now, it is obvious to anyone who has studied in this area that that capping carbon production is near impossible because of population growth. I can actually work that out with some quick math if anyone has a problem understanding that concept.
Anyways, this marvel called the Kyoto accords came about around 1996 or so and the "forgive the third world debt" people simply disappeared. Some people who supported the third world debt cause was Al Gore, Bill Clinton, The then president of France and Germany, and some of the leaders in the UK. The problem was, they couldn't get the rest of their countries to go along with it. Then comes about this global warming disaster in the making, it's first and most prominent solution was to more or less take over the third world debt agenda in a scheme to force wealthy nations to enrich less wealthy ones. Of the 168 participants to Kyoto (US is the only country left) only 38 have emissions caps and of those, only 28 are locked into the defined 1990 limits for the caps. The other 10 have either higher caps or they are waiting for milestones to be seen before a cap is in place. Chine and India, two of the worlds largest polluters mainly because the US and EU are exporting their manufacturing to them have no emissions caps at all and refuse to sign anything obligating them to it.
These non-regulated countries have no incentive to regulate their emissions, they just wait until some regulated country needs expansion and either sell credits or welcome their investment into their local economy.
Now, that was the first politicizing of the global warming, creating an ends to a speculative means by addressing another political agenda in disguise. You have the IPCC which admittedly the kyoto was born from the same people/body, but it was politicized also. The thing is, it worked so others are using it to push their agenda. Look at Al Gore, he creates a movie with verifyably false information in it and misleading information to boot, then announces that he is accepting payments for "carbon offsets" by his company that makes offsets up out of the blue just to sell to people so they don't feel guilty. Now most of what global warming and the purposed fixes do is also what the democrats or more aptly the liberals which the democrats are
In that case, you'll agree with my right to hit all the bongs I want, right?
Why not. If you can do that without being a drain on society or resorting to theft to pay for your habit when your employer fires you, go for it. Just don't put your rights to your body onto other people because then it's more then just your body.
I understand what your saying but I don't think that it would be possible with the magnitude of manpower needed to replace the county and city law enforcement. Any benefit the state police have over the county and local police will pretty much be gone.
This is for a couple of reasons, one would be the shear bulk in size of the force. My county employs something like 55 officers (deputies, detectives, and so on) let alone the office personnel to support them. The nearest city to me has 2 cops but the next nearest city has 85-100 officers if you count the tactical officers and special duty officers. Now local officers need to be familiar enough with the area so your not calling them and waiting 2 hours because they got lost or had to wait for someone to show them where to go. We have roads that some maps don't bother listing or list incorrectly and I'm sure my area isn't unique to this. So the officers are going to need to be somewhat familiar with the area, then you have people who would get completely out of law enforcement altogether if they had to drive 2 hours to work a 8 hour shift that can easily turn into 9 or 10 hours of there's a lot of paperwork. you can't ask people to up and move every 6 months or a year, people get careers because they want to settle down.
Like I said, I understand what your saying, I just don't think those benefits would remain on a large scale if the state took over everything. I think what we need is bigger penalties for abuse and easier ways for it to be reported and investigated without putting the person who complained into danger. Something that says, here are the lines between right and wrong, if you cross over to wrong, you are going to be nailed to the wall and probably lose your job, if you stay on this side, you will be ok. Maybe even putting plea bargains for public servants up for a popular vote or something so if it was a mistake, the community can decide, and if it was an act of malice, the community will decide instead of their friends or other corrupt officials attempting to protect them.
It's quite simple. In the king kong defense, it relies on the law they are subject to making a distinction that two or more people act together requiring intentional interaction. The defense is that we put A up, and some use did B. A isn't connected to B outside of some user using A's informational service. There is no intentional interaction. These users can be seen with screen names like King Kong.
The Chewbacca defense more or less distracted people with star wars idioms and then pulled those rhythmically towards an acquittal for the defense.
A car anology might be, the king kong defense require two people to get into the same car and go to the place the law was broken. If that didn't happen, the person not in the car cannot be charged for breaking that law. The chewbacca defense is like watching a movie about horse racing to convince the jury that the two people were never in the cars together.
The training the law enforcement officers recieve in most states are mandated by the state. It would be the same regardless of who hired them. Even cities who have their own academy will have to meet the same standards.
The differences is in how the establishment is run. The state is somewhat removed from the local scene. They even transfer officers when they go through divorces and so on. If the state assumed the law enforcement responsibilities for the local communities, that layer of removal would be gone. It may take a few years but it would eventually be gone.
I seriously doubt that it would change much moving the law enforcement to the state.
The frontal lobe of the Cerebrum doesn't fully mature until around age 20. This is the part of the brain responsible for reasoned response. It's impossible to claim that an 18 year old can make a fully reasoned decision based on this alone without even considering the lack of data input availible for an actual reasoned response.
For the most part, we make exceptions to behaviors of people within an narrow band of capabilities on a rule of thumb more then a exact capability measurement. This works with varying results especially when considering what people are willing to put up with in modern day relationships.
However, someone who is significantly older then someone else possesses far more data for a reasoned decision as well as has their frontal cortex developed to a mature state. This puts them into an unfair advantage over much younger people when they lack those things. A 10 year difference in age is nothing when the people are 29 and 39 years old. It's everything when they are 25 and 15. This is because the 15 year old cannot possibly make a reasoned decision in the ways the 25 year old can.
If you look at yourself and think you were more then capable at age 16, they you simply aren't old enough to take an objective look at your life. Wait until you reach 30 or 40 and ask yourselves the same questions. Ask yourself if there is anything you would have done differently 10 or 15 years ago. If the answer is no, then your either not learning from your mistakes or you are lieing to yourself. Either way, it's obvious that there is a difference in mental leverage and aptitude when age spans vary so much.
I would say that would be a good thing wouldn't you?
I mean the federal government wasn't originally supposed to be this monolithic institution except when facing foreign nations. Outside of a few things the constitution specifically allows for and prevents, it was supposed to allow the states to govern themselves however the states see fit. The 17th was more or less an effort to de-emphasize the state's direct powers in influencing the government by taking their vote or influence away.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be federal government laws, nor am I saying there shouldn't be government intervention. I'm saying there shouldn't be near as much as there are today. I remember something Nancy Pelosi said, and Mrs. Clinton also parroted to some degree. It was when confirming supreme court justices and went something along the lines of this, "this is a serious process, we can have a court that keep making the laws congress passes unconstitutional". The idea there is that the laws would be unconstitutional based on who is sitting on the bench not because of what the constitution says. That's what has become of this nation where a government was created by a document that said what it can and can't do. This people said, your can govern by these powers and be bound by these restrictions and the rest is up to the states but if at any time it isn't enough or is too much, we can change and correct the document by an amendment process. Now it's whoever sits on the supreme court.
It was never neither. Quit attempting to apply some romantic dream you have about how it should be. The president of the United states was originally supposed to be decided by the states in a manner they chose, not by a vote by one person. The senate was originally comprised of people chosen by the state, not the people. The house of representatives was supposed to be the only vote the people got. We have since then made the senators and elected post but their structure is still surounding that of the state's choice.
It was never one man one vote on the federal level.
Lol.. You people haven't thought this stuff out very well have you?
If I can pollute the air above my land, I can sue you for damages for not containing the air above your land that forced my air to pollute others. Eventually, you sue the other guy and so on and so on. You haven't defined a pollutant or a mechanism to stop other people from trespassing. On land, in a two dimensional setup, I can use fences, natural boundaries, things like that. This is impossible for air space above my property. Your little plan fails on a number of grounds. You standing at the property line breathing or passing gas into my properties direction pollutes my property.
The alternative is to avoid the inflation of products and services and to stop the necessity for 3 lawyers for every 1 person alive. You benefit from cheaper products and services, you simply benefit from what we have now. Dangerous and poisonous pollutants that actually harm people are already regulated. What your purposing does nothing but make things get way more expensive.
Money can go both ways in value. So can Physical hardware but typically not in the amount of time we are looking at. Other will and have already attempted to explain that for whatever reasons but what your saying does make a little sense.
The modest interest rate at 3% will probably just keep pace with inflation if anything. But that is good because 10 dollars will still but ten dollars worth of goods at the time you put it in the vehicle. Two years from now, those servers might be worth less then they are now, plus the shelf life will of the equipment will be lost too. Capacitors leak regardless of being used, how much or how fast is the only variables. Storage for 2 years in the same sense means that if they power up, they won't last as long as if they were in use right now. A two year old computer will be worht more then a four year old computer of the same specs, but a 10 dollar investment that simply coveres inflation will be worth the same after two years. It's a conservative move.
The easiest way to get around the under/over rated mod problem is to just reply to the down modded post. Wait a day or so before doing it, that way the troll will be out of points. Then just make some snide remark about how those mods simply don't stop the message from being seen. Someone will stumble along as long as you have good karma and be curious enough to see what was modded down. 9 out of 10 times (off the head calculations) your post will be modded back up and any negative karma will be neutralized. 9 out of 10 might be a little optimistic but I can say it would be more often then not.
And of course, this is if your post isn't somehow deserving of the down mod. I fail to have every seen a need for the over rated though.
I thought I did in several places. Does "When talking about necessities like public utilities and so on, we are talking about safe habitation of human life. There are certain things given our environment that are necessary to the safe habitation of human life. Food, shelter, water, clothing or protection from the elements are among them." look familiar?
Oh, I agree. Illegal immigrant problems started before the Mayflower brought the Pilgrims to Plymouth, Mass.
Actually, no it didn't. Nothing made that immigration illegal. If anything immigration may have been a problem but not illegal immigration. There is a big difference.
Ever since then Europeans have tried to exterminate the native inhabitants. Heck Christopher Columbus tried to enslave Arawaks and other inhabitants of the Caribbean. Unfortunately for him he declared the New World as Spanish territory and Castile's Queen Isabella, who united the Iberian kingdoms into the Spanish kingdom, told him she could not enslave her own subjects. That was one of the few things, if not the only one, that she did right.
You can consider that more or less an invasion over immegration. But that's a different time with different reasons. Are you claiming that the illegals are attempting to colonize America or something? That would completely erode your displaced farmer theory (not that it holds water anyways)?
Farmers, if the farm is large enough, employ workers. No farms means no farm workers. In order to make a living those ex farm workers then take any job they can which drives wages down, more than they already are.
Lol.. Your really stretching for it there. The number of illegals in the US right now would mean almost all of Mexico's farms are shut down now. That simply isn't so. There are a suspected high end of 20 million illegal Mexicans in the US right now, Mexico is smaller then the state of Texas with only about 12% of it's land being arable. Mexico employs roughly 14% of it's population in farming and farming is 3.5% of it's GDP. Both those numbers increased after the passage of NAFTA and were quite smaller before it went into effect. NAFTA has actually helped most of Mexico's farmers.
Are you saying the Heritage Foundation doesn't know how subsides work as well? And all the other think tanks that can afford to pay economists? You know more than they do? What's your qualification? Got a PhD in economists? Where from? Or are you just pulling things out of your ass?
I'm saying that neither you nor them are looking at the entire picture because neither of you account for the "benefits" that subsidies provide. It simply isn't addressed in your consideration nor their which means they and you are only telling part of the story. I can say the light was red as you approached the intersection and totally forget to mention that it turned green before you went through it and totally change the cause of the accident that just happened in the intersection. You cannot forget the purpose and design for the subsidies or what they do. You also have to look at their motivation which is to get the government out from spending like that.
So yea, you are talking out your ass. Your ignoring one thing to make another point seem more important.
Since you think you know more than others, there's no point in me continuing.
Well, I do know more then you. Perhaps there is no point in continuing seeing how you won't listen to anything you don't' want to and there for will remain willfully ignorant. BTW, there is not right or wrong answer with subsidies, there is only whether or not your willing to put up with food shortages, prices doubling or quadrupling and so on. If you are, good. If your not, then support the
And many people consider broadband, which this is about, as necessary. I have been attempting to show that people's definition of what's necessary is different than your definition. B ut you only accept your own version.
Your confusing desire and want with necessity. At least in the terms I was ever describing it. A basic necessity is something necessary for life to exist safely given it's current environment and facts. Of course you can say broad band internet is a necessity to get high speed access to the internet porn. But you can't say it's essential to maintaining life anywhere.
Not really, I suggest you read the article thread I'm now going through, Spiraling Skyscraper Farms For a Future Manhattan.
It's not practical and I'm not aware of any archetecual blueprints or plans that even consider it stable enough to do what it wants to. There is a lot of weight involved with growing and harvesting food that cannot be built into the structural strength of the building, hydroponics will work better on lower levels but the uppers won't hold up to the wind.
More to the point, it is nonexistent today. You can make that assumption until it exists. Once does, and it proves to be enough, we can go that route and talk about it's viability in the context that we are.
That's because there is no free market. Government policies were designed to drive people out of rural settings and into cities.
Even before government policies that you speak of, it's a practical reality of life. Farming doesn't make as much money as jobs in the city. Before the government started interfering with farms or commodity prices, farms were going under, arable land was all taken and people had no desire to work the fields. Those people moved to the cities. The east coast cities saw penniless immigrants escaping the wonders of Europe with no way to farm. The creation of industry provides the need for workers close to the factory.
BS! Yea it's the government of Mexico's fault they signed NAFTA. If Mexicans had an import duty to raise the cost of corn so Mexican farmers could compeat with subsidized corn from the US then US agriculture businesses could sued Mexico for lost profits. The Canadian business Methanex sued the US when California banned MTBE, a known cancer causer.
How old are you? Do you think the illegal immigrant problems just started with NAFTA? The illegal immigration problems have been around for quite a while and Mexico has been an armpit of North America for the better part of this century. Do you ever wonder how illegal mexicans got the term wetback? It's because of Operation wetback in the 1950's, long before NAFTA was a dream in anyone's eye.
It's problems have little to do with NAFTA or the price of corn. The minimum wage in Mexico is something like 52.6 pesos which comes out to around $4.70 a day (2008 numbers where minimum wage in the US is more then a days pay per hour). Do you think that expensive corn will actually help them or hurt them? It isn't like they can see the corn at those prices outside of the country if they are jacking up tariffs to protect their domestic products. How many people does a farm in Mexico feed? How many people are better off with lower corn prices compared to Mexican farmers that the Mexican government completely abandons?
Perhaps you don't understand real world economics, but when farmers are driven off the farm because they can't compeat they then move to cities. And when those cities are already crowded some of those resident will themselves move to where they think they have a better chance. Which is what is happening in Mexico. Having said that I agree that the Mexican government can do more to help people.
I'm going to have to assume that it's the same Grooveshark as was mentioned in the story summers "(tested here with Grooveshark)".
Seriously, I just posted this because I like that Letmegoogleitforyou site. but the program you mentioned was tested and blocked or degraded per the story. It sort of sucked that there is not s link to more detailed though.
The EU Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) was the result of combined efforts to make copyright uniform around participating countries. That directive BTW, was launched before he CTEA was created and the Copyright terms extension act was a result of the same processes.
Here's a hint: The mere mention of something is not enough to assume bias. Context matters.
Great, your going to turn this into an accuracy of Wikipedia argument. OK, sure, it's biased. The entire mention of it lend it validation over any real and tangible causes, most of which aren't even mentioned on Wikipedia's page. It is biased pure and simple.
The only context that matters is that a cook conspiracy theory that was a failed defense of a failed lawsuit is given that much credit.
See, that's not drawing the wrong conclusion from existing facts. That's inventing facts out of whole cloth.
That was an example, the fact that you didn't move into the neighborhood doesn't mean squat, you were a random person, anyone could have been made into the villain. The effect is exactly what you are attempting to do, take an ancillary action and tie it to the responsibility of an entirely unrelated process. You moving is just the action that was noticed, the leave falling are the process that stand on legitimate grounds, the blaming it on you is the blaming it on Disney because of something that was happening at the same time. In short, the world is flat because you will only believe what you can see.
I'm not sure I see why that's a problem. Nor do I see why creators would actually bother -- we're talking about something that won't happen until many years after you're dead.
Yes, I didn't think you could see any problems at all. Suppose your a media company, X was created by a corporation in 1933. You like the story line and think a remake would be something the people would enjoy. According to US copyright law before the extension, it would be in public domain by 2008 (75 years) if it was a published work. You remake the film, add all these special effect to it, and then when promoting the movie release, you find that copyright had been filed on it in Europe and it's covered for another 15 years. You have 25 million invested in promotion only, then there is the billions involved with making the epic flick. The copyright owners won't give you a license, where is the problem?
It's not about a problem with the dead author, it's a problem with people attempting to use their works. having the same term lengths change this to some degree making you confident that the EU copyright will expire when the US copyright does.
Nor do I see why the US would cave to foreign pressure, instead of suggesting that Europe reduce its copyright by 20 years.
I'm sorry, did I stutter or something? I already said that we got the EU countries to stabilize their copyright duration to one solid and uniform number. Some countries had terms that were 200 years past the Berne requirements. Is it too much to meet in the middle after they found that 20 year more was the lowest they could go?
By suggesting that domestic lobbying may have played a large role here, I am not declaring that the sky burns in the east. Rather, by suggesting that it played no role in that decision, you are putting your hand in the fire again and wondering if it will hurt this time -- you are ignoring the amount of influence that such media companies have, both here and abroad -- see the current Pirate Bay trial.
Lol.. No. You are mistaking the cheerleaders for the players in the game. I'm telling you who the players are. It doesn't matter that a crowd cheered them on to victory, the crowed did nothing but let them know they supported them. The team was formed and processes put in place long before they even got there. The players of the team took the ball down the field and made the game.
You are essentially saying that because X happened and Y found an advantage from it, that Y caused X. And to do so, you are ignoring ever other relevant circumstance that can be as
There are no necessities, not even life is a necessity. Everything that is considered a necessity is usually accompanied by a modifier, such as "food is a necessity of life."
By definition a necessity is modified by whatever it is applied to. I'm not sure where your attempting to go with this. It is all about context. A ball and a bat is a necessity to play base ball. A vehicle of some sort is a necessity to drive. When talking about necessities like public utilities and so on, we are talking about safe habitation of human life. There are certain things given out environment that are necessary to the safe habitation of human life. Food, shelter, water, clothing or protection from the elements are among them.
This is because of laws banning farm animals not because farm animals can not survive in cities.
Well, no. It's primarily because cities are too crowded to safely have farm animals. You need a certain amount of land to dispose of their waste and a certain amount more to provide a healthy life for them. Some of the laws where for the smells and so on too. There are laws concerning the number of normal pets you can have along these same lines. Sometimes permits can provide exceptions.
That's because of misguided economic policies that encouraged small farmers to leave their farms and move into cities while large scale farms grew food. Then there are the hugh farm subsidies the First World nations such as the EU, Japan, and the US give to farmers.
Be whatever the cause may be, the reality is what we have today. It was the reality of yesterday also and the reality of most of the life of the world. Cities are notorious for not having lawns or gardens big enough to support the life of the occupants.
People and the news in the US complain a lot about "illegal aliens", especially Lou Dobbs on CNN. What I have never heard them ask is why are they willing to risk life to get into to US? That's because US agriculture businesses get paid hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars in subsidies as well as NAFTA. With these subsidies and NAFTA US businesses can export and sell corn, which botanically originated in Central America, in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn. This economically forces those farmers off of their farms, they then either move into already large Mexican cities or north where they try to cross the border.
Lol.. And it would have nothing to do with the fact that Mexico's economic recovery process involved shipping it's citizens into the US so someone else has to deal with them? The entire Mexico economy is in shambles. It's not the fault of the US or the EU or any other nation, it's their economic system. Their workers get paid on average of $28 a week, that makes minimum wage in the US look like a rich man's salary. Subsidies did nothing to cause that, subsidies aren't the problem and it isn't failed Mexican farmers who come to America for the most part. It's the lost intercity idiots who get absolutely no help from the government. Mexico's welfare system involved pointing to holes in the border and that's about it. Even coming to America and being a welfare recipient that barely gets by is a step up from the poor in the armpit of the Americas.
These subsides even affect small farmers in the US, large scale farms drive smaller farmers into US cities as well. About the only small farms that can make it are the organic farms, but even there big agri businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill are moving in.
You really have a naive outlook on the scenario. Now farming is something I come to the table with first hand knowledge of. Subsidies didn't do what you think it did. In the Seventies when Carter attempted to "save the banks", he allowed them to directly invest in real estate. This drove prices for farm land
Well, no. There is an "inherent" morality. It is the morality of the people making the corporation act. Without people, a corporation does absolutely nothing and does not exist.
As long as the shareholders remain silent, then it's the morality of the management and board of directors. When the share holders speak up, it entangles within that. The goals of those people are to make money but morally, they are bound to the morals of whoever is calling the shots and the ethics dictated by laws.
You're probably confusing the lack of your morals present to mean no morals. That's a common mistake most often represented by the religious sections of the world and even within that, certain religions find other lacking. But they aren't absent and they aren't limited to religious views. Like I said, a corporation does not function, it makes no actions whatsoever at all without a person directing that action in some way. That person, or those people, are the inherent morality of the company.
The CTEA was a vehicle to address the A href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_harmonising_the_term_of_copyright_protection >the EU's Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) standardizing of copyright terms. With the US honoring European copyright and vice versa, there was a need to make them the same terms otherwise all US copyright could be default get extra time by registering in a European country. The US would have to honor those terms per the berne convention. The 1993 directive that set this in motive was also the fruit of combined efforts in talks between getting the US to sign onto the Berne convention and the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In both those talks, the differences in time tables for terms was a key point pressed.
In particular, it is well-known that Disney lobbied for this act, in the year in which Steamboat Willie would have gone public domain. I really don't think that makes me a "raving lunatic" for making that connection.
The sky catches on fire every morning in the east and burns to the west where it goes out to be reignited the next morning. Just because something looks a certain way doesn't make it true. There are plenty of legitimate and on the record explanations for the copyright extensions. Continuing to cite a fable created to raise opposition to the law does make you a raving lunatic when you present it as if you believe it. Disney's support for the bill is nothing but ancillary to why it was created and the purposes it served. I benefit when you buy things, I support you buying things, I didn't cause you to buy things. See how that works?
Granted, Europe already had that level of protection, but we should have been moving in the other direction.
Europe had copyright terms much longer then those required by the Berne convention. However, during the talks to get us in line with the berne conventions and to get Europe to add some concessions like the EU directive that harmonized the copyright terms to a single more sane unit, we agreed to all go to the same term limits provided that one close to the berne convention's could be found.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but look at copyright as it was originally defined: 14 years with a 14-year renewal, if the author is still alive. That's a total of 28 years. Why isn't that sufficient? If you can't make a profit after 28 years, why not let it pass into the public domain? If you did make a profit, why should you be allowed to continue collecting royalties without working -- how is that better for the common good than forcing you to continue to create?
Step back dude. Don't take my fascination with reality to imply that I support the copyright in it's current incarnation. All of your questions assume I hold a position that is never brought up in what I said. Saying that balloon is blue, not red, does not imply that I like or dislike balloons or even you. Don't assume that because I corrected part of the statement, that I'm against or for the point. I'm against fables being told in an attempt to vilify something when they are obviously false and apparent to anyone willing to invest the slightest bit of independent thought over the actual situations that transpired.
Here is a hint, if your source for anything regarding this even mentioned Steamboat Willie then your on a biased and misinformed site. Here is an example of misinformation. Someone named SanityInAnarchy moved into the neighborhood about 6 months ago, he brought so much evil and despair with him that all the sudden all the leaves on all the trees started turning brown and falling off. He's pure evil I will tell you. It's mid February here in the northern US and there is no life to be seen. All the crops are dead, the leaves on the trees are gone, and for what little life continues to exist, it g
What terms are those? Terms that would be considered parts of the DMCA?
If so, your actually wrong, the DMCA is the response to the WCT and http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/ >wppt WIPO treaties. The EU signed onto these and directed the EU countries to adopt them. This is probably what your talking about.
I was with you all the way up to the Steam boat Willie comment. It just turned you into a raving lunatic who has succumbed to conspiracy theories and such.
All Changes in US copyright law have resulted from participation in treaties with Europe, most of which, even the copyright extension act that only extended copyright by 20 years, were after the fact changes that Europe has already implemented before we made the change. You can't look at the time line and the rest of the world while still making the connection your attempting to. If I support something you caused to happen, it doesn't mean I made it happen, it means that I supported you making it happen.
While that might be or seem how they planned it, they have to give you an obvious way to opt out. You can't trick people into compliance to some arbitrary rule that takes something from them. You can't trick people into losing copyright or any right protected by laws.
Now please don't confuse that with people who don't do due diligence and fail to read or understand the contracts they participate in. that's an entirely different story altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
It happens. No bother to me.
Nine years ago, I was living in either Springfield Missouri or Kimberly Idaho, I spent about a year or so in both places after deciding California sucked too much. I was born and raised in Lancaster so if you were familiar with Columbus, you should know where I'm coming from.
Anyways, the salary caps were/are only for HUD owned homes and rentals. Sometimes HUD only owns part of them and sometimes they own the entire lot. I spent about 2 years in Columbus before following a job to Denver then relocating in Calexico CA then up to Barstow CA for a couple of years. Anyways, I made pretty decent money at the time, 40k a year. I had the problem of looking in the wrong places too until I realized the HUD was screwing things up. All you have to do is look for apartments that say HUD ok, these are apartments not owned by HUD but are meet the requirements that they can accept HUD vouchers. They don't care what your income is as long as you can show a minimum amount. I rented an entire house on the south side of Columbus (pretty crappy neighborhood) for $700 a month and I was the only resident there. All I had to do was show them a pay stub showing them that I had been working for more then 6 months and made over $15,000 a month (around 18 a year). You can get into the more expensive housing arrangements but your not limited to them.
Maybe I have just been lucky or something. I mean I have had my share of hard times, I have had the room mate that takes the bill money and goes on a coke binge or give it to her new boyfriend or something. I have had the BS, but I have never been evicted. I have moved to new places without a credit check, I don't hold my standards too high though. I have never experienced what you say you have though. My biggest problem was coming up with expenses to pay a deposit, move, and get the utilities moved over or turned on into my name.
I don't really think there should be any safety nets out there. Those encourage people to take risks when they aren't willing or capable of putting the effort behind them to make it work. It isn't always the person's problem, but often it is. Some people are just stupid too. Take my mother for instance, she was looking at purchasing a home, I could tell it was over valued and she was all set to pay the list price. Her broker told her she couldn't get financing if she didn't. She told me this when I asked her is she low balled an offer. I went to the real estate agent's office and demanded to speak with him, I asked him where he got the notion that he could withhold financ
Well, no. It's in the facts too. There have been a number of people point out that the Co2 levels are trailing the temperature increased meaning they can't be the cause of of something happening before them. However, the people running the models don't seem to care because they can tweak models to work with historic data. The obvious bias is that those same models aren't near as accurate if even close in making future predictions.
Whoever said the science is settled was being biased too.
I'm not going to argue your premise, I will add to it but your wrong right here. It wasn't an Ad Hominem attack, it was a straight out attack. An Ad hominem attack needs to be a little sneaky or less obvious but have the same results. He went straight out on top and attacked the guy.
The rest of what your talking about is sort of a morph from the original politicising of global warming. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, there was a "humanitarian" push for first world countries to forgive the third world debt. Most of this debt was incurred during the 70's when OPEC embargoes oil from the US because of our support for Israel. These third world countries borrowed shitloads of money from the IMF and World banks and were backed by nations like the UK, US, France, Germany, and so on. The purpose was to explore their oil and other natural resources as well as improve their infrastructures.
Now, here is where global warming enters and how they are connected. In 1988, global warming pops up on the national stage, just 9 years after the famous Time Magazine article decrying we are entering an ice age. In the early 90's (94 I think) they started purposing to do something about global warming. The Kyoto accords were reached and it was specifically designed to enrich third world countries by making them exempt from emissions regulations that capped carbon emissions and then either forcing industrialized nations to export their industry (hello China and India) or by purchasing direct carbon credits that the third world countries didn't use to offset all carbon production over the imposed limits. Now, it is obvious to anyone who has studied in this area that that capping carbon production is near impossible because of population growth. I can actually work that out with some quick math if anyone has a problem understanding that concept.
Anyways, this marvel called the Kyoto accords came about around 1996 or so and the "forgive the third world debt" people simply disappeared. Some people who supported the third world debt cause was Al Gore, Bill Clinton, The then president of France and Germany, and some of the leaders in the UK. The problem was, they couldn't get the rest of their countries to go along with it. Then comes about this global warming disaster in the making, it's first and most prominent solution was to more or less take over the third world debt agenda in a scheme to force wealthy nations to enrich less wealthy ones. Of the 168 participants to Kyoto (US is the only country left) only 38 have emissions caps and of those, only 28 are locked into the defined 1990 limits for the caps. The other 10 have either higher caps or they are waiting for milestones to be seen before a cap is in place. Chine and India, two of the worlds largest polluters mainly because the US and EU are exporting their manufacturing to them have no emissions caps at all and refuse to sign anything obligating them to it.
These non-regulated countries have no incentive to regulate their emissions, they just wait until some regulated country needs expansion and either sell credits or welcome their investment into their local economy.
Now, that was the first politicizing of the global warming, creating an ends to a speculative means by addressing another political agenda in disguise. You have the IPCC which admittedly the kyoto was born from the same people/body, but it was politicized also. The thing is, it worked so others are using it to push their agenda. Look at Al Gore, he creates a movie with verifyably false information in it and misleading information to boot, then announces that he is accepting payments for "carbon offsets" by his company that makes offsets up out of the blue just to sell to people so they don't feel guilty. Now most of what global warming and the purposed fixes do is also what the democrats or more aptly the liberals which the democrats are
Why not. If you can do that without being a drain on society or resorting to theft to pay for your habit when your employer fires you, go for it. Just don't put your rights to your body onto other people because then it's more then just your body.
I understand what your saying but I don't think that it would be possible with the magnitude of manpower needed to replace the county and city law enforcement. Any benefit the state police have over the county and local police will pretty much be gone.
This is for a couple of reasons, one would be the shear bulk in size of the force. My county employs something like 55 officers (deputies, detectives, and so on) let alone the office personnel to support them. The nearest city to me has 2 cops but the next nearest city has 85-100 officers if you count the tactical officers and special duty officers. Now local officers need to be familiar enough with the area so your not calling them and waiting 2 hours because they got lost or had to wait for someone to show them where to go. We have roads that some maps don't bother listing or list incorrectly and I'm sure my area isn't unique to this. So the officers are going to need to be somewhat familiar with the area, then you have people who would get completely out of law enforcement altogether if they had to drive 2 hours to work a 8 hour shift that can easily turn into 9 or 10 hours of there's a lot of paperwork. you can't ask people to up and move every 6 months or a year, people get careers because they want to settle down.
Like I said, I understand what your saying, I just don't think those benefits would remain on a large scale if the state took over everything. I think what we need is bigger penalties for abuse and easier ways for it to be reported and investigated without putting the person who complained into danger. Something that says, here are the lines between right and wrong, if you cross over to wrong, you are going to be nailed to the wall and probably lose your job, if you stay on this side, you will be ok. Maybe even putting plea bargains for public servants up for a popular vote or something so if it was a mistake, the community can decide, and if it was an act of malice, the community will decide instead of their friends or other corrupt officials attempting to protect them.
It's quite simple. In the king kong defense, it relies on the law they are subject to making a distinction that two or more people act together requiring intentional interaction. The defense is that we put A up, and some use did B. A isn't connected to B outside of some user using A's informational service. There is no intentional interaction. These users can be seen with screen names like King Kong.
The Chewbacca defense more or less distracted people with star wars idioms and then pulled those rhythmically towards an acquittal for the defense.
A car anology might be, the king kong defense require two people to get into the same car and go to the place the law was broken. If that didn't happen, the person not in the car cannot be charged for breaking that law. The chewbacca defense is like watching a movie about horse racing to convince the jury that the two people were never in the cars together.
The training the law enforcement officers recieve in most states are mandated by the state. It would be the same regardless of who hired them. Even cities who have their own academy will have to meet the same standards.
The differences is in how the establishment is run. The state is somewhat removed from the local scene. They even transfer officers when they go through divorces and so on. If the state assumed the law enforcement responsibilities for the local communities, that layer of removal would be gone. It may take a few years but it would eventually be gone.
I seriously doubt that it would change much moving the law enforcement to the state.
The frontal lobe of the Cerebrum doesn't fully mature until around age 20. This is the part of the brain responsible for reasoned response. It's impossible to claim that an 18 year old can make a fully reasoned decision based on this alone without even considering the lack of data input availible for an actual reasoned response.
For the most part, we make exceptions to behaviors of people within an narrow band of capabilities on a rule of thumb more then a exact capability measurement. This works with varying results especially when considering what people are willing to put up with in modern day relationships.
However, someone who is significantly older then someone else possesses far more data for a reasoned decision as well as has their frontal cortex developed to a mature state. This puts them into an unfair advantage over much younger people when they lack those things. A 10 year difference in age is nothing when the people are 29 and 39 years old. It's everything when they are 25 and 15. This is because the 15 year old cannot possibly make a reasoned decision in the ways the 25 year old can.
If you look at yourself and think you were more then capable at age 16, they you simply aren't old enough to take an objective look at your life. Wait until you reach 30 or 40 and ask yourselves the same questions. Ask yourself if there is anything you would have done differently 10 or 15 years ago. If the answer is no, then your either not learning from your mistakes or you are lieing to yourself. Either way, it's obvious that there is a difference in mental leverage and aptitude when age spans vary so much.
I would say that would be a good thing wouldn't you?
I mean the federal government wasn't originally supposed to be this monolithic institution except when facing foreign nations. Outside of a few things the constitution specifically allows for and prevents, it was supposed to allow the states to govern themselves however the states see fit. The 17th was more or less an effort to de-emphasize the state's direct powers in influencing the government by taking their vote or influence away.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be federal government laws, nor am I saying there shouldn't be government intervention. I'm saying there shouldn't be near as much as there are today. I remember something Nancy Pelosi said, and Mrs. Clinton also parroted to some degree. It was when confirming supreme court justices and went something along the lines of this, "this is a serious process, we can have a court that keep making the laws congress passes unconstitutional". The idea there is that the laws would be unconstitutional based on who is sitting on the bench not because of what the constitution says. That's what has become of this nation where a government was created by a document that said what it can and can't do. This people said, your can govern by these powers and be bound by these restrictions and the rest is up to the states but if at any time it isn't enough or is too much, we can change and correct the document by an amendment process. Now it's whoever sits on the supreme court.
It was never neither. Quit attempting to apply some romantic dream you have about how it should be. The president of the United states was originally supposed to be decided by the states in a manner they chose, not by a vote by one person. The senate was originally comprised of people chosen by the state, not the people. The house of representatives was supposed to be the only vote the people got. We have since then made the senators and elected post but their structure is still surounding that of the state's choice.
It was never one man one vote on the federal level.
Lol.. You people haven't thought this stuff out very well have you?
If I can pollute the air above my land, I can sue you for damages for not containing the air above your land that forced my air to pollute others. Eventually, you sue the other guy and so on and so on. You haven't defined a pollutant or a mechanism to stop other people from trespassing. On land, in a two dimensional setup, I can use fences, natural boundaries, things like that. This is impossible for air space above my property. Your little plan fails on a number of grounds. You standing at the property line breathing or passing gas into my properties direction pollutes my property.
The alternative is to avoid the inflation of products and services and to stop the necessity for 3 lawyers for every 1 person alive. You benefit from cheaper products and services, you simply benefit from what we have now. Dangerous and poisonous pollutants that actually harm people are already regulated. What your purposing does nothing but make things get way more expensive.
Money can go both ways in value. So can Physical hardware but typically not in the amount of time we are looking at. Other will and have already attempted to explain that for whatever reasons but what your saying does make a little sense.
The modest interest rate at 3% will probably just keep pace with inflation if anything. But that is good because 10 dollars will still but ten dollars worth of goods at the time you put it in the vehicle. Two years from now, those servers might be worth less then they are now, plus the shelf life will of the equipment will be lost too. Capacitors leak regardless of being used, how much or how fast is the only variables. Storage for 2 years in the same sense means that if they power up, they won't last as long as if they were in use right now. A two year old computer will be worht more then a four year old computer of the same specs, but a 10 dollar investment that simply coveres inflation will be worth the same after two years. It's a conservative move.
The easiest way to get around the under/over rated mod problem is to just reply to the down modded post. Wait a day or so before doing it, that way the troll will be out of points. Then just make some snide remark about how those mods simply don't stop the message from being seen. Someone will stumble along as long as you have good karma and be curious enough to see what was modded down. 9 out of 10 times (off the head calculations) your post will be modded back up and any negative karma will be neutralized. 9 out of 10 might be a little optimistic but I can say it would be more often then not.
And of course, this is if your post isn't somehow deserving of the down mod. I fail to have every seen a need for the over rated though.
I thought I did in several places. Does "When talking about necessities like public utilities and so on, we are talking about safe habitation of human life. There are certain things given our environment that are necessary to the safe habitation of human life. Food, shelter, water, clothing or protection from the elements are among them." look familiar?
Actually, no it didn't. Nothing made that immigration illegal. If anything immigration may have been a problem but not illegal immigration. There is a big difference.
You can consider that more or less an invasion over immegration. But that's a different time with different reasons. Are you claiming that the illegals are attempting to colonize America or something? That would completely erode your displaced farmer theory (not that it holds water anyways)?
Lol.. Your really stretching for it there. The number of illegals in the US right now would mean almost all of Mexico's farms are shut down now. That simply isn't so. There are a suspected high end of 20 million illegal Mexicans in the US right now, Mexico is smaller then the state of Texas with only about 12% of it's land being arable. Mexico employs roughly 14% of it's population in farming and farming is 3.5% of it's GDP. Both those numbers increased after the passage of NAFTA and were quite smaller before it went into effect. NAFTA has actually helped most of Mexico's farmers.
I'm saying that neither you nor them are looking at the entire picture because neither of you account for the "benefits" that subsidies provide. It simply isn't addressed in your consideration nor their which means they and you are only telling part of the story. I can say the light was red as you approached the intersection and totally forget to mention that it turned green before you went through it and totally change the cause of the accident that just happened in the intersection. You cannot forget the purpose and design for the subsidies or what they do. You also have to look at their motivation which is to get the government out from spending like that.
So yea, you are talking out your ass. Your ignoring one thing to make another point seem more important.
Well, I do know more then you. Perhaps there is no point in continuing seeing how you won't listen to anything you don't' want to and there for will remain willfully ignorant. BTW, there is not right or wrong answer with subsidies, there is only whether or not your willing to put up with food shortages, prices doubling or quadrupling and so on. If you are, good. If your not, then support the
It achieve flight by jets of water from nozzles on a pack and it runs for hours over water?
Your confusing desire and want with necessity. At least in the terms I was ever describing it. A basic necessity is something necessary for life to exist safely given it's current environment and facts. Of course you can say broad band internet is a necessity to get high speed access to the internet porn. But you can't say it's essential to maintaining life anywhere.
It's not practical and I'm not aware of any archetecual blueprints or plans that even consider it stable enough to do what it wants to. There is a lot of weight involved with growing and harvesting food that cannot be built into the structural strength of the building, hydroponics will work better on lower levels but the uppers won't hold up to the wind.
More to the point, it is nonexistent today. You can make that assumption until it exists. Once does, and it proves to be enough, we can go that route and talk about it's viability in the context that we are.
Even before government policies that you speak of, it's a practical reality of life. Farming doesn't make as much money as jobs in the city. Before the government started interfering with farms or commodity prices, farms were going under, arable land was all taken and people had no desire to work the fields. Those people moved to the cities. The east coast cities saw penniless immigrants escaping the wonders of Europe with no way to farm. The creation of industry provides the need for workers close to the factory.
How old are you? Do you think the illegal immigrant problems just started with NAFTA? The illegal immigration problems have been around for quite a while and Mexico has been an armpit of North America for the better part of this century. Do you ever wonder how illegal mexicans got the term wetback? It's because of Operation wetback in the 1950's, long before NAFTA was a dream in anyone's eye.
It's problems have little to do with NAFTA or the price of corn. The minimum wage in Mexico is something like 52.6 pesos which comes out to around $4.70 a day (2008 numbers where minimum wage in the US is more then a days pay per hour). Do you think that expensive corn will actually help them or hurt them? It isn't like they can see the corn at those prices outside of the country if they are jacking up tariffs to protect their domestic products. How many people does a farm in Mexico feed? How many people are better off with lower corn prices compared to Mexican farmers that the Mexican government completely abandons?
Maybe if you would wake up and look aro
Here, let me google it for us
I'm going to have to assume that it's the same Grooveshark as was mentioned in the story summers "(tested here with Grooveshark)".
Seriously, I just posted this because I like that Letmegoogleitforyou site. but the program you mentioned was tested and blocked or degraded per the story. It sort of sucked that there is not s link to more detailed though.
That would be because of the EU and not the US.
The EU Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) was the result of combined efforts to make copyright uniform around participating countries. That directive BTW, was launched before he CTEA was created and the Copyright terms extension act was a result of the same processes.
Great, your going to turn this into an accuracy of Wikipedia argument. OK, sure, it's biased. The entire mention of it lend it validation over any real and tangible causes, most of which aren't even mentioned on Wikipedia's page. It is biased pure and simple.
The only context that matters is that a cook conspiracy theory that was a failed defense of a failed lawsuit is given that much credit.
That was an example, the fact that you didn't move into the neighborhood doesn't mean squat, you were a random person, anyone could have been made into the villain. The effect is exactly what you are attempting to do, take an ancillary action and tie it to the responsibility of an entirely unrelated process. You moving is just the action that was noticed, the leave falling are the process that stand on legitimate grounds, the blaming it on you is the blaming it on Disney because of something that was happening at the same time. In short, the world is flat because you will only believe what you can see.
Yes, I didn't think you could see any problems at all. Suppose your a media company, X was created by a corporation in 1933. You like the story line and think a remake would be something the people would enjoy. According to US copyright law before the extension, it would be in public domain by 2008 (75 years) if it was a published work. You remake the film, add all these special effect to it, and then when promoting the movie release, you find that copyright had been filed on it in Europe and it's covered for another 15 years. You have 25 million invested in promotion only, then there is the billions involved with making the epic flick. The copyright owners won't give you a license, where is the problem?
It's not about a problem with the dead author, it's a problem with people attempting to use their works. having the same term lengths change this to some degree making you confident that the EU copyright will expire when the US copyright does.
I'm sorry, did I stutter or something? I already said that we got the EU countries to stabilize their copyright duration to one solid and uniform number. Some countries had terms that were 200 years past the Berne requirements. Is it too much to meet in the middle after they found that 20 year more was the lowest they could go?
Lol.. No. You are mistaking the cheerleaders for the players in the game. I'm telling you who the players are. It doesn't matter that a crowd cheered them on to victory, the crowed did nothing but let them know they supported them. The team was formed and processes put in place long before they even got there. The players of the team took the ball down the field and made the game.
You are essentially saying that because X happened and Y found an advantage from it, that Y caused X. And to do so, you are ignoring ever other relevant circumstance that can be as
By definition a necessity is modified by whatever it is applied to. I'm not sure where your attempting to go with this. It is all about context. A ball and a bat is a necessity to play base ball. A vehicle of some sort is a necessity to drive. When talking about necessities like public utilities and so on, we are talking about safe habitation of human life. There are certain things given out environment that are necessary to the safe habitation of human life. Food, shelter, water, clothing or protection from the elements are among them.
Well, no. It's primarily because cities are too crowded to safely have farm animals. You need a certain amount of land to dispose of their waste and a certain amount more to provide a healthy life for them. Some of the laws where for the smells and so on too. There are laws concerning the number of normal pets you can have along these same lines. Sometimes permits can provide exceptions.
Be whatever the cause may be, the reality is what we have today. It was the reality of yesterday also and the reality of most of the life of the world. Cities are notorious for not having lawns or gardens big enough to support the life of the occupants.
Lol.. And it would have nothing to do with the fact that Mexico's economic recovery process involved shipping it's citizens into the US so someone else has to deal with them? The entire Mexico economy is in shambles. It's not the fault of the US or the EU or any other nation, it's their economic system. Their workers get paid on average of $28 a week, that makes minimum wage in the US look like a rich man's salary. Subsidies did nothing to cause that, subsidies aren't the problem and it isn't failed Mexican farmers who come to America for the most part. It's the lost intercity idiots who get absolutely no help from the government. Mexico's welfare system involved pointing to holes in the border and that's about it. Even coming to America and being a welfare recipient that barely gets by is a step up from the poor in the armpit of the Americas.
You really have a naive outlook on the scenario. Now farming is something I come to the table with first hand knowledge of. Subsidies didn't do what you think it did. In the Seventies when Carter attempted to "save the banks", he allowed them to directly invest in real estate. This drove prices for farm land
Well, no. There is an "inherent" morality. It is the morality of the people making the corporation act. Without people, a corporation does absolutely nothing and does not exist.
As long as the shareholders remain silent, then it's the morality of the management and board of directors. When the share holders speak up, it entangles within that. The goals of those people are to make money but morally, they are bound to the morals of whoever is calling the shots and the ethics dictated by laws.
You're probably confusing the lack of your morals present to mean no morals. That's a common mistake most often represented by the religious sections of the world and even within that, certain religions find other lacking. But they aren't absent and they aren't limited to religious views. Like I said, a corporation does not function, it makes no actions whatsoever at all without a person directing that action in some way. That person, or those people, are the inherent morality of the company.
The CTEA was a vehicle to address the A href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_harmonising_the_term_of_copyright_protection >the EU's Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) standardizing of copyright terms. With the US honoring European copyright and vice versa, there was a need to make them the same terms otherwise all US copyright could be default get extra time by registering in a European country. The US would have to honor those terms per the berne convention. The 1993 directive that set this in motive was also the fruit of combined efforts in talks between getting the US to sign onto the Berne convention and the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In both those talks, the differences in time tables for terms was a key point pressed.
The sky catches on fire every morning in the east and burns to the west where it goes out to be reignited the next morning. Just because something looks a certain way doesn't make it true. There are plenty of legitimate and on the record explanations for the copyright extensions. Continuing to cite a fable created to raise opposition to the law does make you a raving lunatic when you present it as if you believe it. Disney's support for the bill is nothing but ancillary to why it was created and the purposes it served. I benefit when you buy things, I support you buying things, I didn't cause you to buy things. See how that works?
Europe had copyright terms much longer then those required by the Berne convention. However, during the talks to get us in line with the berne conventions and to get Europe to add some concessions like the EU directive that harmonized the copyright terms to a single more sane unit, we agreed to all go to the same term limits provided that one close to the berne convention's could be found.
Step back dude. Don't take my fascination with reality to imply that I support the copyright in it's current incarnation. All of your questions assume I hold a position that is never brought up in what I said. Saying that balloon is blue, not red, does not imply that I like or dislike balloons or even you. Don't assume that because I corrected part of the statement, that I'm against or for the point. I'm against fables being told in an attempt to vilify something when they are obviously false and apparent to anyone willing to invest the slightest bit of independent thought over the actual situations that transpired.
Here is a hint, if your source for anything regarding this even mentioned Steamboat Willie then your on a biased and misinformed site. Here is an example of misinformation. Someone named SanityInAnarchy moved into the neighborhood about 6 months ago, he brought so much evil and despair with him that all the sudden all the leaves on all the trees started turning brown and falling off. He's pure evil I will tell you. It's mid February here in the northern US and there is no life to be seen. All the crops are dead, the leaves on the trees are gone, and for what little life continues to exist, it g
What terms are those? Terms that would be considered parts of the DMCA?
If so, your actually wrong, the DMCA is the response to the WCT and http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/ >wppt WIPO treaties. The EU signed onto these and directed the EU countries to adopt them. This is probably what your talking about.
I was with you all the way up to the Steam boat Willie comment. It just turned you into a raving lunatic who has succumbed to conspiracy theories and such.
All Changes in US copyright law have resulted from participation in treaties with Europe, most of which, even the copyright extension act that only extended copyright by 20 years, were after the fact changes that Europe has already implemented before we made the change. You can't look at the time line and the rest of the world while still making the connection your attempting to. If I support something you caused to happen, it doesn't mean I made it happen, it means that I supported you making it happen.
While that might be or seem how they planned it, they have to give you an obvious way to opt out. You can't trick people into compliance to some arbitrary rule that takes something from them. You can't trick people into losing copyright or any right protected by laws.
Now please don't confuse that with people who don't do due diligence and fail to read or understand the contracts they participate in. that's an entirely different story altogether.