If they were smart they'd have at least a small (submarine-style) nuclear reactor as a backup system.
That's a nice idea, with a huge problem: how do you cool that reactor?!?!?!? Subs use the cold seawater, utilities use lakes, rivers, and cooling towers. What do you use on the moon?
And estate taxes prevent riches from piling up ad infinitum in one family.
If the riches are "piling up," then the assets are apparently being used for some productive purpose. Why would you want to destroy economically productive uses of assets? Just to spite somebody because they didn't "work for it?" If they're not being economically utilized, they will in fact not be piling up but rather sucked dry, rags to riches to rags in three generations.
Actually, the UTSA does restrict the freedom of speech and has been upheld as constitutional thus far.
Er...the UTSA is not a law. It is a model statute. It only applies where and to the extent to which it has been adopted. It also usually requires that the publisher know that the source of information is violating the law by disclosing it, essentially making the publisher a party to a crime.
True, but admittedly there are jurisdictional...issues. I can see the need for some laws to sort out these technical legal issues. I tend to agree, though, that the substantive criminal laws on the books are probably sufficient.
It depends on context. The reason, the intent, the need to, the newsworthiness of it...things like that. But there are torts, such as "private disclosure of public facts," or "invasion of privacy," that cover the times when it is not legitimate.
but still allows the states (and cities and counties) to enact their own censorship laws covering unprotected matters.
If it's unprotected (like incitement) then it's unprotected and any government, state or federal, can regulate it. If it is protected, then NO government can regulate it, state or federal. This has been the case ever since the First Amendment was incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning it binds all governments.
Is the regular press allowed to publish personal information on regular people?
In truth, the answer is highly dependent on context. Why was the information revealed? Was it newsworthy? Was it germane? Was it with good or negative intentions?
You're missing the point. First of all, statutory text is fine. But when I'm doing research, what I want is the annotations and the citing authority. Second, Who gives a shit if it's "out there?" TIME IS MONEY. Is it ethical for me to bill a client for two hours of legal research using Google at $300 an hour to find the same information that I could have found on Lexis in 5 minutes for $50?
That's a terrible methodology, too, if you assume that most people observe two things:
1. These rights already seem to be pretty well-protected.
2. Mucking about with the Constitution is usually Bad.
So if a person thinks that provision X is not currently in the Constitution, and don't perceive a pressing need to add it in, of course they'll say no!
Except you haven't, because a work has to be fixed in a tangible medium before it can be copyrighted.
Really, I just want to giggle every time I see a bunch of slashdot geeks who think that the law works like code try to come up with all these ridiculous loopholes, especially in civil cases where the judge has equitable powers.
Come again? The UN just voted to give $4.5B in aid to Darfur, and apparently the only country who attempted to condition this on the cessation of genocidal activity was the U.S. And why did other countries block the U.S.'s attempt to stop the killing? Oil!
Most of their data content (as opposed to news articles) comes from government agencies, is in the public domain, and is just a Google search away.
Um. Have you ever had to do any serious legal research? Having done so, let me tell you, the breadth of their content, along with its consistency in format, cross-referencing, editorial content, and user tools are way beyond anything that is freely available.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice idea, with a huge problem: how do you cool that reactor?!?!?!? Subs use the cold seawater, utilities use lakes, rivers, and cooling towers. What do you use on the moon?
I guess you've never heard of "dry ice?" Which is not water?
If the riches are "piling up," then the assets are apparently being used for some productive purpose. Why would you want to destroy economically productive uses of assets? Just to spite somebody because they didn't "work for it?" If they're not being economically utilized, they will in fact not be piling up but rather sucked dry, rags to riches to rags in three generations.
No need for the AT-AT's...one of these should work just fine.
Wait...you mean, I wouldn't be able to play Counterstrike from the moon?
Only if they were improperly divulged, and the publisher knows or has reasons to know this.
Wear lots of sunblock. SPF 666 or greater.
Er...the UTSA is not a law. It is a model statute. It only applies where and to the extent to which it has been adopted. It also usually requires that the publisher know that the source of information is violating the law by disclosing it, essentially making the publisher a party to a crime.
THere's nothing that says they can't publish the information. They only can't refuse to reveal their sources who may have violated NDA contracts.
True, but admittedly there are jurisdictional...issues. I can see the need for some laws to sort out these technical legal issues. I tend to agree, though, that the substantive criminal laws on the books are probably sufficient.
Unlike the good Canadians, who only censor their media to cover up political scandals! Oh, and to exterminate certain points of view. That too.
It depends on context. The reason, the intent, the need to, the newsworthiness of it...things like that. But there are torts, such as "private disclosure of public facts," or "invasion of privacy," that cover the times when it is not legitimate.
If it's unprotected (like incitement) then it's unprotected and any government, state or federal, can regulate it. If it is protected, then NO government can regulate it, state or federal. This has been the case ever since the First Amendment was incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning it binds all governments.
In truth, the answer is highly dependent on context. Why was the information revealed? Was it newsworthy? Was it germane? Was it with good or negative intentions?
You're missing the point. First of all, statutory text is fine. But when I'm doing research, what I want is the annotations and the citing authority. Second, Who gives a shit if it's "out there?" TIME IS MONEY. Is it ethical for me to bill a client for two hours of legal research using Google at $300 an hour to find the same information that I could have found on Lexis in 5 minutes for $50?
Windows XP x64 Goes Gold
Welcome to the new politics, where the only legitimate laws are ones that create rights that already exist.
1. These rights already seem to be pretty well-protected.
2. Mucking about with the Constitution is usually Bad.
So if a person thinks that provision X is not currently in the Constitution, and don't perceive a pressing need to add it in, of course they'll say no!
Products are not bound by NDAs. People are. There is no legal problem with publishing trade secrets at all, nor should there be.
I was hoping for "Microsoft Gaming Console 2005 Professional Edition" for, you know, consistency with their other products.
They might even tie it in with their existing web services, maybe something called MSN Music.
Except you haven't, because a work has to be fixed in a tangible medium before it can be copyrighted.
Really, I just want to giggle every time I see a bunch of slashdot geeks who think that the law works like code try to come up with all these ridiculous loopholes, especially in civil cases where the judge has equitable powers.
Come again? The UN just voted to give $4.5B in aid to Darfur, and apparently the only country who attempted to condition this on the cessation of genocidal activity was the U.S. And why did other countries block the U.S.'s attempt to stop the killing? Oil!
Um. Have you ever had to do any serious legal research? Having done so, let me tell you, the breadth of their content, along with its consistency in format, cross-referencing, editorial content, and user tools are way beyond anything that is freely available.