It takes the US government no more manpower (in this day and age) to protect someone with 1,000 acres as it does the hobo living on the street.
Aside from your silly implication that there's a federal property tax, of course it costs more to protect 1,000 acres. I mean, it's not like the homeless guy's land can catch on fire.
I'm a damned yankee, and I look down on much of the south. There's ignorance and stupidity everywhere (present company excepted, of course), but the south seems to have gotten a double helping.
Peanuts is simply the nastiest strip ever written. It's cold, and bleak, without an ounce of love or sweetness about it. Nothing good ever happens to anybody - it's existentialist horror.
People said the same thing about Camus and Wilder. It's hard to deny their genius.
Even unpublished works by a corporate entity only gets 120 years of protection in the US, which means an 1887 work would have lost copyright protection in 2007.
Interesting that we're talking about Sherlock Holmes and you refer to Disney's rodent (Mickey). Because Disney riffed on Sherlock Holmes with The Great Mouse Detective.
A couple things I noted. The first is the assertion that exercise, in fact, decreases food intake. Personally, this comports with my experience. Beyond that, it refutes one of the central arguments of a surprisingly large number of people. I always hear people arguing that exercise is a vanishingly unimportant facet of weight loss because after you work out, you'll eat more. I know I've seen diets (not the Hacker's Diet, but similar "geek-made" diets) online talking about how exercise is pointless and diet is everything.
I also saw in that transcript that fructose "is famous for causing hypertension." I wonder why my doctor never mentioned this to me. Probably because he's an MD, and MDs seem fond of prescribing medicines instead of finding the root cause of a problem. This is actually more motivation for me to cut HFCS out of my diet; I'm in excellent shape physically (tennis, weightlifting, mid-to-long-distance running, fairly respectable diet on practically every metric), but I do consume prepackaged foods with HFCS fairly regularly.
The criticisms this link levels at HFCS are actually criticisms leveled at fructose generally (e.g., according to the article, only the liver can deal with fructose, while all organs can deal with glucose).
In fact, what I found most damning in this article for anti-HFCS zealots is this:
Norman Swan: Well given that you're not going to come to harm by reducing the fructose in your diet -- somebody who's listening to this -- what's the ingredient on the packet, or the jar, or the back of the tin that tells you there's fructose in there because it won't always say fructose will it?
Robert Lustig: Well high fructose corn syrup, it should say that, now in Australia for instance the sodas don't have high fructose corn syrup they have sucrose. Well sucrose is half fructose. You know a lot has been made over this high fructose corn syrup being particularly evil. In fact high fructose corn syrup is either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest is glucose. Well sucrose is 50% fructose the rest is glucose. In fact high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are equally problematic.
Norman Swan: Basically table sugar.
Robert Lustig: Table sugar -- that's right. We were not designed to eat all of this sugar, we're supposed to be eating our carbohydrate, particularly our fructose, with high fibre. Well the fact is we have 100 pound bags of sugar that go into the cakes, and the donuts.
Norman Swan: So we don't need to get obsessed on fruit sugars, it's sugar itself, sucrose.
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, it's sugar in general. So people say oh does that mean I can't eat fruit? No, let's take an orange -- an orange has 20 calories, 10 of which are fructose and has high fibre. A glass of orange juice has 120 calories, it takes 6 oranges to make that glass of orange juice and there's no fibre. You tell me which is better for you, so by all means eat the fruit, just don't drink the juice. Juice is part of the problem and there's plenty of data, not just mine. Miles Faith had an article in Pediatrics, December 2006 showing that in toddlers, in inner city Harlem in New York, in toddlers the number of juice servings correlated with the degree of BMI increase.
In other words, sucrose is just as bad as HFCS, but you see all these anti-HFCS zealots swearing off HFCS and substituting sucrose into their diet. Also (I can't speak for other countries, but) Americanas are crazy about juice.
tl;dr sucrose is just as bad as HFCS, and juice is pretty awful for you
To be fair, the HFCS "scare" is blown way out of proportion. People are so fat nowadays primarily because they eat way too much. Period. HFCS may have a small connection with increased obesity, but not like our portions quintupling in size over the past forty years has.
You can decide for yourself whether HFCS is so much worse for you than cane sugar that it warrants incredulity at commercials for the product.
And in the United States, you can only label something "scotch" if it is made in Scotland.
(7) “Scotch whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Scotland, manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom regulating the manufacture of Scotch whisky for consumption in the United Kingdom: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Scotch whisky” (Scotch whisky—a blend).
In Boston it seems like they are a lot more open minded, except in area code 02126. Don't know what happened there.
That is the ZIP code for Mattapan, MA. It is 77% African American.
I have no idea what the personal preferences are of those residents, but I recall that there is little debate that homosexuality garners less acceptance in many visible black communities. Think of the "no homo" thing and the phenomenon of a "down low brotha" ("DLB") and the demographics of Prop 8 voting. My recollection is that the black populace voted much more against gay marriage in 2008 than did other races (except maybe Asians or Vietnamese or something?).
But that's just an anecdotal attempt to explain your noted variance.
Contract law makes it legal to restrict the right of first sale. Have you ever heard of an NDA? Yeah, they also restrict the right of first sale in some instances.
Presumably Netflix pays a licensing fee whenever they stream a video to someone. By getting a video elsewhere, you are preventing such a fee from being paid by Netflix to a copyright owner.
God, you people are frigging terrible. Why the hell do you have a problem with them doing this? This bothers me zero joules of rage energy, just like I don't complain that movies don't go to the run-down dollar theater on opening day and books come out in hardback first.
And they're artificially increasing the incentive to buy, not denying the ability. I mean, do you even think before you type?
"innocent until proven guilty" is a term used in criminal law. This case is a civil suit, so criminal law doctrines are inapplicable. This is an extremely basic issue that you should have learned before you graduated high school.
It's also one of the myriad reasons I rarely visit a Slashdot discussion that is related to IP law. Everyone just throws about bullshit like "once the fine is declared unconstitutional, the RIAA execs should be thrown in jail for the illegal fines" and "THAT HARRY POTTER CASE WAS BULLSHIT" and "copyright fines are SO OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO EVERYONE BUT JUDGES."
Things that a person not ruled by emotion cannot possibly believe. I am as much against the current copyright scheme as 99% of all Slashdotters (I believe copyright protection should exist, though), but I at least have the maturity to remain reasonable.
Regarding the "no proof" allegation, just read up on the evidential doctrine of "omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem." Basically, if there is evidence and a defendant destroys it, you can presume the evidence was damning. I believe in the current case a hard drive was destroyed or wiped clean by the defendant.
Without the above doctrine, defendants (especially corporations, who usually possess the damning evidence rather than the injured individual) could just destroy evidence willy nilly and get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from your silly implication that there's a federal property tax, of course it costs more to protect 1,000 acres. I mean, it's not like the homeless guy's land can catch on fire.
Said he, from his ivory tower in Jersey.
I'm pretty sure the word "punishment" implies "criminal." Especially since civil law does not punish. They do de facto, but not de jure.
The C&P Clause applies only in criminal contexts.
People said the same thing about Camus and Wilder. It's hard to deny their genius.
I think he wasn't talking about Calvin and Hobbes at all, and you need to re-read his post.
Woooooah, slow down there, Nelly!
ITT Slashdotters egregiously forget to mention Peanuts, which has more in common with Calvin and Hobbes than any other comic that has ever existed.
No. The function is min{create+120,publish+95}
Source
I very literally said he was referring to Mickey, not the Great Mouse Detective:
What part of that did you not understand?
"Only" as in "It has been 122-3 years since 1887, and you only get protection for 120."
Emphasis is on how 120 122, not on the fairness of 120 year protection. You were just itching to read something into my post that I didn't write.
Even unpublished works by a corporate entity only gets 120 years of protection in the US, which means an 1887 work would have lost copyright protection in 2007.
Interesting that we're talking about Sherlock Holmes and you refer to Disney's rodent (Mickey). Because Disney riffed on Sherlock Holmes with The Great Mouse Detective.
Thanks for the link. I found it very informative.
A couple things I noted. The first is the assertion that exercise, in fact, decreases food intake. Personally, this comports with my experience. Beyond that, it refutes one of the central arguments of a surprisingly large number of people. I always hear people arguing that exercise is a vanishingly unimportant facet of weight loss because after you work out, you'll eat more. I know I've seen diets (not the Hacker's Diet, but similar "geek-made" diets) online talking about how exercise is pointless and diet is everything.
I also saw in that transcript that fructose "is famous for causing hypertension." I wonder why my doctor never mentioned this to me. Probably because he's an MD, and MDs seem fond of prescribing medicines instead of finding the root cause of a problem. This is actually more motivation for me to cut HFCS out of my diet; I'm in excellent shape physically (tennis, weightlifting, mid-to-long-distance running, fairly respectable diet on practically every metric), but I do consume prepackaged foods with HFCS fairly regularly.
The criticisms this link levels at HFCS are actually criticisms leveled at fructose generally (e.g., according to the article, only the liver can deal with fructose, while all organs can deal with glucose).
In fact, what I found most damning in this article for anti-HFCS zealots is this:
In other words, sucrose is just as bad as HFCS, but you see all these anti-HFCS zealots swearing off HFCS and substituting sucrose into their diet. Also (I can't speak for other countries, but) Americanas are crazy about juice.
tl;dr sucrose is just as bad as HFCS, and juice is pretty awful for you
To be fair, the HFCS "scare" is blown way out of proportion. People are so fat nowadays primarily because they eat way too much. Period. HFCS may have a small connection with increased obesity, but not like our portions quintupling in size over the past forty years has.
You can decide for yourself whether HFCS is so much worse for you than cane sugar that it warrants incredulity at commercials for the product.
Whoever says that is a liar or a fool. The Constitution cannot be trumped by anything, including a treaty.
And in the United States, you can only label something "scotch" if it is made in Scotland.
27 C.F.R. 5.22(b)(7).
That is the ZIP code for Mattapan, MA. It is 77% African American.
I have no idea what the personal preferences are of those residents, but I recall that there is little debate that homosexuality garners less acceptance in many visible black communities. Think of the "no homo" thing and the phenomenon of a "down low brotha" ("DLB") and the demographics of Prop 8 voting. My recollection is that the black populace voted much more against gay marriage in 2008 than did other races (except maybe Asians or Vietnamese or something?).
But that's just an anecdotal attempt to explain your noted variance.
No, but you might see the occasional FTFA.
It makes me sad that the username "Lil Omar" is too sex-ambiguous for Slashdotters. :/
Not safe for work whatsoever. They ship to the US.
Contract law makes it legal to restrict the right of first sale. Have you ever heard of an NDA? Yeah, they also restrict the right of first sale in some instances.
Presumably Netflix pays a licensing fee whenever they stream a video to someone. By getting a video elsewhere, you are preventing such a fee from being paid by Netflix to a copyright owner.
There is the economic harm.
God, you people are frigging terrible. Why the hell do you have a problem with them doing this? This bothers me zero joules of rage energy, just like I don't complain that movies don't go to the run-down dollar theater on opening day and books come out in hardback first.
And they're artificially increasing the incentive to buy, not denying the ability. I mean, do you even think before you type?
"innocent until proven guilty" is a term used in criminal law. This case is a civil suit, so criminal law doctrines are inapplicable. This is an extremely basic issue that you should have learned before you graduated high school.
It's also one of the myriad reasons I rarely visit a Slashdot discussion that is related to IP law. Everyone just throws about bullshit like "once the fine is declared unconstitutional, the RIAA execs should be thrown in jail for the illegal fines" and "THAT HARRY POTTER CASE WAS BULLSHIT" and "copyright fines are SO OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO EVERYONE BUT JUDGES."
Things that a person not ruled by emotion cannot possibly believe. I am as much against the current copyright scheme as 99% of all Slashdotters (I believe copyright protection should exist, though), but I at least have the maturity to remain reasonable.
Regarding the "no proof" allegation, just read up on the evidential doctrine of "omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem." Basically, if there is evidence and a defendant destroys it, you can presume the evidence was damning. I believe in the current case a hard drive was destroyed or wiped clean by the defendant.
Without the above doctrine, defendants (especially corporations, who usually possess the damning evidence rather than the injured individual) could just destroy evidence willy nilly and get away with it.