We nuked the Japanese, twice, and we firebombed Germany into the stone age. That pales in comparison to anything that we did to Iran, Guatamela, Haiti, Laos, Cuba, Dominican Republica, Bolivia, etc...
Right there, you said, effectively "We did X to Germany. We did Y to other countries, and X<<<<Y.
To be fair, Germany, Japan, and Europe in total turned around so quickly because of substantial external aid. Aid that was not afforded on the same levels to Vietnam or anywhere in Latin America or the Caribbean.
Additionally, you seem to attempt to strike a comparison between Germany et al. and Latin America et al. in the form of "Germany was treated so badly and look what they accomplished; thus, Latin America should be able to do similar."
However, by your own admission, Latin America and Iran were treated worse than Germany. Is it any wonder that it's more difficult for them to succeed when we played a massive role in overthrowing governments there for the past 50 years?
I mean, it's not like the US overthrew the Iranian government 50 years ago, overthrew the Guatemalan government 50 years ago, spent 20 years trying to overthrow the government in Laos, overthrew the government of Haiti 50 years ago, blockaded Cuba for decades, overthrew the Dominican, Ecuadorian, and Congolese governments 50 years ago, a few years later repeated the overthrow of Dominica and Ecuador, overthrew the government of Brazil 45 years ago, Indonesia 45 years ago, Greece 45 years ago, Congo again 45 years ago, Greece again in 1967, Cambodia in 1970, Bolivia in 1971, Chile in 1973, Haiti again in 1986, Panama in 1989, Haiti again in 1993, and Iraq in 2003.
Re:It should be illegal to be so totally inaccurat
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As the debate is whether the US should be buying planes, I hardly think the equipment of the Iranian Air Force is a relevant consideration.
There's a saying: If you owe the bank a million dollars, you are in trouble; if you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, the bank is in trouble.
If China goes to war with us, we could easily default and say it's because our policy is to default on debts to enemies of war (this would calm the fears of likely all our other creditors). Not only would China be crippled because one of their largest assets (their single largest asset?) is US T-bills, but they'd lose their single largest source of sales revenue (WalMart, etc.). Oh, also the Chinese currency is also pegged to the dollar. If the dollar plummets, so does the yuan.
But they don't just make money off entrance fees. I'd wager most of their money is made in gift shop sales. Now, we could give away the pictures for free, remove the gift shop, and triple the price of admission to make up for the loss of the gift shop, but then fewer people will be able to gain proper admission to the museums.
Because 1. While the NPG may be wrong, it's not morally bankrupt--they do indeed need the money to continue digitizing works, no? 2. It is the solution with the most utility. You'd be surprised to hear me, a recently-minted law school graduate say so, but lawsuits are not always necessary. In fact, many times, lawsuits are the worst solutions. Mediation is often the best route. We're just stuck in this us vs. them mentality that destroys the best solutions.
I mean, do you think the US should go bombing every country that requires Islam as the religion of all citizens just because we think they're wrong? Compromise is often the best solution. Here, it most certainly is.
You're wrong, technically. RIAA v. Diamond didn't deal with fair use. It dealt with the Audio Home Recording Act and whether Diamond's MP3 player fell under the AHRA for regulatory purposes. Sure, the court does say at one point that ripping music from CD is classic "noncommercial use," but any statement that ripping from CD is fair use is dicta, and as such is not binding on any court in the future.
Ripping music is not a settled issue in the US. I just wrote a very lengthy scholarly paper on this very topic that I will be shopping around for publication in journals in a month and a half (once it's selected for publication (if), I will be letting Slashdot know, you'd better believe it). I'm not the only one who thinks so, either. No leading copyright scholar in the US would dare say that ripping CDs is fair use is settled law here.
CS Lewis should get British protection in Britain and US protection in the US. Does that make you happy? I'd like to point out that the Constitution doesn't even require that the US give foreign authors copyright status here, and it wasn't until well after copyright was established in the US that copyrightability was afforded to foreign works.
You missed the "renewable once." That means three decades. What percentage of works from the 70s-80s are still profitable enough to justify cockblocking the public domain so harshly?
And JRRT wrote the LotR to give Britain some "native" myths (Robin Hood and King Arthur are very Norman (French) in their origins). Witness his refusal to use "cul de sac" and rather use "Bag End" to name Bilbo's street address.
Does this mean all of Britain deserves a cut of the LotR movies?
Actually she was, but currently isn't. She's an arbitrator who wear's a judge's robes and holds fake court in exchange for the parties involved in her show agreeting to submitting their claims to binding arbitration on her show. That's how all these shows work.
Excellent summary. Additional (but partially irrelevant save for maybe one sentence in your post): Louisiana inherited the Civil Law system from France, and as such, it doesn't really have a history of equity courts and equitable defenses, right? Any Louisianan or LAwyer care to chime in?
Couple of things briefly before I get back to studying for the bar exam, so this post would be as METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED as I am known for WORLDWIDE:
1. courts have been doing more than adjudging disputes since John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. 2. there has indeed been a trend toward keeping more things away from the jury in recent years; I know many older legal practitioners and judges hate this and have called this trend elitist
Sorry to say, but this is what jurors in criminal trials actually believe. There's a recent development that if the prosecution cannot do this sort of thing, the jurors assume that the prosecution's case is weak.
On the other hand, jurors are misinformed about what DNA evidence actually means, and that there can be errors made in DNA tests. This harms the defense side in some criminal trials.
It's sad that shows like this mislead the public, but how are lawyers at trial supposed to instruct them properly? They can't go on such a tangent in closing arguments. I suppose they could bring an expert witness to point this out, but that can get very expensive. As in tens of thousands of dollars expensive. Expert witnesses make more per hour than attorneys do.
To be fair, auction houses have various other uses, such as determining whether a cow is pregnant or not before it goes to auction. You'd still need to bring someone to determine that at the point of sale without an auction house. They do other things at the house, too.
But, yeah, I can see how only transporting a cow once would be more efficient than transporting it twice. However, you'd have to transport a pregnancy checker at every sale, rather than at every auction. It's all a bunch of tradeoffs, and I daren't do the math right now. But it hinges on how many cows are auctioned off at one auction.
I'm actually so elite that I have the only Slashdot UID that has a fractional component thanks to some Y2K hackery. However, due to shitty CSS on the site (designed by me, because I'm that 1337), my UID is multipled by 100,000 in the display. I don't fix the CSS now because I like my 6-digit UID. It allows me to hang out with you commoners, sort of like a celebrity who wears a big-ass fedora and Wayfarers.
Delicious Library doesn't have a 10.4 version? That's a surprise to me, since I upgraded DL a couple months ago and used it fine with Tiger until I upgraded to Leopard two weeks ago.
You know the lawyer who lost Jammie Thomas's trial is the youngest graduate ever of Harvard Law, right? I may be speaking out of turn, but it didn't seem like her massive penalty supports what you say.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you did admit it. Here's the relevant quote:
Right there, you said, effectively "We did X to Germany. We did Y to other countries, and X<<<<Y.
To be fair, Germany, Japan, and Europe in total turned around so quickly because of substantial external aid. Aid that was not afforded on the same levels to Vietnam or anywhere in Latin America or the Caribbean.
Additionally, you seem to attempt to strike a comparison between Germany et al. and Latin America et al. in the form of "Germany was treated so badly and look what they accomplished; thus, Latin America should be able to do similar."
However, by your own admission, Latin America and Iran were treated worse than Germany. Is it any wonder that it's more difficult for them to succeed when we played a massive role in overthrowing governments there for the past 50 years?
I mean, it's not like the US overthrew the Iranian government 50 years ago, overthrew the Guatemalan government 50 years ago, spent 20 years trying to overthrow the government in Laos, overthrew the government of Haiti 50 years ago, blockaded Cuba for decades, overthrew the Dominican, Ecuadorian, and Congolese governments 50 years ago, a few years later repeated the overthrow of Dominica and Ecuador, overthrew the government of Brazil 45 years ago, Indonesia 45 years ago, Greece 45 years ago, Congo again 45 years ago, Greece again in 1967, Cambodia in 1970, Bolivia in 1971, Chile in 1973, Haiti again in 1986, Panama in 1989, Haiti again in 1993, and Iraq in 2003.
As the debate is whether the US should be buying planes, I hardly think the equipment of the Iranian Air Force is a relevant consideration.
There's a saying: If you owe the bank a million dollars, you are in trouble; if you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, the bank is in trouble.
If China goes to war with us, we could easily default and say it's because our policy is to default on debts to enemies of war (this would calm the fears of likely all our other creditors). Not only would China be crippled because one of their largest assets (their single largest asset?) is US T-bills, but they'd lose their single largest source of sales revenue (WalMart, etc.). Oh, also the Chinese currency is also pegged to the dollar. If the dollar plummets, so does the yuan.
But they don't just make money off entrance fees. I'd wager most of their money is made in gift shop sales. Now, we could give away the pictures for free, remove the gift shop, and triple the price of admission to make up for the loss of the gift shop, but then fewer people will be able to gain proper admission to the museums.
Because
1. While the NPG may be wrong, it's not morally bankrupt--they do indeed need the money to continue digitizing works, no?
2. It is the solution with the most utility. You'd be surprised to hear me, a recently-minted law school graduate say so, but lawsuits are not always necessary. In fact, many times, lawsuits are the worst solutions. Mediation is often the best route. We're just stuck in this us vs. them mentality that destroys the best solutions.
I mean, do you think the US should go bombing every country that requires Islam as the religion of all citizens just because we think they're wrong? Compromise is often the best solution. Here, it most certainly is.
And all our myths about Neil Armstrong. Didn't those silly 21st centurions know it were whalers on the moon?
For a relevant discussion of fair use and fair dealing and international copyright norms, you might want to check out Global Warming Trend? The Creeping Indulgence of Fair Use in International Copyright Law, 17 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 267 (2009) (abstract only). Full disclosure: I the chief articles editor in charge of editing this article, so I may be biased on how good it is. :)
You're wrong, technically. RIAA v. Diamond didn't deal with fair use. It dealt with the Audio Home Recording Act and whether Diamond's MP3 player fell under the AHRA for regulatory purposes. Sure, the court does say at one point that ripping music from CD is classic "noncommercial use," but any statement that ripping from CD is fair use is dicta, and as such is not binding on any court in the future.
Ripping music is not a settled issue in the US. I just wrote a very lengthy scholarly paper on this very topic that I will be shopping around for publication in journals in a month and a half (once it's selected for publication (if), I will be letting Slashdot know, you'd better believe it). I'm not the only one who thinks so, either. No leading copyright scholar in the US would dare say that ripping CDs is fair use is settled law here.
THAT'S ONE SMALL step......FOR MAAANNN
CS Lewis should get British protection in Britain and US protection in the US. Does that make you happy? I'd like to point out that the Constitution doesn't even require that the US give foreign authors copyright status here, and it wasn't until well after copyright was established in the US that copyrightability was afforded to foreign works.
You missed the "renewable once." That means three decades. What percentage of works from the 70s-80s are still profitable enough to justify cockblocking the public domain so harshly?
And JRRT wrote the LotR to give Britain some "native" myths (Robin Hood and King Arthur are very Norman (French) in their origins). Witness his refusal to use "cul de sac" and rather use "Bag End" to name Bilbo's street address.
Does this mean all of Britain deserves a cut of the LotR movies?
Actually she was, but currently isn't. She's an arbitrator who wear's a judge's robes and holds fake court in exchange for the parties involved in her show agreeting to submitting their claims to binding arbitration on her show. That's how all these shows work.
Excellent summary. Additional (but partially irrelevant save for maybe one sentence in your post): Louisiana inherited the Civil Law system from France, and as such, it doesn't really have a history of equity courts and equitable defenses, right? Any Louisianan or LAwyer care to chime in?
Couple of things briefly before I get back to studying for the bar exam, so this post would be as METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED as I am known for WORLDWIDE:
1. courts have been doing more than adjudging disputes since John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
2. there has indeed been a trend toward keeping more things away from the jury in recent years; I know many older legal practitioners and judges hate this and have called this trend elitist
Sorry to say, but this is what jurors in criminal trials actually believe. There's a recent development that if the prosecution cannot do this sort of thing, the jurors assume that the prosecution's case is weak.
On the other hand, jurors are misinformed about what DNA evidence actually means, and that there can be errors made in DNA tests. This harms the defense side in some criminal trials.
It's sad that shows like this mislead the public, but how are lawyers at trial supposed to instruct them properly? They can't go on such a tangent in closing arguments. I suppose they could bring an expert witness to point this out, but that can get very expensive. As in tens of thousands of dollars expensive. Expert witnesses make more per hour than attorneys do.
To be fair, auction houses have various other uses, such as determining whether a cow is pregnant or not before it goes to auction. You'd still need to bring someone to determine that at the point of sale without an auction house. They do other things at the house, too.
But, yeah, I can see how only transporting a cow once would be more efficient than transporting it twice. However, you'd have to transport a pregnancy checker at every sale, rather than at every auction. It's all a bunch of tradeoffs, and I daren't do the math right now. But it hinges on how many cows are auctioned off at one auction.
Yes, I've taken cattle to auction before.
I'm actually so elite that I have the only Slashdot UID that has a fractional component thanks to some Y2K hackery. However, due to shitty CSS on the site (designed by me, because I'm that 1337), my UID is multipled by 100,000 in the display. I don't fix the CSS now because I like my 6-digit UID. It allows me to hang out with you commoners, sort of like a celebrity who wears a big-ass fedora and Wayfarers.
Because he's not wrapping them. He's pirating them off places like Usenet and then is too lazy to extract the files.
Delicious Library doesn't have a 10.4 version? That's a surprise to me, since I upgraded DL a couple months ago and used it fine with Tiger until I upgraded to Leopard two weeks ago.
I was using Tiger on my MBP until I was forced to upgrade two weeks ago because the software the bar exam in Texas requires only works in Leopard.
Well, "intangible" means "not tangible," so maybe "in camera" means "without a camera"? ;)
Of course, but the AC GP made a blanket statement about the superiority of Harvard. I merely provided evidence against such a blanket statement.
You know the lawyer who lost Jammie Thomas's trial is the youngest graduate ever of Harvard Law, right? I may be speaking out of turn, but it didn't seem like her massive penalty supports what you say.