If the murder rates are responsive to an increase in illegal immigration and interstate drug and gun trafficking, I'd say it's a federal issue in some part.
I wonder if that angry guy who worked at McDonald's for the last 4 years got a pay raise or a better job; perhaps Obama offered him a job in his Administration?
According to the Daily Show, he was hoping to become a DJ. He got an internship at a radio station.
If I had 300M people living in my mortgaged house, and not paying the mortgage would make them all homeless, then hell yes I should do everything I can to keep that house.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't afford an individual right. It's operates solely as a restraint on the behavior of police. This is why searches performed in pursuit of a warrant that doesn't actually exist (but the police believe exists) are constitutional.
The happy side-effect is that you typically have a right not to be searched without warrant.
People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want the moderate version of your little caricature.
As Yuuki Dasu said, you've just committed a strawman fallacy. For example, I own guns yet favor gun control. I favor mandatory safety locks, mandatory background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning certain weapons (quick, give me a 2d Amendment argument why nuclear weapons should not be permitted arms but AK-47s should be), and have toyed around with the idea of gun registration (although I'm trying to think of a technological solution that only allows owner lookups once the guns have been seized, in order to protect privacy--I imagine some sort of uniform public key/hash thing would work for that as gun serial numbers).
Could you tell me who the best president in history in your opinion is? Do me a favor and exclude Washington from consideration, just for the sake of inquiry. My personal favorite is Washington, but that's because everyone after his was a politician with non-minor flaws in their politicking.
I'm just curious if you've ever been satisfied before, or if you have extraordinary standards that are impossible to meet politically.
I was under the impression that the choice was: 1) Let your economy crater now with 90% assurance. 2) Have a 75% chance of saving your economy via credit now with a 30% chance of it being cratered because of the credit in the future.
1) 90% assurance of failure 2) 25% + 75%*30% = 47.5% assurance of failure
And I'm being extremely generous to the possibility of future failure. It's a simple mathematical weighing.
Personally, I believe the assurance of (short-term) success through credit financing is more like 90%, and the possibility of failure in the long term because of the credit is more like 15%.
Obviously, it's a gut feeling. But I'm purposefully inflating the odds of our economy failing long-term because of the stimulus package. But my choice is pragmatic.
Please post your disagreements. However, judging by your statement that
[t]here's nothing real about spending [money] we don't have
I'm assuming you don't believe in taking out loans period. No? Or just large loans?
The distinction is in the deletion of "unusually" in the modern article, suggesting that there has been a shift in bias within the article against the theory of current global warming as an unprecedented event from a bias in favor of the theory.
Sounds like someone needs to re-read what the scientific method actually accomplishes.
Nothing is ever proven via the scientific method. Things are disproven, and what is left is lent credence. Anything else would be an error in affirming the consequent.
As we have previously concluded that appellant's tile-preparing process results in derivative works and as the exclusive right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder, the "first sale" doctrine does not bar the appellees' copyright infringement claims.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for these three previous posters! They've managed to, in three posts, conflate copyright, patent, and trademark law! Quite an accomplishment!
Whoops. I forgot to mention why I brought up my friend's credentials. He was at the #1 school in the country for his particular Ph.D. field. He talked to the attorneys in the office and many of them knew more about his particular field than he did.
If that's at one firm (albeit a major one), what must the entire field be like?
I was going to post the same thing, but instead I'm just going to say that, just for once, Slashdot should trust the AC poster's content. What he said is very true.
In the IP arena, I'm solely interested in copyright practice, but I still couldn't get more than a handful of interviews with IP firms. The interviews were all basically over once they found out I had the one natural science degree that didn't qualify me to sit for the patent bar (abstract math).
To even take the patent bar, you have to have a degree in a certain science or engineering field or have a substantial number of hours in a particular field (it's like 28 hours of physics, for example, and maybe 32 of chemistry as an alternative). The only exception to this rule is basically if you're on the level of Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, you can sit for the patent bar. I've talked with several patent attorneys, and not a single one has ever heard of a person being granted this exception by the PTO.
Two of the top IP firms, Fish & Richardson and Knobbe (pronounced like Obi-Wan) both have gobs and gobs of Ph.D.-level scientists licensed by the PTO who also have law degrees.
What AC said is true: the IP law field is staffed by more brainpower than you can possibly imagine. My friend was a science Ph.D. candidate (leaving information out to protect his identity in case the firm is reading) working on his dissertation before dropping out to go to law school. He's extremely brilliant. He went to an interview with Knobbe in Orange County and he said that they'd "open a door" and there would be like 15 bio Ph.D.-holding patent attorneys in a meeting behind the door. Then they'd go to another room, and there were 20 chem Ph.D.-holding attorneys in another meeting.
I'm not trying to shit on your dreams. Just be aware that there isn't a lack of IP attorneys unless you're looking at some small field like in the realm of software licenses. One professor I know told me there are only about five good software licenses attorneys in the US. The rest are all "dumbasses" according to him. But I really hate classifying software licenses as an IP field.
In any case, good luck, man. You're going to need it.
A Circuit Court in the US once held that buying a copyrighted work, affixing it to another copyrighted work, and reselling them was copyright infringement. The precedent (which many legal scholars criticize) is still on the books. And don't be confused: it's a huge precedent. And you'll note that no copying occurred there.
It's a novel and interesting argument, that private modification for private use ought to constitute fair use. I like this argument, and if I weren't already preparing an article on copyright for publication, I think I'd start researching this and writing a paper on it. Attention any law students interested in paper ideas: private modification of software for private use as fair use would be an excellent research paper topic.
Although I don't think most courts would currently be amenable to the argument without some legal scholarship in the arena and a damn fine appellate argument to shift the weight of copyright from the creator's interests back to the public's interests.
If the software is not being redistributed and you aren't requiring a EULA, then the end-users are free to modify the software as they see fit (or do anything with it, except redistribute) under existing copyright law.
That is absolutely, categorically false, and this is yet another example of what Slashdot featured as an article a week or two ago: nerds acting like they know the law and giving bad advice.
A derivative work is an infringement on copyright, and a modification of source code is a derivative work. See derivative work at 17 U.S.C. 106(2) and infringement at 17 U.S.C. 501(a).
Perhaps what you meant to say is that, without redistributing the code, the vendee is likely not to be caught. This is, of course, also not true because vendors include in contracts the ability to audit vendee machines in many cases.
Or so I learned in my software licenses class in law school.
Why have I never heard of this? My father is full-blooded German and his family has been in the hill country of Texas since the mid-1800s.
The only prejudice they ever faced was when my grandmother answered a teacher in German instead of English by accident, got laughed at by students, and subsequently swore off ever speaking German again.
I just googled this, and apparently there was something going on in Kenedy, TX. I don't understand this. My great great uncle was a rancher and full-blooded Kraut in Kenedy, TX, precisely at the time this concentration camp crap supposedly happened. Why have I never heard of this, even within my family who lived in Kenedy at that time?
A little further reading has revealed that these camps were exclusively for aliens, not citizens of German, etc., descent. A little different from interning Japanese-Americans. Heck, the Geneva Conventions even permit internment of alien residents in time of armed conflict (albeit with some safeguards such as "not even corporal punishment is allowed").
Slashdot Mirror
Really? YOu couldn't just search for obama takes responsibility on YouTube? Here's a recent example where he literally says "I screwed up."
Of course you're ignoring the Necessary and Proper Clause to the point of making it seem like an open and shut case.
If the murder rates are responsive to an increase in illegal immigration and interstate drug and gun trafficking, I'd say it's a federal issue in some part.
According to the Daily Show, he was hoping to become a DJ. He got an internship at a radio station.
A war between Russia and the US is hardly what I would call "entertaining." But then again, I live in the US.
If I had 300M people living in my mortgaged house, and not paying the mortgage would make them all homeless, then hell yes I should do everything I can to keep that house.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't afford an individual right. It's operates solely as a restraint on the behavior of police. This is why searches performed in pursuit of a warrant that doesn't actually exist (but the police believe exists) are constitutional.
The happy side-effect is that you typically have a right not to be searched without warrant.
As Yuuki Dasu said, you've just committed a strawman fallacy. For example, I own guns yet favor gun control. I favor mandatory safety locks, mandatory background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning certain weapons (quick, give me a 2d Amendment argument why nuclear weapons should not be permitted arms but AK-47s should be), and have toyed around with the idea of gun registration (although I'm trying to think of a technological solution that only allows owner lookups once the guns have been seized, in order to protect privacy--I imagine some sort of uniform public key/hash thing would work for that as gun serial numbers).
But I fucking love guns. They're awesome.
Could you tell me who the best president in history in your opinion is? Do me a favor and exclude Washington from consideration, just for the sake of inquiry. My personal favorite is Washington, but that's because everyone after his was a politician with non-minor flaws in their politicking.
I'm just curious if you've ever been satisfied before, or if you have extraordinary standards that are impossible to meet politically.
I was under the impression that the choice was:
1) Let your economy crater now with 90% assurance.
2) Have a 75% chance of saving your economy via credit now with a 30% chance of it being cratered because of the credit in the future.
1) 90% assurance of failure
2) 25% + 75%*30% = 47.5% assurance of failure
And I'm being extremely generous to the possibility of future failure. It's a simple mathematical weighing.
Personally, I believe the assurance of (short-term) success through credit financing is more like 90%, and the possibility of failure in the long term because of the credit is more like 15%.
Obviously, it's a gut feeling. But I'm purposefully inflating the odds of our economy failing long-term because of the stimulus package. But my choice is pragmatic.
Please post your disagreements. However, judging by your statement that
I'm assuming you don't believe in taking out loans period. No? Or just large loans?
Apparently your memory has failed: "divide by zero" is a bit of memery.
Yes.
The distinction is in the deletion of "unusually" in the modern article, suggesting that there has been a shift in bias within the article against the theory of current global warming as an unprecedented event from a bias in favor of the theory.
Sounds like someone needs to re-read what the scientific method actually accomplishes.
Nothing is ever proven via the scientific method. Things are disproven, and what is left is lent credence. Anything else would be an error in affirming the consequent.
You're correct. I actually meant to cite Mirage Editions (which is mentioned in Lee v. ART), the other A.R.T. case.
There is a circuit split, where some follow Mirage and some follow Lee. I meant to cite Mirage, but got confused since they both implicate A.R.T. Co.
My apologies. Here is a link and citation to the case I meant to cite: Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1998). The relevant quote comes at the end of the case (facts were similar to Lee v. ART:
Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for these three previous posters! They've managed to, in three posts, conflate copyright, patent, and trademark law! Quite an accomplishment!
Whoops. I forgot to mention why I brought up my friend's credentials. He was at the #1 school in the country for his particular Ph.D. field. He talked to the attorneys in the office and many of them knew more about his particular field than he did.
If that's at one firm (albeit a major one), what must the entire field be like?
I was going to post the same thing, but instead I'm just going to say that, just for once, Slashdot should trust the AC poster's content. What he said is very true.
In the IP arena, I'm solely interested in copyright practice, but I still couldn't get more than a handful of interviews with IP firms. The interviews were all basically over once they found out I had the one natural science degree that didn't qualify me to sit for the patent bar (abstract math).
To even take the patent bar, you have to have a degree in a certain science or engineering field or have a substantial number of hours in a particular field (it's like 28 hours of physics, for example, and maybe 32 of chemistry as an alternative). The only exception to this rule is basically if you're on the level of Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, you can sit for the patent bar. I've talked with several patent attorneys, and not a single one has ever heard of a person being granted this exception by the PTO.
Two of the top IP firms, Fish & Richardson and Knobbe (pronounced like Obi-Wan) both have gobs and gobs of Ph.D.-level scientists licensed by the PTO who also have law degrees.
What AC said is true: the IP law field is staffed by more brainpower than you can possibly imagine. My friend was a science Ph.D. candidate (leaving information out to protect his identity in case the firm is reading) working on his dissertation before dropping out to go to law school. He's extremely brilliant. He went to an interview with Knobbe in Orange County and he said that they'd "open a door" and there would be like 15 bio Ph.D.-holding patent attorneys in a meeting behind the door. Then they'd go to another room, and there were 20 chem Ph.D.-holding attorneys in another meeting.
I'm not trying to shit on your dreams. Just be aware that there isn't a lack of IP attorneys unless you're looking at some small field like in the realm of software licenses. One professor I know told me there are only about five good software licenses attorneys in the US. The rest are all "dumbasses" according to him. But I really hate classifying software licenses as an IP field.
In any case, good luck, man. You're going to need it.
[citation needed]
A Circuit Court in the US once held that buying a copyrighted work, affixing it to another copyrighted work, and reselling them was copyright infringement. The precedent (which many legal scholars criticize) is still on the books. And don't be confused: it's a huge precedent. And you'll note that no copying occurred there.
Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997).
But when you modify software and save it, you are making a copy. So your discussion is merely tangential to the current topic.
It's a novel and interesting argument, that private modification for private use ought to constitute fair use. I like this argument, and if I weren't already preparing an article on copyright for publication, I think I'd start researching this and writing a paper on it. Attention any law students interested in paper ideas: private modification of software for private use as fair use would be an excellent research paper topic.
Although I don't think most courts would currently be amenable to the argument without some legal scholarship in the arena and a damn fine appellate argument to shift the weight of copyright from the creator's interests back to the public's interests.
Transformative work that does constitute a derivative work infringement
not in a fixed, tangible means of expression (as for the brain-as-a-tangible-means argument, implied license)
implied license
Never mind public performance, derivative work, reproduction, or public display rights.
That is absolutely, categorically false, and this is yet another example of what Slashdot featured as an article a week or two ago: nerds acting like they know the law and giving bad advice.
A derivative work is an infringement on copyright, and a modification of source code is a derivative work. See derivative work at 17 U.S.C. 106(2) and infringement at 17 U.S.C. 501(a).
Perhaps what you meant to say is that, without redistributing the code, the vendee is likely not to be caught. This is, of course, also not true because vendors include in contracts the ability to audit vendee machines in many cases.
Or so I learned in my software licenses class in law school.
More discussion:
http://openacs.org/about/licensing/open-source-licensing
Why have I never heard of this? My father is full-blooded German and his family has been in the hill country of Texas since the mid-1800s.
The only prejudice they ever faced was when my grandmother answered a teacher in German instead of English by accident, got laughed at by students, and subsequently swore off ever speaking German again.
I just googled this, and apparently there was something going on in Kenedy, TX. I don't understand this. My great great uncle was a rancher and full-blooded Kraut in Kenedy, TX, precisely at the time this concentration camp crap supposedly happened. Why have I never heard of this, even within my family who lived in Kenedy at that time?
A little further reading has revealed that these camps were exclusively for aliens, not citizens of German, etc., descent. A little different from interning Japanese-Americans. Heck, the Geneva Conventions even permit internment of alien residents in time of armed conflict (albeit with some safeguards such as "not even corporal punishment is allowed").
I'm pretty sure he was implying that secession is unconstitutional, not that slavery was.
It is in the Constitution. It's the 22d Amendment.
And are you suggesting Scalia isn't a "true" conservative? How more conservative can you get than an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?