Read a little evolutionary biology. There is sufficient scientific discussion that face-to-face copulation between humans enabled our species to make it an intimate act long before "certain religions" existed.
The common law has a doctrine called "estoppel." Basically, if A acts in a way such that B believes X to be true, and B would be harmed if X were not true, then X is considered true and A is prevented from enforcing a right against B.
Copyright by estoppel would be when A writes a book of "facts" that are not facts. If B treats the book as fact and uses the facts freely in his own work, A cannot sue him for copyright infringement (A is "estopped" from suing) because facts are not copyrightable.
Perhaps if EMI puts their own music online, they are estopped from suing someone for downloading it? Think of estoppel as an implicit contract.
If free weren't considered a sale, a record company would sell you the disc as a piece of art (cover art) and give you the music pressed on the disc for free.
Isn't that what a bunch of guys who "know better" (e.g., OSNews and Gizmodo guys) would want? If the stock price tanks without any reason (excluding public perception), that would be a bargain just sitting there, ready for we "in the know" people to snatch it up.
AAPL is 85.35/share as I type this. Can you imagine if it dropped to 30 for one day after he died*? Buy low, and it will surely go back up to 70 very soon. You'd double your money with basically no risk whatsoever!
* I hope Steve Jobs isn't sick, and I hope he lives longer. I never wish death on anyone.
Agreed. I'm a grad student and I've been wanting an iLiad since I first read about it a few years ago. But it's expensive and I can't afford it.
It is great for people who have to do research because you can physically take notes on your files on the reader. Legal practitioners (I'm studying law) have access to numerous cases in PDF format. Grad students in other fields are in a similar boat.
It would be nice to take notes, and right now, only the iLiad allows this.
I've Apple offered one that was cheaper than the iLiad or had a better UI (preferably both!), I'd buy one the second I get started at my job.
Also, the aforementioned law is state, not federal.
And to admit my mistake, the standard is typically "abuse of discretion," not "clear error." The rest of my comment still stands: I doubt it would be an abuse of discretion to punish someone like that.
I will personally call the circuit judge and fix it
Circuit judges are federal. Thus, the lower court judge who made the "mistake" is federal. So your comment that the judge "doesn't have a future on the bench" is ridiculous. Federal judges are appointed for life. You won't get impeached for overpunishing a guy who exposed himself in public. Additionally, appellate judges are extremely loathe to overturn a sentence issued by a trial judge. The standard is typically "clear error" to overturn. I don't think this would be "clear error" to overturn from a federal circuit court judge, typically old and separated from the day-to-day living of regular citizens.
If you made such an error, I'm wondering how much you actually know about the justice system. And good luck actually getting a circuit judge on the phone.
Well, thirty years in the Senate is a lot of political experience. But if you mean Biden being elected to the Senate without experience, perhaps people of Delaware didn't care as much about experience in the 70s as the rest of the US seems to now.
But I don't buy this argument of "experience is required" anyway. Yes, for President, a 35 year old grad student is unqualified, no matter their intelligence. But a few years of doing anything with any small bit of responsibility will teach you how to select competent middle management.
And let's face it, the President is a CEO and he selects middle management, who do everything else, pretty much.
Careful. Your argument would make video games like Mortal Kombat illegal and movies such as The Return of the King illegal, because it "encourages murder" simply because people viewed murder.
Is there some reason you're trying to make it clear you're not on NPR's site? The only people I've ever met who dislike NPR are very far right wing individuals who think anything other than Rush is a lie.
I ask only because, if there's some reason to clearly state your dislike of them, I'd like to know.
Isn't "The Sound of Young America" on NPR? I hear about it constantly, like it's the new sliced bread. I've been meaning to listen to it, but I do very little driving, and I choose to study on bus commutes.
I never said he was innocent of corporate pandering. In fact, I said that it was bad he voted the way he did on the bankruptcy bill.
I merely tried to point out that he is the establishment of Delaware corporate law. That is all.
You are correct that the thread began with a critique of unrestrained corporate power. My bad. But please stop trying to read RAH RAH BIDEN!! into my comments. I'm definitely not going there.
Corporate laws are ridiculous all across this country. Delaware and federal laws are some of the worst. In Delaware, you can contract away almost every right, which almost no other state holds out as useful public policy.
Lots of companies incorporate in Delaware because their laws are sweet
Yeah, thank God our new VP is from there
Biden is a federal senator. He has absolutely nothing to do with state corporate law.
So Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill which hurts consumers has nothing to do with the credit card companies who lobbied for it and just happen to be incorporated in Delaware?
As you can see, Biden was irrelevant to the original discussion (about DE state corporation laws). We were talking solely about why companies incorporate in DE until Biden, who was OT, got brought up.
Sure, Biden supporting the bankruptcy bill from a couple years ago really sucked. But I'm just upset because we were talking about state law, someone erroneously brought up a federale, and now I'm the one being told I'm wrong!
That is absolutely irrelevant. Someone said that DE laws were favorable to corporations. Someone else tried to blame Biden. I merely pointed out that DE laws have nothing to do with Biden.
You can tear into Biden however you want. But please use comprehension skills when reading my posts. I'd rather you not read infer things irrelevant to what I'm saying.
To be fair, there is some amount of caution you have to exercise when objecting in court. If you object too often, the jury will start to think you, the defense lawyer, are trying to hide something from them.
They'll turn against you, view what you do with suspicion, and the case will be lost for you at that point.
It sucks, but that's how humans work.
Better to wait until cross and do something like this:
Ms. Pariser, you previously said that downloading music is theft?
Yes, I did
And you are an expert in copyright law?
Yes, I am
Are you aware that downloading music is copyright infringement and not theft?
At that point, if she says yes, you've showed the jury she's untrustworthy. If she says no, you introduce via judicial notice a copy of the US Code and show she's wrong.
Now, I've only done a little mock trial, and it's bedtime for me, so I'm admittedly not an expert on how to properly cross such a witness, nor am I thinking clearly at this point.
But it's at least a rough draft of a better alternative than objecting and risking the jury beginning to mistrust you. Better to make the jury mistrust the expert and the lawyers on the other side of the case.
A lawyer with some trial experience might be able to chime in here as to whether I've at least got the gist of "don't object, but prefer to impeach the witness if possible" correct.
For all of you constitutional purists, I'd ask where in Article I Congress has the right to limit executive authority, whether it's FOIA, FISA, the War Powers Act, "congressional oversight," etc. I am looking but can't find in the Constitution where Congress can do this without ratifying a new Amendment.
I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
and
To make Rules for the Government
AND
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [TheoMurpse's note: This is Washington, D.C.]
and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If you were so dense as to not realize that my comment was made solely in reference to the silly idea that where a scientist was born is relevant, I hope I've now made it clear.
Scientists (who owe a duty of loyalty to the progress of science) and politicians (who (purportedly) owe a duty of loyalty to their constituency) are entirely different creatures.
If you're being snarky, I've been snarky back. If you were genuinely curious, I apologize for my snark.
Who cares where someone was born? We're talking about places to learn science, and if von Neumann did his work in the US, then that is what counts. Not where his mom popped him out.
Slashdot Mirror
Read a little evolutionary biology. There is sufficient scientific discussion that face-to-face copulation between humans enabled our species to make it an intimate act long before "certain religions" existed.
My understanding of breasts, which is admittedly very little, is that the majority is fatty tissue, not devoted to feeding young.
I understand breasts' "primary" function to be attracting a mate, as the majority is not used in milk production.
The common law has a doctrine called "estoppel." Basically, if A acts in a way such that B believes X to be true, and B would be harmed if X were not true, then X is considered true and A is prevented from enforcing a right against B.
Copyright by estoppel would be when A writes a book of "facts" that are not facts. If B treats the book as fact and uses the facts freely in his own work, A cannot sue him for copyright infringement (A is "estopped" from suing) because facts are not copyrightable.
Perhaps if EMI puts their own music online, they are estopped from suing someone for downloading it? Think of estoppel as an implicit contract.
If free weren't considered a sale, a record company would sell you the disc as a piece of art (cover art) and give you the music pressed on the disc for free.
Isn't that what a bunch of guys who "know better" (e.g., OSNews and Gizmodo guys) would want? If the stock price tanks without any reason (excluding public perception), that would be a bargain just sitting there, ready for we "in the know" people to snatch it up.
AAPL is 85.35/share as I type this. Can you imagine if it dropped to 30 for one day after he died*? Buy low, and it will surely go back up to 70 very soon. You'd double your money with basically no risk whatsoever!
* I hope Steve Jobs isn't sick, and I hope he lives longer. I never wish death on anyone.
Agreed. I'm a grad student and I've been wanting an iLiad since I first read about it a few years ago. But it's expensive and I can't afford it.
It is great for people who have to do research because you can physically take notes on your files on the reader. Legal practitioners (I'm studying law) have access to numerous cases in PDF format. Grad students in other fields are in a similar boat.
It would be nice to take notes, and right now, only the iLiad allows this.
I've Apple offered one that was cheaper than the iLiad or had a better UI (preferably both!), I'd buy one the second I get started at my job.
Also, the aforementioned law is state, not federal.
And to admit my mistake, the standard is typically "abuse of discretion," not "clear error." The rest of my comment still stands: I doubt it would be an abuse of discretion to punish someone like that.
Circuit judges are federal. Thus, the lower court judge who made the "mistake" is federal. So your comment that the judge "doesn't have a future on the bench" is ridiculous. Federal judges are appointed for life. You won't get impeached for overpunishing a guy who exposed himself in public. Additionally, appellate judges are extremely loathe to overturn a sentence issued by a trial judge. The standard is typically "clear error" to overturn. I don't think this would be "clear error" to overturn from a federal circuit court judge, typically old and separated from the day-to-day living of regular citizens.
If you made such an error, I'm wondering how much you actually know about the justice system. And good luck actually getting a circuit judge on the phone.
You forgot "Taco and CowboyNeal spoon for warmth"
Well, thirty years in the Senate is a lot of political experience. But if you mean Biden being elected to the Senate without experience, perhaps people of Delaware didn't care as much about experience in the 70s as the rest of the US seems to now.
But I don't buy this argument of "experience is required" anyway. Yes, for President, a 35 year old grad student is unqualified, no matter their intelligence. But a few years of doing anything with any small bit of responsibility will teach you how to select competent middle management.
And let's face it, the President is a CEO and he selects middle management, who do everything else, pretty much.
Careful. Your argument would make video games like Mortal Kombat illegal and movies such as The Return of the King illegal, because it "encourages murder" simply because people viewed murder.
No idea, but there's a forthcoming second volume of PBF coming out February 2009.
Fallingcow, you should know that every comic he ever did (I think) is available in book format here.
Interesting to note he's apparently got another one coming out this coming February.
You're wrong. Joe Biden was elected to county council of a county of 500K people. He served there for two years while continuing his legal practice.
He then, at the ripe old age of 30, ran and was elected to the US Senate.
No statewide office.
Is there some reason you're trying to make it clear you're not on NPR's site? The only people I've ever met who dislike NPR are very far right wing individuals who think anything other than Rush is a lie.
I ask only because, if there's some reason to clearly state your dislike of them, I'd like to know.
Isn't "The Sound of Young America" on NPR? I hear about it constantly, like it's the new sliced bread. I've been meaning to listen to it, but I do very little driving, and I choose to study on bus commutes.
Supposedly, it's very good.
I never said he was innocent of corporate pandering. In fact, I said that it was bad he voted the way he did on the bankruptcy bill.
I merely tried to point out that he is the establishment of Delaware corporate law. That is all.
You are correct that the thread began with a critique of unrestrained corporate power. My bad. But please stop trying to read RAH RAH BIDEN!! into my comments. I'm definitely not going there.
Corporate laws are ridiculous all across this country. Delaware and federal laws are some of the worst. In Delaware, you can contract away almost every right, which almost no other state holds out as useful public policy.
So Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill which hurts consumers has nothing to do with the credit card companies who lobbied for it and just happen to be incorporated in Delaware?
As you can see, Biden was irrelevant to the original discussion (about DE state corporation laws). We were talking solely about why companies incorporate in DE until Biden, who was OT, got brought up.
Sure, Biden supporting the bankruptcy bill from a couple years ago really sucked. But I'm just upset because we were talking about state law, someone erroneously brought up a federale, and now I'm the one being told I'm wrong!
That is absolutely irrelevant. Someone said that DE laws were favorable to corporations. Someone else tried to blame Biden. I merely pointed out that DE laws have nothing to do with Biden.
You can tear into Biden however you want. But please use comprehension skills when reading my posts. I'd rather you not read infer things irrelevant to what I'm saying.
To be fair, there is some amount of caution you have to exercise when objecting in court. If you object too often, the jury will start to think you, the defense lawyer, are trying to hide something from them.
They'll turn against you, view what you do with suspicion, and the case will be lost for you at that point.
It sucks, but that's how humans work.
Better to wait until cross and do something like this:
At that point, if she says yes, you've showed the jury she's untrustworthy. If she says no, you introduce via judicial notice a copy of the US Code and show she's wrong.
Now, I've only done a little mock trial, and it's bedtime for me, so I'm admittedly not an expert on how to properly cross such a witness, nor am I thinking clearly at this point.
But it's at least a rough draft of a better alternative than objecting and risking the jury beginning to mistrust you. Better to make the jury mistrust the expert and the lawyers on the other side of the case.
A lawyer with some trial experience might be able to chime in here as to whether I've at least got the gist of "don't object, but prefer to impeach the witness if possible" correct.
Biden is a federal senator. He has absolutely nothing to do with state corporate law. That would be the DE state legislature and court of chancery.
I assume by "executive authority," you mean "the authority to keep everything classified forever"?
Article 1, Section 8
and
AND
and
Have you ever read the Constitution?
If you were so dense as to not realize that my comment was made solely in reference to the silly idea that where a scientist was born is relevant, I hope I've now made it clear.
Scientists (who owe a duty of loyalty to the progress of science) and politicians (who (purportedly) owe a duty of loyalty to their constituency) are entirely different creatures.
If you're being snarky, I've been snarky back. If you were genuinely curious, I apologize for my snark.
Who cares where someone was born? We're talking about places to learn science, and if von Neumann did his work in the US, then that is what counts. Not where his mom popped him out.
I always thought it was a totem-pole-of-ducks emoticon...