Agreed - I did the same thing (except for the 2GB ram) and it's absolutely fine. The brightness key workaround is a snap (just adjust brightness at the boot screen), and any other problems were readily fixable.
Netbooks seem to be ideal platforms for linux - let's hope this catches on.
Right - for some strange reason, CNET's report says that it affects XP and OSX, yet the eEye report specifies that it is Windows-only. I wonder why . . .
Here's how it works: These are not sales taxes, they are excise taxes. States are allowed to tax these items when they cross the border into the state.
Usually state laws require the tax to be paid by the end user - they only appear to be sales taxes because they are collected by the seller at the time of purchase. The money actually goes to the state when the wholesalers buy tax stamps from the state revenue department and affix those stamps to the packs of cigarettes. The wholesalers then pass the cost on to retailers, who collect them from the end user.
And the federal government also charges a Federal Excise Tax on all tobacco products sold in the US. The Jenkins Act also requires that the end user make that payment. So, the folks who got a bill from Michigan should also be expecting to hear from the IRS.
Of course it's not property
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Calling copyright and patent (and trade secret, trade dress, etc.) "property" is only a convention. It was called "intellectual property" because it shares some characteristics of traditional property, in that the owner has exclusive rights (the right to exclude others from using the material), and it is devisable, descendable, and alienable. Those are all traditional property rights.
From there, however, IP diverges from traditional property. For instance, IP isn't scarce. It isn't intrinsically unique. And it can be duplicated. All these are reasons for creating exclusive rights to property.
Let's face it - patent and copyright laws are utilitarian. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to promote science and the useful arts (that's copyright and patent, respectively) by providing authors and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries.
Therefore, once the advancement of science and the useful arts is hobbled by copyright and patent laws, we've gone too far.
Not correct. Congress cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision when the Court is interpreting the Constitution. But the Betamax case was an interpretation of the statutory and common law doctrine of fair use.
When it comes to decisions of the Court regarding statutory interpretation, as in the Betamax case, Congress most certainly can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by amending the law.
The Telecom Act has as one of its goals the promotion of competition in the industry. So the Act says a state may not prohibit "any entity" from entering the telecom business. The question was whether a state law prohibiting a municipality from entering the telecom business would violate the Telecom Act. Thus, the Court had to determine whether a municipality was an "entity" for the purposes of the law.
Justice Souter said no, because the normal language that Congress uses when it wants to define how states may regulate their businesses and municipalities is "any entity or political subdivision." So, by tradition, when Congress says "entity" that means private business, and "political subdivision" means just that.
Therefore, Justice Souter said that since Congress omitted political subdivisions from the limitations it put on state power to ban entry into the telecom business, the states are free to ban the entry of their political subdivisions, i.e. municipalities, from the telecom market.
Lots of indirection here. Watch out!
I can verify that. Both my wife and I are republicans, and we have contributed to Dr. Dean's campaign. Not for the reasons Mr. Kerry alleges, however. We think Dean has a shot at defeating the incumbent, whom we desperately want to see become a private citizen once more, and the sooner the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed - I did the same thing (except for the 2GB ram) and it's absolutely fine. The brightness key workaround is a snap (just adjust brightness at the boot screen), and any other problems were readily fixable. Netbooks seem to be ideal platforms for linux - let's hope this catches on.
Right - for some strange reason, CNET's report says that it affects XP and OSX, yet the eEye report specifies that it is Windows-only. I wonder why . . .
Here's how it works: These are not sales taxes, they are excise taxes. States are allowed to tax these items when they cross the border into the state. Usually state laws require the tax to be paid by the end user - they only appear to be sales taxes because they are collected by the seller at the time of purchase. The money actually goes to the state when the wholesalers buy tax stamps from the state revenue department and affix those stamps to the packs of cigarettes. The wholesalers then pass the cost on to retailers, who collect them from the end user. And the federal government also charges a Federal Excise Tax on all tobacco products sold in the US. The Jenkins Act also requires that the end user make that payment. So, the folks who got a bill from Michigan should also be expecting to hear from the IRS.
Let's face it - patent and copyright laws are utilitarian. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to promote science and the useful arts (that's copyright and patent, respectively) by providing authors and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries. Therefore, once the advancement of science and the useful arts is hobbled by copyright and patent laws, we've gone too far.
Not correct. Congress cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision when the Court is interpreting the Constitution. But the Betamax case was an interpretation of the statutory and common law doctrine of fair use. When it comes to decisions of the Court regarding statutory interpretation, as in the Betamax case, Congress most certainly can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by amending the law.
The Telecom Act has as one of its goals the promotion of competition in the industry. So the Act says a state may not prohibit "any entity" from entering the telecom business. The question was whether a state law prohibiting a municipality from entering the telecom business would violate the Telecom Act. Thus, the Court had to determine whether a municipality was an "entity" for the purposes of the law. Justice Souter said no, because the normal language that Congress uses when it wants to define how states may regulate their businesses and municipalities is "any entity or political subdivision." So, by tradition, when Congress says "entity" that means private business, and "political subdivision" means just that. Therefore, Justice Souter said that since Congress omitted political subdivisions from the limitations it put on state power to ban entry into the telecom business, the states are free to ban the entry of their political subdivisions, i.e. municipalities, from the telecom market. Lots of indirection here. Watch out!
I can verify that. Both my wife and I are republicans, and we have contributed to Dr. Dean's campaign. Not for the reasons Mr. Kerry alleges, however. We think Dean has a shot at defeating the incumbent, whom we desperately want to see become a private citizen once more, and the sooner the better.