And embyonic stem cell research funding without federal assistance amounted to exactly how much last year?
That's right folks. While the anal hop in the thread real quick every time a stem cell story comes out to point this out they seem to lose their way when you point out that it really is an "effective" ban.
A lot of copyrights are owned by corporations. AND THEY NEVER DIE
Corporate copyrights are generally shorter than individual copyrights. Invidual copyrights are the authors life + 70 years. Corporate copyrights are 90 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
The authors of the article seem to think it is only for the MLB brand name and not the rights to use the teams/players. If that is the case, it wouldn't hurt EA because EA doesnt use the MLB brand.
I hate to break it to you, but counts != charges.
He was convicted of all five charges (Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty). He was concvicted of 9 counts under those charges.
Agreed, it is the planting of the device (without a warrant) which is the concern.
Here's a scenario: suppose the police identify a know area where drug activity regularly takes place. So they go and plant thousands of GPS devices in cars at nearby parking lots etc... They wait a week or two, search through the database and find who's been in the know "drug area". Then they go knock on your door, pull you over, stop you in the street and start looking for drugs. Instead of racial profiling you now have "location profiling"... sounds like Big Brother in action to me...
The problem with this argument is that while following peoples actions on the road doesn't require a warrant, searching their house/person/vehicle does.
You're over simplifying things. Just because something is paid for with tax money doesn't mean the expense has been covered and the project should be available to everyone for free. Many projects are granted a budget specifically based on the notion that the costs will be covered by access fees.
I only took a curory glance at the article before it was/.ed, but I did not see any attempt at analyzing how many of the additional items found by MSAS were false positives. This seems like pretty vital information.
Getting a warrent may seem like a pointless formality, but it's not.
I completely agree. I don't support the BSA's proposed legislation. I was simply attempting to provide the reason behind the use of the word "may". Getting a warrant does not change the fact that someone only may have commited a crime. It simply means there is a justifiable reason to believe they have.
Simply calling my argument stupid does not refute it. Please explain how they are different in relation to the debate at hand. You can replace murder with any crime you wish and my statement remains the same.
So. I guess the subversion of the Original Copyright Intentions, by biased legislators and coporate America, are fair as well?
I don't recall saying this, but yes it is. Why not? The point of a representitive system is to represent the people. Just because you don't agree with other people, doesn't make the system broken. Sure, some of the legislature is corrupt and doesn't look out for their constituents. Whose fault is that? Thats right, the peoples for voting for them. Corporations can donate as much money as they want to campaigns (actually they can't due to campaign financing laws), but they can't cast any votes.
Or how about having a digital flag attached to your hardware, and then to your legally recorded media content is flagged because a corporate entity wants it that way. These things brought about by corporate lobbyist. Rights are for Sale, whether you like it or not, or admit it.
See above.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."
The ability to share creative works is not an essential liberty, nor is copyright a measure of temporary safety.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
I thought you said Coprorations were the evil ones trying to take your rights away? Corporations can't vote.
"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states...the ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy...
Copyright is available to everyone, not one part of the nation. If you're trying to argue that laws should favor fairly those breaking the law and those abiding by it, then I am clearly wasting my time.
All that being said, my original post was mearly a suggestion that people should try to change the laws they disagree with instead of pretending they don't exist.
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
1. literary works; 2. musical works, including any accompanying words 3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music 4. pantomimes and choreographic works 5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works 6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works 7. sound recordings 8. architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."
When was the last time you saw a CxO commit the same kind of crimes that a regular person would. The reason the punishments are usually different are due to the nature of the crimes. Corporate crimes are generally civil matters, leading to cash settlements/judgments. On occasion, they are criminal, and executives get jailtime (enron, adelphia, etc).
Yes, unfortunately many slashdotters refuse to learn the same lesson. Instead, they just rant about it here, and demonize anyone who suggests what they are doing is illegal.
You're right. I guess we shouldn't go after people who may have commited a murder either. Presumption of innocence doesn't apply here, this is about getting you into a court where you are presumed innocent. Noone along the way is expected, or required to believe you are innocent. Otherwise noone could be charged with any crime because it would accuse them of being guilty.
This poor excuse for a troll is insightful?
You didn't even RTFA. The software did not experience any problems, making the entire argument of your point irrelevant.
Ok, first of all, Free software is not given freely. Free software is shared under a very strict set of rules requiring you to similarly share all derivative works. True free software is public domain software. That isn't the point though, because Gates wasn't talking about free software in reference to communism. He was referring to people advocating the destruction of IP property laws.
For starters, I fail to see how charging someone under a specific provision of a federal law is evidence that ANYTHING can be labeled as terrorism. Note: this case is not being labeled as terrorism. Also, please point out the due process being skipped, and the Constitutional protections being violated.
Further, you state that the PATRIOT act shouldn't be used, instead deferring to existing laws. Well, the PATRIOT act is an existing law, so that doesn't make sense. You state that he should instead be charged with "interfering with an aircrew." Did you RTFA? "He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act."
As further evidence that the PATRIOT act does not mean that "ANYTHING the powers-that-be don't like" is illegal, I would like to point out the fact that the man in question was not charged in the targetting of the helicopter specifically because there is no provision in the act to allow for this.
Noone is stopping parents from making that choice. All the proposed legislation does is prevent stores from selling adult rated (self-rated by the industry, btw) directly to children. Parents can buy their children whatever porn games they want to if they think that is the appropriate way to raise their children. The point is just to make sure parents know what their children are being exposed to.
I'm not saying children shouldn't be allowed to play any adult games, I grew up on adult rated games like Police Quest (Yes, PQ was considered adult in those days), and I don't consider myself worse off.
Hmm, you are right. I tested it before I posted using My Computer, and it didn't raise the window. Apparently that only seems to be the case with explorer.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing copyright law with trademark law.
How is it frivolous? Are we supposed to be against mechanical patents now too?
The authors of the article seem to think it is only for the MLB brand name and not the rights to use the teams/players. If that is the case, it wouldn't hurt EA because EA doesnt use the MLB brand.
I hate to break it to you, but counts != charges. He was convicted of all five charges (Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty). He was concvicted of 9 counts under those charges.
The problem with this argument is that while following peoples actions on the road doesn't require a warrant, searching their house/person/vehicle does.
You're over simplifying things. Just because something is paid for with tax money doesn't mean the expense has been covered and the project should be available to everyone for free. Many projects are granted a budget specifically based on the notion that the costs will be covered by access fees.
I only took a curory glance at the article before it was /.ed, but I did not see any attempt at analyzing how many of the additional items found by MSAS were false positives. This seems like pretty vital information.
Getting a warrent may seem like a pointless formality, but it's not.
I completely agree. I don't support the BSA's proposed legislation. I was simply attempting to provide the reason behind the use of the word "may". Getting a warrant does not change the fact that someone only may have commited a crime. It simply means there is a justifiable reason to believe they have.
Simply calling my argument stupid does not refute it. Please explain how they are different in relation to the debate at hand. You can replace murder with any crime you wish and my statement remains the same.
So. I guess the subversion of the Original Copyright Intentions, by biased legislators and coporate America, are fair as well?
I don't recall saying this, but yes it is. Why not? The point of a representitive system is to represent the people. Just because you don't agree with other people, doesn't make the system broken. Sure, some of the legislature is corrupt and doesn't look out for their constituents. Whose fault is that? Thats right, the peoples for voting for them. Corporations can donate as much money as they want to campaigns (actually they can't due to campaign financing laws), but they can't cast any votes.
Or how about having a digital flag attached to your hardware, and then to your legally recorded media content is flagged because a corporate entity wants it that way. These things brought about by corporate lobbyist. Rights are for Sale, whether you like it or not, or admit it.
See above.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."
The ability to share creative works is not an essential liberty, nor is copyright a measure of temporary safety.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
I thought you said Coprorations were the evil ones trying to take your rights away? Corporations can't vote.
"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states...the ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy...
Copyright is available to everyone, not one part of the nation. If you're trying to argue that laws should favor fairly those breaking the law and those abiding by it, then I am clearly wasting my time.
All that being said, my original post was mearly a suggestion that people should try to change the laws they disagree with instead of pretending they don't exist.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
When was the last time you saw a CxO commit the same kind of crimes that a regular person would. The reason the punishments are usually different are due to the nature of the crimes. Corporate crimes are generally civil matters, leading to cash settlements/judgments. On occasion, they are criminal, and executives get jailtime (enron, adelphia, etc).
Yes, unfortunately many slashdotters refuse to learn the same lesson. Instead, they just rant about it here, and demonize anyone who suggests what they are doing is illegal.
You're right. I guess we shouldn't go after people who may have commited a murder either. Presumption of innocence doesn't apply here, this is about getting you into a court where you are presumed innocent. Noone along the way is expected, or required to believe you are innocent. Otherwise noone could be charged with any crime because it would accuse them of being guilty.
This poor excuse for a troll is insightful? You didn't even RTFA. The software did not experience any problems, making the entire argument of your point irrelevant.
That would be GNU/hippies or GNU+hippies
Thanks
You think Slashdot is unbiased?
Ok, first of all, Free software is not given freely. Free software is shared under a very strict set of rules requiring you to similarly share all derivative works. True free software is public domain software. That isn't the point though, because Gates wasn't talking about free software in reference to communism. He was referring to people advocating the destruction of IP property laws.
How is this insightful?
For starters, I fail to see how charging someone under a specific provision of a federal law is evidence that ANYTHING can be labeled as terrorism. Note: this case is not being labeled as terrorism. Also, please point out the due process being skipped, and the Constitutional protections being violated.
Further, you state that the PATRIOT act shouldn't be used, instead deferring to existing laws. Well, the PATRIOT act is an existing law, so that doesn't make sense. You state that he should instead be charged with "interfering with an aircrew." Did you RTFA? "He was charged with interfering with a flight crew under the USA Patriot Act."
As further evidence that the PATRIOT act does not mean that "ANYTHING the powers-that-be don't like" is illegal, I would like to point out the fact that the man in question was not charged in the targetting of the helicopter specifically because there is no provision in the act to allow for this.
It is amazing when its Apple but evil when its Microsoft?
Noone is stopping parents from making that choice. All the proposed legislation does is prevent stores from selling adult rated (self-rated by the industry, btw) directly to children. Parents can buy their children whatever porn games they want to if they think that is the appropriate way to raise their children. The point is just to make sure parents know what their children are being exposed to. I'm not saying children shouldn't be allowed to play any adult games, I grew up on adult rated games like Police Quest (Yes, PQ was considered adult in those days), and I don't consider myself worse off.
Your information wants to be free!
Hmm, you are right. I tested it before I posted using My Computer, and it didn't raise the window. Apparently that only seems to be the case with explorer.