The trajectory of a particle under the influence of a gravitational field is independent of its mass; that was Galileo's observation. So yes, massless particles are deflected by gravity, by the same amount as massive particles. The deflection depends only on the impact parameter and initial speed.
I was under the impression that the force of gravity would be 0 for a massless particle. According to newtons laws of gravitation
F = GMm/R^2 (where G is gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of particles and R is the distance).
If force is 0, then I infered that acceleration would be 0 and trajectory would be a straight line.
Assuming a test particle of negligible (could be zero, but doesn't have to be) mass, with initial speed c. You can see the calculation outlined in, for instance, Ohanian and Ruffini (IIRC).
Was it assumed for the newtonian prediction that photons have a slightly positive mass? Because I still calculate that a 0 mass particle results in a force of gravity = 0 using Newtonian gravitation.
Did Newton assume that 0 mass particles require no energy to accelerate (because they have 0 mass), and would simply accelerate in gravity at the same rate as massive particles because other massive particles all happened to accelerate equally regardless of mass.
If that is the case, then my understanding was incomplete and I was too quick to conclude that newtonian model predicts 0 deflection of massless particles in a gravity field, and I will withdraw my statement because I would be wrong to take that position.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed,
no. I believe what we are saying is, because your parents have been ripped off, and your grandparents were treated as animals, you are going to be at a competetive disadvantage with others, on average, who have not been wronged in such ways, and have inherited some cash to go along with the privilege.
and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings)
good point: conservatives sure as hell aren't going to willingly part with any money.
can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say
if it is racist to admit being a benefactor of previous crimes commited against people of a particular race.
- but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
You are right. That is what the definition of racist is.
But I'm not sure what your point is.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed.
are you saying that affirmative action should be abolished because administration costs hurts corporate america?
Or are you saying that people who work in administering affirmative action programs are guilt ridden, and thus to impose such a job on anyone is inhumane?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long.
ummm... because women and blacks just suddenly sprang into existence 40 years ago...?
I follow.
When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
Umm.... black people and women have actually been around longer than 20 years.
I've seen many more examples of undeserving white people in top management. Do you have any statistics to show that women and minorities are more likely to fail when put into top management positions than white men?
But the bottom line is. America is built on the backs of slaves.
It doesn't matter if affirmative action is difficult to implement for white people.
To accept that argument would be to say that the defendant in a civil proceedings be excused from paying damages because it costs money.
Historically, white owners left their wealth in lands and properties to their white kids. They obtained their wealth with the help of involuntary slaves, and stole the land from the first nations peoples, who they commited genocide against. That wealth should have gone in part to those slaves, and natives, to be left to todays generation of black americans and native-americans.
I don't like the liberalist propaganda I hear about how the government needs to be very big and intrusive in order to take care of its citizens. I can take care of myself; I don't really need to be watched, except for the occasional helpful police officer...
Who will protect you from inhumane exploitation by huge multinational corporations?
A tiny, ineffectual, bankrupt government?
A helpful police officer?
Charity?
Faith?
Note: The democrats have been too spineless to answer that question as well. They should just admit it, and stop pretending that strong government is in and of itself the evil of all evils.
I am using the terms 'strong' or 'weak' as comparisons to the strength of private corporate forces which are by their capitalist nature, compelled to try to dominate the global market (the world).
Furthermore, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anonymity in a public place. A right to privacy, sure, but not a right to anonymity.
I do believe the American constitution does guarantee the right to life, liberty and also freedom from unreasonable search or seizure.
In terms of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, that would seem to imply that provided that you are not causing a disturbance or infringing on anyone else in anyway, you should have the right to anonymity.
If you must identify yourself to merely exist that would seem to suggest that such existence is actually a legal priviledge, rather than a right.
And using the terms in public to mean, "place with fewer rights", is to suggest that only property owners have full rights, and that security of person or liberty is not a true right, but a side benefit of the priviledge of owning property.
If the owner of an airplane wants to ask for ID, that is of course his business. I am opposed to the state mandating that I must ask you or anyone else for ID.
The next step is to make it illegal to communicate with anyone without proof of ID.
Because of course in the information age, communication can be even more dangerous than an airplane.
Under newtonian physics, wouldn't photons just be particles with a particular mass, and wouldn't the amount of deflection be dependant on the velocity of that particle, the mass of that particle, and the distance from that particle to the source of gravity (the SUN), and wouldn't photons be able to travel at arbitrary velocities (rather than simply c).
And if photons have a mass of 0, is it now true that they be unattracted by gravity according to newtonian physics?
Under newtonian physics, wouldn't the velocity photons (relative to us) be dependant on the velocity (relative to us) of the star which emmited them?
If someone actually assigned a particular mass to photons and a particular velocity, and performed a calculation based on expected deflection of such "photon" based on the mass of the Sun, and then called that the "Newtonian Prediction", then I take back what I said about the "Newtonian Prediction".
However, knowing that photons have 0 rest mass. And under Newtonian physics the mass of objects do not change under velocity. A photon would not be attracted to gravity and would not deflect in a gravitational field at all.
Under what conditions did the "Newtonian Prediction" predict that photons would deflected by gravity half as much as in reality?
I am sure they have thought of this, physics being rather bright types,
But this was a "phenomenon" was only recently discovered (50 years ago) by an economist.
And while his pendulum has been able to detect it, astrophysicists have given up, and have moved on to trying to detect gravity waves from coliding black-holes thousands of lightyears away.
If gravity is blocked by mass, it would be a simple thing to simply observe a pendulum at night time and compare that to daytime. The earth would block much more solar gravity than the puny little moon.
Then again, we would need a pendulum which is attracted to solar gravity because every pendulum on earth which swings, is doing so because of the gravitational attraction of the Earth.
Pay attention... pendulums on earth fall towards the EARTH, NOT THE SUN.
And another thing:
if you allow a pendulum to swing freely for 24 hours, the reason its path will trace out a circle, is *because of inertia* and the earth is rotating. THE PENDULUM IS NOT SWINGING TOWARDS THE SUN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Are there any economists here who can explain this more clearly?
Ironically, this was hailed as a proof of Einstein's relativity in the early 20th century, since the angle of deflection observed is much closer to the relativistic prediction, than to the Newtonian prediction.
The 9th Circuit court ruling is that software developers *can* be held liable,
a) if their software did not have significant non-infringing uses, OR, b) if the software developers are in a position of power or control over the specific infringing activity and have a right and ability to stop the infringing activity AND had knowledge of the specific infringing activity OR c) the software developers provide material aid (such as providing computer servers) in commiting the software infringement and had knowledge of the specific infringing activity.
The 9th Circuit did not want to expand copyright law to include parties which merely produced technology with significant non-infringing uses, who had no way of preventing the piracy that did take place, and did not provide any material aid to any piracy once the piracy become known to them.
The decision (as a few others pointed out) did not give blanket immunity.
What I want to know is, whatever happened to supply-side pricing. You know, figuring out your cost to supply, and charging a reasonable markup based on that?
You mean 20000% markup isn't reasonable?
I know it's a bit of an anti-establishment thought, but I'm not sure demand-side pricing is ethical. The whole idea of trying to take your customers for everything you can sounds so much colder when you look at it from their side.
IMHO: it only becomes unethical when you are dealing with monopolies.
In other cases, customers are allowed to take their suppliers for everything they can, and balance is maintained. Well.... if not balance.. then at least ethics.
You can't win... just the other day was a slashdot story about NOT having to present ID in order to travel...
Are you suggesting that people should not complain when the system which has been imposed upon America (and quite frankly the world) by this administration, without any public consultation, and with implied threats against other nations which dont get on side, and in contradiction with historic American values of liberty and freedom, don't function as advertised?
The root of the complaint is that this administration is causing disruptions in people's lives, without accomplishing the stated objective (beneficial or otherwise). i.e. America is not safer. It is absolutely impossible to secure every single mile of road, every train track, every building, every hospital, every boat, every mail parcel, every nook and crany inside or outside of America. And as long as Al Qaeda or islamic fundamentalists still exist, there will be unsecured targets to attack.
Unless you consider the fact that you can be detained for having initials which match those on some terrorist list to be a form of "safe". This process is misdirected. It is a huge waste of resources to detain the WRONG PEOPLE.
Americans used to think of freedom as a right, and a threat to that freedom as a form of danger.
People, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I personally don't think showing ID to travel on a plane is that bad.
What about traveling on a train? What about walking on a public road, or visiting a doctor? What about being present in a public place? What about being present in a private place?
What if your ID had been deleted from the database?
You don't think it is bad because you dont think you have a RIGHT privacy, and you don't appreciate that in this information age, privacy is just as much a necessary protection against tyranny as the right to bare arms.
The right to bare arms is actually meaningless without privacy. You can't possibly win a war, when the enemy knows everything about you. Once privacy is abolished, then the environment is ripe for a tyranny to empower itself. A tyranny, supported by information technology the likes the world has never seen before.
Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".
But then again, the Soviet Union was communist.
You don't get stopped at every road at every state border with people asking for papers *YET*. Wait for it.
But this administration has reserved such authority for itself. Not to mention complete and absolute surveilance over all communications.
Imagine what will happen, the next time the terrorists make a strike against America. It will be lock down time.
Thats what they do in prisons. Every hour or so.. everything locks down, including guards, nobody can leave their section, and everyone reports a body count in their sections. So if a single person is missing, it will be detected before the escaped inmate can get to far.
However in america's future, the number of people in jail or on parole will increase from 6 million, to over 300 million. Everyone will be on parole.
Afterall... aren't we all born in sin? There is all the moral justification you need to put everyone on parole from day 1.
That is America's future, if America keeps going down this path of fear.
Would you like a Department of Home Security Officer to visit your house each day to make sure you haven't moved or left with ciy without reporting in?
Perhaps, a friendly high speed internet video phone call, secured by longhorn. It would only take 30 seconds of you and your families time each day. A small price to pay for freedom.
original: If the 9th Circuit were truly activist they would have caved in to the demands of MGM and the others and issued a ruling inconsistent with present statuory law, creating new positive law from the bench.
your explanation. By activist I believe he means that usually, instead of ruling on the law, they create new law through their rulings.
Sounds the same to me... you are both saying "activist court" = courts which create new law.
original: This court is not activist, it is merely more liberal than many courts, just as the 4th Circuit is more conservative than most.
you: If this means they are more "liberal", we definatly don't need any more of these types of judges around.
?? You must be advocating activist judges.
The original poster said that the 9th Circuit court is NON-ACTIVIST, but they are liberal.
Are you saying, that if being a NON-ACTIVIST judge means being a liberal judge, then we dont need any more of those (non-activist) judges?
Perhaps you would be in favor of just putting Mr. activist President Dubya Bush in charge of the judiciary. That could save enough money to finance some additional cages at guantanimo or other offshore locations presumed to be beyond reach of the law. And as an additional benefit no one would bother suing Cheney to disclose what he and his energy conglomerate friends have been planning for the american suckers, I mean people, behind closed doors, because with Dubya in charge of the new conservative activist judiciary, Cheney and Bush could simply meet at work, to discuss the verdict rather than having to go on a fishing trip to discuss the case.
Of course the activist house may still go against the wishes of America,(read: wishes of Dick Cheney), and then.. well... don't think we don't know who you are. We are watching everything.
Look outside of your igloo and you will find many countries that can handle the hoooooot tropic climate in Toronto just fine. The mean maximum air temperature is 26.1 C (79 F; mean max. Temperature in July for the last 105 years). The mean minimum air temperature for the same month of July is 15 C (59 F).
Using that kind of math like we could argue that no one on earth requires cooling. Because the average global annual temp is a cool 14.6 degrees celsius (58.3 farenheit). source: (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/Plane tEarthScience/GlobalWarming/)
It is not the average high temperatures which matters. It is the maximum temperatures which matter. The actual temperature goes above 86 farenheit (30 degrees celsius) at least on several occassions during each summer and occassionaly for days at a time, and occassionally above 100. Once you have included humidex the apparent temperature goes even higher, and when you include localized factors like living or working in well insulated buildings and homes designed to withstand the cold of winter, the indoor temperature in an non-airconditioned building would almost always exceed the outside air temperature.
The average temperatures also "Average" the extremes between being in the shade and being directly in the sun. And many buildings are not in the shade.
With all that said:
On "average" (even though averages are not very useful in this instance), Toronto still gets higher average temperatures in July than the following cities at their respective hottest times of year*:
Paris (France), Prague (Czech Republic), Istanbul (Turkey), London (UK), Mexico City (Mexico),Nairobi (Kenya), Vienna (Austria)
and the same average high temperature as lisbon(Portugal),San José (Costa Rica), Sydney (Australia) during their hottest times of year.*
* by hottest time of year, I mean, whichever month from the following (Jan, April, July, Oct) had the hottest average daily high temperature for that city.
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries.
Wait... first you were talking about the justification to invade Iraq, and now you are alluding to some higher strategy.
Why not just tell the TRUTH? Why does the Bush administration need to LIE about the reasons for going to war. This is a democracy, not a fascist state, and the people must be trusted to make the right choices democratically. To believe that the government may/should take unilateral action in spite of the electorate is well..... I don't know what that is called. fascist?
Why have 9/11 and "Iraq" been discussed in the same context? Not because, as some liberals mindlessly drone that Bush and his "cronies" wanted to "fool" the American people into thinking that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 (and no one in the administration has EVER said anything of the sort;
So 70% of the american people simply decided to believe that connection for no reason. SOMEONE was putting the thought into the minds of the public.
additionally, Iraq does have proven ties with al-Qaeda, even while NOT having been involved in 9/11 - but that ridiculously misses the point!);
And the point was stated that "Saddam Hussein is an iminent threat".... Saddam Hussein was a secular leader, and while he was a brutal dictator and an asshole, he was also helping to prevent the spread of islamic fundamentalism. Which is the reason America supported Saddam until the time he stepped out of line and invaded another dictatorship known as Kuwait.
rather, they're talked about in the same breath because 9/11 is but a mere taste of what the US and Western Europe can expect if the problems in the mideast at large aren't dealt with preemptively. (Oops, is that a dirty word?)
Dealing with a problem in such a self aggrandizing , unilateral and dishonest way, just throws fuel onto the fire. You honestly think, kicking the shit out of Saddam Hussein has weakened radical islam? And now to follow it up, with some farce of a show trial... this only weakens the bonds between democratic nations on earth and gives the enemy more opportunities for attack.
Hussein should be handed over to the Hague.
"pre-emption" is not a dirty word when applied to a bona fide iminent threat, but it is a polite way to say "war of aggression" when applied pointlessly to a non-threat (some 12 or so years late), and results in self-aggrandizement (i.e. restricting reconstruction contracts to coalition member based companies only, does not help Iraq, it lessens competition, raises the cost of reconstruction, and rewards coalition members).
Democracies go to war because of what is right and good. Not in order to earn cash prizes. It is morally offensive.
And certain multi-national corporations with very close ties to the Bush administration benefited splendidly from the war in Iraq. It is a conflict of interest. It smells like corruption. And it is certain to weaken the unity of democracies around the world, and give the enemy the chance to strike.
9/11 CHANGED the threshold for dealing with things that could potentially execute devastating blows to the US, and to our economy with which our prosperity and our very lives are so dependent.
I dont see how 9/11 did that at all. Military strategists knew of the posibility for such an attack. Everyone knew of such possibilities.
9/11 changed the threshold for censorship and removing civil liberties and silencing dissent among all those who have differing opinions. And I'm not talking about the opinions of terrorists. I'm talking about the opinions of law abiding citizens who aren't morons, and when you claim to have proof, expect to see proof.
But at least if your computer is loaded down with the heavy burden of generating POW tokens, the rate at which it can send spam and harm others is reduced. And thus RPOW would have accomplished something beneficial.
don't worry. This arbitrary definition, gives gaseous planet a bonus because their volumes are larger than they deserve because their densities are so low, and thereby capture more possible centers of orbit.
Then again, by this definition, no black hole could ever have a satelite.
Slashdot Mirror
The trajectory of a particle under the influence of a gravitational field is independent of its mass; that was Galileo's observation. So yes, massless particles are deflected by gravity, by the same amount as massive particles. The deflection depends only on the impact parameter and initial speed.
I was under the impression that the force of gravity would be 0 for a massless particle.
According to newtons laws of gravitation
F = GMm/R^2 (where G is gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of particles and R is the distance).
If force is 0, then I infered that acceleration would be 0 and trajectory would be a straight line.
Assuming a test particle of negligible (could be zero, but doesn't have to be) mass, with initial speed c. You can see the calculation outlined in, for instance, Ohanian and Ruffini (IIRC).
Was it assumed for the newtonian prediction that photons have a slightly positive mass? Because I still calculate that a 0 mass particle results in a force of gravity = 0 using Newtonian gravitation.
Did Newton assume that 0 mass particles require no energy to accelerate (because they have 0 mass), and would simply accelerate in gravity at the same rate as massive particles because other massive particles all happened to accelerate equally regardless of mass.
If that is the case, then my understanding was incomplete and I was too quick to conclude that newtonian model predicts 0 deflection of massless particles in a gravity field, and I will withdraw my statement because I would be wrong to take that position.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed,
no. I believe what we are saying is, because your parents have been ripped off, and your grandparents were treated as animals, you are going to be at a competetive disadvantage with others, on average, who have not been wronged in such ways, and have inherited some cash to go along with the privilege.
and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings)
good point: conservatives sure as hell aren't going to willingly part with any money.
can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say
if it is racist to admit being a benefactor of previous crimes commited against people of a particular race.
- but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
You are right. That is what the definition of racist is.
But I'm not sure what your point is.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed.
are you saying that affirmative action should be abolished because administration costs hurts corporate america?
Or are you saying that people who work in administering affirmative action programs are guilt ridden, and thus to impose such a job on anyone is inhumane?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long.
ummm... because women and blacks just suddenly sprang into existence 40 years ago...?
I follow.
When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
Umm.... black people and women have actually been around longer than 20 years.
I've seen many more examples of undeserving white people in top management. Do you have any statistics to show that women and minorities are more likely to fail when put into top management positions than white men?
But the bottom line is. America is built on the backs of slaves.
It doesn't matter if affirmative action is difficult to implement for white people.
To accept that argument would be to say that the defendant in a civil proceedings be excused from paying damages because it costs money.
Historically, white owners left their wealth in lands and properties to their white kids. They obtained their wealth with the help of involuntary slaves, and stole the land from the first nations peoples, who they commited genocide against. That wealth should have gone in part to those slaves, and natives, to be left to todays generation of black americans and native-americans.
I don't like the liberalist propaganda I hear about how the government needs to be very big and intrusive in order to take care of its citizens. I can take care of myself; I don't really need to be watched, except for the occasional helpful police officer...
Who will protect you from inhumane exploitation by huge multinational corporations?
A tiny, ineffectual, bankrupt government?
A helpful police officer?
Charity?
Faith?
Note: The democrats have been too spineless to answer that question as well. They should just admit it, and stop pretending that strong government is in and of itself the evil of all evils.
I am using the terms 'strong' or 'weak' as comparisons to the strength of private corporate forces which are by their capitalist nature, compelled to try to dominate the global market (the world).
Furthermore, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anonymity in a public place. A right to privacy, sure, but not a right to anonymity.
I do believe the American constitution does guarantee the right to life, liberty and also freedom from unreasonable search or seizure.
In terms of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, that would seem to imply that provided that you are not causing a disturbance or infringing on anyone else in anyway, you should have the right to anonymity.
If you must identify yourself to merely exist that would seem to suggest that such existence is actually a legal priviledge, rather than a right.
And using the terms in public to mean, "place with fewer rights", is to suggest that only property owners have full rights, and that security of person or liberty is not a true right, but a side benefit of the priviledge of owning property.
If the owner of an airplane wants to ask for ID, that is of course his business. I am opposed to the state mandating that I must ask you or anyone else for ID.
The next step is to make it illegal to communicate with anyone without proof of ID.
Because of course in the information age, communication can be even more dangerous than an airplane.
Under newtonian physics, wouldn't photons just be particles with a particular mass, and wouldn't the amount of deflection be dependant on the velocity of that particle, the mass of that particle, and the distance from that particle to the source of gravity (the SUN), and wouldn't photons be able to travel at arbitrary velocities (rather than simply c).
And if photons have a mass of 0, is it now true that they be unattracted by gravity according to newtonian physics?
Under newtonian physics, wouldn't the velocity photons (relative to us) be dependant on the velocity (relative to us) of the star which emmited them?
If someone actually assigned a particular mass to photons and a particular velocity, and performed a calculation based on expected deflection of such "photon" based on the mass of the Sun, and then called that the "Newtonian Prediction", then I take back what I said about the "Newtonian Prediction".
However, knowing that photons have 0 rest mass. And under Newtonian physics the mass of objects do not change under velocity. A photon would not be attracted to gravity and would not deflect in a gravitational field at all.
Under what conditions did the "Newtonian Prediction" predict that photons would deflected by gravity half as much as in reality?
I am sure they have thought of this, physics being rather bright types,
But this was a "phenomenon" was only recently discovered (50 years ago) by an economist.
And while his pendulum has been able to detect it, astrophysicists have given up, and have moved on to trying to detect gravity waves from coliding black-holes thousands of lightyears away.
This also could explain why astronomers can't find the missing dark matter.
Except that the sun the moon the earth and the pendulum are all accelerating way to fast to have anything to do with MOND.
If gravity is blocked by mass, it would be a simple thing to simply observe a pendulum at night time and compare that to daytime.
The earth would block much more solar gravity than the puny little moon.
Then again, we would need a pendulum which is attracted to solar gravity because every pendulum on earth which swings, is doing so because of the gravitational attraction of the Earth.
Pay attention... pendulums on earth fall towards the EARTH, NOT THE SUN.
And another thing:
if you allow a pendulum to swing freely for 24 hours, the reason its path will trace out a circle, is *because of inertia* and the earth is rotating. THE PENDULUM IS NOT SWINGING TOWARDS THE SUN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Are there any economists here who can explain this more clearly?
Don't you mean parascientific?
Ironically, this was hailed as a proof of Einstein's relativity in the early 20th century, since the angle of deflection observed is much closer to the relativistic prediction, than to the Newtonian prediction.
the newtonian prediction being : 0.
I propose madating that all rebates must be payable on the spot. At the point of purchase.
This might put an end to such nonesense.
And this book is available at Best Buy?
The 9th Circuit court ruling is that software developers *can* be held liable,
a) if their software did not have significant non-infringing uses, OR,
b) if the software developers are in a position of power or control over the specific infringing activity and have a right and ability to stop the infringing activity AND had knowledge of the specific infringing activity OR
c) the software developers provide material aid (such as providing computer servers) in commiting the software infringement and had knowledge of the specific infringing activity.
The 9th Circuit did not want to expand copyright law to include parties which merely produced technology with significant non-infringing uses, who had no way of preventing the piracy that did take place, and did not provide any material aid to any piracy once the piracy become known to them.
The decision (as a few others pointed out) did not give blanket immunity.
What I want to know is, whatever happened to supply-side pricing. You know, figuring out your cost to supply, and charging a reasonable markup based on that?
You mean 20000% markup isn't reasonable?
I know it's a bit of an anti-establishment thought, but I'm not sure demand-side pricing is ethical. The whole idea of trying to take your customers for everything you can sounds so much colder when you look at it from their side.
IMHO: it only becomes unethical when you are dealing with monopolies.
In other cases, customers are allowed to take their suppliers for everything they can, and balance is maintained. Well.... if not balance.. then at least ethics.
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US or the Israeli Government."
wait, that is redundant. Isn't the US government a branch of the Israeli Government?
(that was a joke. We know it is the other way around.)
You can't win... just the other day was a slashdot story about NOT having to present ID in order to travel...
Are you suggesting that people should not complain when the system which has been imposed upon America (and quite frankly the world) by this administration, without any public consultation, and with implied threats against other nations which dont get on side, and in contradiction with historic American values of liberty and freedom, don't function as advertised?
The root of the complaint is that this administration is causing disruptions in people's lives, without accomplishing the stated objective (beneficial or otherwise). i.e. America is not safer. It is absolutely impossible to secure every single mile of road, every train track, every building, every hospital, every boat, every mail parcel, every nook and crany inside or outside of America. And as long as Al Qaeda or islamic fundamentalists still exist, there will be unsecured targets to attack.
Unless you consider the fact that you can be detained for having initials which match those on some terrorist list to be a form of "safe". This process is misdirected. It is a huge waste of resources to detain the WRONG PEOPLE.
Americans used to think of freedom as a right, and a threat to that freedom as a form of danger.
People, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I personally don't think showing ID to travel on a plane is that bad.
What about traveling on a train?
What about walking on a public road, or visiting a doctor?
What about being present in a public place?
What about being present in a private place?
What if your ID had been deleted from the database?
You don't think it is bad because you dont think you have a RIGHT privacy, and you don't appreciate that in this information age, privacy is just as much a necessary protection against tyranny as the right to bare arms.
The right to bare arms is actually meaningless without privacy. You can't possibly win a war, when the enemy knows everything about you. Once privacy is abolished, then the environment is ripe for a tyranny to empower itself. A tyranny, supported by information technology the likes the world has never seen before.
Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".
But then again, the Soviet Union was communist.
You don't get stopped at every road at every state border with people asking for papers *YET*.
Wait for it.
But this administration has reserved such authority for itself. Not to mention complete and absolute surveilance over all communications.
Imagine what will happen, the next time the terrorists make a strike against America. It will be lock down time.
Thats what they do in prisons. Every hour or so.. everything locks down, including guards, nobody can leave their section, and everyone reports a body count in their sections. So if a single person is missing, it will be detected before the escaped inmate can get to far.
However in america's future, the number of people in jail or on parole will increase from 6 million, to over 300 million. Everyone will be on parole.
Afterall... aren't we all born in sin? There is all the moral justification you need to put everyone on parole from day 1.
That is America's future, if America keeps going down this path of fear.
Would you like a Department of Home Security Officer to visit your house each day to make sure you haven't moved or left with ciy without reporting in?
Perhaps, a friendly high speed internet video phone call, secured by longhorn. It would only take 30 seconds of you and your families time each day. A small price to pay for freedom.
Of course, "terrorists" need not check in.
original:
If the 9th Circuit were truly activist they would have caved in to the demands of MGM and the others and issued a ruling inconsistent with present statuory law, creating new positive law from the bench.
your explanation.
By activist I believe he means that usually, instead of ruling on the law, they create new law through their rulings.
Sounds the same to me... you are both saying "activist court" = courts which create new law.
original:
This court is not activist, it is merely more liberal than many courts, just as the 4th Circuit is more conservative than most.
you:
If this means they are more "liberal", we definatly don't need any more of these types of judges around.
??
You must be advocating activist judges.
The original poster said that the 9th Circuit court is NON-ACTIVIST, but they are liberal.
Are you saying, that if being a NON-ACTIVIST judge means being a liberal judge, then we dont need any more of those (non-activist) judges?
Perhaps you would be in favor of just putting Mr. activist President Dubya Bush in charge of the judiciary. That could save enough money to finance some additional cages at guantanimo or other offshore locations presumed to be beyond reach of the law. And as an additional benefit no one would bother suing Cheney to disclose what he and his energy conglomerate friends have been planning for the american suckers, I mean people, behind closed doors, because with Dubya in charge of the new conservative activist judiciary, Cheney and Bush could simply meet at work, to discuss the verdict rather than having to go on a fishing trip to discuss the case.
Of course the activist house may still go against the wishes of America,(read: wishes of Dick Cheney), and then.. well... don't think we don't know who you are. We are watching everything.
Look outside of your igloo and you will find many countries that can handle the hoooooot tropic climate in Toronto just fine.
The mean maximum air temperature is 26.1 C (79 F; mean max. Temperature in July for the last 105 years). The mean minimum air temperature for the same month of July is 15 C (59 F).
Using that kind of math like we could argue that no one on earth requires cooling. Because the average global annual temp is a cool 14.6 degrees celsius (58.3 farenheit).
source: (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/Plan
It is not the average high temperatures which matters. It is the maximum temperatures which matter. The actual temperature goes above 86 farenheit (30 degrees celsius) at least on several occassions during each summer and occassionaly for days at a time, and occassionally above 100. Once you have included humidex the apparent temperature goes even higher, and when you include localized factors like living or working in well insulated buildings and homes designed to withstand the cold of winter, the indoor temperature in an non-airconditioned building would almost always exceed the outside air temperature.
The average temperatures also "Average" the extremes between being in the shade and being directly in the sun. And many buildings are not in the shade.
With all that said:
On "average" (even though averages are not very useful in this instance), Toronto still gets higher average temperatures in July than the following cities at their respective hottest times of year*:
Paris (France), Prague (Czech Republic), Istanbul (Turkey), London (UK), Mexico City (Mexico),Nairobi (Kenya), Vienna (Austria)
and the same average high temperature as
lisbon(Portugal),San José (Costa Rica), Sydney (Australia)
during their hottest times of year.*
source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004587.html
* by hottest time of year, I mean, whichever month from the following (Jan, April, July, Oct) had the hottest average daily high temperature for that city.
Why does a city at 43 degrees north latitude need cooling systems at all?
Because it gets too hot our fucking igloos, smartass!
How's about think first and then build intelligently - instead of build first and then cool down?
Great idea! Of course that wont do shit for any of the buildings that have already been built.
Toronto's electricity consumption does not peak in the summer months because of lighting requirements.
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries.
.. I don't know what that is called. fascist?
Wait... first you were talking about the justification to invade Iraq, and now you are alluding to some higher strategy.
Why not just tell the TRUTH? Why does the Bush administration need to LIE about the reasons for going to war. This is a democracy, not a fascist state, and the people must be trusted to make the right choices democratically. To believe that the government may/should take unilateral action in spite of the electorate is well...
Why have 9/11 and "Iraq" been discussed in the same context? Not because, as some liberals mindlessly drone that Bush and his "cronies" wanted to "fool" the American people into thinking that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 (and no one in the administration has EVER said anything of the sort;
So 70% of the american people simply decided to believe that connection for no reason. SOMEONE was putting the thought into the minds of the public.
additionally, Iraq does have proven ties with al-Qaeda, even while NOT having been involved in 9/11 - but that ridiculously misses the point!);
And the point was stated that "Saddam Hussein is an iminent threat".... Saddam Hussein was a secular leader, and while he was a brutal dictator and an asshole, he was also helping to prevent the spread of islamic fundamentalism. Which is the reason America supported Saddam until the time he stepped out of line and invaded another dictatorship known as Kuwait.
rather, they're talked about in the same breath because 9/11 is but a mere taste of what the US and Western Europe can expect if the problems in the mideast at large aren't dealt with preemptively. (Oops, is that a dirty word?)
Dealing with a problem in such a self aggrandizing , unilateral and dishonest way, just throws fuel onto the fire. You honestly think, kicking the shit out of Saddam Hussein has weakened radical islam? And now to follow it up, with some farce of a show trial... this only weakens the bonds between democratic nations on earth and gives the enemy more opportunities for attack.
Hussein should be handed over to the Hague.
"pre-emption" is not a dirty word when applied to a bona fide iminent threat, but it is a polite way to say "war of aggression" when applied pointlessly to a non-threat (some 12 or so years late), and results in self-aggrandizement (i.e. restricting reconstruction contracts to coalition member based companies only, does not help Iraq, it lessens competition, raises the cost of reconstruction, and rewards coalition members).
Democracies go to war because of what is right and good. Not in order to earn cash prizes. It is morally offensive.
And certain multi-national corporations with very close ties to the Bush administration benefited splendidly from the war in Iraq. It is a conflict of interest. It smells like corruption. And it is certain to weaken the unity of democracies around the world, and give the enemy the chance to strike.
9/11 CHANGED the threshold for dealing with things that could potentially execute devastating blows to the US, and to our economy with which our prosperity and our very lives are so dependent.
I dont see how 9/11 did that at all. Military strategists knew of the posibility for such an attack. Everyone knew of such possibilities.
9/11 changed the threshold for censorship and removing civil liberties and silencing dissent among all those who have differing opinions. And I'm not talking about the opinions of terrorists. I'm talking about the opinions of law abiding citizens who aren't morons, and when you claim to have proof, expect to see proof.
So
I was just trying to be funny.
But at least if your computer is loaded down with the heavy burden of generating POW tokens, the rate at which it can send spam and harm others is reduced. And thus RPOW would have accomplished something beneficial.
don't worry. This arbitrary definition, gives gaseous planet a bonus because their volumes are larger than they deserve because their densities are so low, and thereby capture more possible centers of orbit.
Then again, by this definition, no black hole could ever have a satelite.
Not that they deserve one.
If you can burn it to CD, can't you just rip it back from the CD into a non DRM format?