However, I'm trying to think of the last time I've been to the NoScript site. I think the last time I was there was when I installed NoScript. Ever since then, Iceweasel has updated the program without ever going to the site.
The fix to copyrighting everything is to raise the bar from something minimally creative to a higher standard. Better yet, require no registration for a copyright of a few years, but require registration for something along the lines of 10-15 years.
Why should individuals who don't have lots of money not be able to copyright a book they wrote?
Do you have any idea what it costs to register a copyright? $35.
If you can't pony up $35 to register the book that took you several months (if not years) to write, then well...I'm at a loss here. That's like turning down a job solely for the lack of casual Fridays. And if that scenario ever popped up, I'd think that any number of publishers would be willing to advance the guy $35.
I don't know about karma, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid. She knew the risks of cocaine when she decided to use it. Unfortunately, only her family has to live with the consequences.
I know for a fact that the cable franchise agreement in Fairborn, OH is *not* exclusive. Guess how many cable companies they have. If you guessed "1", you're right.
Last mile access is a natural monopoly in many (but not all) cases. Public infrastructure, private services. That's the way to go.
That's true of any loan. Loans drive up the cost of any item for the reasons you put forth in your argument. However, the cure is worse than the disease here. Tell any business that they no longer have any access to credit and watch a shockingly large amount of them go kaput.
The best way to be "recession proof" is requiring significant down payments on loans. This will decrease the cost of the collateral, but make it harder for people to get the loan. It's a sliding scale from 100% down to 0% down (and perhaps negative amounts down as we saw in CA and FL).
It was a new year's resolution for me. Cold turkey. I slept it off for a day and had a headache for 3.
I've had a caffeinated beverage here and there. I can't stand it. I get nervous and shaky. Even if I wanted to go back, I couldn't. I get too "drugged up" to function.
I'm not worried about Mexicans coming to the US and not learning English. In a lot of communities they can get by without knowing English. I think learning English would definitely behoove them, but by no means should it be required.
There's a certain level of creativity and uniqueness needed for something to be considered a 'work' too;
Yes. The so-called "spark of creativity" standard.
a single sentence or two are not automatically copyrighted with any certainty or you could be sued for writing just about anything.
Not so fast there. Copyright attaches to how you got the "copy". If I actually copy a copyrighted work w/o permission, it is infringement. If I come up with the same work independently, it is not infringement (have fun proving that though). Of course, this all assumes at the outset that the work was copyrightable in the first place.
This is unlike patents where creating the same process independently is not protected.
The only thing is that AIG was betting, IIRC, a few orders of magnitude more than their assets. Outstanding credit default swap contracts rival the GDP of the entire world (around $55 trillion).
Would a casino allow you to plop down a few trillion on black in the form of an IOU? Doubtful. AIG basically did the same thing. They kept doubling down with money that didn't exist.
Let's take any movie you care to use as an example. Five years down the road to keep their competitors from making a sequel, they make a really POS sequel on a budget of oh, $1000. They continue to do that ad infinitum and now have an unlimited monopoly on the first film.
How about let's just make it 5 years total. You'll get a copyright on the 2nd movie and you'll be noted as being the author of the 1st. Your sequels will be official/canon/etc. The ones the other guys make will not.
Contrary to popular belief, authors aren't harmed by someone else making works based on their works. Just imagine if someone else could continue Futurama or Firefly. They could take it in a new direction, keep it much the same, etc. People could go in different directions. There's enough room for everybody!
So if the property right on my car expired, may anyone take it and make use of it? If so, do they get to assert a right on it? If not, is my car just in the "public domain" and anyone anywhere could use it as they saw fit?
If two people both want to use my car, who gets to use it?
Actually, the implied goal is to provide an incentive for the original invention -- the theory being that no one will create anything without it being protected.
That's part of it, but not the whole thing.
Patents are public domain. The idea is that the inventor publishes how his invention works. He then gets a monopoly over its use for a limited time and when that time expires, everyone can use it.
I love hearing that a process is a "secret, patented" process. Um, last I checked I can look up any patent. Try this one. Doesn't seem very secret to me.
A large problem with patents with respect to technology (especially software) is that the patents are of such a long term that they are essentially of infinite length. Who the hell would want to use LZW anymore?
Maintaining a house of prostitution (in the good old USA) is a nuisance. I don't see why maintaining a website of prostitution cannot be a nuisance also.
It is because no website lives next door to Craigslist. Craigslist does not lower the property values of anyone's property.
The whole "not in the right state of mind" excuse is bullshit too.
Yeah, but not for the reason you claim.
She knew at the outset that her drinking would cause her judgment to be impaired. She accepted that when she started drinking in the first place.
She created the situation that lead to her impairment. Therefore, she should shoulder the responsibility for anything that occurs because of the impairment.
What about the wife that won't have sex with her husband until he does some chore?
Isn't that prostitution?
In Ohio, that would technically be prostitution. Ohio only requires that the sex be in exchange for "anything of value". Chores are certainly something of value.
"Prostitute" is also defined in a way to not exempt a spouse. Have fun prosecuting that, though.
However, on the husband's side of the ledger, if the wife makes the offer of sex for mowing the lawn, that is solicitation. That could raise an eyebrow from many an overzealous DA.
Oh those were the days. At least my prof explained the difference.
With a #define, the preprocessor picks up the constant while using const delays it to the compiler. Of course, he said they were equally good, just a matter of style.
We never did learn why we had to put
using namespace std;
near the top of the program other than because we were supposed to use the standard namespace. I never bothered to ask or find out because by that time I had realized I'm an atrocious programmer and wouldn't be doing that for a living.
Congress can't just outright prohibit things without relying specifically on one of their powers in the Constitution. They relied on the Commerce Clause here.
They're basically saying that since the camera crossed a state line, that counts as interstate commerce, and therefore, they can regulate your usage of it.
So I have to take pictures of my and my girlfriend's driver's licenses before I take a picture of my John Thomas or my girlfriend's Bonnie and Clyde?
Right. This law is certainly narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. This akin to lighting a cigarette with a nuclear bomb.
And while we're on the subject, since when was taking pictures in a private residence within the purview of the federal government? Thanks again, Scalia.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that if I boycotted every company who did something disagreeable, I'd have to quit my job and return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
That's all great. More power to you.
However, I'm trying to think of the last time I've been to the NoScript site. I think the last time I was there was when I installed NoScript. Ever since then, Iceweasel has updated the program without ever going to the site.
The fix to copyrighting everything is to raise the bar from something minimally creative to a higher standard. Better yet, require no registration for a copyright of a few years, but require registration for something along the lines of 10-15 years.
The infallible resource has your back:
The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 107
Do you have any idea what it costs to register a copyright? $35.
If you can't pony up $35 to register the book that took you several months (if not years) to write, then well...I'm at a loss here. That's like turning down a job solely for the lack of casual Fridays. And if that scenario ever popped up, I'd think that any number of publishers would be willing to advance the guy $35.
I don't know about karma, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid. She knew the risks of cocaine when she decided to use it. Unfortunately, only her family has to live with the consequences.
How sure are you of that?
I know for a fact that the cable franchise agreement in Fairborn, OH is *not* exclusive. Guess how many cable companies they have. If you guessed "1", you're right.
Last mile access is a natural monopoly in many (but not all) cases. Public infrastructure, private services. That's the way to go.
That's true of any loan. Loans drive up the cost of any item for the reasons you put forth in your argument. However, the cure is worse than the disease here. Tell any business that they no longer have any access to credit and watch a shockingly large amount of them go kaput.
The best way to be "recession proof" is requiring significant down payments on loans. This will decrease the cost of the collateral, but make it harder for people to get the loan. It's a sliding scale from 100% down to 0% down (and perhaps negative amounts down as we saw in CA and FL).
Pourquoi?
Firing squad is still a legal method of execution in Utah.
It was a new year's resolution for me. Cold turkey. I slept it off for a day and had a headache for 3.
I've had a caffeinated beverage here and there. I can't stand it. I get nervous and shaky. Even if I wanted to go back, I couldn't. I get too "drugged up" to function.
I'm not worried about Mexicans coming to the US and not learning English. In a lot of communities they can get by without knowing English. I think learning English would definitely behoove them, but by no means should it be required.
Yes. The so-called "spark of creativity" standard.
Not so fast there. Copyright attaches to how you got the "copy". If I actually copy a copyrighted work w/o permission, it is infringement. If I come up with the same work independently, it is not infringement (have fun proving that though). Of course, this all assumes at the outset that the work was copyrightable in the first place.
This is unlike patents where creating the same process independently is not protected.
Which is easily explained away as God testing one's faith.
It's pretty air-tight.
Granted.
The only thing is that AIG was betting, IIRC, a few orders of magnitude more than their assets.
Outstanding credit default swap contracts rival the GDP of the entire world (around $55 trillion).
Would a casino allow you to plop down a few trillion on black in the form of an IOU? Doubtful. AIG basically did the same thing. They kept doubling down with money that didn't exist.
Negative, Ghostrider.
Let's take any movie you care to use as an example. Five years down the road to keep their competitors from making a sequel, they make a really POS sequel on a budget of oh, $1000. They continue to do that ad infinitum and now have an unlimited monopoly on the first film.
How about let's just make it 5 years total. You'll get a copyright on the 2nd movie and you'll be noted as being the author of the 1st. Your sequels will be official/canon/etc. The ones the other guys make will not.
Contrary to popular belief, authors aren't harmed by someone else making works based on their works. Just imagine if someone else could continue Futurama or Firefly. They could take it in a new direction, keep it much the same, etc. People could go in different directions. There's enough room for everybody!
I, for one, would stop posting on slashdot. I demand my posts be copyrighted. One day I could sell these for a small fortune!
Kidding, of course. I've waived my copyright on my posts.
So if the property right on my car expired, may anyone take it and make use of it? If so, do they get to assert a right on it? If not, is my car just in the "public domain" and anyone anywhere could use it as they saw fit?
If two people both want to use my car, who gets to use it?
That's part of it, but not the whole thing.
Patents are public domain. The idea is that the inventor publishes how his invention works. He then gets a monopoly over its use for a limited time and when that time expires, everyone can use it.
I love hearing that a process is a "secret, patented" process. Um, last I checked I can look up any patent. Try this one. Doesn't seem very secret to me.
A large problem with patents with respect to technology (especially software) is that the patents are of such a long term that they are essentially of infinite length. Who the hell would want to use LZW anymore?
It is because no website lives next door to Craigslist. Craigslist does not lower the property values of anyone's property.
Think again.
Yeah, but not for the reason you claim.
She knew at the outset that her drinking would cause her judgment to be impaired. She accepted that when she started drinking in the first place.
She created the situation that lead to her impairment. Therefore, she should shoulder the responsibility for anything that occurs because of the impairment.
In Ohio, that would technically be prostitution. Ohio only requires that the sex be in exchange for "anything of value". Chores are certainly something of value.
"Prostitute" is also defined in a way to not exempt a spouse. Have fun prosecuting that, though.
However, on the husband's side of the ledger, if the wife makes the offer of sex for mowing the lawn, that is solicitation. That could raise an eyebrow from many an overzealous DA.
Oh those were the days. At least my prof explained the difference.
With a #define, the preprocessor picks up the constant while using const delays it to the compiler. Of course, he said they were equally good, just a matter of style.
We never did learn why we had to put
using namespace std;
near the top of the program other than because we were supposed to use the standard namespace. I never bothered to ask or find out because by that time I had realized I'm an atrocious programmer and wouldn't be doing that for a living.
That is Congress's justification for the law.
Congress can't just outright prohibit things without relying specifically on one of their powers in the Constitution. They relied on the Commerce Clause here.
They're basically saying that since the camera crossed a state line, that counts as interstate commerce, and therefore, they can regulate your usage of it.
So I have to take pictures of my and my girlfriend's driver's licenses before I take a picture of my John Thomas or my girlfriend's Bonnie and Clyde?
Right. This law is certainly narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. This akin to lighting a cigarette with a nuclear bomb.
And while we're on the subject, since when was taking pictures in a private residence within the purview of the federal government? Thanks again, Scalia.