Depends on the states criminal code. In some states the getaway driver can only be found guilty if the prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that they intentionally acted in such a way as to assist with the commission of a crime. If, for example, I am driving a RIAA lawyer around town and and he asks me to stop at a certain house and wait and I do and while inside the house he sodomizes the owner's poodle then leaves and I drive him back to his BDSM club where he is arrested for sodomizing the poodle I will not be charged with the commission of a crime because I had no idea he planned to sodomize the poodle. I did not have the requisite intent to assist him in his poodle sodomizing crime. On the other hand, if an MPAA lawyer is driving the RIAA lawyer around looking for a poodle to sodomize and the MPAA lawyer knows they are looking for a poodle to sodomize and the RIAA lawyer does, in fact, sodomize the poodle, then the MPAA lawyer can be charged with a crime.
Simply publishing the specification and all related materials would have the same effect. The published material would become prior art. Yes, someone could take the information and use it to build a new product which could meet the requirements for patentability; however, someone could do the same thing with the specification of the patent which is publicly available after (maybe even before) the patent is issued. My guess is that your last sentance is more to the point. There is simply a procedure that is followed: no conspiracy or ulterior motive. This merely met some criteria in a DOE manual for what must/should be patented.
Under a modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (ICC), congress may regulate nanotechnology. Case law from the Supreme Court going back to the early 1940's (Darby, Wickard) up through this decade (Gonzalez v. Mc-something or other) has held that anything even remotely related to commerce falls under the ICC and hence may be regulated by congress. This means that any product or component thereof that contains nanotechnology or was merely manufactured with nanotechnology may be regulated by Congress even if it never actually enters the stream of commerce.
Both the US and the Soviet Union monitored near earth space to track satellites. The question becomes could and did the Soviets track the lunar mission and if they did would they have noticed that it remained in orbit instead of going to the moon and if it never went on a trajectory to take it to the moon would the Soviets have denounced the hoax at the time?
In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the Soviets used more then one reciever to monitor transmissions from the lunar mission and would be able to Direction Find (DF) the signal to determine with a fair degree of accuracy the location of the transmitter.
What neither of these technical solutions rules out is the possibility that the entire astronuat-side of the conversation was pre-recorded and transmitted from the unmanned lunar lander that was used to place the mirrors on the surface of the moon.
Originally there weren't going to be any amendments, but even with the speration of powers provisions the states still feared a powerful central government and required the amedments before ratifying. The Constitution is not repeat not a collection of laws. The constitution is a description of the powers of the government and how those powers are divided between the branches of the government. The only wording that might be considered a law is the absolute prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Nor is the Bill of Rights (amend 1-10) a set of laws. It is a further restriction on the central government ("congress shall make no law..." or "... the right to... shall not be infringed"). It has been argued that the Bill of Rights does not 'grant' any rights that what it does is to aknowledge the existance of the intrinsic rights of individuals. Does the constitution reflect the 'will of the people'? Depends on how you define that. Normally a political group will define what ever they believe in as the 'will of the people'. Given that an amendment requires 3/4's of the states to ratify, it may only reflect the will of 3/4's of the country. However, as seen in the last two presidential elections, getting 3/4's of the country to agree on anything might be impossible. That might explain why there have only been 17 amendments since ratification. If you read those, several have been additional restrictions on the government (state and federal).
listen up hippie! The only reason Jesus hasn't come back to vacuum up all the good, god-fearing, christian folk is because you dope smokers keep ripping CDs. Well, that and all the homer-sexuals running around.
So, when you pray are you asking God to change his plan? Does God plan everything down to this level of detail and if not can it be planned to some intermediate level of detail and still meet the end scenario of revelations? If God has decided someone will or will not die in a certain way and you pray in an attempt to intervene are you saying God is wrong? And if God change's his mind does that mean he agrees that he is wrong and that he is therefore fallible?
if you are from the U.S., repeat after me Supreme Court of the United States. Which, between the time of Dread Scott and the recent requirement that you have to be a white, male member of the Christian Right, has done a pretty damn good job. I know, what about Kelo?!?!? All Kelo did (aside from the interesting liberal/conservative split) was bring a long-existing judical power into the national spotlight. Courts have had the power to force sales, force transfers of land (with damages), nullify restrictive covenants, ect. Yes they have allowed some extensions of the Commerce clause and the Neccessary and Proper clause beyond what I personally think they should allow, but that is just a personal opinion.
I guess that means everyone else in the world is an illiterate retard. Somehow I don't think the rest of the world appreciates being associated with your immature, poorly written, uneducated rant. I assume given your inability to reason or spell that you are an American in either high school or public university. Now run along to your Chomsky group-think meeting and let the adults do the talking.
Except, the politicians are not in debt, they are not spending or managing their money. They externalize the costs of their decisions to the taxpayers. This is Similar to the 'public commons' problem except it is the tax payers money instead of communal land that effected. Maybe government budgets need to be reorganized such that the budget is analyzed on a bi-weekly basis and if there is money left over, then and only then do the politicians get paid. Bi-weekly budget shortfall? Sorry kids its Tuna Helper all week long... sans Tuna.
> We had well qualified inspectors with full access without warning to the entire country.
Incorrect. While this war is without any justification at all, inspectors did not have unfettered access to the entire country. If they did there would have been a stronger case to wait and let the inspectors finish their job. However, that didn't happen and with France insisting it would veto any resolution that had a trigger for military action, the administration had a green light to attack on the rationale of: Saddam won't let the inspectors do their job -> Saddam is hiding something; France will veto any use of force -> UN is part of the problem. Add those together and you get an (at the time) plausable cause for action. It should be remembered that hosility to US action was not based on a belief that Saddam was harmless, quite to the contrary, most (all?) intelligence organizations felt (at least at some unclass PR level) that Saddam had WMDs. Not that that matters, the country that pulls the trigger better be able to tell the difference between precautionary intelligence and actionable intelligence. No, it was a serious miscalculation on the part of France that it could use international pressure to force the US to kowtow to the UN. Well, that didn't work did it.
> disagreeing with something as testable as QED is akin to disagreeing that '2 + 2 = 4'. Yeah, there are people who do that, but we don't call them scientists.
Yes, we are known as Lawyers. Seriously, what about very large values of 2?
uhhh... import it from the French? Do you mean some of the founding fathers read some of the French philosophers? That would be correct. However, if you are insinuating that the founding fathers imported the text of some french document you are mistaken. The US Bill of Rights was completed in 1787; the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" was not completed until 1789.
> Sorry, but the free market requires that you maintain the items you own.
How do you relate the free market which roughly defined is a system of echange for goods and services with minimal governmental interference or coersion to a requirment that someone must expend their funds to block your unwanted solicitations? If I own a house there is no requirment for me to maintain anything in order to maintain my right to exclude others. That is what it means to own property. My door can be falling off of its hinges and all of my windows broken out, that does not give anyone the right to enter my property. The law will find them guilty of criminal trespass (among others, depending on jurisdiction) and in the United States, under conditions defined in any particular state's penal code, the state will not sanction me for killing them. All of this without a single word on maintenance.
I'm not sure of what rights you think you have. You have no right to run a business, you have no right to run a profitable business, you have no right to enter my property with your spam. You do not have a first amendment right to spam people. Commercial speech is not free speech. Commercial speech is heavily regulated. Why? Becuase people like you abuse the commons.
If there was no spam, there would by no laws against spam. You have created the situation which you complain about.
Well, the board of directors is normally responsible for hiring/firing of the corporate officers. The investors are responsible for voting or withholding their vote for board members. Most of the voting shares for any one company are held by institutional investors (such as public-sector retirement funds) which limits the control exercised of any one indiviual investor. The problem with institutional investors is that the actual individual investor has no say in corporate management (because they do not hold the corporate shares) and have limited choices as to where to put there money. So the idea of 'f the investor they should have been more careful' doesn't work. First, you are punishing someone who has no real control (should you be jailed if the babysitter you hired invites her boyfriend over, who in turn sells drugs out of your house? after all you hired her and you should have known what was going on). Second, you end up punishing people who are trying to take responsibility for their financial well being, particularly those who are investing for retirement, I'm not sure that the message of 'be responsible - save money - be punished' is what we want to be sending to a public that spends more then it makes already. Third, there are just not that many options for where to put your funds. Passbook savings are a joke and in an inflationary cycle you end up with less money then when you started. Certificates of Deposit are FDIC insured but only up to a point so you have to spread your money around, your cash is not exactly liquid so you have to stagger your maturity dates which means more tracking, and at 3.8% you need to put in quite a bit of cash before the accrued interest becomes meaningful. Government bonds are similar to CDs. Other investment vehicles such as REITs and precious metals can be too unstable to be safe for retirement funds as a person enters retirement.
Punishment for corporate malfeasence needs to be levied against the wrong-doer. If it is criminal liablity then they go to jail, if it is civil liablity then they are made to forefit their assets. By punishing the investor what do you hope to accomplish? What morally culpable behavior do you wish to punish on the part of the investor? Or put other investors on notice of what is not allowed in order to create a deterence effect? Those are the two main (of five) reasons we hold people legally liable: punishment for wrong doing and deterence to put others on notice as to what is and is not allowed. As authority becomes attenuated, so does responsibility, and as responsibility becomes more attenuated, so does liability. What will have a greater chance of preventing corporate malfeasence? Wiping out your next-door neighbours retirment fund because company policy was to have it in company stock or placing CEO/COO/CFO in a real federal prison for 25 years and stripping them of all of their assets (possibly including assets assigned to minor children for the purpose of shielding them from forefiture)
Limiting the scope of punishment to the wrong-doer is not a novel concept. It is pretty much the basis of common law, to be held to the highest degree of legal libility requires both a wrongful act and a wrongful mind. It really isn't that much different then the rules regarding the agency relationship which allow a company to escape libility for the actions of an employee when those actions fall outside the scope of the employment (fraud is tortious and/or criminal and is therefore per se outside the scope of employment).
Simply not following the law is not sufficient. Jaywalk in front of a traffic officer; bring a bag of pot to the police station. Civil Disobedience is not about sneaking around, trying to get away with an infraction of law. Civil Disobedience is about commiting the infraction in full view of society and then, within the context of the criminal justice system, showing how unjust either the law or the punishment is and persuading society to change the law. You must be willing to stand against dogs and firehoses. You must be willing to risk life, limb, and liberty. You must be eloquent and respectful - otherwise you're just a juvenile deliquent running across the street, screwing up traffic, in order to score some 3rd rate ditch weed.
disclaimer: NAIAPHBNDIHAMBA. I would think that the cost of the printer is more then just parts and sweatshop labor. The aggregate cost of the printer is parts, labor, engineering, certification, regulatory compliance costs, insurance costs, packaging, shipping, paper work, management expenses, maintenance and other overhead costs, lobbying and bribery expenses, benefit and retirement expenses for non third world employees, keeping the stock buyback cash reserve topped off, cash for dividend payout, cash to either build new facilities or to modernize existing facilities, and marketing costs. This aggregate cost has to be spread over the entire production run of the printer (granted that many of these costs can be spread over every device that a company makes but some are product line specific) so that if your price is less then the per unit aggregate cost (although that may not be the correct term), you are in fact selling at a loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the states criminal code. In some states the getaway driver can only be found guilty if the prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that they intentionally acted in such a way as to assist with the commission of a crime. If, for example, I am driving a RIAA lawyer around town and and he asks me to stop at a certain house and wait and I do and while inside the house he sodomizes the owner's poodle then leaves and I drive him back to his BDSM club where he is arrested for sodomizing the poodle I will not be charged with the commission of a crime because I had no idea he planned to sodomize the poodle. I did not have the requisite intent to assist him in his poodle sodomizing crime. On the other hand, if an MPAA lawyer is driving the RIAA lawyer around looking for a poodle to sodomize and the MPAA lawyer knows they are looking for a poodle to sodomize and the RIAA lawyer does, in fact, sodomize the poodle, then the MPAA lawyer can be charged with a crime.
Simply publishing the specification and all related materials would have the same effect. The published material would become prior art. Yes, someone could take the information and use it to build a new product which could meet the requirements for patentability; however, someone could do the same thing with the specification of the patent which is publicly available after (maybe even before) the patent is issued. My guess is that your last sentance is more to the point. There is simply a procedure that is followed: no conspiracy or ulterior motive. This merely met some criteria in a DOE manual for what must/should be patented.
I'm sure fusion is now only 5 to 10 years away....
Under a modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (ICC), congress may regulate nanotechnology. Case law from the Supreme Court going back to the early 1940's (Darby, Wickard) up through this decade (Gonzalez v. Mc-something or other) has held that anything even remotely related to commerce falls under the ICC and hence may be regulated by congress. This means that any product or component thereof that contains nanotechnology or was merely manufactured with nanotechnology may be regulated by Congress even if it never actually enters the stream of commerce.
In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the Soviets used more then one reciever to monitor transmissions from the lunar mission and would be able to Direction Find (DF) the signal to determine with a fair degree of accuracy the location of the transmitter.
What neither of these technical solutions rules out is the possibility that the entire astronuat-side of the conversation was pre-recorded and transmitted from the unmanned lunar lander that was used to place the mirrors on the surface of the moon.
Originally there weren't going to be any amendments, but even with the speration of powers provisions the states still feared a powerful central government and required the amedments before ratifying. The Constitution is not repeat not a collection of laws. The constitution is a description of the powers of the government and how those powers are divided between the branches of the government. The only wording that might be considered a law is the absolute prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Nor is the Bill of Rights (amend 1-10) a set of laws. It is a further restriction on the central government ("congress shall make no law ..." or "... the right to ... shall not be infringed"). It has been argued that the Bill of Rights does not 'grant' any rights that what it does is to aknowledge the existance of the intrinsic rights of individuals. Does the constitution reflect the 'will of the people'? Depends on how you define that. Normally a political group will define what ever they believe in as the 'will of the people'. Given that an amendment requires 3/4's of the states to ratify, it may only reflect the will of 3/4's of the country. However, as seen in the last two presidential elections, getting 3/4's of the country to agree on anything might be impossible. That might explain why there have only been 17 amendments since ratification. If you read those, several have been additional restrictions on the government (state and federal).
listen up hippie! The only reason Jesus hasn't come back to vacuum up all the good, god-fearing, christian folk is because you dope smokers keep ripping CDs. Well, that and all the homer-sexuals running around.
only for very large values of 6
No need to insult chimps....
So, when you pray are you asking God to change his plan? Does God plan everything down to this level of detail and if not can it be planned to some intermediate level of detail and still meet the end scenario of revelations? If God has decided someone will or will not die in a certain way and you pray in an attempt to intervene are you saying God is wrong? And if God change's his mind does that mean he agrees that he is wrong and that he is therefore fallible?
if you are from the U.S., repeat after me Supreme Court of the United States. Which, between the time of Dread Scott and the recent requirement that you have to be a white, male member of the Christian Right, has done a pretty damn good job. I know, what about Kelo?!?!? All Kelo did (aside from the interesting liberal/conservative split) was bring a long-existing judical power into the national spotlight. Courts have had the power to force sales, force transfers of land (with damages), nullify restrictive covenants, ect. Yes they have allowed some extensions of the Commerce clause and the Neccessary and Proper clause beyond what I personally think they should allow, but that is just a personal opinion.
a dingo ate my porno
I guess that means everyone else in the world is an illiterate retard. Somehow I don't think the rest of the world appreciates being associated with your immature, poorly written, uneducated rant. I assume given your inability to reason or spell that you are an American in either high school or public university. Now run along to your Chomsky group-think meeting and let the adults do the talking.
Except, the politicians are not in debt, they are not spending or managing their money. They externalize the costs of their decisions to the taxpayers. This is Similar to the 'public commons' problem except it is the tax payers money instead of communal land that effected. Maybe government budgets need to be reorganized such that the budget is analyzed on a bi-weekly basis and if there is money left over, then and only then do the politicians get paid. Bi-weekly budget shortfall? Sorry kids its Tuna Helper all week long ... sans Tuna.
I welcome our giant, educationally-advanced species of bacteria overlords
Jesus was Jewish!?!?!?! I thought all them Mexicans were Catholic?
It is an irrefutable scientific fact that you'll blow a fuse...
Incorrect. While this war is without any justification at all, inspectors did not have unfettered access to the entire country. If they did there would have been a stronger case to wait and let the inspectors finish their job. However, that didn't happen and with France insisting it would veto any resolution that had a trigger for military action, the administration had a green light to attack on the rationale of: Saddam won't let the inspectors do their job -> Saddam is hiding something; France will veto any use of force -> UN is part of the problem. Add those together and you get an (at the time) plausable cause for action. It should be remembered that hosility to US action was not based on a belief that Saddam was harmless, quite to the contrary, most (all?) intelligence organizations felt (at least at some unclass PR level) that Saddam had WMDs. Not that that matters, the country that pulls the trigger better be able to tell the difference between precautionary intelligence and actionable intelligence. No, it was a serious miscalculation on the part of France that it could use international pressure to force the US to kowtow to the UN. Well, that didn't work did it.
Yes, we are known as Lawyers. Seriously, what about very large values of 2?
uhhh... import it from the French? Do you mean some of the founding fathers read some of the French philosophers? That would be correct. However, if you are insinuating that the founding fathers imported the text of some french document you are mistaken. The US Bill of Rights was completed in 1787; the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" was not completed until 1789.
A dingo ate my penguin....
I'm not sure of what rights you think you have. You have no right to run a business, you have no right to run a profitable business, you have no right to enter my property with your spam. You do not have a first amendment right to spam people. Commercial speech is not free speech. Commercial speech is heavily regulated. Why? Becuase people like you abuse the commons.
If there was no spam, there would by no laws against spam. You have created the situation which you complain about.
Punishment for corporate malfeasence needs to be levied against the wrong-doer. If it is criminal liablity then they go to jail, if it is civil liablity then they are made to forefit their assets. By punishing the investor what do you hope to accomplish? What morally culpable behavior do you wish to punish on the part of the investor? Or put other investors on notice of what is not allowed in order to create a deterence effect? Those are the two main (of five) reasons we hold people legally liable: punishment for wrong doing and deterence to put others on notice as to what is and is not allowed. As authority becomes attenuated, so does responsibility, and as responsibility becomes more attenuated, so does liability. What will have a greater chance of preventing corporate malfeasence? Wiping out your next-door neighbours retirment fund because company policy was to have it in company stock or placing CEO/COO/CFO in a real federal prison for 25 years and stripping them of all of their assets (possibly including assets assigned to minor children for the purpose of shielding them from forefiture)
Limiting the scope of punishment to the wrong-doer is not a novel concept. It is pretty much the basis of common law, to be held to the highest degree of legal libility requires both a wrongful act and a wrongful mind. It really isn't that much different then the rules regarding the agency relationship which allow a company to escape libility for the actions of an employee when those actions fall outside the scope of the employment (fraud is tortious and/or criminal and is therefore per se outside the scope of employment).
Simply not following the law is not sufficient. Jaywalk in front of a traffic officer; bring a bag of pot to the police station. Civil Disobedience is not about sneaking around, trying to get away with an infraction of law. Civil Disobedience is about commiting the infraction in full view of society and then, within the context of the criminal justice system, showing how unjust either the law or the punishment is and persuading society to change the law. You must be willing to stand against dogs and firehoses. You must be willing to risk life, limb, and liberty. You must be eloquent and respectful - otherwise you're just a juvenile deliquent running across the street, screwing up traffic, in order to score some 3rd rate ditch weed.
disclaimer: NAIAPHBNDIHAMBA. I would think that the cost of the printer is more then just parts and sweatshop labor. The aggregate cost of the printer is parts, labor, engineering, certification, regulatory compliance costs, insurance costs, packaging, shipping, paper work, management expenses, maintenance and other overhead costs, lobbying and bribery expenses, benefit and retirement expenses for non third world employees, keeping the stock buyback cash reserve topped off, cash for dividend payout, cash to either build new facilities or to modernize existing facilities, and marketing costs. This aggregate cost has to be spread over the entire production run of the printer (granted that many of these costs can be spread over every device that a company makes but some are product line specific) so that if your price is less then the per unit aggregate cost (although that may not be the correct term), you are in fact selling at a loss.