No one would wonder that, because everyone would know that morning isn't the same everywhere. Without any context, people would simply assume that he woke up wherever it is morning at 6. From your example, I have no idea whether he means 6am or 6pm, or whether it is important. If the next sentence were, "He had missed lunch, and nearly dinner, too," then I'd know what was going on.
People would, however, wonder about the significance of the time if they did not know the location of the character, but like many details in a novel, it may not be immediately apparent. All I can tell from the sentence alone is that it's early morning or in the evening. An author could easily say "early morning" or "evening" instead of "6 o'clock" if the time itself was unimportant and the location unknown.
I think the US should have one time zone, and it should be based on NYC time. -5/-4 UTC for everybody! Who cares if California would have the sunset at 2230 today?
Fine by me, and I'm a native Californian.
There's no rule that says business hours need to be 9 to 5. Since you already have to convert what "time" it is in a faraway place you're calling, it's not a big deal. In San Francisco, I can't make any calls after 1pm to East Coast offices and expect to get anything done. What the clocks say over there doesn't really matter. For all intents and purposes, New York business hours are 6am to 2pm from my perspective.
I'd be content for the entire planet to move past the idea of time zones entirely. It's an outdated idea from a time when you needed physical references to the passing of time, and when it didn't matter that the times didn't line up in faraway places. Just think of all the things it would simplify: flight arrivals/departures, conference calls, news stories--and it would make am/pm an unnecessary distinction, too. 0514 would really be 0514. Everywhere. I'm okay with "business hours" for me being, say 0100 to 0900, and 2200 to 0600 in some other place. They're just numbers.
Tradition and conditioning, however, are unbeatable--and the idea of "noon" being the middle of the day has undeniable intuitive appeal (even if it's rarely accurate).
Neither, but you're clearly unable to face the truth.
He claims to be "lifelong liberal" but he's also vigilantly defending Palin on multiple threads.
Only if "vigilantly defending" means pointing out two busted myths that disservice the truth and distract from the actual issues of the campaign.
I was pointing out the flaws in his logic when he said it's ok for palin to mislead & mccain to lie but obama should be brought to task for selective statements about his past.
Except that I never said either of those.
That's not something a liberal would say.
Somebody doesn't know what liberal means.
Your blind devotion and incessant need to spin statements into the most partisan constructions is something trolls do. Maybe that's where you got the idea to call me one. Look at yourself, buddy. It's shades of Bush's "your with us or you're against us" all over again.
Yes, I was under the impression that you were liable for use taxes over and above out-of-state sales tax
Ah. Yeah, that's not the case. The closest thing is that some states require you to pay the use tax, with a credit against what you've paid out-of-state. If you paid 0 tax, for example by driving to Oregon, you're responsible for the full amount (7% in the example). If you paid 5%, you'd owe your home state/municipality 2%.
Actually, I wonder how many people who live in states with sales and use taxes are familiar with these things
Considering it appears as a section of your state tax return, everybody who has ever filed taxes is familiar with it. I'd agree that most people wouldn't be able to tell you about it when asked on the street, though, other than that they're supposed to report the purchase.
I personally don't unless the amount is over $100, though, simply because keeping the receipt for every odd Amazon book or DVD is a bit tedious. Instead, I just add $20 or so to whatever I owe from the big-ticket items. Fair is fair.
You claim to be a liberal but you slam Obama for being selective about the truth without providing a concrete example while defending Republicans
That's ludicrous. I'm not defending Republicans. I'm saying that your attack is both false and stupid, and something you would not tolerate if it were Obama on the receiving end. Your ignorance of the facts has already been demonstrated.
I'd also like you to point out where I "slammed" Obama. The point I made is that you turn a blind eye to Obama, while working your best to dredge up a complete non-story based on a selective interpretation of the facts.
If you need examples, you need look no further than his critique of Clinton's Iraq conduct--when he voted exactly the same way. Maybe his politically expedient anti-NAFTA position that came out of thin air (he voted FOR the NAFTA expansion). His outright lies when he said he didn't commit to public financing, and then his weak dismissal of a "broken" system--the public election fund isn't broken. It's more tightly regulated, which is why Republicans don't like it. But in this case, Obama doesn't like it because he saw the piles of money he was raking in.
Being a liberal means not tolerating unfairness and calling bullshit bullshit, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. This plane situation is something you don't understand, and you're just as ignorant as those who claim Obama supports radical black causes.
a specific example of them making misleading statements (Palin) and outright untruths (McCain) has been presented to you.
The specific example being what?
Based on statements like that, I'd guess you're trolling.
Based on idiotic constructions of logic, I'd say you're a hack and you give the rest of us a bad reputation.
I've been on stage with some of the great Democrats. I've marched and petitioned and dedicated my time, money, and professional reputation for equal rights, gay marriage, education reform, and abortion rights. I've stood in front of Planned Parenthood clinics to protest the protesters and celebrated in the streets of the Castro. Don't you dare question my liberal credentials because my tongue's not on Obama's ass.
You were wrong about who was responsible for making the deal, you were wrong about the propriety of the price, and you're wrong to take an action that should be applauded after 8 years of Republican waste and try to turn it into a story of scandal or misjudgment.
Based on my interest in the truth? I suppose not, if your standard is hypocrisy and FUD.
BTW, the market price was about 2.4 Million
That's not the market price. The market price for an early-80s Westwind II is about $1.2-2.5 million.
Like selling a house, Heckmann set the asking price based on the market. You don't get your asking price in a downturn market. It's a buyer's market. $2.1 million is not a bad price for a 20+ year old plane.
smoothing the deal through at a lower than market price.
Citation needed. I don't see any evidence of a special deal under surreptitious circumstances. With all the real Republican scandals in this country, there's no need to fabricate one for the purposes of an absurd attack.
Sorry, I should quote my sources. The $300K below market came from the Chicago Tribune.
It's not $300K below market, but $300K below the offer price. Given the aviation slump, this is not unusual. How about some sources from the time, free of the election spin and the Chicago-spin:
Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, who brokered the no-bid deal.
Not true. The plane was sold through a private aircraft broker named Heckmann, who is anything but a state lackey, having had prior legal encounters with state contracts.
The final price did indeed end up saving money, given the costs of insurance, storage, maintenance. The bid fell through because the buyer backed out.
As a lifelong liberal, even I am disgusted at this smear campaign. It's okay for Obama to be selective about stories from the past, but not for Palin? Let's not lose sight of the fact that she pledged to get rid of the plane and did so, responsibly and through a private broker who signed off on the deal.
Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive.
False. No book was ever banned or asked to be banned. She asked about her views on banning books during the interview--and she was not fired. In fact, she survived one or two rounds of firings--the usual housecleaning that happens with an administration. She was later pressed out.
She was never asked to ban a single book, nor was her successor. There is no evidence of any book being banned or asked to be banned. Each community has standards for challenging a book being part of the library collection to serve as a check on library actions. It is rare for a challenge to succeed, as it is meant to be successful only where the library buyer has made a serious error in judgment, for example, the purchase of pornography with public funds.
This kind of politics is just as disgusting from the left as from the right. There are legitimate points of contention. There's no need for the cosmetic bullshit.
Yes. Hooeven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. Article 1, Section 8 and its corollary are what matters in this situation: "The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce [...] among the several states..."
Where Congress has not regulated, the states must act in accordance with the idea of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits them from burdening interstate commerce relative to internal commerce. This is because the intent, it is argued, of giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce is to prevent states from breaking down the union economically through protectionism, and thus protectionism is rarely permitted--but charging a uniform tax is not protectionist. One must discriminate against the out-of-state merchant somehow, e.g., by charging a higher or additional tax.
though it would seem to bring about a fair amount of double-taxation
There is no double-taxation going on. You seem to be confused about something.
I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence here-- if I were, I wouldn't be asking-- but it was the reasoning behind this statement I really wanted. How not?
Exactly as I said. It does not discriminate against out-of-state sellers, and it does not favor in-state sellers. It is an evenhanded application of a tax rate for consumer purchases.
If you buy in person in your state, you are charged a sales tax (we'll say it's 7% for the sake of this example).
If you buy in person in another state, you are charged their sales tax. No problem.
If you buy online from your state, you are charged your sales tax. No problem.
If you buy online from another state, the seller does not necessarily collect any tax. This is a problem. The purchase was taxable. It is an unfair advantage not to collect it. It burdens both in-state and in-person transactions.
Along the lines of Philadelphia v. New Jersey and Bacchus Imports v. Dias, as long as the state treats both the in-state and out-of-state merchants the same, it is not an impost or duty. The state cannot charge a higher tax on Internet purchases from out-of-state companies, but if the tax exists domestically, then it can be applied to everyone.
If a state charges a $1 levy on all beer sold in glass bottles, everyone has to pay if they want to do business in the state. The Dormant Commerce Clause exists only in the wake of Congressional silence and prohibits states from burdening out-of-state sellers or preferential treatment of in-state sellers. Creating a level playing field for all is entirely within the rights of the individual state.
Please read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Burdening interstate commerce unfairly has everything to do with it.
based on a purchase I made in another state.
But you didn't make the purchase in another state. You made it right from home. Had you actually made the purchase out of state, you would have been obligated to pay that state's sales tax and would owe nothing to your home state. But you didn't pay tax in either state with your online purchase, when your purchase, had it been made in person in either state, would have been taxable.
Either is quite obviously illegal on the face of it.
Then you should have no trouble finding a case agreeing with you. Since, however, there is no such case, you're quite obviously incorrect.
It's not, because it's not discriminatory against interstate commerce; it is an equalizer--all purchases are taxed, regardless of origin. It neither favors the home state nor disfavors the foreign state. Simultaneously, failure to do so significantly burdens local producers and merchants, who cannot compete because of the externality of the sales tax. This is of course creates a legitimate state interest in leveling the playing field.
if it were otherwise they'd charge it on sales-taxed items too
They do. It's called the sales tax.
So why do the courts let them get away with it?
Because it violates neither the law nor the spirit of the Commerce Clause, and more specifically, the Dormant Commerce Clause.
before removing the asinine notion that an idea can be owned.
There's no need to remove a notion that doesn't exist. An idea can't be owned.
copyright should actually be shorter than 28 years.
No, it should be, and is, longer. 28 years was selected originally because it was both a multiple of 7 (the Framers liked that) and because it approximately covered the length of an artist's career, ensuring longevity. As people started living longer and working longer, and producing works at a younger age as the art of the apprenticeship faded, copyright was extended accordingly. It came to be considered an asset like any other annuity, and so it was further tweaked so that like other wealth-generating labors, it would benefit the children of the author as well.
The works of copyright were never intended to benefit those in the generation of the creator, but rather to benefit the social trust of future generations. Nothing copyrighted is ever needed for any practical purpose, unlike a patent.
The most recent extensions are starting to push their luck, but about a century is consistent with both the artist's rights (global minus US) model and the economic incentive (US) model. A century ensures that any profit to be made is made by the creator or his estate, so long as there is a measurable demand. Artists/estates are also free to release their copyright at any time prior to that point should they choose to do so.
Personally, I'm a fan of a 50-year blanket copyright, with the option of ten-year extensions up to the current longest limit of 120 years. Fail to register for the extension, and the copyright lapses. This simplifies calculations (assuming the date of fixation is known), and also provides a single source (the copyright registry) for checking the status of copyrights on any work older than 50 years.
Once you buy a DVD, if your DVD gets eaten by a wayward snapping turtle, you have to buy it again.
Only about $1 of the purchase price goes toward the actual cost. Like the materials cost of a DVD, the bandwidth cost of the download is really incidental to the price.
Same thing with any other random purchase, whether it's a screwdriver or a dinner plate. If you lose it or destroy it, you have to buy another one.
That said, it would probably be a popular feature to market downloads such that your purchase record is stored, allowing you to replace lost copies for a nominal fee (or built-in to the initial purchase price). But simply because such a feature can exist does not mean it must, especially when, from their perspective, it's not their problem. Everyone else gets to charge you again, regardless of their actual expenses for replacement--and who really thinks the big entertainment corporations are going to lead the way toward consumer nirvana?
Sales tax here ranges from 0% to ~10% (though certain items are subject to higher taxes, like hotels in D.C.), varying based on the location (not only different states, but different cities may have different sales tax rates), and sometimes based on the type of purchase (in some places, things like restaurant meals are taxed at a higher rate than retail/sundry purchases). The burden for collection is on the merchant in states where they have a business presence (office, warehouse, retail location).
Everywhere else, the buyer is legally obligated to report the purchase on their income taxes and to pay the proper amount at that time. Many people don't pay the use tax, and the economic incentive in terms of greater commercial activity generally makes up for that lost tax revenue elsewhere, so the tax code hasn't been changed to eliminate the rampant cheating.
Time for remedial constitutional interpretation, too.
Hiding the truth is bad.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.
Including the freedom to limit discussion within your own private sphere of influence. If someone wants to talk about raping and pillaging in war-torn African countries, they're free to do so, but if you don't want to hear about it in your house or shop or blog, you can edit it out and/or tell them to leave.
It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech.
Yes, it is. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. Even this is not without limits--there are many areas in which the exercise of "free" speech is restricted in particular environments for the good of others. No constitutional right is absolute.
It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.
You don't need a law granting a right to do something, unless that particular right is held by someone else and the law enables you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. You need a law telling you that you cannot.
You don't have a freedom of speech right in a private environment, and that includes a website that does not belong to you or to the people. Period. If you don't like it, you're free to start your own website without those restrictions.
When you start with false premises, your conclusions tend to be unreliable.
A promise is a contractual obligation. Care to
If you mean Katzer, it was decided just the other way;
No, it wasn't. It's your unclear reading of both the decision and my comments that are confusing you. Copyright infringement only occurs because the terms of the license were legally binding; the quote about consideration in the form of source code is from Katzer, for goodness sake!
the obligation was imposed by copyright law,
Wrong. The obligation was imposed by the license. Failure to comply with that obligation terminated the copyright license, thus causing copyright infringement.
. If you didn't fulfill the conditions, you didn't get a license and could be sued under copyright rather than contract law.
Can be sued under both copyright and contract law. It is not a binary situation. The decision accepts the contractual nature of the Artistic License. The issue is whether breach of that agreement is simple breach of contract or whether termination of the license occurs, placing the breaching party in a position of infringement. The court decided the latter.
it isn't an EULA because it makes no claim to bind the End User.
AND ONCE AGAIN, you are ignorant of the statement. 'EULA' as it has come to be used by a large number of people is not an acronym. It is a blanket term for a SLA in the way it is bandied about by the general public. THUS, IN ORDER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, ONE MUST SET GROUND RULES AS TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS.
I did not say that I use the term EULA to refer to the GPL. Like others in the field, I use the term SLA. "EULA" is not a legal construct with a fixed definition; neither is end user. Whether you call all licensees "end users" or whether you call all SLAs "EULAs" is something you must specify before attacking with bullshit false pedanticism.
Licenses do not contain return promises. The GPL does. Ergo, it is not simply a license. It is a contract together with a license. A Software License Agreement (not service level), in other words.
"The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition." Jacobsen v. Katzer. In other words, a "free" software license is still binding. You can be compelled to perform your part of the agreement, or the license can be terminated, placing you in a situation of copyright infringement in addition to being in breach of the contractual agreement.
Licenses do not have consideration. License agreements do. I have no idea why Slashdot is so resistant to this simple reality--it's what enables copyright infringement claims for GPL violations! Can the GPL compel you to promise to provide source code? Yes. Can a simple license compel you to do something in return? No. A license can grant you rights and provide a scope in which to exercise those rights. That's it.
A license may be granted as a component of an agreement, called, logically enough, a license agreement. If you are speaking in terms of negotiations, binding promises, consideration, and acceptance, you're talking about a license agreement. If you've got a license grant together with warranty disclaimers, waivers of rights, and a limitation of liability, you're still talking about a license agreement.
The license is the grant of rights. If I am imposing conditions, requiring further action in order to exercise rights, or providing optional extras if certain other conditions are satisfied, you're negotiating a license agreement. In a license, you can define a scope: a term of years, a geographic location, a certain purpose. As soon as you start saying "you can do x IF you promise to do y", you're no longer dealing with a simple license. A conditional license is granted as a component of an agreement between parties, called the Licensor and Licensee. Depending on the termination terms in that agreement, breach of the agreement may also revoke your license. Depending on the license involved, continued use may constitute a separate offense (e.g., copyright infringement, trademark misappropriation).
We just had the Katzen decision, which explicitly stated that open source licenses are not only binding agreements, but are not merely contracts. One is built on the other. If there was no contractual obligation to do anything in order to maintain the use granted by the license, there would not have been a case.
Why not let the users decide if they need a dead tree version?
We're way ahead of you. The entire CCR is already online, for free.
Putting the entirety in PDF format is not feasible. Individual titles of the code are distributed this way, but as I've said, the entire code is tens of thousands of pages. Most computers struggle with 1000-page PDFs...we're talking files dozens of times that size.
Why should laws made for and paid for by the public, not be as widely distributed to the public as possible.
That's the goal--the state offers the collection at a price that is high enough to avoid expenditures of public funds while low enough to ensure broad access. It provides access to the entirety for free.
Why should there be any restriction on who or how distribution is done for laws that should be known by everybody?
Because the issue isn't knowledge. It's commercial exploitation for profit by a publisher who would come in, without the expense of doing the compilation, offering the set at a lower price (a price below cost), and drying up the source of revenue that pays for the self-sustaining printing practice. With no one buying the official printed copies, the cost of compilation and preparation becomes a cost passed on to the taxpayers in order to serve the profits of a private corporation.
Same goes for the GPL; just because people call it an EULA doesn't make it one.
It's an SLA.
If the term 'EULA' has come to be understood as encompassing SLAs generally, then it is. Saying it's not a license agreement in the face of reality doesn't make the tail a leg, either.
If there is no shortage of work, than there is probably no need to chase ambulances to drum up more business.
Agreed. What's your point?
It's actually not at all like saying that cops are the only ones that investigate themselves and only doctors check each other's work, because I'm saying that only lawyers get that privilege.
And I'm saying that that statement is as misguided as the other propositions. In other words, it's not true that lawyers enjoy any such privilege.
But if you feel like a lawyer messed up in your representation or that the procedures that were followed in the course of your trial were wrong, than your appeal is most likely going to be in the hands of judges who used to be lawyers.
And once again, you're forgetting the jury when you make that claim and jumping ahead to the statistically unlikely result that an appeal is granted. And like the internal affairs cops and the medical review boards, there are lawyers for that, too. If after all that you feel that all the lawyers are out to get you, you can have you case removed to an independent arbitration firm--professional mediators who are usually not attorneys.
But I do believe that people that work in the same industry have lines of thinking and perspectives that tend to more often skew the same way
How? Lawyers work both sides of every issue and specialize in disparate fields--a securities lawyer is nothing like an immigration lawyer.
one field has almost no external checks and balances seems like it's not going to be a good thing in the long run.
The idea that it's "one field" is your problem. Congress and the legal system are at odds at least as often as they're in sync. The idea that Congress is "mostly" composed of lawyers is also just plain false.
There are about 150 barred individuals in the House of Representatives--roughly one-third. The rest are doctors, accountants, business professionals, banking/finance, professors, and other professionals. Congress and practicing attorneys hate each other, and Congress is elected by everyone. If there's a problem, vote them out and replace them. That a substantial people who have to write laws should know the realities of practicing law only helps the quality of those laws (and they still can't get it right half the time). The ABA has to lobby Congress just like everyone else. The idea that there is any self-serving oversight interest confined to lawyers is simply asinine.
If you think there's a "bad" lawyer and you can't have him sanctioned in court, can't have him investigated by the bar, and can't convince your fellow citizens to stop giving him business...the more likely result is that he's not that bad.
Quite frankly, lawyers have a high level of self-interest in removing disreputable members of their profession. The idea that their inability to weed out the bad ones is any worse than police departments, corporations, hospitals, or financial firms is misguided and offensive. I'm always game for a good lawyer joke, but the composition of the bar is not any more or less corrupt than the society in which it sits.
There's always an external check: you. Fire your lawyer if you think he's a scumbag, and file a complaint with the ABA and/or state bar. Talk to a different lawyer about finding someone to represent you in actions against the scumbag if the transgression is so serious.
Why the hell do they think they need an "EULA" or "TOS" for a supposedly Open Source program at all?
Because you do. The GPL is a EULA, too, in the sense that 'EULA' is taken to be interchangeable with SLAs in general these days. 'EULA' as such is rarely useful as a result unless ground rules are established in the conversation defining the scope of the term.
Without terms, if it were strictly a license, there would be no way to enforce the return promise or any conditions, hampering the benefit of "open source" rights and obligations. A license is a grant of rights--it alone cannot require you to do something without growing beyond a license to a license agreement, a license together with a contract. Open source license agreements are enforceable under copyright law just as proprietary license agreements already are. SLAs are what enable "copyleft" to exist; without them, you could not grant distribution rights structured the way the GPL does, because pure licenses do not permit return obligations, only definitions of scope.
Doesn't Google run these things pas their lawyers? Or do they and this is the result?
the problem is adapting them as law, then requiring payment to be able to follow the law.
I don't see any evidence of royalties or license fees being charged based on this scenario of yours.
The law itself is public domain. This is solely about publishing rights to commercial printings. If you want to sit at home and print out the code, end to end, knock yourself out. I agree that the idea is somewhat uncomfortable, but it doesn't have the broad implications suggested by commenters here. The fact that the state pays to maintain free access for everyone, that public libraries, university libraries, and law libraries, public and private also make it available deflates the entire argument.
It's sensationalism at its worst.
$2315 for the printed version of California code is NOT reasonable
The complete CCR is tens of thousands of pages long, covering everything from welfare to building to hazardous waste disposal to business and professions and back. Because the market for complete sets is quite small, the bound ~40-volume set for $2315 is not unreasonable--it's roughly the same price as a copy shop run if you've ever done reports or notebooks. For a recent conference, 10,000 pages copied, hole punched, and shrinkwrapped ran to $1300 at a copy shop. The CCR is substantially longer than 10,000 pages.
The online version is available to everyone for free to read.
This entire story isn't about citizen access to laws, but rather about restricting the ability to distribute the publication because the reduced cost of print copies only avoids being a burden on taxpayers if there is no competition. Not that many people purchase them in the first place.
That said, I agree that the idea of copyrighting "the laws" is inappropriate, but they're not doing that. You're free to access, cite, quote, and make use of the laws of the state, and there are several resources for getting to it, including public libraries and the state website. The copyright simply prevents other companies from competing and reproducing the official publication. It's about economic competition and the cost of compiling and preparing the books for print--work that a competitor would not have to duplicate to the same extent.
State revenue is about $1 million per year. It's not much, when you consider the costs of preparing the print versions. The digital version is hundreds of dollars cheaper because the paper expense is eliminated.
To do so would deny equal and unfettered access to the legal system.
It is the job of the attorney to be an advocate for a client, not to be the gatekeepers of greedy bastards and dumbasses. That's society's job, and by extension, Congress'.
the reason that we have so many ridiculous class action suits is because too many lawyers don't have better things to do.
Trust me when I say there is no shortage of work for lawyers. Ever. We'd all thank you for starting fewer legal fights and clogging the courts.
Law is probably the only line of work where the people working in the field answer only to themselves
As opposed to? Are we forgetting juries and elections, or are you just conceding that everybody else is too stupid to do anything about it?
That's like saying cops only investigate themselves, or that doctors are the only ones who can really check each other's work. It may have intuitive appeal, but it's short-sighted and unrealistic.
Slashdot Mirror
No one would wonder that, because everyone would know that morning isn't the same everywhere. Without any context, people would simply assume that he woke up wherever it is morning at 6. From your example, I have no idea whether he means 6am or 6pm, or whether it is important. If the next sentence were, "He had missed lunch, and nearly dinner, too," then I'd know what was going on.
People would, however, wonder about the significance of the time if they did not know the location of the character, but like many details in a novel, it may not be immediately apparent. All I can tell from the sentence alone is that it's early morning or in the evening. An author could easily say "early morning" or "evening" instead of "6 o'clock" if the time itself was unimportant and the location unknown.
I think the US should have one time zone, and it should be based on NYC time. -5/-4 UTC for everybody! Who cares if California would have the sunset at 2230 today?
Fine by me, and I'm a native Californian.
There's no rule that says business hours need to be 9 to 5. Since you already have to convert what "time" it is in a faraway place you're calling, it's not a big deal. In San Francisco, I can't make any calls after 1pm to East Coast offices and expect to get anything done. What the clocks say over there doesn't really matter. For all intents and purposes, New York business hours are 6am to 2pm from my perspective.
I'd be content for the entire planet to move past the idea of time zones entirely. It's an outdated idea from a time when you needed physical references to the passing of time, and when it didn't matter that the times didn't line up in faraway places. Just think of all the things it would simplify: flight arrivals/departures, conference calls, news stories--and it would make am/pm an unnecessary distinction, too. 0514 would really be 0514. Everywhere. I'm okay with "business hours" for me being, say 0100 to 0900, and 2200 to 0600 in some other place. They're just numbers.
Tradition and conditioning, however, are unbeatable--and the idea of "noon" being the middle of the day has undeniable intuitive appeal (even if it's rarely accurate).
No, the guy is a troll and probably a liar.
Neither, but you're clearly unable to face the truth.
He claims to be "lifelong liberal" but he's also vigilantly defending Palin on multiple threads.
Only if "vigilantly defending" means pointing out two busted myths that disservice the truth and distract from the actual issues of the campaign.
I was pointing out the flaws in his logic when he said it's ok for palin to mislead & mccain to lie but obama should be brought to task for selective statements about his past.
Except that I never said either of those.
That's not something a liberal would say.
Somebody doesn't know what liberal means.
Your blind devotion and incessant need to spin statements into the most partisan constructions is something trolls do. Maybe that's where you got the idea to call me one. Look at yourself, buddy. It's shades of Bush's "your with us or you're against us" all over again.
Yes, I was under the impression that you were liable for use taxes over and above out-of-state sales tax
Ah. Yeah, that's not the case. The closest thing is that some states require you to pay the use tax, with a credit against what you've paid out-of-state. If you paid 0 tax, for example by driving to Oregon, you're responsible for the full amount (7% in the example). If you paid 5%, you'd owe your home state/municipality 2%.
Actually, I wonder how many people who live in states with sales and use taxes are familiar with these things
Considering it appears as a section of your state tax return, everybody who has ever filed taxes is familiar with it. I'd agree that most people wouldn't be able to tell you about it when asked on the street, though, other than that they're supposed to report the purchase.
I personally don't unless the amount is over $100, though, simply because keeping the receipt for every odd Amazon book or DVD is a bit tedious. Instead, I just add $20 or so to whatever I owe from the big-ticket items. Fair is fair.
You claim to be a liberal but you slam Obama for being selective about the truth without providing a concrete example while defending Republicans
That's ludicrous. I'm not defending Republicans. I'm saying that your attack is both false and stupid, and something you would not tolerate if it were Obama on the receiving end. Your ignorance of the facts has already been demonstrated.
I'd also like you to point out where I "slammed" Obama. The point I made is that you turn a blind eye to Obama, while working your best to dredge up a complete non-story based on a selective interpretation of the facts.
If you need examples, you need look no further than his critique of Clinton's Iraq conduct--when he voted exactly the same way. Maybe his politically expedient anti-NAFTA position that came out of thin air (he voted FOR the NAFTA expansion). His outright lies when he said he didn't commit to public financing, and then his weak dismissal of a "broken" system--the public election fund isn't broken. It's more tightly regulated, which is why Republicans don't like it. But in this case, Obama doesn't like it because he saw the piles of money he was raking in.
Being a liberal means not tolerating unfairness and calling bullshit bullshit, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. This plane situation is something you don't understand, and you're just as ignorant as those who claim Obama supports radical black causes.
a specific example of them making misleading statements (Palin) and outright untruths (McCain) has been presented to you.
The specific example being what?
Based on statements like that, I'd guess you're trolling.
Based on idiotic constructions of logic, I'd say you're a hack and you give the rest of us a bad reputation.
I've been on stage with some of the great Democrats. I've marched and petitioned and dedicated my time, money, and professional reputation for equal rights, gay marriage, education reform, and abortion rights. I've stood in front of Planned Parenthood clinics to protest the protesters and celebrated in the streets of the Castro. Don't you dare question my liberal credentials because my tongue's not on Obama's ass.
You were wrong about who was responsible for making the deal, you were wrong about the propriety of the price, and you're wrong to take an action that should be applauded after 8 years of Republican waste and try to turn it into a story of scandal or misjudgment.
You certainly don't sound like one.
Based on my interest in the truth? I suppose not, if your standard is hypocrisy and FUD.
BTW, the market price was about 2.4 Million
That's not the market price. The market price for an early-80s Westwind II is about $1.2-2.5 million.
Like selling a house, Heckmann set the asking price based on the market. You don't get your asking price in a downturn market. It's a buyer's market. $2.1 million is not a bad price for a 20+ year old plane.
smoothing the deal through at a lower than market price.
Citation needed. I don't see any evidence of a special deal under surreptitious circumstances. With all the real Republican scandals in this country, there's no need to fabricate one for the purposes of an absurd attack.
Sorry, I should quote my sources. The $300K below market came from the Chicago Tribune.
It's not $300K below market, but $300K below the offer price. Given the aviation slump, this is not unusual. How about some sources from the time, free of the election spin and the Chicago-spin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6422443
Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, who brokered the no-bid deal.
Not true. The plane was sold through a private aircraft broker named Heckmann, who is anything but a state lackey, having had prior legal encounters with state contracts.
The final price did indeed end up saving money, given the costs of insurance, storage, maintenance. The bid fell through because the buyer backed out.
As a lifelong liberal, even I am disgusted at this smear campaign. It's okay for Obama to be selective about stories from the past, but not for Palin? Let's not lose sight of the fact that she pledged to get rid of the plane and did so, responsibly and through a private broker who signed off on the deal.
Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive.
False. No book was ever banned or asked to be banned. She asked about her views on banning books during the interview--and she was not fired. In fact, she survived one or two rounds of firings--the usual housecleaning that happens with an administration. She was later pressed out.
She was never asked to ban a single book, nor was her successor. There is no evidence of any book being banned or asked to be banned. Each community has standards for challenging a book being part of the library collection to serve as a check on library actions. It is rare for a challenge to succeed, as it is meant to be successful only where the library buyer has made a serious error in judgment, for example, the purchase of pornography with public funds.
This kind of politics is just as disgusting from the left as from the right. There are legitimate points of contention. There's no need for the cosmetic bullshit.
Or does that only apply to international trade?
Yes. Hooeven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. Article 1, Section 8 and its corollary are what matters in this situation:
"The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce [...] among the several states..."
Where Congress has not regulated, the states must act in accordance with the idea of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits them from burdening interstate commerce relative to internal commerce. This is because the intent, it is argued, of giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce is to prevent states from breaking down the union economically through protectionism, and thus protectionism is rarely permitted--but charging a uniform tax is not protectionist. One must discriminate against the out-of-state merchant somehow, e.g., by charging a higher or additional tax.
though it would seem to bring about a fair amount of double-taxation
There is no double-taxation going on. You seem to be confused about something.
I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence here-- if I were, I wouldn't be asking-- but it was the reasoning behind this statement I really wanted. How not?
Exactly as I said. It does not discriminate against out-of-state sellers, and it does not favor in-state sellers. It is an evenhanded application of a tax rate for consumer purchases.
If you buy in person in your state, you are charged a sales tax (we'll say it's 7% for the sake of this example).
If you buy in person in another state, you are charged their sales tax. No problem.
If you buy online from your state, you are charged your sales tax. No problem.
If you buy online from another state, the seller does not necessarily collect any tax. This is a problem. The purchase was taxable. It is an unfair advantage not to collect it. It burdens both in-state and in-person transactions.
Along the lines of Philadelphia v. New Jersey and Bacchus Imports v. Dias, as long as the state treats both the in-state and out-of-state merchants the same, it is not an impost or duty. The state cannot charge a higher tax on Internet purchases from out-of-state companies, but if the tax exists domestically, then it can be applied to everyone.
If a state charges a $1 levy on all beer sold in glass bottles, everyone has to pay if they want to do business in the state. The Dormant Commerce Clause exists only in the wake of Congressional silence and prohibits states from burdening out-of-state sellers or preferential treatment of in-state sellers. Creating a level playing field for all is entirely within the rights of the individual state.
Discrimination hasn't got a thing to do with it.
Please read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Burdening interstate commerce unfairly has everything to do with it.
based on a purchase I made in another state.
But you didn't make the purchase in another state. You made it right from home. Had you actually made the purchase out of state, you would have been obligated to pay that state's sales tax and would owe nothing to your home state. But you didn't pay tax in either state with your online purchase, when your purchase, had it been made in person in either state, would have been taxable.
Either is quite obviously illegal on the face of it.
Then you should have no trouble finding a case agreeing with you. Since, however, there is no such case, you're quite obviously incorrect.
Changed what? If they changed it, it would no longer be up to you to report it.
And yes, I do report and pay taxes on any purchase over $100.
It is plainly an interstate sales tax
It's not, because it's not discriminatory against interstate commerce; it is an equalizer--all purchases are taxed, regardless of origin. It neither favors the home state nor disfavors the foreign state. Simultaneously, failure to do so significantly burdens local producers and merchants, who cannot compete because of the externality of the sales tax. This is of course creates a legitimate state interest in leveling the playing field.
if it were otherwise they'd charge it on sales-taxed items too
They do. It's called the sales tax.
So why do the courts let them get away with it?
Because it violates neither the law nor the spirit of the Commerce Clause, and more specifically, the Dormant Commerce Clause.
before removing the asinine notion that an idea can be owned.
There's no need to remove a notion that doesn't exist. An idea can't be owned.
copyright should actually be shorter than 28 years.
No, it should be, and is, longer. 28 years was selected originally because it was both a multiple of 7 (the Framers liked that) and because it approximately covered the length of an artist's career, ensuring longevity. As people started living longer and working longer, and producing works at a younger age as the art of the apprenticeship faded, copyright was extended accordingly. It came to be considered an asset like any other annuity, and so it was further tweaked so that like other wealth-generating labors, it would benefit the children of the author as well.
The works of copyright were never intended to benefit those in the generation of the creator, but rather to benefit the social trust of future generations. Nothing copyrighted is ever needed for any practical purpose, unlike a patent.
The most recent extensions are starting to push their luck, but about a century is consistent with both the artist's rights (global minus US) model and the economic incentive (US) model. A century ensures that any profit to be made is made by the creator or his estate, so long as there is a measurable demand. Artists/estates are also free to release their copyright at any time prior to that point should they choose to do so.
Personally, I'm a fan of a 50-year blanket copyright, with the option of ten-year extensions up to the current longest limit of 120 years. Fail to register for the extension, and the copyright lapses. This simplifies calculations (assuming the date of fixation is known), and also provides a single source (the copyright registry) for checking the status of copyrights on any work older than 50 years.
Once you buy a DVD, if your DVD gets eaten by a wayward snapping turtle, you have to buy it again.
Only about $1 of the purchase price goes toward the actual cost. Like the materials cost of a DVD, the bandwidth cost of the download is really incidental to the price.
Same thing with any other random purchase, whether it's a screwdriver or a dinner plate. If you lose it or destroy it, you have to buy another one.
That said, it would probably be a popular feature to market downloads such that your purchase record is stored, allowing you to replace lost copies for a nominal fee (or built-in to the initial purchase price). But simply because such a feature can exist does not mean it must, especially when, from their perspective, it's not their problem. Everyone else gets to charge you again, regardless of their actual expenses for replacement--and who really thinks the big entertainment corporations are going to lead the way toward consumer nirvana?
Sales tax here ranges from 0% to ~10% (though certain items are subject to higher taxes, like hotels in D.C.), varying based on the location (not only different states, but different cities may have different sales tax rates), and sometimes based on the type of purchase (in some places, things like restaurant meals are taxed at a higher rate than retail/sundry purchases). The burden for collection is on the merchant in states where they have a business presence (office, warehouse, retail location).
Everywhere else, the buyer is legally obligated to report the purchase on their income taxes and to pay the proper amount at that time. Many people don't pay the use tax, and the economic incentive in terms of greater commercial activity generally makes up for that lost tax revenue elsewhere, so the tax code hasn't been changed to eliminate the rampant cheating.
Time for remedial constitutional interpretation, too.
Hiding the truth is bad.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.
Including the freedom to limit discussion within your own private sphere of influence. If someone wants to talk about raping and pillaging in war-torn African countries, they're free to do so, but if you don't want to hear about it in your house or shop or blog, you can edit it out and/or tell them to leave.
It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech.
Yes, it is. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. Even this is not without limits--there are many areas in which the exercise of "free" speech is restricted in particular environments for the good of others. No constitutional right is absolute.
It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.
You don't need a law granting a right to do something, unless that particular right is held by someone else and the law enables you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. You need a law telling you that you cannot.
You don't have a freedom of speech right in a private environment, and that includes a website that does not belong to you or to the people. Period. If you don't like it, you're free to start your own website without those restrictions.
When you start with false premises, your conclusions tend to be unreliable.
A promise is a contractual obligation. Care to
If you mean Katzer, it was decided just the other way;
No, it wasn't. It's your unclear reading of both the decision and my comments that are confusing you. Copyright infringement only occurs because the terms of the license were legally binding; the quote about consideration in the form of source code is from Katzer, for goodness sake!
the obligation was imposed by copyright law,
Wrong. The obligation was imposed by the license. Failure to comply with that obligation terminated the copyright license, thus causing copyright infringement.
. If you didn't fulfill the conditions, you didn't get a license and could be sued under copyright rather than contract law.
Can be sued under both copyright and contract law. It is not a binary situation. The decision accepts the contractual nature of the Artistic License. The issue is whether breach of that agreement is simple breach of contract or whether termination of the license occurs, placing the breaching party in a position of infringement. The court decided the latter.
it isn't an EULA because it makes no claim to bind the End User.
AND ONCE AGAIN, you are ignorant of the statement. 'EULA' as it has come to be used by a large number of people is not an acronym. It is a blanket term for a SLA in the way it is bandied about by the general public. THUS, IN ORDER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, ONE MUST SET GROUND RULES AS TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS.
I did not say that I use the term EULA to refer to the GPL. Like others in the field, I use the term SLA. "EULA" is not a legal construct with a fixed definition; neither is end user. Whether you call all licensees "end users" or whether you call all SLAs "EULAs" is something you must specify before attacking with bullshit false pedanticism.
It's not that complicated, really.
Licenses do not contain return promises. The GPL does. Ergo, it is not simply a license. It is a contract together with a license. A Software License Agreement (not service level), in other words.
"The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition." Jacobsen v. Katzer. In other words, a "free" software license is still binding. You can be compelled to perform your part of the agreement, or the license can be terminated, placing you in a situation of copyright infringement in addition to being in breach of the contractual agreement.
Licenses do not have consideration. License agreements do. I have no idea why Slashdot is so resistant to this simple reality--it's what enables copyright infringement claims for GPL violations! Can the GPL compel you to promise to provide source code? Yes. Can a simple license compel you to do something in return? No. A license can grant you rights and provide a scope in which to exercise those rights. That's it.
A license may be granted as a component of an agreement, called, logically enough, a license agreement. If you are speaking in terms of negotiations, binding promises, consideration, and acceptance, you're talking about a license agreement. If you've got a license grant together with warranty disclaimers, waivers of rights, and a limitation of liability, you're still talking about a license agreement.
The license is the grant of rights. If I am imposing conditions, requiring further action in order to exercise rights, or providing optional extras if certain other conditions are satisfied, you're negotiating a license agreement. In a license, you can define a scope: a term of years, a geographic location, a certain purpose. As soon as you start saying "you can do x IF you promise to do y", you're no longer dealing with a simple license. A conditional license is granted as a component of an agreement between parties, called the Licensor and Licensee. Depending on the termination terms in that agreement, breach of the agreement may also revoke your license. Depending on the license involved, continued use may constitute a separate offense (e.g., copyright infringement, trademark misappropriation).
We just had the Katzen decision, which explicitly stated that open source licenses are not only binding agreements, but are not merely contracts. One is built on the other. If there was no contractual obligation to do anything in order to maintain the use granted by the license, there would not have been a case.
Why not let the users decide if they need a dead tree version?
We're way ahead of you. The entire CCR is already online, for free.
Putting the entirety in PDF format is not feasible. Individual titles of the code are distributed this way, but as I've said, the entire code is tens of thousands of pages. Most computers struggle with 1000-page PDFs...we're talking files dozens of times that size.
Why should laws made for and paid for by the public, not be as widely distributed to the public as possible.
That's the goal--the state offers the collection at a price that is high enough to avoid expenditures of public funds while low enough to ensure broad access. It provides access to the entirety for free.
Why should there be any restriction on who or how distribution is done for laws that should be known by everybody?
Because the issue isn't knowledge. It's commercial exploitation for profit by a publisher who would come in, without the expense of doing the compilation, offering the set at a lower price (a price below cost), and drying up the source of revenue that pays for the self-sustaining printing practice. With no one buying the official printed copies, the cost of compilation and preparation becomes a cost passed on to the taxpayers in order to serve the profits of a private corporation.
Their laws are therefore works for hire
No.
Same goes for the GPL; just because people call it an EULA doesn't make it one.
It's an SLA.
If the term 'EULA' has come to be understood as encompassing SLAs generally, then it is. Saying it's not a license agreement in the face of reality doesn't make the tail a leg, either.
If there is no shortage of work, than there is probably no need to chase ambulances to drum up more business.
Agreed. What's your point?
It's actually not at all like saying that cops are the only ones that investigate themselves and only doctors check each other's work, because I'm saying that only lawyers get that privilege.
And I'm saying that that statement is as misguided as the other propositions. In other words, it's not true that lawyers enjoy any such privilege.
But if you feel like a lawyer messed up in your representation or that the procedures that were followed in the course of your trial were wrong, than your appeal is most likely going to be in the hands of judges who used to be lawyers.
And once again, you're forgetting the jury when you make that claim and jumping ahead to the statistically unlikely result that an appeal is granted. And like the internal affairs cops and the medical review boards, there are lawyers for that, too. If after all that you feel that all the lawyers are out to get you, you can have you case removed to an independent arbitration firm--professional mediators who are usually not attorneys.
But I do believe that people that work in the same industry have lines of thinking and perspectives that tend to more often skew the same way
How? Lawyers work both sides of every issue and specialize in disparate fields--a securities lawyer is nothing like an immigration lawyer.
one field has almost no external checks and balances seems like it's not going to be a good thing in the long run.
The idea that it's "one field" is your problem. Congress and the legal system are at odds at least as often as they're in sync. The idea that Congress is "mostly" composed of lawyers is also just plain false.
There are about 150 barred individuals in the House of Representatives--roughly one-third. The rest are doctors, accountants, business professionals, banking/finance, professors, and other professionals. Congress and practicing attorneys hate each other, and Congress is elected by everyone. If there's a problem, vote them out and replace them. That a substantial people who have to write laws should know the realities of practicing law only helps the quality of those laws (and they still can't get it right half the time). The ABA has to lobby Congress just like everyone else. The idea that there is any self-serving oversight interest confined to lawyers is simply asinine.
If you think there's a "bad" lawyer and you can't have him sanctioned in court, can't have him investigated by the bar, and can't convince your fellow citizens to stop giving him business...the more likely result is that he's not that bad.
Quite frankly, lawyers have a high level of self-interest in removing disreputable members of their profession. The idea that their inability to weed out the bad ones is any worse than police departments, corporations, hospitals, or financial firms is misguided and offensive. I'm always game for a good lawyer joke, but the composition of the bar is not any more or less corrupt than the society in which it sits.
There's always an external check: you. Fire your lawyer if you think he's a scumbag, and file a complaint with the ABA and/or state bar. Talk to a different lawyer about finding someone to represent you in actions against the scumbag if the transgression is so serious.
Why the hell do they think they need an "EULA" or "TOS" for a supposedly Open Source program at all?
Because you do. The GPL is a EULA, too, in the sense that 'EULA' is taken to be interchangeable with SLAs in general these days. 'EULA' as such is rarely useful as a result unless ground rules are established in the conversation defining the scope of the term.
Without terms, if it were strictly a license, there would be no way to enforce the return promise or any conditions, hampering the benefit of "open source" rights and obligations. A license is a grant of rights--it alone cannot require you to do something without growing beyond a license to a license agreement, a license together with a contract. Open source license agreements are enforceable under copyright law just as proprietary license agreements already are. SLAs are what enable "copyleft" to exist; without them, you could not grant distribution rights structured the way the GPL does, because pure licenses do not permit return obligations, only definitions of scope.
Doesn't Google run these things pas their lawyers? Or do they and this is the result?
Yes and yes.
the problem is adapting them as law, then requiring payment to be able to follow the law.
I don't see any evidence of royalties or license fees being charged based on this scenario of yours.
The law itself is public domain. This is solely about publishing rights to commercial printings. If you want to sit at home and print out the code, end to end, knock yourself out. I agree that the idea is somewhat uncomfortable, but it doesn't have the broad implications suggested by commenters here. The fact that the state pays to maintain free access for everyone, that public libraries, university libraries, and law libraries, public and private also make it available deflates the entire argument.
It's sensationalism at its worst.
$2315 for the printed version of California code is NOT reasonable
The complete CCR is tens of thousands of pages long, covering everything from welfare to building to hazardous waste disposal to business and professions and back. Because the market for complete sets is quite small, the bound ~40-volume set for $2315 is not unreasonable--it's roughly the same price as a copy shop run if you've ever done reports or notebooks. For a recent conference, 10,000 pages copied, hole punched, and shrinkwrapped ran to $1300 at a copy shop. The CCR is substantially longer than 10,000 pages.
The online version is available to everyone for free to read.
This entire story isn't about citizen access to laws, but rather about restricting the ability to distribute the publication because the reduced cost of print copies only avoids being a burden on taxpayers if there is no competition. Not that many people purchase them in the first place.
That said, I agree that the idea of copyrighting "the laws" is inappropriate, but they're not doing that. You're free to access, cite, quote, and make use of the laws of the state, and there are several resources for getting to it, including public libraries and the state website. The copyright simply prevents other companies from competing and reproducing the official publication. It's about economic competition and the cost of compiling and preparing the books for print--work that a competitor would not have to duplicate to the same extent.
State revenue is about $1 million per year. It's not much, when you consider the costs of preparing the print versions. The digital version is hundreds of dollars cheaper because the paper expense is eliminated.
To do so would deny equal and unfettered access to the legal system.
It is the job of the attorney to be an advocate for a client, not to be the gatekeepers of greedy bastards and dumbasses. That's society's job, and by extension, Congress'.
the reason that we have so many ridiculous class action suits is because too many lawyers don't have better things to do.
Trust me when I say there is no shortage of work for lawyers. Ever. We'd all thank you for starting fewer legal fights and clogging the courts.
Law is probably the only line of work where the people working in the field answer only to themselves
As opposed to? Are we forgetting juries and elections, or are you just conceding that everybody else is too stupid to do anything about it?
That's like saying cops only investigate themselves, or that doctors are the only ones who can really check each other's work. It may have intuitive appeal, but it's short-sighted and unrealistic.