IIRC, part of the decision was that the "contract" that UMG alleged prevented the resale was not valid.
As far as I can tell, at least, the return clause for booksellers is more traditional and convenient than anything else. I imagine that if booksellers had another venue for recouping the wholesale price of unsold books, they could just as well go that route. Small businesses, for example, are just as able to put the book/unsold merchandise up on eBay as any other action.
And that's fine, except when the wingnut is the one deciding what is constitutional. I'm firmly on the side of thinking that if your view on that is not only skewed significantly from precedent, but also from your fellow jurists, and on a REGULAR basis, not just one issue... something is amiss.
The US Constitution applies to "We the People of the United States". The protections and rights described therein do not automatically apply to enemies captured on the battlefield, or any non-US-citizen. The prisoners fall under the purview of the president in his role as Commander-in-Chief.
The rights aren't inalienable because we're Americans, they're inalienable because we're human.
Yes, you have to actually present reasons why you're keeping someone a prisoner. This isn't an undue burden, it's something that should be a matter of routine.
I'm told by law-friends that SCOTUS justices tend to drift left after they're appointed. This annoys Republicans to no end. Dunno if that's necessarily the case here, though.
Scalia is well known amongst those in the legal world (and those who somewhat know of the legal word) as... well... the word that keeps coming to mind is "crack head".
He's like the Jack Thomson of the SCOTUS. The only difference in the insanity seems to be on what side of the bench it comes from.
It's the "moving goalposts" problem with AI. Any time something reaches some threshold of intelligence, people (for whatever reason) decide "well, that's not really intelligent behavior, what would be intelligent behavior is ".
I tend to agree that so long as the output seems intelligent, the system that produced it can also be considered reasonably intelligent.
The difference here between you just adding something else to your diet, is that they were physically unable to allow the citrate molecule to pass through their cell membranes before the mutation. In your example, you always had the ability to eat those things, but didn't.
I would tend to agree, though. If I suddenly was able to perform photosynthesis, I surely would be considered another species. Why this would be considered any different is beyond me.
Yeah, but any of the New Testament stuff talking about OT stuff is... suspect. Particularly the Pauline writings. He wasn't exactly a scholar in such matters.
Because they make a lot of noise, for one. Science is hard, and people tend to seize upon a "simple" answer, rather than the difficult one. With the state of science education in this country, one has to nip these things in the bud.
If my cost to provide a service goes down, yet the market still bears the original price Which it won't. Ever. Well, that's wrong, most do. However, a corp. is not obliged to only have a certain margin on a service they provide. I don't know why you think it's unfair that they charge what people are willing to continue paying. That's how capitalism works.
And the legislation would be unfavorable to whom exactly? Fairies? Ignore for a moment the competitors that the telcos harm by burdening their competitors with legislated costs/litigation/etc. Consumers are still *directly* harmed. Consumers pay higher prices and get less utility because there is less competition!
If that's okay with you, then your morals allow for more inequity and general harm to consumers than mine. That's okay.
First off, consumers are not 4 year olds, they're adults.
Secondly, your idea that all business works like telecoms is... problematic. The buy-in for a new telecom is prohibitive, as they're akin to being an infrastructure company (say, if there were 3 major companies making roads). Now, if the charging for the roads was unreasonable, there'd be a problem. Similarly, if phone charges were unreasonable, there'd be a problem. However, the market determines that, not you here on slashdot.
Third, I'm not sure what you mean by "would be unfavorable to whom, exactly?" Is it your position that corporations should never be able to lobby for legislation? Ever? Isn't the real problem that congress-critters pay them undue attention?
Fourth, my morals (such as they are) are irrelevant to the legalities of the current American business climate. So are yours.
Not all investment strategies involve valuations. Technical Analysis, for example, doesn't really care what the "valuation" (which is subjective, of course) of an equity is. TA cares what other people think about the stock, and attempts to predict and profit from (what are believed to be by the adherents to TA) behavior patterns that happen with regularity.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't. There's established law that unsolicited deliveries of items are legally gifts and don't need to be paid for or returned.
IIRC, part of the decision was that the "contract" that UMG alleged prevented the resale was not valid.
As far as I can tell, at least, the return clause for booksellers is more traditional and convenient than anything else. I imagine that if booksellers had another venue for recouping the wholesale price of unsold books, they could just as well go that route. Small businesses, for example, are just as able to put the book/unsold merchandise up on eBay as any other action.
And that's fine, except when the wingnut is the one deciding what is constitutional. I'm firmly on the side of thinking that if your view on that is not only skewed significantly from precedent, but also from your fellow jurists, and on a REGULAR basis, not just one issue... something is amiss.
The rights aren't inalienable because we're Americans, they're inalienable because we're human.
Yes, you have to actually present reasons why you're keeping someone a prisoner. This isn't an undue burden, it's something that should be a matter of routine.
We'd better be careful about what conflicts we get into then, eh?
I'm told by law-friends that SCOTUS justices tend to drift left after they're appointed. This annoys Republicans to no end. Dunno if that's necessarily the case here, though.
2/3 of congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures vote for it, it can also be done at a constitutional convention.
Neither of those things are going to happen in this case.
There's a difference, though. Scalia isn't just routinely conservative in his views. He's routinely out in wingnut-land himself.
Scalia is well known amongst those in the legal world (and those who somewhat know of the legal word) as... well... the word that keeps coming to mind is "crack head".
He's like the Jack Thomson of the SCOTUS. The only difference in the insanity seems to be on what side of the bench it comes from.
You're unnecessarily equating artificial intelligence and sentience. There's nothing that says you need the latter to get the former.
It's the "moving goalposts" problem with AI. Any time something reaches some threshold of intelligence, people (for whatever reason) decide "well, that's not really intelligent behavior, what would be intelligent behavior is ".
I tend to agree that so long as the output seems intelligent, the system that produced it can also be considered reasonably intelligent.
The difference here between you just adding something else to your diet, is that they were physically unable to allow the citrate molecule to pass through their cell membranes before the mutation. In your example, you always had the ability to eat those things, but didn't.
Um... yeah. Hey, there's a lot of different mammals, too. Are they all essentially the same as well?
It a moving target to keep the debating going.
I would tend to agree, though. If I suddenly was able to perform photosynthesis, I surely would be considered another species. Why this would be considered any different is beyond me.
Yeah, but any of the New Testament stuff talking about OT stuff is... suspect. Particularly the Pauline writings. He wasn't exactly a scholar in such matters.
Fuckin saved.
Because they make a lot of noise, for one. Science is hard, and people tend to seize upon a "simple" answer, rather than the difficult one. With the state of science education in this country, one has to nip these things in the bud.
Dunno, but I gotta wonder if press release = higher likelihood of more funding or some such thing. May be something along those lines, anyway.
Sorry, got my Ars links confused, I meant to post this one: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/06/09/att-teases-with-some-3g-iphone-data-plan-pricing-details
this is a good start, I imagine http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/06/09/att-remains-sole-iphone-carrier-in-us-revenue-sharing-axed
This is correct. Real-time quotes aren't hard to come by if you've already got a brokerage account.
Comeon, now. "Steaks" vs "stakes" is something you really should know how to spell correctly.
First off, consumers are not 4 year olds, they're adults.
Secondly, your idea that all business works like telecoms is... problematic. The buy-in for a new telecom is prohibitive, as they're akin to being an infrastructure company (say, if there were 3 major companies making roads). Now, if the charging for the roads was unreasonable, there'd be a problem. Similarly, if phone charges were unreasonable, there'd be a problem. However, the market determines that, not you here on slashdot.
Third, I'm not sure what you mean by "would be unfavorable to whom, exactly?" Is it your position that corporations should never be able to lobby for legislation? Ever? Isn't the real problem that congress-critters pay them undue attention?
Fourth, my morals (such as they are) are irrelevant to the legalities of the current American business climate. So are yours.
Nitpicky, but:
Not all investment strategies involve valuations. Technical Analysis, for example, doesn't really care what the "valuation" (which is subjective, of course) of an equity is. TA cares what other people think about the stock, and attempts to predict and profit from (what are believed to be by the adherents to TA) behavior patterns that happen with regularity.