The ramblings of another Econ 101 indoctrinee or someone who has a vested interest in the corrupt status quo.
They've shoveled a stack of shit into your head and you're no longer capable of thinking for yourself.
Instead, we should let you shovel a different stack of shit into our head, conveniently not thinking for ourselves.
The corrupt status quo has the advantage of a long track record. The glorious utopian future has a long track record as well - of never coming to pass. Guess how the rational self-interested actor should plan for tomorrow.
The modified version specifically banned 16 organizations, including Microsoft, Palantir, Amazon, Northeastern University, Johns Hopkins University, Dell, Xerox, LinkedIn, and UPS... Although open-source developer Jamie Kyle acknowledged that it's "part of the deal" that anyone "can use open source for evil," he told me he couldn't stand to see the software he helped develop get used by companies contracting with ICE.
And U.S. law, 28 USC 1498, specifically allows contractors for the Federal Government to use intellectual property for government projects whether they are licensed or not. Link discusses 28 USC 1498(a) (patent infringement), but 28 USC 1498(b) covers copyright infringement.
Oh sure, you can file an action in the Federal Court of Claims for "recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement," but since the licensing cost for the rest of the world is zero... you do the math.
You mean conspiracies like 350 newspapers publishing the same editorial topic on the same day, without it being disclosed beforehand? That kind of conspiracy?
So much worse than ~200 TV stations forcing their anchors to read a "fake news" script on pain of being fired, without disclosing it beforehand, during, or even afterwards. That's not a conspiracy, because they all have the same corporate overlord!
Name one trademark lost by non-enforcement in the last, oh... 80 years. 1948 or later. Not unenforceable against someone else who was using it due to laches -- totally expected and boring -- I mean lost as in unenforecable against everyone in the registered mark's jurisdiction.
Becasue let me tell you, my peers promulgating that meme, for a profit, keep using examples from the early 20th century, if not even earlier. May as well be warning the populace about marauding dire wolves.
Can I get a recipe complete with required equipment list for the manufacture of LSD or methamphetamine off the internet too since all information is just so legal now?
An alkali metal, preferably sodium, is oxidized with ferric nitrate in liquid ammonia to form the alkali metal amide, e.g. sodium amide. The dry acid H is added and after a few minutes the resulting alkali metal salt is mixed with the desired organic halogen compound R Hal. 2 to 10, preferably 3 to 5 atoms of alkali metal and 2 to mols, preferably 4 to 6 mols of the organic halogen compound are used per mol of acid.
The ammonia may be evaporated a few minutes after addition of the organic halogen compound. To isolate the compound I the reaction mixture is shaken between Water and ether and the aqueous phase filtered through a tale layer. The procedure which is then followed depends on the acid and the organic halogen compound used. The isolation of l-methyl-D-lysergic acid in pure, crystalline form is particularly simple, it being sufficient for the aqueous solution to be brought to a pH value of 4.5 to 5 with acetic acid. Otherwise, the aqueous solution may be evaporated to dryness and methanol poured over the dry residue, the inorganic salts and the small quantity of l-methyl-isolysergic acid present going into solution and the l-methyl-D-lysergic acid remaining undissolved.
HowStuffWorks provides another helpful description. Quick, call the police, because I've posted a mass of not-illegal information right here...
Censorious trope two. Who says that you can't shout "fire" in a theater, especially when it's true?
The Pentagon Papers case did not allow for suppression of true information where the consequences of that speech were "dire." The Federal government agreed that this information was not within the scope of ITAR and that it could not prohibit publication. The judge in issuing this very injunction admitted that "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
Note: personally I support DD here, I'm just refuting the argument that it's a simple 1st Amendment issue.
Then why are you attempting to justify the outrage here using exception-to-the-first-amendment arguments?
Spam your single link again, why not. Prove me right once more.
Preliminary injunction page 25: "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
Oops, a different link that proves you wrong. Oh well, I can live with it.
Keep reading, don't just stop at the part you thought you understood but don't, lol.
Ok, you mean the opinion of the judge in the case as he issued the preliminary injunction: "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
The link includes plenty of law. You cite no law, and also persist in attempting to alter my argument from the legality of publishing information on how to manfucture firearms to one of "manufacturing weapons without restrictions."
The link includes plenty of law. It is you who cites no law, and also persists in attempting to alter my argument from the legality of publishing information on how to manfucture firearms to one of "manufacturing weapons without restrictions."
You have a right to blather, but it's a limited right. I'm correct on this, you can pretend to be a lawyer but you can't refute this fact.
Censorious trope three with the twist of unspecified limits. The blather is not obscenity, fraud, incitement, or speech integral to criminal conduct, and neither are the 3d printing files. Care to cite an applicable limit, or have you simply retreated to a "I'm right about an irrelevant fact so I must be right about everything else" fallacy?
And the first amendment makes express the right to blather, and Cody the right to distribute information on how to manufacture firearms, regardless of whether we have the right to make weapons without restriction.
One day you'll figure out the difference between publishing speech and manufacturing weapons. Until then you're just wrong.
Sorry blatheroo, there are things related to speech that our system of laws puts restrictions on. You seem to think the 1st amendment is unlimited, lol. How silly of you. Back to civics class kiddo. No right is unlimited.
Just about all of them, I can't list every single way nor am I 'rooting' either way. There's no explicit right to manufacture your own firearms, never was. Read it again Sam. And they meant muskets, militias, as initially written.
It's simply not the case that there are no restrictions on firearms manufacturing because of the 2nd amendment, though some would like to espouse that for their existing ideology. That's new law that doesn't exist yet.
Well then it's a good thing that this is only information about how to manufacture firearms, and it's governed by old law that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There was this guy once who said that scripture is complicated, and it's easy to read it wrong, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. He got pretty famous for saying things like that, though it didn't end well for him. However, he got the last laugh, as it turns out, since you've probably heard of him.
He did? Because I was under the impression that people took his words, mixed them together with a bunch of earlier words, and used them as an execuse to hurt everyone who was not precisely like them. Women. Children. The unmarried. Sexual "deviants." The poor. Anyone following a different doctine, much less a different religion. Anyone "getting in the way."
Yes, he's surely laughing at the fact that he's the titular face of rank hypocrisy.
How does the currently bearish press resemble (or not) that after the previous Bitcoin bubble, or the one before that? Also, to those who enjoy citing tulip mania, how many bubbles did tulip mania go through before it crashed, and what as the approximate peak market cap of each bubble?
How are any of these questions relevant. Specifically,
* How do you think that the number of tulip bubbles will predict the number of Bitcoin bubbles?
* How do you think you have the skills to time the bottom and top of each bubble so as to capture any of that market cap rather than watch your stake dissipate because you bought and/or sold too late?
And the final and best one, if you can time the market and/or individual assets, then when why do you need to use Bitcoin to do it?
Fox can choose to not broadcast \ report any news that doesn't fit their world view, and so can Twitter.
Fox is the company that is generating the content of the new reports that they broadcast (they tell the news anchor what to say). Twitter does not create the content of user's tweets, so it is not the same. A correct parallel would be if Fox were a public access TV network, then they would not be the ones creating the content.
Actually its the opposite. California stopped most logging and forest management activities decades ago at he behest of environmentalists. These fires are a result of that lack of management.
You're welcome to hire commercial loggers to come in and clear out the underbrush and small trees. You won't get anyone to do it, because they want to haul out the tallest, largest diameter wood that they can get their hands on, and leave that nuisance non-commercial crap behind, but you're welcome to try.
Of course, just like the wood that you throw in your fireplace, the big stuff doesn't burn without a lot of kindling around it. The small stuff burns like gangbusters. So there's no reason to take out the tallest, largest diameter wood absent the nuisance non-commercial crap, and there's nobody who wants to deal with the nuisance non-commercial crap to begin with, much less without the big stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead, we should let you shovel a different stack of shit into our head, conveniently not thinking for ourselves.
The corrupt status quo has the advantage of a long track record. The glorious utopian future has a long track record as well - of never coming to pass. Guess how the rational self-interested actor should plan for tomorrow.
And U.S. law, 28 USC 1498, specifically allows contractors for the Federal Government to use intellectual property for government projects whether they are licensed or not. Link discusses 28 USC 1498(a) (patent infringement), but 28 USC 1498(b) covers copyright infringement.
Oh sure, you can file an action in the Federal Court of Claims for "recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement," but since the licensing cost for the rest of the world is zero... you do the math.
So much worse than ~200 TV stations forcing their anchors to read a "fake news" script on pain of being fired, without disclosing it beforehand, during, or even afterwards. That's not a conspiracy, because they all have the same corporate overlord!
And of course, mental math error. Doii.
Name one trademark lost by non-enforcement in the last, oh... 80 years. 1948 or later. Not unenforceable against someone else who was using it due to laches -- totally expected and boring -- I mean lost as in unenforecable against everyone in the registered mark's jurisdiction.
Becasue let me tell you, my peers promulgating that meme, for a profit, keep using examples from the early 20th century, if not even earlier. May as well be warning the populace about marauding dire wolves.
She didn't hit it, ergo she wasn't tailgating.
Pull that move yourself with a police car behind you. You won't get hit, but you'll probably get a talking--to and just maybe a ticket yourself.
Yes, you can. Or would you prefer detailed instructions direct from the U.S. government?
HowStuffWorks provides another helpful description. Quick, call the police, because I've posted a mass of not-illegal information right here...
Censorious trope two. Who says that you can't shout "fire" in a theater, especially when it's true?
The Pentagon Papers case did not allow for suppression of true information where the consequences of that speech were "dire." The Federal government agreed that this information was not within the scope of ITAR and that it could not prohibit publication. The judge in issuing this very injunction admitted that "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
Then why are you attempting to justify the outrage here using exception-to-the-first-amendment arguments?
"Non-legal links" like the the very court order that this discussion is discussing. LOL.
You're an idiot. Goodnight.
Preliminary injunction page 25: "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
Oops, a different link that proves you wrong. Oh well, I can live with it.
Ok, you mean the opinion of the judge in the case as he issued the preliminary injunction:
"Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."
Yep, read through to that part too.
No Instragram account. Try again, loser.
The link includes plenty of law. You cite no law, and also persist in attempting to alter my argument from the legality of publishing information on how to manfucture firearms to one of "manufacturing weapons without restrictions."
The link includes plenty of law. It is you who cites no law, and also persists in attempting to alter my argument from the legality of publishing information on how to manfucture firearms to one of "manufacturing weapons without restrictions."
Censorious trope three with the twist of unspecified limits. The blather is not obscenity, fraud, incitement, or speech integral to criminal conduct, and neither are the 3d printing files. Care to cite an applicable limit, or have you simply retreated to a "I'm right about an irrelevant fact so I must be right about everything else" fallacy?
And the first amendment makes express the right to blather, and Cody the right to distribute information on how to manufacture firearms, regardless of whether we have the right to make weapons without restriction.
One day you'll figure out the difference between publishing speech and manufacturing weapons. Until then you're just wrong.
Censorious tropes six and five. A ground rule double.
Not discussing the 2nd. Deal with that.
Censorious trope three.
I don't need to go back to civics class, I studied constitutional law, passed the bar, and everything. You, on the other hand... not so much.
It's a shame that you can only post this Dollar General-quality wisdom every three minutes.
Well then it's a good thing that this is only information about how to manufacture firearms, and it's governed by old law that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Wrong amendment, Buckaroo.
He did? Because I was under the impression that people took his words, mixed them together with a bunch of earlier words, and used them as an execuse to hurt everyone who was not precisely like them. Women. Children. The unmarried. Sexual "deviants." The poor. Anyone following a different doctine, much less a different religion. Anyone "getting in the way."
Yes, he's surely laughing at the fact that he's the titular face of rank hypocrisy.
How are any of these questions relevant. Specifically,
* How do you think that the number of tulip bubbles will predict the number of Bitcoin bubbles?
* How do you think you have the skills to time the bottom and top of each bubble so as to capture any of that market cap rather than watch your stake dissipate because you bought and/or sold too late?
And the final and best one, if you can time the market and/or individual assets, then when why do you need to use Bitcoin to do it?
It's cute that you think that there's a difference. It's ironic that the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Have fun with that.
You're welcome to hire commercial loggers to come in and clear out the underbrush and small trees. You won't get anyone to do it, because they want to haul out the tallest, largest diameter wood that they can get their hands on, and leave that nuisance non-commercial crap behind, but you're welcome to try.
Of course, just like the wood that you throw in your fireplace, the big stuff doesn't burn without a lot of kindling around it. The small stuff burns like gangbusters. So there's no reason to take out the tallest, largest diameter wood absent the nuisance non-commercial crap, and there's nobody who wants to deal with the nuisance non-commercial crap to begin with, much less without the big stuff.
"Lack of management" my ass.