"but part of the grant of license is that if you break those rules, there are penalties involved (fines, jail time, whatever"
It's not even that -- it's more like:
1. begin -- no right to drive anywhere, ever 2. state grants license to drive on highway under 55mph
Since I never, ever had the right to drive over 55mph, the grant of the license is not conditional on my driving under 55 - it's just something i don't have the right to do. Driving over 55 was not mentioned in the license and is unaffected by it.
> According to this section, it doesn't have to
> be a life sentence. I highly doubt that a
> vandal will receive even a year, let alone
> anything near a life sentence.
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. If Ashcroft and company don't INTEND to give these people life imprisonment, they don't need a law that allows them to.
(Though, I suspect, if they didn't INTEND to do it, they wouldn't ASK for a law that allows them to).
I'd definitely put powerpoint above outlook -- there remain a number of notes shops, but most of us (consultants, at least:) use powerpoint a good deal. msproject is an issue as well on that front and for IT shops generally.
well, generally people refer to the Constitution as the law of the land. And if there is a conflict between the provisions of the DMCA and the Constitution (e.g., the 1st amendment), then the DMCA itself is illegal.
The way interstate sales tax is interpreted is that if the consumer is with in the borders of a state when he orders goods or services then he must pay the sales tax of the state that he is within.
Not quite... I live in NJ, if I go to NYC and buy something, and have it shipped to my house -- no tax is collected by the vendor (unless they have "nexus" with NJ).
Everything sold is taxed, the states just can't require vendors to collect the tax for them if the vendor has no connection to the state. I live in NJ, tax is due on anything I buy and the only variable is whether the vendor collects it from me to remit to the state on my behalf, or whether I am obligated to send it to the state directly. This is true for mail and phone sales as well as net sales, TODAY. The moratorium has no impact on this, it only says that they may not add a NEW tax to the one that already exists. If the vendor doesn't collect the tax and I don't pay it myself, I have committed tax fraud. Of course, the costs of enforcing this law are high and the states would prefer to put the burden on vendors. That's the only real issue.
Lots of people invest months or more of their time making books/poems/CDs/etc. and never see a dime, others get millions. Do the people talking about "fair compensation for labor" want to equalize that? Because from that point of view, it doesn't matter WHY you get nothing for your efforts, does it? It would still be a bad thing.
I for one would welcome a lot more people in college who are not as "book smart" but have leadership capabilities
Yeah, well, unfortunately college is ABOUT "book smarts" last time I checked, not about leadership training. So it seems appropriate to test for "book smarts".
said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. which seems like a reasonable argument. I wouldn't give him the coat back either.
actually, if they didn't know that there was a pistol in the pocket, why WOULDN'T they give it back?
just because someone disposes of a body so no one can find it doesn't make them any less guilty of murder
they don't have to find the body to convict you of murder. and, as noted above, the gov't DOES have the files; he just wants to have a copy of them too.
one of the most useful aspects of (any) methodology is to allow people who have not worked together before to quickly understand where a project stands and what needs to be done. think of it as "project management patterns" and maybe it makes more sense.
...and in NJ (and most, if not all states in the US) you are obligated to pay it on item you purchase where the vendor does not collect. It's really not true that net-sold items are not taxed (or if it is it's not a sales tax issue). The law, IIRC, only prevents "new" taxes on Internet commerce. The use tax is not a new tax. Vendors are not obligated to collect it if they do not have "minimal contact" with the state, but the state's "right" to the money is the same regardless.
Apart from the difficulty in enforcing this, and the fact that different countries have different trademark rules...
Even in the US, trademark law protects only against similar names *that are likely to cause confusion* in (potential) customers minds. Generally this means in similar businesses and in similar geographic areas. As in the clue.com case, there can often be multiple entities with a reasonable claim to (protection of) a domain name. Remember when Apple computer was sued by Apple Corps (the Beatles record company)? The resolution, IIRC, was that Apple agreed to not start selling music.
I agree with the posters who indicate that the *selling* of the names is the "problem" and the only thing that should reasonably be prohibited. But there should be an escape for business liquidations and such.
Or maybe the mass registration of names by one entity should be prohibited? (I bet large corps. wouldn't like that!)
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine your laptop screaming 'I'm being stolen! I'm being stolen!' and paging security as the janitor walks out the door with it."
Good, because that worked so well for the flute in H.R. Puffenstuf
It is the goverments machine. They can do what they like to it.
um, that makes it my machine. (Not exclusively, but...) My tax dollars, "government of, by, and for the people", etc.
Not to mention the irony of combatting censorship by *providing censored internet access*.
"but part of the grant of license is that if you break those rules, there are penalties involved (fines, jail time, whatever"
It's not even that -- it's more like:
1. begin -- no right to drive anywhere, ever
2. state grants license to drive on highway under 55mph
Since I never, ever had the right to drive over 55mph, the grant of the license is not conditional on my driving under 55 - it's just something i don't have the right to do. Driving over 55 was not mentioned in the license and is unaffected by it.
> According to this section, it doesn't have to
> be a life sentence. I highly doubt that a
> vandal will receive even a year, let alone
> anything near a life sentence.
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. If Ashcroft and company don't INTEND to give these people life imprisonment, they don't need a law that allows them to.
(Though, I suspect, if they didn't INTEND to do it, they wouldn't ASK for a law that allows them to).
I'd definitely put powerpoint above outlook -- there remain a number of notes shops, but most of us (consultants, at least :) use powerpoint a good deal. msproject is an issue as well on that front and for IT shops generally.
well, generally people refer to the Constitution as the law of the land. And if there is a conflict between the provisions of the DMCA and the Constitution (e.g., the 1st amendment), then the DMCA itself is illegal.
I think it includes "forcibly shutting up people you disagree with and/or think may be 'dangerous'". That is exactly what you are advocating.
and we all know what a success DAT tapes were in the consumer market as a result...
I think the case actually had to do with THEFT,
which requires something TANGIBLE. A URL clearly
fails that criteria.
The way interstate sales tax is interpreted is that if the consumer is with in the borders of a state when he orders goods or services then he must pay the sales tax of the state that he is within.
Not quite... I live in NJ, if I go to NYC and buy something, and have it shipped to my house -- no tax is collected by the vendor (unless they have "nexus" with NJ).
Everything sold is taxed, the states just can't require vendors to collect the tax for them if the vendor has no connection to the state. I live in NJ, tax is due on anything I buy and the only variable is whether the vendor collects it from me to remit to the state on my behalf, or whether I am obligated to send it to the state directly. This is true for mail and phone sales as well as net sales, TODAY. The moratorium has no impact on this, it only says that they may not add a NEW tax to the one that already exists. If the vendor doesn't collect the tax and I don't pay it myself, I have committed tax fraud. Of course, the costs of enforcing this law are high and the states would prefer to put the burden on vendors. That's the only real issue.
It's a pretty large leap to assume that passage of a law == a viable means of protecting the right. More law != less crime.
Lots of people invest months or more of their time making books/poems/CDs/etc. and never see a dime, others get millions. Do the people talking about "fair compensation for labor" want to equalize that? Because from that point of view, it doesn't matter WHY you get nothing for your efforts, does it? It would still be a bad thing.
We were told to "build something and be prepared to explain how it reflected a quality of a good leader".
if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
I for one would welcome a lot more people in college who are not as "book smart" but have leadership capabilities
Yeah, well, unfortunately college is ABOUT "book smarts" last time I checked, not about leadership training. So it seems appropriate to test for "book smarts".
said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. which seems like a reasonable argument. I wouldn't give him the coat back either.
actually, if they didn't know that there was a pistol in the pocket, why WOULDN'T they give it back?
just because someone disposes of a body so no one can find it doesn't make them any less guilty of murder
they don't have to find the body to convict you of murder. and, as noted above, the gov't DOES have the files; he just wants to have a copy of them too.
> As someone who does a lot of freelance writing,
Well, if you're a freelancer, you're not an employee so it wouldn't have applied to you anyway.
one of the most useful aspects of (any) methodology is to allow people who have not worked together before to quickly understand where a project stands and what needs to be done. think of it as "project management patterns" and maybe it makes more sense.
...and in NJ (and most, if not all states in the US) you are obligated to pay it on item you purchase where the vendor does not collect. It's really not true that net-sold items are not taxed (or if it is it's not a sales tax issue). The law, IIRC, only prevents "new" taxes on Internet commerce. The use tax is not a new tax. Vendors are not obligated to collect it if they do not have "minimal contact" with the state, but the state's "right" to the money is the same regardless.
Apart from the difficulty in enforcing this, and the fact that different countries have different trademark rules...
Even in the US, trademark law protects only against similar names *that are likely to cause confusion* in (potential) customers minds. Generally this means in similar businesses and in similar geographic areas. As in the clue.com case, there can often be multiple entities with a reasonable claim to (protection of) a domain name. Remember when Apple computer was sued by Apple Corps (the Beatles record company)? The resolution, IIRC, was that Apple agreed to not start selling music.
I agree with the posters who indicate that the *selling* of the names is the "problem" and the only thing that should reasonably be prohibited. But there should be an escape for business liquidations and such.
Or maybe the mass registration of names by one entity should be prohibited? (I bet large corps. wouldn't like that!)