It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
Simple, just charge the copyright owner some amount of money every year (after a reasonable initial period; the original period of 28 years seems to be pretty well received) to keep the work protected. Once they stop paying, the work becomes public domain.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
From what I understand, many/most Orthodox & Hasidic Rabbinical authorities take the position that even 100% artificially-flavored soy that tastes like bacon is taboo, just "because".
Some, maybe, but certainly not most. There are a few brands of bacon-flavored (really just salt and smoke) snacks, such as Late July corn chips and Cheez-Its, that are hechshered.
By the same token, Reform & Conservative Jews have no qualms about eating pork, since the original prohibition was based on valid health concerns that are now largely moot (though they might still avoid it on holidays for the sake of tradition, and Conservative Jews might feel at least a tiny bit awkward & guilty about eating it openly if they're with anyone likely to criticize them for it).
Reform Judaism holds that observance of Jewish law is not obligatory, so you would be correct there. Conservative Judaism, however, absolutely not. As with any other religion (and really even regular civil/criminal law), different people obey the law to different levels, so there are some people who would identify as Conservative Jews who do eat pork or shellfish. As far as any kind of official position of the Conservative movement or any Conservative rabbi, though, eating pork is still prohibited.
So, just like I do when a programmer implements a spec and I look at the product and say, "wow that was wrong," my first thought is always, "the spec must be defective." Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice, but more often than not, the spec really is deficient. If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.
Very good point. So was it just CenturyLink that did it this way, or did every ISP serving Utah do the same thing? If it was only CenturyLink, what would be your conclusion?
This almost certainly had nothing to do with Network Neutrality, since (I'm assuming) they prevented customers from connecting to all web sites equally. Unless they showed this ad if, for example, you tried to go to Google but not if you tried to go to Bing, which I doubt is what happened.
The complaint about pixel count will most likely be treated independently of the complaint about screen size. The judge could decide to dismiss the complaint about pixel count (I agree that it sounds ridiculous) and allow the complaint about screen size (which sounds reasonable to me) to go forward.
Well, if you want to get really technical, since meat grown in a lab neither chews its cud nor has cloven hooves, all lab-grown meat will, by definition, be trayf. It may be thrashed out that the lab-grown meat, because it is essentially nothing more than a remotely-grown part of the donor animal, inherits the status of the donor animal -- so lab-grown pig tissue is still trayf, because it's still from an unclean animal -- but I don't expect that pork will be determined to be parv just because it's no longer connected to the animal the original tissue came from.
There's pretty much no chance that it would be unconditionally considered trayf. Like you said, it will almost certainly inherit the status of the animal that the initial cells were taken from. There is a chance that some more liberal rabbis will consider the initial cells to be such a small part of the animal that it loses all connection to the original animal, so lab-grown beef or chicken would be pareve (lab-grown pork would most likely still be trayf); there would be minority opinions on other things that could be cited as precedent. Of course, if the initial cells are created artificially and don't come from an animal at all, the majority would most likely consider it pareve.
But frankly, the different factions of Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) appear to me to have come about because there were various levels of commitment people were willing to give to all of these rules, too. People still felt an identity as a Jew but didn't always agree on how much ritual they had to go through as part of it.....
Sort of. The Reform movement was the first one to identify itself as such, in the 1800's. It placed ethical behavior above ritual observance, which is a theme that goes back 2500 years; they cited Isaiah 58 in particular.
The Conservative movement was a reaction to the Reform movement. Basically, the Conservative movement acknowledged the need for greater emphasis on ethical behavior that the Reform movement was advocating for, but didn't reject the obligation to follow Jewish law like the Reform movement did. Like Orthodoxy, the Conservative movement follows the specifics of Jewish law, but it has a committee of rabbis that are more willing to change the current law (often based on minority opinions from decisions that were made 1500 years ago) than Orthodox rabbis generally are.
What complete idiot thinks wireless Internet wasn't even imaginable 20 years ago? Wireless networking is almost as old as wired networking. Development for ALOHAnet began in 1968.
If not, then the statement that the parent was responding to ("sucking up all that light energy which should be... warming things") is also complete bullshit.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
The studios keep saying that the films don't make any profit, so what's the problem?
I am not a geologist, but a rational person would also expect the heavier/denser stuff to settle closer to the bottom than to the top, over time...
That would only be true if the crust were a fluid that allowed free movement of particles and had no other forces acting on it to cause currents. Neither of those are true.
Yes, something that exists as 0.0033% of the crust isn't rare. We won't even get into the tiny fractions of a percent of that fraction of a percent that are actually in a position where mining is either economically or technologically possible. Or that governments wouldn't hold out and go to war over the resources when they even are able to be mined in an area.
"But, but, my non science based website says these elements aren't rare, even though the site owner probably cant spell Geologist or even mineral without resorting to a dictionary!"
The surface area of the Earth is 5*10^8 km^2. The USGS says the thickness of the crust is 30 km, so the volume is 1.5*10^10 km^3. At your percentage, that would be 5*10^5 km^3 of whichever rare earth metal you're talking about. Let's take neodymium as an example, with a density of 7 g/cm^3, or 7*10^12 kg/km^3. That would be a total of 3.5*10^18 kg of neodymium in the Earth's crust. If only one millionth of that is accessible, that would still be enough for every person on Earth to have their own MW-scale wind turbine.
Some places have fried hamburgers as a menu item. Not the well-known national chains like McDonald's or Burger King, but I've had one at a local burger place, and it was quite good. It's not really any different than getting a fried steak that a lot of breakfast restaurants have.
To use your example of God, the primary religions of Europe all have a male god who made the first man in his image.
Which religions are those? They sure aren't any of the Judaism-based religions.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
The text goes back and forth between singular and plural, but it's pretty clear that both male and female humans are created "in the image of God".
When someone is "after you" it is no longer a delusion...
You're assuming that the paranoid person has valid evidence that someone is after them. In that case, yes, it isn't a paranoid delusion, it's a logical conclusion. "Has paranoid delusions" and "someone is after them" can be independent facts, i.e. the paranoid person has no specific evidence about the person that's after them.
Bullshit. There are multiple video streaming services and despite this all of them have raised their prices on multiple occasions. Both Netflix and Hulu, as examples, are more expensive now than when there were fewer options.
In the case of video streaming services, increased competition in the delivery service can hinder competition in the creation market, since people have less freedom to select individual shows and movies (a person would need to pay for a full subscription to a service if they wanted a single movie).
Video game stores are different, as long as you don't have to pay for access to each store. If there's a game you want from Epic's store that isn't available on Steam, the only cost (beyond the price of the game) is a small amount of time and disk space. The cost isn't zero, even though the monetary cost is, so it may not be perfect freedom to choose the games you like, but it's certainly much better than video streaming services.
Slashdot Mirror
It would really stretch the constitutionality of copyright to extend it further. The constitution only allows for the copyright to be "for a time". While technically speaking "for a time" vague enough to be anything, it does mean that the copyright period HAS TO END. Congress cannot keep extending it forever. If congress extends it again, then they would probably be in constitutional violation.
The Supreme Court already ruled that it doesn't violate the "limited time" clause.
The problem is who defines what's abandoned?
Simple, just charge the copyright owner some amount of money every year (after a reasonable initial period; the original period of 28 years seems to be pretty well received) to keep the work protected. Once they stop paying, the work becomes public domain.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
From what I understand, many/most Orthodox & Hasidic Rabbinical authorities take the position that even 100% artificially-flavored soy that tastes like bacon is taboo, just "because".
Some, maybe, but certainly not most. There are a few brands of bacon-flavored (really just salt and smoke) snacks, such as Late July corn chips and Cheez-Its, that are hechshered.
By the same token, Reform & Conservative Jews have no qualms about eating pork, since the original prohibition was based on valid health concerns that are now largely moot (though they might still avoid it on holidays for the sake of tradition, and Conservative Jews might feel at least a tiny bit awkward & guilty about eating it openly if they're with anyone likely to criticize them for it).
Reform Judaism holds that observance of Jewish law is not obligatory, so you would be correct there. Conservative Judaism, however, absolutely not. As with any other religion (and really even regular civil/criminal law), different people obey the law to different levels, so there are some people who would identify as Conservative Jews who do eat pork or shellfish. As far as any kind of official position of the Conservative movement or any Conservative rabbi, though, eating pork is still prohibited.
So, just like I do when a programmer implements a spec and I look at the product and say, "wow that was wrong," my first thought is always, "the spec must be defective." Granted, there are times where the programmer just makes the wrong choice, but more often than not, the spec really is deficient. If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.
Very good point. So was it just CenturyLink that did it this way, or did every ISP serving Utah do the same thing? If it was only CenturyLink, what would be your conclusion?
This almost certainly had nothing to do with Network Neutrality, since (I'm assuming) they prevented customers from connecting to all web sites equally. Unless they showed this ad if, for example, you tried to go to Google but not if you tried to go to Bing, which I doubt is what happened.
Probably with a ruler that has marks for sixteenths of an inch. Pretty common and pretty easy to measure to that precision with the naked eye.
...so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
The complaint about pixel count will most likely be treated independently of the complaint about screen size. The judge could decide to dismiss the complaint about pixel count (I agree that it sounds ridiculous) and allow the complaint about screen size (which sounds reasonable to me) to go forward.
Well, if you want to get really technical, since meat grown in a lab neither chews its cud nor has cloven hooves, all lab-grown meat will, by definition, be trayf. It may be thrashed out that the lab-grown meat, because it is essentially nothing more than a remotely-grown part of the donor animal, inherits the status of the donor animal -- so lab-grown pig tissue is still trayf, because it's still from an unclean animal -- but I don't expect that pork will be determined to be parv just because it's no longer connected to the animal the original tissue came from.
There's pretty much no chance that it would be unconditionally considered trayf. Like you said, it will almost certainly inherit the status of the animal that the initial cells were taken from. There is a chance that some more liberal rabbis will consider the initial cells to be such a small part of the animal that it loses all connection to the original animal, so lab-grown beef or chicken would be pareve (lab-grown pork would most likely still be trayf); there would be minority opinions on other things that could be cited as precedent. Of course, if the initial cells are created artificially and don't come from an animal at all, the majority would most likely consider it pareve.
But frankly, the different factions of Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) appear to me to have come about because there were various levels of commitment people were willing to give to all of these rules, too. People still felt an identity as a Jew but didn't always agree on how much ritual they had to go through as part of it .....
Sort of. The Reform movement was the first one to identify itself as such, in the 1800's. It placed ethical behavior above ritual observance, which is a theme that goes back 2500 years; they cited Isaiah 58 in particular.
The Conservative movement was a reaction to the Reform movement. Basically, the Conservative movement acknowledged the need for greater emphasis on ethical behavior that the Reform movement was advocating for, but didn't reject the obligation to follow Jewish law like the Reform movement did. Like Orthodoxy, the Conservative movement follows the specifics of Jewish law, but it has a committee of rabbis that are more willing to change the current law (often based on minority opinions from decisions that were made 1500 years ago) than Orthodox rabbis generally are.
Really? I'd love to see sources for that. And no, I'm not being sarcastic; I really would be interested in seeing the discussion of that.
Wireless internet / wifi
What complete idiot thinks wireless Internet wasn't even imaginable 20 years ago? Wireless networking is almost as old as wired networking. Development for ALOHAnet began in 1968.
Unidentified, and flying, but we haven't determined if it is an object or not.
Are you thinking it might have been a struct or a scalar?
Earthquakes and tectonic movement tends to mix stuff up.
And that's why denser materials don't all just sink to the bottom.
If not, then the statement that the parent was responding to ("sucking up all that light energy which should be... warming things") is also complete bullshit.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
The studios keep saying that the films don't make any profit, so what's the problem?
he crust of the earth is 20 miles thick.
I am not a geologist, but a rational person would also expect the heavier/denser stuff to settle closer to the bottom than to the top, over time...
That would only be true if the crust were a fluid that allowed free movement of particles and had no other forces acting on it to cause currents. Neither of those are true.
Yes, something that exists as 0.0033% of the crust isn't rare. We won't even get into the tiny fractions of a percent of that fraction of a percent that are actually in a position where mining is either economically or technologically possible. Or that governments wouldn't hold out and go to war over the resources when they even are able to be mined in an area.
"But, but, my non science based website says these elements aren't rare, even though the site owner probably cant spell Geologist or even mineral without resorting to a dictionary!"
The surface area of the Earth is 5*10^8 km^2. The USGS says the thickness of the crust is 30 km, so the volume is 1.5*10^10 km^3. At your percentage, that would be 5*10^5 km^3 of whichever rare earth metal you're talking about. Let's take neodymium as an example, with a density of 7 g/cm^3, or 7*10^12 kg/km^3. That would be a total of 3.5*10^18 kg of neodymium in the Earth's crust. If only one millionth of that is accessible, that would still be enough for every person on Earth to have their own MW-scale wind turbine.
No, we do not deep fat fry hamburgers in the US.
Some places have fried hamburgers as a menu item. Not the well-known national chains like McDonald's or Burger King, but I've had one at a local burger place, and it was quite good. It's not really any different than getting a fried steak that a lot of breakfast restaurants have.
If the bar I go to says "free beer when the Browns win a game"-- yes, of course the bar pays for the beer.
Of course the bar doesn't pay for the beer. The Browns would have to win a game first.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
To use your example of God, the primary religions of Europe all have a male god who made the first man in his image.
Which religions are those? They sure aren't any of the Judaism-based religions.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
The text goes back and forth between singular and plural, but it's pretty clear that both male and female humans are created "in the image of God".
When someone is "after you" it is no longer a delusion...
You're assuming that the paranoid person has valid evidence that someone is after them. In that case, yes, it isn't a paranoid delusion, it's a logical conclusion. "Has paranoid delusions" and "someone is after them" can be independent facts, i.e. the paranoid person has no specific evidence about the person that's after them.
Since the point of using a burner phone is not to let people know, how would anyone credibly be able to assess the widespread use of burner phones?
By asking them? This isn't a physics experiment, it's an employee saying, "A bunch of coworkers told me they do this."
Jealous of what, exactly?
Being with someone who's clearly very easy to please.
Bullshit. There are multiple video streaming services and despite this all of them have raised their prices on multiple occasions. Both Netflix and Hulu, as examples, are more expensive now than when there were fewer options.
In the case of video streaming services, increased competition in the delivery service can hinder competition in the creation market, since people have less freedom to select individual shows and movies (a person would need to pay for a full subscription to a service if they wanted a single movie).
Video game stores are different, as long as you don't have to pay for access to each store. If there's a game you want from Epic's store that isn't available on Steam, the only cost (beyond the price of the game) is a small amount of time and disk space. The cost isn't zero, even though the monetary cost is, so it may not be perfect freedom to choose the games you like, but it's certainly much better than video streaming services.