You know, if NASA needs ideas or help with inflatable habitats maybe they should be working with Bigelow Aerospace. They might be able to learn a thing or two from a private company that has two inflatable habitats that have been orbiting earth for half a decade.
Personally I'm very excited for their planned 2014-2015 launch of their next habitat that should be going up on a SpaceX rocket. This could really kick off a lot of awesome things with an actual commercial space station in orbit.
Oi, the whole problem here is this Executive Agreement of is over matters that Congress controls. It's not about making new laws its about entering into agreements on a subject the Executive branch has no jurisdiction over.
The Executive Branch is co-equal with the Legislative and Judicial Branches. One does not work for the other, and the letter that was sent by Mr. Wyden makes it seem as if this is something about which he is unaware.
Right, but they all have their own areas they are responsible for and neither copyright nor foreign trade matters are under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
Obviously, Mr. Wyden is aware of this since he is, after all, a lawyer. I am curious how he would react were he to receive a somewhat equivalent letter from the President asking him to articulate the basis under which Congress is proceeding on a legislative matter. I believe we all know the answer.
Actually I hope Wyden does not know what you claim he does because he is a lawyer, he should know how the government actually works. Furthermore if the president were to say ask why congress was trying to direct troop deployment or other military matters then I would hope they would give a serious answer. Since Congress has not been trying to impinge on the Executive branches privileges this of course has not happened.
BTW,based upon the specific language used in his letters, it is abundantly clear that they are being ghost-written by persons outside of our federal government. I say this because I have seen virtually the identical language used in communications prepared by at least one of the so-called "civil societies".
Well since even you say that '[evil quote marks]'civil societies'[/evil quote marks]' are asking the same thing and they and the government are supposed to be representing and working for the people I fail to see an issue here (if its even true). This is FAR less of an issue than say corporations writing legislation for us and politicians passing it without even reading it.
Did you and I even read the same article? This is about Wyden finally getting a response from the USTR, realizing the answer had nothing to do with what he asked and asking more questions again. How is this not a worthy update?
On top of that how can you say it was answered to Wyden's satisfaction originally when he turns around and asks for them to actually answer the questions he asked?
I can't count how many times I would of bought a DVD of a movie as I walked out of a theater because I liked it enough at the time but never end up buying by the time I can get it 6-8 months later in a store. Think of all the suckers (like me) that would end up buying a DVD or Blu-ray just because they are on a "just watched the movie" high.
Theaters could even give a 20-30% discount on a physical copy if you bought a ticket to see said movie to help sell more there on location.
I have noticed the same thing lately with regards to ACTA, its been out of the news for months and suddenly people are waking up to it now that SOPA and the MegaUpload shutdown have opened peoples eyes.
Here's to hoping they start taking notice of TPP instead of the one that's pretty much done and over with, maybe we have some chance of influencing the process there if we make enough of an uproar.
How about going a step further than that even, we should prove that laws will actually have the intended effect via studies (one thing the GAO, CRS and the like are for and good at). Once we prove that a law will or at least has a good chance of working as intended then we can go to vote on it.
Also, far more laws need sunset clauses and via the same agencies we should prove that they have been working with no unintended consequences. If all is good then we can vote to renew, if not then it is trashed.
Even now, I'm in a position where distribution of any given media file is essentially free (or at least is rolled into costs I'm already paying), and all I want is for some centralised location for me to say "Oh, hey, watching this has given me value I rate at $X, so I'm happy to hand that money over."
Heck, if that payment site existed in the first place I'd be quite happy to "pirate" the media file and pay them for it anyway. I'm sure that's how things must end up in the long run, anyway, assuming we are allowed to continue innovating.
And this is why I wish flattr would take off and get used by the people I would really like to give money too.
How awesome would it be to just put whatever you can afford to give out a month and split it around by flattring all the people whos entertainment you enjoyed this month. This could perfectly encompass all forms of media from books to youtube videos, it would likely even work for games.
Next best thing would be for every content creator to have some way to give them money directly, via paypal or whatever. I especially wish authors would do this because right now pretty much anyone who is beholden to a major publisher has stupid ebook prices that are commonly the same price or sometimes more even than a paperback book, I would much rather be able to give the author $2-$5 directly than pay $8+ for an ebook hes likely making pennies on.
Agreed that they probably could use a better method for determining orphan works to begin with but these things would get worked out in time, this didn't really even have a chance to get refined thanks to this lawsuit.
I still say if a copyright owner can come forward and get their material taken off the list of available works then there really is no problem as they have a easy way to get any errors fixed.