And this is exactly why the ancient Olympic Games were ended -- over control of brand deity marketing. Hermes -- "official sponsor of the 5 stadia run", with the other gods complaining about not having their marks visible as well; Apollo was known to be especially incensed.
We're already "climate engineering" by dumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere each day. Setting up an experiment to determine if there is a way to mitigate the affects of the existing influences on climate by engineering another (presumably more controllable) influence would seem to be a "good thing" (tm).
Facebook certainly didn't get $104 billion. The owners of owners of the preferred stock did, divided however it is divided. Facebook itself has shares which, iirc is now valued at around $18b; that is expected to be used to provide stock grants to employees and the like, along with being a reserve to raise capital.
People/companies invested in Facebook to provide the capital they needed to really get started. They invested for a percentage of the company with the expectation that the company would someday go public and allow them a chance to recoup their investment (and then some).
This IPO allows the investors to sell some of their shares and make some/a lot of money. Usually an IPO is a means for the company to raise capital to expand their operations, but I don't think that really applies to Facebook; they don't really need the money except to buy out innovative start ups.
Molinari was a House representative from 1990 to 1997.
So after 15 years she shouldn't be allowed to lobby? What time limit do you propose? The examples from the graphic are much quicker turnaround. I suspect Dodd was still receiving his paycheck from the Senate when he accepted his position with the MPAA.
First and foremost, we are going to focus this policy only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text. The policy will prohibit use of PayPal for the sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest (as defined by the U.S. legal standard for obscenity: material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value).
So I can use PayPal to buy a hard cover book that has "potentially illegal images" but buying it in e-book format would be blocked? Potentially? That sounds like prior restraint. If a book was ruled as illegal by a court, then it might be understandable (but certainly questionable), but now PayPal gets to be judge, jury, and gatekeeper?
What difference is this, really, from their "prior" decision? Now it only applies to graphics (and hence the "classics" are no longer in jeopardy; only modern smut authors need to worry)! But PayPal still gets to have a say in what a business owner can sell, down to individual transactions.
And how can they tell? If I sold e-books with "potentially illegal images" I might use abbreviations in the description I use for the transaction, or some other obfuscation that PayPal could not automagically use to determine "oh -- it is that book."
And again, if my company sold "XXX PICS" (assumed to be a book with "potentially illegal images") how would they know it was the e-book version or the "real" book being sold? Does this keep me from including an e-book version with the sale of every hardcover version?
I hope people don't count this as a victory, and keep the pressure on.
this should be ringing alarm bells from here to DC and back
It is amazing how much those bells sound like a ringing cash registers (ka-ching!). A few of our "representatives" might take notice, but only a few. The rest seem to only listen to the RIAA and MPAA.
I think it is obvious that the birds eeplox recorded were doing a cover of the tweets from an earlier group of birds. Covers are covered by Rumblefish, right?
I would have been greatly surprised if this was found to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to make something unlawful after the fact (an "ex post facto" law), but making something lawful after the fact happens is quite common. It seems that pretty much every year congress changes the tax code retroactive to the beginning of the year (granted that is a different scale than a criminal prosecution, but I'm certain it happens there too).
If all else fails, one could think of it as the Legislative Branch's version of the Pardon.
But just because it is common doesn't make it right. Someone should go up against a wall for what they did to our rights.
Free speech is the first right guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment is arguably the most important law ever signed into existence by the American government.
Not so minor point: The First Amendment is not a law. It is an integral part of the Constitution, arguably as important as us having three branches of government and not being able to purchase liquor .... er, I mean allowing women to vote.
I have always been a little annoyed at the founding fathers that they had to separate out the "Bill of Rights" rather than having them as part of the core document. On the whole, though, I think they got it right.
I think a lot of their donations go through TechSoup.org; I know the Historical Society I work with has gotten MS products through there (quite cheaply). Of course I/we would *never* have purchased those products at full price, which is probably what they count as their "donation". But it does provide some service to the Non-Profits, even if they get to claim more than it really is/was.
pre-recorded films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches
is copyrighted? (presumably the highlights are just of the games themselves).
Seems like they can take something that isn't copyrighted (by anyone if not by them) and make it copyrighted. It sounds like the court didn't think that through.
One issue is that if "secret" information, once leaked, is no longer considered "secret", then there is an open door to people with clearance to leak those items they want the rest of the world to know.
The government's only recourse then is to hunt down the person who leaked the information to prosecute them, and *that* should act as a deterrent. My only caveat is that if the leaked "secrets" are drivel (i.e. they shouldn't have been secret in the first place) then the prosecution should be required to be dropped.
To the point that if a leaked "secret" should no longer be considered "secret": then the act of announcing it is no longer "secret" confirms that the leak was correct -- and wouldn't that be a security violation in itself?
I'm not a father ... I just don't understand the trials and tribulations of raising children in the internet era
Actually, I don't think being a parent is required to understand the troubles of raising a child in the internet era. Certainly being a parent doesn't make me understand the trials in tribulations of raising children (in general) -- the only examples I have are my own, and I've imagined far worse than I've experienced (so far!). Just because someone is a parent does not mean they understand anything: it just means they have responsibility.
You do realize that Mike was posting a _direct quote_ from Paul Alan Levy's article? If you follow the link and search for "dangle" you find:
He was also repeatedly questioned in the United States, with prosecutors using the threat of prosecution, and dangling and threatened with prosecution.
... which means Mike got it right, and that Mr Levy needs to edit his article.
Re:
And this is exactly why the ancient Olympic Games were ended -- over control of brand deity marketing. Hermes -- "official sponsor of the 5 stadia run", with the other gods complaining about not having their marks visible as well; Apollo was known to be especially incensed.
Re: Climate Engineering
We're already "climate engineering" by dumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere each day. Setting up an experiment to determine if there is a way to mitigate the affects of the existing influences on climate by engineering another (presumably more controllable) influence would seem to be a "good thing" (tm).
Re: Re: A loss
Facebook certainly didn't get $104 billion. The owners of owners of the preferred stock did, divided however it is divided. Facebook itself has shares which, iirc is now valued at around $18b; that is expected to be used to provide stock grants to employees and the like, along with being a reserve to raise capital.
Re: A loss
People/companies invested in Facebook to provide the capital they needed to really get started. They invested for a percentage of the company with the expectation that the company would someday go public and allow them a chance to recoup their investment (and then some).
This IPO allows the investors to sell some of their shares and make some/a lot of money. Usually an IPO is a means for the company to raise capital to expand their operations, but I don't think that really applies to Facebook; they don't really need the money except to buy out innovative start ups.
Re: Re: and ... better?
Which has been bought out by GameFly with annoying spam mail that I can't seem to get out of.
I liked gog.com; the prices were nice, and the lack of DRM made the games worth a try. I have no interest in GameFly
Re:
Crowdfund the defense?
I wonder if Texas does sue if these guys will need to crowdfund the defense fund?
Is this really any different?
What difference is this, really, from their "prior" decision? Now it only applies to graphics (and hence the "classics" are no longer in jeopardy; only modern smut authors need to worry)! But PayPal still gets to have a say in what a business owner can sell, down to individual transactions.
And how can they tell? If I sold e-books with "potentially illegal images" I might use abbreviations in the description I use for the transaction, or some other obfuscation that PayPal could not automagically use to determine "oh -- it is that book."
And again, if my company sold "XXX PICS" (assumed to be a book with "potentially illegal images") how would they know it was the e-book version or the "real" book being sold? Does this keep me from including an e-book version with the sale of every hardcover version?
I hope people don't count this as a victory, and keep the pressure on.
Oh the bells are ringing...
Obviously a cover band
I think it is obvious that the birds eeplox recorded were doing a cover of the tweets from an earlier group of birds. Covers are covered by Rumblefish, right?
When math gets wierd
This is common
I would have been greatly surprised if this was found to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to make something unlawful after the fact (an "ex post facto" law), but making something lawful after the fact happens is quite common. It seems that pretty much every year congress changes the tax code retroactive to the beginning of the year (granted that is a different scale than a criminal prosecution, but I'm certain it happens there too).
If all else fails, one could think of it as the Legislative Branch's version of the Pardon.
But just because it is common doesn't make it right. Someone should go up against a wall for what they did to our rights.
Re: Re:
Not so minor point: The First Amendment is not a law. It is an integral part of the Constitution, arguably as important as us having three branches of government and not being able to purchase liquor .... er, I mean allowing women to vote.
I have always been a little annoyed at the founding fathers that they had to separate out the "Bill of Rights" rather than having them as part of the core document. On the whole, though, I think they got it right.
Re: CHEATER!!!!!
No substance??? He references the Guinness Book of World Records! You can't get more substantive than that!
TechSoup
I think a lot of their donations go through TechSoup.org; I know the Historical Society I work with has gotten MS products through there (quite cheaply). Of course I/we would *never* have purchased those products at full price, which is probably what they count as their "donation". But it does provide some service to the Non-Profits, even if they get to claim more than it really is/was.
If the event can't be copyrighted...
How can the court say the
is copyrighted? (presumably the highlights are just of the games themselves).Seems like they can take something that isn't copyrighted (by anyone if not by them) and make it copyrighted. It sounds like the court didn't think that through.
I happen to agree with leaks to clear out the drivel
One issue is that if "secret" information, once leaked, is no longer considered "secret", then there is an open door to people with clearance to leak those items they want the rest of the world to know.
The government's only recourse then is to hunt down the person who leaked the information to prosecute them, and *that* should act as a deterrent. My only caveat is that if the leaked "secrets" are drivel (i.e. they shouldn't have been secret in the first place) then the prosecution should be required to be dropped.
To the point that if a leaked "secret" should no longer be considered "secret": then the act of announcing it is no longer "secret" confirms that the leak was correct -- and wouldn't that be a security violation in itself?
parenting
Is Ubisoft the puiblisher?
Who's Ubisoft's publisher? Why aren't they engaged in this debate?
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
You do realize that Mike was posting a _direct quote_ from Paul Alan Levy's article? If you follow the link and search for "dangle" you find:
... which means Mike got it right, and that Mr Levy needs to edit his article.