The idea that the free (sorry four letter word here) circulation of ideas helps science has not been seriously disputed, ever. Patenting ideas is a recent change in the law and we are only begining to really feel its negative effects now.
Are you saying you commission music? Because if you don't than the music you want already exists and will continue to do so whether you pay for it or not. So essentially you are not paying for it. You use a generic term that defines a huge genre and then use it to debunk specific arguments. That is the basis of a strawman argument and is what you are doing.
We already have it. They are called credit bureaus. They provide credit reports to anyone who pays for it. If you want to see how accurate it is pull one of your own.
The project examines evidence. It is not a project to free convicted criminals. It is there to see if the person was wrongly convicted. I think the interesting thing about this witness is that he is only reliable when he is saying what the prosecutors want him to say, otherwise it seems he lies.
I would agree that the system operates to prevent radical change. I would also say that preventing such change is built into the system design. Radical change that is your radical change is good from your viewpoint, but if the rules allow you(or your party)to do it they allow your opponent to do so also. You would then have a system that whiplashed back and forth between 2 poles. Since such changes tend to be of a more violent nature you have a lot of death and destruction. The current system we have in the US was an attempt to limit that by splitting the power between 2 different arms of government. The Supreme Court established its claim by a court decision(Martin vs. Malbury I think) so we have 3 separate power centers. This provides stability which I would say is the whole purpose of government. While it can be very annoying it seems to work.
No, they haven't. The whole there is no difference between the parties and everything is the same got us George Bush and the Iraq war. There are differences between the parties and how they run the government. If you want to hide behind the nothing I can do makes a difference fine, but that's what it is. You can go out and work on changes or you can talk about how everything is bad and nothing can be done. Personally, I prefer at least trying. That way even if I lose I can be satisified that at least I tried.
If you can copyright a lecture in such a way as to force students to destroy their notes, shouldn't producers of plays be able to use copyright to prevent critic reviews of their play? After all the critics notes are based on the preformance of the play.
So the argument is that the jurors will find the "facts" on the internet, but will be unable to tell if they are being told the "facts" in the court because they are "stupid". As for the OJ trial. The police lost control of the evidence. They did not show they kept it in there possession the entire time so they could not prove no tampering had been done. In a criminal trial the decision is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because we don't like executing innocent people. If you don't like jury trails you can always ask for a bench trail only.
I prefer government regulation over the idea of private enterprise because I have seen government regulations change, I have never seen a business change unless it was legally forced to.
The state shouldn't get production costs. If the state will not write the laws so its citizens can understand them they should be required to furnish materials to understand them at no cost. As an alternative they can provide free legal advice so people can understand the law. This material has already been paid for they call the payment taxes.
I read several papers that are outside of my physical community unless we know how community is defined you cannot say the newspapers are wrong. From the linked article it seems like they are using the population of the geographical boundries. The whole point of online is that it reaches beyond that. The newspapers could very well be right.
It is the attorney's job to make sure that the judge understands the case. That's the whole point of having expert witnesses. If one side presented metatags as important it is up to the other side to refute it. The judge and jury are only supposed to consider the evidence as presented.
On the post: Yet Another Nobel Prize Winner Says That Intellectual Property Is Harming Science
Re:
On the post: Yet Another Nobel Prize Winner Says That Intellectual Property Is Harming Science
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Content is free
On the post: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
Re: Re: No sympathy for old media
On the post: Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, If The Gov't Has Data, It Will Be Abused
Re: John Poindexter
On the post: Prosecutors Claim 'Innocence Project' Journalism Students Paid Witnesses
Re: Re: British tabloids pay people all the time.
On the post: Prosecutors Claim 'Innocence Project' Journalism Students Paid Witnesses
Re: Re: British tabloids pay people all the time.
On the post: US Subpoenaed All Visitor Logs From Online News Publication; Falsely Said Site Couldn't Tell Anyone
Re: Re: Same people
On the post: US Subpoenaed All Visitor Logs From Online News Publication; Falsely Said Site Couldn't Tell Anyone
Same people
On the post: Professors Claiming Copyright Over Their Lectures
On the post: Even After Being Disbarred, Jack Thompson Can File Misguided Mistargeted Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: Despite All Sorts Of Laws And Automated Ticketing Cameras... Car Injuries Increased In The UK
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
Re:
On the post: Googling Juror Leads To Verdict Being Overturned
On the post: FCC: We Want Net Neutrality
On the post: Oregon: You Have To Pay Us To Explain The Laws To You
On the post: Linden Lab Sued Over Copied Virtual Goods
Re: Re:
On the post: The Lies Newspapers Tell Themselves About Their Traffic
On the post: Is It Too Much To Expect Judges In Tech Related Cases To Understand Tech?
Next >>