Not so. The text that you put in boldface does not indicate that the Constitution itself is changed, just that it is overridden. There is a subtle difference. For example, if a treaty expires, or is overturned by the courts, or deratified by Congress, any laws that it put into place that override the Constitution are null, and the Constitution takes over.
See my post directly above for references. The Core i3 and Core i5 series chips have the GPU integrated directly with the CPU.
The Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs have the GPU directly on die.
From http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei3/index.htm :
This processor comes equipped with Intel HD Graphics, an advanced video engine that delivers smooth, high-quality HD video playback, and advanced 3D capabilities, providing an ideal graphics solution for everyday computing.
From http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei5/index.htm :
Intel® HD Graphics on Intel® Core i5-600 processor series
Only if they want to compare Shakespeare from the original Klingon.
This is not correct. AT&T offers a data plan for Windows Mobile based smart phones that includes tethering. It's $65/month. I had it for a while when I needed on the road access for a few months.
Additionally, when provided a Windows Mobile based smart phones by my company that used either Verizon or Sprint, tethering was a usable option there as well.
If a work is in the public domain, then it is no longer protected by copyright law in regards to the possibility of circumventing it. What they are doing is creating a derivative work of a public domain work (which they are free to do, as the original owner no longer has rights in regard to how the materials are used), which they will then own copyright on until such time as that expires and their scans/ocr of the original text enters the public domain, at which point you are free to use their materials to do whatever you like.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
On the other hand, what Google seems to be doing, and what is the contention of The Author's Guild and others, is taking orphaned works, those works still under copyright, but are A) no longer in active production, and B) the owner of the copyright cannot be easily located, and creating a derivative work of those. The legal status of which is questionable at best.
Additionally, as a derivative work, Google will only hold copyright on any changes they make, not to the original text itself.
See: http://www.photosig.com/go/main/help?name=help/copyright
and
http://www.copyright.gov/
All of the above only holds true in the USA, laws differ around the world.
SSN's get reused every 70-90 or so years. I don't remember all the details, but there was a situation surfaced a few years ago where a SSN got reused and caused the new owner no end of problems as the original owner of the SSN was still alive and collecting benefits.
It was covered on
Sticking a tracking device on a car is hardly "damage." (I'm making the bold, and possibly unwarranted, assumption they just used a magnetic unit.)
No, but it would still be considered a modification, I believe.
Also, if the police follow your car in a chopper, they most certainly can track your vehicle's whereabouts on private property.
Yes, but the chopper is unlikely to be peering in your windows. The police in the car can see that your car has entered the property, but they are not allowed to enter your private property or perform surveillance that does not occur within plain sight of the street.
I would file this kind of surveillance under the "reasonable suspicion" (no warrant needed) standard (used for traffic stops, stop-n-frisks, etc.) vs. the "probable cause" standard (warrant required). This would preclude the ability of placing a tracking device on the car of every citizen.
I would as well, if it didn't require the police to physically modify a person's private property. Even if the GPS unit used a magnet or double sided tape to attach to the car, for the length of time that the unit was attached, it physically modified the car under the strict definition of the word (as generally used in legal terminology).
From Webster's Dictionary
Modify:
1. To change somewhat the form or qualities of; to alter somewhat; as, to modify a contrivance adapted to some mechanical purpose; to modify the terms of a contract.
No, but NY law does prohibit the police from modifying private property or tapping a communications device without a warrant.
The issue is not that they attached a box to his car. The issue is that they did so without a warrant. However, the police do not require a warrant to follow someone in public areas. The problem is that the GPS also follows the person onto private property where the police are not allowed to go.
Additionally, the GPS is unable to tell you what the person did at a location, only that he was there. What if you have a strip mall with an adult toy store, a liquor store, and a gun shop. The guy parks in the parking lot for 15 minutes. The GPS cannot tell you if he was picking up a fifth of vodka, strawberry flavored condoms, or a box of ammo.
The argument can be made for what store he parked in front of, but you have no way of knowing how many other parking spaces were taken at the time he went to park.
A GPS device is no replacement for actual investigative actions. And, in NYS at least, any evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless tracking of the vehicle - say copies of receipts and video surveillance from the gun store - would be inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine.
The RC is only available via TechNet/MSDN until Tuesday. After that it's available to the general public.
One thing that you are not taking into consideration is this:
Gamefly will sell you the game if you like it, then ship you the original box and manual.
When they have a new release, they buy dramatically more then they are going to need in the long run in order to meet short term demand. Then, you have the option while you have the game to "Keep it" for a discounted rate (usually less then buying it used at Gamestop/EBGames). If you managed to get ahold of the game in the first week or so of the release, you can also be reasonably sure that you are either the first, or at worst the second, person to use the media.
And again, since they are sending you the case and manual, they have to be obtaining the retail versions of the games (I have purchased a number of games from them over the last 3-4 years that I've been a subscriber, it has always been the same packaging/UPC that I found on Amazon, Best Buy, etc). So, while it's probably not costing them $50/game to buy, it's not going to be costing them $10-20 either.
I used to work for Best Buy for a while, it's highly unlikely that Gamefly is getting a better deal on the games then BBY is, and on a $49.99 game the cost to BBY was usually around $38-40. I would imagine that GF is picking up a new release for $43-45/copy on a $49.99 release.
Mr. Blunt is NOT ranting. He actually does put forth a good argument that authors should be paid for the audio rights for their books if an audio production is being sold by a third party.
Your argument falls apart however, when you examine the two separate issues:
1) A computer/communications device is sold with the OPTION to enable the ability to convert text on the screen to another format, namely spoken English.
and
2) Files containing text or existing audio are loaded to the device, either through purchase from Amazon, or other methods. Content Formats Supported: Kindle (AZW), TXT, Audible (formats 4, Audible Enhanced (AAX)), MP3, unprotected MOBI, PRC natively; PDF, HTML, DOC, JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP through conversion (from amazon.com).
The vast majority of these formats come from locations other then Amazon. Only Kindle and Audible formats are sold by them, and the Audible format already has paid audio book royalties. In theory, the MP3 format has paid as well.
One of five things will have to happen here if the Author's guild wants to pursue this line of inquiry:
1) A separate license will have to be purchased to convert a file of any type to spoken English. The problem with this is that I can load a
2) Restrict the device to only convert text to spoken English on Kindle format text, and increase the price of the Kindle format purchases to cover the increased royalty.
3) Increase the cost of the Kindle to include the license. Of course, if you do this, you're going to have to go to Microsoft, HTC, Nokia, Apple, and every other company that has included text to speech software in their computers, phones, pdas, etc and enforce the same licensing rules.
4) Remove the TTS technology from the device altogether.
or 5) Ignore the Authors Guild, and let them sue. Once in front of a judge, they will have to prove that Kindle's text to speech technology constitutes a public performance or offers significant competition to professionally recorded audio books, and not a version of fair use. I personally think that all Amazon is going to need to do here is play a Kindle read version, a Professionally Recorded version of the same book, and then the statistics on how many books each year are published in audio book format vs. paper format. Worst case scenario, Amazon is forced to implement one of the three other options. Best case scenario, fair use lives to fight another day.
#1 gets to be really interesting, and not practical, as there is no way to tell the difference between something I wrote in
Personally, I would hope that Amazon opts for number 5. They really have little to lose, and lots to gain, not to mention all the free publicity that they, and the Kindle, will get out of the fight.
I have actually been known to buy a book in both formats. I have a decent commute, and listen to books in the car. I have an Audible subscription for 2 books a month, and in some cases I've purchased an audiobook only to purchase the hard copy later because I enjoyed it so much listening to it that I wanted to better pick up some of the nuance by reading it.
Actually...come to think of it, I've done that with almost all the audiobooks I've purchased.
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
