It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.
Yeah, and it seems like really idiotic 'fraud', too.
I can't address what really happened. I can sit here and guess all sorts of stuff. Perhaps you lived in an apartment and the box numbers got truncated. Perhaps there was another address that was like yours that was an apartment. Perhaps someone getting paid to fill out voter registration forms decided to just make stuff up.
I will point out that the story, as you related it, makes no fucking sense anyway. Why would they care how many people lived at your house, and thus make you vote provisionally? 12 voters can indeed live at one address.
I'm not going to try to figure out what happened in your story. I'll just, again, point out that all studies ever done about this have detected 'fraudulent voters' well below any statistical amount. We're talking like 1 person per state per election.
And no conspiracies, and no people voting multiple times under different names. In fact, almost all fraud is people deciding to vote somewhere they don't live.
In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.
WOW, you either really don't know anything about poor people or you're a troll.
Poor people often cannot drive. They do not have a car, so it's rather pointless to pay to get a license, so they cannot register to vote when they do that.
They also don't have a driver's license, so when Republicans attempt to 'tighten up' the requirements by requiring one, they can't vote even if they do register in advance and have the time to do it.
What a weird fucking coincidence, how protecting against all that imaginary fraud of extra voters results in a subset of actual voters finding it harder to vote. Poor voters, at that.
Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.
What are you, a communist? Who gives you the right to decide how much 'effort' is required to vote? I think we've finally managed to get past all the crap to see the real issue...Enderandrew thinks certain people shouldn't be voting. Voting should be difficult, so only people willing to spend time and money can vote. (Or, rather, only people with extra time and money should vote.)
Perhaps we should just require they buy a driver's license to vote, eh? Or just have a tax at the polling place.
I'm sure it's nice and easy for you to get in your car and drive down to the courthouse on a vacation day or something to register to vote.
For poor people, of course, the amount of free time they have, especially free time during business hours (Which is usually the only time you can register to vote) is limited. They're damn lucky to have time to vote in the first place.
Um, first of all, you're quoting an argument advanced in court, not the actual decision.
Second, a Ninth Circuit court decision is not law. Other courts have come to other decisions about the exception in 117, which is also where the 'backup' exception is found.
Third, most importantly, Glider actually launched the game, and thus Glider was copying the client to RAM.
The argument was made that that copy isn't required to 'use the program' within the context of the law, and the court agreed. Which is stupid, but doesn't have anything to do with the Xbox 360 case. The modification isn't copying anything anywhere.
Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).
No, your vote was provisional because of incorrect voter registration. Probably due to a mistake.
To be actual voter fraud, those imaginary people would need to show up and vote. Do you have any evidence they did?
As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.
I at no point said that the Democrats didn't practice voter suppression.
I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
To be specific, they screamed about voter suppression and vote tampering, not fraudulent voting, which only the Republicans imagine happens.
But I didn't say only one party does it, I said only one party invents crazy conspiracies about fraudulent voters before elections, despite that not actually happening.
In 2000 and 2004, Democrats were pointing to actual instances of voter suppression, after an election. (And the 2000 Supreme Court decision, which was not 'fraud', but contentious nevertheless.) People were actually wrongfully removed from voter rolls, there were fraudulent mailers sent out telling people their voter registration was invalid, etc, etc. Those things actually happened.(Vote tampering, OTOH, no one can say, because insane people think voting via computer is a good idea.)
It's the Republicans and their 'everyone hates us because we're the good guys' victim mentality who have to invent problems before elections, about things that simply do not happen, like people here illegally voting. We know it doesn't happen.
The DoJ, between 2002 and 2005, had 'election fraud' as a top priority, only convicted 24 people, all for illegally casting a ballot. (Not any sort of organization fraud, just casting one ballot. No one at all was charged with any sort of conspiracy to do that at a large scale.) And a very careful analysis of the 2004 Ohio presidential vote result in a fraud rate of...0.00004 percent.
That is the damn level of people voting illegally in this country. People casting bogus ballots is statistically less likely to effect an election than people who die in car accidents on the way to vote.
And yet we must constantly have 'more identification' and 'require registration in advance', all of which is a blatant effort to suppress the vote of poor people, who barely have the time to deal with voting as it is.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Copying software into memory or disk as part of using it is explicitly allowed under copyright law.
The stuff that stops you from doing that is the same stuff that stops you from registering multiple times before an election and voting.
In your universe, a mandatory delay magically makes everyone follow the rules? Because people who want to vote illegally can't plan a month in advance?
But, go ahead, I know the right desperately needs 'voter fraud' out there so they can wave their victim flag.
In actuality, there has been no voter fraud by ineligible people voting in thirty years. In the whole country. You people keep talking about 'the dead voting in Chicago', while failing to recognize that was functionally the last time that sort of fraud happened. Ineligible people do not vote, period.
All recent voter fraud has been either vote tampering, or voter suppression. You know, like what you're trying to do by putting hardships in the way of legitimate voting.
You really need to stop listening to talk radio. Because you're just asserting shit with absolutely no evidence of it.
There's been no change in assimilation at all. There's no evidence of any change. There's no 'cultural isolation', it's all made up.
And No Child Left Behind Act has fuck-all to do with this. No Child Left Behind is utterly stupid nonsense that has failed, and the failure doesn't have anything to do with bilingual education.
I bet you're one of those people who think crime in Arizona is skyrocketing due to illegal immigration, don't you?
Hey, imbecile, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment.
Other countries can create an entire underclass of non-citizens who can't vote, like various countries in Europe have done with the Middle Eastern immigrates.
That's working out real well for them, isn't it?
Here in the US, if people who've lived here since they were born can vote. It works a fuckload better than a system where entire groups of people have no political say, so start rioting in the streets to get listened to.
Actually, it is 'progressive'. A major aim of the Progressive Era was election reform. Without that, there'd be no recall or ballot initiative laws, and party bosses would still pick candidates instead of having primaries, and, of course, the seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators and the nineteenth allow women to vote.
While I can't think of any specific 'let non-citizens vote' concept (I suspect the Progressives would actually push for immigration reform instead.), it's not incredibly off-kilter from the rest of the stuff. I mean, they demanded letting all citizens vote. (People tend to get confused. Women were always citizens. It's just there's no requirement that all citizens be allowed to vote.)
I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??
Why are you assuming that the language of everyone native to this country is English?
I think the Americans citizens of Puerto Rico(1) would beg to differ, as would the Acadian settler descendants who lived in the Louisiana purchase area and still speak Cajun French, or the native Spanish and French settler descendants of that same region who speak Louisiana Creole, or the Spanish speaker descendants who lived in the territory purchased from Mexico (Part of which, in fact, is actually part of Nevada.) or in Texas before is seceded from Mexico, or the native Hawaiian descendants, or all the Native American tribes.
Oh, look at that. Not all American citizens, not even ones who are citizens from birth, speak English. Even pretending that every single person who moves here learns English and all their children do also, there were plenty of people already speaking another language when they magically found themselves inside the US, and there's never been any requirement whatsoever for them to learn English.
1) Before anyone points out they 'can't vote', they are indeed American citizens, and can indeed vote. It's just that Puerto Rico doesn't have any Federal representation, and hence they obviously cannot vote for representation that does not exist. If they move somewhere else in the US they can vote just fine.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Not only can you copy into memory, but you an copy onto disk, you can copy software where the hell you need to copy in order run the software.
Wow, look at that. How does it feel, knowing you're repeating deliberate lies intended to screw people out of something copyright law allows?
The joke is that, really, I was the one making the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' point, just not in those words.
People who cleverly point out 'the earth would have moved so you'd appear in empty space' are the ones with a little knowledge. They're apparently post-Copernicus but pre-Einstein or something.
Time machines that 'works' in fiction must arrive relative to something. As there is no 'the universe' to arrival relative to, the only possibility is that the thing they're arriving relative to is selected somehow.
And only an insane person would pick something beside 'the earth'. (If you really can pick 'anything', not just massive things, clever people would pick immovable rock structures like Stone Mountain, so that they follow continental drift. but that might not be possible.)
Or perhaps make those who insist on using DRM responsible for cost of replacement of damaged goods, ieeg if disk becomes unreadable and user was prevented from making, and using, a backup due to DRM, then publisher of disk becomes legally liable for replacing the disk and will bear all costs for that replacement, including the cost of user having to contact them.
Indeed, I'd like to see a law: Either each manufacturer of copyrighted stuff makes no efforts to impede the creation and use of backups, (They don't have to help, just can't impede it.), or they're required, by law, to replace any damaged media they sold, until the copyright on the game expires.
Same with digitally activated downloads. I purchased it, you're required to let me download and/or activate it. (Not provide actual online services forever, just installation.) If there's a means to download the install files and back them up, then they just have to provide the activation.
There is a reason we let people make backups of copyrighted stuff for their own use. If manufacturers are stopping that from happening, then they need to fulfill the purpose of backups.
If you've found not guilty the state had enough evidence against you to bring a case, which means they either convinced a grand jury or a judge that there was enough evidence.
If a case is dismissed, it means there wasn't even that much fucking evidence. A judge saw it and said 'This isn't a real case, get out of here.'.
Charges being dropped, FYI, are much the same thing, but it's the DA who did it. He started a case, and then realized he'd never win.
I love in your universe that some insane person who's managed to get into the criminal justice system can file charges that I killed Kennedy, and a judge can look at it and go 'Well, this is stupid, case dismissed', and that somehow is stronger evidence of my guilt than if the judge had gone 'Hmmm...this could be true, let's have the trial.'.
Indeed, every single analogy here with people listing 'what you can't do with your property' is about stuff that's illegal, and you can't do it all, whether or not it's your property and whether or you have permission from the manufacturer.
You can't buy a gun and kill people with it, but that's not a restriction manufacturers have placed on guns!
Can anyone, anywhere, name a product that you purchase but the people who sold it to you (not the law, the people who sold it to you) are in charge of what you do with it afterwards and can have you arrested for doing stuff they don't like?
The closest thing I can think of are homeowner's associations...but you actually sign a contract with them, an actual, real life contract, when you purchase your home.
No, normal copyright doesn't count. Copying things is illegal unless you have permission of the 'manufacturer', which is not the same as the manufacturer magically outlawing it themselves. And, again, it's illegal in general, not for the purchaser.
We've somehow managed to extend copyright into 'soldering a chip to hardware', despite the fact that can't be used for copying at all. (Seriously, it's an XBox. It can't make copies.)
As the other guy pointed out, there's not a 'center' of the universe, but if there were, that would be a damn stupid frame of reference because, duh, the earth moves in relation to it.
I could only believe that if the time traveler were actually physically present and visible during the whole trip backwards.
Ah, but you can't do that, because that's essentially antimatter. Reverse the direction in time, reverse the charge. Kaboom.
Otherwise, if it's fair for the time traveler to pop out in one instant and pop in at another, I don't see how wherever you popped off to is affected by the gravity of reality.
No, they can't be affected by gravity. If they were, assuming they're intangible, they'd end up inside the earth. (And, of course, having something that's intangible affected by gravity is nonsense anyway.)
However, there is a way out, or at least a way to keep them out of space. You see, ending up in space actually makes them gain energy, and likewise, ending up lower down makes them lose energy. So all you have to do is postulate that your time machine is energy neutral, that where they arrive cannot be 'more' or 'less' expensive, energy-wise, which means they can't go up or down in the gravity gradient.
So here is how you build a time machine in fiction:
The time machine turns you into energy, so you have no real mass, and you exist the entire time, either backwards or forwards. (But no time passes for you.) None of that 'teleporting through time' nonsense. The trip is energy-neutral, so you can't move down because of gravity or up because of inertia. (And your lack of mass means it's easy for that not to happen.) And *handwave* frame dragging means you arrive where you left on the surface. (Frame dragging would probably not actually do this, but whatever.)
I'm saying any hypothetical time trip must have already solved the problems, though. If we accept a premise of a machine that can move people from one point in time to another, we must accept that it somehow arrives relative to somewhere. (Because nowhere else fucking exists.)
You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, this disproves your own point.
No, it doesn't, you idiot. My 'premise' is, if we're postulating that time travel exists, that somewhere, somehow, we've going to need an specific selected arrival frame of reference, so the whole 'earth moved while you were going' is total fucking nonsense because it implies that there was some sort of universal frame of reference.
And just saying 'No' is bullcrap, you ass. Perhaps you would like to explain exactly how those statements are wrong.
Please notice that at no point whatsoever did I, in any manner, imply time travel was possible, or that it would be possible to location a frame of reference upon arrive.
I just pointed out that if time travel was possible, if we accept the premise of Back to the Future, the idea that people would arrive 'in space because the earth moved away' is possibly the most idiotic concept I've ever heard. Location does not work like that!
If people 'arrive', if people time travel at all, they must have some frame of reference to arrive at, and 'the universe' is not a valid frame of reference.
Selecting something like 'the sun' or 'the galaxy' would allow the earth to 'move away', but that choice would be much stupider, and presumably harder (depending on how this fictional 'selection' process works), than selecting 'the earth'.
I don't think the 'fire trails' by themselves indicate that it malfunctioned, I think it does that whenever it travels through time. (No matter how little sense that makes when it's not on the ground.) What indicates a malfunction is they fact they're curled.
That depends on how long it moves at that speed.
Any intelligence person who build a hover-drive that could accelerate at such speeds would build in a hardware limiter that detected such a high level of acceleration and run the drive in 'standing still' mode.
So perhaps the car was going 88 MPH for, say,.001 seconds until the fail-safes kicked in and the drive reversed. Which is a short enough distance that the seats could absorb it without killing Doc.
OTOH, such absurd acceleration would probably rip the 'forward momentum imparter' (Whatever it's called in a hovercar) out of the car, so that's not really a solution either. Parts of vehicles can't go 90 MPH suddenly and leave the car intact. (Except for the wheels.) I mean, that's a 'reverse crash' and would cause just as much damage. A 'real hovercar' might allow this, but this was a retrofitted Delorean.
Perhaps we should just assume that the hoverdrive somehow magically imparts momentum to the entire car and everything in it.
I think the filmmakers wanted us to assume that the wheels started spinning at 88 MPH, which is stupid in a number of ways.
Yeah, I think we're looking at this all wrong. it's not the 'shock', per se, it's some sort of weird timeline thing. But it's not 'seeing herself'
At the 'same' time she faints, Biff is screwing around with the past and had made the timeline they're in not exist at all. Neither old Jennifer or young Jennifer should exist at that point, and they doubly-shouldn't be meeting each other (Because Doc's time machine shouldn't exist.)
Why do they need to take it with them? It's pretty safe in the cave. Worry about it later.
Of course, being a movie, they'd run into problems, like stumbling across Beaufort in the very first hotel they slept in the next town over, but it annoys me when people don't think logically.
Incidentally, while a lot of people talk about repairing Marty's Delorean with Doc's Delorean, no one seems to think about doing it the other way around, which might be easier.
The problem with Doc's Delorean is that the time circuits were fried, but Marty's Delorean had the time circuits strapped to it on the back, and nothing at all was wrong with them. I mean, Doc had just described how to hook them up, in a letter, surely he could rehook them up the slightly earlier version of the car.
Whereas Marty's Delorean had blown out part of the engine, and it's a hell of a lot harder to take apart an engine than to move a panel strapped to a car. (Plus, if you actually remove parts of the engine, now Doc in 1955 has to fix a Delorean engine! Good luck with that.)
Of course, there's the obvious problem that if they take the wrong Delorean, the timeline is insane, but they could just take both Deloreans (Via towing..if it's the 'metal body' it should be possible to connect them.) fix both of them, take them both back, put back the blown-out time circuits, and leave in the right one.
I really wish we'd had a single line 'Damn, I wish I hadn't drained that gasoline from the Delorean I brought back before packing it up.'.
Slashdot Mirror
It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.
Yeah, and it seems like really idiotic 'fraud', too.
I can't address what really happened. I can sit here and guess all sorts of stuff. Perhaps you lived in an apartment and the box numbers got truncated. Perhaps there was another address that was like yours that was an apartment. Perhaps someone getting paid to fill out voter registration forms decided to just make stuff up.
I will point out that the story, as you related it, makes no fucking sense anyway. Why would they care how many people lived at your house, and thus make you vote provisionally? 12 voters can indeed live at one address.
I'm not going to try to figure out what happened in your story. I'll just, again, point out that all studies ever done about this have detected 'fraudulent voters' well below any statistical amount. We're talking like 1 person per state per election.
And no conspiracies, and no people voting multiple times under different names. In fact, almost all fraud is people deciding to vote somewhere they don't live.
In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.
WOW, you either really don't know anything about poor people or you're a troll.
Poor people often cannot drive. They do not have a car, so it's rather pointless to pay to get a license, so they cannot register to vote when they do that.
They also don't have a driver's license, so when Republicans attempt to 'tighten up' the requirements by requiring one, they can't vote even if they do register in advance and have the time to do it.
What a weird fucking coincidence, how protecting against all that imaginary fraud of extra voters results in a subset of actual voters finding it harder to vote. Poor voters, at that.
Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.
What are you, a communist? Who gives you the right to decide how much 'effort' is required to vote? I think we've finally managed to get past all the crap to see the real issue...Enderandrew thinks certain people shouldn't be voting. Voting should be difficult, so only people willing to spend time and money can vote. (Or, rather, only people with extra time and money should vote.)
Perhaps we should just require they buy a driver's license to vote, eh? Or just have a tax at the polling place.
I'm sure it's nice and easy for you to get in your car and drive down to the courthouse on a vacation day or something to register to vote.
For poor people, of course, the amount of free time they have, especially free time during business hours (Which is usually the only time you can register to vote) is limited. They're damn lucky to have time to vote in the first place.
Um, first of all, you're quoting an argument advanced in court, not the actual decision.
Second, a Ninth Circuit court decision is not law. Other courts have come to other decisions about the exception in 117, which is also where the 'backup' exception is found.
Third, most importantly, Glider actually launched the game, and thus Glider was copying the client to RAM.
The argument was made that that copy isn't required to 'use the program' within the context of the law, and the court agreed. Which is stupid, but doesn't have anything to do with the Xbox 360 case. The modification isn't copying anything anywhere.
Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).
No, your vote was provisional because of incorrect voter registration. Probably due to a mistake.
To be actual voter fraud, those imaginary people would need to show up and vote. Do you have any evidence they did?
As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.
I at no point said that the Democrats didn't practice voter suppression.
I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
To be specific, they screamed about voter suppression and vote tampering, not fraudulent voting, which only the Republicans imagine happens.
But I didn't say only one party does it, I said only one party invents crazy conspiracies about fraudulent voters before elections, despite that not actually happening.
In 2000 and 2004, Democrats were pointing to actual instances of voter suppression, after an election. (And the 2000 Supreme Court decision, which was not 'fraud', but contentious nevertheless.) People were actually wrongfully removed from voter rolls, there were fraudulent mailers sent out telling people their voter registration was invalid, etc, etc. Those things actually happened.(Vote tampering, OTOH, no one can say, because insane people think voting via computer is a good idea.)
It's the Republicans and their 'everyone hates us because we're the good guys' victim mentality who have to invent problems before elections, about things that simply do not happen, like people here illegally voting. We know it doesn't happen.
The DoJ, between 2002 and 2005, had 'election fraud' as a top priority, only convicted 24 people, all for illegally casting a ballot. (Not any sort of organization fraud, just casting one ballot. No one at all was charged with any sort of conspiracy to do that at a large scale.) And a very careful analysis of the 2004 Ohio presidential vote result in a fraud rate of...0.00004 percent.
That is the damn level of people voting illegally in this country. People casting bogus ballots is statistically less likely to effect an election than people who die in car accidents on the way to vote.
And yet we must constantly have 'more identification' and 'require registration in advance', all of which is a blatant effort to suppress the vote of poor people, who barely have the time to deal with voting as it is.
Well, okay, maybe it's a 1980 song Marty liked.
Please stop repeating falsehoods.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Copying software into memory or disk as part of using it is explicitly allowed under copyright law.
Are you stupid or drunk?
The stuff that stops you from doing that is the same stuff that stops you from registering multiple times before an election and voting.
In your universe, a mandatory delay magically makes everyone follow the rules? Because people who want to vote illegally can't plan a month in advance?
But, go ahead, I know the right desperately needs 'voter fraud' out there so they can wave their victim flag.
In actuality, there has been no voter fraud by ineligible people voting in thirty years. In the whole country. You people keep talking about 'the dead voting in Chicago', while failing to recognize that was functionally the last time that sort of fraud happened. Ineligible people do not vote, period.
All recent voter fraud has been either vote tampering, or voter suppression. You know, like what you're trying to do by putting hardships in the way of legitimate voting.
You really need to stop listening to talk radio. Because you're just asserting shit with absolutely no evidence of it.
There's been no change in assimilation at all. There's no evidence of any change. There's no 'cultural isolation', it's all made up.
And No Child Left Behind Act has fuck-all to do with this. No Child Left Behind is utterly stupid nonsense that has failed, and the failure doesn't have anything to do with bilingual education.
I bet you're one of those people who think crime in Arizona is skyrocketing due to illegal immigration, don't you?
Hey, imbecile, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment.
Other countries can create an entire underclass of non-citizens who can't vote, like various countries in Europe have done with the Middle Eastern immigrates.
That's working out real well for them, isn't it?
Here in the US, if people who've lived here since they were born can vote. It works a fuckload better than a system where entire groups of people have no political say, so start rioting in the streets to get listened to.
Actually, it is 'progressive'. A major aim of the Progressive Era was election reform. Without that, there'd be no recall or ballot initiative laws, and party bosses would still pick candidates instead of having primaries, and, of course, the seventeenth amendment directly electing Senators and the nineteenth allow women to vote.
While I can't think of any specific 'let non-citizens vote' concept (I suspect the Progressives would actually push for immigration reform instead.), it's not incredibly off-kilter from the rest of the stuff. I mean, they demanded letting all citizens vote. (People tend to get confused. Women were always citizens. It's just there's no requirement that all citizens be allowed to vote.)
I mean...is it not a requirement for those coming to this country, to attain citizenship to show on the exams, a proficiency in English??
Why are you assuming that the language of everyone native to this country is English?
I think the Americans citizens of Puerto Rico(1) would beg to differ, as would the Acadian settler descendants who lived in the Louisiana purchase area and still speak Cajun French, or the native Spanish and French settler descendants of that same region who speak Louisiana Creole, or the Spanish speaker descendants who lived in the territory purchased from Mexico (Part of which, in fact, is actually part of Nevada.) or in Texas before is seceded from Mexico, or the native Hawaiian descendants, or all the Native American tribes.
Oh, look at that. Not all American citizens, not even ones who are citizens from birth, speak English. Even pretending that every single person who moves here learns English and all their children do also, there were plenty of people already speaking another language when they magically found themselves inside the US, and there's never been any requirement whatsoever for them to learn English.
1) Before anyone points out they 'can't vote', they are indeed American citizens, and can indeed vote. It's just that Puerto Rico doesn't have any Federal representation, and hence they obviously cannot vote for representation that does not exist. If they move somewhere else in the US they can vote just fine.
Under copyright law, copying programs into memory to use them, while 'making a copy', is not violating copyright.
Jesus Christ, you're the second idiot who's internalized the justification for EULA from 1985 or whenever and replies to my posts.
Read the goddamn law:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Not only can you copy into memory, but you an copy onto disk, you can copy software where the hell you need to copy in order run the software.
Wow, look at that. How does it feel, knowing you're repeating deliberate lies intended to screw people out of something copyright law allows?
You do not need permission to copy software into RAM.
There is an explicit exemption in copyright law for making in-memory and even on-disk copies required to run software.
The joke is that, really, I was the one making the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' point, just not in those words.
People who cleverly point out 'the earth would have moved so you'd appear in empty space' are the ones with a little knowledge. They're apparently post-Copernicus but pre-Einstein or something.
Time machines that 'works' in fiction must arrive relative to something. As there is no 'the universe' to arrival relative to, the only possibility is that the thing they're arriving relative to is selected somehow.
And only an insane person would pick something beside 'the earth'. (If you really can pick 'anything', not just massive things, clever people would pick immovable rock structures like Stone Mountain, so that they follow continental drift. but that might not be possible.)
Congress has delegated the 'fair use' exemption for copyright to being decided by the LoC.
They're in charge of defining exactly what exemptions copyright has. (Or, rather, they can add them...they can't take away ones in the law.)
Or perhaps make those who insist on using DRM responsible for cost of replacement of damaged goods, ieeg if disk becomes unreadable and user was prevented from making, and using, a backup due to DRM, then publisher of disk becomes legally liable for replacing the disk and will bear all costs for that replacement, including the cost of user having to contact them.
Indeed, I'd like to see a law: Either each manufacturer of copyrighted stuff makes no efforts to impede the creation and use of backups, (They don't have to help, just can't impede it.), or they're required, by law, to replace any damaged media they sold, until the copyright on the game expires.
Same with digitally activated downloads. I purchased it, you're required to let me download and/or activate it. (Not provide actual online services forever, just installation.) If there's a means to download the install files and back them up, then they just have to provide the activation.
There is a reason we let people make backups of copyrighted stuff for their own use. If manufacturers are stopping that from happening, then they need to fulfill the purpose of backups.
What are you, an idiot?
If you've found not guilty the state had enough evidence against you to bring a case, which means they either convinced a grand jury or a judge that there was enough evidence.
If a case is dismissed, it means there wasn't even that much fucking evidence. A judge saw it and said 'This isn't a real case, get out of here.'.
Charges being dropped, FYI, are much the same thing, but it's the DA who did it. He started a case, and then realized he'd never win.
I love in your universe that some insane person who's managed to get into the criminal justice system can file charges that I killed Kennedy, and a judge can look at it and go 'Well, this is stupid, case dismissed', and that somehow is stronger evidence of my guilt than if the judge had gone 'Hmmm...this could be true, let's have the trial.'.
Excect MS claims one is illegal, whereas the manufacturer of your car doesn't give a damn what you do to it. (The government, OTOH, does.)
Indeed, every single analogy here with people listing 'what you can't do with your property' is about stuff that's illegal, and you can't do it all, whether or not it's your property and whether or you have permission from the manufacturer.
You can't buy a gun and kill people with it, but that's not a restriction manufacturers have placed on guns!
Can anyone, anywhere, name a product that you purchase but the people who sold it to you (not the law, the people who sold it to you) are in charge of what you do with it afterwards and can have you arrested for doing stuff they don't like?
The closest thing I can think of are homeowner's associations...but you actually sign a contract with them, an actual, real life contract, when you purchase your home.
No, normal copyright doesn't count. Copying things is illegal unless you have permission of the 'manufacturer', which is not the same as the manufacturer magically outlawing it themselves. And, again, it's illegal in general, not for the purchaser.
We've somehow managed to extend copyright into 'soldering a chip to hardware', despite the fact that can't be used for copying at all. (Seriously, it's an XBox. It can't make copies.)
As the other guy pointed out, there's not a 'center' of the universe, but if there were, that would be a damn stupid frame of reference because, duh, the earth moves in relation to it.
I could only believe that if the time traveler were actually physically present and visible during the whole trip backwards.
Ah, but you can't do that, because that's essentially antimatter. Reverse the direction in time, reverse the charge. Kaboom.
Otherwise, if it's fair for the time traveler to pop out in one instant and pop in at another, I don't see how wherever you popped off to is affected by the gravity of reality.
No, they can't be affected by gravity. If they were, assuming they're intangible, they'd end up inside the earth. (And, of course, having something that's intangible affected by gravity is nonsense anyway.)
However, there is a way out, or at least a way to keep them out of space. You see, ending up in space actually makes them gain energy, and likewise, ending up lower down makes them lose energy. So all you have to do is postulate that your time machine is energy neutral, that where they arrive cannot be 'more' or 'less' expensive, energy-wise, which means they can't go up or down in the gravity gradient.
So here is how you build a time machine in fiction:
The time machine turns you into energy, so you have no real mass, and you exist the entire time, either backwards or forwards. (But no time passes for you.) None of that 'teleporting through time' nonsense. The trip is energy-neutral, so you can't move down because of gravity or up because of inertia. (And your lack of mass means it's easy for that not to happen.) And *handwave* frame dragging means you arrive where you left on the surface. (Frame dragging would probably not actually do this, but whatever.)
Um, no, I'm not saying there 'are' answers.
I'm saying any hypothetical time trip must have already solved the problems, though. If we accept a premise of a machine that can move people from one point in time to another, we must accept that it somehow arrives relative to somewhere. (Because nowhere else fucking exists.)
You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, this disproves your own point.
No, it doesn't, you idiot. My 'premise' is, if we're postulating that time travel exists, that somewhere, somehow, we've going to need an specific selected arrival frame of reference, so the whole 'earth moved while you were going' is total fucking nonsense because it implies that there was some sort of universal frame of reference.
And just saying 'No' is bullcrap, you ass. Perhaps you would like to explain exactly how those statements are wrong.
Please notice that at no point whatsoever did I, in any manner, imply time travel was possible, or that it would be possible to location a frame of reference upon arrive.
I just pointed out that if time travel was possible, if we accept the premise of Back to the Future, the idea that people would arrive 'in space because the earth moved away' is possibly the most idiotic concept I've ever heard. Location does not work like that!
If people 'arrive', if people time travel at all, they must have some frame of reference to arrive at, and 'the universe' is not a valid frame of reference.
Selecting something like 'the sun' or 'the galaxy' would allow the earth to 'move away', but that choice would be much stupider, and presumably harder (depending on how this fictional 'selection' process works), than selecting 'the earth'.
That is, in fact, how time travel must work in BttF.
Exhibit A: Marty and his siblings still get born.
I don't think the 'fire trails' by themselves indicate that it malfunctioned, I think it does that whenever it travels through time. (No matter how little sense that makes when it's not on the ground.) What indicates a malfunction is they fact they're curled.
That depends on how long it moves at that speed.
Any intelligence person who build a hover-drive that could accelerate at such speeds would build in a hardware limiter that detected such a high level of acceleration and run the drive in 'standing still' mode.
So perhaps the car was going 88 MPH for, say, .001 seconds until the fail-safes kicked in and the drive reversed. Which is a short enough distance that the seats could absorb it without killing Doc.
OTOH, such absurd acceleration would probably rip the 'forward momentum imparter' (Whatever it's called in a hovercar) out of the car, so that's not really a solution either. Parts of vehicles can't go 90 MPH suddenly and leave the car intact. (Except for the wheels.) I mean, that's a 'reverse crash' and would cause just as much damage. A 'real hovercar' might allow this, but this was a retrofitted Delorean.
Perhaps we should just assume that the hoverdrive somehow magically imparts momentum to the entire car and everything in it.
I think the filmmakers wanted us to assume that the wheels started spinning at 88 MPH, which is stupid in a number of ways.
Why is everyone assuming that Chuck Berry wrote the song in the first timeline? For all we know, that song was a brand new 1985 song that Marty liked.
Yeah, I think we're looking at this all wrong. it's not the 'shock', per se, it's some sort of weird timeline thing. But it's not 'seeing herself'
At the 'same' time she faints, Biff is screwing around with the past and had made the timeline they're in not exist at all. Neither old Jennifer or young Jennifer should exist at that point, and they doubly-shouldn't be meeting each other (Because Doc's time machine shouldn't exist.)
Why do they need to take it with them? It's pretty safe in the cave. Worry about it later.
Of course, being a movie, they'd run into problems, like stumbling across Beaufort in the very first hotel they slept in the next town over, but it annoys me when people don't think logically.
Incidentally, while a lot of people talk about repairing Marty's Delorean with Doc's Delorean, no one seems to think about doing it the other way around, which might be easier.
The problem with Doc's Delorean is that the time circuits were fried, but Marty's Delorean had the time circuits strapped to it on the back, and nothing at all was wrong with them. I mean, Doc had just described how to hook them up, in a letter, surely he could rehook them up the slightly earlier version of the car.
Whereas Marty's Delorean had blown out part of the engine, and it's a hell of a lot harder to take apart an engine than to move a panel strapped to a car. (Plus, if you actually remove parts of the engine, now Doc in 1955 has to fix a Delorean engine! Good luck with that.)
Of course, there's the obvious problem that if they take the wrong Delorean, the timeline is insane, but they could just take both Deloreans (Via towing..if it's the 'metal body' it should be possible to connect them.) fix both of them, take them both back, put back the blown-out time circuits, and leave in the right one.
I really wish we'd had a single line 'Damn, I wish I hadn't drained that gasoline from the Delorean I brought back before packing it up.'.