Should a person who sells land be allowed to take it back many years down the road, when huge oil deposits are discovered there?
I agree with you, but doesn't that basically describe the concept of mineral rights? You can buy and sell property, but the right to exploit mineral assets usually was sold long ago and is being kept by someone else.
That's no different than in the US. We regularly have 1 or 2 "independent" members of the House (politicians not affiliated with a major party yet winning the election in their district.) I believe we would have more such "independents" if the electorate were not limited to the lesser of the evils.
I don't like proportional representation for the same reason I dislike the state of our current system: politicians are beholden to someone other than their constituency.
You can have (indirect) proportional representation if that's what the majority of each congressional district wants. What I don't like is the idea of a big election being held at a national level to select pools of representatives that proportionally represent the national electorate. I want to continue with district elections to pick the one person who will represent each district. But I want that one representative to be picked by a true majority of the voters in that district. If one third of the country goes GOP, one third democrat, and the rest libertarian, I'm okay with that. As long as it is the districts making the decision for themselves.
I'm also like the concept of an electoral college, but I dislike the winner-take-all approach of most of the states. I would prefer a 2 electors per state won and 1 elector per district won approach.
Not that what I think or would prefer is going to make a bit of difference...
In a truly *ideal* system (to me), if no party gets a true majority, then you have a run-off after eliminating the party with the least votes. If no one has a majority at that point, lather, rinse, and repeat. Note: this is not a thorough statement of a complete solution, and does not address every contingency, but I find it much less objectionable than proportional representation or first-past-the-post or winner-take-all or whatever.
Actually, the label is (probably) not being paid. The label only collects payments for use of the recording made by the group they have under contract. The cover artists are (almost certainly) not under contract to the label. The composer and the lyricist are (most likely) being paid, but their cut is being collected by different organizations (probably) not affiliated with the RIAA.
In other news, they next will be suing karaoke disc producers for faithful reproductions of the original music...
The way I read the thumbnail sketch at first (and I'll need time to read and re-read the actual license to truly understand) was that if you use an AGPL licensed piece in your system, you would now be obligated to make it (and any changes, of course) available to the *users* of your website, thus allowing them to setup their own website, either to compete on the public net or for security on the private net.
This actually seems to fit in well with the way the FSF thinks. After all, the point of the GPL is to ensure you can't be locked in, you can use, learn, modify, distribute, etc. How is running web based software really any different in the grand scheme of things? You can get locked into a proprietary website just as you can to a proprietary OS (to one degree or another). So why not require that web applications be 'virally infected' by a license that guarantees and protects the rights of the users of the software? Sounds like the 'logical' progression of copyleft...
Not saying I promote that or agree with it. Just sharing my original impressions on the synopsis.
Slashdot Mirror
Should a person who sells land be allowed to take it back many years down the road, when huge oil deposits are discovered there?
I agree with you, but doesn't that basically describe the concept of mineral rights? You can buy and sell property, but the right to exploit mineral assets usually was sold long ago and is being kept by someone else.
Dihydrogen monoxide is used to kill children. It is bad. Ban it.
Now watch the addicted come out of the woodwork... <sigh>
Maine and Nebraska both, and supposedly other states are contemplating it. I realize there is not a prohibition, just stating my preference.
That's no different than in the US. We regularly have 1 or 2 "independent" members of the House (politicians not affiliated with a major party yet winning the election in their district.) I believe we would have more such "independents" if the electorate were not limited to the lesser of the evils.
I don't like proportional representation for the same reason I dislike the state of our current system: politicians are beholden to someone other than their constituency.
You can have (indirect) proportional representation if that's what the majority of each congressional district wants. What I don't like is the idea of a big election being held at a national level to select pools of representatives that proportionally represent the national electorate. I want to continue with district elections to pick the one person who will represent each district. But I want that one representative to be picked by a true majority of the voters in that district. If one third of the country goes GOP, one third democrat, and the rest libertarian, I'm okay with that. As long as it is the districts making the decision for themselves.
I'm also like the concept of an electoral college, but I dislike the winner-take-all approach of most of the states. I would prefer a 2 electors per state won and 1 elector per district won approach.
Not that what I think or would prefer is going to make a bit of difference...
In a truly *ideal* system (to me), if no party gets a true majority, then you have a run-off after eliminating the party with the least votes. If no one has a majority at that point, lather, rinse, and repeat. Note: this is not a thorough statement of a complete solution, and does not address every contingency, but I find it much less objectionable than proportional representation or first-past-the-post or winner-take-all or whatever.
Actually, the label is (probably) not being paid. The label only collects payments for use of the recording made by the group they have under contract. The cover artists are (almost certainly) not under contract to the label. The composer and the lyricist are (most likely) being paid, but their cut is being collected by different organizations (probably) not affiliated with the RIAA.
In other news, they next will be suing karaoke disc producers for faithful reproductions of the original music...
The way I read the thumbnail sketch at first (and I'll need time to read and re-read the actual license to truly understand) was that if you use an AGPL licensed piece in your system, you would now be obligated to make it (and any changes, of course) available to the *users* of your website, thus allowing them to setup their own website, either to compete on the public net or for security on the private net.
This actually seems to fit in well with the way the FSF thinks. After all, the point of the GPL is to ensure you can't be locked in, you can use, learn, modify, distribute, etc. How is running web based software really any different in the grand scheme of things? You can get locked into a proprietary website just as you can to a proprietary OS (to one degree or another). So why not require that web applications be 'virally infected' by a license that guarantees and protects the rights of the users of the software? Sounds like the 'logical' progression of copyleft...
Not saying I promote that or agree with it. Just sharing my original impressions on the synopsis.