And yet people continued still creating content even though it because easier and easier for people to copy there works. Its just like people choose to become starving artists and dancers knowing they will probably never get rich and famous for what they do, most do it because they enjoy doing it just like most authors do it because they enjoy doing it.
Hey now, no author will write a book unless they and their family will be able to profit from it for their life plus 70 years, its true, just look at history before copyrights lasted that long, no books were ever written.
a common workaround is the senate taking a bill that has passed the house, completely gut it and work from there, it still has to be reconciled with a house version though. The constitution just says "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." so as long as the bill originated in the house its all good.
^this. it is posturing at its best...err worst...my main fear is that they attach it to a bill that declares babies not fit for human consumption forcing democrats to have to pass it otherwise be seen as baby cannibals.
I think you got my point though that I was trying to make, that even though other people have no qualms about doing things, we do and try to stay "righteous" as best we can.
We aren't enforcing our morals on other people, we are enforcing our morals on companies that are in our country. That is a big difference. I once heard on NPR describing the wine culture in China that for business meetings, a businessman is expected to supply multi thousand dollar bottles of wine for the meetings, I can see this being okay and should be the extent of the "bribery culture."
No, I am against it because bribery is wrong. I have problems with Democrats and Republicans, the only difference is, there are fewer Republicans I can trust to take care of this country than Democrats. An example of a Republican I can semi-trust is Murkowski since here moderation in the last election.
The supreme court has said that it is not possible to be a cartel or monopoly in the entertainment business because customers can always switch to another form of entertainment.
Copyrights are one thing, copyrights for over 100 years? Ridiculous. I doubt very few authors would choose not to write a book if they only held the copyright for 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet people continued still creating content even though it because easier and easier for people to copy there works. Its just like people choose to become starving artists and dancers knowing they will probably never get rich and famous for what they do, most do it because they enjoy doing it just like most authors do it because they enjoy doing it.
Hey now, no author will write a book unless they and their family will be able to profit from it for their life plus 70 years, its true, just look at history before copyrights lasted that long, no books were ever written.
No no no, the answer we were looking for was "Naggers"
the green party is a bunch of hippies, i am more of a progressive if anything...why can't we have teddy roosevelt be reincarnated?
a common workaround is the senate taking a bill that has passed the house, completely gut it and work from there, it still has to be reconciled with a house version though. The constitution just says "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." so as long as the bill originated in the house its all good.
the best part of having multiple parties would be actually having a choice in voting, i would love an actual major liberal party.
^this. it is posturing at its best...err worst...my main fear is that they attach it to a bill that declares babies not fit for human consumption forcing democrats to have to pass it otherwise be seen as baby cannibals.
Oh, but it easy to threaten a small startup with a suit because they violated your patent, they don't have the money to defend themselves in court.
I know you are joking, but isn't hydrogen in hydrogen fuel cells stored as Lithium borohydride which isn't really explosive?
I think you got my point though that I was trying to make, that even though other people have no qualms about doing things, we do and try to stay "righteous" as best we can.
...and why should we have the Geneva conventions when the other side doesn't. The US should strap bombs to children and send them to the enemy.
Its not problem, this is from the DoJ. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/January/11-crm-085.html
We aren't enforcing our morals on other people, we are enforcing our morals on companies that are in our country. That is a big difference. I once heard on NPR describing the wine culture in China that for business meetings, a businessman is expected to supply multi thousand dollar bottles of wine for the meetings, I can see this being okay and should be the extent of the "bribery culture."
No, I am against it because bribery is wrong. I have problems with Democrats and Republicans, the only difference is, there are fewer Republicans I can trust to take care of this country than Democrats. An example of a Republican I can semi-trust is Murkowski since here moderation in the last election.
Since Obama has taken office, the US has collected over 1 billion dollars in fines for these violations.
I see the US as a country of ideals, or at least it was founded that way, and bribery is wrong even if it is with foreign officials.
Because of Johnny Mnemonic.
But Republicans want to get rid of this law that makes it illegal for our businesses to bribe foreign officials.
The supreme court has said that it is not possible to be a cartel or monopoly in the entertainment business because customers can always switch to another form of entertainment.
Copyrights are one thing, copyrights for over 100 years? Ridiculous. I doubt very few authors would choose not to write a book if they only held the copyright for 15 years.
Next thing you know, it will be against the law to tell a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
He wasn't saying sexual remarks to children, how about you RTFA.
I would support a constitutional amendment to allow that, but I would want each line item vetoed to be overturned by a simple majority in each house,
That is why we need a technocracy, right now we have people legislating on things they have no clue about with little care to learn.
The real question is what the hell could they have done to stop him? He was essentially a God.