You'll change because that's what Microsoft tells you to do. Or, rather, they will progressively stop supporting earlier versions. This coming from a fell who uses Word 2000 when he has to (OOffice or LaTeX otherwise).
You're being conclusory. Left to its own devices it its natural environment, a child usually results. Or, at least it has done so billions of times before. Show me another way a child results---a diamond left behind a head of cabbage? You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference. I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child. Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgence (whether it be the extension of that else's life or lifestyle).
If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?
I recently sat in on a discussion with a bio-ethicist professor on the issue of embryonic stem cells. His thesis was that, since we have a legally defined point at which we declare somebody dead, that we must also have a point where we declare a person alive. His conclusion was that before 'x' number of days (I forget the exact number, but it is around 14 so I will use that throughout my post), that we should not consider the embryo alive. From this conclusion, he asserted that the bests interests of society support allowing harvesting embryos prior to that period.
I pointed out a couple of things to this professor that left him without response. First, as the point which one is considered dead is arbitrary, isn't "life at 14 days" also arbitrary? He said yes. Then, why not say life begins at conception? His response was that society could not benefit from that determination.
My answer was simple. American law (I can't speak for others as I am trained in American law) favors the "best interests of the child," even over that of society. It is decidedly not in a child's interest to be harvested before it can draw breath---the harvesting rather impedes one's chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, if harvesting before 14 days is good for society, then all embryos should be harvested. I know this is an ad infinitum argument, but stopping introduction of new life to society is decidedly against the interests of society.
Finally, the whole discussion of research on embryonic stem cells being a panacea seems a little much. Sure, government won't fund it, but I'm sure the Gates-Buffet funding would be more than ample. That is, private funding should be adequate without coercing public funding. Second, we have sources of stem cells apart from embryonic that are worth investigation fully before we take so drastic a measure as to go after the children.
Is there controversy over adult stem cells? Is there controversy over amniotic stem cells? Is there controversy over embryonic stem cells? Where there is no controversy is where science should focus as the depths of research in the non-controversial has yet to be plumbed.
"Penguins do not frequent the same ice as polar bears."
I beg to differ. I've been paying attention to the Coca-Cola commercials and see that polar bears and penguins do hang out. Of course, the bears are always trying to sleep and the damn penguins are always having raucous parties with Beach Boys tunes blaring.
You work for a small company. Any advice presented by/. will fail to solicit the correct response---except this one. This fight is between department heads, and should be resolved between them as businessmen. Failing that, whoever controls both managers should make the decision. This is not a software issue, but a business decision outside your control.
"you quote and quote from Jefferson, and then demonize the left [wikipedia.org]? Have you the brain worms!? His ideal world [wikipedia.org] was a communist anarchy, for crying out loud."
And the Left favors a large government that regulates every aspect of your life. I don't think Jefferson was a Communist, but he definitely was a libertarian-anarchist.
"ave the right to appoint its officers. However, the right to arm the militia is reserved to the US congress (Article 1, Section 8)."
However, it is worth mentioning that amendments change the meaning of the Constitution. We see this when selecting Senators went from being a state legislature to a general election, women got the right to vote, etc. Therefore, it is not relevant what Art I, sec. 8 says about the militia. If that same section said Congress could restrict firearm ownership, and the Second Amendment was ratified, then that clause would be null-and-void.
"Then they're drunken, deer-hunting idiots. The Second Amendment specifically guarantees the right of the people to rebel against an unjust government, and as such we should have the right to any weapons we want, up to and including artillery and aircraft."
That's where you start dealing with the implausibility of it all. While I could own my own M1 Abrams, it takes a lot of time, talent and treasure to maintain and use effectively. That's why we train soldiers to use these high-dollar weapons. I'm sure Mr. Gates could outfit his own army, especially if he took the money from his charity (and Buffet's), with sophisticated weapons. So, we should be nice to Vista . . .
However, with other posters, I agree that an M1903 Springfield is more than suitable to ensuring a well-behaved government. From a cost perspective, it's much more effective in the hands of a citizen than an M1 Abrams. Insurgents have shown that low-tech and patience prevails.
"So why would you need the 2nd amendment in the first place?"
To keep things from getting that bad. It's an insurance policy. As long as those in power know they risk their lives if they try to (abjectly) oppress society, then they are less likely to get out of control in the first place. Of course, this has less effect when you're boiling the frog.
"The President takes an Oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution. You say that it is not the executive branch's job to interpret the Constitution."
Every Swinging Richard in government (States and all branches) takes the same oath as the President. Article VI, cl. 2.
"Guess what. You won't find it. [The Court] assumed that authority for themselves in Marbury.
As much as I dislike the role the Court plays in society, you're wrong. Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court...." Compare with Article II: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
The Court is given judicial authority in Article III. Marbury v. Madison sees the Court acknowledging its authority to interpret law. The Constitution is a law (Article VI, cl 1), and therefore subject to statutory construction (although I believe Blackstone's rules for construction are the proper ones). Judicial power exists in construing the law. To say the Court lacks authority to interpret the Constitution is to say the President lacks the authority of the executive.
However, what people fail to realize is that Marbury also shows the Court acknowledging that matters by nature political are beyond the scope of judicial review. There is a whole range of Constitutional law created by the Court in violation of that political scope. The reason for that limitation is because ours is to be a democratic form of government. Article IV, sec. 4. As Blackstone states, the judiciary is an oligarchy. So, to allow the Court to fabricate law unchecked is to surrender our democracy to an oligarchy.
There are those who prefer this, because it presently serves their progressive purpose. However, expediency always cuts both ways. I believe you are lamenting this expansion of the Court's authority beyond purely judicial scope.
"Christ. Half the problem with this country is American's basic inability to understand the simplest concepts of the US government."
The other half of the problem is a Court who has accepted the fallacy that because they say it, then it is constitutional. I have witnessed several cases where the Court has violated the Constitution by declaring laws unconstitutional or have created rights out of whole-cloth.
One example is our current controversy over quotas. In debating the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the hold outs were afraid that the legislation would be interpreted by the Court to allow for quotas. Those favoring the bill persuaded them that this would not happen, and they relented. Two years later, the Court looked at that debate and said, "hmm, quotas are acceptable;" and established quotas.
The Fourteenth Amendment has a section that gives Congress authority to enforce its provisions, not the Court. And, where a branch refuses to accept its authority, under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, no other branch can step in. For the Court, this is the Political Question Doctrine exception to the power of Judicial Review, where the Court used to acknowledge its limitations on power. The Court's intruding on Section 5, 14th Amendment language is a clear violation of the Constitution, except we've had it drummed into our heads that it is not. See my.sig for where I stand.
However, you don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. You do have a constitutional right to possess a firearm. The Second Amendment forbids any bar on possessing a firearm. State and Federal laws to the contrary are therefore unconstitutional. What I'm getting at is licensing a car is not the same as licensing a firearm because the source of the ability for the latter is much higher than the former. (It should be noted that convicts were historically forbidden when the Amendment was adopted, and under common law would still be barred.)
Whether you believe it or not, the government can control what you do on private property. For example, you cannot hunt out of hunting season on your own land. You cannot create a nuisance. You cannot dump toxic waste. You cannot sing Barry Manilow tunes at 2a.
The net effect of licensing overall is to reduce the number of poor people legally carrying concealed. First, it costs more than being unlicensed. Second, poor people per capita have been processed through the criminal justice system in some capacity that would foreclose their ability to obtain a weapon via background investigation. Third, poor people tend to view the police with a little more disdain than upper classes, in part because of reason number two. So, you accept a stance that disarms those most afflicted by violent crimes when you accept licensing.
The right to be armed is not to make sure you are safe in the streets, but to keep your government honest. Bing safe is a side effect. Unfortunately, the government has gotten into a habit of doing things that are grossly unconstitutional. I'm referring to all three branches of the federal government. (My favorite is that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says Congress, not the Court, is to enforce the 14th Amendment, which does away with assorted due process and all those "privacy" rights.) So, they regularly tread on our rights and we regularly accept it.
The police are not obliged to protect individual citizens. This non-obligation is enforced every time a citizen tries to sue the police for not protecting them. Cops enforce the peace and protect the public, not the individual. So, then, who can protect the individual?
You comment that those carrying concealed with license are held to a higher standard. Higher than who? Illegally carrying concealed? So, a licensee gets drunk and shoots somebody is punished more than an unlicensed? My point is that carrying at all creates a higher standard, licensing is effectively irrelevant. If you're comparing the standard to an unarmed individual, then you're not comparing like items (fallacy of undistributed middle). Of course carrying a weapon subjects you to a higher standard---your lethality has been increased. That's true regardless of whether your licensed.
I think responsible citizens would attend training courses. As an inducement, lower the liability for one who has accepted training when there has been an incident. But, part of the training requires refresher courses.
"Unless you lived in NYC or DC - I'm hardly surpised you didn't hear EPS broadcasts. The EPS is for local use - and thus would not have been activated unless the attacks were local to you."
I was in D.C. on 9/11. My apartment was within a couple miles of the Pentagon. I never heard EPS. I never heard the EBS (Emergency Broadcast System) either.
"current FAA regs prevent piloted aircraft from flying into fires at night"
I should hope FAA regs prevent flying _into_ a fire during the day, too. Fires tend to be low to the ground and quite hot. I would think flying into a fire has rather explosive consequences.
"...it would perform the 180 as you say, and then possible hunt for the origin of the radio frequency its on by where the stronger signal is..."
Is it just me, or is there a Hitchcock plot in this? The model gets out of range then turns to find the source. Since it's running WinCE, there's an obvious defect. When it finds the signal, it proceeds to fly directly at the source of the signal. Little Billy ducks just in time, and the model wheels around again for another pass. Billy runs, controller clutched firmly in his mitts. This time, the model is successful, and Billy is struck on the back of the head, driving him into oncoming traffic.
Wouldn't it be great if you could have one of these large enough to use as a lightweight, in-town courier? Then, you could send packages (say 5lbs) across town. Perhaps use GPS to help it find its destination. Of course, cruise missiles are just that---unmanned courier vehicles piloted by GPS. Although, the Tomahawk carries 500 lbs of parcels which are promptly delivered.
I would be more concerned about a cUAV falling into the wrong hands and being used to drop other buildings ala jihad without the obligatory trip to Paradise.
"Is there some place where you can find all information about IP laws of different countries (for example Japan, India, China, Russia) just so you can tell what would be the 'default holder of copyright' if a work contract says nothing about IP rights?"
You go to/., of course.
I'm in my last few days of law school, but IANAL, so this is not legal advice. However, I wrote a paper last year on what happens when the contract regarding an IP project is silent regarding the final holder of the IP (US specific). If you are an employee of the recipient of the IP, then you are not the IP holder, your employer is. When you're the independent contractor, then things get tricky. Depending on the amount of control the contractee has over your work (e.g. it tells you what to do more like an employer than a client who approves the final product), then at best you have the copyright, but the contractee has a non-exclusive license to do what it likes with the product. In 77 suits on the subject, an independent contractor tried to protect its IP rights and lost in all but a handful of cases owing to the non-exclusive license (which is governed by state contract law not IP law as Congress has excluded non-exclusive licenses by negative inference). The only trend I saw was that the larger the market capitalization of the infringing defendant, the greater likelihood that the court would find for the defendant.
The worst case was an architectural firm who drew up plans for a shopping mall development with intent to be the sole-source provider of architectural services. The plans were never on file with the city, but the plans were approved and the developer sold the project to another company. The other company hired its own architectural firm to redo the plans. The other firm erased all references to the original firm, made a few changes, and then submitted the plans as its own. Naturally, the first company sued, and the 9th Circuit said "you lose." The copyright was non-exclusively licensed to the original company through complete silence of the original contract, and so that license was transferred to the other company and finally to the other firm. The implication was that the architectural firm "intended" the other, competing firm to profit from its work---which is nonsense as no firm would want a competitor to turn its product into its own and profit without any compensation or acknowledgment.
Always, always, always get it in writing. Silence can be deadly.
Sorry, Dems have been stealing elections since way before. As I recall, Kennedy got Chicago by enough votes to get the electoral count needed to beat Nixon---and the needed votes "showed up." Don't blame the RNC when the DNC is just as guilty. This is not a party issue, this is a politician issue. They want power and will do what they want to get/keep it.
Not entirely novel thought, either, since I've been saying the same damn thing since the 80s. Sorry, but election fraud has pissed me off since the 70s (when I was in grade school). How the hell can we have a democracy when judges are encouraged to circumvent the legal process and create laws, and when the election process is so porous that we can't be sure of who was elected?!
You need to make sure the final printed ballot shows candidate names (all) with a big, friggin' dime-sized black dot next to the candidate of choice. That's the size of Bingo card markers, and should be legible to anybody that should be voting. Better yet, each race is put on a 4"x6" index card with quarter sized boxes and the candidates' names in big friggin' letters so my grandmother can read without her glasses. (Under the print, put the name in braille for the hearing impaired.) The voter has to put a dime sized dot in the circle with a Bingo marker. Miss the box all together; lose your vote. Hell, any of the dot falls outside the ballot square, the vote is invalidated. States should not complain about the increased cost of paper when it is the single most important aspect of democracy in play. And, if there aren't enough ballots in the precinct, the people responsible (the poll personnel, the county clerk, etc.) are imprisoned until the next Presidential election and forfeit all property. That should encourage them to not screw it up (I've seen people turned away because of not enough ballots in one precinct, while other precincts were kept open by court order while new ballots were driven over).
And, no "helpers" in the voting booth. I've heard incidents where a nursing home van brought seasoned citizens (those that will likely to continue to vote for the next 60 years) with one or two attendings to help them mark their ballot. I know a professor of mine tried to storm a polling place to help a mentally retarded guy vote---the guy was not registered, so the professor insisted a providential ballot be issued until the matter was "cleared up." He was upset because the poll (friendly to Dems, he said) wouldn't even let him in.
A guy I knew in school voted four times for President when he was 17.
I don't get around much, but I have encountered too much first-hand account of voter fraud to think it's not rampant. There is too much "gap" in our voting system. We need to tighten up to ensure that those legitimately entitled to vote do. No more of this "motor voter" crap---I've seen illegals get drivers licenses and be registered to vote. They took the written test (with a "translator" who helped fill in the test) go straight to a license and be registered. I complained and the DMV lady said that's what they're told to do.
I also think that we should treat voting as a "sample" as with statistics. When the results fall within the margin of error, then re-vote. That should help mitigate voter fraud a bit, because the amount of fraud probably (a guess) falls somewhere in the margin of error.
Finally, if you get caught stealing a vote, either as an individual or as a leader of ballot stuffing, you should be tied up under the next Space Shuttle launch wearing nothing but your smile. If you survive a light toasting, then you're acquitted.
Because it's harder for Democrats to steal elections with tried-and-true methods. I'd like to know which races involved Democrat controlled electioneering where a Dem unseated a Republican. I guess after trying to steal elections in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats finally got it right.
Go ahead, mod me down. You know I'm right. Democrats prefer judges to re-interpret the Constitution the way they want it to because the can't persuade citizens to vote their way. Why trust a democracy when you can resort to an autocracy?
There is an obvious solution. You see, the Constitution actually prohibits paper currency. While even the most strict interpretationalists would balk at the notion of the Court repealing it's Tender holdings, I think this is a good step. We'll just use coins for all currency. While not as portable (weight being a factor), at least it's easier to tell a penny from a quarter. We can create a 1, 5, 10, 20, 100 dollar coin.
However, I think this will likely be overturned. Why? Because checks only come in one size. Or, more specifically, the size of the check has no bearing on the value it represents.
"'Obviousness' can be decided in a trial if the jury is made up of peers of the inventor -- those skilled in the art by some reasonable criteria."
Except, obviousness is not determined by a jury. Courts have determined that patent claims are to be construed as though they were tiny statutes, so the meaning of the claim is determined as a matter of law---not fact so as to let a jury decide. Since obviousness is based on prior art, which is also based on statutorially interpreted claims, there is no "fact" for a jury.
However, that does not mean I agree with that approach. Although, a jury of peers might decided it's better to loose the patent so they could use it rather than allow it to be protected---even if its not obvious.
I suppose I'm like most people who usually only comment when they disagree. I'm breaking that trend now to say thank you for a well-reasoned comment. The current implementation of patents is broken, not patents in general. I'm hoping the Court lowers the bar of obviousness making it harder to simply mix two ideas and produce a patent.
What bothers me more is that ideas are not supposed to be copyrightable or patentable. Only a manifestation of that idea. Traditionally, a patent's protection was limited to the specific implementation of that idea as spelled out in the patent claims. Courts have recently softened that standard to allow a finding of infringement when the competitor attempts to re-engineer a "one-off" variant. Perhaps they courts have gone too liberal in this application as well.
Imagine if you patented wiki technology. Now, any use of a browser with simple text-based markup to create a web page would infringe. Perhaps the patent claims said it used a database, and there was no mention of security. Then, I come around and write PmWiki---which uses a flat-file storage system and has a rather interesting mix of security options. Under the traditional approach, the flat-file and the security add-on would trump your patent. Under the more liberal approach, you could stop PmWiki from innovating wikis. Worse, you could then incorporate PmWiki technology as part of your patent.
Patents are a great tool to innovate. However, there are flaws in the current system. I'm bothered that Congress, who has plenary authority under the Constitution in matters of patent, instead relies on the Court to legislate in matters of patent. I'm bothered more that we as citizens encourage judicial legislation, which chips away at the democratic principles our Constitution was founded upon (okay, it says "republican form of government," but republic comes from _res publica_ or "of the people" and was synonymous during the Ratification). "What those who prefer judicial activism fear is rule of the people."
"But with the original aim of inventions in mind - now that it seems that there is a lot of unintentional infringing of patents - it suggests that the original intention is outdated - the patents are protecting knowledge not worth protecting since others stumble onto the ideas at roughly the same time, negating the need to open the information."
It suggests no such thing. The original intent is still valid, to reward publication of good ideas (as opposed to trade secrets). The problem suggests that the current implementation of original intent is defective and needs remedy. Wow, you mean the Court's going to address this defect on Tuesday? Whoda thunkit?!
Clearly, the Founders had no idea of a modern technological society. If so, maybe they would have thought about trademarks (recognized in the U.S. in 1835). Your comment suggests there is no longer a need for a patent office---the same idea a fellow had almost a century ago ("everything worth inventing has been invented"). It was a moronic thought then. Look at societies without patents (some do exist) and tell me how much _more_ innovative they are than us. I assert our technological progress reaffirms the validity of patents. However, I agree with you that the current implementation of patent law (as it relates to software) is defective.
What is more disconcerting about this defect is the cause is of recent mint. The Court allowed patent of business methods in the 1990s stating that the established precedent was wrong. Congress should have stepped in and revised patent law to rectify this, but over-reliance on the Court has led it to be less active than it should. Quite clearly, the Court could reverse that holding and return to the prior, established precedent that would effectively nullify software patents.
However, reversing would effectively strip away patent protection, which I assert is not a bad thing in-and-of-itself. So, the Court should instead lower the bar of obviousness for software patents---making it harder to distinguish a new idea from prior art. This would extinguish all those lame claims based on simple mixing of prior art. Funny that, the Court will be considering this on Tuesday. I suppose we should just wait for the holding.
"[E]quations and models do not give rise to physical effects. They attempt to describe the observed effect."
So, the assumption is what we're observing is correct, and so the equations and models are correct. That's what is great about assumptions---they can be completely wrong and still justify the outcome. I believe this falls into a circular reasoning fallacy. We observe X and use formulas to prove that X is true.
So, if we're all color-blind, then our observations would be totally off---but at least the math is right.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll change because that's what Microsoft tells you to do. Or, rather, they will progressively stop supporting earlier versions. This coming from a fell who uses Word 2000 when he has to (OOffice or LaTeX otherwise).
"An embryo is not a child."
You're being conclusory. Left to its own devices it its natural environment, a child usually results. Or, at least it has done so billions of times before. Show me another way a child results---a diamond left behind a head of cabbage? You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference. I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child. Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgence (whether it be the extension of that else's life or lifestyle).
If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?
I recently sat in on a discussion with a bio-ethicist professor on the issue of embryonic stem cells. His thesis was that, since we have a legally defined point at which we declare somebody dead, that we must also have a point where we declare a person alive. His conclusion was that before 'x' number of days (I forget the exact number, but it is around 14 so I will use that throughout my post), that we should not consider the embryo alive. From this conclusion, he asserted that the bests interests of society support allowing harvesting embryos prior to that period.
I pointed out a couple of things to this professor that left him without response. First, as the point which one is considered dead is arbitrary, isn't "life at 14 days" also arbitrary? He said yes. Then, why not say life begins at conception? His response was that society could not benefit from that determination.
My answer was simple. American law (I can't speak for others as I am trained in American law) favors the "best interests of the child," even over that of society. It is decidedly not in a child's interest to be harvested before it can draw breath---the harvesting rather impedes one's chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, if harvesting before 14 days is good for society, then all embryos should be harvested. I know this is an ad infinitum argument, but stopping introduction of new life to society is decidedly against the interests of society.
Finally, the whole discussion of research on embryonic stem cells being a panacea seems a little much. Sure, government won't fund it, but I'm sure the Gates-Buffet funding would be more than ample. That is, private funding should be adequate without coercing public funding. Second, we have sources of stem cells apart from embryonic that are worth investigation fully before we take so drastic a measure as to go after the children.
Is there controversy over adult stem cells? Is there controversy over amniotic stem cells? Is there controversy over embryonic stem cells? Where there is no controversy is where science should focus as the depths of research in the non-controversial has yet to be plumbed.
"Penguins do not frequent the same ice as polar bears."
I beg to differ. I've been paying attention to the Coca-Cola commercials and see that polar bears and penguins do hang out. Of course, the bears are always trying to sleep and the damn penguins are always having raucous parties with Beach Boys tunes blaring.
You work for a small company. Any advice presented by /. will fail to solicit the correct response---except this one. This fight is between department heads, and should be resolved between them as businessmen. Failing that, whoever controls both managers should make the decision. This is not a software issue, but a business decision outside your control.
"you quote and quote from Jefferson, and then demonize the left [wikipedia.org]? Have you the brain worms!?
His ideal world [wikipedia.org] was a communist anarchy, for crying out loud."
And the Left favors a large government that regulates every aspect of your life. I don't think Jefferson was a Communist, but he definitely was a libertarian-anarchist.
And, no, I don't have the brain worms.
"ave the right to appoint its officers. However, the right to arm the militia is reserved to the US congress (Article 1, Section 8)."
However, it is worth mentioning that amendments change the meaning of the Constitution. We see this when selecting Senators went from being a state legislature to a general election, women got the right to vote, etc. Therefore, it is not relevant what Art I, sec. 8 says about the militia. If that same section said Congress could restrict firearm ownership, and the Second Amendment was ratified, then that clause would be null-and-void.
"Then they're drunken, deer-hunting idiots. The Second Amendment specifically guarantees the right of the people to rebel against an unjust government, and as such we should have the right to any weapons we want, up to and including artillery and aircraft."
That's where you start dealing with the implausibility of it all. While I could own my own M1 Abrams, it takes a lot of time, talent and treasure to maintain and use effectively. That's why we train soldiers to use these high-dollar weapons. I'm sure Mr. Gates could outfit his own army, especially if he took the money from his charity (and Buffet's), with sophisticated weapons. So, we should be nice to Vista . . .
However, with other posters, I agree that an M1903 Springfield is more than suitable to ensuring a well-behaved government. From a cost perspective, it's much more effective in the hands of a citizen than an M1 Abrams. Insurgents have shown that low-tech and patience prevails.
"So why would you need the 2nd amendment in the first place?"
To keep things from getting that bad. It's an insurance policy. As long as those in power know they risk their lives if they try to (abjectly) oppress society, then they are less likely to get out of control in the first place. Of course, this has less effect when you're boiling the frog.
"The President takes an Oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution. You say that it is not the executive branch's job to interpret the Constitution."
Every Swinging Richard in government (States and all branches) takes the same oath as the President. Article VI, cl. 2.
"Guess what. You won't find it. [The Court] assumed that authority for themselves in Marbury.
As much as I dislike the role the Court plays in society, you're wrong. Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court...." Compare with Article II: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
The Court is given judicial authority in Article III. Marbury v. Madison sees the Court acknowledging its authority to interpret law. The Constitution is a law (Article VI, cl 1), and therefore subject to statutory construction (although I believe Blackstone's rules for construction are the proper ones). Judicial power exists in construing the law. To say the Court lacks authority to interpret the Constitution is to say the President lacks the authority of the executive.
However, what people fail to realize is that Marbury also shows the Court acknowledging that matters by nature political are beyond the scope of judicial review. There is a whole range of Constitutional law created by the Court in violation of that political scope. The reason for that limitation is because ours is to be a democratic form of government. Article IV, sec. 4. As Blackstone states, the judiciary is an oligarchy. So, to allow the Court to fabricate law unchecked is to surrender our democracy to an oligarchy.
There are those who prefer this, because it presently serves their progressive purpose. However, expediency always cuts both ways. I believe you are lamenting this expansion of the Court's authority beyond purely judicial scope.
"Christ. Half the problem with this country is American's basic inability to understand the simplest concepts of the US government."
.sig for where I stand.
The other half of the problem is a Court who has accepted the fallacy that because they say it, then it is constitutional. I have witnessed several cases where the Court has violated the Constitution by declaring laws unconstitutional or have created rights out of whole-cloth.
One example is our current controversy over quotas. In debating the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the hold outs were afraid that the legislation would be interpreted by the Court to allow for quotas. Those favoring the bill persuaded them that this would not happen, and they relented. Two years later, the Court looked at that debate and said, "hmm, quotas are acceptable;" and established quotas.
The Fourteenth Amendment has a section that gives Congress authority to enforce its provisions, not the Court. And, where a branch refuses to accept its authority, under the Separation of Powers Doctrine, no other branch can step in. For the Court, this is the Political Question Doctrine exception to the power of Judicial Review, where the Court used to acknowledge its limitations on power. The Court's intruding on Section 5, 14th Amendment language is a clear violation of the Constitution, except we've had it drummed into our heads that it is not. See my
However, you don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. You do have a constitutional right to possess a firearm. The Second Amendment forbids any bar on possessing a firearm. State and Federal laws to the contrary are therefore unconstitutional. What I'm getting at is licensing a car is not the same as licensing a firearm because the source of the ability for the latter is much higher than the former. (It should be noted that convicts were historically forbidden when the Amendment was adopted, and under common law would still be barred.)
Whether you believe it or not, the government can control what you do on private property. For example, you cannot hunt out of hunting season on your own land. You cannot create a nuisance. You cannot dump toxic waste. You cannot sing Barry Manilow tunes at 2a.
The net effect of licensing overall is to reduce the number of poor people legally carrying concealed. First, it costs more than being unlicensed. Second, poor people per capita have been processed through the criminal justice system in some capacity that would foreclose their ability to obtain a weapon via background investigation. Third, poor people tend to view the police with a little more disdain than upper classes, in part because of reason number two. So, you accept a stance that disarms those most afflicted by violent crimes when you accept licensing.
The right to be armed is not to make sure you are safe in the streets, but to keep your government honest. Bing safe is a side effect. Unfortunately, the government has gotten into a habit of doing things that are grossly unconstitutional. I'm referring to all three branches of the federal government. (My favorite is that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says Congress, not the Court, is to enforce the 14th Amendment, which does away with assorted due process and all those "privacy" rights.) So, they regularly tread on our rights and we regularly accept it.
The police are not obliged to protect individual citizens. This non-obligation is enforced every time a citizen tries to sue the police for not protecting them. Cops enforce the peace and protect the public, not the individual. So, then, who can protect the individual?
You comment that those carrying concealed with license are held to a higher standard. Higher than who? Illegally carrying concealed? So, a licensee gets drunk and shoots somebody is punished more than an unlicensed? My point is that carrying at all creates a higher standard, licensing is effectively irrelevant. If you're comparing the standard to an unarmed individual, then you're not comparing like items (fallacy of undistributed middle). Of course carrying a weapon subjects you to a higher standard---your lethality has been increased. That's true regardless of whether your licensed.
I think responsible citizens would attend training courses. As an inducement, lower the liability for one who has accepted training when there has been an incident. But, part of the training requires refresher courses.
"Unless you lived in NYC or DC - I'm hardly surpised you didn't hear EPS broadcasts. The EPS is for local use - and thus would not have been activated unless the attacks were local to you."
I was in D.C. on 9/11. My apartment was within a couple miles of the Pentagon. I never heard EPS. I never heard the EBS (Emergency Broadcast System) either.
"current FAA regs prevent piloted aircraft from flying into fires at night"
I should hope FAA regs prevent flying _into_ a fire during the day, too. Fires tend to be low to the ground and quite hot. I would think flying into a fire has rather explosive consequences.
"...it would perform the 180 as you say, and then possible hunt for the origin of the radio frequency its on by where the stronger signal is..."
Is it just me, or is there a Hitchcock plot in this? The model gets out of range then turns to find the source. Since it's running WinCE, there's an obvious defect. When it finds the signal, it proceeds to fly directly at the source of the signal. Little Billy ducks just in time, and the model wheels around again for another pass. Billy runs, controller clutched firmly in his mitts. This time, the model is successful, and Billy is struck on the back of the head, driving him into oncoming traffic.
Wouldn't it be great if you could have one of these large enough to use as a lightweight, in-town courier? Then, you could send packages (say 5lbs) across town. Perhaps use GPS to help it find its destination. Of course, cruise missiles are just that---unmanned courier vehicles piloted by GPS. Although, the Tomahawk carries 500 lbs of parcels which are promptly delivered.
I would be more concerned about a cUAV falling into the wrong hands and being used to drop other buildings ala jihad without the obligatory trip to Paradise.
"Is there some place where you can find all information about IP laws of different countries (for example Japan, India, China, Russia) just so you can tell what would be the 'default holder of copyright' if a work contract says nothing about IP rights?"
/., of course.
You go to
I'm in my last few days of law school, but IANAL, so this is not legal advice. However, I wrote a paper last year on what happens when the contract regarding an IP project is silent regarding the final holder of the IP (US specific). If you are an employee of the recipient of the IP, then you are not the IP holder, your employer is. When you're the independent contractor, then things get tricky. Depending on the amount of control the contractee has over your work (e.g. it tells you what to do more like an employer than a client who approves the final product), then at best you have the copyright, but the contractee has a non-exclusive license to do what it likes with the product. In 77 suits on the subject, an independent contractor tried to protect its IP rights and lost in all but a handful of cases owing to the non-exclusive license (which is governed by state contract law not IP law as Congress has excluded non-exclusive licenses by negative inference). The only trend I saw was that the larger the market capitalization of the infringing defendant, the greater likelihood that the court would find for the defendant.
The worst case was an architectural firm who drew up plans for a shopping mall development with intent to be the sole-source provider of architectural services. The plans were never on file with the city, but the plans were approved and the developer sold the project to another company. The other company hired its own architectural firm to redo the plans. The other firm erased all references to the original firm, made a few changes, and then submitted the plans as its own. Naturally, the first company sued, and the 9th Circuit said "you lose." The copyright was non-exclusively licensed to the original company through complete silence of the original contract, and so that license was transferred to the other company and finally to the other firm. The implication was that the architectural firm "intended" the other, competing firm to profit from its work---which is nonsense as no firm would want a competitor to turn its product into its own and profit without any compensation or acknowledgment.
Always, always, always get it in writing. Silence can be deadly.
Sorry, Dems have been stealing elections since way before. As I recall, Kennedy got Chicago by enough votes to get the electoral count needed to beat Nixon---and the needed votes "showed up." Don't blame the RNC when the DNC is just as guilty. This is not a party issue, this is a politician issue. They want power and will do what they want to get/keep it.
Not entirely novel thought, either, since I've been saying the same damn thing since the 80s. Sorry, but election fraud has pissed me off since the 70s (when I was in grade school). How the hell can we have a democracy when judges are encouraged to circumvent the legal process and create laws, and when the election process is so porous that we can't be sure of who was elected?!
You need to make sure the final printed ballot shows candidate names (all) with a big, friggin' dime-sized black dot next to the candidate of choice. That's the size of Bingo card markers, and should be legible to anybody that should be voting. Better yet, each race is put on a 4"x6" index card with quarter sized boxes and the candidates' names in big friggin' letters so my grandmother can read without her glasses. (Under the print, put the name in braille for the hearing impaired.) The voter has to put a dime sized dot in the circle with a Bingo marker. Miss the box all together; lose your vote. Hell, any of the dot falls outside the ballot square, the vote is invalidated. States should not complain about the increased cost of paper when it is the single most important aspect of democracy in play. And, if there aren't enough ballots in the precinct, the people responsible (the poll personnel, the county clerk, etc.) are imprisoned until the next Presidential election and forfeit all property. That should encourage them to not screw it up (I've seen people turned away because of not enough ballots in one precinct, while other precincts were kept open by court order while new ballots were driven over).
And, no "helpers" in the voting booth. I've heard incidents where a nursing home van brought seasoned citizens (those that will likely to continue to vote for the next 60 years) with one or two attendings to help them mark their ballot. I know a professor of mine tried to storm a polling place to help a mentally retarded guy vote---the guy was not registered, so the professor insisted a providential ballot be issued until the matter was "cleared up." He was upset because the poll (friendly to Dems, he said) wouldn't even let him in.
A guy I knew in school voted four times for President when he was 17.
I don't get around much, but I have encountered too much first-hand account of voter fraud to think it's not rampant. There is too much "gap" in our voting system. We need to tighten up to ensure that those legitimately entitled to vote do. No more of this "motor voter" crap---I've seen illegals get drivers licenses and be registered to vote. They took the written test (with a "translator" who helped fill in the test) go straight to a license and be registered. I complained and the DMV lady said that's what they're told to do.
I also think that we should treat voting as a "sample" as with statistics. When the results fall within the margin of error, then re-vote. That should help mitigate voter fraud a bit, because the amount of fraud probably (a guess) falls somewhere in the margin of error.
Finally, if you get caught stealing a vote, either as an individual or as a leader of ballot stuffing, you should be tied up under the next Space Shuttle launch wearing nothing but your smile. If you survive a light toasting, then you're acquitted.
Have I vented enough?
Because it's harder for Democrats to steal elections with tried-and-true methods. I'd like to know which races involved Democrat controlled electioneering where a Dem unseated a Republican. I guess after trying to steal elections in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats finally got it right.
Go ahead, mod me down. You know I'm right. Democrats prefer judges to re-interpret the Constitution the way they want it to because the can't persuade citizens to vote their way. Why trust a democracy when you can resort to an autocracy?
There is an obvious solution. You see, the Constitution actually prohibits paper currency. While even the most strict interpretationalists would balk at the notion of the Court repealing it's Tender holdings, I think this is a good step. We'll just use coins for all currency. While not as portable (weight being a factor), at least it's easier to tell a penny from a quarter. We can create a 1, 5, 10, 20, 100 dollar coin.
However, I think this will likely be overturned. Why? Because checks only come in one size. Or, more specifically, the size of the check has no bearing on the value it represents.
"'Obviousness' can be decided in a trial if the jury is made up of peers of the inventor -- those skilled in the art by some reasonable criteria."
Except, obviousness is not determined by a jury. Courts have determined that patent claims are to be construed as though they were tiny statutes, so the meaning of the claim is determined as a matter of law---not fact so as to let a jury decide. Since obviousness is based on prior art, which is also based on statutorially interpreted claims, there is no "fact" for a jury.
However, that does not mean I agree with that approach. Although, a jury of peers might decided it's better to loose the patent so they could use it rather than allow it to be protected---even if its not obvious.
"From the same Supreme Court that in Eldred vs. Ashcroft..."
No, that Court no longer exists. We've got two young pups on board now. So, it's a different ball game. This is unfortunate.
Besides, it's Congress' plenary authority to determine patent law, not the Court.
I suppose I'm like most people who usually only comment when they disagree. I'm breaking that trend now to say thank you for a well-reasoned comment. The current implementation of patents is broken, not patents in general. I'm hoping the Court lowers the bar of obviousness making it harder to simply mix two ideas and produce a patent.
What bothers me more is that ideas are not supposed to be copyrightable or patentable. Only a manifestation of that idea. Traditionally, a patent's protection was limited to the specific implementation of that idea as spelled out in the patent claims. Courts have recently softened that standard to allow a finding of infringement when the competitor attempts to re-engineer a "one-off" variant. Perhaps they courts have gone too liberal in this application as well.
Imagine if you patented wiki technology. Now, any use of a browser with simple text-based markup to create a web page would infringe. Perhaps the patent claims said it used a database, and there was no mention of security. Then, I come around and write PmWiki---which uses a flat-file storage system and has a rather interesting mix of security options. Under the traditional approach, the flat-file and the security add-on would trump your patent. Under the more liberal approach, you could stop PmWiki from innovating wikis. Worse, you could then incorporate PmWiki technology as part of your patent.
Patents are a great tool to innovate. However, there are flaws in the current system. I'm bothered that Congress, who has plenary authority under the Constitution in matters of patent, instead relies on the Court to legislate in matters of patent. I'm bothered more that we as citizens encourage judicial legislation, which chips away at the democratic principles our Constitution was founded upon (okay, it says "republican form of government," but republic comes from _res publica_ or "of the people" and was synonymous during the Ratification). "What those who prefer judicial activism fear is rule of the people."
"But with the original aim of inventions in mind - now that it seems that there is a lot of unintentional infringing of patents - it suggests that the original intention is outdated - the patents are protecting knowledge not worth protecting since others stumble onto the ideas at roughly the same time, negating the need to open the information."
It suggests no such thing. The original intent is still valid, to reward publication of good ideas (as opposed to trade secrets). The problem suggests that the current implementation of original intent is defective and needs remedy. Wow, you mean the Court's going to address this defect on Tuesday? Whoda thunkit?!
Clearly, the Founders had no idea of a modern technological society. If so, maybe they would have thought about trademarks (recognized in the U.S. in 1835). Your comment suggests there is no longer a need for a patent office---the same idea a fellow had almost a century ago ("everything worth inventing has been invented"). It was a moronic thought then. Look at societies without patents (some do exist) and tell me how much _more_ innovative they are than us. I assert our technological progress reaffirms the validity of patents. However, I agree with you that the current implementation of patent law (as it relates to software) is defective.
What is more disconcerting about this defect is the cause is of recent mint. The Court allowed patent of business methods in the 1990s stating that the established precedent was wrong. Congress should have stepped in and revised patent law to rectify this, but over-reliance on the Court has led it to be less active than it should. Quite clearly, the Court could reverse that holding and return to the prior, established precedent that would effectively nullify software patents.
However, reversing would effectively strip away patent protection, which I assert is not a bad thing in-and-of-itself. So, the Court should instead lower the bar of obviousness for software patents---making it harder to distinguish a new idea from prior art. This would extinguish all those lame claims based on simple mixing of prior art. Funny that, the Court will be considering this on Tuesday. I suppose we should just wait for the holding.
"[E]quations and models do not give rise to physical effects. They attempt to describe the observed effect."
So, the assumption is what we're observing is correct, and so the equations and models are correct. That's what is great about assumptions---they can be completely wrong and still justify the outcome. I believe this falls into a circular reasoning fallacy. We observe X and use formulas to prove that X is true.
So, if we're all color-blind, then our observations would be totally off---but at least the math is right.