The point i was trying to get past which clearly you didn't understand too, was the clear superiority that allot of American's show.
Is that what you were trying to say? You didn't say it very well. It came across as a rant about the EVIL of atomic weapons.
Which amazes me how one sided American's see their history which is built up on war.
And this is different from which other country in the world? Iceland, perhaps. Only fighting I can recall reading of there was the massacre of Irish monks by the Vikings who colonized the place. And the infighting between Christian and non-Christian VIkings over the question of religion. That would be the closest to a non-violent society I have ever heard of.
So when G.W Bush was proven to of taken you're country to a war over lies which makes it an ILLEGAL war,
Hmm, just checked the Constitution, and there is nothing in there about "wars over lies" being illegal.
which is a 'Crime against humanity', but yet he still runs you're country,
I'm not as up on the details of International Law, but I would be surprised if "wars over lies" were listed as a Crime Against Humanity.
Like when G.W Bush removed his signature from the Geneva convention just before they invaded Iraq so he could torture Iraqis and not abide by the rules of war.
George's signature wasn't on the Geneva Convention(s). That would have been Truman for the Fourth, and others for the earlier. Note that under the Geneva Conventions, combatants who violate the Geneva Conventions automatically lose the protection of the Geneva Conventions - which means that if you take hostages, hide among civilians, and similar things, you can be treated pretty much any way the guys who capture you like (subject to their own laws, of course)
American's will fight to take out people who commit crimes against humanity in the world but their own leaders can do it and it's fine.
This would be unlike whom? And this assumes that a Crime Against Humanity has occurred. If you believe so, I recommend bringing appropriate charges before the appropriate body (the House of Representatives, for the Pres/VP/Cabinet, Federal or Military Courts for any particular soldier). Keep in mind that in the case of individual soldiers, you MAY need to be the victim or related to the victim to have standing to bring suit in American Courts.
Donald Rumfeild said he would take responsibility for the many tortured in the concentration camp's, But he still is the secretary of defense. Over 82 reported Iraqi deaths have come from these camp's... People don't die from sleep deprivation they die from torture.
They also die from old age, despair, and a host of other issues, not least being less than ideal immune responses to a whole host of never-before-encountered bugs. Also, what makes you think sleep deprivation isn't torture? Frankly, it could be argued that serving bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture to a Muslim prisoner. Much less sleep-deprivation.
Allot of the American's show so much hatred towards other country's because of the war's they have committed in the past but none here seem to remember the horrific shit you're country did.
I'm confused by this statement. I think you are saying we hold grudges, and overlook our own faults, but I'm not sure. If so, then I have to ask "and this is different from everyone else how?"
Like even now the Iraqi war was ILLEGAL you are the EVIL Side. You have done nothing but kill Innocent people in Iraq 11,000 of them.
Just 11,000? I'm impressed. I expected more military casualties than that, much less civilian casualties. Considering that we suffered more traffic fatalities than that during that time, the war couldn't have been too terrribly tough.
You try to tell the world that at least you took out a dictator. But no one believes you're intent when you were supplying him with the bio weapons to commit genocid
Read up on it? I suspect I have read as much as or more than you have.
You contend that "When the fires were out, people could live there again". True enough, if you discount the destroyed infrastructure (sewage, potable water, as examples of things that render a city uninhabitable by their lack), the injuries (in general, far more people were injured than killed in a bombing raid), and the fact that it would happen again next week. And the week after. And the week after that. And so on.
It is false to assume that surviving the night meant survival till the next raid. You may have been seriously injured and trapped in a building, there to die of thirst (or the next raid - it wasn't always weeks or months away - sometimes the next raid was that afternoon. And another the next night....).
I do not justify nuking two cities by saying that they did not nuke four more. I point out that those other four were spared ALL bombing for the entire war, as a result of their inclusion on the short list of potential targets.
It should be noted that total fatalities of both atomic bombings, as of the end of 1945, were on the order of 200,000. One raid on Tokyo killed 100,000. That raid was, admittedly, the most destructive non-nuclear attack on Japan, but it was by no means the only attack on Tokyo (there were attacks on one or more Japanese cities every day for the last year of the war).
I find it disturbing that people can look to the atomic bomb as a more terrible way of being killed than any other way. There isn't anything pretty about it, whether from an atom bomb, a firebomb, an artillery shell, or a stray bullet fired by a defender against aerial attack.
That said, I find nothing particularly offensive about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both attacks were just another bombing raid, really. Fewer planes involved, of course, but, ultimately, that didn't matter a hill of beans, since the Japanese had lost all ability to defend themselves from aerial attack. Does that mean I approve of bombing people? Not especially. I prefer a "Neither the farmer in his field nor the burgher in his town should know, nor care, that his nation has gone to war" sort of world. Alas, that view of the world ended in Napolean's day, and had the last nails put into the coffin in the Great War....
You also had a thing called conscription that made it so everyone fit enough and old enough had to fight for you're country.
Yep. Sure did. Doesn't actually change much about how hard a fight it will be that the lads on the other side of the hill are conscripts. Or do you assume that European armies (which are essentially conscript armies) are inherently inferior to the US Army (which is a long-service professional army)?
I don't buy that myself. Conscription doesn't imply lack of patriotism/zeal/skill. It just implies an opinion of the government as to the best way to prepare for a future war.
So what is it you're saying these people don't have the right to fight for there country Only America has the right.
Of course they have the right to fight for their country. But their right to fight doesn't excuse them from being killed if they fight and lose. If Japan had actually fought as hard protecting the Home Islands as they did on Guam or Okinawa, the Americans might have lost a million men. Or not. But the Japanese would have lost pretty much their entire population.
You're country bombed two cities full of civilians!!!
Please learn to spell "your". Reading this was painful. Trivial grammatical quibbles aside, the USA bombed a great many more than two cities. As did the British, the Germans, and the Soviets. Well, the Soviets mostly used artillery rather than aerial bombs, but dead is dead.
I have always found it curious that people objected more to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both of which had military bases and industries, just like the other cities bombed/shelled by either side) than to, say, Tokyo, or Berlin. Both of which were pounded repeatedly.
I also should add, for those who haven't read General Arnold's autobiography, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and four other cities) were deliberately removed from the list of cities to be bombed conventionally. This was to allow for a more accurate determination of the effects of the atomic bombs, if and when they were used. So the use of nuclear weapons against those two cities spared (as a minimum) four other cities from aerial attack, and delayed the aerial attacks on those two cities till the last days of the war. Unlike, say, Berlin, which was bombed regularly thoughout the war.
No, it's not so trivial. Nukes have some bad flaws - they emit radiation and take a good deal of other baggage. Said radiation is easy to trace.
Hide it in a barge full of coal. Coal is radioactive (slightly, but enough to hide a bomb, especially since the coal also shields the bomb's emissions).
The suitcase thing is exagerated, even a 44 gallon drum or 'fridge is a bit small. The material needed to create an uncontrolled nuclear reaction is fairly large, or if small, very detectable by several means.
We have a nuke that we fire out of a 105mm howitzer. That's just over 4" in diameter, for those who don't do metric. The Poseidon missile carries 14 (or more) nuclear weapons was 54" in diameter, so guesstimate its warheads were no more than 15" in diameter (and made a much bigger kaboom than a 105 nuclear shell).
It doesn't take much to make a nuclear weapon. Though a crude nuke is quite large. Minimum size has been going down ever since we learned how to do it.
The value of a movie, from a strictly economical point of view, is just the costs associated with reproducing and distributing the aforementioned movie
No. This is the cost of a movie. The value of a movie is entirely within the minds of the endusers. If I am willing to spend $8 on a ticket to see the movie, that is its value to me. The latest Harry Potter movies comes to mind.
Many movies aren't worth enough to me to pay to see them in the Theatre. I don't. I wait till they come out on DvD, and rent them.
Even more movies aren't even worth renting. I wait till they are on TV.
And the overwhelming majority of movies aren't even worth watching when free. I don't watch them, even when they come on TV.
I suppose it is possible that that last set should be subdivided into movies I'd watch if I were paid (at various rates), and movies I wouldn't watch even if I were offered money to see them (Side Hackers comes to mind - I saw a few minutes of that once, and will not willingly see more of it). SO far, though, noone has offered to pay me to watch movies....
The value if a movie to its maker/distributer is the sum of the value to the endusers. And the maker has to GUESS what that value will be when he makes the movie. If he guesses right, he makes gobs of money. If he guesses wrong, he probably isn't given money to make another movie....
Note that value of a product has nothing to do with price to make the product. The fact that YOU spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours making a movie does not make ME want to see it. Nor does the fact that it had a miniscule budget and was filmed in a weekend make me NOT want to see it (as I recall, one of Roger Corman's movies fits the latter description - it was literally filmed in the period between the end of filming of another movie and when that other movie was SCHEDULED to be finished filming).
Possible. That was in the context of "non-dramatic literary or musical performances". The "musical performances" part certainly implies it fits the case we were discussing (performance of a song at a wedding, or within the scope of a home-movie).
Look at 110(4). Looks to me like it allows that, once you have gone through the definitions of all the words (for instance "public" does not include "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances"). Luckily, they don't try to define family, though "children" is defined for purposes of the Coypright Act.
Quite so. Sometimes the reason is to get more money out of the public.
Squelching disrespect for reasonable rules makes it harder to argue for unreasonable ones.
Also true. My wife believes that the 55mph speed limit back in the day was the biggest single mistake of the government since Prohibition. It turned a majority (or, perhaps, only a large minority) of the public into scofflaws. And once people start thinking that there is nothing wrong with breaking a law, it just gets worse.
That said, I live in a place with semi-arcane traffic laws, primarily designed for revenue enhancement. Speed limit changes on some sections of a road for no reason, parking regulations that are enforced beyond any reasonable standard, that sort of thing. I think we're way too late to be talking about removing the incentive of the government to impose unreasonable rules....
I skimmed through several seemingly relevant chapters of Title 17
So have I. Murky, isn't it? And just exactly what is a "non-dramatic song", as opposed to (presumably) a "dramatic song"?
The parts I read imply strongly that as long as there is no commercial intent (no revenues byond reasonable costs), it is not infringement.
And Commpulsory Licensing applies. Unless, of course, the copyright holder sends you a "don't you dare do that to my precious" letter. In advance, I think, but that was one of the murkier parts.
not likely. If everyone refrained from violating existing traffic laws, they'd invent new ones to nail you with. Lower the speed limits arbitrarily (the classic speedtrap - cross the town line, and suddenly the speed limit is 30mph lower), set up arcane regulations on parking (e.g, no parking in this spot from 9AM to 11AM on Fridays, the adjacent spot is fine except on Mondays from noon-2PM, that sort of thing), anything to get the revenue.
Or just raise taxes across the board, as likely as not.
Personally, I am generally ok with the current system of traffic tickets. I just mislike hearing it characterized as a "safety" issue, when it really is a "money" issue.
No, no, no! I am not implying that one INTEND to get caught. Just that one should PREPARE to be caught. No matter your intentions, you MAY be caught - and whining that it's unfair if/when you get caught is silly, if you broke the law on purpose....
I can go along with this. Actually, allowing Congressional sessions to only last two months every year might be a good thing for all of us. With, of course, a system for extra/extended sessions in case of emergencies.
Bet on it, though, that if we did that, they'd declare an emergency every year, probably several times a year....
Might want to check that. There are special cases in law for songs - as an example, radio stations don't actually have to get permission to play a song - they do have a fee they must pay, at rates set by Congress.
What is it about getting into a motor vehicle that turns reasonable, intelligent people into total assholes?
hmm, not sure where 'assholes' fit in, but usually "idiots" are people who drive slower than you, and "maniacs" are people who drive faster than you. Which was this?
Soviet warheads were, no doubt bigger, than corresponding US warheads. Even so, SS-18 masses less then 220t. And carries a payload to orbit comparable to a Titan II. Which isn't a particularly large or modern rocket. I still don't see where "giant" comes from - ~1/3 the height and ~1/15th the mass of a Saturn V is not "giant" where I come from....
Alas, where I am, there are only two kinds of cops:
1. Honest ones, who won't take the bribe
2. SERIOUSLY dishonest ones, who will take the bribe, then ticket you anyway. And hire a hitman to take you down if you go public about the bribe. (and this is not much of an exaggeration - couple years ago, a cop here was convicted for hiring a hitman to take out some lady who had reported him to Internal Affairs.)
I wish speeding tickets only fined me $50. I havent' gotten a speeding ticket for less than $150 in fifteen years.
At $150 a pop, I would be VERY surprised if the cops lost money on the speedtrap. Even at the rates deputies are paid where I live, that only requires they write three tickets per deputy per day to break even. And I can't recall seeing a speedtrap that couldn't manage three tickets per hour, much less per day....
'The giant rocket boasted up to 10 Multiple Independently-Targeted Reentry Vehicles, or MIRVs, each of which would have a carried a hydrogen bomb thermonuclear warhead to incinerate a different North American or Western European city. Even more terrifying, some of them were believed to have been fitted with aerosol warheads to spray smallpox virus over their U.S. targets.'
10 warheads makes it a "giant rocket"?? A Poseidon missile carried 14 warheads (officially), and wasn't even particularly large (less than 30Mg), much less "giant"
And smallpox virus was "even more terrifying" than ten cities vaporized??? Some people are frightened of the oddest things.
Witches were herbalists, spiritualists, natural healers, and all around wise women. They do not, and have never consorted with the devil. They worship nature spirits, if any at all. Christians, simply don't like people who have different beliefs, so the Christians tortured and murdered them to protect their own interests.
While I am aware that New Age witches fit this description (or would like to think that they do), there is little evidence that the witches being hanged/burned did. They did tend to be widows, since a woman had little, if any, legal standing in most of the places where witchcraft trials were popular, and a widow didn't have a guy to "protect" her (and so was vulnerable). As often as not, charges were brouht by someone who stood to gain by the conviction. I note that the Salem Trials resulted in the father of one of the accusers acquiring a pretty fair amount of property for nothing after the "witches" were convicted.
Americans wanted to steal about half of the British Empire.
We've seen what you've done with that half, and on behalf of the British Empire I would like to say "you are welcome to keep it".
Thank you.
America was NOT half the British Empire. Not even close. It wasn't even half of the North American part of the British Empire. Again, not even close. It wasn't even the most valuable piece of the British Empire. Not even close.
Covering any song from the last 90 years with your private band at your sisters wedding. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Making your private video with your main actor your dog. As background music you use any song from the last 90 years. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
These two are bad examples. I believe that the law requires you to pay a specified fee for doing either of these, but you cannot actually be forbidden by the Copyright holder from doing either of these.
Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches.
Well, no. No evidence any of the people hanged/burned (the former in America, the latter in Europe) for witchcraft were, in fact, witches.
Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.
Well, no. Galileo violated Church Law by asserting something contrary to Scripture that he could not prove. And he called the Pope a fool in one of his books. I suspect his Heresy trial was more inspired by the latter than the former.
Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.
No. No law I am aware of forbade blacks from saying they weren't inferior beings. The South's "peculiar institution" did a lot of strange things, but I have never heard that that was one of them.
America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.
Umm, no. At least, I don't think Britain has a law forbidding colonies from declaring their independence. Any Brits here know otherwise? Now, the US colonies broke quite a few British laws, at one time or anothe - like not dealing exclusively with British merchants, and retaining their arsenals...
As to your central thesis, no the Law is neither perfect nor unquestionable. However, breaking a law as a method of civil disobedience (the basic non-violent way of opposing a bad law) implies a willingness to do hard time. If you're not willing to take a chance on punishment for violating a law, don't break laws.
Let's take speed traps. What a joke right now. One cop sits there, finds a speeder, pulls them over, and writes them a $50 ticket while others continue to speed. That's not hars. So let's make a harsh deterrent. Let's have cops with M2s (.50 cal machine guns) and radar guns. You speed, they anihilate you and your car. Now THAT'S deterrence.
Speed traps are not about "stopping speeding". They are about "revenue enhancement". Harsh enough penalties as to make people stop speeding would be counterproductive to the true objective - to make some extra money for the agency writing the tickets.
Just so. But I'm more interested in the immediate future - say, 50-100 years. We won't be using antimatter much within that span, if only because we won't have the excess power-generating capacity to make much of it within that time.
I'm hoping for antimatter production in reasonable quantity (more than 100 kg per year, say) in about 200 years. I don't really expect it that soon, though....
And why not solar? as you say, we take for granted how much power the sun constantly bombards every acre of land with. The sun bombards Luna just as hard.
Might be some issues with radiation levels on the surface, but sunlight can be piped underground, if needed there. Certainly, nuclear has its advantages - not least of which is the small fuel mass required (100g/MW-Year? somewhere around there, anyway, in a military reactor), but the minimum size for a decent installation is quite large, and so quite unlikely at first.
I'm a nuclear advocate, and I don't expect nuclear power to be used much offworld in a big way for a very long time, if ever. Solar is too good an option, in places with no weather...
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was talking more about migratory patterns than their sex-lives....
Is that what you were trying to say? You didn't say it very well. It came across as a rant about the EVIL of atomic weapons.
Which amazes me how one sided American's see their history which is built up on war.
And this is different from which other country in the world? Iceland, perhaps. Only fighting I can recall reading of there was the massacre of Irish monks by the Vikings who colonized the place. And the infighting between Christian and non-Christian VIkings over the question of religion. That would be the closest to a non-violent society I have ever heard of.
So when G.W Bush was proven to of taken you're country to a war over lies which makes it an ILLEGAL war,
Hmm, just checked the Constitution, and there is nothing in there about "wars over lies" being illegal.
which is a 'Crime against humanity', but yet he still runs you're country,
I'm not as up on the details of International Law, but I would be surprised if "wars over lies" were listed as a Crime Against Humanity.
Like when G.W Bush removed his signature from the Geneva convention just before they invaded Iraq so he could torture Iraqis and not abide by the rules of war.
George's signature wasn't on the Geneva Convention(s). That would have been Truman for the Fourth, and others for the earlier. Note that under the Geneva Conventions, combatants who violate the Geneva Conventions automatically lose the protection of the Geneva Conventions - which means that if you take hostages, hide among civilians, and similar things, you can be treated pretty much any way the guys who capture you like (subject to their own laws, of course)
American's will fight to take out people who commit crimes against humanity in the world but their own leaders can do it and it's fine.
This would be unlike whom? And this assumes that a Crime Against Humanity has occurred. If you believe so, I recommend bringing appropriate charges before the appropriate body (the House of Representatives, for the Pres/VP/Cabinet, Federal or Military Courts for any particular soldier). Keep in mind that in the case of individual soldiers, you MAY need to be the victim or related to the victim to have standing to bring suit in American Courts.
Donald Rumfeild said he would take responsibility for the many tortured in the concentration camp's, But he still is the secretary of defense. Over 82 reported Iraqi deaths have come from these camp's... People don't die from sleep deprivation they die from torture.
They also die from old age, despair, and a host of other issues, not least being less than ideal immune responses to a whole host of never-before-encountered bugs. Also, what makes you think sleep deprivation isn't torture? Frankly, it could be argued that serving bacon and eggs for breakfast would be torture to a Muslim prisoner. Much less sleep-deprivation.
Allot of the American's show so much hatred towards other country's because of the war's they have committed in the past but none here seem to remember the horrific shit you're country did.
I'm confused by this statement. I think you are saying we hold grudges, and overlook our own faults, but I'm not sure. If so, then I have to ask "and this is different from everyone else how?"
Like even now the Iraqi war was ILLEGAL you are the EVIL Side. You have done nothing but kill Innocent people in Iraq 11,000 of them.
Just 11,000? I'm impressed. I expected more military casualties than that, much less civilian casualties. Considering that we suffered more traffic fatalities than that during that time, the war couldn't have been too terrribly tough.
You try to tell the world that at least you took out a dictator. But no one believes you're intent when you were supplying him with the bio weapons to commit genocid
You contend that "When the fires were out, people could live there again". True enough, if you discount the destroyed infrastructure (sewage, potable water, as examples of things that render a city uninhabitable by their lack), the injuries (in general, far more people were injured than killed in a bombing raid), and the fact that it would happen again next week. And the week after. And the week after that. And so on.
It is false to assume that surviving the night meant survival till the next raid. You may have been seriously injured and trapped in a building, there to die of thirst (or the next raid - it wasn't always weeks or months away - sometimes the next raid was that afternoon. And another the next night....).
I do not justify nuking two cities by saying that they did not nuke four more. I point out that those other four were spared ALL bombing for the entire war, as a result of their inclusion on the short list of potential targets.
It should be noted that total fatalities of both atomic bombings, as of the end of 1945, were on the order of 200,000. One raid on Tokyo killed 100,000. That raid was, admittedly, the most destructive non-nuclear attack on Japan, but it was by no means the only attack on Tokyo (there were attacks on one or more Japanese cities every day for the last year of the war).
I find it disturbing that people can look to the atomic bomb as a more terrible way of being killed than any other way. There isn't anything pretty about it, whether from an atom bomb, a firebomb, an artillery shell, or a stray bullet fired by a defender against aerial attack.
That said, I find nothing particularly offensive about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both attacks were just another bombing raid, really. Fewer planes involved, of course, but, ultimately, that didn't matter a hill of beans, since the Japanese had lost all ability to defend themselves from aerial attack. Does that mean I approve of bombing people? Not especially. I prefer a "Neither the farmer in his field nor the burgher in his town should know, nor care, that his nation has gone to war" sort of world. Alas, that view of the world ended in Napolean's day, and had the last nails put into the coffin in the Great War....
Yep. Sure did. Doesn't actually change much about how hard a fight it will be that the lads on the other side of the hill are conscripts. Or do you assume that European armies (which are essentially conscript armies) are inherently inferior to the US Army (which is a long-service professional army)?
I don't buy that myself. Conscription doesn't imply lack of patriotism/zeal/skill. It just implies an opinion of the government as to the best way to prepare for a future war.
So what is it you're saying these people don't have the right to fight for there country Only America has the right.
Of course they have the right to fight for their country. But their right to fight doesn't excuse them from being killed if they fight and lose. If Japan had actually fought as hard protecting the Home Islands as they did on Guam or Okinawa, the Americans might have lost a million men. Or not. But the Japanese would have lost pretty much their entire population.
You're country bombed two cities full of civilians!!!
Please learn to spell "your". Reading this was painful. Trivial grammatical quibbles aside, the USA bombed a great many more than two cities. As did the British, the Germans, and the Soviets. Well, the Soviets mostly used artillery rather than aerial bombs, but dead is dead.
I have always found it curious that people objected more to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both of which had military bases and industries, just like the other cities bombed/shelled by either side) than to, say, Tokyo, or Berlin. Both of which were pounded repeatedly.
I also should add, for those who haven't read General Arnold's autobiography, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and four other cities) were deliberately removed from the list of cities to be bombed conventionally. This was to allow for a more accurate determination of the effects of the atomic bombs, if and when they were used. So the use of nuclear weapons against those two cities spared (as a minimum) four other cities from aerial attack, and delayed the aerial attacks on those two cities till the last days of the war. Unlike, say, Berlin, which was bombed regularly thoughout the war.
Hide it in a barge full of coal. Coal is radioactive (slightly, but enough to hide a bomb, especially since the coal also shields the bomb's emissions).
The suitcase thing is exagerated, even a 44 gallon drum or 'fridge is a bit small. The material needed to create an uncontrolled nuclear reaction is fairly large, or if small, very detectable by several means. We have a nuke that we fire out of a 105mm howitzer. That's just over 4" in diameter, for those who don't do metric. The Poseidon missile carries 14 (or more) nuclear weapons was 54" in diameter, so guesstimate its warheads were no more than 15" in diameter (and made a much bigger kaboom than a 105 nuclear shell).
It doesn't take much to make a nuclear weapon. Though a crude nuke is quite large. Minimum size has been going down ever since we learned how to do it.
No. This is the cost of a movie. The value of a movie is entirely within the minds of the endusers. If I am willing to spend $8 on a ticket to see the movie, that is its value to me. The latest Harry Potter movies comes to mind.
Many movies aren't worth enough to me to pay to see them in the Theatre. I don't. I wait till they come out on DvD, and rent them.
Even more movies aren't even worth renting. I wait till they are on TV.
And the overwhelming majority of movies aren't even worth watching when free. I don't watch them, even when they come on TV.
I suppose it is possible that that last set should be subdivided into movies I'd watch if I were paid (at various rates), and movies I wouldn't watch even if I were offered money to see them (Side Hackers comes to mind - I saw a few minutes of that once, and will not willingly see more of it). SO far, though, noone has offered to pay me to watch movies....
The value if a movie to its maker/distributer is the sum of the value to the endusers. And the maker has to GUESS what that value will be when he makes the movie. If he guesses right, he makes gobs of money. If he guesses wrong, he probably isn't given money to make another movie....
Note that value of a product has nothing to do with price to make the product. The fact that YOU spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours making a movie does not make ME want to see it. Nor does the fact that it had a miniscule budget and was filmed in a weekend make me NOT want to see it (as I recall, one of Roger Corman's movies fits the latter description - it was literally filmed in the period between the end of filming of another movie and when that other movie was SCHEDULED to be finished filming).
Possible. That was in the context of "non-dramatic literary or musical performances". The "musical performances" part certainly implies it fits the case we were discussing (performance of a song at a wedding, or within the scope of a home-movie). Look at 110(4). Looks to me like it allows that, once you have gone through the definitions of all the words (for instance "public" does not include "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances"). Luckily, they don't try to define family, though "children" is defined for purposes of the Coypright Act.
Quite so. Sometimes the reason is to get more money out of the public.
Squelching disrespect for reasonable rules makes it harder to argue for unreasonable ones.
Also true. My wife believes that the 55mph speed limit back in the day was the biggest single mistake of the government since Prohibition. It turned a majority (or, perhaps, only a large minority) of the public into scofflaws. And once people start thinking that there is nothing wrong with breaking a law, it just gets worse.
That said, I live in a place with semi-arcane traffic laws, primarily designed for revenue enhancement. Speed limit changes on some sections of a road for no reason, parking regulations that are enforced beyond any reasonable standard, that sort of thing. I think we're way too late to be talking about removing the incentive of the government to impose unreasonable rules....
So have I. Murky, isn't it? And just exactly what is a "non-dramatic song", as opposed to (presumably) a "dramatic song"?
The parts I read imply strongly that as long as there is no commercial intent (no revenues byond reasonable costs), it is not infringement.
And Commpulsory Licensing applies. Unless, of course, the copyright holder sends you a "don't you dare do that to my precious" letter. In advance, I think, but that was one of the murkier parts.
Or just raise taxes across the board, as likely as not.
Personally, I am generally ok with the current system of traffic tickets. I just mislike hearing it characterized as a "safety" issue, when it really is a "money" issue.
No, no, no! I am not implying that one INTEND to get caught. Just that one should PREPARE to be caught. No matter your intentions, you MAY be caught - and whining that it's unfair if/when you get caught is silly, if you broke the law on purpose....
Bet on it, though, that if we did that, they'd declare an emergency every year, probably several times a year....
Might want to check that. There are special cases in law for songs - as an example, radio stations don't actually have to get permission to play a song - they do have a fee they must pay, at rates set by Congress.
hmm, not sure where 'assholes' fit in, but usually "idiots" are people who drive slower than you, and "maniacs" are people who drive faster than you. Which was this?
Soviet warheads were, no doubt bigger, than corresponding US warheads. Even so, SS-18 masses less then 220t. And carries a payload to orbit comparable to a Titan II. Which isn't a particularly large or modern rocket. I still don't see where "giant" comes from - ~1/3 the height and ~1/15th the mass of a Saturn V is not "giant" where I come from....
1. Honest ones, who won't take the bribe
2. SERIOUSLY dishonest ones, who will take the bribe, then ticket you anyway. And hire a hitman to take you down if you go public about the bribe. (and this is not much of an exaggeration - couple years ago, a cop here was convicted for hiring a hitman to take out some lady who had reported him to Internal Affairs.)
At $150 a pop, I would be VERY surprised if the cops lost money on the speedtrap. Even at the rates deputies are paid where I live, that only requires they write three tickets per deputy per day to break even. And I can't recall seeing a speedtrap that couldn't manage three tickets per hour, much less per day....
10 warheads makes it a "giant rocket"?? A Poseidon missile carried 14 warheads (officially), and wasn't even particularly large (less than 30Mg), much less "giant"
And smallpox virus was "even more terrifying" than ten cities vaporized??? Some people are frightened of the oddest things.
While I am aware that New Age witches fit this description (or would like to think that they do), there is little evidence that the witches being hanged/burned did. They did tend to be widows, since a woman had little, if any, legal standing in most of the places where witchcraft trials were popular, and a widow didn't have a guy to "protect" her (and so was vulnerable). As often as not, charges were brouht by someone who stood to gain by the conviction. I note that the Salem Trials resulted in the father of one of the accusers acquiring a pretty fair amount of property for nothing after the "witches" were convicted.
Americans wanted to steal about half of the British Empire.
We've seen what you've done with that half, and on behalf of the British Empire I would like to say "you are welcome to keep it".
Thank you.
America was NOT half the British Empire. Not even close. It wasn't even half of the North American part of the British Empire. Again, not even close. It wasn't even the most valuable piece of the British Empire. Not even close.
Making your private video with your main actor your dog. As background music you use any song from the last 90 years. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
These two are bad examples. I believe that the law requires you to pay a specified fee for doing either of these, but you cannot actually be forbidden by the Copyright holder from doing either of these.
Well, no. No evidence any of the people hanged/burned (the former in America, the latter in Europe) for witchcraft were, in fact, witches.
Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.
Well, no. Galileo violated Church Law by asserting something contrary to Scripture that he could not prove. And he called the Pope a fool in one of his books. I suspect his Heresy trial was more inspired by the latter than the former.
Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.
No. No law I am aware of forbade blacks from saying they weren't inferior beings. The South's "peculiar institution" did a lot of strange things, but I have never heard that that was one of them.
America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.
Umm, no. At least, I don't think Britain has a law forbidding colonies from declaring their independence. Any Brits here know otherwise? Now, the US colonies broke quite a few British laws, at one time or anothe - like not dealing exclusively with British merchants, and retaining their arsenals...
As to your central thesis, no the Law is neither perfect nor unquestionable. However, breaking a law as a method of civil disobedience (the basic non-violent way of opposing a bad law) implies a willingness to do hard time. If you're not willing to take a chance on punishment for violating a law, don't break laws.
Speed traps are not about "stopping speeding". They are about "revenue enhancement". Harsh enough penalties as to make people stop speeding would be counterproductive to the true objective - to make some extra money for the agency writing the tickets.
I'm hoping for antimatter production in reasonable quantity (more than 100 kg per year, say) in about 200 years. I don't really expect it that soon, though....
And anyone who thinks it is illegal for the mailman to read postcards he is delivering is deluding himself.
Might be some issues with radiation levels on the surface, but sunlight can be piped underground, if needed there. Certainly, nuclear has its advantages - not least of which is the small fuel mass required (100g/MW-Year? somewhere around there, anyway, in a military reactor), but the minimum size for a decent installation is quite large, and so quite unlikely at first.
I'm a nuclear advocate, and I don't expect nuclear power to be used much offworld in a big way for a very long time, if ever. Solar is too good an option, in places with no weather...