Because everything would be sooo much better if only we had corrupt politicians appointing even more corrupt politicians to run things.
The more local a politician gets, the less likely he is to be corrupt, just because you are better able to storm into his office and chew him out for it.
Have you looked at your state legislature lately? Do you know who your state legislators are? Do you even know what your state legislature as called, as well as the names of its houses?
I'm in favor of what you propose, as well as what another respondent said about repealing the Seventeenth, but that would require that voters not only trust their state legislatures (which they don't, not that they've been given much reason to), but that they know their legislatures.
EXACTLY!!!
Nobody knows or cares about the state legislatures because they don't matter. What I propose would cause them to matter again, which would in turn cause people to care.
Reform the legislatures into more trustworthy bodies (say, by eliminating gerrymandering, or by implementing ranked voting, or both), then you can start looking at how they apply to the federal government.
Fix how they apply to the Federal government, and then people will care enough to make the reform happen.
The guy I was replying to wanted Ron Paul to be the President of a hypothetical seceded Texas, and also had a sig that said "Vote Libertarian." Therefore, I assumed he mistakenly thought Ron Paul was running for president as a Libertarian.
IANAL, but I think Obama and McCain could raise a pretty valid constitutional challenge to it that might end up creating a national guideline for ballot deadlines, imposing yet another federal regulation.
You sure aren't a lawyer, because the Constitution says that the state legislatures can essentially do whatever the fuck they want.
If the state legislature decides it wants to let the citizens of the state vote for its electors, that's fine.
If the state legislature decides to create the ballot for that vote a fucking decade in advance, that's fine.
If the state legislature decides to pick the electors itself, that's fine.
If the state legislature decides to let the state's governor pick the electors, that's fine.
If the state legislature decides to let a bum on the street pick the electors, that's fine.
If the state legislature decides to pick the electors via names pulled out of a hat, that's fine!
What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?
Electors for each state were originally intended to be chosen by the state legislature, not the citizens of the state. This would have given the state government additional power over the Federal government. Choosing of electors by the people, along with direct election of Senators (the 17th Amendment) represent a lamentable erosion of Federalism, and resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.
I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican...
That's funny, so is Bob Barr. He was Republican until him and John Linder got gerrymandered into competing for the same district (causing Barr to lose his seat in the Georgia House, and apparently decide to run for President instead).
I've already explained in the thread why not. In short, there are many occasions where a traveler is in Limbo and cannot be easily discerned to be in one country or another.
No, there's not. "Legal limbo" is a bullshit concept perpetuated by fascists. You are either in the US, in the country you came from, or in international waters/airspace and international maritime law should apply. Period.
Or maybe they understand that it's possible for two sets of contradictory laws to apply at the same time with no clear delineation between which one is more apropriate.
What contradictory laws? If you are in US territory then US laws apply. All US laws. Including the Bill of Rights!
And if you're not in US territory, then US government agencies (such as the DHS) have no jurisdiction!
By the way, you have yet to provide any concrete support for your argument whatsoever.
you'd come to a point where you realize the laws of one country, cannot be evenly applied to non-citizens.
Why not? When the Framers wanted something to only apply to citizens, they wrote "citizens." When they wanted it to apply to all people, they wrote "people." There's no need for Constitutional law debate here; it's blatantly obvious from a plain reading of the text. And any "scholar" who says otherwise is just a fascist wanker trying to justify his own totalitarianism!
Is it really? I would have assumed that US military bases in (or rather, "surrounded by") foreign countries were considered to be US territory just like embassies are.
All EULAs start with some phrase like "You may not use this software if you do not agree to this licence." If they didn't, you wouldn't have to agree to the licence to use the software.
That doesn't make sense. If you don't agree to the license, then the "you may not use this software" clause never comes into effect, and it's as if the EULA wasn't there at all. You have to accept that restriction before it becomes valid.
Then the question is is whether fewer pit stops out weight slower speeds.
Yes, almost always. Pit stops take a long time, and the weight of extra fuel expressed as a fraction of the weight of the whole race car really isn't that significant.
except the trade mark is not part of the code and it needs to be enforced. I can't go and grab a BSD kernel source and start distributing it claiming it's Linux.
DING DING DING! You said the word of the day!
That's the key, there: "distributing." You can't infringe on the trademark until you distribute it. So then why should an end user license agreement be necessary or appropriate to enforce it?
The people running gnu.org granted you the right to run the software, by legally making it available to you.
The way the GPL comes in is how they became legally able to make it available. Granted, in this case it's because they happen to be the copyright holders, but they could have otherwise gained the right to make it available to you by themselves agreeing to the GPL.
If the fact that the file is online online and can be downloaded is enough to grant me access to run it...
...and the people offering it were authorized to do so...
...can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers(https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/firegl_8_502_xp32_driver_only_065657.exe) without accepting the eula?
Yes, I think so. Whether my opinion is the legally-valid one is up for debate; case law has varied on that question.
This is 2 different files, and I can't see any difference other then the license. And if I reject the license, I should have the same right to use/not use both files.
I agree completely: you should have the right to use both.
By the way, here's an example for you: What gave you the right to download and read this post I've written here? It's copyrighted just like Emacs and the ATI drivers you mentioned are. I didn't give you an explicit license to download or read it. So what's to stop me from suing you for copyright infringement (and winning), other than common sense (which, as I'm sure you know, isn't valid in a court of law)?
Slashdot Mirror
If Direct3D is the standard, then what do non-Microsoft consoles use?
The more local a politician gets, the less likely he is to be corrupt, just because you are better able to storm into his office and chew him out for it.
EXACTLY!!!
Nobody knows or cares about the state legislatures because they don't matter. What I propose would cause them to matter again, which would in turn cause people to care.
Fix how they apply to the Federal government, and then people will care enough to make the reform happen.
The guy I was replying to wanted Ron Paul to be the President of a hypothetical seceded Texas, and also had a sig that said "Vote Libertarian." Therefore, I assumed he mistakenly thought Ron Paul was running for president as a Libertarian.
Or even "olympics.chicago.il.us"
They shouldn't have been granted a trademark for somebody else's preexisting domain in the first place!
What does Ron Paul have to do with anything? Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate, you know.
You sure aren't a lawyer, because the Constitution says that the state legislatures can essentially do whatever the fuck they want.
Do you get the picture?
Maybe so, but Florida got to decide that for itself; it wasn't imposed by the Federal government.
Electors for each state were originally intended to be chosen by the state legislature, not the citizens of the state. This would have given the state government additional power over the Federal government. Choosing of electors by the people, along with direct election of Senators (the 17th Amendment) represent a lamentable erosion of Federalism, and resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.
That's funny, so is Bob Barr. He was Republican until him and John Linder got gerrymandered into competing for the same district (causing Barr to lose his seat in the Georgia House, and apparently decide to run for President instead).
Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!
Why the top six? Why not the top seven? Or eight?
I thought you were trying to reduce the incumbent parties' advantage, not enhance it!
It means transcripts of the lecture (as in, where somebody wrote down what the professor said), not enrollment transcripts!
No, there's not. "Legal limbo" is a bullshit concept perpetuated by fascists. You are either in the US, in the country you came from, or in international waters/airspace and international maritime law should apply. Period.
What contradictory laws? If you are in US territory then US laws apply. All US laws. Including the Bill of Rights!
And if you're not in US territory, then US government agencies (such as the DHS) have no jurisdiction!
By the way, you have yet to provide any concrete support for your argument whatsoever.
He's a drooling moron. Who the fuck cares what he thinks?
Why not? When the Framers wanted something to only apply to citizens, they wrote "citizens." When they wanted it to apply to all people, they wrote "people." There's no need for Constitutional law debate here; it's blatantly obvious from a plain reading of the text. And any "scholar" who says otherwise is just a fascist wanker trying to justify his own totalitarianism!
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone (including foreigners in foreign countries); it's just not enforceable outside of US territory.
Is it really? I would have assumed that US military bases in (or rather, "surrounded by") foreign countries were considered to be US territory just like embassies are.
There is no such thing as "the continent of Central America." The countries between Mexico and Panama (inclusive) are all in North America.
It's still less important than the time lost in pit stops.
That doesn't make sense. If you don't agree to the license, then the "you may not use this software" clause never comes into effect, and it's as if the EULA wasn't there at all. You have to accept that restriction before it becomes valid.
Yes, almost always. Pit stops take a long time, and the weight of extra fuel expressed as a fraction of the weight of the whole race car really isn't that significant.
DING DING DING! You said the word of the day!
That's the key, there: "distributing." You can't infringe on the trademark until you distribute it. So then why should an end user license agreement be necessary or appropriate to enforce it?
The people running gnu.org granted you the right to run the software, by legally making it available to you.
The way the GPL comes in is how they became legally able to make it available. Granted, in this case it's because they happen to be the copyright holders, but they could have otherwise gained the right to make it available to you by themselves agreeing to the GPL.
...and the people offering it were authorized to do so...
Yes, I think so. Whether my opinion is the legally-valid one is up for debate; case law has varied on that question.
I agree completely: you should have the right to use both.
By the way, here's an example for you: What gave you the right to download and read this post I've written here? It's copyrighted just like Emacs and the ATI drivers you mentioned are. I didn't give you an explicit license to download or read it. So what's to stop me from suing you for copyright infringement (and winning), other than common sense (which, as I'm sure you know, isn't valid in a court of law)?