No, the two party system is ingrained in the US legal and media systems. It was created by the parties to keep other parties from entering. It's deliberately set up as a Catch-22. To be on the ballot, you must have gotten X votes on the previous ballot. Not a single "third party" is qualified to be on the ballot in all states. The Libertarian Party is the largest, and only has ballot access in 33 states. (I'm talking about overall party qualification, not individual contest qualification - the Libertarians will likely be on the presidential ballot in all 50 states). Along with that is an intentional absence of media coverage. The last third party candidate in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. That's not the "voter's choice," it's a rigged system.
And the single vote system enforces that. A ranked voting system would help to level the field for minor party candidates, so the major parties will never allow it to happen. They like to tell people a vote for a minor candidate is a vote thrown away.
I often vote for minor party candidates, and less often "write in." But in the real word, with all the built-in bias toward the two party system and which you're naively unfamiliar with, there's no chance of them winning.
"great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money," - the jury won't insult him by offering him money to soothe his feelings.
"what with all these ACs posting the same stuff over and over again. Not sure what to make of that,"
Could be as simple as people on Steam, or reddit, finding out about this discussion and not having accounts here. Regardless, if they're posting deliberately misleading info, they should be called out. If the info is accurate, what does it matter who posts it?
"will I void my car's warranty if I tint my windows" or something like that. A huge number of people think their warranty will be void if they modify their car even the slightest bit.
And you're misleading them, because it depends on the actual warranty terms, and has nothing to do with the MM Warranty Act. A manufacturer can legally say you can't do modifications if you want the warranty to remain in effect. It's perfectly legal for them to say they won't cover an engine failure if you had ever hung fuzzy dice on the mirror, they just have to say so in clear language. And no, they don't have to prove anything, except that you violated the terms.
The whole "the MM Warranty Act says they can't stop you from doing modifications" simply isn't true. All that bullshit is based on this one section:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name
So, they can deny warranty coverage if you have put some performance doo-dad on it, as long as that's spelled out in the warranty (note that it prevents them from saying you have to use brand name X, it doesn't prevent them from saying you can't make modifications). And, no, they don't have to prove the modification caused the problem. They can even say you have to use their own replacement parts (if they're provided free under warranty). What they can't do is say you have to use their oil filters, or have the service done by their dealer, unless it is free.
Believe it or not, most car warranties are pretty reasonable, and only deny warranty coverage for failures actually caused by modifications.
"the DMCA filed was totally invalid as it didn't have required information."
Why don't you provide a link to the notice, then explain what the hell you're talking about? From the Steam thread, the takedown notice included this:
the game Orion uses weapon art content from Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. The weapon art in question includes the M8A7 rifle, the Haymaker rifle, and the Bal-27 rifle.
That's 99% of what's needed - to identify the infringing work, and the work which is being infringed. That was done. The rest is boilerplate - contact info, signature, etc. What are you claiming is missing?
"...something that the DMCA does not cover (and which more would likely fall under copyright..."
Copyright is exactly what the DMCA covers. It is, after all, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The submitter seems very biased. There are comparison pictures on reddit (and now here) which clearly show infringing content.
If that's true, there's probably a lot of lawsuit money to be made from Facebook (and/or the mfg/carrier who put it on there) by those who've never agreed to any sort of TOU which allows that.
"We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance"
The "reasonable gun control" "checks on gun ownership" are equivalent to prior restraint of the free speech/press right. It's an completely invalid comparison.
Additionally, significant limits already exist, in spades, with regard to exercise of peaceful 2nd A rights.
"There is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun regulation."
Just as there is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable press restrictions. Congress could outlaw all electronic media (radio, TV, Internet), photocopiers, high speed presses, etc., because none of that existed at the time the Constitution was written. They could not have foreseen these new powerful forms of speech. Only the government should have access to such technology.
Likewise, they could reasonably require that all news be written by licensed journalists, and subject to government review and a waiting period prior to publication. They could also set other reasonable terms, like limiting newspapers and magazines to a capacity of 10 pages. I'd also like to see them outlaw metallic inks and perfumed inserts.
Of course, none of this would violate anyone's free speech rights, since they would still be able to whisper to those around them.
"Take away the civil rights of terrorists and criminals?"
What are you babbling about? People who have been proven to be either are already prohibited. The Dems want to be able to prohibit people by fiat, people on some secret lists with no defined way to get on or off, and with no due process protections.
There was a vote a couple of days ago which would delay purchases, giving the government a chance to prevent them if they could prove anything of substance using due process. The Dems voted against it.
Most of the people I see with iPhones have cases on them which are an order of magnitude more in volume that a headphone jack. Tell me again how thinner is an advantage?
Slashdot Mirror
No, the two party system is ingrained in the US legal and media systems. It was created by the parties to keep other parties from entering. It's deliberately set up as a Catch-22. To be on the ballot, you must have gotten X votes on the previous ballot. Not a single "third party" is qualified to be on the ballot in all states. The Libertarian Party is the largest, and only has ballot access in 33 states. (I'm talking about overall party qualification, not individual contest qualification - the Libertarians will likely be on the presidential ballot in all 50 states). Along with that is an intentional absence of media coverage. The last third party candidate in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. That's not the "voter's choice," it's a rigged system.
And the single vote system enforces that. A ranked voting system would help to level the field for minor party candidates, so the major parties will never allow it to happen. They like to tell people a vote for a minor candidate is a vote thrown away.
I often vote for minor party candidates, and less often "write in." But in the real word, with all the built-in bias toward the two party system and which you're naively unfamiliar with, there's no chance of them winning.
How naive.
"All we have to do is stop reelecting them. Is that so difficult?"
With the choices we're given, apparently it is.
I think anything which a politician says is considered puffery.
Alan Kay did this in 1972.
Blackjack and hookers?
You're still wrong.
"what with all these ACs posting the same stuff over and over again. Not sure what to make of that,"
Could be as simple as people on Steam, or reddit, finding out about this discussion and not having accounts here. Regardless, if they're posting deliberately misleading info, they should be called out. If the info is accurate, what does it matter who posts it?
And you're misleading them, because it depends on the actual warranty terms, and has nothing to do with the MM Warranty Act. A manufacturer can legally say you can't do modifications if you want the warranty to remain in effect. It's perfectly legal for them to say they won't cover an engine failure if you had ever hung fuzzy dice on the mirror, they just have to say so in clear language. And no, they don't have to prove anything, except that you violated the terms.
The whole "the MM Warranty Act says they can't stop you from doing modifications" simply isn't true. All that bullshit is based on this one section:
So, they can deny warranty coverage if you have put some performance doo-dad on it, as long as that's spelled out in the warranty (note that it prevents them from saying you have to use brand name X, it doesn't prevent them from saying you can't make modifications). And, no, they don't have to prove the modification caused the problem. They can even say you have to use their own replacement parts (if they're provided free under warranty). What they can't do is say you have to use their oil filters, or have the service done by their dealer, unless it is free.
Believe it or not, most car warranties are pretty reasonable, and only deny warranty coverage for failures actually caused by modifications.
How does a light being on prevent one from doing an oil change?
You apparently believe that if someone were to copy something by hand, it's not copyright infringement. You're wrong.
" it's just a knockoff of the top rail on an AR-15/M-16"
You're being much, much, too blatant in the things you're making up. Anyone who can use Google can tell your claim is made of whole cloth.
"they both copied from the M14."
You've obviously never even seen an M14.
Why don't you provide a link to the notice, then explain what the hell you're talking about? From the Steam thread, the takedown notice included this:
That's 99% of what's needed - to identify the infringing work, and the work which is being infringed. That was done. The rest is boilerplate - contact info, signature, etc. What are you claiming is missing?
"...something that the DMCA does not cover (and which more would likely fall under copyright..."
Copyright is exactly what the DMCA covers. It is, after all, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The submitter seems very biased. There are comparison pictures on reddit (and now here) which clearly show infringing content.
If that's true, there's probably a lot of lawsuit money to be made from Facebook (and/or the mfg/carrier who put it on there) by those who've never agreed to any sort of TOU which allows that.
"Facebook is using your phone's location to suggest new friends."
How does it do that? I don't have a Facebook account, nor a Facebook app on my phone.
Just say "no" to the Bookface.
"the UK now needs to follow the rules that all others do."
And if they don't, what's the EU going to do - kick them out of the club?
Idiot alert! You're begging the question, arguing a non-sequitur, and comparing apples to oranges.
"We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance"
The "reasonable gun control" "checks on gun ownership" are equivalent to prior restraint of the free speech/press right. It's an completely invalid comparison.
Additionally, significant limits already exist, in spades, with regard to exercise of peaceful 2nd A rights.
"There is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun regulation."
Just as there is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable press restrictions. Congress could outlaw all electronic media (radio, TV, Internet), photocopiers, high speed presses, etc., because none of that existed at the time the Constitution was written. They could not have foreseen these new powerful forms of speech. Only the government should have access to such technology.
Likewise, they could reasonably require that all news be written by licensed journalists, and subject to government review and a waiting period prior to publication. They could also set other reasonable terms, like limiting newspapers and magazines to a capacity of 10 pages. I'd also like to see them outlaw metallic inks and perfumed inserts.
Of course, none of this would violate anyone's free speech rights, since they would still be able to whisper to those around them.
"Take away the civil rights of terrorists and criminals?"
What are you babbling about? People who have been proven to be either are already prohibited. The Dems want to be able to prohibit people by fiat, people on some secret lists with no defined way to get on or off, and with no due process protections.
There was a vote a couple of days ago which would delay purchases, giving the government a chance to prevent them if they could prove anything of substance using due process. The Dems voted against it.
"Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation."
How about how so-called "civil rights leaders" are staging a sit-in with the goal of taking away civil rights?
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Most of the people I see with iPhones have cases on them which are an order of magnitude more in volume that a headphone jack. Tell me again how thinner is an advantage?