How many people in the US actually drive a car that needs anything over 87 octane?
I do. My car requires 93.
Most cars don't need it. Arguably no cars need it.
Bzzt wrong. Cars that say they require it really do require it. My car will begin knocking if I use anything less. Knocking will destory the engine.
It has to do with how quickly 87 octane burns vs 93 octane. Likewise though a car that says it requires only 87 should use only 87, because the higher octane will burn too fast and reduce your fuel milage.
I suggest you do a bit more research; just because someone is a an engineer at Porsche doesn't mean they really know what they're talking about. The government rarely knows its ass from a hole in the ground either..
I think diesels are also not as popular here because most people remember what diesel cars were like the last time people started worrying about gas prices (and thus diesels jumped in popularity.) In the 1970's diesels were much more dirty and noisy and smelly than they are today.
Um, excuse me? I've seen brand new diesel pickups, and they ARE very noisy. I live on a pretty heavily traveled street. I'd have to move if most of the cars passing were now diesel.
Nothing limits the political system to two parties today other then the parties being able to market themselves to the majority of people. If some third party could come around and fill a need without apearing too extream, it could easily find itself in various positions of power.
As always, money comes into play. The federal government gives lots of money for campaigning to the Reps and Dems. Third parties don't get anything because they are 'too small,' and thus have an even harder time getting their message out.
Yes, sore losers, nevermind that there seems to be a lot of proof (that is, its much more than a conspiracy theory) that the election results were tampered with, or other illegal methods were used to keep people from voting.
Call me a 'sore loser' if you will (I personally didn't like either choice), but concern of increased corruption in our election process is warranted. Governments have been overthrown for such things.
I can't agree, since the law defines a copy as a material object, and a performance isn't. Also, if performing was copying, why would there be different rights for copying and performing? It's a rule of statutory construction that Congress doesn't pass redundant statutes, so they must both do different things.
Fine. Go take a current, new play and put on your own peformance of it. See what happens.
Hm. Well, 17 USC 106 says this:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
There's a difference between a right and something allowed by law.
No, not at all. For example, if I trespass on your land, I can over time adversely possess it, and it becomes my land. Then I can sell it.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The ability to do that is codified in law, and thus squatting is not illegal is it? Also, I'd like you to put out a recent case. I suspect that in today's age the law allowing squatting would be thrown out, as the original logic which put the practice into place is no longer valid. In other words, we are no longer running around looking for plots of land which don't flood, and abandoning 'useless' land.
In copyright, if the copies are made unlawfully, but the copyright expires, there's no longer any distribution right that prevents me from selling the copies. It's fully lawful to do so, in fact.
Wow, what an irrelevent argument to throw out there. I'm willing to bet that if the holder found out you made the copies before the copyright expired and could prove it, you'd still be found guilty of infringement.
And that's not true. Copyright isn't a right to make copies, it's a right to prevent other people from making copies. It's a negative right.
You're incredibilty idiotic here. You wrote a story, you have the right to copy it, even if copyright laws never existed. You don't need permission to copy your own work, just like you don't need permission to smash some dishware you own.
There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum.
The whole notion of saying someone is 'left or right', 'liberal or conservative' is absurd. You can't lump people into two categories like that. Go do some research on this topic.
Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform.
Go check out various political parties yourself. Also realize that neither of the two parties today does what it really says they stand for, whereas the third parties likely would (because many have been formed in disgust over the current parties). Please, tell me what difference there really is between the GOP and the Dems. Not much really. In all important matters, they are the same. They only differ on irrevelent hot button issues. There are some pretty important differences between the current two big parties and Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist and other parties.
There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.
Sure there is. They can get others on board with support for more parties. One major item would be more fair allocation of federal campaign funds. The GOP and Dems don't really need money from the Feds to run campaigns; they can raise enough on their own as it is. However they are the only two parties that receive funding. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
No, it hasn't been. Though I will grant that there is some overuse of the word 'copying' in various infringement tests, even when a court acknowledges that the reproduction right isn't at issue.
The performance itself is a copy, and while not explicitly stated as such, thats what it is. Take a play. Each performance is more or less the same. Each performance is covered by copyright. Not everything need be in tangible form for copyright to apply.
Regarding derivatives, if it's not very different, it's a mere copy, and the reproduction right is infringed. If it's sufficiently different, it's a derivative, and the derivative right is infringed. Only if it is seriously different can a later work based on an earlier work be neither a copy nor a derivative.
There is no derivative right. Copyright is invoked because although the story may be different, many elements of the original were copied. Characters, the polictal setup of a world, etc, etc. You can't use a likeness of Micky Mouse, because Micky Mouse images are copyrighted. That you put him in a new position doesn't matter. Exceptions typically being satire however.
And if you obtain 100 unlawfully made copies of a book, you haven't made any copies, and thus haven't infringed. Mere possession of the copies isn't infringing. But if you sell them, you're distributing them, and then you have infringed.
This distinction isn't based on copyright. If you sell 100 VCRs, you're fine too. Likewise if you sell 100 stolen VCRs, you're screwed. Typically you cannot sell anything that which came about through some other illegal act.
We're talking about the right to do so, not the mere ability.
I thought you started arguing about the ability to copy, my mistake. At any rate the copyright holder does always have the right to copy anything to which they hold a copyright, which is exactly what I said originally.
The fact that an image may be illegal to posses does not strip copyright, which you acknowledge: "Since there is no law that terminates a copyright for a work merely because it is unpublishable, the copyright holder still can come after you, just as he could with any other work of his."
Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.
Nice attempt at spin. Sorry, your orginal state was, and I quote "The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period."
I asked you to provide me the parts of the Constitution that back this up in your mind. I've read the whole thing, and I don't see any place where it even implies that. So I asked you to point me to those. You have not.
Sorry if I hurt your feels just dismissing things; its just that the points I dismissed are wrong or irrelevent. Yes, we know the earth is round now. That hasn't changed human nature though, so its irrelevent.
The rest of the points I've addressed, and my claim is that we should defer to the people that thought about it quite a bit, and were considered renaissance men (which I don't think most can claim today).
No. For example, Eldred dealt with whether a specific law was constitutional, without any copyright infringement having occurred.
Your taking my statement out of context, which is how one consumes copyrighted material.
But what I meant was that copyright deals with more than just copying. It also deals with creating derivatives, distribution, public performance, etc.
Creating derivatives and public performances have typically been viewed as 'making copies.' The question is if the derivative is different enough. If it is, its no longer a copy of the original. Same goes for public performances. If I sell my book, I've distributed it, but not broken copyright laws. If I make 100 exact copies of a book, I've violated copyright law even if I haven't distributed them.
No. You said that only the copyright holder has the right to make copies.
I'm saying that the copyright holder might hold a valid copyright, and thus might be able to prevent other people from making copies, but that the copyright does not confer upon him a right to make copies, so he might not be allowed to make copies of his own copyrighted work.
Splitting hairs. At any rate, if one can create an original, they most certainly can create copies. They might not be able to do it quickly, but it can be done. Someone that cannot afford to make copies sells the copyright to someone else, who can, but the creater loses the right.
They're just examples of how someone with a copyright might be prevented from making copies, illustrating how copyright is not a right to make copies.
Those examples are all illegal for other reasons. I don't think the law particually cares how many copies of a 'bad image' someone makes. Copying an illegal image is not illegal. If you think it is, please point out the law which makes it so.
I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.
Those help too. I personally think a world without individual freedoms would be hell.
Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.
This is more recent.
As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.
While I agree that's a problem, the states can and do redistrict. Federal law may put restrictions on how its done, but its still up to them. At any rate, the orginal statement was that two party systems are implied in the Constitution, and I've yet to see a reference to any part which backs that up.
Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc.
We don't understand nearly as much as you'd like to think. We understand very little actually. As far as understanding limited resources, I think we've known that for a while.. its what drives economies of any form. Oceans never protected us; the French played an important role in the Revolution. Faster travel and communication really don't play at all into human rights, so I don't see what you're getting at.
Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.
I think if they could see what happen they'd certainly change things; they'd probably have put more restrictions on the powers of government. However I don't believe their ideas about personal liberty would have changed, since even then they were willing to fight a war for it. Giving them credit and respect would be to actually have read what they wrote and realize that they had a lot more time to think about things then you've likely put in. Math is one of the oldest areas of study there is; to claim that no one came up with 'proportial voting' before the 18th century is ignorant.
And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.
Read what you wrote again. I'm sure you can see how it could be inteperated as believing the Consitution (and the idea of personal freedom which it is meant to protect) is dead.
As far as attempting to misdirect, I've asked several times now where the Constitution implies support for only two parties at a time, yet everything you've said has been almost 100 years after it was signed.
It doesn't though. All arguments about copyright have been about whether copyrights were violated.
And it never says that copyright holders have the right to make copies. It says that they have the exclusive right to make copies, i.e. the right to exclude others from making copies.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "only."
If it would otherwise be illegal to make the copies (because they are libelous, or child porn, or something) then copyright won't alter that.
Why bring in that? Besides, there's no law against copying something libelous. It is illegal to libel someone, and making copies may increase damages, but its not illegal. Childporn is illegal to posses. At any rate, adding these topics to the mix adds nothing to this discussion. It actually detracts from it.
Patents work the same way -- they're a right to stop other people from using the invention, but not a right to use it yourself.
Well, I don't know how you interperated "only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work," but you seem to be repeating what I just said...
FWIW though, there are times you as a non-copyright holder are allowed to copy something. Format shifting and time shifting for personal use are examples.
The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system.
The electoral system does not lead to two party systems. The fact that we HAD more than two parties for much of our countries history is proof of that.
Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts.
Districting is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Individual states are free to divide their electoral votes any way they please, there is no reason districting is required.
Your original claim was that a two party system was implied by the Constitution. You then claim only two implementations, one of which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.
I think they'd be terrified at your lack of comprehension, lack of knowledge of history, and lack of knowledge as to why they decided the way they did, etc. Ignorance does lead to hell.
Oh, and as far as being old goes, human nature hasn't changed at all in the last 250 years, so the Constitution is as valid today as it was then. The fact that you don't care about rights only proves that you need to get exactly what you're asking for.
I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.
Sorry, its you with the reading compresension problems. I never found passages in the Constitution that implied a two party system. Then when I asked you to provide those areas, you come back with 'I said its implicit!'
As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which/. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.
Some of those problems were decided on by people smarter than you and I, and who had the time to think about it. You don't think direct vote or IR voting exsited 200 years ago? It did, and they decided electoral was the best one.
That's not the point; the point is that party A doesn't always win simply because it is the majority. Party A is now forced to concede in other areas. In the two party system, we don't have that forced concession at all.
Movie theaters have such policies. They are also never enforced. You also get into other problems if you do remove them. Do they get a free dinner? Likely yes, since it'd be hard to force someone to pay if you're also forcing them to leave. That puts the restraunt in a bad situation, especially as assholes that have their kids act out for the purpose of getting a free meal come along.
That said, if the restraunt wants a policy of removing parties with unruley kids, why is that acceptable but simply a policy of 'no kids' is not?
You thought wrong. Copyright is very simple; only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work. That's all it says. Playing isn't copying. Well, courts seem to think playing through a computer is copying but playing through a cd player isn't. Hence the confusion.
Nope, that's allowed. Format shifting was rules a-ok. The case was RIAA v Creative (I think). It was way back when they first release the Rio... you know, the one where you transfered files over printer port..
Who said you only had a license to listen to it? Copyright only prevents you from copying the CD. Nothing about copyright prevents you from listening to it, nor does copyright give you a 'license' to ask for free replacement media.
Of course I also support term limits for all public offices. move up or get out either way, new people, new ideas.
Wonderful. So when someone actually good fills the position, you'll force them out anyway.
You'll also get judges that can't do 'the right thing' because they are too afraid to piss of the voters. Judges are supposed to ignore public opinion, because sometimes 'the people' scream to have their freedoms trampled (because they think they're only trampling someone else's freedom).
Slashdot Mirror
How many people in the US actually drive a car that needs anything over 87 octane?
I do. My car requires 93.
Most cars don't need it. Arguably no cars need it.
Bzzt wrong. Cars that say they require it really do require it. My car will begin knocking if I use anything less. Knocking will destory the engine.
It has to do with how quickly 87 octane burns vs 93 octane. Likewise though a car that says it requires only 87 should use only 87, because the higher octane will burn too fast and reduce your fuel milage.
I suggest you do a bit more research; just because someone is a an engineer at Porsche doesn't mean they really know what they're talking about. The government rarely knows its ass from a hole in the ground either..
I think diesels are also not as popular here because most people remember what diesel cars were like the last time people started worrying about gas prices (and thus diesels jumped in popularity.) In the 1970's diesels were much more dirty and noisy and smelly than they are today.
Um, excuse me? I've seen brand new diesel pickups, and they ARE very noisy. I live on a pretty heavily traveled street. I'd have to move if most of the cars passing were now diesel.
Nothing limits the political system to two parties today other then the parties being able to market themselves to the majority of people. If some third party could come around and fill a need without apearing too extream, it could easily find itself in various positions of power.
As always, money comes into play. The federal government gives lots of money for campaigning to the Reps and Dems. Third parties don't get anything because they are 'too small,' and thus have an even harder time getting their message out.
Yes, sore losers, nevermind that there seems to be a lot of proof (that is, its much more than a conspiracy theory) that the election results were tampered with, or other illegal methods were used to keep people from voting.
Call me a 'sore loser' if you will (I personally didn't like either choice), but concern of increased corruption in our election process is warranted. Governments have been overthrown for such things.
I can't agree, since the law defines a copy as a material object, and a performance isn't. Also, if performing was copying, why would there be different rights for copying and performing? It's a rule of statutory construction that Congress doesn't pass redundant statutes, so they must both do different things.
Fine. Go take a current, new play and put on your own peformance of it. See what happens.
Hm. Well, 17 USC 106 says this:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
There's a difference between a right and something allowed by law.
No, not at all. For example, if I trespass on your land, I can over time adversely possess it, and it becomes my land. Then I can sell it.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The ability to do that is codified in law, and thus squatting is not illegal is it? Also, I'd like you to put out a recent case. I suspect that in today's age the law allowing squatting would be thrown out, as the original logic which put the practice into place is no longer valid. In other words, we are no longer running around looking for plots of land which don't flood, and abandoning 'useless' land.
In copyright, if the copies are made unlawfully, but the copyright expires, there's no longer any distribution right that prevents me from selling the copies. It's fully lawful to do so, in fact.
Wow, what an irrelevent argument to throw out there. I'm willing to bet that if the holder found out you made the copies before the copyright expired and could prove it, you'd still be found guilty of infringement.
And that's not true. Copyright isn't a right to make copies, it's a right to prevent other people from making copies. It's a negative right.
You're incredibilty idiotic here. You wrote a story, you have the right to copy it, even if copyright laws never existed. You don't need permission to copy your own work, just like you don't need permission to smash some dishware you own.
There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum.
The whole notion of saying someone is 'left or right', 'liberal or conservative' is absurd. You can't lump people into two categories like that. Go do some research on this topic.
Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform.
Go check out various political parties yourself. Also realize that neither of the two parties today does what it really says they stand for, whereas the third parties likely would (because many have been formed in disgust over the current parties). Please, tell me what difference there really is between the GOP and the Dems. Not much really. In all important matters, they are the same. They only differ on irrevelent hot button issues. There are some pretty important differences between the current two big parties and Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist and other parties.
There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.
Sure there is. They can get others on board with support for more parties. One major item would be more fair allocation of federal campaign funds. The GOP and Dems don't really need money from the Feds to run campaigns; they can raise enough on their own as it is. However they are the only two parties that receive funding. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
No, it hasn't been. Though I will grant that there is some overuse of the word 'copying' in various infringement tests, even when a court acknowledges that the reproduction right isn't at issue.
The performance itself is a copy, and while not explicitly stated as such, thats what it is. Take a play. Each performance is more or less the same. Each performance is covered by copyright. Not everything need be in tangible form for copyright to apply.
Regarding derivatives, if it's not very different, it's a mere copy, and the reproduction right is infringed. If it's sufficiently different, it's a derivative, and the derivative right is infringed. Only if it is seriously different can a later work based on an earlier work be neither a copy nor a derivative.
There is no derivative right. Copyright is invoked because although the story may be different, many elements of the original were copied. Characters, the polictal setup of a world, etc, etc. You can't use a likeness of Micky Mouse, because Micky Mouse images are copyrighted. That you put him in a new position doesn't matter. Exceptions typically being satire however.
And if you obtain 100 unlawfully made copies of a book, you haven't made any copies, and thus haven't infringed. Mere possession of the copies isn't infringing. But if you sell them, you're distributing them, and then you have infringed.
This distinction isn't based on copyright. If you sell 100 VCRs, you're fine too. Likewise if you sell 100 stolen VCRs, you're screwed. Typically you cannot sell anything that which came about through some other illegal act.
We're talking about the right to do so, not the mere ability.
I thought you started arguing about the ability to copy, my mistake. At any rate the copyright holder does always have the right to copy anything to which they hold a copyright, which is exactly what I said originally.
The fact that an image may be illegal to posses does not strip copyright, which you acknowledge: "Since there is no law that terminates a copyright for a work merely because it is unpublishable, the copyright holder still can come after you, just as he could with any other work of his."
Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.
Nice attempt at spin. Sorry, your orginal state was, and I quote "The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period."
I asked you to provide me the parts of the Constitution that back this up in your mind. I've read the whole thing, and I don't see any place where it even implies that. So I asked you to point me to those. You have not.
Sorry if I hurt your feels just dismissing things; its just that the points I dismissed are wrong or irrelevent. Yes, we know the earth is round now. That hasn't changed human nature though, so its irrelevent.
The rest of the points I've addressed, and my claim is that we should defer to the people that thought about it quite a bit, and were considered renaissance men (which I don't think most can claim today).
Why not make it easier for more parties to get elected, thus ensuring that each of us have a representive that more closely matches our goals?
No. For example, Eldred dealt with whether a specific law was constitutional, without any copyright infringement having occurred.
Your taking my statement out of context, which is how one consumes copyrighted material.
But what I meant was that copyright deals with more than just copying. It also deals with creating derivatives, distribution, public performance, etc.
Creating derivatives and public performances have typically been viewed as 'making copies.' The question is if the derivative is different enough. If it is, its no longer a copy of the original. Same goes for public performances. If I sell my book, I've distributed it, but not broken copyright laws. If I make 100 exact copies of a book, I've violated copyright law even if I haven't distributed them.
No. You said that only the copyright holder has the right to make copies.
I'm saying that the copyright holder might hold a valid copyright, and thus might be able to prevent other people from making copies, but that the copyright does not confer upon him a right to make copies, so he might not be allowed to make copies of his own copyrighted work.
Splitting hairs. At any rate, if one can create an original, they most certainly can create copies. They might not be able to do it quickly, but it can be done. Someone that cannot afford to make copies sells the copyright to someone else, who can, but the creater loses the right.
They're just examples of how someone with a copyright might be prevented from making copies, illustrating how copyright is not a right to make copies.
Those examples are all illegal for other reasons. I don't think the law particually cares how many copies of a 'bad image' someone makes. Copying an illegal image is not illegal. If you think it is, please point out the law which makes it so.
I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.
Those help too. I personally think a world without individual freedoms would be hell.
Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.
This is more recent.
As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.
While I agree that's a problem, the states can and do redistrict. Federal law may put restrictions on how its done, but its still up to them. At any rate, the orginal statement was that two party systems are implied in the Constitution, and I've yet to see a reference to any part which backs that up.
Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc.
We don't understand nearly as much as you'd like to think. We understand very little actually. As far as understanding limited resources, I think we've known that for a while.. its what drives economies of any form. Oceans never protected us; the French played an important role in the Revolution. Faster travel and communication really don't play at all into human rights, so I don't see what you're getting at.
Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.
I think if they could see what happen they'd certainly change things; they'd probably have put more restrictions on the powers of government. However I don't believe their ideas about personal liberty would have changed, since even then they were willing to fight a war for it. Giving them credit and respect would be to actually have read what they wrote and realize that they had a lot more time to think about things then you've likely put in. Math is one of the oldest areas of study there is; to claim that no one came up with 'proportial voting' before the 18th century is ignorant.
And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.
Read what you wrote again. I'm sure you can see how it could be inteperated as believing the Consitution (and the idea of personal freedom which it is meant to protect) is dead.
As far as attempting to misdirect, I've asked several times now where the Constitution implies support for only two parties at a time, yet everything you've said has been almost 100 years after it was signed.
Think we'd still have enough room for Filemaker?
PHP (along with MySQL, VB and Access) should be sealed in concrete and dumped at sea.
Can we also include the nutjobs that still prefer these technologies?
Great. Now we can have more websites failing because they are built on scripting languages.
Thanks, did that already. I'll stick with jsp or Asp.net..
And like flat files, you should only use MySql for data you don't care about.
It actually covers a lot more than that.
It doesn't though. All arguments about copyright have been about whether copyrights were violated.
And it never says that copyright holders have the right to make copies. It says that they have the exclusive right to make copies, i.e. the right to exclude others from making copies.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "only."
If it would otherwise be illegal to make the copies (because they are libelous, or child porn, or something) then copyright won't alter that.
Why bring in that? Besides, there's no law against copying something libelous. It is illegal to libel someone, and making copies may increase damages, but its not illegal. Childporn is illegal to posses. At any rate, adding these topics to the mix adds nothing to this discussion. It actually detracts from it.
Patents work the same way -- they're a right to stop other people from using the invention, but not a right to use it yourself.
Well, I don't know how you interperated "only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work," but you seem to be repeating what I just said...
FWIW though, there are times you as a non-copyright holder are allowed to copy something. Format shifting and time shifting for personal use are examples.
I can no longer drive the car I bought. My only recourse under law is to by another one. Unacceptable.
You don't have the right to copy; you have the right to listen to a copy made by the copyright holder, and they may require you pay for it.
The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system.
The electoral system does not lead to two party systems. The fact that we HAD more than two parties for much of our countries history is proof of that.
Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts.
Districting is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Individual states are free to divide their electoral votes any way they please, there is no reason districting is required.
Your original claim was that a two party system was implied by the Constitution. You then claim only two implementations, one of which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.
I think they'd be terrified at your lack of comprehension, lack of knowledge of history, and lack of knowledge as to why they decided the way they did, etc. Ignorance does lead to hell.
Oh, and as far as being old goes, human nature hasn't changed at all in the last 250 years, so the Constitution is as valid today as it was then. The fact that you don't care about rights only proves that you need to get exactly what you're asking for.
I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.
/. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.
Sorry, its you with the reading compresension problems. I never found passages in the Constitution that implied a two party system. Then when I asked you to provide those areas, you come back with 'I said its implicit!'
As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which
Some of those problems were decided on by people smarter than you and I, and who had the time to think about it. You don't think direct vote or IR voting exsited 200 years ago? It did, and they decided electoral was the best one.
That's not the point; the point is that party A doesn't always win simply because it is the majority. Party A is now forced to concede in other areas. In the two party system, we don't have that forced concession at all.
Movie theaters have such policies. They are also never enforced. You also get into other problems if you do remove them. Do they get a free dinner? Likely yes, since it'd be hard to force someone to pay if you're also forcing them to leave. That puts the restraunt in a bad situation, especially as assholes that have their kids act out for the purpose of getting a free meal come along.
That said, if the restraunt wants a policy of removing parties with unruley kids, why is that acceptable but simply a policy of 'no kids' is not?
You thought wrong. Copyright is very simple; only the copyright owner has the RIGHT to make copies of the work. That's all it says. Playing isn't copying. Well, courts seem to think playing through a computer is copying but playing through a cd player isn't. Hence the confusion.
Nope, that's allowed. Format shifting was rules a-ok. The case was RIAA v Creative (I think). It was way back when they first release the Rio... you know, the one where you transfered files over printer port..
Who said you only had a license to listen to it? Copyright only prevents you from copying the CD. Nothing about copyright prevents you from listening to it, nor does copyright give you a 'license' to ask for free replacement media.
Of course I also support term limits for all public offices. move up or get out either way, new people, new ideas.
Wonderful. So when someone actually good fills the position, you'll force them out anyway.
You'll also get judges that can't do 'the right thing' because they are too afraid to piss of the voters. Judges are supposed to ignore public opinion, because sometimes 'the people' scream to have their freedoms trampled (because they think they're only trampling someone else's freedom).