That would be nice, but they don't all have it in them. Stephen King is wildly prolific, but for someone who doesn't have it in them to keep that kind of pace copyright encourages them to do it at least once anyway.
If they don't have it in them then they should do something else. If nothing else they can work doing something else while writing in their free tyme. That's what many open source programmers do, they work on an open source project in their free tyme.
I generally admire Jefferson, but he wasn't infallible and who knows what his position would be now as the world is a vastly changed place from the one he knew.
If he were alive today, I'd bet he'd have copyright terms shorter. More is being created now than any tyme in history. As I said in my post you replied to as well as others technology makes it easier and cheaper to publish. About 20 years ago I spent a few hours designing fliers and posters in Quark Xpress on a Mac for a dance class recital, back then I danced myself. Today I could do that in an hour or two.
Obviously I was talking about after the copyright expires.
If it's going to be a best seller, more than likely it will be one while it's still being protected by copyright.
Why wouldn't they have been made into movies?
Because they were copyrighted and the copyright holder didn't want movies of them made. By the way, how would it be determined who the copyright holders were?
"Harry Potter" movies were made without a problem
They were made using the open source software CinePaint. As was "The Last Samurai" and a number of other movies.
Yeah, for weddings, the best photogs I've met are usually the ones who do it occasionally enough that they aren't cynical about it,
Perhaps that's why I wouldn't want to be a wedding photographer, I am cynical about marriage. To too many people it's disposable, if marriage doesn't work get a divorce and try again.
I don't particularly like some of the lawsuits I've seen myself but I would not change the system to make it harder to sue. I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself, as the plaintiff. I didn't hire the attorneys or file the lawsuit. I was in a coma when my family hired an attorney. See, as a college student after my classes one day I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. Not counting the tyme I spent in therapy, I was in therapy for more than year when I had to quit because I couldn't afford it, my medical bills came to more than $120,000. Now if my family couldn't have filed the lawsuit we would have been stuck paying. And I now have a permanent disability, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI. In college I was a Computer Engineering major but I can no longer do that, or pretty much any other type of fulltime employment. As the page linked to above says, "Memory mood and fatigue are common complaints of brain injury patients."
Sorry, I didn't mean they should buy out SCO.. I meant they could bid on SCO's auction of their products.
The thing is though is that if IBM were to bid it would drive up the cost, and it's not even SCO that owns the Unix IP. Novell does, SCO only had the right to sell Unix licenses. SCO was supposed to pay Novell then Novell would pay SCO back, I think it was a 6% commission.
Imagine, a company selling off its primary assets to fund a shakedown lawsuit. If this is not proof that america is too litigious, what could be proof.
One case does not prove the system is bad, er that America is too litigious.
Perhaps IBM could buy them and write itself an unconditional irrevokable retroactive perpetual license to the products. And release them under GPLv3...
That would be terrible, least of all for IBM. Between IBM and Novell SCO is on the ropes and it should die. Actually I think an IBM buyout may of been in Darl McBride's and other's mind when they filed their lawsuit against IBM, hoping IBM would offer to buy SCO.
So that's why Darl and the other directors at the last board meeting kept saying, "Brains! brains! We need brains!"
Maybe they're hoping to get smart by eating brains.
Actually, unless he gets what he deserves and ends up with Bubba as a cellmate, I bet he and the other directors walk away with millions of dollars in their pockets.
I have been specific that I support copyright that lasts until the author's death, plus about 50 - 70 years, which you can see in multiple posts that I've made on this subject in the past few days.
Ok, so you don't want copyrights forever. How does an author create work once he or she is dead? Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once someone is dead they can't create anymore. But if copyrights only last say 7 years then an author has to keep writing keep earning money.
I think I have a right to be irritated if someone makes up a position, assigns it to me in the face of easily found statements I've made to the contrary, and then demands I defend that position.
And I get irritated when someone does not answer a pertinent question in a discussion.
Isn't everything the government does ultimately due to pressure from one vocal minority or another?
Yeap, like the copyright extension.
Government takes action when a vocal minority convinces them something will benefit the public at large.
But they don't benefit the public sometimes, should as copyright extensions. All they benefited was copyright holders.
The public at large rarely speaks with one voice.
On the invasion of Iraq the majority did speak with one voice, against the invasion. But it happened anyway. That's one reason I prefer small government, small government may not have had the resources to support the invasion.
Falcon
PS, I used copyright extensions because of another discussion I'm having about copyrights.
If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.
That's my point, artists should keep on creating.
And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around
No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.
Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?
Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.
This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.
No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.
Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?
I wish you the best of luck with it
Thanks.
Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.
I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.
Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.
Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.
Perrelli has prior public service in the Clinton Justice Department, and has been named one of the top 40 young lawyers in the US. This includes leading the DoJ tobacco litigation team against major cigarette manufacturers,
And as everyone knows, and has known for a long tyme, smoking is hazardous to your health yet they still smoke. I smoke and I've known for the more than 30 years I've smoked that it's bad. You make his going after tobacco companies as being good, but I look it as being bad. Nobody made me smoke and I hate it when people try to get laws passed to make me stop smoking, or to sue tobacco companies out of business.
Perrelli is likely to have a tough time in confirmation hearings because he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo in the infamous Terry Schiavo case
On second thought, maybe he isn't so bad after all. What politicians did to keep Terry Schiavo a living dead was stupid.
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
It was a Republican dominated FCC board that allowed mass media to increase it's ownership in local media from 35% to 45%.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy
And it's a good question. Wiki has a page on Thomas J. Perrelli but there's not much there. Here's more, what I found interesting was that the entertainment industry contributed $7,669,442 to the Obama campaign. The American Prospect has more as well.
The only thing that can fix our country is education. For instance, a good start might be educating everyone about why democracy [lexrex.com] is evil, and not something that we want more of.
To use Winston Churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". And anarchy won't work either.
Then you suck. I voted for Bob Barr because he most represented my beliefs, even though I know he didn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
I felt like you, I wanted to vote for Bob Barr too. But after reading an article in "Reason" magazine on why voting for and Obama winning would be better than McCain winning I decided to select Obama on the ballot.
Now, if you actually supported Obama, then more power to you for voting your conscience. However, it sounds like you just flipped a coin and decided that (D) was less bad than (R).
First I supported Obama as the Democrat candidate for president, and Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. The "Reason" article went through the pros and cons of McCain and Obama then came out in favor of Obama as the least bad.
Even if I had the money and needed to setup a server I still would not get an Exchange server unless I absolutely had to
Yeah, I feel the same way, and it's really easy to say that. Unfortunately, when you have a job, and your company needs to get something done, avoiding vendor lock-in is only one consideration.
Well if you're working for someone else and they say you have then you have to or you can be fired. Actually installing and using it though may mean you're security your future employment. However how many who do so and maintain it would do so if it was their own business?
Imagine you get called into your bosses office, and he says, "Why can't we do [whatever]? I know you can do it, because the last company I worked for could do it."
Are you seriously going to say, "Well, there's a software package that almost everyone uses, and it does that perfectly with very little trouble, but I won't use it because I'm afraid of vendor lock-in."
If it was me and I was asked about doing so I'd do some research then get back to my boss with all the pros and cons of using Exchange versus using other software. Then if the boss still wanted it and I needed the job I'd do it. But at the same tyme if I could I'd also setup an alternative system. That is if I didn't do that before seeing my boss a second tyme. I admit I don't like MS but if Exchange, or any other MS product, was the best for the task that needed to be done then I would.
Luckily I'm not in that position, actually I'm in a worse position. I'm on disability now but I'm hoping to start my own business.
the sentiment of only wanting to use open source is all well and good, but whether it's practical depends on your situation.
While I'm pro open source, where a proprietary software package will do what I need but FOOS won't or where it will do it cheaper then I'll use proprietary software. Above I said I want to start my own business. I want to go into photography and web development, designing websites for other photographers and though I want to use CinePaint to edit photos I haven't been able to get it to run on my Mac, so when I can I'll probably get Photoshop. It's either that or setup my Mac as a dual boot and install Linux, in Linux I can get CinePaint to work.
Anyone can bring a suit to invalidate a law as unconstitutional, so that is a failure of the people of this country if they chose not to object to being subjected to this law.
You can only bring a lawsuit if you can afford it. Most people don't have the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to bring a lawsuit.
As only ONE Congressional member voted against it.
Two, not one, congressman voted against the PATRIOT Act. Ron Paul opposes and voted against the act.
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills.
It was president Bush who issued hundreds of signing statements when he signed bills. And he also the president who believes in the Unitary executive theory, giving all the power to the president. His actions speak quite loudly.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility.
That looks like it's on Leopard. Having just installed Leopard yesterday I'm not yet familiar with it. Actually the only reason I upgraded is because Java 6 only runs on Leopard and I want to learn it seeing as how Java 5 has been deprecated.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my point, artists should keep on creating.
That would be nice, but they don't all have it in them. Stephen King is wildly prolific, but for someone who doesn't have it in them to keep that kind of pace copyright encourages them to do it at least once anyway.
If they don't have it in them then they should do something else. If nothing else they can work doing something else while writing in their free tyme. That's what many open source programmers do, they work on an open source project in their free tyme.
I generally admire Jefferson, but he wasn't infallible and who knows what his position would be now as the world is a vastly changed place from the one he knew.
If he were alive today, I'd bet he'd have copyright terms shorter. More is being created now than any tyme in history. As I said in my post you replied to as well as others technology makes it easier and cheaper to publish. About 20 years ago I spent a few hours designing fliers and posters in Quark Xpress on a Mac for a dance class recital, back then I danced myself. Today I could do that in an hour or two.
Obviously I was talking about after the copyright expires.
If it's going to be a best seller, more than likely it will be one while it's still being protected by copyright.
Why wouldn't they have been made into movies?
Because they were copyrighted and the copyright holder didn't want movies of them made. By the way, how would it be determined who the copyright holders were?
"Harry Potter" movies were made without a problem
They were made using the open source software CinePaint. As was "The Last Samurai" and a number of other movies.
Yeah, for weddings, the best photogs I've met are usually the ones who do it occasionally enough that they aren't cynical about it,
Perhaps that's why I wouldn't want to be a wedding photographer, I am cynical about marriage. To too many people it's disposable, if marriage doesn't work get a divorce and try again.
I think I'm about played out on this subject.
Ok, take it easy.
Falcon
At this point, all you're asking me to do is repeat the same points that I've made on multiple occasions.
No I'm not, you have not answered how a person can create more stuff when they are dead, and I have repeatedly asked that.
Falcon
I don't particularly like some of the lawsuits I've seen myself but I would not change the system to make it harder to sue. I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself, as the plaintiff. I didn't hire the attorneys or file the lawsuit. I was in a coma when my family hired an attorney. See, as a college student after my classes one day I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. Not counting the tyme I spent in therapy, I was in therapy for more than year when I had to quit because I couldn't afford it, my medical bills came to more than $120,000. Now if my family couldn't have filed the lawsuit we would have been stuck paying. And I now have a permanent disability, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI. In college I was a Computer Engineering major but I can no longer do that, or pretty much any other type of fulltime employment. As the page linked to above says, "Memory mood and fatigue are common complaints of brain injury patients."
Falcon
Sorry, I didn't mean they should buy out SCO.. I meant they could bid on SCO's auction of their products.
The thing is though is that if IBM were to bid it would drive up the cost, and it's not even SCO that owns the Unix IP. Novell does, SCO only had the right to sell Unix licenses. SCO was supposed to pay Novell then Novell would pay SCO back, I think it was a 6% commission.
SCO doesn't really own anything to sell to IBM.
Falcon
Imagine, a company selling off its primary assets to fund a shakedown lawsuit. If this is not proof that america is too litigious, what could be proof.
One case does not prove the system is bad, er that America is too litigious.
Falcon
Perhaps IBM could buy them and write itself an unconditional irrevokable retroactive perpetual license to the products. And release them under GPLv3...
That would be terrible, least of all for IBM. Between IBM and Novell SCO is on the ropes and it should die. Actually I think an IBM buyout may of been in Darl McBride's and other's mind when they filed their lawsuit against IBM, hoping IBM would offer to buy SCO.
Falcon
So that's why Darl and the other directors at the last board meeting kept saying, "Brains! brains! We need brains!"
Maybe they're hoping to get smart by eating brains.
Actually, unless he gets what he deserves and ends up with Bubba as a cellmate, I bet he and the other directors walk away with millions of dollars in their pockets.
Falcon
I have been specific that I support copyright that lasts until the author's death, plus about 50 - 70 years, which you can see in multiple posts that I've made on this subject in the past few days.
Ok, so you don't want copyrights forever. How does an author create work once he or she is dead? Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once someone is dead they can't create anymore. But if copyrights only last say 7 years then an author has to keep writing keep earning money.
I think I have a right to be irritated if someone makes up a position, assigns it to me in the face of easily found statements I've made to the contrary, and then demands I defend that position.
And I get irritated when someone does not answer a pertinent question in a discussion.
Falcon
Isn't everything the government does ultimately due to pressure from one vocal minority or another?
Yeap, like the copyright extension.
Government takes action when a vocal minority convinces them something will benefit the public at large.
But they don't benefit the public sometimes, should as copyright extensions. All they benefited was copyright holders.
The public at large rarely speaks with one voice.
On the invasion of Iraq the majority did speak with one voice, against the invasion. But it happened anyway. That's one reason I prefer small government, small government may not have had the resources to support the invasion.
Falcon
PS, I used copyright extensions because of another discussion I'm having about copyrights.
If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.
That's my point, artists should keep on creating.
And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around
No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.
Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?
Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.
This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.
No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.
Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?
I wish you the best of luck with it
Thanks.
Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.
I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.
Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.
Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.
Falcon
I don't think it's the public at large that's going after tobacco companies but a vocal minority.
Falcon
"Perrelli also supervised the Justice Department's Tobacco Litigation Team in its litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers."
So he's worked both sides of the fence in terms of "moral" issues.
Both sides? Both sides of what? As far as I'm concerned his working to sue tobacco companies is just as bad as his working for the RIAA.
On second thought he did work to let Terry Schiavo die.
Falcon
Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.
He could bring in Robert Mugabe for Secretary of Agriculture...
Oh god, I almost had a heart attack. Mugabe Secretary of Agriculture? I enjoy eating to much to see that. He destroyed Zimbabwe.
Falcon
So you are saying the Federal Government should not have sued the tobacco companies?
As a smoker, yes the government should not be telling me how to live. I getta admit that this was one thing I think he did right.
Of course the heard mentality of slashdot punishes anyone who tries to think for themselves.
Like those like and want to smoke? Or like those who want to dictate to others and tell them they can't smoke?
Falcon
Perrelli has prior public service in the Clinton Justice Department, and has been named one of the top 40 young lawyers in the US. This includes leading the DoJ tobacco litigation team against major cigarette manufacturers,
And as everyone knows, and has known for a long tyme, smoking is hazardous to your health yet they still smoke. I smoke and I've known for the more than 30 years I've smoked that it's bad. You make his going after tobacco companies as being good, but I look it as being bad. Nobody made me smoke and I hate it when people try to get laws passed to make me stop smoking, or to sue tobacco companies out of business.
Perrelli is likely to have a tough time in confirmation hearings because he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo in the infamous Terry Schiavo case
On second thought, maybe he isn't so bad after all. What politicians did to keep Terry Schiavo a living dead was stupid.
Falcon
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
It was a Republican dominated FCC board that allowed mass media to increase it's ownership in local media from 35% to 45%.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy
And it's a good question. Wiki has a page on Thomas J. Perrelli but there's not much there. Here's more, what I found interesting was that the entertainment industry contributed $7,669,442 to the Obama campaign. The American Prospect has more as well.
Falcon
The only thing that can fix our country is education. For instance, a good start might be educating everyone about why democracy [lexrex.com] is evil, and not something that we want more of.
To use Winston Churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". And anarchy won't work either.
Falcon
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
I don't agree. Anyone who expect a generation educated by the state to be independent of the state deserves what they get.
Going through public education doesn't preclude you from being independent.
State-run education needs to stop. That's the real cancer thats been eating our core heritage.
No, what needs to stop is lack of choice, for the poor as well as for the wealthy.
Falcon
and less freedom.
Come now, there's no need to bring the 2004 election into this, leave it in the past where it belongs.
History repeats itself.
Falcon
When I voted for him I knew I was compromising.
Then you suck. I voted for Bob Barr because he most represented my beliefs, even though I know he didn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
I felt like you, I wanted to vote for Bob Barr too. But after reading an article in "Reason" magazine on why voting for and Obama winning would be better than McCain winning I decided to select Obama on the ballot.
Now, if you actually supported Obama, then more power to you for voting your conscience. However, it sounds like you just flipped a coin and decided that (D) was less bad than (R).
First I supported Obama as the Democrat candidate for president, and Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. The "Reason" article went through the pros and cons of McCain and Obama then came out in favor of Obama as the least bad.
Falcon
Even if I had the money and needed to setup a server I still would not get an Exchange server unless I absolutely had to
Yeah, I feel the same way, and it's really easy to say that. Unfortunately, when you have a job, and your company needs to get something done, avoiding vendor lock-in is only one consideration.
Well if you're working for someone else and they say you have then you have to or you can be fired. Actually installing and using it though may mean you're security your future employment. However how many who do so and maintain it would do so if it was their own business?
Imagine you get called into your bosses office, and he says, "Why can't we do [whatever]? I know you can do it, because the last company I worked for could do it."
Are you seriously going to say, "Well, there's a software package that almost everyone uses, and it does that perfectly with very little trouble, but I won't use it because I'm afraid of vendor lock-in."
If it was me and I was asked about doing so I'd do some research then get back to my boss with all the pros and cons of using Exchange versus using other software. Then if the boss still wanted it and I needed the job I'd do it. But at the same tyme if I could I'd also setup an alternative system. That is if I didn't do that before seeing my boss a second tyme. I admit I don't like MS but if Exchange, or any other MS product, was the best for the task that needed to be done then I would.
Luckily I'm not in that position, actually I'm in a worse position. I'm on disability now but I'm hoping to start my own business.
the sentiment of only wanting to use open source is all well and good, but whether it's practical depends on your situation.
While I'm pro open source, where a proprietary software package will do what I need but FOOS won't or where it will do it cheaper then I'll use proprietary software. Above I said I want to start my own business. I want to go into photography and web development, designing websites for other photographers and though I want to use CinePaint to edit photos I haven't been able to get it to run on my Mac, so when I can I'll probably get Photoshop. It's either that or setup my Mac as a dual boot and install Linux, in Linux I can get CinePaint to work.
Falcon
Anyone can bring a suit to invalidate a law as unconstitutional, so that is a failure of the people of this country if they chose not to object to being subjected to this law.
You can only bring a lawsuit if you can afford it. Most people don't have the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to bring a lawsuit.
As only ONE Congressional member voted against it.
Two, not one, congressman voted against the PATRIOT Act. Ron Paul opposes and voted against the act.
Falcon
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills.
It was president Bush who issued hundreds of signing statements when he signed bills. And he also the president who believes in the Unitary executive theory, giving all the power to the president. His actions speak quite loudly.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility.
He wanted all the power he gets all the blame.
Falcon
I lost most of my German so I just checked Babelfish and it says the English translation of the German word "boxen" is "boxes".
Falcon
That looks like it's on Leopard. Having just installed Leopard yesterday I'm not yet familiar with it. Actually the only reason I upgraded is because Java 6 only runs on Leopard and I want to learn it seeing as how Java 5 has been deprecated.
Falcon