Only in the movies do the good guys with guns do the right thing in the right place at the right time.
Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year more often in the prevention of harm and interruption of crime and violence than they are used by criminals in the committing of murder. Your willful ignorance on the subject doesn't change the basic facts.
The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun?
Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.
usually one needs to establish standing to sue, and that requires actual harm
Your standing is established by showing that you created the work, and are thus the copyright holder. The "harm" can be as simple as having your work reproduced without your permission. A copyright holder that hasn't registered the work has limited options in court (usually limited to things like forcing take-downs, or getting the amount of compensation that would normally be available based on the creator's history of selling such work - not very helpful for most amateurs), but putting a stop to the infringement is always the least that can be done. If the work is actually registered (with the feds), then there's the option to seek punitive damages in federal court, which can be a big deal for everybody involved, cost-wise.
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done
Right, because nobody is ever harmed when their work is ripped off and sold by someone else or used to produce a competing product without having to do the underlying R&D. Nope, that never happens, and if it did, what's the harm. Yup.
Why place the word infringement in quotes? Does the OP not consider that to be real word, or consider it to be somehow incorrectly used? Is that just some lazy way of expressing disdain for the idea of copyrights in the first place? Will the OP's minions now "moderate" this post? Or are they being distracted because we're having such nice "weather" outside and using "slashdot" is a poor use of their "time?"
Perhaps you're having trouble recognizing that the disease doesn't kick in fully overnight. It can take many years before it reaches the point where a person shouldn't be driving the proverbial two miles to church that they've been driving for over 50 years. Likewise there are plenty of people who don't and won't have Alzheimer's who none the less are lacking some sharpness of some skill that should remove them from the driver's seat pronto (it might be something as simple as not being able to turn their head well enough to back up safely, etc).
iOS devices can do this natively, regardless of the carrier. If they can see the internet, you can use their geo-aware find-the-device feature, and also trigger an audible ping for locating it in the narrowed-down area. Same tool also lets you remotely wipe the unit if it comes to that.
So your law requires each person to use their house to rescue other people from certain death? Here, we have a formal collection of emergency services and first responders who are far, far better equipped an trained to save you from "certain death" than is any average home owner. It must be strange to live in a country so poor and unsophisticated that your government chooses to require to run into burning buildings, go out to sinking ships, venture into flood waters, and sift through the rubble of collapsing buildings on your own, as a citizen. What happens if you don't run into that burning house to attempt to rescue someone who's trapped? Are you put in jail? Do you have to buy your own oxygen tanks and other turn-out gear so you're always ready in case you see a certain death situation?
Or is it possible that you're basically lying in order to feebly attempt to make a murky point about how you're OK with your government forcing you to be nice to people in trouble, since you wouldn't do it on your own, otherwise? Either you live in a strange place, or you have a real problem in your need to have someone force you to be a decent person, since you seem to like that.
So you can't distinguish between being charitable, based on one's own moral code and circumstances, and being forced to do so? What sort of strange moral land do YOU live in that charity is such a good idea you have to use government force to make people do it? Must be a horrible place.
The guy that buys a house in a flood zone has a claim to the house owned by the guy who bought one on a hill? Are you even listening to yourself? The guy who buys the house on elevated land is morally obligated to feed and house the guy who bought a house in a flood zone? The guy who buys the house outside of the flood zone does so, among other things, so that he won't BE one of those people who needs a Plan B when it rains. That's the whole point.
Let me guess: you're implying that the person with the house on higher ground is somehow responsible for the weather in a way that the person who lives farther down the hill is not, right? Please.
Who said he was going to shoot you with a gun? There are lots of other options. Crossbows come to mind.
And no, there's nothing wrong defending yourself against trespassers when you've taken the time and invested the resources to prepare for life threatening circumstances. When other people feel entitled to the work you put in to be prepared for something, the word you're looking for is not "refugees," it's "looters."
Right. All market economies did was fund the stuff you like. Nothing important, just made it possible. Enjoy wasting your vote on Bernie Sanders, by the way.
This is the point where your audience stops reading.
Well, the stupid ones might stop reading, because it hurts their feelings to hear the truth. It's not a famously good way to engage one's audience, even though (as in this case) it's a perfectly accurate observation, which he then goes on to back up with basic facts.
No, it's not a slippery slope. People who make six figures pecking at computers all day are definitely jerks who shouldn't be allowed to keep so much money. How can they justify having all that cash when someone who digs ditches from sunup to sundown is lucky to make a quarter of that? It's not fair. Taxes should be based on how much REAL labor you do. People who pluck chickens or clean toilets should be making MORE not LESS than people who sit in front of computers. And if they don't, then the government should definitely take it away from the lazy computer people and give it to other people. Don't know why you find this confusing.
I know, right? There's a lot of that going around. Like this: can you believe that a bunch of geeks get to sit around in front of a computer and just talk to each other and shuffle paper around and look at flow charts and peck at they keyboard, and they make over $100,000 a year? A YEAR? And then what... they do things like buy houses that are worth $500,000, and nice cars. What are they doing? They are tying up that absurdly huge amount of cash they're making and hoarding it in the form of overpriced houses and whatnot. They could live on half that, and nobody needs more than a modest apartment and public transportation. Anything they make more than that should be confiscated and given to other people.
If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
Exactly. Which is why people who complain that rulings like Citizens United are examples of activism by the court have it exactly backwards. It's an example of the court holding activist legislation accountable to the constitution (the First Amendment, in that particular case). There's nothing wrong with "activist legislation" as long as it passes constitutional muster - something the court is there to decide, when such things are tested.
Those would be the evil rich people who pay almost all of the country's income taxes? Yeah, Socialism - where success is indeed punished, and the stuff that's taken is given to other people. That's socialism for everybody, because it's socialism doing what it likes to do: taking from the most productive/successful, and giving to the least. Half the country pays no income taxes at all (or pay's negative income taxes, getting "refunds" and cash credits on taxes they don't even pay), and the vast majority of the income taxes that are paid are paid by a small portion of the other half.
So he was for gravity waves before he was against them. Thank you, Senator Einstein. If you were still alive, it would be fun to watch you debate Bernie Sanders, who has no particular affection for the laws of thermodynamics and other pesky reality-check-type stuff. But the debate would be very colorful, a lot like sitting near a table at an early bird buffet in Florida and listening in. No, wait, I'm thinking of that most recent PBS-hosted debate.
Really? You don't have room in your head for two concepts?
The FAA can't do it (because of section 336, which is why the administration has tried to weasel it in through the DoT instead) AND the FAA shouldn't do it (because it's not only utterly pointless, it also wastes money and provides a glaring breach of privacy for hobbyists that will become fishing targets for every neighborhood crank and axe-grinding reporter looking for "drone" operators in their ZIP code, much like those that have published interactive maps of where the gun owners are on a given street).
CAN'T is a legal thing, plainly stated in the 2012 FMRA. SHOULDN'T is a common sense thing that is of course being ignored by those who simply like to expand intrusive government into your personal life for the purpose of... expanding government into your life, period. The only political support for this comes from those pandering to low-information idiots stoked by deliberately misleading media entities and witless social media mavens looking for clicks.
And... using words with unique definitions? What will I stoop to next? That is really intolerable, isn't it? I presume you'd rather try to praise this DoT action and wish away plain exempting language in an existing law by using... what, deliberately vague words that have enough different meanings to let off the hook of having to mean what you say and say what you mean? Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.
We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do). You're calling me names for saying that it is NOT a sensible program, even as you yourself say it's impossible to enforce. And you won't address your own hypocrisy on the matter. Do you really still support an "impossible to enforce" regulatory burden, along with its associated costs and loss of privacy, forcing people flying half-pound RC toys to expose their names and contact information for no useful reason? If you do support it, why aren't you actually addressing the substance of the matter?
As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up). The administration KNOWS it's illegal if done by the FAA, which is why they went for what they hope will be a hard-to-contest loophole, and decided to make the Department of Transportation force toy owners to pay to register their use of 9-ounce toys. You know, because 13 year olds flying 9 ounce foam toys in their back yard are definitely right up there with interstate trucking and commercial passenger jets when it comes to matters that should be in front of the DoT.
Slashdot Mirror
Only in the movies do the good guys with guns do the right thing in the right place at the right time.
Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year more often in the prevention of harm and interruption of crime and violence than they are used by criminals in the committing of murder. Your willful ignorance on the subject doesn't change the basic facts.
The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun?
Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.
No, there's no actual societal harm in reproduction of work without permission
Right, because authors, musicians, photographers, graphic artists and the like - they're not part of society.
usually one needs to establish standing to sue, and that requires actual harm
Your standing is established by showing that you created the work, and are thus the copyright holder. The "harm" can be as simple as having your work reproduced without your permission. A copyright holder that hasn't registered the work has limited options in court (usually limited to things like forcing take-downs, or getting the amount of compensation that would normally be available based on the creator's history of selling such work - not very helpful for most amateurs), but putting a stop to the infringement is always the least that can be done. If the work is actually registered (with the feds), then there's the option to seek punitive damages in federal court, which can be a big deal for everybody involved, cost-wise.
Infringement isn't determined by financial damage. Infringement is infringement.
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done
Right, because nobody is ever harmed when their work is ripped off and sold by someone else or used to produce a competing product without having to do the underlying R&D. Nope, that never happens, and if it did, what's the harm. Yup.
Why place the word infringement in quotes? Does the OP not consider that to be real word, or consider it to be somehow incorrectly used? Is that just some lazy way of expressing disdain for the idea of copyrights in the first place? Will the OP's minions now "moderate" this post? Or are they being distracted because we're having such nice "weather" outside and using "slashdot" is a poor use of their "time?"
Perhaps you're having trouble recognizing that the disease doesn't kick in fully overnight. It can take many years before it reaches the point where a person shouldn't be driving the proverbial two miles to church that they've been driving for over 50 years. Likewise there are plenty of people who don't and won't have Alzheimer's who none the less are lacking some sharpness of some skill that should remove them from the driver's seat pronto (it might be something as simple as not being able to turn their head well enough to back up safely, etc).
Hmmm. I'm thinking there's a market for Faraday Glove Box Liners.
Don't have an elderly parent on the cusp of Alzheimers, do you. Nope.
iOS devices can do this natively, regardless of the carrier. If they can see the internet, you can use their geo-aware find-the-device feature, and also trigger an audible ping for locating it in the narrowed-down area. Same tool also lets you remotely wipe the unit if it comes to that.
So your law requires each person to use their house to rescue other people from certain death? Here, we have a formal collection of emergency services and first responders who are far, far better equipped an trained to save you from "certain death" than is any average home owner. It must be strange to live in a country so poor and unsophisticated that your government chooses to require to run into burning buildings, go out to sinking ships, venture into flood waters, and sift through the rubble of collapsing buildings on your own, as a citizen. What happens if you don't run into that burning house to attempt to rescue someone who's trapped? Are you put in jail? Do you have to buy your own oxygen tanks and other turn-out gear so you're always ready in case you see a certain death situation?
Or is it possible that you're basically lying in order to feebly attempt to make a murky point about how you're OK with your government forcing you to be nice to people in trouble, since you wouldn't do it on your own, otherwise? Either you live in a strange place, or you have a real problem in your need to have someone force you to be a decent person, since you seem to like that.
So you can't distinguish between being charitable, based on one's own moral code and circumstances, and being forced to do so? What sort of strange moral land do YOU live in that charity is such a good idea you have to use government force to make people do it? Must be a horrible place.
The guy that buys a house in a flood zone has a claim to the house owned by the guy who bought one on a hill? Are you even listening to yourself? The guy who buys the house on elevated land is morally obligated to feed and house the guy who bought a house in a flood zone? The guy who buys the house outside of the flood zone does so, among other things, so that he won't BE one of those people who needs a Plan B when it rains. That's the whole point.
Let me guess: you're implying that the person with the house on higher ground is somehow responsible for the weather in a way that the person who lives farther down the hill is not, right? Please.
Who said he was going to shoot you with a gun? There are lots of other options. Crossbows come to mind.
And no, there's nothing wrong defending yourself against trespassers when you've taken the time and invested the resources to prepare for life threatening circumstances. When other people feel entitled to the work you put in to be prepared for something, the word you're looking for is not "refugees," it's "looters."
Right. All market economies did was fund the stuff you like. Nothing important, just made it possible. Enjoy wasting your vote on Bernie Sanders, by the way.
This is the point where your audience stops reading.
Well, the stupid ones might stop reading, because it hurts their feelings to hear the truth. It's not a famously good way to engage one's audience, even though (as in this case) it's a perfectly accurate observation, which he then goes on to back up with basic facts.
No, it's not a slippery slope. People who make six figures pecking at computers all day are definitely jerks who shouldn't be allowed to keep so much money. How can they justify having all that cash when someone who digs ditches from sunup to sundown is lucky to make a quarter of that? It's not fair. Taxes should be based on how much REAL labor you do. People who pluck chickens or clean toilets should be making MORE not LESS than people who sit in front of computers. And if they don't, then the government should definitely take it away from the lazy computer people and give it to other people. Don't know why you find this confusing.
I know, right? There's a lot of that going around. Like this: can you believe that a bunch of geeks get to sit around in front of a computer and just talk to each other and shuffle paper around and look at flow charts and peck at they keyboard, and they make over $100,000 a year? A YEAR? And then what ... they do things like buy houses that are worth $500,000, and nice cars. What are they doing? They are tying up that absurdly huge amount of cash they're making and hoarding it in the form of overpriced houses and whatnot. They could live on half that, and nobody needs more than a modest apartment and public transportation. Anything they make more than that should be confiscated and given to other people.
That's BS, and you know it.
If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
Exactly. Which is why people who complain that rulings like Citizens United are examples of activism by the court have it exactly backwards. It's an example of the court holding activist legislation accountable to the constitution (the First Amendment, in that particular case). There's nothing wrong with "activist legislation" as long as it passes constitutional muster - something the court is there to decide, when such things are tested.
But only socialism-for-the-rich
Those would be the evil rich people who pay almost all of the country's income taxes? Yeah, Socialism - where success is indeed punished, and the stuff that's taken is given to other people. That's socialism for everybody, because it's socialism doing what it likes to do: taking from the most productive/successful, and giving to the least. Half the country pays no income taxes at all (or pay's negative income taxes, getting "refunds" and cash credits on taxes they don't even pay), and the vast majority of the income taxes that are paid are paid by a small portion of the other half.
So he was for gravity waves before he was against them. Thank you, Senator Einstein. If you were still alive, it would be fun to watch you debate Bernie Sanders, who has no particular affection for the laws of thermodynamics and other pesky reality-check-type stuff. But the debate would be very colorful, a lot like sitting near a table at an early bird buffet in Florida and listening in. No, wait, I'm thinking of that most recent PBS-hosted debate.
Really? You don't have room in your head for two concepts?
... expanding government into your life, period. The only political support for this comes from those pandering to low-information idiots stoked by deliberately misleading media entities and witless social media mavens looking for clicks.
... using words with unique definitions? What will I stoop to next? That is really intolerable, isn't it? I presume you'd rather try to praise this DoT action and wish away plain exempting language in an existing law by using ... what, deliberately vague words that have enough different meanings to let off the hook of having to mean what you say and say what you mean? Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.
The FAA can't do it (because of section 336, which is why the administration has tried to weasel it in through the DoT instead) AND the FAA shouldn't do it (because it's not only utterly pointless, it also wastes money and provides a glaring breach of privacy for hobbyists that will become fishing targets for every neighborhood crank and axe-grinding reporter looking for "drone" operators in their ZIP code, much like those that have published interactive maps of where the gun owners are on a given street).
CAN'T is a legal thing, plainly stated in the 2012 FMRA. SHOULDN'T is a common sense thing that is of course being ignored by those who simply like to expand intrusive government into your personal life for the purpose of
And
We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do). You're calling me names for saying that it is NOT a sensible program, even as you yourself say it's impossible to enforce. And you won't address your own hypocrisy on the matter. Do you really still support an "impossible to enforce" regulatory burden, along with its associated costs and loss of privacy, forcing people flying half-pound RC toys to expose their names and contact information for no useful reason? If you do support it, why aren't you actually addressing the substance of the matter?
As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up). The administration KNOWS it's illegal if done by the FAA, which is why they went for what they hope will be a hard-to-contest loophole, and decided to make the Department of Transportation force toy owners to pay to register their use of 9-ounce toys. You know, because 13 year olds flying 9 ounce foam toys in their back yard are definitely right up there with interstate trucking and commercial passenger jets when it comes to matters that should be in front of the DoT.