I don't think there is any such thing. There are many biases that I would argue have unreasonable foundations, but they do have foundations.
I assumed that by writing 'unfounded' above he meant 'unreasonable', which people often do.
Now, the right tool for the job is true, but often there are overriding concerns, for one reason or another. As a result, what is the 'right' tool for the job often depends on who you are and what your concerns are (namely, how you define limitations on the 'job').
Your argument appears to be based on this chain of reasoning:
1) All seizures and wage garnishments are to be handled in a district Court 2) Income tax amounts to a seizure or wage garnishment 3) Because taxes are not collected through the courts, they violate the due process clause (5th Amendment). 4) Therefore, income taxes are unconstitutional.
Such reasoning is not persuasive, and I suggest if you want to find out how unpersuasive it is, you attempt to argue it before a court- any court.
This is especially true every since the 16th Amendment in 1913, which constitutionally creates a right for an income tax.
Moreover, to:
f you think I am shitting on you with all the above, then answer me this pursuant to USC 12 Sec 144, if lawful money has been dispensed then why is it taxed and why is its value still uncertain to the account of its draw as a warehouse receipt? The face value doesn't have proper grammer pursuant to documentation in all rules of the court, because a note issued from Federal Reserve System is blank U.S. Mint paper with non-reservations/copyright non-certified promises on it: not money, any more or less than a 20 DOLLARS does not mean twenty dollars to the Coinage Act.
I say:
12 USC 144 says:
"Four-fifths of the reserve of 15 per centum which a national bank located in a dependency or insular possession or any part of the United States outside of the continental United States, and not a member of the Federal Reserve System, is required to keep, may consist of balances due such bank from associations approved by the Comptroller of the Currency and located in any one of the reserve cities as now or hereafter defined by law or designated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."
Which, to be perfectly honest, I fail to see how it is at all relevant.
Normally I would presume you're trolling. But I can't see how you get any enjoyment out of posting huge whacks of totally meaningless pseudo-legal analysis.
I didn't have to do anything- there is an OS install process so that HTC or anyone else (carriers, usually) can push/install updates, and via the install procedure, you can install your own updates if you know how. There's no CD drive, certainly. But it's not like the procedure is a secret. HTC publishes the methodology.
Whether or not HTC 'lets' you is irrelevant- you can.
In fact, I'm doing it right now. My phone has a linux build available for it, and I'm running a tailored build of Windows Mobile that's entirely different from the one HTC sent me with the phone.
Not at all. What grounds do you have to suggest the defendant wasn't lying in the previously, secretly-recorded conversations? Such lies would not be perjuries.
Do you know how often perjury charges are brought? Rarely, if ever. It's hard to prosecute and difficult to prove. As a matter of course, it's merely a waste of the Court's time.
It is long, there's no doubt about that. But understanding how and why and what limits the Supreme Court puts on your government is probably absolutely critical to deciding how you act within it.
In any case, the Supreme Court points out as it does here, that no right is unlimited. the government has the right to ban, for example, the M-16. The government has the right to ban and regulate the sale and use of firearms.
Any interpretation of rights as granted through the constitution that does not realize (or accept, really) such a conclusion is flawed.
You argue that there has to be a 'basis' for banning weapons under the 2nd Amendment. I think this is also untrue, because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the how the system works. Fundamentally, the system works on the belief that the government is right until proven otherwise. You have to prove the government is wrong, and while that may be easier or harder for you depending on circumstance, that is the proper way to work things out.
That is why people like the OP disturb me. They seem to be operating under fundamentally untrue and unproven beliefs- namely that your rights are some sort of static object. They're not. Your rights are merely ideas that might, if you're lucky, be agreed with by someone who has authority. But they do not serve to impede the exercise of that power in any but the most limited sense.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service- M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
I'm pointing out that your argument is nonsensical. What you define as encroachments are not necessarily encroachments; they are simply interpretations, which are not the same at all.
I suggest you try out that argument, and attempt to possess the modern equivalent of a canon (say a 155mm howitzer).
See how far your "But teh 2nd Amendment!" claim gets you.
For that matter, the Court in DC v. Heller seems to come to the conclusion that M-16s may be banned from public carriage, which makes the entire issue even more farcical; you are not allowed to carry military weapons, and such arms are not protected.
P.S. There is only one possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Period. You'd probably shit a brick if someone said there was more than one interpretation of the 1st Amendment and tried to argue that freedom of speech was only for members of the press.
I can think of multiple interpretations of the First Amendment. For example, one could easily interpret the First Amendment to refer solely to speech and not writing; a very strict constructionist would say that you can say absolutely anything out-loud, including making threats and verbally recounting child pornography, but you have no right to freedom of the written word, or film, or imagery in any way.
Your argument that there is only one possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous.
Moreover, your possible interpretation of the 1st Amendment is also ridiculous and in no way supported by the text. At least those who support an alternate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have some support in the text.
Maps are not part of a multiplayer game and neither are songs in a music game. They can be, but they are not necessarily such.
For example, look at the way the game works- the core program, the game itself, loads textures, maps, songs, etc, etc from separate files. In that way, a technical one, such items are not 'part of the game'.
Say I sell you a care with OnStar, and you sell that car on to someone else. Am I obligated to prove that person the complimentary year of OnStar service?
I, as the person selling you the car, am perfectly within my rights to make covenants with you providing you additional material or services or whatnot. The second-hand entity is not included in such covenants unless statute says so or unless that entity renegotiates such covenants with me.
You could argue that the first owner has the right to transfer whatever bonuses he received to a second-hand owner. But I'm not so sure such a right exists. I see no reason why the first owner could not make the provision of such a license to use such bonus work cognizant of one's original purchase of the game.
I think it probably depends on this: while you might argue that shrink-wrap ELUAs are invalid for various reasons, it is far more difficult to argue the same of licenses in general. The license on the bonus material is probably on far stronger legal footing, and I see no reason why such a license would not prohibit the content it protects from being resold.
That's simply not true. You can place material into the public domain, which means, simply, that it is not protected by copyrights.
It is certainly possible to release material you have created from copyright, if you wish to do so. If you do not wish to do so, because you wish to restrict its distribution, then people who want to use it must license it from you.
But to claim that a license exists for any purpose other than to create restrictions is fallacious. There is no purpose to licensing something when the effect of that license is to place it into the public domain. Such a license is unproductive and unnecessary.
(For a more specific legal argument: It could be said that no work that has not passed through the time limitations specified in title 17 section 302, the Copyright Act, can exist in the public domain unless it is a work of the United States Government; and that therefore, by necessity, such works must be licensed for public release. However, if, in fact, you accept that interpretation of the Copyright Act, that does not obviate my original premise- the license is still a vehicle of restrictions upon the work, but those restrictions are imposed upon the vehicle from outside. The Copyright Office, from what I can tell, does not expressly support this view of copyright instead, it appears, tossing the entire issue into a third box- that a non-exclusive transfer of right, such as a non-exclusive and unlimited grant of use to any and all, while not technically a release into the public domain (as the Copyright Act has provision for revocation of such declarations) takes the general form of one, and therefore does not require the use of a license.)
I'm not sure why you argue that if you buy something second hand you've paid for the same rights as if you bought it first hand.
Suppose I sold person A car, and threw in a year's worth of free carwashes. You come along and buy the car from Person A, and claim your one year of free car-washes.
I made no agreement with you for provision of car washes. You may have bought the car, but unless the agreement I made with A specifically mentions the fact that A can transfer his entitlement to those services or that they go with the owner of the car, not A, I would not see a reason for you to be entitled to them.
So restricting your ability to close the software is not a restriction?
Of course it is. If you really wish to place no limits or restrictions on material you create, you are free to do so. But a license, by its very use and definition, creates restrictions. There would be absolutely no purpose to a license that did not.
It would be like signing a contract with someone for the express purpose of pointing out that the contract has no purpose, which is both ridiculous and unnecessary.
Windows Vista also does the suspend-to-RAM that converts automatically to suspend-to-disk. It's simply called 'sleep', and it's the primary option on the shutdown menu (rather than shutdown, sleep or hibernate, which are off, suspend to ram, and suspend to disk, respectively).
Certainly. However, I never claimed that current systems were unassailable; merely that it is possible to construct a system whereby there is a secure, end-to-end encryption of digital content.
Of course, like any secure system, the actual chance of a system being compromised decreases much faster than the cost increases (similarly to the function f(x) = 1/x) and it is theoretically impossible to create a perfectly secure system, but setting aside those theoretical limitations (as relevant as they may eventually be), there is no inherent limitation that makes DRM particularly more problematic than any other cryptographic problem which exists within the same constraints, of which there are more than one would imagine (and of course, all these systems exist on what is essentially a continuum of cost/ease of attack). Some such systems, in various iterations, are vital to our modern-day existence, especially in the financial industry.
For example, it is theoretically possible to create a trusted, tamper-proof architecture which will prove resistant (but not, of course, totally secure; shall we say in this case, 'secure' means 'within foreseeable events') and secure to attack even were it to fall into known-hostile hands. Such a device would obviously self-destruct or attempt to render its data unsalvagable if it were to be tampered with, among other features.
There always exists the analog hole. I don't dispute that. But that's not the problem that DRM was designed to solve, and nor can it.
There further exists the tautology that the more access to a system the attacker has, the easier it will be to attack that system. I don't debate that, either. Physical access is not necessary; but, like any kind of access, it does make the attack easier. There exists today standards and protocols for mitigating the effects of such attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you define an 'unfounded' bias?
I don't think there is any such thing. There are many biases that I would argue have unreasonable foundations, but they do have foundations.
I assumed that by writing 'unfounded' above he meant 'unreasonable', which people often do.
Now, the right tool for the job is true, but often there are overriding concerns, for one reason or another. As a result, what is the 'right' tool for the job often depends on who you are and what your concerns are (namely, how you define limitations on the 'job').
So anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid, incompetent, and unable to do their jobs?
You must be a hit with your bosses.
Your argument appears to be based on this chain of reasoning:
1) All seizures and wage garnishments are to be handled in a district Court
2) Income tax amounts to a seizure or wage garnishment
3) Because taxes are not collected through the courts, they violate the due process clause (5th Amendment).
4) Therefore, income taxes are unconstitutional.
Such reasoning is not persuasive, and I suggest if you want to find out how unpersuasive it is, you attempt to argue it before a court- any court.
This is especially true every since the 16th Amendment in 1913, which constitutionally creates a right for an income tax.
Moreover, to:
I say:
12 USC 144 says:
"Four-fifths of the reserve of 15 per centum which a national bank located in a dependency or insular possession or any part of the United States outside of the continental United States, and not a member of the Federal Reserve System, is required to keep, may consist of balances due such bank from associations approved by the Comptroller of the Currency and located in any one of the reserve cities as now or hereafter defined by law or designated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."
Which, to be perfectly honest, I fail to see how it is at all relevant.
Normally I would presume you're trolling. But I can't see how you get any enjoyment out of posting huge whacks of totally meaningless pseudo-legal analysis.
You care to translate that into English so that even us people who generally understand the law have some idea what you're talking about?
I've done a little tax law, but what you're talking about doesn't seem even in the slightest bit related to actual tax law.
I didn't have to do anything- there is an OS install process so that HTC or anyone else (carriers, usually) can push/install updates, and via the install procedure, you can install your own updates if you know how. There's no CD drive, certainly. But it's not like the procedure is a secret. HTC publishes the methodology.
Whether or not HTC 'lets' you is irrelevant- you can.
In fact, I'm doing it right now. My phone has a linux build available for it, and I'm running a tailored build of Windows Mobile that's entirely different from the one HTC sent me with the phone.
Your argument appears to rely on the fact that people have ever done anything unexpected, and I personally disagree with that.
People just have inordinately complex algorithms. The fact that such complexity looks like randomness does not mean it is randomness.
How, exactly, is that a good thing? Your actions just 'hold onto privileges for a little while'? Are we actually aiming for security here?
Not at all. What grounds do you have to suggest the defendant wasn't lying in the previously, secretly-recorded conversations? Such lies would not be perjuries.
Would you say otherwise if it wasn't amicable?
Except that perjury and theft are both criminal offenses, and have to be tried the same way.
Do you want automatic convictions for those accused of theft, too?
Do you know how often perjury charges are brought? Rarely, if ever. It's hard to prosecute and difficult to prove. As a matter of course, it's merely a waste of the Court's time.
It is long, there's no doubt about that. But understanding how and why and what limits the Supreme Court puts on your government is probably absolutely critical to deciding how you act within it.
In any case, the Supreme Court points out as it does here, that no right is unlimited. the government has the right to ban, for example, the M-16. The government has the right to ban and regulate the sale and use of firearms.
Any interpretation of rights as granted through the constitution that does not realize (or accept, really) such a conclusion is flawed.
You argue that there has to be a 'basis' for banning weapons under the 2nd Amendment. I think this is also untrue, because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the how the system works. Fundamentally, the system works on the belief that the government is right until proven otherwise. You have to prove the government is wrong, and while that may be easier or harder for you depending on circumstance, that is the proper way to work things out.
That is why people like the OP disturb me. They seem to be operating under fundamentally untrue and unproven beliefs- namely that your rights are some sort of static object. They're not. Your rights are merely ideas that might, if you're lucky, be agreed with by someone who has authority. But they do not serve to impede the exercise of that power in any but the most limited sense.
DC v. Heller.
Have you read the decision?
No, that's not at all what I want to argue.
I'm pointing out that your argument is nonsensical. What you define as encroachments are not necessarily encroachments; they are simply interpretations, which are not the same at all.
I suggest you try out that argument, and attempt to possess the modern equivalent of a canon (say a 155mm howitzer).
See how far your "But teh 2nd Amendment!" claim gets you.
For that matter, the Court in DC v. Heller seems to come to the conclusion that M-16s may be banned from public carriage, which makes the entire issue even more farcical; you are not allowed to carry military weapons, and such arms are not protected.
I can think of multiple interpretations of the First Amendment. For example, one could easily interpret the First Amendment to refer solely to speech and not writing; a very strict constructionist would say that you can say absolutely anything out-loud, including making threats and verbally recounting child pornography, but you have no right to freedom of the written word, or film, or imagery in any way.
Your argument that there is only one possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous.
Moreover, your possible interpretation of the 1st Amendment is also ridiculous and in no way supported by the text. At least those who support an alternate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment have some support in the text.
Maps are not part of a multiplayer game and neither are songs in a music game. They can be, but they are not necessarily such.
For example, look at the way the game works- the core program, the game itself, loads textures, maps, songs, etc, etc from separate files. In that way, a technical one, such items are not 'part of the game'.
Say I sell you a care with OnStar, and you sell that car on to someone else. Am I obligated to prove that person the complimentary year of OnStar service?
I, as the person selling you the car, am perfectly within my rights to make covenants with you providing you additional material or services or whatnot. The second-hand entity is not included in such covenants unless statute says so or unless that entity renegotiates such covenants with me.
You could argue that the first owner has the right to transfer whatever bonuses he received to a second-hand owner. But I'm not so sure such a right exists. I see no reason why the first owner could not make the provision of such a license to use such bonus work cognizant of one's original purchase of the game.
I think it probably depends on this: while you might argue that shrink-wrap ELUAs are invalid for various reasons, it is far more difficult to argue the same of licenses in general. The license on the bonus material is probably on far stronger legal footing, and I see no reason why such a license would not prohibit the content it protects from being resold.
That's simply not true. You can place material into the public domain, which means, simply, that it is not protected by copyrights.
It is certainly possible to release material you have created from copyright, if you wish to do so. If you do not wish to do so, because you wish to restrict its distribution, then people who want to use it must license it from you.
But to claim that a license exists for any purpose other than to create restrictions is fallacious. There is no purpose to licensing something when the effect of that license is to place it into the public domain. Such a license is unproductive and unnecessary.
(For a more specific legal argument: It could be said that no work that has not passed through the time limitations specified in title 17 section 302, the Copyright Act, can exist in the public domain unless it is a work of the United States Government; and that therefore, by necessity, such works must be licensed for public release. However, if, in fact, you accept that interpretation of the Copyright Act, that does not obviate my original premise- the license is still a vehicle of restrictions upon the work, but those restrictions are imposed upon the vehicle from outside. The Copyright Office, from what I can tell, does not expressly support this view of copyright instead, it appears, tossing the entire issue into a third box- that a non-exclusive transfer of right, such as a non-exclusive and unlimited grant of use to any and all, while not technically a release into the public domain (as the Copyright Act has provision for revocation of such declarations) takes the general form of one, and therefore does not require the use of a license.)
I'm not sure why you argue that if you buy something second hand you've paid for the same rights as if you bought it first hand.
Suppose I sold person A car, and threw in a year's worth of free carwashes. You come along and buy the car from Person A, and claim your one year of free car-washes.
I made no agreement with you for provision of car washes. You may have bought the car, but unless the agreement I made with A specifically mentions the fact that A can transfer his entitlement to those services or that they go with the owner of the car, not A, I would not see a reason for you to be entitled to them.
So restricting your ability to close the software is not a restriction?
Of course it is. If you really wish to place no limits or restrictions on material you create, you are free to do so. But a license, by its very use and definition, creates restrictions. There would be absolutely no purpose to a license that did not.
It would be like signing a contract with someone for the express purpose of pointing out that the contract has no purpose, which is both ridiculous and unnecessary.
I'm actually pretty sure both options are called 'sleep', which is weird, yes.
Windows Vista also does the suspend-to-RAM that converts automatically to suspend-to-disk. It's simply called 'sleep', and it's the primary option on the shutdown menu (rather than shutdown, sleep or hibernate, which are off, suspend to ram, and suspend to disk, respectively).
Certainly. However, I never claimed that current systems were unassailable; merely that it is possible to construct a system whereby there is a secure, end-to-end encryption of digital content.
Of course, like any secure system, the actual chance of a system being compromised decreases much faster than the cost increases (similarly to the function f(x) = 1/x) and it is theoretically impossible to create a perfectly secure system, but setting aside those theoretical limitations (as relevant as they may eventually be), there is no inherent limitation that makes DRM particularly more problematic than any other cryptographic problem which exists within the same constraints, of which there are more than one would imagine (and of course, all these systems exist on what is essentially a continuum of cost/ease of attack). Some such systems, in various iterations, are vital to our modern-day existence, especially in the financial industry.
For example, it is theoretically possible to create a trusted, tamper-proof architecture which will prove resistant (but not, of course, totally secure; shall we say in this case, 'secure' means 'within foreseeable events') and secure to attack even were it to fall into known-hostile hands. Such a device would obviously self-destruct or attempt to render its data unsalvagable if it were to be tampered with, among other features.
There always exists the analog hole. I don't dispute that. But that's not the problem that DRM was designed to solve, and nor can it.
There further exists the tautology that the more access to a system the attacker has, the easier it will be to attack that system. I don't debate that, either. Physical access is not necessary; but, like any kind of access, it does make the attack easier. There exists today standards and protocols for mitigating the effects of such attacks.