As a climate agnostic myself, I don't find you've really clarified your take on the issue. For one, you completely ignore the fact that climate change believers are just as fragmented as the climate change deniers (in one case, someone made a claim the Himalayas would be devoid of ice by 2035 - a claim we know is completely false now). It makes it hard for someone like me to know who I should trust. In situations like that, the burden of proof becomes much higher, especially if you want access to taxpayer funds or regulations passed to restrict the freedom of American citizens.
As an added problem, you have politicians who seized a real problem and blow it out of proportion to enact legislation they couldn't otherwise justify (Al Gore is the obvious politician in this case, but all of them do it). The problem is the scientific community does not do enough to divorce themselves from those politicians (and in fact, a lot of them embrace them). This causes even more fragmentation, raising the burden of proof again.
Then there is the ridiculous claim of scientific consensus. Michael Crichton said it best, "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because your being had." Proper science requires constant questions, but of course this must be done by well-educated, trained scientists in the field (not random questions shouted from a mob). However, a claim of complete consensus is never true. You always have the random nutcase scientists in the field, but you also have well-intentioned, fair objections that are conducting proper research. This again causes more confusion for the untrained, and again raises the burden of proof.
On top of all that, then you have the main proof of the subject being an improperly done scientific study. There are a lot of questions about the IPCC study. The data to repeat the experiment is incomplete. Every climate agnostic knows the missing data doesn't disprove the study, but it does make it look bad, thus again raising the burden of proof. Next, you have scientists talking about a "trick" to produce certain data. This could merely be bad phrasing on the part of a scientist (and in informal email, that wouldn't be surprising in the least), but again it looks bad, thus again raising the proof. Even worse, was that "trick" applied properly? That's a question only a climate scientist (or maybe a statistician, if I understood what the "trick" was) could answer. Again, it raises the burden of proof.
At this point, as you implied, agnostics are looking for a nearly impossible level of proof. Unfortunately, that is a justified stance, because both sides are so full of liars, politicians, corporations, and media mis-reporting and misunderstanding that information. We can't really find anyone trustworthy on either side. What do you suggest the agnostics do in that situation?
I am one of those that believes life starts at conception, but it isn't entirely arbitrary. I draw the line there because it is the point that life will grow with no further action. Separated, sperm or an egg will simply die off by itself. Once combined in a womb, it will grow into a person. As long as the woman simply continues living, the child will generally (barring complications) grow and be born. That is what makes that particular step special.
Yes, if a person says stop, and the other person keeps going, that's rape. The problem is proving it. It basically comes down to one person's word against the other. I don't know how things work in the Swedish legal system, but in the American legal system, both should have equal weight, and barring any other evidence, the accused should be found innocent due to lack of unbiased evidence.
In this case, other evidence is suggestive that the women are lying because they are upset with him. Neither woman claimed rape until after she found out he was sleeping with someone else. That makes their stories questionable. It really sounds like these two women are upset because they thought a one-night stand was something more, and are using (I would say abusing) the legal system to vent their frustration.
Yes, I have. The security personnel who abuse their power should be punished, in accordance with the law. But blanket statements of hatred against a group of people do no one any good.
At this point, Obama is just as guilty as Bush, given the fact that he has the power to stop it and hasn't yet (nor even made mention of wanting to). The security theater is about the only truly bi-partisan thing done by our government.
How do you know a person carrying a large object would hit you with it? How do a you know a person carrying a firearm would aim it at you? How do you know a person aiming a firearm at you would pull the trigger? At what point do you decide such a person has an intent to kill? If you wait until it is obvious, you've waited too long to do anything about it.
This is why a lot of places in America draw the line at entering a home. A standard house has dozen of very deadly weapons and chemicals in it. Even if a person sneaked into a house unarmed, once inside he could grab a knife to use as a weapon, he could grab a gun the owner uses to hunt, or he could mix bleach and ammonia and kill everyone in their sleep. It is also impractical to demand a person leave their home to the mercy of an felon. This is compounded if there are children in the home (no mother or father is going to leave their children). To place the responsibility for the well-being of a felon on the home-owner is absurd. You claim I shouldn't just shoot the individual as soon as I identify him. What about forcing the felon out of my home (my martial arts training includes standard police "come-along" holds)? What happens if the felon trips while I'm forcing him down the stairs? Should I be responsible for his well-being then? He could still end up dead from the fall. How can you determine after the fact if he tripped or I shoved him? What if the felon trips over a dog toy or a Hot Wheels car, before I even know he is there? Am I responsible for his death then? What about basic injury (broken arm or leg and so forth)? Am I responsible for that?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is. You posit a wonderful theory, where you have perfect knowledge of what is happening and have plenty of time to respond to it. In reality, none of that is true. The easiest way to handle the situation of trespassing, breaking, and entering is to simply use the property line. The home owner did not want to be in that position. It was forced upon the home owner. The home owner shouldn't have more responsibilities to go along with that.
For one, these heroes perform the exact same service as a neighborhood watch. A constantly vigilant community is by far the best deterrent to crime.
Second, most crimes against property are committed by unarmed felons against empty homes, cars, and the like. In a lot of communities in America, a criminal carrying a weapon during a crime is an extra charge filed against them (even if there is no one to use it against). So a slingshot, taser, or light weapon is very effective against such criminals (especially if being carried by a masked individual acting like a superhero - or a nutcase).
Yes, once guns enter the mix, things get decidedly more dangerous. However, to claim that a taser or light weapon is useless is a not correct. Those items may be useful, or may not (and I say this as a black belt martial artist, so I do have some training in this situation). It completely depends on the specific instance. At that point, it really becomes a personal choice: do you rescue someone from an armed assailant at risk to your own life? It is a question easily debated by us sitting behind computer keyboards, and one in which all the answers we could come up with are just options. Your choice will be different than mine, which may be different from the heroes.
However, you claim about undercover cops is invalid in America. Undercover cops (in plainclothes and without a badge) do not arrest people alone. They have uniformed police officers conduct the arrest (or participate in the arrest) specifically for that reason. In a lot of cases, the undercover officer isn't even present, to protect his identity.
For a person to maintain his or her safety, you are correct, it is best to carry a concealed weapon you are familiar with and avoid trouble. However, to be a good citizen, helping those in need requires people like those mentioned in the article, especially as police departments are no longer under any requirement to protect and server the citizenry (just for the record, I respect the police that do so without that requirement). I have a good bit of respect for these people doing what it seems like our government has given up attempting. I only wish more people had respect for those that do so, whether they wear a uniform, a mask, or a T-shirt and blue jeans.
And what's the convincing argument that copyright should be extended to a period long enough to protect Disney's assets? Why should they retain exclusive cultural domain over something Walt Disney created over 80 years ago? "Because they can make money from it" is not a sufficient reason in my opinion.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, why should your opinion be the rule of law? We all agree that properties need to be protected for some time period, but I've never heard any facts supporting a specific time period (and yes, this could be merely because I haven't heard them, so if you have or know them, please, point me to them).
Given the fact that copyright was to enable creators an opportunity to profit from there work under a temporary monopoly while they used that time to create more, I'd say most of Disney's creations should still be eligible. The current version of Mickey Mouse is hardly the same as Walt's original design. They have been innovating and creating new works from their covered properties, exactly as a responsible copyright holder should. If they weren't, and they were merely sitting on those copyrights, I would have more sympathy for that argument.
This is why I think a use-based limit is more in line with the original intent than a time-based limit. It brings supply and demand back into the equation, which will provide a more reasonable pricing scheme to copyrighted properties. A copyright holder has to price the property at a level that generates sales or risk losing the property.
While Disney is the most common example discussed in regards to copyright limit, I would like to point out another one: the Great Ormond Street Hospital J. M. Barrie left the copyrights of Peter Pan to. Can a more deserving steward of a copyright be found? I think the vast majority of people would agree that they really deserve the money that could be earned from that property, and who can doubt the intent of the original holder? Alternatively, we have the copyright trolls (akin to patent trolls) who do nothing but buy and sit on copyrights. They pretty clearly deserve very little of the money on those patents. A use-based limit would allow the children's hospital to maintain its copyright, it would force Disney to either keep up with innovation on all its copyrights (this has the nice side effect of generating more jobs, as they currently have more copyrights than they can reasonable handle with their current staff) or release them into the public domain, and it would eliminate the copyright trolls.
This idea is obviously very high level and lots of details need to be hashed out (I would hate to see some copyright equivalent of Hollywood accounting where copyrights are passed between companies under a corporate umbrella and yet still qualify for "use"), and clearly our current form of government is just not capable nor inclined to go against what I'm sure would be a massive lobbying effort to prevent such a passage, but I think this idea has a much better chance of passing than a strict time-based limit and makes more sense when viewed against the original intention.
While all of that is undoubtedly true, I do have to point out that it only takes one time for it to be ignored long enough to become law. Personally, I'd rather hear about it every time it comes along (both to make sure it gets shelved and to make sure I don't vote for said politician) than risk something like that passing.
I have to point this out: it hasn't worked with speeding. Or seatbelts. Nor drunk driving. In fact, I'm not aware of any traffic laws that have actually worked to reduce accidents. Because now a driver can get a ticket at a drop of a hat and have little recourse to fight it, society has created at least one (if not two or three) generations that do not treat traffic laws as real laws. There is no changing behavior. That's why accident and death rates don't seem to have any statistically significant changes.
Congratulations, you have a choice of health care in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, out government healthcare system is monopoly healthcare. See, if you had actually read any of the two thousand page law passed in America, you would have read that the United States government is going to give people the "option" of accepting government health care, or else "fining" us for not accepting it (practically speaking, the government would never be able to provide funding for it unless they take money from everyone to pay for it - this must either be done through a medical care tax or a fine - but it is not a choice). Basically, either way, the American public will have to pay into the government health care system. If you have to buy it, you would be silly to not use it. So, after a time, the vast majority of people are going to use the government health care system. This in turn is going to cause a shift in the insurance industry from private health insurance to private health supplemental insurance. So because of market forces there eventually won't even be private insurance available, because there will be no demand.
So, moral of the story? America is not the United Kingdom. Government healthcare is not equivalent in all countries in all the world. Your health care system is not going to be anything like ours, so your anecdotal comments of what you have in the United Kingdom are irrelevant in discussing the American government health care. Of course, I can't really blame you for not reading the bill. After all, neither did our Congress nor our President. The only slight bit of peace I have is knowing I didn't vote for those idiots. Sure, it doesn't change the situation, but it makes me feel better.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion..." --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
I wish I had mod points for this. Instead, I'll just say when I first heard this I thought that twenty years might be a bit too often. Now I wonder if twenty years is too long.
Perhaps you should re-read what you just wrote. Bill Gates didn't get rich because his parents were rich - he got rich because his parents were connected. Sure, there's obviously some correlation there, but it isn't causation.
You make a lot of claims, but despite numerous searches on my part (on all sorts of wild conspiracy ideas about the Iraq War), I've never found one record anywhere to back any of the claims I've seen, including these. If you have any of that evidence, please, present it. It should be trivial on your part, if it was a front page scandal.
And for the record, my vote for President of the United States would never go to a man who lies to his constituents.
We're still having to clean up his mess. Besides, you assholes are *still* complaining about Clinton and even Carter! So please, STFU.
We are still having to clean up Clinton and Carter's messes (and many other President's as well). Obama and Congress are the ones who can fix it. Perhaps we should focus a bit more on fixing the fuck-ups first and punish those to blame after?
Right, and that would all make sense, except I never said we were a pile of independent states and colonies. My exact words were "fairly divided states and territories", and that statement is true.
Do you really labor under the delusion that all Americans support the invasion of Iraq? Did you see the vote for that? At least a third of Congress voted against it. Two-thirds of Democrats voted against, showing that even the parties are divided. Before Obama, we had two Presidential elections that were very contentious. Are you really going to claim that America isn't divided?
Quite simply, you are again making a logically fallacious argument, this time an appeal to ridicule, and what's more. You are completely misrepresenting what I said, taking it to levels that I never stated, which is why you ended up making a strawman argument. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote, rather than what you hoped I said.
So the Army of Kentucky decided it would be a good move to go into Bagdad?
Of course not, and I never made any claim to do so. I know you didn't get such a statement from me, so I'm going to guess you pulled it out of somewhere dark and dank.
You tried to win an argument by redefining the language to something other than what everyone else uses - not a very pleasant trick but increasingly common.
I didn't redefine anything. The only definition I gave came straight from Wikipedia, and I even linked to it so it was clear it wasn't my definition. I'll tell you what is increasingly common, though. Strawman arguments.
I do find it interesting you bring up the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic fell to become an empire. The parallels between that society and America are somewhat uncanny. We aren't there yet, but we are definitely on the road. If you had actually bothered to read what I previously wrote, you would have noticed my contention about America being an empire dealt with its ruling body, and not its technological superiority nor its military bases. Ironically, you usurped the whole point I made in my post, which was to label America as an "empire" is trite and useless. I hold no illusion about the morality of America or its actions. But hey, don't let my facts get in the way of your fallacious argument. It seems the only thing people bother to respond to anymore is mockery of someone else's position. You should run for politics, as you are apparently quite qualified.
Empire, a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.
Clearly we aren't ruled by a monarch, and you'd really have to stretch the definition of oligarchy to claim we are ruled by that since Obama became President. Of course, as has been pointed out, that definition don't really apply to really anything in existence now. Hell, we aren't even really the "United" "States" anymore. We are a collection of fairly divided states and territories. Really, none of the old definitions apply anymore.
There's a lot to say about America, both good and bad. It is crazy, though, to try to sum up a country with a work like "empire", and it is a disservice to any country to do so.
The answer is simple and obvious. If you can't care for yourself while living in the United States, then don't live here. Why should America change to be like some other country? I'm willing to take responsibility for myself in exchange for my freedoms, but I understand not everyone is comfortable or capable of doing so. Therefore, go elsewhere. Why should I lose my freedoms so you don't have to take full responsibility for yourself?
South Africa, last year. Incitement to hatred against immigrants: result, countless attacks and weeks of unrest as the locals attacked immigrants and forced them to flee for their lives.
Lets see, assault, currently illegal in most countries in the world.
Rwanda, several years ago. Incitement to hatred against one "race": result, 1 million dead, many hacked to bits as they sought shelter. In a few weeks they killed then half a year of all the concentration camps of WW2.
Assault and murder, also illegal in most countries in the world.
Germany, Crystal Night. incitement to hatred against jews. Result: several dead, buildings burned and the prelude to the holocaust.
Again, murder.
There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.
None of those acts were just words. Every single one had illegal actions follow. If those people had attended the rallies, heard the words, and then gone home, even if they went home with hate in their hearts, it wouldn't have harmed anyone. Hate by itself is useless. Incitement to hatred should never be a crime.
That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.
That is not hate speech. That is conspiracy to commit murder, an action, not just words. It is the second component, the plan of illegal acts, that causes it to become illegal. Hate speech is asking someone to agree with your low opinion and to spread that opinion around. That is the difference. You argument is nothing but a straw man.
I actually live in Columbia, and I can't tell you how much I agree with you. Suburban hell hole sums it up quite nicely, and I only live here for three reasons. One, it is close to my martial arts school, two, it is close to work, and three, when I finally do move out of Maryland in the future, I will make a fucking fortune on the tiny condo I own here (enough to buy a five bedroom, 2500 square foot house almost anywhere else in the country). I spend most of time and money in Baltimore or DC (bars, shops, etc). I damn near moved into Baltimore when I was looking to a buy a house, but as you know, in real estate location is everything, and I am more than willing to take the money from the stupid suburban yuppies. The nice thing is the couple I bought the place from moved out of state as well, so I didn't even give my money to suburban yuppies.
One thing any lawyer will tell you is that they work for whoever pays them. The RIAA was paying these lawyers, so they came up with arguements to prove that people owed them money.
The fact that lawyers work solely for whoever pays them is part of the problem. While in reality I realize that statement is true, they are suppose to do so only to the point it become unethical for them to continue. Its that second part that the most publicized lawyers fail to have, and what is most vital for someone appointed to the Justice Department.
They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do.
So, since they were doing it for money, that makes it okay?
Lets not lie, the RIAA lawyers are VERY good; they have won a lot of cases and have a lot of experience in and out of court.
That depends on your definition of good. I would say the RIAA lawyers are fairly competent at earning the people they represent money, but that doesn't make them good.
I don't know why we wouldn't want someone like that working for the Department of Justice, so long as we don't want an inept Department of Justice (which is a different argument entirely. Maybe we do).
I do want an efficient Justice Department, but I also want one the is ultimately accountable to me (and all other constituents). Assuming their association with the RIAA ends with this appointment (and to be frank, we have no real indication that will or will not happen as of this moment), their actions show they will ultimately only consider themselves accountable to the person who pays their paycheck. Obama's actions have show that so far he is not trustworthy (in the interest of full disclosure, I never considered him trustworthy, due to his actions in Congress, and his actions since becoming President have born out my suspicions).
Even better, send one document that can be decrypted two ways depending on the key sent. That way you can still contact all the media channels, and any research they do proves they all received the same document.
Slashdot Mirror
As a climate agnostic myself, I don't find you've really clarified your take on the issue. For one, you completely ignore the fact that climate change believers are just as fragmented as the climate change deniers (in one case, someone made a claim the Himalayas would be devoid of ice by 2035 - a claim we know is completely false now). It makes it hard for someone like me to know who I should trust. In situations like that, the burden of proof becomes much higher, especially if you want access to taxpayer funds or regulations passed to restrict the freedom of American citizens.
As an added problem, you have politicians who seized a real problem and blow it out of proportion to enact legislation they couldn't otherwise justify (Al Gore is the obvious politician in this case, but all of them do it). The problem is the scientific community does not do enough to divorce themselves from those politicians (and in fact, a lot of them embrace them). This causes even more fragmentation, raising the burden of proof again.
Then there is the ridiculous claim of scientific consensus. Michael Crichton said it best, "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because your being had." Proper science requires constant questions, but of course this must be done by well-educated, trained scientists in the field (not random questions shouted from a mob). However, a claim of complete consensus is never true. You always have the random nutcase scientists in the field, but you also have well-intentioned, fair objections that are conducting proper research. This again causes more confusion for the untrained, and again raises the burden of proof.
On top of all that, then you have the main proof of the subject being an improperly done scientific study. There are a lot of questions about the IPCC study. The data to repeat the experiment is incomplete. Every climate agnostic knows the missing data doesn't disprove the study, but it does make it look bad, thus again raising the burden of proof. Next, you have scientists talking about a "trick" to produce certain data. This could merely be bad phrasing on the part of a scientist (and in informal email, that wouldn't be surprising in the least), but again it looks bad, thus again raising the proof. Even worse, was that "trick" applied properly? That's a question only a climate scientist (or maybe a statistician, if I understood what the "trick" was) could answer. Again, it raises the burden of proof.
At this point, as you implied, agnostics are looking for a nearly impossible level of proof. Unfortunately, that is a justified stance, because both sides are so full of liars, politicians, corporations, and media mis-reporting and misunderstanding that information. We can't really find anyone trustworthy on either side. What do you suggest the agnostics do in that situation?
I am one of those that believes life starts at conception, but it isn't entirely arbitrary. I draw the line there because it is the point that life will grow with no further action. Separated, sperm or an egg will simply die off by itself. Once combined in a womb, it will grow into a person. As long as the woman simply continues living, the child will generally (barring complications) grow and be born. That is what makes that particular step special.
Yes, if a person says stop, and the other person keeps going, that's rape. The problem is proving it. It basically comes down to one person's word against the other. I don't know how things work in the Swedish legal system, but in the American legal system, both should have equal weight, and barring any other evidence, the accused should be found innocent due to lack of unbiased evidence.
In this case, other evidence is suggestive that the women are lying because they are upset with him. Neither woman claimed rape until after she found out he was sleeping with someone else. That makes their stories questionable. It really sounds like these two women are upset because they thought a one-night stand was something more, and are using (I would say abusing) the legal system to vent their frustration.
Yes, I have. The security personnel who abuse their power should be punished, in accordance with the law. But blanket statements of hatred against a group of people do no one any good.
At this point, Obama is just as guilty as Bush, given the fact that he has the power to stop it and hasn't yet (nor even made mention of wanting to). The security theater is about the only truly bi-partisan thing done by our government.
How do you know a person carrying a large object would hit you with it? How do a you know a person carrying a firearm would aim it at you? How do you know a person aiming a firearm at you would pull the trigger? At what point do you decide such a person has an intent to kill? If you wait until it is obvious, you've waited too long to do anything about it.
This is why a lot of places in America draw the line at entering a home. A standard house has dozen of very deadly weapons and chemicals in it. Even if a person sneaked into a house unarmed, once inside he could grab a knife to use as a weapon, he could grab a gun the owner uses to hunt, or he could mix bleach and ammonia and kill everyone in their sleep. It is also impractical to demand a person leave their home to the mercy of an felon. This is compounded if there are children in the home (no mother or father is going to leave their children). To place the responsibility for the well-being of a felon on the home-owner is absurd. You claim I shouldn't just shoot the individual as soon as I identify him. What about forcing the felon out of my home (my martial arts training includes standard police "come-along" holds)? What happens if the felon trips while I'm forcing him down the stairs? Should I be responsible for his well-being then? He could still end up dead from the fall. How can you determine after the fact if he tripped or I shoved him? What if the felon trips over a dog toy or a Hot Wheels car, before I even know he is there? Am I responsible for his death then? What about basic injury (broken arm or leg and so forth)? Am I responsible for that?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is. You posit a wonderful theory, where you have perfect knowledge of what is happening and have plenty of time to respond to it. In reality, none of that is true. The easiest way to handle the situation of trespassing, breaking, and entering is to simply use the property line. The home owner did not want to be in that position. It was forced upon the home owner. The home owner shouldn't have more responsibilities to go along with that.
For one, these heroes perform the exact same service as a neighborhood watch. A constantly vigilant community is by far the best deterrent to crime.
Second, most crimes against property are committed by unarmed felons against empty homes, cars, and the like. In a lot of communities in America, a criminal carrying a weapon during a crime is an extra charge filed against them (even if there is no one to use it against). So a slingshot, taser, or light weapon is very effective against such criminals (especially if being carried by a masked individual acting like a superhero - or a nutcase).
Yes, once guns enter the mix, things get decidedly more dangerous. However, to claim that a taser or light weapon is useless is a not correct. Those items may be useful, or may not (and I say this as a black belt martial artist, so I do have some training in this situation). It completely depends on the specific instance. At that point, it really becomes a personal choice: do you rescue someone from an armed assailant at risk to your own life? It is a question easily debated by us sitting behind computer keyboards, and one in which all the answers we could come up with are just options. Your choice will be different than mine, which may be different from the heroes.
However, you claim about undercover cops is invalid in America. Undercover cops (in plainclothes and without a badge) do not arrest people alone. They have uniformed police officers conduct the arrest (or participate in the arrest) specifically for that reason. In a lot of cases, the undercover officer isn't even present, to protect his identity.
For a person to maintain his or her safety, you are correct, it is best to carry a concealed weapon you are familiar with and avoid trouble. However, to be a good citizen, helping those in need requires people like those mentioned in the article, especially as police departments are no longer under any requirement to protect and server the citizenry (just for the record, I respect the police that do so without that requirement). I have a good bit of respect for these people doing what it seems like our government has given up attempting. I only wish more people had respect for those that do so, whether they wear a uniform, a mask, or a T-shirt and blue jeans.
And what's the convincing argument that copyright should be extended to a period long enough to protect Disney's assets? Why should they retain exclusive cultural domain over something Walt Disney created over 80 years ago? "Because they can make money from it" is not a sufficient reason in my opinion.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, why should your opinion be the rule of law? We all agree that properties need to be protected for some time period, but I've never heard any facts supporting a specific time period (and yes, this could be merely because I haven't heard them, so if you have or know them, please, point me to them).
Given the fact that copyright was to enable creators an opportunity to profit from there work under a temporary monopoly while they used that time to create more, I'd say most of Disney's creations should still be eligible. The current version of Mickey Mouse is hardly the same as Walt's original design. They have been innovating and creating new works from their covered properties, exactly as a responsible copyright holder should. If they weren't, and they were merely sitting on those copyrights, I would have more sympathy for that argument.
This is why I think a use-based limit is more in line with the original intent than a time-based limit. It brings supply and demand back into the equation, which will provide a more reasonable pricing scheme to copyrighted properties. A copyright holder has to price the property at a level that generates sales or risk losing the property.
While Disney is the most common example discussed in regards to copyright limit, I would like to point out another one: the Great Ormond Street Hospital J. M. Barrie left the copyrights of Peter Pan to. Can a more deserving steward of a copyright be found? I think the vast majority of people would agree that they really deserve the money that could be earned from that property, and who can doubt the intent of the original holder? Alternatively, we have the copyright trolls (akin to patent trolls) who do nothing but buy and sit on copyrights. They pretty clearly deserve very little of the money on those patents. A use-based limit would allow the children's hospital to maintain its copyright, it would force Disney to either keep up with innovation on all its copyrights (this has the nice side effect of generating more jobs, as they currently have more copyrights than they can reasonable handle with their current staff) or release them into the public domain, and it would eliminate the copyright trolls.
This idea is obviously very high level and lots of details need to be hashed out (I would hate to see some copyright equivalent of Hollywood accounting where copyrights are passed between companies under a corporate umbrella and yet still qualify for "use"), and clearly our current form of government is just not capable nor inclined to go against what I'm sure would be a massive lobbying effort to prevent such a passage, but I think this idea has a much better chance of passing than a strict time-based limit and makes more sense when viewed against the original intention.
While all of that is undoubtedly true, I do have to point out that it only takes one time for it to be ignored long enough to become law. Personally, I'd rather hear about it every time it comes along (both to make sure it gets shelved and to make sure I don't vote for said politician) than risk something like that passing.
I have to point this out: it hasn't worked with speeding. Or seatbelts. Nor drunk driving. In fact, I'm not aware of any traffic laws that have actually worked to reduce accidents. Because now a driver can get a ticket at a drop of a hat and have little recourse to fight it, society has created at least one (if not two or three) generations that do not treat traffic laws as real laws. There is no changing behavior. That's why accident and death rates don't seem to have any statistically significant changes.
Congratulations, you have a choice of health care in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, out government healthcare system is monopoly healthcare. See, if you had actually read any of the two thousand page law passed in America, you would have read that the United States government is going to give people the "option" of accepting government health care, or else "fining" us for not accepting it (practically speaking, the government would never be able to provide funding for it unless they take money from everyone to pay for it - this must either be done through a medical care tax or a fine - but it is not a choice). Basically, either way, the American public will have to pay into the government health care system. If you have to buy it, you would be silly to not use it. So, after a time, the vast majority of people are going to use the government health care system. This in turn is going to cause a shift in the insurance industry from private health insurance to private health supplemental insurance. So because of market forces there eventually won't even be private insurance available, because there will be no demand.
So, moral of the story? America is not the United Kingdom. Government healthcare is not equivalent in all countries in all the world. Your health care system is not going to be anything like ours, so your anecdotal comments of what you have in the United Kingdom are irrelevant in discussing the American government health care. Of course, I can't really blame you for not reading the bill. After all, neither did our Congress nor our President. The only slight bit of peace I have is knowing I didn't vote for those idiots. Sure, it doesn't change the situation, but it makes me feel better.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion..." --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
I wish I had mod points for this. Instead, I'll just say when I first heard this I thought that twenty years might be a bit too often. Now I wonder if twenty years is too long.
Perhaps you should re-read what you just wrote. Bill Gates didn't get rich because his parents were rich - he got rich because his parents were connected. Sure, there's obviously some correlation there, but it isn't causation.
[citation needed]
You make a lot of claims, but despite numerous searches on my part (on all sorts of wild conspiracy ideas about the Iraq War), I've never found one record anywhere to back any of the claims I've seen, including these. If you have any of that evidence, please, present it. It should be trivial on your part, if it was a front page scandal.
And for the record, my vote for President of the United States would never go to a man who lies to his constituents.
We're still having to clean up his mess. Besides, you assholes are *still* complaining about Clinton and even Carter! So please, STFU.
We are still having to clean up Clinton and Carter's messes (and many other President's as well). Obama and Congress are the ones who can fix it. Perhaps we should focus a bit more on fixing the fuck-ups first and punish those to blame after?
Damn you cheap bastards! One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.
The joke's on you, because you'll be paying for my medical treatment of the bite.
Right, and that would all make sense, except I never said we were a pile of independent states and colonies. My exact words were "fairly divided states and territories", and that statement is true.
Do you really labor under the delusion that all Americans support the invasion of Iraq? Did you see the vote for that? At least a third of Congress voted against it. Two-thirds of Democrats voted against, showing that even the parties are divided. Before Obama, we had two Presidential elections that were very contentious. Are you really going to claim that America isn't divided?
Quite simply, you are again making a logically fallacious argument, this time an appeal to ridicule, and what's more. You are completely misrepresenting what I said, taking it to levels that I never stated, which is why you ended up making a strawman argument. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote, rather than what you hoped I said.
So the Army of Kentucky decided it would be a good move to go into Bagdad?
Of course not, and I never made any claim to do so. I know you didn't get such a statement from me, so I'm going to guess you pulled it out of somewhere dark and dank.
You tried to win an argument by redefining the language to something other than what everyone else uses - not a very pleasant trick but increasingly common.
I didn't redefine anything. The only definition I gave came straight from Wikipedia, and I even linked to it so it was clear it wasn't my definition. I'll tell you what is increasingly common, though. Strawman arguments.
I do find it interesting you bring up the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic fell to become an empire. The parallels between that society and America are somewhat uncanny. We aren't there yet, but we are definitely on the road. If you had actually bothered to read what I previously wrote, you would have noticed my contention about America being an empire dealt with its ruling body, and not its technological superiority nor its military bases. Ironically, you usurped the whole point I made in my post, which was to label America as an "empire" is trite and useless. I hold no illusion about the morality of America or its actions. But hey, don't let my facts get in the way of your fallacious argument. It seems the only thing people bother to respond to anymore is mockery of someone else's position. You should run for politics, as you are apparently quite qualified.
Empire, a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.
Clearly we aren't ruled by a monarch, and you'd really have to stretch the definition of oligarchy to claim we are ruled by that since Obama became President. Of course, as has been pointed out, that definition don't really apply to really anything in existence now. Hell, we aren't even really the "United" "States" anymore. We are a collection of fairly divided states and territories. Really, none of the old definitions apply anymore.
There's a lot to say about America, both good and bad. It is crazy, though, to try to sum up a country with a work like "empire", and it is a disservice to any country to do so.
The answer is simple and obvious. If you can't care for yourself while living in the United States, then don't live here. Why should America change to be like some other country? I'm willing to take responsibility for myself in exchange for my freedoms, but I understand not everyone is comfortable or capable of doing so. Therefore, go elsewhere. Why should I lose my freedoms so you don't have to take full responsibility for yourself?
South Africa, last year. Incitement to hatred against immigrants: result, countless attacks and weeks of unrest as the locals attacked immigrants and forced them to flee for their lives.
Lets see, assault, currently illegal in most countries in the world.
Rwanda, several years ago. Incitement to hatred against one "race": result, 1 million dead, many hacked to bits as they sought shelter. In a few weeks they killed then half a year of all the concentration camps of WW2.
Assault and murder, also illegal in most countries in the world.
Germany, Crystal Night. incitement to hatred against jews. Result: several dead, buildings burned and the prelude to the holocaust.
Again, murder.
There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.
None of those acts were just words. Every single one had illegal actions follow. If those people had attended the rallies, heard the words, and then gone home, even if they went home with hate in their hearts, it wouldn't have harmed anyone. Hate by itself is useless. Incitement to hatred should never be a crime.
That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.
That is not hate speech. That is conspiracy to commit murder, an action, not just words. It is the second component, the plan of illegal acts, that causes it to become illegal. Hate speech is asking someone to agree with your low opinion and to spread that opinion around. That is the difference. You argument is nothing but a straw man.
I actually live in Columbia, and I can't tell you how much I agree with you. Suburban hell hole sums it up quite nicely, and I only live here for three reasons. One, it is close to my martial arts school, two, it is close to work, and three, when I finally do move out of Maryland in the future, I will make a fucking fortune on the tiny condo I own here (enough to buy a five bedroom, 2500 square foot house almost anywhere else in the country). I spend most of time and money in Baltimore or DC (bars, shops, etc). I damn near moved into Baltimore when I was looking to a buy a house, but as you know, in real estate location is everything, and I am more than willing to take the money from the stupid suburban yuppies. The nice thing is the couple I bought the place from moved out of state as well, so I didn't even give my money to suburban yuppies.
One thing any lawyer will tell you is that they work for whoever pays them. The RIAA was paying these lawyers, so they came up with arguements to prove that people owed them money.
The fact that lawyers work solely for whoever pays them is part of the problem. While in reality I realize that statement is true, they are suppose to do so only to the point it become unethical for them to continue. Its that second part that the most publicized lawyers fail to have, and what is most vital for someone appointed to the Justice Department.
They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do.
So, since they were doing it for money, that makes it okay?
Lets not lie, the RIAA lawyers are VERY good; they have won a lot of cases and have a lot of experience in and out of court.
That depends on your definition of good. I would say the RIAA lawyers are fairly competent at earning the people they represent money, but that doesn't make them good.
I don't know why we wouldn't want someone like that working for the Department of Justice, so long as we don't want an inept Department of Justice (which is a different argument entirely. Maybe we do).
I do want an efficient Justice Department, but I also want one the is ultimately accountable to me (and all other constituents). Assuming their association with the RIAA ends with this appointment (and to be frank, we have no real indication that will or will not happen as of this moment), their actions show they will ultimately only consider themselves accountable to the person who pays their paycheck. Obama's actions have show that so far he is not trustworthy (in the interest of full disclosure, I never considered him trustworthy, due to his actions in Congress, and his actions since becoming President have born out my suspicions).
Even better, send one document that can be decrypted two ways depending on the key sent. That way you can still contact all the media channels, and any research they do proves they all received the same document.
That's an interesting statement, considering retail stores adjust the prices of everything to cover the cost of security.