As it is, the changes that are happening now are far faster than any other changes in the climate humanity has faced, and that is what makes them dangerous.
While this may be true (and is probably true from recorded history data), it doesn't say anything about how fast they are happening compared with the last time the Planet turned extremely hot or extremely cold. It also doesn't consider the vast amount of unrecorded human history (from a climate/temperature point of view). For all we know, this is the Planet's normal climate trajectory, we just have such a small segment of data to look at, we can't see the forest from the trees.
Said another way, we are using an ridiculously small fraction of a percent of the Earth's climate data and using that to extrapolate (in both directions) when, in all reality, all of our data could represent a short anomaly period that over a more significant time period (based on Earth's time-scale) will normalize itself right out.
Yes, I believe that humans have contributed in exacerbating an natural process of warming that would have occurred without our involvement. We have made it worse by a measurable percentage. Yes I think there are things we should do to reduce the damage we are doing.
If the warming process is natural then how can it be called damage ? A warmer planet may be detrimental to us and our survival as a species (but probably not, we are adaptable) but it does no damage to the planet itself since the planet was doing it anyway on its own. Unless, of course, you think the planet is harming itself. The planet is bigger than any one species, including our own, to say the planet is being damaged, destroyed, etc. when it is only certain species on the planet that are being affected is incorrect. Humans do not equal the Planet. They are separate and distinct things, what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other and vice-verse. You lose people when you make obviously contradictory statements like the one I pointed to above. You lose them to semantics. Once they see you glossed over and combined two separate and distinct things into one, they lose trust. They begin to wonder where else you glossed over and simplified in order to make your point or arrive at your conclusion. This is why every article on a scientific study/topic should include all of the assumptions that were made as a simple error there can invalidate an entire study.
I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so.
Only form the perspective of one trying to save Humanity not one trying to save the Planet. Obviously, they are not the same. To one who really thinks it is humans who are destroying the Earth and wants to protect the Planet, then the Earth becoming uninhabitable by humans is an ideal outcome.
We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed.
Well then we picked a horrible spot to let our civilization take root, haven't we? The fact is the planet's climate will change to the extreme(s) (both warm and cold) over a long-enough time line, with or without humans. It has before and it will again. Trying to make enormous efforts, at enormous costs to attempt to slow down something that is inevitably going to happen is asinine. The time, effort and money would be better spent preparing for the inevitable so that our survival when it comes is better assured. We will have to do it anyway or die. Might as well start now and stop trying to kick the can down the road.
There is a close to 100% chance that it came out of the egg and a close to 0% chance that it came out of one of the rocks. Highly improbable does not equal impossible. Anything is possible.
Actually, withdrawing money from a bank can be illegal, if it is determined that you structured your withdrawals to avoid the reporting mandated by the government for large withdrawals (i.e. over $10K). Thank you War on Drugs for that bit.
nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms
Compensating someone for past harms? No. Compensating someone for refusing to testify and/or cooperate with an active investigation? Yeah, that is probably illegal for both parties.
It's patently absurd to give the federal government the keys to the kingdom, but it's also patently absurd to say that criminals should get away with it because they used encryption.
Only one is patently absurd. In the US, the decision was made at the beginning when the legal/justice system was designed. It was designed on the basis that: "it is far better that 1000 criminals go free than one innocent be wrongfully imprisoned". That concept is the corner stone of our system and spirit of it. If every "difficult balance" were viewed through this lens it would be crystal clear than the intent was that "is is far better that 1000 criminals go free than violate the rights of one innocent". Unfortunately, a lot of people are short-sighted (and I'd say spineless) and cannot accept that allowing criminals to go free is also a way of protecting the innocent. They can't see that many moves ahead and/or they fear the criminal more than the government and will sacrifice their protection from one to eliminate the other, never realizing that the government they so trust is made up of many criminals (or soon-to-be criminals).
WILL NOT stand by and allow someone to be punished for speaking something that I find offensive. I don't care if it offends you, it's not your right to avoid offense.
There is another distinction that you are missing. When it comes to bullying, the speech isn't necessarily "offensive", it isn't said with the intent to "offend" the victim. It is "harmful", it is said with the intent to cause "harm" to the victim. As with most legal cases, intent is important. If it can be proven a bully engaged in speech with the intent to cause harm then that bully could be prosecuted, not for his speech, but for his intent. If it the harm can also be proven, as in this case the suicide of the victim, then the charges/sentencing can be increased. They may have only intended to harm the victim however the death of the victim was the result, they are now liable (or partially liable) for contributing to that death.
Now, in case you are talking specifically about the offensive facebook post, then you must also look at it another way. The facebook post amounts to a confession, a confession of intentionally causing harm to the victim (bullying) as well as the acknowledgement that it led to the victim's suicide/death. Furthermore, it is a confession of no remorse for the effect that was caused by the bully. Even if she has no intent for her speech to lead to an acutal suicide, when she was faced with the fact that it did, she was not remorseful of her actions. Given these facts, she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given no leniency in sentencing.
I would just add, that minimum wage needs to provide a basic level of acceptable living without additional government assistance. This is where the problem lies. People who work full-time for minimum wage need gov't assistance to survive. Employers don't have to pay more because there are gov't assistance programs to cover the deficit. There is one, obvious solution, the government raises minimum wage so that those who earn it no longer need or qualify for gov't assistance and since it goes across the board, it won't make competition any harder. This, however, they will not do as it will lessen the power the gov't has over the people via the assistance programs. They cannot survive without them and will continue to elect whoever promises to keep them around and/or increase them.
Actually, Romney already did what you're suggesting. It worked well in Massachusetts.
Do you line in MA? Are signed up for the MA subsidized Commonwealth care? Do you use their facilities and doctors on a regular basis? I would assume that the answer to at least the second two are "no" if you think "it worked well". It worked well on paper. For the people who actually needed it and rely on it, and I personally know a few, well, let's just say it sucks. The facilities suck, the doctors suck, the "insurance company" sucks. Nothing is done right or on time. It's like dealing with a group of completely incompetent and overworked people, you know, just like dealing with any government bureaucracy.
Actually, they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution above all else which this program is clearly in violation of as, last I checked, the PATRIOT and subsequent acts were not (thankfully) constitutional amendments that could super-cede the 4th amendment and are, in effect, null-and-void in any area where they conflict with the 4th.
CTRL+ALT+DEL was already a well known, highest priority, key combination from before windows existed. Back when hardware had actual interrupt assignments, the keyboard was assigned the lowest interrupt (the user in front of the keyboard was considered the most important and had highest priority over all other sub-systems - yes lower numbers had higher priorities for those who don't remember). CTRL+ALT+DEL was designed to allow the user to forcibly (and controllably) reboot the system should some lower-priority sub-system be mis-behaving. The only time this did not work was when the CPU itself was frozen (divide by zero, anyone?). That is where the low-level, special-handling was originally designed - in hardware.
Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.
If you don't want to do Version Control as others have suggested then I recommend Super Flexible File Synchronizer. It is a great product with lots of options in regards to what does and does not get sync'd. It is inexpensive to boot.
http://www.superflexible.com/ftp.htm
If you don't trust the recipient, why would you send them encrypted messages? The point of this feature is to close the "I forgot to delete it" hole that exists and represents the "this message will self-destruct in xxx time" concept. Of course I understand you may be referring to the ISP installing or modifying the phone's software so as to get a copy of the plain-text and this is a valid, although unlikely, concern. The fix (and only fix) is to make sure the plain-text is also encrypted in some form so that only the true recipient can read/understand it. The stronger encryption protects it in transit, the weaker encryption protects it from those with access to the device.
He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live
It's his right to live yes but that doesn't make it someone (or everyone) else's responsibility to help him do so. It's people's fear of death that causes the dissonance you speak of, not our upbringing that socialism is bad. I know I don't have a right to everyone else's money (or the doctor's services) even if I need them to live. But if I were facing death I might be tempted to claim I did because fear will cause all sorts of irrational thoughts and ideas.
This is the fundamental problem with a "right to healthcare". You are either claiming a right to other people's money or a right to other people's time or both. This, when considered fully, is tantamount to slavery. That is why we do not have a "right to healthcare".
You're missing that this is wireless technology and there is no way to directly connect to one AP while ignoring all others (at least in the connection phase). Every packet is broadcast to every antenna that can receive it, every packet is coded with the MAC address of the source (so the recipient knows who sent it and can reply) as well as the intended recipient (or all if it is a real broadcast). AP's that aren't listed as the recipient should drop/ignore packets they receive that aren't addressed to them but there is nothing forcing them to do so. While maybe not 100% technically correct, I believe it is sufficient to explain the problem. The problem is this: every antenna in range can receive every packet and can decode basic information about the sender and intended receiver of the packet. This cannot be fixed technically as it is by design. The only thing than can be done is to legislatively outlaw the practice of gathering this information and/or using it to compile a database.
It IS a living document now that can be changed. However, the methods for changing it, properly, are hard and those in power are to lazy to do it, especially when the people aren't forcing them to. Of course, if they were to do it the proper way, they actually need the support of the vast majority which in most of these cases they do/did not have.
Digital information/goods easily fit into the "effects" part of the protection. They went out of their way to enumerate just about everything that existed that could be searched or seized so I have no problem envisioning their original intent would of included emails, phone locations, etc. if they existed at the time. Not only that but I can envision them going, "DUH!", at how obvious this should be.
The founders believed freedom was more important than individual life, so, yes, I believe they would stand by those convictions even in today's super scary environment.
If the people believe the 200 year old document is out-of-date, there is a mechanism to change it and it's called a constitutional amendment. Sure, they are hard to pass because most people have to agree on them but that's by design. If you want to redefine and limit the fourth amendment, that is the only legal/constitutional course you could take. Everything else that has been done that conflicts with this amendment is illegal.
Exactly which part was reduced to absurdity? Just because the actual inner-workings of software is abstracted from the developer that doesn't change what it is.
As an aside: in the end, everything is mathematics. Software is mathematics; but also a physical apparatus, or even a medicine can be described mathematically. So, based on this argument, there should be no distinction in IP law.
While a physical apparatus and/or medicine can be described mathematically, they are not, of themselves, math. Software, on the other hand, is math that can be described in special languages that are easier for humans to read. See the difference? The description (or the can be expressed as) is reversed. Software starts out and is math, period. It is a series of add/subtract/multiply/move statements, nothing more. If the algorithm for calculating a number's square root on paper is not patentable then neither should software.
Well, now that's a different story. Unless they are going for improved flexibility (which I'm not sure if it would help) that is completely overblown. Warm-up should be 5-10 minutes, max.
They only recommend you do that to prevent you from over-extending and hurting yourself. It's about pushing your muscles to their max constriction in a slow and controlled manner before you do it again with weight, speed, and/or bad form.
Well the 2nd amendment also clearly states "well regulated militia" and IMHO it takes some non-trivial mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean everyone, everywhere, all the time, regardless of reason.
Yes, it mentions it as a justification/rationalization of where the right comes from, no mental gymnastics required. It is clear when it says that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which is how it is interpreted to mean everyone, because "The People" includes everyone.
They're fine with government infringement when it comes to non-gun types of "arms" but as soon it's applied to guns all of a sudden the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct.
This is where straw-men arguments confuse normal people. I don't believe that the laws outlawing the ownership or possession of any type of weapon is constitutional, period. The very clear and precise wording of the Second Amendment is hard to argue in an intellectually honest manner (i.e. not arguing up means down because "blah"). I also do not think it wise to allow everyday Joes access to unstable and unsafe nuclear materials. There was/is a simple, constitutional solution to this that the Courts were too weak to require but should of been mandated. After the discovery/invention of the atomic bomb a very clear and simple Constitutional Amendment should of been proposed that would except Nuclear, Chemical or other WMD's (Specifically defined) from the rights recognized in the Second Amendment. This would of been an easy sell, I cannot fathom who would of voted against it. But they didn't go this route, and I suspect it is because they didn't want to make it clear that this is the only legal route to restrict the Bill of Rights.
Given the speed in which publishing and distribution can happen in this day and age, I would say 10-15 years is about the maximum reasonable limit. Any longer than that and it is no longer serving society, only the copyright holder at the expense of society. If you can't make your work worthwhile in that amount of time, try harder next time or find a new business to be in.
Slashdot Mirror
As it is, the changes that are happening now are far faster than any other changes in the climate humanity has faced, and that is what makes them dangerous.
While this may be true (and is probably true from recorded history data), it doesn't say anything about how fast they are happening compared with the last time the Planet turned extremely hot or extremely cold. It also doesn't consider the vast amount of unrecorded human history (from a climate/temperature point of view). For all we know, this is the Planet's normal climate trajectory, we just have such a small segment of data to look at, we can't see the forest from the trees.
Said another way, we are using an ridiculously small fraction of a percent of the Earth's climate data and using that to extrapolate (in both directions) when, in all reality, all of our data could represent a short anomaly period that over a more significant time period (based on Earth's time-scale) will normalize itself right out.
Yes, I believe that humans have contributed in exacerbating an natural process of warming that would have occurred without our involvement. We have made it worse by a measurable percentage. Yes I think there are things we should do to reduce the damage we are doing.
If the warming process is natural then how can it be called damage ? A warmer planet may be detrimental to us and our survival as a species (but probably not, we are adaptable) but it does no damage to the planet itself since the planet was doing it anyway on its own. Unless, of course, you think the planet is harming itself. The planet is bigger than any one species, including our own, to say the planet is being damaged, destroyed, etc. when it is only certain species on the planet that are being affected is incorrect. Humans do not equal the Planet. They are separate and distinct things, what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other and vice-verse. You lose people when you make obviously contradictory statements like the one I pointed to above. You lose them to semantics. Once they see you glossed over and combined two separate and distinct things into one, they lose trust. They begin to wonder where else you glossed over and simplified in order to make your point or arrive at your conclusion. This is why every article on a scientific study/topic should include all of the assumptions that were made as a simple error there can invalidate an entire study.
I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so.
Only form the perspective of one trying to save Humanity not one trying to save the Planet. Obviously, they are not the same. To one who really thinks it is humans who are destroying the Earth and wants to protect the Planet, then the Earth becoming uninhabitable by humans is an ideal outcome.
We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed.
Well then we picked a horrible spot to let our civilization take root, haven't we? The fact is the planet's climate will change to the extreme(s) (both warm and cold) over a long-enough time line, with or without humans. It has before and it will again. Trying to make enormous efforts, at enormous costs to attempt to slow down something that is inevitably going to happen is asinine. The time, effort and money would be better spent preparing for the inevitable so that our survival when it comes is better assured. We will have to do it anyway or die. Might as well start now and stop trying to kick the can down the road.
There is a close to 100% chance that it came out of the egg and a close to 0% chance that it came out of one of the rocks. Highly improbable does not equal impossible. Anything is possible.
It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank
Actually, withdrawing money from a bank can be illegal, if it is determined that you structured your withdrawals to avoid the reporting mandated by the government for large withdrawals (i.e. over $10K). Thank you War on Drugs for that bit.
nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms
Compensating someone for past harms? No. Compensating someone for refusing to testify and/or cooperate with an active investigation? Yeah, that is probably illegal for both parties.
It's patently absurd to give the federal government the keys to the kingdom, but it's also patently absurd to say that criminals should get away with it because they used encryption.
Only one is patently absurd. In the US, the decision was made at the beginning when the legal/justice system was designed. It was designed on the basis that: "it is far better that 1000 criminals go free than one innocent be wrongfully imprisoned". That concept is the corner stone of our system and spirit of it. If every "difficult balance" were viewed through this lens it would be crystal clear than the intent was that "is is far better that 1000 criminals go free than violate the rights of one innocent". Unfortunately, a lot of people are short-sighted (and I'd say spineless) and cannot accept that allowing criminals to go free is also a way of protecting the innocent. They can't see that many moves ahead and/or they fear the criminal more than the government and will sacrifice their protection from one to eliminate the other, never realizing that the government they so trust is made up of many criminals (or soon-to-be criminals).
WILL NOT stand by and allow someone to be punished for speaking something that I find offensive. I don't care if it offends you, it's not your right to avoid offense.
There is another distinction that you are missing. When it comes to bullying, the speech isn't necessarily "offensive", it isn't said with the intent to "offend" the victim. It is "harmful", it is said with the intent to cause "harm" to the victim. As with most legal cases, intent is important. If it can be proven a bully engaged in speech with the intent to cause harm then that bully could be prosecuted, not for his speech, but for his intent. If it the harm can also be proven, as in this case the suicide of the victim, then the charges/sentencing can be increased. They may have only intended to harm the victim however the death of the victim was the result, they are now liable (or partially liable) for contributing to that death.
Now, in case you are talking specifically about the offensive facebook post, then you must also look at it another way. The facebook post amounts to a confession, a confession of intentionally causing harm to the victim (bullying) as well as the acknowledgement that it led to the victim's suicide/death. Furthermore, it is a confession of no remorse for the effect that was caused by the bully. Even if she has no intent for her speech to lead to an acutal suicide, when she was faced with the fact that it did, she was not remorseful of her actions. Given these facts, she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given no leniency in sentencing.
I would just add, that minimum wage needs to provide a basic level of acceptable living without additional government assistance. This is where the problem lies. People who work full-time for minimum wage need gov't assistance to survive. Employers don't have to pay more because there are gov't assistance programs to cover the deficit. There is one, obvious solution, the government raises minimum wage so that those who earn it no longer need or qualify for gov't assistance and since it goes across the board, it won't make competition any harder. This, however, they will not do as it will lessen the power the gov't has over the people via the assistance programs. They cannot survive without them and will continue to elect whoever promises to keep them around and/or increase them.
Actually, Romney already did what you're suggesting. It worked well in Massachusetts.
Do you line in MA? Are signed up for the MA subsidized Commonwealth care? Do you use their facilities and doctors on a regular basis? I would assume that the answer to at least the second two are "no" if you think "it worked well". It worked well on paper. For the people who actually needed it and rely on it, and I personally know a few, well, let's just say it sucks. The facilities suck, the doctors suck, the "insurance company" sucks. Nothing is done right or on time. It's like dealing with a group of completely incompetent and overworked people, you know, just like dealing with any government bureaucracy.
Actually, they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution above all else which this program is clearly in violation of as, last I checked, the PATRIOT and subsequent acts were not (thankfully) constitutional amendments that could super-cede the 4th amendment and are, in effect, null-and-void in any area where they conflict with the 4th.
CTRL+ALT+DEL was already a well known, highest priority, key combination from before windows existed. Back when hardware had actual interrupt assignments, the keyboard was assigned the lowest interrupt (the user in front of the keyboard was considered the most important and had highest priority over all other sub-systems - yes lower numbers had higher priorities for those who don't remember). CTRL+ALT+DEL was designed to allow the user to forcibly (and controllably) reboot the system should some lower-priority sub-system be mis-behaving. The only time this did not work was when the CPU itself was frozen (divide by zero, anyone?). That is where the low-level, special-handling was originally designed - in hardware.
Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.
If you don't want to do Version Control as others have suggested then I recommend Super Flexible File Synchronizer. It is a great product with lots of options in regards to what does and does not get sync'd. It is inexpensive to boot. http://www.superflexible.com/ftp.htm
If you don't trust the recipient, why would you send them encrypted messages? The point of this feature is to close the "I forgot to delete it" hole that exists and represents the "this message will self-destruct in xxx time" concept. Of course I understand you may be referring to the ISP installing or modifying the phone's software so as to get a copy of the plain-text and this is a valid, although unlikely, concern. The fix (and only fix) is to make sure the plain-text is also encrypted in some form so that only the true recipient can read/understand it. The stronger encryption protects it in transit, the weaker encryption protects it from those with access to the device.
He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live
It's his right to live yes but that doesn't make it someone (or everyone) else's responsibility to help him do so. It's people's fear of death that causes the dissonance you speak of, not our upbringing that socialism is bad. I know I don't have a right to everyone else's money (or the doctor's services) even if I need them to live. But if I were facing death I might be tempted to claim I did because fear will cause all sorts of irrational thoughts and ideas.
This is the fundamental problem with a "right to healthcare". You are either claiming a right to other people's money or a right to other people's time or both. This, when considered fully, is tantamount to slavery. That is why we do not have a "right to healthcare".
You're missing that this is wireless technology and there is no way to directly connect to one AP while ignoring all others (at least in the connection phase). Every packet is broadcast to every antenna that can receive it, every packet is coded with the MAC address of the source (so the recipient knows who sent it and can reply) as well as the intended recipient (or all if it is a real broadcast). AP's that aren't listed as the recipient should drop/ignore packets they receive that aren't addressed to them but there is nothing forcing them to do so. While maybe not 100% technically correct, I believe it is sufficient to explain the problem. The problem is this: every antenna in range can receive every packet and can decode basic information about the sender and intended receiver of the packet. This cannot be fixed technically as it is by design. The only thing than can be done is to legislatively outlaw the practice of gathering this information and/or using it to compile a database.
It means you have a tyrannical government acting above outside of or against their mandate.
It IS a living document now that can be changed. However, the methods for changing it, properly, are hard and those in power are to lazy to do it, especially when the people aren't forcing them to. Of course, if they were to do it the proper way, they actually need the support of the vast majority which in most of these cases they do/did not have.
Digital information/goods easily fit into the "effects" part of the protection. They went out of their way to enumerate just about everything that existed that could be searched or seized so I have no problem envisioning their original intent would of included emails, phone locations, etc. if they existed at the time. Not only that but I can envision them going, "DUH!", at how obvious this should be.
The founders believed freedom was more important than individual life, so, yes, I believe they would stand by those convictions even in today's super scary environment.
If the people believe the 200 year old document is out-of-date, there is a mechanism to change it and it's called a constitutional amendment. Sure, they are hard to pass because most people have to agree on them but that's by design. If you want to redefine and limit the fourth amendment, that is the only legal/constitutional course you could take. Everything else that has been done that conflicts with this amendment is illegal.
Exactly which part was reduced to absurdity? Just because the actual inner-workings of software is abstracted from the developer that doesn't change what it is.
As an aside: in the end, everything is mathematics. Software is mathematics; but also a physical apparatus, or even a medicine can be described mathematically. So, based on this argument, there should be no distinction in IP law.
While a physical apparatus and/or medicine can be described mathematically, they are not, of themselves, math. Software, on the other hand, is math that can be described in special languages that are easier for humans to read. See the difference? The description (or the can be expressed as) is reversed. Software starts out and is math, period. It is a series of add/subtract/multiply/move statements, nothing more. If the algorithm for calculating a number's square root on paper is not patentable then neither should software.
Well, now that's a different story. Unless they are going for improved flexibility (which I'm not sure if it would help) that is completely overblown. Warm-up should be 5-10 minutes, max.
They only recommend you do that to prevent you from over-extending and hurting yourself. It's about pushing your muscles to their max constriction in a slow and controlled manner before you do it again with weight, speed, and/or bad form.
Well the 2nd amendment also clearly states "well regulated militia" and IMHO it takes some non-trivial mental gymnastics to interpret that to mean everyone, everywhere, all the time, regardless of reason.
Yes, it mentions it as a justification/rationalization of where the right comes from, no mental gymnastics required. It is clear when it says that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which is how it is interpreted to mean everyone, because "The People" includes everyone.
They're fine with government infringement when it comes to non-gun types of "arms" but as soon it's applied to guns all of a sudden the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct.
This is where straw-men arguments confuse normal people. I don't believe that the laws outlawing the ownership or possession of any type of weapon is constitutional, period. The very clear and precise wording of the Second Amendment is hard to argue in an intellectually honest manner (i.e. not arguing up means down because "blah"). I also do not think it wise to allow everyday Joes access to unstable and unsafe nuclear materials. There was/is a simple, constitutional solution to this that the Courts were too weak to require but should of been mandated. After the discovery/invention of the atomic bomb a very clear and simple Constitutional Amendment should of been proposed that would except Nuclear, Chemical or other WMD's (Specifically defined) from the rights recognized in the Second Amendment. This would of been an easy sell, I cannot fathom who would of voted against it. But they didn't go this route, and I suspect it is because they didn't want to make it clear that this is the only legal route to restrict the Bill of Rights.
Given the speed in which publishing and distribution can happen in this day and age, I would say 10-15 years is about the maximum reasonable limit. Any longer than that and it is no longer serving society, only the copyright holder at the expense of society. If you can't make your work worthwhile in that amount of time, try harder next time or find a new business to be in.