W
Woody
hey , ya know , i'd consider it if you could bring a few dubies . just look
for my pickup , its the one with the nra and bush stickers
for my pickup , its the one with the nra and bush stickers
L
Leythos
You spread the fact that you have an Opinion, not facts, just that you
have an opinion and no one finds it unfactual that you have an opinion,
it's the contents that are not factual.
Your opinion is as hypothetical as it gets, it's not based on any legal
case, so, you could be advocating actions which have detrimental effects
on people that follow them.
L
Leythos
And they thought they were anti too, but I don't see your Con as any
different - the only part is that you're conning people into a possible
violation of the law and they were taking suckers money that wanted them
to have it. Did you come out against Falwell and Baker too?
D
David Candy
However the eight year limit is a good thing. Governments need to be changed from time to time to prevent inertia and you ensure yours are. Our longest is 23 years. Our current one is 12.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message America is quite unusual in having people elected without a majority. But there is plenty wrong with our system too. But I was answering a specific question.
The minimal change the US needs is probably a run off system (as most presidential systems do).
But power seekers will work any system to our disadvantage. After all the Soviet Union had a great constitution. But it seemed to have been ignored by those with power.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message America is quite unusual in having people elected without a majority. But there is plenty wrong with our system too. But I was answering a specific question.
The minimal change the US needs is probably a run off system (as most presidential systems do).
But power seekers will work any system to our disadvantage. After all the Soviet Union had a great constitution. But it seemed to have been ignored by those with power.
T
Tom
Leythos said:
Well, you're not following suit, and that was about religion, and a belief!
Firstly, kurt is not proclaiming himself son of god (or of gates in this
case), so there is no (copyright) heresy going on.
T
Tom
kurttrail said:
Not to let this go to much further: but weren't all the words of Jesus
written by authors, and not Jesus himself. There are words Jesus
(supposedly) said (as quoted in the gospels of Luke and Matthew) that are
fairly brutal. But overall, his words and thoughts of people for people in
general are very kind.
But he did so in a way that if his way wasn't followed, eternal damnation
was the aftermath, not too cool to me.
I agree with this totally, even Gandhi had his (very few) bad elements.
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
Gun laws don't work, but violent crimes in the US has been going down
since they have been implemented.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:Yea, like Kurt says, I would rather spend time with you in that room
How lame.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
W
Woody
lol , please don't fight over me ;-P
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
Prove it isn't a fact. Show us the legal precendent.
I have a right to my interpretation, unless the copyright owner
disagrees and gets a court to rule in their favor. Fact.
Saying, no it's not, it's just your opinion, doesn't mean crap. Just
that you argue like you are in a Monty Python sketch, and you aren't
funny enough to pull that off.
In the
Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" means when it
come to individuals.
"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type
of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad
because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted
material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why
that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use
wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those
copies of copyrighted material.
"Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the
Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the
Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us
individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the
right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted
material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are
supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are
not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite.
Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to
another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who
it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it.
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair
return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material
by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general
public good.
Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site,
which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but
one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or
commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees
with the interpretation of "fair use" being used.
"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the
rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has
known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than
a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of
"fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it
is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because:
1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held
against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such
a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor
of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an
individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and
that being in the general public good.
MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in
hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the
behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and
propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing
legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just
about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they
thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has
done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the
Music Industry is only going after those that make their music
collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing
music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that
has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly
use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own
private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others.
This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate
copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some
of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but
until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to
"fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright
owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until
proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a
corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license.
My interpretation is legally valid as long as MS doesn't sue me and win.
That is a fact, Lameboy.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Tom said:
He spoke them they wrote it down afterwards.
Yeah, just like with the words of the Buddha, it was preverted by his
followers. But both of their messages shine through the perversion of
those that came after them.
I suspect that most of that was added long afterward, by those that
actually followed the teachings of Saul of Tarsus, who was the first
preverter of the message of Yehoshua. I only use "Jesus" so people
understand who I'm talking about. I much prefer using his Hebrew name,
since he was a Jew, not Greek. Yet another perversion of the followers
of Saul of Tarsus, who most know as "St. Paul."
Nobodies perfect. ;-)
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
"They" would refer to MS and Baker in the context of your reply to my
statement above.
So you agree that MS is a proven thief along with Baker. Yet I am in
their league because I share my interpretation of "fair use" with
others, and nothing in my interpretation has ever been challenged let
alone ruled against by a court over more than the dozen years that MS
has had to dispute it?
All the time. I'm spiritual, not religious.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
And violent crimes have been decreasing at higher rates in areas that
permit concealed carry too. The crime rates in areas where it's always
been legal to carry weapons is normally lower than the average. It's not
the weapon or the type of weapon that you can legislate, as has been
proven by the fact that crazy people will use anything they can get.
K
kurttrail
Woody said:
But I got a woody for you!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
hey , ya know , i'd consider it if you could bring a few dubies . just look
for my pickup , its the one with the nra and bush stickers
I have a loaded Dakota Quad V8 4x4 with USN, CVN-59, VF-31, and State
Highway stickers on it - even have a I Love My Country and Support the
Troops magnets on it - in addition to the Company Logo. I have a rifle
case in it too, and I could bring the Beer, but not anything on the list
that would complicate a piss-test
L
Leythos
Your only fact in this entire BS is statement you just made: "I have
a right to my interpretation".
The vendors license stands until you prove otherwise.
D
David Candy
I held a shooters license in the 70s. But I'd only shoot trees not animals so lost interest. I was also an Army Cadet at school and have used Lee-Enfield .303 (WW1), SLR (Standard Vietnam era rifle), Bren gun (WW2). Unfortunately as I stupidly chose intelligence I rooted through previous units rubbish to estimate size of force and made stupid maps while everyone else fired GPMG and flew in UH-1. I also was in Civil Defence. My job was to plot fallout and calculate cumulative doses of areas including evacuation exposure to see if it was worth while saving them. I also gave first aid last Saturday night to my neighbour but failed to save him.
So I'm no limped dick leftie. But I am part structuralist (communism, socialism, feminism - governments oppress), part social democrat (groups compete with each other in society - governments arbitrate), and part liberal (everyone is well meaning but there are screw-up - governments need to fix the screw-up). All humans, but me of course, have some degree of the fourth political philosophy which is conservatism (people get what they deserve - Government need to punish and compel misfits). The term used such as liberal or conservative don't refer to political parties or even current political discourse (as in the US Social Democrats are called liberals, in Australia the Liberal party is a mix of liberals and conservatives)
There is a second big divide between Australia and America, We were a penal colony under military dictatorship. But survival depended on the government. West only led to death in a desert in Australia. So Australians trust governments with their lives and still do. Our survival today in several cities is being decided re water supply. America was settled by nutters at first, then a hodge podge of french and spanish. But if someone wasn't happy they could say seeya, I'm off west to start a live on my own without the government, and they would even live. I also point out Australia is a poor country in soil and water. We have never collided with any other continent. You can walk to the top of Australia tallest mountain in an afternoon.
So I have shot guns and am strong on national defence.
I live in Australia's richest and highest density area (Sydney's Eastern Suburbs - Wentworth electorate). There is no way I would be allowed a gun at home. There is no legal purpose for a gun where I live and what I do. However Royal Randwick (horse racing) 1 Km away there would be lots of guns for shooting horses.
Now If I was interested in shooting I could join a club. Then I could keep the gun at the club.
If I lived on a farm I could have guns. If I shot kangeroos for a living I could have a gun. A vet can probably have a gun.
The point being only the police and some security guards can carry guns to be used against people. Even a can of hair spray, if it's purpose is anti human - and that includes self defense, is a crime to carry.
But as the saying goes "shotties are best for crowd control".
So I'm no limped dick leftie. But I am part structuralist (communism, socialism, feminism - governments oppress), part social democrat (groups compete with each other in society - governments arbitrate), and part liberal (everyone is well meaning but there are screw-up - governments need to fix the screw-up). All humans, but me of course, have some degree of the fourth political philosophy which is conservatism (people get what they deserve - Government need to punish and compel misfits). The term used such as liberal or conservative don't refer to political parties or even current political discourse (as in the US Social Democrats are called liberals, in Australia the Liberal party is a mix of liberals and conservatives)
There is a second big divide between Australia and America, We were a penal colony under military dictatorship. But survival depended on the government. West only led to death in a desert in Australia. So Australians trust governments with their lives and still do. Our survival today in several cities is being decided re water supply. America was settled by nutters at first, then a hodge podge of french and spanish. But if someone wasn't happy they could say seeya, I'm off west to start a live on my own without the government, and they would even live. I also point out Australia is a poor country in soil and water. We have never collided with any other continent. You can walk to the top of Australia tallest mountain in an afternoon.
So I have shot guns and am strong on national defence.
I live in Australia's richest and highest density area (Sydney's Eastern Suburbs - Wentworth electorate). There is no way I would be allowed a gun at home. There is no legal purpose for a gun where I live and what I do. However Royal Randwick (horse racing) 1 Km away there would be lots of guns for shooting horses.
Now If I was interested in shooting I could join a club. Then I could keep the gun at the club.
If I lived on a farm I could have guns. If I shot kangeroos for a living I could have a gun. A vet can probably have a gun.
The point being only the police and some security guards can carry guns to be used against people. Even a can of hair spray, if it's purpose is anti human - and that includes self defense, is a crime to carry.
But as the saying goes "shotties are best for crowd control".
D
David Candy
We like our crazies with knifes rather than assault rifles.
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
Mostly because that would be in rural areas, where people have less
contact with other people.
Cite!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
Yea, but what determines an Assault Rifle. In most cases, politicians
determine "Assault" by the look of the weapon, not by it's ability. I can
buy a standard Remington hunting rifle in 300 Magnum and do more damage
from a lot farther than someone with a AK, and I've got a lot better
chance of it going through things than the AK or SKS or even an AR15.
There would be a lot less crazies with guns if more people carried weapons
as a norm.