I read it as: the IRS looks for trends, and the Tea Party VERY much want to mask who funds them - the best way is to get tax-exempt status, so all Tea Party groups tried.
The IRS saw this trend, and realizing the Tea Party was FAR more likely to try to get tax-exempt status than anyone else, targeted them - but only because they knew that was where they were most likely to find a problem, not political.
The Tea Party, and Republicans generally, see a "liberal plot". To me, a little stupid, but then, trying to get rid of the deficit without fairly taxing the 2% with 74% of the total wealth is even more stupid.
We all remember Newton - he is almost immortal. Einstein, Stradivarius, etc., etc.
I dimly remember De Laurentis, and I do remember (I think) he was involved in movies (CONTENT! CONTENT! This here be important, you peeples!). Soon, I (along with virtually everyone else, except for a few elderly teeny-boppers) will have forgotten "De who?".
But CONTENT be imp... val... gud!
Okay, I was on your side until you took the cheap shot: "other than the fact states who misused existing revenue are now hungry for more".
Making unsupported (and unsupportable - the current Reagan-era madness about "needing better bridges, better roads, safer foods and water, but not paying for them" is stupid on its face (as the elder Bush pointed out, initially) statements like that kills your whole argument. I am reversing my first decision - I want internet taxes!
It is actually MUCH worse than that!
Under Kappos, the rule was that approval depended on how much you paid.
So, a small entity with a genuine innovation, even an innovation that would benefit the public, but not much money, would be automatically rejected, whereas a big spender with total trash could get a patent (in all fairness, the worse the patent, the more money the patentee had to pay - but small entities were below the threshold, and would ALWAYS be rejected.
First, I agree about training police in sensitivity to pets, and the other ideas of discouraging any abuse of animals. I was raised with people who treated animals as "objects", and the idea is repulsive.
But to say "landscape people don't shoot dogs" - how many landscapers do you know that carry GUNS!! Scary idea!
And to say, no excuse for shooting a restrained animal - you sure don't know much about situations like that, do you? If I am restraining an animal that seems unduly dangerous, and it appears it is strong enough to break the restraint and attack (which might or might not be the case, neither of us know), I hope I have a gun! That's going to be one dead animal if I do! And yes, I would really hate shooting it.
In my case, I was walking my dog in Dallas, and an unleashed pit bull almost killed my 6 pound dog. I slammed the pit bull to the ground, pried my dog loose, and turned the pit bull over to animal control, who apparently killed it after a period of time. Beautiful dog, but if it was dangerous to others (even dogs), I see no alternative.
If it had bitten me when I put it down, I already had my knife out, and while I would have had to go to the hospital, I would have made sure the dog was dead, first. I suspect that is how many police persons feel - though, unfortunately, not all of them.
So, again, I like sensitivity training with the police.
First you argue that things you don't like, when allowed or the rules loosened, are "subject to abuse" (which is likely true), then things you like, should be allowed or the rules loosened, since they are not likely be be subject to abuse. Your reporting is excellent, but a little biased. You need to work on that.
Totally agree about open WIFI, but on encrypting email - okay, I am going to email my sister to say "Hi" - encrypt! Wait, why? Well, I am going to send an email about how someone is doing - ENCRYPT! Wait, why?
Maybe we can agree that open WiFi is okay, AND unencrypted email is okay (depending on how sensitive the data is, of course).
Small business owners, no matter how hard they work, do not "deserve" a salary, they earn it if they do it right!
But here, someone doing nothing useful (well, entertaining people might be "useful", but it is a stretch to say so!) somehow DESERVES a salary?
What if someone actually does something useful and lasting; should we have a law giving them a salary because "they deserve it"?
Don't think so, and I think it is outrageous to argue that.
"Techdirt? Consider the source and please supply that short (very short) list of one modern advanced country that has seen the light and eliminated all IP laws.
If there were even just one, then that cause-correlation claptrap you are so fond of might, just might, be more than dust-kicking."
The answer is the same as for any vital area of our lives. Illustration: Automobiles at one time were a leading cause of death in this country. Did we eliminate autos? No, we worked to fix; well, reduce; the problem.
Faced with appalling IP laws and usage world wide; should we just opt out, thereby giving the bad guys the victory? Hardly! If all the world would come to their senses and fix or abandon IP (I favor fix, but I AM an IP attorney (a good one, I might add, and appalled by IP laws as they exist).
If you had been actually listening, that is the message I get from Techdirt. Don't ignore the problem by opting out, FIX it!
This article, as Mike points out, is badly flawed. As a patent attorney (well, IP attorney, since I do other than patents), I can say with complete confidence that heavy patenting is an effect, not a causation.
Further, the usual reason is business method, specifically discouraging other disruptive business models or products from forming.
There are benefits to patenting in some cases, almost entirely in protecting embryonic business while they are in the process of being born, but at this time, the USPTO is doing all they can to kill any useful forms.
Okay, if I can blog anything I want to for Facebook, I have a problem - either Facebook has a special status (YUK!) or I can blog to other blogs.
So, I form a blog by invitation (several blogs do that), and in theory everyone can get an invitation. It happens, for some reason, that a few thousand people get access to (all HAPPEN to be major institutions, but hey - I can't help that!). I blog what would otherwise be regulated info.
Anyone who then says I am violating the rules is "stupid", of course.
I believe the real issue is quality control with the generic. If the generic manufacturer can establish they simply followed the Pfizer specs and forwarded any Pfizer warnings or advisories, there is no reason to hold them responsible, and every reason to go after Pfizer.
Look up "respondeat superior", it will explain this.
Of course, Pfizer may be able to show the generic does not meet their quality standards, or the proper warnings, etc., were not on the generic, and that all changes.
Like the fixation on "violent video games are never bad", the comment:
"While the consequences in the internet era for being awesome are significant, so is the opposite true."
is something we would both LIKE to believe, it just isn't true. I would love it if both were unconditionally true, but they aren't.
In some cases, some violent video games are arguably harmful, and in some cases bad actions have "cachet". Too bad, really, but not something we should ignore "because ..."
First, I agree the ignorant should stop finding arbitrary straw men that are "destroying culture", "harming culture", and other trivia.
At the same time, extremist positions "for" are just as much of a turn-off as extremist positions "against".
Guns, games, cars, airplanes ... I could go on and on ... can be good, bad, or indeterminate. I personally prefer games (any games) to guns, but that's just me. However, we need REASONED discussion, as in, "Yes, there are pros and cons", not childish "is - is not - is - is not".