Eh, possibly. Lately though they've been setting the bar really freaking low for people to think they could do a better job than the current chuckleheads.
Only if you promise to actually wear the helmet while in office.
Which is why I think a limited* form of fascism is the way to go. There's something about overthrowing a dictator that's just a lot more honest than our current political process. Plus, you'd see a lot more governing from the middle if for no other reason than self preservation.
* Limited in that the dictator isn't allowed security from domestic threats.
Not worth anything? Nah, they'd both be a great help in the agriculture industry. With all the bullshit they spout, nobody would ever have to buy fertilizer again.
Don't the Democrats already have that figured down to a tenth of a cent?
The preceding was a joke. If you got angry about it, look into getting a sense of humor.
Cement is still cement if water is added and it dries and hardens. It's only when sand, rock, etc... are added that it becomes concrete. Granted, that is usually the case. But not always.
I blame the popular misnomer on cement trucks that primarily deliver concrete. The words say one thing, the facts say another. Much like "buying" software or an ebook.
THOSE GROUPS THAT YOU HATE ARE PAYING YOU
Which is fairly funny, all things considered.
Absolutely. Why would anyone want to pay extra money to own a game with insanely better and faster graphics that plays fine with a bad/no Internet connection when they could pay a quarter as much every single month of the year?
Cloud gaming may have a place but it's not going to have a lot of overlap with console and non-trivial PC gaming.
Meh, it's simply much more difficult overall for a man to be intimidated by a woman than the inverse. Equality shmequality. If you had to live your life in a world where half the people in it handily outclassed you in strength, you'd be easily intimidated too.
No, it is the SCotUS's job to fix laws that actively conflict with themselves, with the Constitution, or are so poorly written that they are unenforcible. Congress forgetting to deal with an aspect of something is not within their mandate.
I'd apologize for the insult but when someone takes a hyperbolic position I simply cannot take them seriously. Any ideal taken far enough to the extreme becomes absurd and anyone still believing in it at that point is a fool at best. So instead I jest since there is no serious discussion to be had.
I'll grant you pretty much all of your points on Congress but I see that as more of a call to throw every last one of them out on their ass rather than change the distribution of power in our government towards the unelected branch. Down that path lies tyranny and all sorts of other badness.
On lobbyists, I doubt we can do away with them completely but I'm willing to bet we could require that all meetings with public officials by them be held in government offices, be on the record, and be made public as soon as technically possible. Possible exceptions for defense contractors since publicizing the weapons we're working on would lessen their usefulness.
Sound better?
Consistent? Do you actually know any females?
Nah, his idea is absurd. Possibly hyperbolic. New ideas are created on a fairly regular basis, just not remotely as often as old ideas are built upon to their betterment.
Why do you think you have the right to decide for them?
That would be the Constitution of the United States. Or at least our elected representatives have the right to decide for them.
Make it a beer instead and you've got yourself a deal.
And there we hear from the all information should be free crowd. We now return you to people who aren't stoned discussing the issue.
Congress is allowed to pass laws that overlook things they haven't thought of and still have the law stand. And Congress could fix this issue quite easily. Simply put, pen a bill that states that no part of an object that is a functional device is eligible to protected under copyright within the US or its holdings.
Granted, some treaties may need to be adjusted but we're fairly good at throwing our weight around on that sort of thing.
So, you'd rather have judges who rule based on how they think things should be than what is in the law? That's really fucked up. I don't like this loophole any more than you do but the courts is not the place to fix it. That is not where the US adjusts laws with overlooked aspects.
Copyright treaties and laws based on them, however, do apply.
It's a fucked up little loophole but it's technically the correct ruling. Fucked up laws that don't violate the constitution should be fixed from the legislature, not the bench.
Yes, I'm aware it's just a nit-pick and not to concede that solitary confinement is torture but what does a trial/conviction have to do with torture? It's not like it would somehow be more OK to torture someone because they were tried or convicted of a crime. Generally it would be less so because by that point any information they had that you might have used for justification from the person is pretty damned stale.