I don’t really care to fight about what the original intent of copyright is,
Then you can get bent.
Art and invention benefit the whole of humanity. A work whose sole beneficiary is its creator does not qualify as art or invention, and deserves no protection.
The purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts. The purpose is to get art and inventions into the public domain. The purpose is not “to get artists paid”. Getting them paid for their works and discoveries is the method by which copyright achieves its purpose. It is not the purpose itself.
If they are only interested in keeping their works proprietary; if they are uninterested in pushing them into the public domain, they are not achieving the purpose for which copyright exists. They do not qualify for copyright protection. They can get bent.
My first thought (which probably isn’t the best method, but I’ve done similar before) is an Arduino between the mouse and the system. The Arduino normally just passes the mouse commands to the system, but it listens for the button and blocks movement if it sees the button press.
Because it’s all done in hardware, this method would be system-agnostic. You could plug it into anything.
I used a Teensy 3.6 for a similar project.
Balloons will fly with an awful lot of holes in them. Even with a 20’ vent hole in the top, they take awhile to deflate.
You’d have to hit the pilot or the tanks.
True. The main airspace restrictions on ultralights that are not on certificated aircraft are a prohibition against flying over congested areas (yellow on a sectional chart), and within the lateral boundaries of Class E airspaces around airports. (You can’t fly an ultralight in the class E airspace around an airport, nor in the Class G airspace underneath that Class E)
Certificated aircraft (including balloons) can be flown over congested areas and within Class E and G airspaces.
The limitations on flight in A, B, C, and D airspaces are similar for both: flight is prohibited without specific authorization arranged beforehand.
Interestingly, if an ultralight somehow received permission to enter Class E(controlled) airspace, they still cannot descend into the Class G (uncontrolled) below it. That Class G is within the lateral boundaries of the Class E, and the controller’s authority does not extend to that airspace.
Those $23,000 balloons will be certificated aircraft, and will need a licensed pilot, even though they might otherwise qualify as ultralights.
Most ultralight cloudhoppers are homebuilt envelopes with commercial burners and fuel systems. Material cost in the neighborhood of $5000.
My used, complete, certificated system (not a cloudhopper; a regular hot air balloon) was $10,000, including envelope, basket, burners, tanks, fan, trailer, instruments, and a bunch of accessories.
Pretty much, yes.
Our burners consume raw, liquid propane, at 150PSI to the blast valve. Normally, when liquid expands into a gas, the temperature drops precipitously, and with it, the pressure. However, we feed that liquid propane into a heat exchanger: the coils at the top of the burner. This superheats the propane, allowing it to vaporize easily and rapidly after it passes through the nozzles on the burner ring.
The end result is a 30’ flame.
You’d want to fashion some sort of sling and stock to handle that burner without its usual frame but it’s certainly doable.
Licensed balloon pilot here… The only manned balloon for which you don’t need a license (in the US) is an ultralight, weighing less than 155lbs empty.
They do exist, though. They’re commonly called “cloudhoppers”. They are basically a climbing harness, backpack straps on a propane tank, and an overhead flamethrower, all hanging underneath a pup tent.
Edit: you can increase the weight to 254lbs empty if instead of a “balloon”, you build a “thermal airship”. Balloons are considered unpowered aircraft because they have no source of propulsion, only lift. Throw some source of propulsion on board - a small electric fan, for example - and it becomes a “powered” aircraft with a higher weight limitation.
Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.
I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.
Lower courts decide they can’t determine
That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.
The trial court judge cannot “send it up the courts”. They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court’s rationale was wrong.
And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.
That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.
At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.
Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.
Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.
No catch-22.
“Admissibility” refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.
Better shoot new HP
printersexecutives
FTFY. Those asshats are a clear and present danger to all of humanity.
You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.
Correct. That’s all you have to do.
and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.
Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn’t an official act.
What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to “official” acts, there would be no cause to charge him.
he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.
You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.
He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.
SCOTUS didn’t grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them “make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling”.
That’s it. SCOTUS didn’t do him any favors.
Women have enough problems with unwanted male interaction, not to mention so many lies about women’s anatomy. This makes it so much worse.
In this hypothetical, men switch from having a sexual interest in women 52/52 weeks a year to 4/52 weeks a year. I would expect a >92% reduction in “unwanted male interaction”.
I’ll take the entrails of a priest.
Joenald Triden
If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)
The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?
About last point: I choose to presume consent
I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.
The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
#You may never infer consent from silence.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
Convince Biden to drop out of the race about a week before the Democratic National Convention, citing health reasons, and name a millennial candidate who grew up on a farm with wind turbines and solar panels, before enlisting for 2+ terms, and moving to a middle-class area of a blue state after separating. Turn the convention into a media frenzy, energizing the Democratic base.
Undercuts Trump among rural Americans and veterans. Reverses all of Trump’s old and senile attacks against Biden, as he suddenly becomes the geriatric candidate. Keeps all of Biden’s supporters, while stepping away from the “genocide” criticism.
Basically, if Biden backs out a week before the convention and names someone in their 40’s, they can run on a platform of “Ok, boomer” and reach 270.
Exactly. I don’t have a problem with artists profiting from their work. I don’t have a problem with their temporary exclusivity. The problem I have is when they never intend for that work to belong to the people; when they think they can maintain control over an idea long after it has become “culture”.
For the problem you mention, I would suggest that any studio who has been offered the work during the five year period owes royalties for a 5-year period after the studio publishes the work, even if it has since entered the public domain. Something along those lines would likely become a standard clause between the screenwriter’s guild and the studios, and doesn’t necessarily need to be enacted in law.
I wouldn’t be opposed to a longer period for some major works. Start with a standard, 5-year period from the time of original publication, then allow an extended copyright registration with an exponentially increasing annual fee. A few additional years would likely be affordable. The fifth, possibly. The sixth, only for the most profitable franchises, and the seventh being a large fraction of the national GDP. If James Cameron wants to pay for the entire military establishment through the proceeds of Avatar III, he can get one more year of protection.