That's not quite the insult you were aiming for (well, except the meth part).

All of what you are saying is true, but the existence of vigilantism doesn't depend on lofty ideals and solid foundations. If a society refuses to uniformly and fairly allocate justice, people will take it into their own hands. It's inevitable. If society wants to reliably keep people from handling their own justice, it must work together to fix the state's apparatus or expect vigilante actions to continue. A wronged party with no legal remedy isn't just going to let it drop.

In other words, it's not just the wronged person's responsibility to single-handedly "change the system". It's your responsibility, too. By allowing the system to remain broken, you are culpable for the existence of vigilante justice, too. Expecting every wronged person to change the system in order to get their justice is just condoning vigilantism, while still claiming the moral high ground.

Exactly what is the cost of all the engineering fails after the Tsunami? I suggest starting with the sea wall.

Yeah another win for Coal, Fracked gas, and Climate change.

You used the standard dictionary definition of waterway. But the EPA has expanded their, correct in my opinion, oversight of actual waterways to include standing water and even temporary bodies of water from storms. A willful expansion of their power. I think they are giving themselves a club to use against farmers who do other things they don't like but can't stop through their current regulations. So they bogusly expand the regulations they have.

Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?

Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.

"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."

The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.

In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.

Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.

If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.

I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.

A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.

You know, today's EPA also has changed regulations to make a pond be considered a "navigable waterway". These regulations are ridiculous. I am awaiting the EPA using their SWAT teams to come after farmers for mis managing their waterways.

You will never get evidence to use against them.

And yet, if you asked people how best to allocate police resources, do you think "sitting in speed traps" would be at the top of anyone's list? There are certainly understandable explanations for why police seem to be useless unless someone is murdered or a big corporation has an extremely urgent minor complaint, but that doesn't in any way invalidate my point.

People only turn to vigilante justice because the alternative is no justice. As a society, we either need to address the crimes that concern people or accept that they will address them by themselves.

Shills?
Get a grip Google Sigint, Comint, and reconnaissance aircraft. Yes everyone that is literate knows this.

Really? I felt that Starship Troopers was very close to the book. Which was also terrible.

So you are saying that I am correct.
"It is probably not possible because of laws and regulations which is too bad since it would be more like real venture capital."

Will gather intelligence to the best of it's ability.

Why is this so shocking?

Here you go
http://theaviationist.com/2014...