True, but how many years worth of their full salary does Romney pay in taxes in a single year? For some, it's a life time of earnings. That's why this "fair share" talk from Obama is nothing but crap.

Which means to say that the majority of published scientific findings said what? I would guess the safe, untrue thing that would keep said scientist(s) alive and free. This does not help the argument.

Is entirely man-made or man contributed to it? Those are two very different statements. If we only contribute that suggests that it's going to happen no matter what we do, the best we could hope for is to delay the inevitable. Given the history of the planet, I think this is the more likely scenario and we would be better off spending our energy figuring out how, as a species, to survive it when it inevitably happens.

The novel, in its entirety, is stored in binary digits on a computer. If that is the only place it exists, then it only exists as very long string of 0's and 1's. Converting the binary back to readable ASCII text is math. Mind you, both the binary format and it's conversion to text are copyrightable but neither are patentable which is the context we are talking about.

Look at the compiled code, what the software actually is, the step by step, iterative process that is fed to the CPU and you will see it nothing but a veeeeerrrryyyyyy long sequence of simple math operations. That is all software is. All other concepts about software were abstractions of this fact, created by us, so that we could understand and utilize it better.

While true that everything can be described in mathematical terms that doesn't make the comparison the same. When it comes to software, it not only can be described in mathematical terms, it is compiled and executed in mathematical terms because that's all the CPU understands, it's the only thing the computer can do, execute mathematical expressions, you know "Compute".

When software is distributed to the end-user, it is nothing but a complex, iterative, mathematical formula formatted in the way the computer understands so that it can compute it for you. It is not anything else and never was, except for maybe source code but that would fall under copyright.

Software is mathematics because all software is expressed and processed as mathematical formulas when run on a computer , therefore it can't be patented.

There, fixed that for ya.

That's not the same analogy. A chair is made of wood, which comes from a tree. A tree doesn't do math, it lives, grows and tries to reproduce. Starting with that and turning it into a chair is not math.

However, a computer is a machine that's only purpose is to compute. The only thing a computer can do at it's core, is math. So every piece of software, at its core, is nothing more than a complex, iterative, mathematical formula, period. If complex, iterative mathematical formulas cannot be patented then neither should software because they are the same thing.

Incorrect, Sir! Everything on a computer is math, complicated math, used to store/represent what ever the information, picture, sound, etc. that the user wants on the computer. A computer can only compute, it can only do math, that is it's only function, period. We, as humans, have become so ridiculously advanced with our understanding and application of math have been able to take a machine which can only do math, albeit at ridiculous speed, and pretty much do whatever we can imagine with it. People have designed entire 3D models of cities using nothing but math.

This assumes that it is impossible for a plant to develop a resistance to glyphosate naturally, which is, of course, a false assumption. I didn't read the article or the transcript of the case, so I don't know for sure how much the defendant admitted, but it is possible that the seeds that survived the pesticide were naturally resistant and, if so, he would of had the right the harvest and replant them. If he didn't sign a contract stipulating these were GMO seeds and these are the terms for their use, this could of been a plausible defense.

Okay, think a little more creatively and you will start to see the problem. Realize, that there exists a subset of registered voters who do not actually vote. Also realize, that this list can be compiled exclusively from public sources as matter of public records. Now, with a list of known registered voters who have little probability of actually voting, one could go through the voting line many times, impersonating a different person at a different address each time because that is all the information you need - a name and a street address. It doesn't even need to be the same person, with some money you can hire a team of unemployed people to do this for you.

Now, remind me again why needing to show ID to prove you are the person you claim to be when picking up your ballot is bad? Keep in mind all the other places you need to show ID which are not considered bad; buying alcohol, cigarettes, or a plane ticket to name a few.

Unfortunately, the numbers you've used, while mathematically correct, really don't provide any meaningful insight. If you want to compare useful numbers, compare the total number of firearms in the US and the total number of automobiles on the road in the US (the per household figures have no relation to the question and are completely irrelevant). Compare the total number of guns to total gun deaths, and the total number of automobiles to total car deaths. Those comparisons would actually have some relevance to the discussion.

First, citation needed. Along with the actual question(s) that were asked because this is a subject where the specific language of the question really matters as it is easy to mislead people to say something they don't really mean (or even realize they said).

Second, the problem with gun control is that the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an amendment to the Constitution and can not be superseded with a regular law. The existing language leaves no room for legally/constitutionally restricting this right, in any way. (unless you can find a definition of "infringe" that allows for that, I have asked many times and have never got a response). This means that you need at least 2/3's (66.7%) of the population's representation (Senators & Representatives) and then 2/3's of the States to agree to change it. Gun control has no where near that much support and the proponents of it know it which is why they have never even suggested enacting gun control in the only legal way, as a constitutional amendment which limits/restricts the second.

The problem is if Windows doesn't know the type of device it can't include its ID's in the machine hash. When the drivers are installed then it does know the device type and its ID's being added to the hash, change the hash. This probably only affects things like the chipset and NICs. However, I agree this is a programmer's error, the hash should not be computed and activation not be allowed if there is still unknown hardware detected, unless the user agrees to a very specific warning about what will happen if they don't install the drivers first.

Because regular powers just don't quite cut it.