Because the receiver ain't quite as "passive" as you think. Google for "local oscillator" for an example.

Digital systems tend to generate noise on predictable frequencies as well - if a device has a chip that's clocked at a given frequency, then somewhere in that device is an oscillator used to generate that clock (though it may or may not be working at that particular frequency).

The only truly passive receiver is one that is completely shielded to prevent it from radiating any of this noise. But you *have* to have a gap in the shielding in order for the incoming signal to be received. So building an undetectable receiver is not quite as easy as you might think.

No - he'll just commit suicide. By shooting himself in the back of the head. Twice.

Not only no, but Hell No!

If you create *any* sort of differentiation, then it will be exploited so that the big corporations' work gets the max protection, and stuff by little guys gets the minimum, regardless of any artistic merit or monetary value. It won't start out that way, of course, but over time corporations *will* find a way to corrupt the system for their benefit.

Copyright would be just fine if the term was limited to something sane. After all, it exists for the sole purpose of encouraging the creation of new works. Rudyard Kipling won't be releasing any new works (unless he comes back as a zombie, that is), so there is no reason whatsoever to have any protection on his original works.

The sole determinant for whether a work should be in copyright is whether it will benefit the original creator for it to remain in copyright. Not a corporation that bought the rights. Not the creator's children (or grandchildren, or great-great-great-grandchildren). Just the original creator.

Perhaps not, but try explaining how doing so "promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Do you really think that the creator of something that has actually expired out of copyright into the public domain is going to start creating new works if his (very) old stuff is returned to copyright? In reality, even before the most recent extension of copyright terms it was more than likely that the original creator was long dead before the copyright expired.

Unfortunately, what will happen is that if this point is even brought up, the Supreme Court will simply rule that this is a type of commercial regulation, and hence allowed under the all-powerful Commerce Clause.

But why use the Autopen. US Law allows all kinds of documents to be signed via a digital signature, which doesn't require the signer to be in any particular place. And this type of signature has already been used to sign a bill into law - Bill Clinton signed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act using a digital signature.

So why didn't President Obama follow this precedent, signing via digital signature?

The President should be required to digitally sign the text of the bill, and then, if someone wanted a dead-tree signed version, the Autopen could be used, after the text of the digital version and the paper version had been compared to insure they are the same.

I know this whole question is just a bunch of legal hair-splitting. And I would be quite happy if this technicality got that abomination of a law thrown out. I'm not holding my breath on it, though, as certain elements of our government have become quite fond of the powers that were granted to them via the Patriot Act, and won't give them up without a fight.

I believe the accepted journalistic standard is "President Obama" on the first mention in an article, but "Mr. Obama" in the rest of the article. But there's no hard-and-fast rule - just "Mr. Obama" is itself an indicator of respect (at least more so than just referring to him as "Obama").

Also consider that this is the United States - disrespecting our elected officials is part of that whole "freedom of speech" concept...

While there may have been general starvation as a result of Stalin's failed policies, there were special policies put in place that applied *only* to areas where Ukrainians were dominant. Such as the law that if a collective farm failed to meet its quota, agents of the government would move in and seize 15 times that farm's quota, leaving that farm with no food at all.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the best estimates are that around 8 million people died in that famine, about 5 million of whom just happened to be ethnic Ukrainians. So others *were* dying. Just not as many.

Sorry, but that quote doesn't seem right.

First off, that van is explicitly designed for this purpose. So it's assumed it has the necessary medical equipment to perform the organ harvesting. In TFA, it explictly states that one of the reasons for the vans is so they don't *have* to have specialized medical facilities in the prisons.

Second, all the drugs used have regular medical uses, and have hopefully been subject to reasonable testing. I'd be really surprised if the doctor(s) who planned for these vans would have failed to consider possible organ damage from the drugs.

Finally, the prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis is quite true in US prisons, but not necessarily in other countries.

Because they are not concerned with copyright infringement. A public performance of a song is *not* copyright infringement.

Under copyright law, you do not have to negotiate an agreement for royalties in order to use a work in a "public performance". Instead, the law specifies a "statutory royalty" that is due whenever a work is used in a public performance, with the rate of this royalty being set by the government (the Copyright Royalty Board). You may, if you wish, try to negotiate with them for a contractual royalty rate different from the statutory rate, but unless you have done so, you are obligated to pay the statutory rates.

ASCAP and BMI are just agents responsible for collecting the portion of those statutory royalties owed to the songwriters/publishers of songs used in public performances. They aren't suing because you infringed copyright (you didn't) - they are suing because in using the work in a public performance you've incurred statutory royalties, which they are (in theory) authorized to collect and fairly distribute it.

(The portion of the statutory royalties due to the artists/labels is collected by an organization called Sound Exchange).

In summary - to sue over copyright infringement, you need to be the holder of the rights to the work in question. But to sue over the statutory royalties for a public performance, you only need to be the agent authorized to collect those royalties.

Which they tried again in the 1970's by spraying marijuana fields in Mexico with paraquat. Which failed miserably since paraquat sprayed pot isn't really all that poisonous.

The simple fact is that if shenanigans like this are required to convince people the stuff is dangerous, then it's not dangerous enough to justify federal regulation.

Well, given the poor language's upbringing, it's not really all that surprising. After all, it was the bastard offspring of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French (which has a rather sordid history all its own, involving Latin, Gallic, Goth, Vandal, Frankish and Norse).

It's the paperwork. The marriage ceremony is, well, ceremonial. Without a government issued marriage license, the government generally does not recognize that the marriage exists (which means that for the purpose of taxes, social security, etc, the two people are still single).

(there are "common law marriages", which are still legally valid in some states in the US, that require no marriage license, but these are becoming rarer and rarer - only 9 states still allow them).

Only if the law in question gives a strong indication (if not explicitly detailing) that it is intended to be applied to US citizens in other nations. For instance, traveling to another country to have sex with a minor *is* punishable in the US, even if the act is legal in the country where it happens. But in that case, the PROTECT Act of 2003 explicitly makes it illegal to do so - before that Act was passed, there was no legal basis for prosecuting individuals who did this. So it's possible for a US citizen to be prosecuted here for what was a non-crime in the country where the act was committed, but this is *not* the default for all laws.

There is no "Schedule A" for drugs. I'm assuming you mean "Schedule I" under the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates commerce (production, distribution, etc) of various substances. It does not in any way make it illegal to use them. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't even have to authority to outlaw use of drugs (except on federal land) as the only part of the Constitution they can use for drug regulation is the Commerce Clause.

I'd say the same about your posts, but they're missing the small pieces of useful information as well.

Now for the real question - what the hell have *you* been smoking?

If you commit a crime, you can only be tried and punished for it in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. If you, a private citizen of the US, go to the Netherlands, commit a murder there, then return to the US, you can NOT be tried for that crime in the US. At most, you can be arrested by US authorities, and sent to the Netherlands to stand trial (whether or not this is the case depends on what extradition treaties, if any, exist between the US and the Netherlands).

(note that the rules are somewhat different if you are an active duty serviceman - the military has automatic jurisdiction over all criminal acts of active duty personnel, regardless of where those acts occurred)

Now if you were in the Netherlands, and you hired a hit man to kill someone in the US, you could potentially be tried and convicted in a US court - under the "accessory before the fact" and "conspiracy" concepts, you are as guilty as the actual killer, even if you were on another continent when the crime was committed.

*That* is the basic theory underlying the trials of those captured in Afghanistan - they were involved in the planning of attacks against US targets, and as such the US should have jurisdiction over them.

And finally - smoking pot isn't illegal *anywhere* in the US. The laws all revolve around cultivation, possession, sale, etc. The only criminal penalties for using are the "driving under the influence" laws if you get caught driving while stoned.

Let's see - a country with the world's 2nd largest population and 11th largest economy. Gee, events there couldn't possibly have any effect on the rest of the world, now could they?

Er, what crimes? Or are you assuming that since Assange has been accused of something, all of the people involved in Wikileaks must be co-conspirators?