Yes, it mentions it as a justification/rationalization of where the right comes from, no mental gymnastics required. It is clear when it says that "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which is how it is interpreted to mean everyone, because "The People" includes everyone.

This is where straw-men arguments confuse normal people. I don't believe that the laws outlawing the ownership or possession of any type of weapon is constitutional, period. The very clear and precise wording of the Second Amendment is hard to argue in an intellectually honest manner (i.e. not arguing up means down because "blah"). I also do not think it wise to allow everyday Joes access to unstable and unsafe nuclear materials. There was/is a simple, constitutional solution to this that the Courts were too weak to require but should of been mandated. After the discovery/invention of the atomic bomb a very clear and simple Constitutional Amendment should of been proposed that would except Nuclear, Chemical or other WMD's (Specifically defined) from the rights recognized in the Second Amendment. This would of been an easy sell, I cannot fathom who would of voted against it. But they didn't go this route, and I suspect it is because they didn't want to make it clear that this is the only legal route to restrict the Bill of Rights.

Given the speed in which publishing and distribution can happen in this day and age, I would say 10-15 years is about the maximum reasonable limit. Any longer than that and it is no longer serving society, only the copyright holder at the expense of society. If you can't make your work worthwhile in that amount of time, try harder next time or find a new business to be in.

You forgot the Rocky Horror Picture Show where they stop singing it abruptly right before they would of have to pay to license it.

This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.

This is where current copyright is unconstitutional on its face. It says "for limited times" to "the Authors and Inventors". A copyright term of "Life" granted to the Author is not limited from the perspective of that Author, it is unlimited. It is all the time they have in the world. So right there, in plain English, the law that was passed that extended the copyright term to be based on the life of the author/inventor is unconstitutional as Congress was not granted the power to secure for unlimited times the exclusive rights.

I take it you've never seen or filled out the forms required or participated in the interviews necessary to get a government clearance. That alone is a lot of trouble. It's easiest when your young as you can actually remember all the details of your life and associations that they require you to disclose.

Well considering that it is common knowledge that they do this in basic training for regular, lowly soldiers with no access to classified information, it isn't much of a stretch they would do the same for the intelligence agencies (which also happen to recruit form the armed services). Keep in mind, from the army's (and I daresay the government's) perspective, a good soldier is not one who does what is right, unquestionably, it is one who follows orders, unquestionably.

Since there are more laws on the books than any one person could learn or know, in addition to the volumes of judgements interpreting and/or refining them, this is not a practical option for most. Not breaking the law requires knowing the law. Not getting caught, does not. Therefore, the best option is to not get caught (whether intentionally breaking the law or not). Basically, your best option is not to tell anyone anything about or make records of; what you have done, are doing, or plan to do in the future.

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.