To me there is a much easier fix. Remove the assumption that patents reviewed by the USPTO are valid since a vast number have been proven to not be. That will shift the burden of proving validity to the patent holder making it less profitable for patent trolls.
I agree with everything you said but will add this....
I have yet to see any country taking IMF funds come out any better in the end. The demands of the IMF are too extreme for any country it goes into to "rescue". Not to long ago the IMF went into South American countries and now they are in serious financial trouble I argue because of the IMF.
In my opinion, it would be better for Greece to declare insolvency, pull out of the Eurozone and begin again. It will be less torture than dealing with the IMF.
No it doesn't dumbass... It starts from the violation of contract. Otherwise you have nothing to sue over.
Statutes of limitations are written laws passed by a legislative body in common law systems to set the maximum time after an event when legal proceedings may be initiated.
There are many factors that play in low voter turnout but to name the worst offenders here we go:
1. The two party system itself. Having only two nationally recognized parties by the media ignores a very large part of the population that doesn't agree with either of them. This is the primary reason gerrymandering works too.
2. Primaries. Having primaries in the two party system means those that support a candidate that doesn't win the primary feels left out and doesn't see a need to vote in the general election.
3. Winner takes all in national elections. This means that electoral votes get ignored once a majority is achieved. This is how President Obama won.
4. Using an electoral college. The electoral college made sense when communicating voter wishes meant paper delivered by horse to the capitol. It makes no sense in the age of computers and high speed communications. Also, because there is no real assurance that an elector will vote they way the voters want, you wind up with messes like the 2000 election where the electoral vote did not match the popular vote.
5. No holiday for election days. Nobody wants to work all day just to have to stand in long lines all night to vote. Let's face it, if a person had all day to vote those lines would be considerably shorter with only the procrastinators being punished.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. I know there are many more.
True, it is impossible to win against a group of self-entitled individuals who feel they deserve everything for free.
You shouldn't talk about copyright holders like that... They are people too...
The point is that a copyright holder doesn't deserve the life+70 or whatever the ever expanding length of copyright is for a work. How is that promoting the science and useful arts? How is that benefiting the public domain which is the sole reason for the existence of copyright in the first place? What other job do you know of where a person can keep getting paid long after they quit the job outside of these government grants of monopoly?
I work in state government and not only do I have to change the password every 30 days but I can't repeat any password combination I used in the past 30 times. To make it worse, if I don't change the password within the 30 days the system locks me out requiring IT to reset it. Lastly, I am required to take security training every 6th change before the system will allow me to change it. And that training doesn't ever change the questions... I get 100% on it every time.
It has gotten to the point of ridiculous nonsense.
It's only a huge lever because they allow it to be a huge lever. Taking federal funds in any program always comes with minimum standards. If you don't meet the standards in most federal funding the usual remedy is refunding the federal dollars you took. Just ask anyone who got funding from SSI or FEMA when they didn't meet the standard for those funds to find out just how vicious the feds can be in this area.
So, to sum it up don't take the money if you don't want to live up to the grant agreement.
The schools have the children for more hours a day than the parents do in most cases and some of that time has to go toward athletic activities, eating, bathing, and other activities. 7 hours in school 4 or 5 hours before bed. The schools are the ones who should be held directly accountable.
You need to readjust your math there bud...
School is in session from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM 5 days a week with 180 education days a year in my state. That is 1080 hours they are in school. Compare that to the time they are home...
365 days a year = 8760 hours - 1080 hours spent in school = 7680 hours (320 full days) at home. Granted, some of that time is spent doing the activities you describe but the majority of the time is spent pursuing leisure activity (holidays, vacations, etc...)
I tried to unionize our shop (all I needed was 50%), and while the other coders agreed that it was a good idea in principle, less than half would sign up when the crunch came, even though the law prohibits firing for unionizing.
It isn't a fear of firing but the realization that unions are simply trading one management bureaucracy with another.And although they can't legally fire you for joining a union they certainly can eliminate your position and off-shore it with the net effect being the same.
While this general welfare clause has been expanded over the years, it still fails on several levels. The courts have only allowed the general welfare clause to be used with the taxing and spending powers of congress. No court and no competent constitutional authority has ever said it extends congress's powers to create departments that can make law independent of congress or constitutional processes nor have they used the clause to establish fines and/or imprisonment terms to anyone. There is simply no constitutional basis for it.
It is your reading comprehension that needs adjusting. The departments don't create the law. They enforce it. That is what I said. It was Congress that created the department as the Constitution allows.
Can congress create a department of the second amendment, staff it with a bunch of people who create regulation saying you have to own at least 3 guns per person in the household, molest your children at least once in their life time, spin in circles twice before taking a piss all without congressional action? Can the EPA make any of these regulations? The answer is no to all because there is no constitutional authority for it. The only difference is how silly the regulations might be but the general welfare claim can be made just the same.
Again, it isn't the EPA creating the regulations. It is Congress. The EPA is merely enforcing the regulations that Congress created. If you want to know the specific act it is NEPA. I leave it as an exercise for you to look it up.
The rest of your post is totally nonsense repeating the same line you refused to understand... Namely that Congress created the EPA and Congress has the power to destroy it. But know the consequences when you do. Things like the Gulf spill will go unaddressed. The Freedom Enterprises MCHM spill would have no legal recourse. The impoundment failure in Tennessee would be common place. Not to mention Love Canal...
I am not going to argue whether or not "secret science" should be used by the EPA. I will point out the hypocrisy in there is no difference between the EPA using "secret science" and the FDA using "secret science" when approving drugs. If you are going to ban it in one regulatory agency then you should ban it in all regulatory agencies.
There certainly is no constitutional basis for the EPA to exist anyways.
Why do people keep saying shit like this?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It's the Congress that created the EPA. It's the Congress that funds them. It's the Executive that controls them in accordance with the laws passed by... Wait for it... CONGRESS. All that based on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution.
Or maybe you are suggesting that control of commons should be relinquished to the corporations?
Yes it is when the choice is all or none. They have the end providers over a barrel in that regard. Just look what happened here in WV when Suddenlink got in a spat over the contract with Viacom. All the Viacom channels were removed hurting the business of that provider.
A contract by coercion is by definition a bad one.
PR or not, that is the reason they give which is why I say "Every statement they made says that". The point I was making was it isn't the EU stopping American drug companies from distributing them as the GP proclaimed.
The problem States are having is that companies refuse to sell the drugs to the States because of sanctions imposed on them by the EU.
Oh come on now. That isn't even bullshit. It is horse shit.
The drug companies that produce the drugs used for execution realized that their drugs, which were originally designed to save lives, was being used to take lives. Every statement made by those companies state that. In other words, they made a moral judgement that they didn't want to be seen as providing death on one hand and life on the other. Sure, the EU pharmacies were the first to refuse but your statement doesn't take into account the American companies refusals.