If this law is passed, a quick way to bring it down would be to distribute copyrighted songs to all the zombie boxes out there, and then report those IP addresses to the authorities. Enough uproar would be caused that the law would not survive.
Of course, the botnet would probably go down as well, but wouldn't it be worth it?
What part of "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" do you not understand? There is no requirement to monitor. There is only a requirement that, should you find out information, please report it.
... which makes the bill pretty useless. But there's no reason to misrepresent it.
I thought it was obvious that the numerous moons of Saturn came about as a result of collections within the rings. That is why you see gaps in and around the orbits of the moons.
The article continues: "A Microsoft spokesperson has confirmed that a Vista-Capable OLPC release is in the works. The laptop will run Remote Desktop, connecting over the wireless network to a server running Windows Vista."
FTA, Glickman says, "The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected," he said, "and I think that's a great opportunity."
This claim makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Besides the fact that P2P can be used for legal purposes, how does he know that P2P is ultimately a bad thing for ISPs. Sure, more people will have access to files, but more people will also be sharing files. No one person is forced to provide everything, so any damage is spread out over several ISPs and countless users. I think ISPs are eventually going to have to realize that it is misleading to tell their customers they will be able to download at X MB/s when their system couldn't possibly handle more than a small fraction of customers actually doing so.
More likely they are doing it simply to reinforce their preconceptions, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have kids upon whom to inflict their insanity. They could also be searching for more information on Kevin Trudeau's bullshit and come across YouTube videos supporting his claims. By then, they're just two steps away from becoming another Kool Aid Casualty (KAC). Again, not necessarily a bad thing, except idiots are allowed to reproduce.
TFC in my opinion has some of the best levels when it comes to design and purpose. There is a delicate balance between providing enough points of attack for the offense while providing enough cover for the defense, all while keeping the level small enough to allow users to quickly and easily get back into battle.
Klausner Technologies Inc said on Monday the company had filed a US$360 million suit against Apple and AT&T over voicemail patents that Klausner claims the Apple iPhone infringes.
New York-based Klausner said the lawsuit also names Comcast, Cablevision Systems and eBay's Skype as infringing its patent for "visual voicemail." The plaintiff seeks an additional US$300 million from the three.
Klausner said in a statement that it filed the lawsuit in U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A copy of the filing was not yet available from the court.
The suit alleges asserts that the defendants' Internet-based voicemail products and services violate a Klausner patent. It seeks damages and future royalties estimated at $300 million, according to the press release.
The complaint involves U.S. patent 5,572,576, the same one at issue in a suit Klausner filed in 2006 against voice-over-Internet telephone service provider Vonage Holdings Corp. The two sides agreed to settle that earlier case in October 2007, according a spokesman for Klausner.
Vonage is now a licensee of Klausner's voicemail technology for its Vonage Voicemail Plus service, as is Time Warner Inc's AOL for its AOL Voicemail services, Klausner said.
A company spokeswoman said Apple's pioneering Newton personal digital assistant was covered under a licensing deal between Klausner and Japan's Sharp Corp, the manufacturer of the Newton, tied to Klausner's U.S. patent 4,117,542.
The suit naming Apple as a defendant targets the sleek visual voicemail application offered by Apple in its iPhone.
The company alleged in its statement that Cablevision's Optimum Voicemail, Comcast's Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay's Skype Voicemail violate Klausner's patent by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
EBay spokesman Hani Durzy said his company has not received the suit and would not comment until its lawyers have seen it.
"We haven't seen it," echoed a Cablevision spokesman, who declined to comment further.
The suit was filed for the plaintiff by the California law firm of Dovel & Luner in Texas. "We have litigated this patent successfully on two prior occasions," Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner, said in the statement issued by Klausner.
The summary implies that there is soft tissue. There isn't any. There are mineral structures representing what the soft tissue would have looked like, and that is it.
This isn't like that other discovery where what appeared to be red tissue was found inside a bone. This is just fossilized soft tissue. No soft tissue is present, just the mineral representation of what the tissue would have looked like, its structure, etc.
There is no essential difference between micro and macro evolution. They both use the same basic mechanism.
"Micro-evolution" refers to changes within a single population.
Macro-evolution is the just the micro-evolution of two isolated populations to the point that, if the two populations were to merge back together and try to interbreed, they would be unable to produce fertile, viable offspring. The two populations have diverged too much, and will continue to diverge from then on.
How much do babies really have to teach you? I can't say that you could learn much from babies, so I don't see the point in figuring out how to learn from them.
"aside from the considerable cash required for any political campaign (under any system, in any country)"
I'm not sure what cash would be required from a candidate in a system where the government controls the elections and provides every candidate (with enough petition signatures) with a specific amount of funds, to be used as decided by the candidate (whether through speeches, debates, advertisements, etc), and prohibits the candidate from fundraising (and making anti-democratic promises to wealthy special interest groups).
Of course, this system will never happen, because candidates and incumbents enjoy the benefits of amassing millions of dollars, expensive fundraising dinners, exotic trips, etc. They are not willing to give that up.
"Please name one good thing that will come out of any military intervention in Sudan."
Please read my original statement. I'm not talking about intervention at all, military or humanitarian even. I'm only talking about withdrawing our government contracts with companies who supply Sudan with the equipment and infrastructure used to commit this genocide. That's it. The current divestment has been working - companies are pulling out of Sudan, and the regime is going to the lengths of putting million-dollar-ads in the New York Times to show the "good side of Sudan".
"Also name one good thing that comes out of economic sanctions, for the tradeoff of impoverishing and starving the very people that depend on economic activity for their wellbeing."
I'm not sure what sort of first-world country you think Sudan is. The people being affected by this are poor farmers who get no financial support from the Sudanese regime. This is exactly the reason for the genocide - when the regime got rich, some poor people started fighting back, so the government is solving the "problem" by killing them ALL off.
Basically, withdrawing our government contracts from companies helping the regime slaughter its poor people IS NOT somehow financially impact the poor of Darfur - they were already financially cut off (the whole point of the genocide).
"I agree that life outside of republican government is nasty, brutish, and short. The Sudanese will eventually learn this, and cease to tolerate it. This is a lesson that must be learned; it cannot be taught."
Again, please inform yourself. The regime is paying bandits to kill people off, no matter where they flee to. They have followed the victims across the border into Chad. Life is not "brutish". It's impossible. The bandits have been attacking villages by night, supported by weaponized helicopters that are mowing down everyone in sight. The bandits on the ground are gang-raping women and cutting babies into pieces. This is not "nasty/brutish". It's obscene.
Our purposeful inaction, out of fear of loss of trade with China or future military action from China, will not go unnoticed by other regimes desiring global power. They will strengthen their ties with China and get a free ticket to whatever atrocities they desire. China also sees how much power they have to completely paralyze the UN for 4 years. They will not back down an inch in the future. All because of our knowing lack of action, action that would have kept them in check.
I think the main way in which I disagree with Paul (which is much less than my disagreement with all the other jokers calling themselves "candidates") is that, while he recognizes the potential blowback from US actions (the fact that set him apart from that idiot Giuliani and won him so much support), he doesn't seem to recognize the potential blowback from inaction. Inaction is every bit as much a decision that impacts the world as action. For example, compare the action of dropping a nuke on a large city (such as Hiroshima) to the inaction of letting it happen. Everyone in the chain of command, and everyone who even knew that it was about to happen, if they did not stand up and ask "why are we eradicating civilians?" and try to stop it, was just as responsible for its occurrence as the president who ordered it and the pilot who pushed the button to drop it.
With respect to Darfur, what I'm saying is that our purposeful inaction in the UN and in effective legislation to stop a genocide, has shown China just how much power they have to paralyze the world. Given similar future situations, they will be much less willing to back down a single inch. Other regimes have also seen the free ticket they can get simply by doing business with China, and will be more likely not only to strengthen their ties with China, but also to impose whatever level of oppression they want on their own people, as it suits their desires.
In short, our inaction has greatly shifted the global power hierarchy - something we should all be concerned about, even if you're not concerned about letting hundreds of thousands of villagers be mowed down and gang-raped by their government.
"The key quote here is this: "...the United States Government has no business [...] in forcing divestment on unwilling parties". This stands true to the core of Ron Paul's principles: the government does not have the right to tell people how to run their business."
How does the US government saying "we will not sign a government contract with you because you signed a government contract with Sudan" equate to "you are not allowed to do business with Sudan"? These companies are international corporations, not US-based. They can do business elsewhere. It's the free market, just like Dr. Paul supports. The US Government is one of the consumers, and this consumer is saying "I don't want your stuff because you support genocidal regimes. I will get my stuff from another company".
"I'm talking about the lawmaking process, not counting from the day on which one side started killing the other."
I don't get the distinction because all of these lawmakers have known for 17 months what was going on and did nothing. When they finally decided to do something, it was well known what would work best, but still they did the bare minimum. Why you believe they should act as if the last 17 months never happened, and that they suddenly learned about the genocide overnight, I'm not sure.
"when you likely don't even understand his rationale"
His rationale is based on faulty arguments. In his own speech before the House, he says that divestment won't work because it didn't in Iraq and Cuba, ignoring the evidence (available at that point) that it is working for Sudan. He confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war, framing the situation as the US getting involved in another country's business. He makes repeated references to military intervention although divestment would require no military use.
"you are an unclear thinker and probably never supported him in the first place"
Cut the crap. I supported him after Giuliani made those ignorant statements at the debate, just like every other Ron Paul supporter on the internet. It was not until I heard about the Darfur divestment vote ("418 support to 1 oppose"), and saw that only one person opposed it, that I looked up the vote record and found that Paul was the one opposer. That is when my vote changed.
See, reality is much simpler than your idiotic conspiracy theory.
"But if the Sudanese genocide is so important to you, why don't you go on over there and do something about it? I bet you do business every day with a company that either directly or indirectly earns a profit from Sudan."
Yes, pretend as Paul is doing that inaction has no negative consequences. China now sees how powerful it is, how much control it has in the UN, and will likely act the same way (by not compromising AT ALL) given similar future situations. They will not hesitate the push the boundary of their power, seeing how the other leaders are paralyzed with fear. Had we stood up to help the victims and divest our money from companies supporting the Sudan government immediately, the situation might be different.
Hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered and gang-raped and the UN will do nothing out of fear of getting on China's bad side, financially and politically.
You should really start informing yourself before deciding to vote for someone based solely on how exciting and different their ideas are from the norm (as I would have done too).
First, most of your post addresses statements I did not make. I am not talking about military OR humanitarian intervention. I am talking ONLY about withdrawing our government contracts from companies that support Sudan.
"First, the economic intervention proposed *would* set a dangerous precedent of using pension money for political ends."
How does permitting the states to separately decide how they want to treat pension funds equate to "using pension money for political ends". It would just mean people need to pay more attention to who they're electing to the state government, which they should be doing anyway.
"which was the main thing Dr. Paul argued in both places: don't be hasty."
The slaughter began in February 2003. This act came after 4 years of inaction by the UN. What time frame would Dr. Paul consider to be "not hasty"?
Dr. Paul also used as evidence against divestment the fact that sanctions didn't work against Cuba or Iraq, ignoring the currently-known effectiveness of divestment in Sudan itself. Companies are pulling out of the country, and the Sudanese government is even going to the lengths of sticking million-dollar ads in the New York Times to show the good side of Sudan. Dr. Paul ignored all of this in his argument against divestment, instead pretending that what does/doesn't work for one country will/won't work for another.
"He points out the condition of the military and its existing commitments."
Who mentioned the military? Divestment does not involve the military. It doesn't even involve sending in humanitarian groups. Divestment can be done by an accountant and some signatures.
"The fact that the situation is complex makes it very hard to intervene surgically and not inflame issues."
Yes, but don't pretend that inaction has no consequences either. China now sees how much power they have on a global scale and will likely not move an inch in similar future situations that they "find" themselves in. The UN has done nothing for over 4 1/2 years because China does trade with Sudan. That is the only reason they have done nothing. This is all business and it's a big game. If we pull out our business from Sudan, and encourage companies worldwide to do the same, China's business will look less appealling (and it's working!)
"Relief supplies rarely get to the right people"
Again, we are talking about divestment, not intervention.
"The fact that he is primarily non-interventionist is a good foil to the trigger-happy attitude which prevails"
Again, we are talking about divestment, not intervention. His (and your) labeling of "divestment from international companies" as "intervention in Sudan" is, frankly, frightening. We may as well just call these companies "countries" if they are seen to have this much power over our actions.
Slashdot Mirror
$350 would sustain a family in sub-Saharan Africa for 3 years...
But go ahead, buy your toy...
If this law is passed, a quick way to bring it down would be to distribute copyrighted songs to all the zombie boxes out there, and then report those IP addresses to the authorities. Enough uproar would be caused that the law would not survive.
Of course, the botnet would probably go down as well, but wouldn't it be worth it?
What part of "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" do you not understand? There is no requirement to monitor. There is only a requirement that, should you find out information, please report it.
... which makes the bill pretty useless. But there's no reason to misrepresent it.
I thought it was obvious that the numerous moons of Saturn came about as a result of collections within the rings. That is why you see gaps in and around the orbits of the moons.
The article continues: "A Microsoft spokesperson has confirmed that a Vista-Capable OLPC release is in the works. The laptop will run Remote Desktop, connecting over the wireless network to a server running Windows Vista."
FTA, Glickman says, "The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected," he said, "and I think that's a great opportunity."
This claim makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Besides the fact that P2P can be used for legal purposes, how does he know that P2P is ultimately a bad thing for ISPs. Sure, more people will have access to files, but more people will also be sharing files. No one person is forced to provide everything, so any damage is spread out over several ISPs and countless users. I think ISPs are eventually going to have to realize that it is misleading to tell their customers they will be able to download at X MB/s when their system couldn't possibly handle more than a small fraction of customers actually doing so.
More likely they are doing it simply to reinforce their preconceptions, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have kids upon whom to inflict their insanity. They could also be searching for more information on Kevin Trudeau's bullshit and come across YouTube videos supporting his claims. By then, they're just two steps away from becoming another Kool Aid Casualty (KAC). Again, not necessarily a bad thing, except idiots are allowed to reproduce.
Hopefully they aren't including videos such as this one in the group that portray vaccines in a negative light.
Authorities will start cracking down on the creators of vi for releasing software capable of hacking the electoral process.
Next authorities will be cracking down on the creators of vi for releasing software capable of hacking the electoral process.
TFC in my opinion has some of the best levels when it comes to design and purpose. There is a delicate balance between providing enough points of attack for the offense while providing enough cover for the defense, all while keeping the level small enough to allow users to quickly and easily get back into battle.
Ad-free printer friendly version. Article text:
Klausner Technologies Inc said on Monday the company had filed a US$360 million suit against Apple and AT&T over voicemail patents that Klausner claims the Apple iPhone infringes.
New York-based Klausner said the lawsuit also names Comcast, Cablevision Systems and eBay's Skype as infringing its patent for "visual voicemail." The plaintiff seeks an additional US$300 million from the three.
Klausner said in a statement that it filed the lawsuit in U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A copy of the filing was not yet available from the court.
The suit alleges asserts that the defendants' Internet-based voicemail products and services violate a Klausner patent. It seeks damages and future royalties estimated at $300 million, according to the press release.
The complaint involves U.S. patent 5,572,576, the same one at issue in a suit Klausner filed in 2006 against voice-over-Internet telephone service provider Vonage Holdings Corp. The two sides agreed to settle that earlier case in October 2007, according a spokesman for Klausner.
Vonage is now a licensee of Klausner's voicemail technology for its Vonage Voicemail Plus service, as is Time Warner Inc's AOL for its AOL Voicemail services, Klausner said.
A company spokeswoman said Apple's pioneering Newton personal digital assistant was covered under a licensing deal between Klausner and Japan's Sharp Corp, the manufacturer of the Newton, tied to Klausner's U.S. patent 4,117,542.
The suit naming Apple as a defendant targets the sleek visual voicemail application offered by Apple in its iPhone.
The company alleged in its statement that Cablevision's Optimum Voicemail, Comcast's Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay's Skype Voicemail violate Klausner's patent by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
EBay spokesman Hani Durzy said his company has not received the suit and would not comment until its lawyers have seen it.
"We haven't seen it," echoed a Cablevision spokesman, who declined to comment further.
The suit was filed for the plaintiff by the California law firm of Dovel & Luner in Texas. "We have litigated this patent successfully on two prior occasions," Greg Dovel of Dovel & Luner, said in the statement issued by Klausner.
This looks more like a Daily Show script than anything else. Maybe they can just scrap their current writers and rely on blogger analysis.
The summary implies that there is soft tissue. There isn't any. There are mineral structures representing what the soft tissue would have looked like, and that is it.
This isn't like that other discovery where what appeared to be red tissue was found inside a bone. This is just fossilized soft tissue. No soft tissue is present, just the mineral representation of what the tissue would have looked like, its structure, etc.
What are the differences between Creative Commons and their current GFDL?
There is no essential difference between micro and macro evolution. They both use the same basic mechanism.
"Micro-evolution" refers to changes within a single population.
Macro-evolution is the just the micro-evolution of two isolated populations to the point that, if the two populations were to merge back together and try to interbreed, they would be unable to produce fertile, viable offspring. The two populations have diverged too much, and will continue to diverge from then on.
How much do babies really have to teach you? I can't say that you could learn much from babies, so I don't see the point in figuring out how to learn from them.
"aside from the considerable cash required for any political campaign (under any system, in any country)"
I'm not sure what cash would be required from a candidate in a system where the government controls the elections and provides every candidate (with enough petition signatures) with a specific amount of funds, to be used as decided by the candidate (whether through speeches, debates, advertisements, etc), and prohibits the candidate from fundraising (and making anti-democratic promises to wealthy special interest groups).
Of course, this system will never happen, because candidates and incumbents enjoy the benefits of amassing millions of dollars, expensive fundraising dinners, exotic trips, etc. They are not willing to give that up.
"Please name one good thing that will come out of any military intervention in Sudan."
Please read my original statement. I'm not talking about intervention at all, military or humanitarian even. I'm only talking about withdrawing our government contracts with companies who supply Sudan with the equipment and infrastructure used to commit this genocide. That's it. The current divestment has been working - companies are pulling out of Sudan, and the regime is going to the lengths of putting million-dollar-ads in the New York Times to show the "good side of Sudan".
"Also name one good thing that comes out of economic sanctions, for the tradeoff of impoverishing and starving the very people that depend on economic activity for their wellbeing."
I'm not sure what sort of first-world country you think Sudan is. The people being affected by this are poor farmers who get no financial support from the Sudanese regime. This is exactly the reason for the genocide - when the regime got rich, some poor people started fighting back, so the government is solving the "problem" by killing them ALL off.
Basically, withdrawing our government contracts from companies helping the regime slaughter its poor people IS NOT somehow financially impact the poor of Darfur - they were already financially cut off (the whole point of the genocide).
You really need to inform yourself by watching the PBS Frontline special that aired last week. You can watch it online for free. US tax dollars went into the show's production; why not benefit from it?
"I agree that life outside of republican government is nasty, brutish, and short. The Sudanese will eventually learn this, and cease to tolerate it. This is a lesson that must be learned; it cannot be taught."
Again, please inform yourself. The regime is paying bandits to kill people off, no matter where they flee to. They have followed the victims across the border into Chad. Life is not "brutish". It's impossible. The bandits have been attacking villages by night, supported by weaponized helicopters that are mowing down everyone in sight. The bandits on the ground are gang-raping women and cutting babies into pieces. This is not "nasty/brutish". It's obscene.
Our purposeful inaction, out of fear of loss of trade with China or future military action from China, will not go unnoticed by other regimes desiring global power. They will strengthen their ties with China and get a free ticket to whatever atrocities they desire. China also sees how much power they have to completely paralyze the UN for 4 years. They will not back down an inch in the future. All because of our knowing lack of action, action that would have kept them in check.
I think the main way in which I disagree with Paul (which is much less than my disagreement with all the other jokers calling themselves "candidates") is that, while he recognizes the potential blowback from US actions (the fact that set him apart from that idiot Giuliani and won him so much support), he doesn't seem to recognize the potential blowback from inaction. Inaction is every bit as much a decision that impacts the world as action. For example, compare the action of dropping a nuke on a large city (such as Hiroshima) to the inaction of letting it happen. Everyone in the chain of command, and everyone who even knew that it was about to happen, if they did not stand up and ask "why are we eradicating civilians?" and try to stop it, was just as responsible for its occurrence as the president who ordered it and the pilot who pushed the button to drop it.
With respect to Darfur, what I'm saying is that our purposeful inaction in the UN and in effective legislation to stop a genocide, has shown China just how much power they have to paralyze the world. Given similar future situations, they will be much less willing to back down a single inch. Other regimes have also seen the free ticket they can get simply by doing business with China, and will be more likely not only to strengthen their ties with China, but also to impose whatever level of oppression they want on their own people, as it suits their desires.
In short, our inaction has greatly shifted the global power hierarchy - something we should all be concerned about, even if you're not concerned about letting hundreds of thousands of villagers be mowed down and gang-raped by their government.
"The key quote here is this: "...the United States Government has no business [...] in forcing divestment on unwilling parties". This stands true to the core of Ron Paul's principles: the government does not have the right to tell people how to run their business."
How does the US government saying "we will not sign a government contract with you because you signed a government contract with Sudan" equate to "you are not allowed to do business with Sudan"? These companies are international corporations, not US-based. They can do business elsewhere. It's the free market, just like Dr. Paul supports. The US Government is one of the consumers, and this consumer is saying "I don't want your stuff because you support genocidal regimes. I will get my stuff from another company".
"I'm talking about the lawmaking process, not counting from the day on which one side started killing the other."
I don't get the distinction because all of these lawmakers have known for 17 months what was going on and did nothing. When they finally decided to do something, it was well known what would work best, but still they did the bare minimum. Why you believe they should act as if the last 17 months never happened, and that they suddenly learned about the genocide overnight, I'm not sure.
"when you likely don't even understand his rationale"
His rationale is based on faulty arguments. In his own speech before the House, he says that divestment won't work because it didn't in Iraq and Cuba, ignoring the evidence (available at that point) that it is working for Sudan. He confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war, framing the situation as the US getting involved in another country's business. He makes repeated references to military intervention although divestment would require no military use.
"you are an unclear thinker and probably never supported him in the first place"
Cut the crap. I supported him after Giuliani made those ignorant statements at the debate, just like every other Ron Paul supporter on the internet. It was not until I heard about the Darfur divestment vote ("418 support to 1 oppose"), and saw that only one person opposed it, that I looked up the vote record and found that Paul was the one opposer. That is when my vote changed.
See, reality is much simpler than your idiotic conspiracy theory.
"But if the Sudanese genocide is so important to you, why don't you go on over there and do something about it? I bet you do business every day with a company that either directly or indirectly earns a profit from Sudan."
Yes, pretend as Paul is doing that inaction has no negative consequences. China now sees how powerful it is, how much control it has in the UN, and will likely act the same way (by not compromising AT ALL) given similar future situations. They will not hesitate the push the boundary of their power, seeing how the other leaders are paralyzed with fear. Had we stood up to help the victims and divest our money from companies supporting the Sudan government immediately, the situation might be different.
Hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered and gang-raped and the UN will do nothing out of fear of getting on China's bad side, financially and politically.
You should really start informing yourself before deciding to vote for someone based solely on how exciting and different their ideas are from the norm (as I would have done too).
So basically nothing would get done for 4 years because he would veto everything?
"Besides, you don't think Ron Paul supporters have considered that problem?"
I don't know. What does that mean? They have a plan? What is it?
First, most of your post addresses statements I did not make. I am not talking about military OR humanitarian intervention. I am talking ONLY about withdrawing our government contracts from companies that support Sudan.
"First, the economic intervention proposed *would* set a dangerous precedent of using pension money for political ends."
How does permitting the states to separately decide how they want to treat pension funds equate to "using pension money for political ends". It would just mean people need to pay more attention to who they're electing to the state government, which they should be doing anyway.
"which was the main thing Dr. Paul argued in both places: don't be hasty."
The slaughter began in February 2003. This act came after 4 years of inaction by the UN. What time frame would Dr. Paul consider to be "not hasty"?
Dr. Paul also used as evidence against divestment the fact that sanctions didn't work against Cuba or Iraq, ignoring the currently-known effectiveness of divestment in Sudan itself. Companies are pulling out of the country, and the Sudanese government is even going to the lengths of sticking million-dollar ads in the New York Times to show the good side of Sudan. Dr. Paul ignored all of this in his argument against divestment, instead pretending that what does/doesn't work for one country will/won't work for another.
"He points out the condition of the military and its existing commitments."
Who mentioned the military? Divestment does not involve the military. It doesn't even involve sending in humanitarian groups. Divestment can be done by an accountant and some signatures.
"The fact that the situation is complex makes it very hard to intervene surgically and not inflame issues."
Yes, but don't pretend that inaction has no consequences either. China now sees how much power they have on a global scale and will likely not move an inch in similar future situations that they "find" themselves in. The UN has done nothing for over 4 1/2 years because China does trade with Sudan. That is the only reason they have done nothing. This is all business and it's a big game. If we pull out our business from Sudan, and encourage companies worldwide to do the same, China's business will look less appealling (and it's working!)
"Relief supplies rarely get to the right people"
Again, we are talking about divestment, not intervention.
"The fact that he is primarily non-interventionist is a good foil to the trigger-happy attitude which prevails"
Again, we are talking about divestment, not intervention. His (and your) labeling of "divestment from international companies" as "intervention in Sudan" is, frankly, frightening. We may as well just call these companies "countries" if they are seen to have this much power over our actions.