You're fixated on that law for some reason, and you need to get over it (and yourself). There's library's full of US law, and yet you keep pointing to one section. There is a hierachy of law in this country, so just saying that Bush's authorization was outside the scope of a particular section of USC tells us next to nothing about its legality.
Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!
So, you know who and under what circumstances Bush allowed wiretapping? You know all the details? No? Then how the fuck can you claim that he broke the law? At best you can assert that he may have broken the law, but you certainly don't have enough information to claim that you know for a fact.
But what does that all matter when the President can just got behind the public's back and act like a dictactor and issue whatever atrocities against the American public that he feels like -- just as long as it's "to protect us" from the terrorists.
Nice DU rhetoric. Since when does a dictator consult with legal experts and the Attorney General to assure his actions are legal? What would be the point of that?
If George Bush is behaving like a dictator, does that mean Clinton and Carter were, too?
As Jimmy Carter pointed out on The Daily Show last night: "There's 9-10% of the population that, regardless of political affiliation, will always vote to support the current commander in chief whenever there's a war on and America's young men and women are fighting."
Jimmy Carter has always been a bit soft in the head, and it hasn't gotten better with age. There will not be 9-10% of the population who will vote for Bush in 2008, and yet it will likely be another Republican sweep.
You and Carter might wish that Bush was re-elected because there is a war going on, but the fact of the matter is that the Doomocrats just aren't appealing to most Americans. It might make you and Howard Dean feel better to believe that's because 53% of Americans are stupid, but that doesn't make either of you politically savy or electable, it just makes you an elitist ass.
There's another basic tenet of our nation's Constituation falling by the wayside: separation of church and state.
Seperation of church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision making process of the elected President. We've never had a non-religious president, and I'd wager that every single one of them sometimes prayed about what the right thing to do was (yes, even the democrats).
So, if the President thinks that going to war is the right thing to do, his legal authority doesn't come from his reasoning, it comes from the Constitution. The recourse is for the American people to not re-elect him.
What are the terms of the contract that is formed upon acceptance by the offeree? In most cases, such an offer invites acceptance by performance, and there is no acceptance until performance is complete. If you mow half my lawn, I do not have to pay you $2.50. Likewise, if you start, you are not necesarily obligated to finish[1]. So, at no time before or after the contract is formed do you have any obligation to perform. Right?
Public offers of a reward are another form of unilateral contract.
[1]Depending on whether your partial performance creates the bilateral agreement, or simply makes the offer irrevocable.
We would start with the simpler, more ridiculous laws, like bees can't fly less than 6' over city streets (a law obviously written because they had a bee-keeper they wanted out of town, and changing the zoning laws was a much larger effort--but now they're stuck with bugs in their code!). And another, about not being able to walk your pet alligator down some Florida street without a leash.
Why would anyone invest any amount of money in repealing such laws?
I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.
Some google terms for you: implied warranty of merchantability defective products liability
Sony's defense to a claim of trespass could have been consent: the user allowed Sony to do things to the computer, as evinced by the contract. But there isn't one. Oops.
No, Sony's claim would be that the user didn't check the "I agree" button, indicating assent to the contract, but they did click the "next" button, indicating that they wanted to install the software. If the user clicked the "cancel" button and the software installed anyway, that's a different story.
As long as you had some reasonable notice that there were additional terms, and you could cancel the contract if you don't agree to the additional terms, then the contract is likely valid.
I hope that as a third year law student, you recognize that unilateral contracts are actually very common.
"I will give you $5 if you mow my lawn," may be interepreted as a unilateral contract, where I am bound to give you $5 if you mow my lawn, but you are not obligated to anything.
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
No. The AG of the state sues on behalf of the citizens of the state. You may not want to believe it, because it doesn't conform to your "I hate the word" paradigm, but this is actually more efficient than letting everyone sue under their own provate cause of action. It's even more efficient than a class action suit, because the presumption is that Sony's deceptive trade practices injured all Texans, not just the ones who bought the CD's.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Contract law is only complicated if the parties want a complicated contract. Go buy a stick of gum. The law dealing with this contract is quite simple, indeed. Refuse to sign any contract that isn't plain enough for you to understand. That's your right.
What Sony did was bad, but if contract law was written clearly and concisely, we'd have ways to defend ourselves cheaply and efficiently.
How so? If contact law were clear and concise (and we only have your claim that it isn't) how would that affect a situation where people who have no contract with Sony were harmed by Sony's actions?
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
Seriously? Many people would say that they support a woman's right to chose, and they are a proponent of freedom, but very few have the balls to say they are actually in favor of abortions. Except maybe hookers, johns who knock up hookers, and guys impregnating underage girls.
Well, do you really believe that stem-cell researchers would be courting controversy like this if it could be so easily avoided? Even if they don't accept the premise of the pro-lifers, it would still be easier for them to avoid controversy if they could.
I don't know about you, but I haven't personally heard from any legitimate stem-cell reearchers. I've only heard from political hacks. And why a political hack would court avoidable controversy is an easy question to answer. Now, put a real scientist in front of me, and maybe we can have a conversation.
1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.
And before we start hearing the clamor from those claiming private funds are insufficient, the state of California approved $3 Billion for embryonic stem cell research. It's put up or shut up time for embryonic stem cell proponents. Time to prove that Bush is evil and hates kids with cancer.
As for the.223 caliber rounds, they are not steel cored, although the soviet 7.62 NATO rounds were... the reason they penetrate armor so well is their profile, a 53 grain.223 caliber bullet (about the weight of a hollow point 9mm)
A 9mm bullet weighs double that. While you might find some specialty 9mm ammo in the 95-100gr range, most commercial hollowpoints are 115-147gr.
The fact that you understand it, doesn't mean that it is good english.
"You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies."
If we take remove the pronoun from the second sentence, we get: "You should wait for others to write autobiographies." Since I can't possibly wait long enough for someone to write my autobiography, does it mean I should wait for other people to write their own autobiographies? How would that if the same policy applies to them? We'd all be waiting forever.
The policy should simply say: "You should [not] write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies."
He may be the smartest guy in town, but that has little to do with his usefulness. A gold nugget in the bottom of Mariana's Trench, may be of great value, but it is of little use. Likewise, I (and most people) have no use for a urine soaked alcoholic old man, smart as he may be.
Profit has to come from somewhere- it either comes from overcharging the customers or underpaying the labor.
That's a syllogism that assumes that there's something inherently wrong with profit. Hence overcharging and underpaying. Companies can be profitable even when no one is overcharged, and no one is underpaid. Unless you start from the assumption that fair prices and wages are described by a lack of profit. The labor theory of value should be your conclusion, not a premise.
You should know from your economics classes how markets set prices, and that "overcharging" is not a useful term in a free market. If prices are too high, demand will go down. If prices are too low, demand will go up. The same applies to wages. In a closed economy, it is a zero sum game, but individual companies are certainly not closed economic systems. In today's economy, most countries aren't either.
It doesn't matter that you want to call your ideal marxist society democratic. You will still be using force (government or mob, it makes no practical difference) to redistribute status. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? What if someone wan't more than they need? Can they leave freely? If you abide by the UN's principals, their participation must be voluntary. But there's never been any such a thing in the history of the world as a successful country (let alone world) sized marxist society where the population could come and go at will.
1. He's someone's son. No matter how screwed up their life, children should outlive their parents
He's pretty darn old. I'm fairly certain he's already outlived his parents.
2. he's probably someone's sibling.
That's possible, although I don't know how that makes one intrisicly useful. If his siblings had a use for him, he probably wouldn't be living in the parking garage and pan handling 8 hours/day. I guess if you needed to prevent a section of sidewalk from blowing away, he'd be your man.
3. he's someone's friend
Highly unlikely, he smells really bad.
I'm sure it makes you feel better about the world to believe that everyone is useful in their own way, but it just isn't true. It's one of those bullshit feel good things they tell you, like everyone's feelings are equally valid.
Slashdot Mirror
You're fixated on that law for some reason, and you need to get over it (and yourself). There's library's full of US law, and yet you keep pointing to one section. There is a hierachy of law in this country, so just saying that Bush's authorization was outside the scope of a particular section of USC tells us next to nothing about its legality.
Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!
So, you know who and under what circumstances Bush allowed wiretapping? You know all the details? No? Then how the fuck can you claim that he broke the law? At best you can assert that he may have broken the law, but you certainly don't have enough information to claim that you know for a fact.
LIAR!
But what does that all matter when the President can just got behind the public's back and act like a dictactor and issue whatever atrocities against the American public that he feels like -- just as long as it's "to protect us" from the terrorists.
Nice DU rhetoric. Since when does a dictator consult with legal experts and the Attorney General to assure his actions are legal? What would be the point of that?
If George Bush is behaving like a dictator, does that mean Clinton and Carter were, too?
The current government has no plan to EVER give up the these powers.
I guess it's a good thing we relect a completely new government every 8 years then.
As Jimmy Carter pointed out on The Daily Show last night: "There's 9-10% of the population that, regardless of political affiliation, will always vote to support the current commander in chief whenever there's a war on and America's young men and women are fighting."
Jimmy Carter has always been a bit soft in the head, and it hasn't gotten better with age. There will not be 9-10% of the population who will vote for Bush in 2008, and yet it will likely be another Republican sweep.
You and Carter might wish that Bush was re-elected because there is a war going on, but the fact of the matter is that the Doomocrats just aren't appealing to most Americans. It might make you and Howard Dean feel better to believe that's because 53% of Americans are stupid, but that doesn't make either of you politically savy or electable, it just makes you an elitist ass.
There's another basic tenet of our nation's Constituation falling by the wayside: separation of church and state.
Seperation of church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision making process of the elected President. We've never had a non-religious president, and I'd wager that every single one of them sometimes prayed about what the right thing to do was (yes, even the democrats).
So, if the President thinks that going to war is the right thing to do, his legal authority doesn't come from his reasoning, it comes from the Constitution. The recourse is for the American people to not re-elect him.
But that wouldn't be legal, while the executive order to allow wiretapping of conversations with known terrorists is.
What are the terms of the contract that is formed upon acceptance by the offeree? In most cases, such an offer invites acceptance by performance, and there is no acceptance until performance is complete. If you mow half my lawn, I do not have to pay you $2.50. Likewise, if you start, you are not necesarily obligated to finish[1]. So, at no time before or after the contract is formed do you have any obligation to perform. Right?
Public offers of a reward are another form of unilateral contract.
[1]Depending on whether your partial performance creates the bilateral agreement, or simply makes the offer irrevocable.
We would start with the simpler, more ridiculous laws, like bees can't fly less than 6' over city streets (a law obviously written because they had a bee-keeper they wanted out of town, and changing the zoning laws was a much larger effort--but now they're stuck with bugs in their code!). And another, about not being able to walk your pet alligator down some Florida street without a leash.
Why would anyone invest any amount of money in repealing such laws?
Because courts would take power away from the rulig class?
I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.
Some google terms for you:
implied warranty of merchantability
defective products liability
Sony's defense to a claim of trespass could have been consent: the user allowed Sony to do things to the computer, as evinced by the contract. But there isn't one. Oops.
No, Sony's claim would be that the user didn't check the "I agree" button, indicating assent to the contract, but they did click the "next" button, indicating that they wanted to install the software. If the user clicked the "cancel" button and the software installed anyway, that's a different story.
As long as you had some reasonable notice that there were additional terms, and you could cancel the contract if you don't agree to the additional terms, then the contract is likely valid.
I hope that as a third year law student, you recognize that unilateral contracts are actually very common.
"I will give you $5 if you mow my lawn," may be interepreted as a unilateral contract, where I am bound to give you $5 if you mow my lawn, but you are not obligated to anything.
Since when are EULA's enforcable? No notaries are present and therefore should be void.
Who gave you the impression that a notary (or even a piece of paper) was required to form a valid, legally binding contract?
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
No. The AG of the state sues on behalf of the citizens of the state. You may not want to believe it, because it doesn't conform to your "I hate the word" paradigm, but this is actually more efficient than letting everyone sue under their own provate cause of action. It's even more efficient than a class action suit, because the presumption is that Sony's deceptive trade practices injured all Texans, not just the ones who bought the CD's.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Contract law is only complicated if the parties want a complicated contract. Go buy a stick of gum. The law dealing with this contract is quite simple, indeed. Refuse to sign any contract that isn't plain enough for you to understand. That's your right.
What Sony did was bad, but if contract law was written clearly and concisely, we'd have ways to defend ourselves cheaply and efficiently.
How so? If contact law were clear and concise (and we only have your claim that it isn't) how would that affect a situation where people who have no contract with Sony were harmed by Sony's actions?
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
What the heck is "true moderated arbitration"?
I'm a proponent of abortions
Seriously? Many people would say that they support a woman's right to chose, and they are a proponent of freedom, but very few have the balls to say they are actually in favor of abortions. Except maybe hookers, johns who knock up hookers, and guys impregnating underage girls.
Well, do you really believe that stem-cell researchers would be courting controversy like this if it could be so easily avoided? Even if they don't accept the premise of the pro-lifers, it would still be easier for them to avoid controversy if they could.
I don't know about you, but I haven't personally heard from any legitimate stem-cell reearchers. I've only heard from political hacks. And why a political hack would court avoidable controversy is an easy question to answer. Now, put a real scientist in front of me, and maybe we can have a conversation.
1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.
And before we start hearing the clamor from those claiming private funds are insufficient, the state of California approved $3 Billion for embryonic stem cell research. It's put up or shut up time for embryonic stem cell proponents. Time to prove that Bush is evil and hates kids with cancer.
As for the .223 caliber rounds, they are not steel cored, although the soviet 7.62 NATO rounds were... the reason they penetrate armor so well is their profile, a 53 grain .223 caliber bullet (about the weight of a hollow point 9mm)
A 9mm bullet weighs double that. While you might find some specialty 9mm ammo in the 95-100gr range, most commercial hollowpoints are 115-147gr.
The fact that you understand it, doesn't mean that it is good english.
"You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies."
If we take remove the pronoun from the second sentence, we get: "You should wait for others to write autobiographies." Since I can't possibly wait long enough for someone to write my autobiography, does it mean I should wait for other people to write their own autobiographies? How would that if the same policy applies to them? We'd all be waiting forever.
The policy should simply say: "You should [not] write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies."
He may be the smartest guy in town, but that has little to do with his usefulness. A gold nugget in the bottom of Mariana's Trench, may be of great value, but it is of little use. Likewise, I (and most people) have no use for a urine soaked alcoholic old man, smart as he may be.
Profit has to come from somewhere- it either comes from overcharging the customers or underpaying the labor.
That's a syllogism that assumes that there's something inherently wrong with profit. Hence overcharging and underpaying. Companies can be profitable even when no one is overcharged, and no one is underpaid. Unless you start from the assumption that fair prices and wages are described by a lack of profit. The labor theory of value should be your conclusion, not a premise.
You should know from your economics classes how markets set prices, and that "overcharging" is not a useful term in a free market. If prices are too high, demand will go down. If prices are too low, demand will go up. The same applies to wages. In a closed economy, it is a zero sum game, but individual companies are certainly not closed economic systems. In today's economy, most countries aren't either.
It doesn't matter that you want to call your ideal marxist society democratic. You will still be using force (government or mob, it makes no practical difference) to redistribute status. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? What if someone wan't more than they need? Can they leave freely? If you abide by the UN's principals, their participation must be voluntary. But there's never been any such a thing in the history of the world as a successful country (let alone world) sized marxist society where the population could come and go at will.
That's why it's called fantasyland.
1. He's someone's son. No matter how screwed up their life, children should outlive their parents
He's pretty darn old. I'm fairly certain he's already outlived his parents.
2. he's probably someone's sibling.
That's possible, although I don't know how that makes one intrisicly useful. If his siblings had a use for him, he probably wouldn't be living in the parking garage and pan handling 8 hours/day. I guess if you needed to prevent a section of sidewalk from blowing away, he'd be your man.
3. he's someone's friend
Highly unlikely, he smells really bad.
I'm sure it makes you feel better about the world to believe that everyone is useful in their own way, but it just isn't true. It's one of those bullshit feel good things they tell you, like everyone's feelings are equally valid.
1. Throw out your little red book.
2. Pick up a dictionary, and look up "steal".
3. When you get to college, make sure to take an economics class.
Why haven't you moved to China yet? They are living your "dream" right now. Why aren't you getting in on it?