Some claims in this lawsuit seem to be predicated on a particular California data-protection statute. However, I think the real elephant in the room is the question of EULA disclaimers of liability, and the enforceability of EULAs in general.
There's a principle codified in the Uniform Commercial Code that a product that is sold by a merchant (i.e. one whose primary business is involved in selling products of the given type) must be "merchantible," meaning "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." UCC sec. 2-314. This is called the implied warranty of merchantibility. It may be explicitly disclaimed in a written contract (and every EULA includes a term disclaiming express and implied warranties of merchantibility).
Here's the rub: retail software sales are clearly sales. When you go to the store and buy a pc preloaded with MS Windows,or even a boxed copy of windows, you are not presented with a contract at the time of sale. You pay your money and leave with a box - clearly a sale. Only when you boot up your new computer for the first time, or install your new OS do you have these new non-negotiable terms sprung on you without your approval or consent.
First - a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract like a EULA purports to be is called a contract of adhesion. These contracts are enforceable, but courts are generally inclined to take a close look at adhesion contracts where one party has disproportionate power over the other.
Second - In the real world, one party may not unilaterally add to or amend a contract, or impose terms on a sale, without the consent of the other party. (They can try, but the new terms will not be enforceable in court.) "Aha", says Microsoft, "but you agreed! You clicked 'I agree.'" Well, wait a second - what are your alternatives? If you bought a boxed copy of windows, the retailer will not, as a matter of policy, accept a return. So basically Microsoft (and every other commercial software vendor) is saying to you "We already have your money. You're not getting it back. Now agree to these additional terms or get bent." I rather suspect a court, even an extremely conservative one, would take a dim view of this arrangement. (except in Virginia and Maryland, the two UCITA states where click-wrap EULAs are explicitly enforceable.)
And since we're on the topic of adhesion contracts and Microsoft, how about the additional terms they add when you use Windows Update to fix new vulnerabilities? Talk about strongarm tactics - "either accept these new terms or accept that this software which we sold,er,licensed you with network capability (but of course we claimed it was fit for no purpose at all) is no longer suitable for its advertised purpose." Bite me. That's not duress, but it's it's damn sleazy.
</RANT>
Whew. I'm not a lawyer, and none of this is legal advice, of course.
I wonder about the legal issues here, since licensed broadcast TV signals have always been in the clear and legal for anyone to recieve. I'm not sure if it's clear that TV broadcasters can deliver encrypted pay services on their sidebands, or that it would be illegal to break such encryption, DMCA notwithstanding.
Of course, with the current roundheeled FCC majority, it's probably a safe bet that if TV broadcasters wanted to start "premium" terrestrial pay services, they'd probably be allowed.
Just in case you're thinking of going out to try this, Baltimore's Inner Harbor is notoriously expensive and you will be paying for access, just not to an ISP.
Amen, only one place worth going down there - the Wharf Rat. Same beer and better food than the Fells Point location.
But... the toaster manual is in Extended Backus-Naur Form! Everyone knows EBNF is the optimal way to configure and document the configuration of toast-making devices!
-Isaac
(those that miss the joke should look up EBNF and sudo. Mommy! It burns!)
If you want the recruiter on your side, find a pay service. Its just like actors using an agent. I deal with someone who is very good to me; I pay him for services, contacts, etc (fee-based).
If he's being paid for doing anything other than placing you successfully (or placing people with you successfully - it's not clear from context what role you're in), what's his incentive not to string you along with "services" and "contacts" and "etc." you're paying for, but that never pan out?
Furthermore, it's not tough to select Courier, 10pt., set the margin widths to 1.25" all the way around, and set the material to double-spacing. That's all that's really required.
Microsoft Word requires a hell of a lot more configuration from the default to get to this point. Every time I sit down with a freshly installed copy of Word (after downloading and installing many, many megabytes of service packs and security fixes, I'd add), I have to spend many more minutes turning off "Clippy," autoformat-as-you-type, "personalized" menus, auto-correct, and grammar checking, just to get to a point where Word won't (as often) change my settings, formatting, and (jah forbid) the text I type without me specifically requesting and approving the change.
I've been using Word for real work since version 4.0 for Mac and the execrable Word 2.0 for Windows, and only the Mac versions
-Isaac
The people on the rich list aren't there because they are steering the boat, they are there because they risked their livlihood to build the boat and set it to sea. If the boat sinks, they are the ones that are screwed the most.
Most new businesses fail. It is a risky thing for your own personal livlihood to start your own business because if it fails, you don't have income to fall back on and you are likely deep in debt. The owners of the company absolutely deserve the right to reap the benefits of the risk they took if their business becomes valuable. Don't trivialize it by portraying it as a meer steering job - they built the boat and created jobs for the whole crew.
So-called "risk" is a privilege of capital, not a real risk. Incorporation shields the investors from personal liability in the even of a failed venture (barring criminal conduct, and even that's iffy. How many Enron muckymucks are in jail? How many have even disgorged their ill-gotten gains?)
If one fails at running a business, one "loses" relative to what one would have made had one been successful. Even if an executive has mortgaged their house for startup capital and are forced into personal bankruptcy, they won't lose their home. Of course, the peons at the company they ran into the ground probably don't own their own homes, and therefore bankruptcy won't keep them from being turned out on the street when they can't make their rent. (see Donald Trump)
I'm not saying someone who starts or runs a successful business doesn't deserve rewards for it, but I hate the bullshit argument that exorbitant executive compensation is justified by risk.
Compact (standard IBM PS/2 layout minus the numeric keypad)
Durable
No Windows or "grandma" keys
Personally, though I've put mine away and now use an IBM Trackpoint II keyboard - it's full-sized, it's black, it has the buckling spring model M mechanism, it has no windows keys, and it has a trackpoint built in (regretably only the 2-button, no z-axis trackpoint II) so I can keep my hands on the keyboard. In conjunction with a USB scroll-mouse, I've found input nerdvana.
Fourty seconds of searching led me to a 2000 case from the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District, Deuschle v. Jobe. Here's a choice quote:
In furtherance of this objective, we hold that one has a legal duty to
exercise reasonable care by disclosing a contagious venereal disease
before entering into sexual relations with another. Several other
jurisdictions that recognize this cause of action support this
proposition.(FN18) See Berner v. Caldwell, 543 So.2d 686, 688-89 (Ala.
1989), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1999
WL 754213 (Ala. Sept. 24, 1999); B.N. v. K.K., 538 A.2d 1175, 1178-79
(Md. 1988); R.A.P. v. B.J.P., 428 N.W.2d 103, 107-8 (Minn. App. 1988);
Doe v. Roe, 267 Cal. Rptr. 564, 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
In an action for negligent transmission of a venereal disease, a person is liable if he knew or should have known that he was infected with a disease and failed to disclose or warn his sexual partner about this unreasonable risk of harm before engaging in a sexual
relationship.
I'm not in law school anymore, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to do any more research into this matter for some slashdot comment, but a few minutes on findlaw and google was sufficent to convince me that my memory was not faulty with respect to some jurisdictions imposing a duty of care with respect to negligent transmission of a venereal disease through consensual sexual contact. That quote alone suggests such a duty is recognized in at least Alabama, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri. (Per the 2000 census, that covers 54,129,924 people.)
Please don't read my post to suggest that persons should be held liable if their machines are coopted without their knowledge to disrupt the internet. Computers often come from the store in an unpatched state (EULA disclaimer of fitness or merchantability? One of these days there's going to be a real EULA test.) and are infected the first time they are connected to a network. It's still easier to get and transmit computer viruses than STDs. I was just responding to the assertion that no similar liability existed with respect to "real" viruses. As far as I can tell, such liability does exist in some circumstances and jurisdictions.
It also has all the telltale marks of blaming the victim. Just imagine a coworker saying, "I got this cold virus from you, so I am going to fine you $500." We never had any such nonsense in the real world, so why create it in the electronic world?
Sorry, we do have this in the real world. For example, if you know you have HIV/AIDS and you have unprotected sex with someone (or otherwise expose them to your bodily fluids) without notifying them, that's assault with a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions. Even if you didn't know you had AIDS, but you should have known, you would probably face civil negligence liability.
You really should look at David Dunning's research at Cornell, which suggests the opposite may be true in most cases. His study on showing that people who are least competent are most unaware of their own incompetence was widely reported a few years back.
Something doesnt add up reading that article. Hey single mom your daughter steals music. Oh, ok. Gee, thought it was ok cause we paid a service fee that let us. Hell, here's two thousand bucks I had kicking around. Hey, my daughter even feels bad about it even.
No, it probably went down more like this. Even if they had a pro-bono attorney, the case would have cost them more than $2000 to fight, and they would probably lose anyhow. Then what? Mom's even deeper in the hole and perhaps even faces loss of custody of her kid, whom she could no longer provide for at all.
$2000 is cheaper than any dealing with federal court (where copyright cases are tried).
This would be a good time for the People invoke jury nullification, assuming any of these go to trial. (Note that the Bill of Rights grants any RIAA victim a right to jury for lawsuits worth over $20 if they decide to take this to trial.)
This only works in a criminal trial where acquittal by jury ends the process. In a civil case, a judge may effectively overrule a jury that has made a mistake of law and enter a judgement non obstante veredicto (notwithstanding the verdict).
Remember that "guilty" and "not guilty" don't apply in civil court. The jury in a civil trial finds for one party or another, but their verdict is not sacrosanct as in a criminal trial.
Personally, I can't stand Post Offices and in fact don't have a mail box myself, but the dogma that mail shouldn't be subject to regulatory requirements if it uses the internet doesn't sit well with me.
Email is only loosely analogous to the delivery of physical mail. Vonage and others market their services as replacements for POTS, when they are in fact no such thing.
Do you want to pay taxes on your email? Slashdot views?
There's nothing about VOIP that differentiates it substantively from email, I/M, or pr0n.
Sorry, no. "Email" isn't a thing. If you pay for your email service through your ISP, you do pay taxes on it. If you use paid IM or porn services, you pay taxes on them (or you're supposed to; just because your state can't find out if you bought some product or service from an out of state company doesn't mean you're not technically liable to pay sales/use taxes on the goods or services when you use them in your own state.
I am playing devil's advocate a little bit here, I admit, but what's important here is not the VoIP protocols (bits over wires), but companies selling VOIP service as a replacement for POTS when it is really no such thing.
Right. And whose fault is it that your broadband service failed? Your broadband service provider! Who should be taxed and regulated? Your broadband service provider!
Historically the physical infrastructure has been tied to phone service so completely that the laws for both have become joined. Now that the service can be separated from the infrastructure, the laws need to be revised.
That's not a bad point. However the laws won't be revised, or at least they won't be revised in any way that improves the availability of internet service until after the first net-wide blackout that causes real problems.
Broadband providers should be subject to regulation and taxes much like phone companies today, to guarantee adequate service to everyone.
I agree universal service is a laudable goal but bear in mind that the costs of implementing the existing phone network are largely amortized at this point.
Internet telephony companies should not be subject to very much regulation, if any.
Hang on - in the present world, where broadband isn't a regulated, highly available service, net-phone companies are selling their services as a replacement for landlines when they are no such thing. This practice is deceptive. Cel phones are clearly different - there's little expectation of reliability - and are marketed as such.
I agree with you that ultimately internet access must be as available as traditional phone service, but given that's not how it is today, nor will it be that way anytime soon, I don't think net-phone companies should be able to market their product as a landline replacement without hewing to the same requirements as landline service, or at least not marketing their product as a landline replacement in the first place.
The difference is that VoIP is transmitted just like all other internet traffic. They would effectively be charging people for using their section of the internet, which would be a disaster for the freedom and openess which has defined the internet.
Differential taxation based on use of a single infrastructure is nothing new. Semi-truck drivers pay road taxes that automobile drivers don't, for instance.
There's no doubt that the driving force behind state regulation of "internet telephony" is the collection of access fees. That said, those advocating no regulation of companies selling phone service that bills itself as a replacement for landlines are unrealistic.
Did everyone sleep through the blackout of 3 weeks ago? VOIP didn't work. Cel phones didn't work. Land lines worked. Why? The fundamental reason is regulatory requirements that ensure a certain level of reliability. Those requirements date from a different era - lord knows they'd never pass in today's "pro-business" climate. Imagine if everyone had been using VOIP and there were no self-powered phone network? I hope you have a ham radio license!
The entire purpose of regulatory bodies is to shape the market such that companies act in ways beneficial to the public interest, where absent regulation they would be inclined to cut corners for short term profit, setting up everyone for a disaster in the long run.
Why can vonage sell unlimited phone service for $40/mo? They externalize all the costs of line maintenance. If your broadband service fails, you have no phone, and it's not Vonage's problem to rectify it.
Personally, I can't stand ILECs and in fact don't have a land line myself, but the dogma that telephony shouldn't be subject to regulatory requirements if it uses the internet doesn't sit well with me.
Of course, if internet service was as reliable as electric service, or if either were as reliable as phone service, this wouldn't be an issue. But the reason the land-line phone service is reliable is gov't regulation.
Graffiti artist? Oh you mean person who vandalizes property that doesn't belong to them costing the city money to clean up their crap. Oh I understand. Nothing says high art like someones name spelled out in tons of colors on the side of a subway car.
I live in NYC and commute on the subway every day. Having looked at the examples on this guy's website, I'd rather see this guys paintings in the subway system than the ads for bad beer, bad movies, bad music, and personal injury attorneys.
I think the MTA should be spending their budget on improving service (*cough*second avenue line*cough*) instead of on taking cars out of service for scrubbing. Of course, being an NYC taxpayer and MTA straphanger, my opinion means squat.
Unfortunately, this helical-scan morse encoding standard has already been patented. The FCC proposal will require CW operators to pay royalties on every QSO copied by this method. Of course, the old lineer-scan method will be banned under the new regs.
However, we should not be complacent about China. I am certainly not one for warmongering but given the U.S. financial involvement in Taiwan (odds are the computer you are typing on was made there), if China ever does do anything more than little experimental probes then we will inexorably be drawn in to a conflict.
Why? American capital is heavily invested on both sides of the strait - and new investment is primarily being made on the mainland. What makes you think we'd go to war with China when there's money to be made regardless of who's in power in Taiwan. (Democracy be damned. Of course, Taiwan's democracy is not a decade old...)
I'm inclined to believe that economics will dictate that the US will not intervene if China forces "reunification." If anything, I think China would seek our permission before invading Taiwan.
And of course, it's is our very freedoms (in many things) that the terrorists want to take away - to make us afraid...
Just a little niggle there; "the terrorists" want any number of things, but one thing they don't care about at all is "taking away our freedoms."
They might want to "bomb us, kill our leaders, and convert us to Islam" (to paraphrase our own Ameri-jihadi, Ann Coulter) but our freedoms don't really enter into it.
I won't join the ACLU because they seem rather keen on taking away my freedoms, such as the freedoms of my children to practice their religion in public places.
Sorry? Anyone can practice their religion in public places to the extent that they do not coerce others into their religious practice. Every public school I went to had religious clubs and bible study groups.
I only objected once, in middle school, when attendence at bible study was effectively mandatory. There was a Baptist preacher who came in every morning to "share the good news" by preaching in the auditorium where students who took the bus were forced to wait for classes to begin. He even singled out non-christian students like myself (I guess the name "Isaac" was a dead giveaway) and called on other students to "help" me "accept Jesus Christ into [my] heart." Maybe you consider that acceptable religious practice; iIfound it coercive. I don't object to proselytizing unless I'm being forced by the state to listen to it (remember this was a public school). I didn't sue, but you'd better believe that my parents complained to the school administration. After that, the bible study was made optional and moved to a separate room - everybody was happy.
Just my 2c, but I think your concerns about your children's religious freedoms being "taken away" are overblown, absent any specific example.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a principle codified in the Uniform Commercial Code that a product that is sold by a merchant (i.e. one whose primary business is involved in selling products of the given type) must be "merchantible," meaning "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." UCC sec. 2-314. This is called the implied warranty of merchantibility. It may be explicitly disclaimed in a written contract (and every EULA includes a term disclaiming express and implied warranties of merchantibility).
Here's the rub: retail software sales are clearly sales. When you go to the store and buy a pc preloaded with MS Windows,or even a boxed copy of windows, you are not presented with a contract at the time of sale. You pay your money and leave with a box - clearly a sale. Only when you boot up your new computer for the first time, or install your new OS do you have these new non-negotiable terms sprung on you without your approval or consent.
First - a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract like a EULA purports to be is called a contract of adhesion. These contracts are enforceable, but courts are generally inclined to take a close look at adhesion contracts where one party has disproportionate power over the other.
Second - In the real world, one party may not unilaterally add to or amend a contract, or impose terms on a sale, without the consent of the other party. (They can try, but the new terms will not be enforceable in court.) "Aha", says Microsoft, "but you agreed! You clicked 'I agree.'" Well, wait a second - what are your alternatives? If you bought a boxed copy of windows, the retailer will not, as a matter of policy, accept a return. So basically Microsoft (and every other commercial software vendor) is saying to you "We already have your money. You're not getting it back. Now agree to these additional terms or get bent." I rather suspect a court, even an extremely conservative one, would take a dim view of this arrangement. (except in Virginia and Maryland, the two UCITA states where click-wrap EULAs are explicitly enforceable.)
And since we're on the topic of adhesion contracts and Microsoft, how about the additional terms they add when you use Windows Update to fix new vulnerabilities? Talk about strongarm tactics - "either accept these new terms or accept that this software which we sold,er,licensed you with network capability (but of course we claimed it was fit for no purpose at all) is no longer suitable for its advertised purpose." Bite me. That's not duress, but it's it's damn sleazy.
</RANT> Whew. I'm not a lawyer, and none of this is legal advice, of course.
-Isaac
Of course, with the current roundheeled FCC majority, it's probably a safe bet that if TV broadcasters wanted to start "premium" terrestrial pay services, they'd probably be allowed.
-Isaac
I'm not sure. Maybe we do, and maybe we don't. We'll probably never know for certain.
Amen, only one place worth going down there - the Wharf Rat. Same beer and better food than the Fells Point location.
-Isaac
-Isaac
(those that miss the joke should look up EBNF and sudo. Mommy! It burns!)
Probably not, if it's on the public easement.
People in New Hampshire, now.
-Isaac
If he's being paid for doing anything other than placing you successfully (or placing people with you successfully - it's not clear from context what role you're in), what's his incentive not to string you along with "services" and "contacts" and "etc." you're paying for, but that never pan out?
I favor an outcome-oriented approach, personally.
-Isaac
Microsoft Word requires a hell of a lot more configuration from the default to get to this point. Every time I sit down with a freshly installed copy of Word (after downloading and installing many, many megabytes of service packs and security fixes, I'd add), I have to spend many more minutes turning off "Clippy," autoformat-as-you-type, "personalized" menus, auto-correct, and grammar checking, just to get to a point where Word won't (as often) change my settings, formatting, and (jah forbid) the text I type without me specifically requesting and approving the change.
I've been using Word for real work since version 4.0 for Mac and the execrable Word 2.0 for Windows, and only the Mac versions -Isaac
So-called "risk" is a privilege of capital, not a real risk. Incorporation shields the investors from personal liability in the even of a failed venture (barring criminal conduct, and even that's iffy. How many Enron muckymucks are in jail? How many have even disgorged their ill-gotten gains?)
If one fails at running a business, one "loses" relative to what one would have made had one been successful. Even if an executive has mortgaged their house for startup capital and are forced into personal bankruptcy, they won't lose their home. Of course, the peons at the company they ran into the ground probably don't own their own homes, and therefore bankruptcy won't keep them from being turned out on the street when they can't make their rent. (see Donald Trump)
I'm not saying someone who starts or runs a successful business doesn't deserve rewards for it, but I hate the bullshit argument that exorbitant executive compensation is justified by risk.
-Isaac
Personally, though I've put mine away and now use an IBM Trackpoint II keyboard - it's full-sized, it's black, it has the buckling spring model M mechanism, it has no windows keys, and it has a trackpoint built in (regretably only the 2-button, no z-axis trackpoint II) so I can keep my hands on the keyboard. In conjunction with a USB scroll-mouse, I've found input nerdvana.
-Isaac
Sorry, we do have this in the real world. For example, if you know you have HIV/AIDS and you have unprotected sex with someone (or otherwise expose them to your bodily fluids) without notifying them, that's assault with a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions. Even if you didn't know you had AIDS, but you should have known, you would probably face civil negligence liability.
-Isaac
You really should look at David Dunning's research at Cornell, which suggests the opposite may be true in most cases. His study on showing that people who are least competent are most unaware of their own incompetence was widely reported a few years back.
-Isaac
No, it probably went down more like this. Even if they had a pro-bono attorney, the case would have cost them more than $2000 to fight, and they would probably lose anyhow. Then what? Mom's even deeper in the hole and perhaps even faces loss of custody of her kid, whom she could no longer provide for at all.
$2000 is cheaper than any dealing with federal court (where copyright cases are tried).
-Isaac
This only works in a criminal trial where acquittal by jury ends the process. In a civil case, a judge may effectively overrule a jury that has made a mistake of law and enter a judgement non obstante veredicto (notwithstanding the verdict).
Remember that "guilty" and "not guilty" don't apply in civil court. The jury in a civil trial finds for one party or another, but their verdict is not sacrosanct as in a criminal trial.
-Isaac
Email is only loosely analogous to the delivery of physical mail. Vonage and others market their services as replacements for POTS, when they are in fact no such thing.
Sorry, no. "Email" isn't a thing. If you pay for your email service through your ISP, you do pay taxes on it. If you use paid IM or porn services, you pay taxes on them (or you're supposed to; just because your state can't find out if you bought some product or service from an out of state company doesn't mean you're not technically liable to pay sales/use taxes on the goods or services when you use them in your own state.
I am playing devil's advocate a little bit here, I admit, but what's important here is not the VoIP protocols (bits over wires), but companies selling VOIP service as a replacement for POTS when it is really no such thing.
-Isaac
That's not a bad point. However the laws won't be revised, or at least they won't be revised in any way that improves the availability of internet service until after the first net-wide blackout that causes real problems.
I agree universal service is a laudable goal but bear in mind that the costs of implementing the existing phone network are largely amortized at this point.
Hang on - in the present world, where broadband isn't a regulated, highly available service, net-phone companies are selling their services as a replacement for landlines when they are no such thing. This practice is deceptive. Cel phones are clearly different - there's little expectation of reliability - and are marketed as such.
I agree with you that ultimately internet access must be as available as traditional phone service, but given that's not how it is today, nor will it be that way anytime soon, I don't think net-phone companies should be able to market their product as a landline replacement without hewing to the same requirements as landline service, or at least not marketing their product as a landline replacement in the first place.
-Isaac
Differential taxation based on use of a single infrastructure is nothing new. Semi-truck drivers pay road taxes that automobile drivers don't, for instance.
-Isaac
Did everyone sleep through the blackout of 3 weeks ago? VOIP didn't work. Cel phones didn't work. Land lines worked. Why? The fundamental reason is regulatory requirements that ensure a certain level of reliability. Those requirements date from a different era - lord knows they'd never pass in today's "pro-business" climate. Imagine if everyone had been using VOIP and there were no self-powered phone network? I hope you have a ham radio license!
The entire purpose of regulatory bodies is to shape the market such that companies act in ways beneficial to the public interest, where absent regulation they would be inclined to cut corners for short term profit, setting up everyone for a disaster in the long run.
Why can vonage sell unlimited phone service for $40/mo? They externalize all the costs of line maintenance. If your broadband service fails, you have no phone, and it's not Vonage's problem to rectify it.
Personally, I can't stand ILECs and in fact don't have a land line myself, but the dogma that telephony shouldn't be subject to regulatory requirements if it uses the internet doesn't sit well with me.
Of course, if internet service was as reliable as electric service, or if either were as reliable as phone service, this wouldn't be an issue. But the reason the land-line phone service is reliable is gov't regulation.
-Isaac
I live in NYC and commute on the subway every day. Having looked at the examples on this guy's website, I'd rather see this guys paintings in the subway system than the ads for bad beer, bad movies, bad music, and personal injury attorneys.
I think the MTA should be spending their budget on improving service (*cough*second avenue line*cough*) instead of on taking cars out of service for scrubbing. Of course, being an NYC taxpayer and MTA straphanger, my opinion means squat.
-Isaac
Unfortunately, this helical-scan morse encoding standard has already been patented. The FCC proposal will require CW operators to pay royalties on every QSO copied by this method. Of course, the old lineer-scan method will be banned under the new regs.
73, -KC4TQP
Why? American capital is heavily invested on both sides of the strait - and new investment is primarily being made on the mainland. What makes you think we'd go to war with China when there's money to be made regardless of who's in power in Taiwan. (Democracy be damned. Of course, Taiwan's democracy is not a decade old...)
I'm inclined to believe that economics will dictate that the US will not intervene if China forces "reunification." If anything, I think China would seek our permission before invading Taiwan.
-Isaac
Just a little niggle there; "the terrorists" want any number of things, but one thing they don't care about at all is "taking away our freedoms."
They might want to "bomb us, kill our leaders, and convert us to Islam" (to paraphrase our own Ameri-jihadi, Ann Coulter) but our freedoms don't really enter into it.
-Isaac
Sorry? Anyone can practice their religion in public places to the extent that they do not coerce others into their religious practice. Every public school I went to had religious clubs and bible study groups.
I only objected once, in middle school, when attendence at bible study was effectively mandatory. There was a Baptist preacher who came in every morning to "share the good news" by preaching in the auditorium where students who took the bus were forced to wait for classes to begin. He even singled out non-christian students like myself (I guess the name "Isaac" was a dead giveaway) and called on other students to "help" me "accept Jesus Christ into [my] heart." Maybe you consider that acceptable religious practice; iIfound it coercive. I don't object to proselytizing unless I'm being forced by the state to listen to it (remember this was a public school). I didn't sue, but you'd better believe that my parents complained to the school administration. After that, the bible study was made optional and moved to a separate room - everybody was happy.
Just my 2c, but I think your concerns about your children's religious freedoms being "taken away" are overblown, absent any specific example.
-Isaac
I think this could be classified as bio-terrorism.
-Isaac