And a court has decided that that isn't the case everytime either. A guy rented a car, and of course signed the rental agreement just like he always does. Brought the car back two days later, and was being charged about $150 extra. He asked why, and was told that the car has a tracking system in it, and the system showed that he speeded on three separate instances during the trip. As it turns out, the contract he signed had a clause explicitly covering this, so he can't get out of it.
Until the idiot judge decided that since that isn't a standard part of a car rental contract, it isn't enforceable. In fact the car rental company wasn't allowed to keep the clause in future contracts, even though they would specifically point it out and explain it to future customers.
The sad thing is, there are dozens of car rental companies available, from Avis and Enterprise, to the single-location companies that noone knows about. It's not like you can't take your business elsewhere if you don't like the contract. If you want to buy an operating system that works with your current word processor, email client, and games, you are very limited in which one you can get. Yet my mother clicking on "I agree" is more enforceable than a businessman signing a car rental agreement that has a clause to charge more for speeding.
I don't have a link, but I can comment on what we saw on one of those TV shows like "World's Worst Drivers" or whatnot.You know the ones I mean, on the Fox Cable channel, not the local Fox affiliate channel.
There was one scene that explains it perfectly. The camera was mounted on the side of a major highway, three or four lanes each way. This was at a small curve in the highway, and everything was fine. Except for the weather. It was either slightly foggy, or lightly snowing, I can't remember which. But all the traffic was flowing smoothly, no brake lights, doing about 20-25mph. So one super-bright guy realizes he doesn't have a 5 mile visibility clearance, and figures out that if the car in front of him stopped suddenly, he would probably hit it. So what does he do? Slams on his brakes to slow down to a "safe" speed of about 5mph, then releases the brakes, and drives at that 5mph speed. The driver behind him manages to avoid plowing into his backend, but isn't so lucky as the next driver doesn't have the same cat-like reflexes. Or the next driver, or the one after that, or the drivers in the next lane, or the eventually 50 drivers that pile-up because one safety conscious driver realized that he was going at an unsafe speed. If he had never realized how unsafe he was being, the entire accident would never have happened.
So, yes, driving too slow, especially when all the other traffic is going a set speed, is dangerous, and potentially fatal.
In Frodo's defense, let me point out he did say "promoted". How many of the 'real musisicians' or 'bar bands' are actually promoted with more than a badly xeroxed flyer stapled to a telephone pole, or at the most a cheap banner at the bar.
I agree that Frodo did overlook a large segment of the musical base as far as the number musicians. But if you look at the scene from the point of view of albums sold and concert attendence, he has the ratio correct.
Some days I'm not so sure. I try to connect, and it sits there for a minute, then says it can't find the server, so I hit the refresh button, and Slashdot springs to life. Is it their end or mine? Oh, well, no big deal. As long as the boss isn't watching me stare at my computer for a minute. He might want me to do something more useful. haha
Right. So just figure out what number represents how many seconds would add up to Febuary 30, 2003. Basically, it would be the same value as March 2, 2003, but you have to remember to set the evil bit. That'll do it every time.
They already have the reverse. Ever heard or an X-Ray? Even an MRI to an extent, as the skull is seen in cross-section around the brain-slice.
But really, how could this possibly be abused by the government? I don't even believe it is nearly as accurate as they claim, since all it does it apply the average flesh depth for the ethnic group they assume the skull is from. If that isn't crap science, I don't know what is. And yes, I thought the same thing back when I first saw the clay version on Quincy. I know that police have been able to identify some people this way, and convicted their killers, as on A&E's Cold Case Files. But really, a good sketch artist could probably make a drawing that was as close a likeness as the clay models were.
"The problem is, money has to come from *somewhere*, and unless something is done, we're going to first turn most of our citizens into subsistence level government dependants, and then into dead people as the government collapses under its own bloated weight and there is no longer a welfare bureau or anyone handing out or honoring food stamps. I know many will label this part of my post FUD, "
Actually, I have the exact same view of the future of our country. Eventually we will have a massive collapse, and possibley another civil war, and many millions are going to die. And their is no acceptable solution that we can achieve before that time. It's not so much the legendary slippery slope, as it is a vortex funnel. We keep going in circles , but noone can see that the endpoint is a dropoff into a black pit. But since my predictions in high school that Japan's economy would collapse within 30 years were validated in 10 years, my current prediction that the US will collapse into this civil war within the century may be validated by 2030. Scary thought, but I don't see another outcome. As you say, you can't get most people to believe it can happen, much less will happen soon.
What do you define a liberal as? Someone who needs government assistance to wipe their own ass, with government issued toilet paper, in a government owned toilet, and with a government finger shoving up their ass afterward checking for any hidden money that they didn't tax yet? And that person likes this? That sounds like your version of liberalism.
There is a reason that millions of people left Europe and migrated to the US. They were tired of Big Brother, long before the book was written. They wanted a place they could raise a family, work for their own future, and not have the government round their sons up and send them to die in every piss-ant skirmish that the king/queen/prince/mayor/etc decided was needed to save their honor.
The biggest problem with the US today is that too many people have forgotten that aspect of living in the land of the free. They think we should emulate Europe. Why? Where did both World Wars start? Why should we be dragged into acting like that? Unfortunately we have. Now we think we have to do all the stupid things Europeans have been doing for a thousand years. And of course tax everyone to death to pay for it (oh wait, that is another of the stupid things Europeans think is normal).
And for the record, the second biggest problem with the US today is that the religious right can't dissociate their version of GOD from their civic life or their political and legal activities. I don't care if someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, and it's none of my business what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own house. I also don't care if people want to avoid reality for a few hours, or bet on the score of a football game, or watch movies of people having sex. Laws are not meant to be interpretations of the Bible. Laws are supposed to prevent people from causing harm to other people, not save their souls.
And finally, for those who want to throw the race card into the argument, there was a reason I specifically said people left Europe to live in the land of the free. While many Africans did the same, and were free men, the majority were brought over as slaves. I don't think that entails their entire decendant group to live off the government. Liberals in the US like to make this group think they deserve every drop of public assistance that the Democrats are willing to give them. But sucking from the public teat is just keeping them dependant on that teat, rather than helping them become successful in their own life. I would rather see the government helping these people find a solid job and live in good neighborhoods. Instead the liberals herd them into ghettos and housing projects that are unclean and dangerous.
No, I wasn't saying we shouldn't use the knowledge. But there have been lawsuits concerning that knowledge. And the official stance of many if not all Jewish groups is that using the knowledge, even to save lives, validates the entire Holocaust of World War II. I agree that that viewpoint is extreme, but then again, I can't exactly blame them for their feelings on the matter.
As far as rounding up the homeless for experimentation, I was thinking about a movie I saw recently starring Hugh Grant and Gene Hackman. Both played doctors. Hackman was doing spinal cord experiments on homeless people, basically by snipping their spinal cord, and trying to regrow it. So it wasn't that homeless are medically different, just socially expendable. Grant played the hero who stopped the inhumane experiments. But the big question is, What if Dr. Hackman had managed to heal broken spinal cords? Would that knowledge be usable, or would it be immoral to validate his methods by using it?
Well, when a mugger points a gun at you and says "Give me your wallet", you just voluteered, under coercion, to give him your wallet.
This happened to my roommate Don back in school. He and another guy were walking down the sidewalk when two muggers attacked them. The other guy was hit in the back of the head and fell. Don was hit in the temple, which spun him competely around, but he was still standing. The mugger had his gun in Don's face, and demanded his wallet. The response? "Fuck you!" He then pushed the gun away, the two (very surprised) muggers ran away, and all they got was the other guy's wallet, which the mugger who hit him took from his back pocket when he was on the ground. So, no, having a gun in your face doesn't always mean you volunteer to give someone your wallet.
"And morals differ. Some of us can't understand why anyone in their right mind would think that a culture of cells have moral interests when grown animals do not."
So why don't you and your idiot friends simply fund research of human stem cells yourselves? All Bush limited was government funding of stem cells outside of the several dozen available at the time. In other words, the feds won't pay for experiments on new stem cell lines, but will throw thousands of dollars on research using the ones they already have. And private donors can fund any damn thing they wish. So go get some stem cells from a fetus, put them in a petri dish, place that in a box, crumple up your dollar bills to use for packing material, and send it to your local university research lab. That is perfectly legal. You can even add your tax refund check, since I'm sure you don't agree with Bush that we deserve lower taxes as well.
I know this is Slashdot, but at least use your brain occassionally. Please.
Do you feel the say way about the vast medical knowledge that was collected by torturing and killing a certain group of people in the 1940s? Many oppose any use of that knowledge because it validates the actions of mass murderers, and sends the message that the people experimented on don't deserve any respect or sorrow for what they went through.
In another context, what if the homeless today were rounded up by a medical group and experimented on? Should their findings be used, especially if they find the cure for conditions such as blindness, cancer, spinal cord damage, or AIDS? Or should the doctors involved be locked up, and the medical discoveries be burned?
In one case, the knowledge is already there, waiting to be exploited. In the other, no one has actually went through with any such program, as far as we know. Do you view them as equally horrendous, or as helpful?
But he was right, you see. Just as "this Address exists", that being your house/apartment/rock, the "addressee" exists as well, he just doesn't live with you. If you got a letter addressed to an "Andy Beal", you can't say that Andy Beal doesn't exist, because people.yahoo.com shows at least three such people live in California.
Bill Stewart Brainwash Soda. Interesting, Caffeinated. [idiom.com]
Well, Mr. Stewart, I also have tried the soft drinks that page mentions. I didn't like the taste. It is sort of like those energy drinks, the ones with guarano and taurine and stuff. The flavor isn't too bad, but the aftertaste upsets my stomach.
But anyway, they have great artwork on the bottles don't they? I have several bottles on a shelf at home, that we brought back with us when we went on vacation a few years ago. Imagine trying to explain to airport security that you are carrying a dozen bottles of strange beverages on board the plane, but you are not planning on drinking them. And they are not alcoholic. I just didn't trust them in the cargo hold. I have the Black Lemonade, which my stepson liked. And Brainwash, and the one with a female-Elvis looking skeleton or something (haven't looked at them in a while). And at least one more (haven't counted them in a while either). So, thanks for the link. It's good to know that weird stuff like this isn't lost for all time.
I'm pretty sure that if an F-18 were to fly past one of those things, the air-wash coming off the wings would drop it into the ocean very easily. It would probably shred it in fact.
I believe that we as humans do not have the right to own atoms of matter. We also don't have the right to own segments of our planet, and all things on that segment, since they also are made of atoms of matter.
This doesn't mean I am going to let you take my computer, car, home, land, or any other item that the government and society say I own. And if in the future the government and society choose to say I don't own them, 'because atoms want to be free', they will have a hard time forcing their idiotic set of beliefs on me.
You can't seem to handle the difference between what is a right, and what we as humans will do because we are humans. By the way, there is no 'innate moral centre' that precludes eating. And in my personal beliefs, all living organisms are just as deserving of kindness and compassion, not just the 'cute ones' like hamsters, dogs, cats, and bunnies. To me, you are still living in the grey area between barbarism and civility, with your pick-and-choose compassion.
Did you hear a huge WHOOSH sound as you typed that? That was bethanie's point, totally missing you.
"Should every person who wants to run for any kind of public position be forced to lead a quiet and sanctimonious life?"
No, that's not what she said. She said if you haven't lead a "quiet life of obscurity", and want to be in the public eye, expect that your past will be made public, and own up to it. I have more respect for someone who will admit doing something stupid, especially as a teenager, than for someone who denies they ever did anything stupid when there is proof that they did. If twenty-five of her high-school friends/enemies were quoted as saying they saw Katy (Miss Vermont) Johnson doing tequila shots between blowjobs on graduation night, and she has lied about how pure and innocent she is, she deserves to be found out.
If on the other hand, she said that she did things she wasn't proud of, and now sees how wrong she was, and is campaigning against those actions, then she will "have the ovaries to stand up and address the "mistakes" [she's] made." The details will be heard, if not from her then from others involved.
"Real people who have lived real lives should also be able to [hold important positions]."
Yes, but if they do really stupid things which will prevent people from wanting them in important positions, they have to accept the fact that some things they choose to do may hurt them in the future.
But actually from reading the article, it never says she admits the story Max printed is true. The "accurate facts" about her may just be her name, address, and what pageants she won. Max could just be making up everything about an affair, but obviously he would use these "accurate facts" to make it sound legitimate. He couldn't very well say he had sex with Katy Johnson when they lived in Colorado from 1996 to 1999, as she obviously wasn't living in Colorado then.
I think one was the Miss America camp, and the other was the Miss USA camp. Look at her site, http://www.katyjohnson.com/katy.html , after the slashdotting is over.
Slashdot Mirror
And a court has decided that that isn't the case everytime either. A guy rented a car, and of course signed the rental agreement just like he always does. Brought the car back two days later, and was being charged about $150 extra. He asked why, and was told that the car has a tracking system in it, and the system showed that he speeded on three separate instances during the trip. As it turns out, the contract he signed had a clause explicitly covering this, so he can't get out of it.
Until the idiot judge decided that since that isn't a standard part of a car rental contract, it isn't enforceable. In fact the car rental company wasn't allowed to keep the clause in future contracts, even though they would specifically point it out and explain it to future customers.
The sad thing is, there are dozens of car rental companies available, from Avis and Enterprise, to the single-location companies that noone knows about. It's not like you can't take your business elsewhere if you don't like the contract. If you want to buy an operating system that works with your current word processor, email client, and games, you are very limited in which one you can get. Yet my mother clicking on "I agree" is more enforceable than a businessman signing a car rental agreement that has a clause to charge more for speeding.
That is what is wrong with EULA's.
Your wife's monitor has BNC ports? What's its IP address, I'll try to ping it.
I don't have a link, but I can comment on what we saw on one of those TV shows like "World's Worst Drivers" or whatnot.You know the ones I mean, on the Fox Cable channel, not the local Fox affiliate channel.
There was one scene that explains it perfectly. The camera was mounted on the side of a major highway, three or four lanes each way. This was at a small curve in the highway, and everything was fine. Except for the weather. It was either slightly foggy, or lightly snowing, I can't remember which. But all the traffic was flowing smoothly, no brake lights, doing about 20-25mph. So one super-bright guy realizes he doesn't have a 5 mile visibility clearance, and figures out that if the car in front of him stopped suddenly, he would probably hit it. So what does he do? Slams on his brakes to slow down to a "safe" speed of about 5mph, then releases the brakes, and drives at that 5mph speed. The driver behind him manages to avoid plowing into his backend, but isn't so lucky as the next driver doesn't have the same cat-like reflexes. Or the next driver, or the one after that, or the drivers in the next lane, or the eventually 50 drivers that pile-up because one safety conscious driver realized that he was going at an unsafe speed. If he had never realized how unsafe he was being, the entire accident would never have happened.
So, yes, driving too slow, especially when all the other traffic is going a set speed, is dangerous, and potentially fatal.
Well, when I flipped a coin to your mother, all I got was some head. ;^)
In Frodo's defense, let me point out he did say "promoted". How many of the 'real musisicians' or 'bar bands' are actually promoted with more than a badly xeroxed flyer stapled to a telephone pole, or at the most a cheap banner at the bar.
I agree that Frodo did overlook a large segment of the musical base as far as the number musicians. But if you look at the scene from the point of view of albums sold and concert attendence, he has the ratio correct.
Someone finally mentioned dragons. Ever read Anne McAffery's novels set on Pern? Are they science fiction or fantasy?
Some days I'm not so sure. I try to connect, and it sits there for a minute, then says it can't find the server, so I hit the refresh button, and Slashdot springs to life. Is it their end or mine? Oh, well, no big deal. As long as the boss isn't watching me stare at my computer for a minute. He might want me to do something more useful. haha
Right. So just figure out what number represents how many seconds would add up to Febuary 30, 2003. Basically, it would be the same value as March 2, 2003, but you have to remember to set the evil bit. That'll do it every time.
Best palindrome ever.
I'll call your MacGyver and raise you a Quincy.
They already have the reverse. Ever heard or an X-Ray? Even an MRI to an extent, as the skull is seen in cross-section around the brain-slice.
But really, how could this possibly be abused by the government? I don't even believe it is nearly as accurate as they claim, since all it does it apply the average flesh depth for the ethnic group they assume the skull is from. If that isn't crap science, I don't know what is. And yes, I thought the same thing back when I first saw the clay version on Quincy. I know that police have been able to identify some people this way, and convicted their killers, as on A&E's Cold Case Files. But really, a good sketch artist could probably make a drawing that was as close a likeness as the clay models were.
"The problem is, money has to come from *somewhere*, and unless something is done, we're going to first turn most of our citizens into subsistence level government dependants, and then into dead people as the government collapses under its own bloated weight and there is no longer a welfare bureau or anyone handing out or honoring food stamps. I know many will label this part of my post FUD, "
Actually, I have the exact same view of the future of our country. Eventually we will have a massive collapse, and possibley another civil war, and many millions are going to die. And their is no acceptable solution that we can achieve before that time. It's not so much the legendary slippery slope, as it is a vortex funnel. We keep going in circles , but noone can see that the endpoint is a dropoff into a black pit. But since my predictions in high school that Japan's economy would collapse within 30 years were validated in 10 years, my current prediction that the US will collapse into this civil war within the century may be validated by 2030. Scary thought, but I don't see another outcome. As you say, you can't get most people to believe it can happen, much less will happen soon.
What do you define a liberal as? Someone who needs government assistance to wipe their own ass, with government issued toilet paper, in a government owned toilet, and with a government finger shoving up their ass afterward checking for any hidden money that they didn't tax yet? And that person likes this? That sounds like your version of liberalism.
There is a reason that millions of people left Europe and migrated to the US. They were tired of Big Brother, long before the book was written. They wanted a place they could raise a family, work for their own future, and not have the government round their sons up and send them to die in every piss-ant skirmish that the king/queen/prince/mayor/etc decided was needed to save their honor.
The biggest problem with the US today is that too many people have forgotten that aspect of living in the land of the free. They think we should emulate Europe. Why? Where did both World Wars start? Why should we be dragged into acting like that? Unfortunately we have. Now we think we have to do all the stupid things Europeans have been doing for a thousand years. And of course tax everyone to death to pay for it (oh wait, that is another of the stupid things Europeans think is normal).
And for the record, the second biggest problem with the US today is that the religious right can't dissociate their version of GOD from their civic life or their political and legal activities. I don't care if someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, and it's none of my business what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own house. I also don't care if people want to avoid reality for a few hours, or bet on the score of a football game, or watch movies of people having sex. Laws are not meant to be interpretations of the Bible. Laws are supposed to prevent people from causing harm to other people, not save their souls.
And finally, for those who want to throw the race card into the argument, there was a reason I specifically said people left Europe to live in the land of the free. While many Africans did the same, and were free men, the majority were brought over as slaves. I don't think that entails their entire decendant group to live off the government. Liberals in the US like to make this group think they deserve every drop of public assistance that the Democrats are willing to give them. But sucking from the public teat is just keeping them dependant on that teat, rather than helping them become successful in their own life. I would rather see the government helping these people find a solid job and live in good neighborhoods. Instead the liberals herd them into ghettos and housing projects that are unclean and dangerous.
No, I wasn't saying we shouldn't use the knowledge. But there have been lawsuits concerning that knowledge. And the official stance of many if not all Jewish groups is that using the knowledge, even to save lives, validates the entire Holocaust of World War II. I agree that that viewpoint is extreme, but then again, I can't exactly blame them for their feelings on the matter.
As far as rounding up the homeless for experimentation, I was thinking about a movie I saw recently starring Hugh Grant and Gene Hackman. Both played doctors. Hackman was doing spinal cord experiments on homeless people, basically by snipping their spinal cord, and trying to regrow it. So it wasn't that homeless are medically different, just socially expendable. Grant played the hero who stopped the inhumane experiments. But the big question is, What if Dr. Hackman had managed to heal broken spinal cords? Would that knowledge be usable, or would it be immoral to validate his methods by using it?
Minor point:
Well, when a mugger points a gun at you and says "Give me your wallet", you just voluteered, under coercion, to give him your wallet.
This happened to my roommate Don back in school. He and another guy were walking down the sidewalk when two muggers attacked them. The other guy was hit in the back of the head and fell. Don was hit in the temple, which spun him competely around, but he was still standing. The mugger had his gun in Don's face, and demanded his wallet. The response? "Fuck you!" He then pushed the gun away, the two (very surprised) muggers ran away, and all they got was the other guy's wallet, which the mugger who hit him took from his back pocket when he was on the ground. So, no, having a gun in your face doesn't always mean you volunteer to give someone your wallet.
"And morals differ. Some of us can't understand why anyone in their right mind would think that a culture of cells have moral interests when grown animals do not."
So why don't you and your idiot friends simply fund research of human stem cells yourselves? All Bush limited was government funding of stem cells outside of the several dozen available at the time. In other words, the feds won't pay for experiments on new stem cell lines, but will throw thousands of dollars on research using the ones they already have. And private donors can fund any damn thing they wish. So go get some stem cells from a fetus, put them in a petri dish, place that in a box, crumple up your dollar bills to use for packing material, and send it to your local university research lab. That is perfectly legal. You can even add your tax refund check, since I'm sure you don't agree with Bush that we deserve lower taxes as well.
I know this is Slashdot, but at least use your brain occassionally. Please.
Do you feel the say way about the vast medical knowledge that was collected by torturing and killing a certain group of people in the 1940s? Many oppose any use of that knowledge because it validates the actions of mass murderers, and sends the message that the people experimented on don't deserve any respect or sorrow for what they went through.
In another context, what if the homeless today were rounded up by a medical group and experimented on? Should their findings be used, especially if they find the cure for conditions such as blindness, cancer, spinal cord damage, or AIDS? Or should the doctors involved be locked up, and the medical discoveries be burned?
In one case, the knowledge is already there, waiting to be exploited. In the other, no one has actually went through with any such program, as far as we know. Do you view them as equally horrendous, or as helpful?
if it was your human infant, you may have a different concern.
But he was right, you see. Just as "this Address exists", that being your house/apartment/rock, the "addressee" exists as well, he just doesn't live with you. If you got a letter addressed to an "Andy Beal", you can't say that Andy Beal doesn't exist, because people.yahoo.com shows at least three such people live in California.
Oh Donkey, he's just saying that... Oh, nevermind.
Bill Stewart
Brainwash Soda. Interesting, Caffeinated. [idiom.com]
Well, Mr. Stewart, I also have tried the soft drinks that page mentions. I didn't like the taste. It is sort of like those energy drinks, the ones with guarano and taurine and stuff. The flavor isn't too bad, but the aftertaste upsets my stomach.
But anyway, they have great artwork on the bottles don't they? I have several bottles on a shelf at home, that we brought back with us when we went on vacation a few years ago. Imagine trying to explain to airport security that you are carrying a dozen bottles of strange beverages on board the plane, but you are not planning on drinking them. And they are not alcoholic. I just didn't trust them in the cargo hold. I have the Black Lemonade, which my stepson liked. And Brainwash, and the one with a female-Elvis looking skeleton or something (haven't looked at them in a while). And at least one more (haven't counted them in a while either). So, thanks for the link. It's good to know that weird stuff like this isn't lost for all time.
"to slow to attack from a jet "
I'm pretty sure that if an F-18 were to fly past one of those things, the air-wash coming off the wings would drop it into the ocean very easily. It would probably shred it in fact.
The hard part would simply be finding it first.
I believe that we as humans do not have the right to own atoms of matter. We also don't have the right to own segments of our planet, and all things on that segment, since they also are made of atoms of matter.
This doesn't mean I am going to let you take my computer, car, home, land, or any other item that the government and society say I own. And if in the future the government and society choose to say I don't own them, 'because atoms want to be free', they will have a hard time forcing their idiotic set of beliefs on me.
You can't seem to handle the difference between what is a right, and what we as humans will do because we are humans. By the way, there is no 'innate moral centre' that precludes eating. And in my personal beliefs, all living organisms are just as deserving of kindness and compassion, not just the 'cute ones' like hamsters, dogs, cats, and bunnies. To me, you are still living in the grey area between barbarism and civility, with your pick-and-choose compassion.
Did you hear a huge WHOOSH sound as you typed that? That was bethanie's point, totally missing you.
"Should every person who wants to run for any kind of public position be forced to lead a quiet and sanctimonious life?"
No, that's not what she said. She said if you haven't lead a "quiet life of obscurity", and want to be in the public eye, expect that your past will be made public, and own up to it. I have more respect for someone who will admit doing something stupid, especially as a teenager, than for someone who denies they ever did anything stupid when there is proof that they did. If twenty-five of her high-school friends/enemies were quoted as saying they saw Katy (Miss Vermont) Johnson doing tequila shots between blowjobs on graduation night, and she has lied about how pure and innocent she is, she deserves to be found out.
If on the other hand, she said that she did things she wasn't proud of, and now sees how wrong she was, and is campaigning against those actions, then she will "have the ovaries to stand up and address the "mistakes" [she's] made." The details will be heard, if not from her then from others involved.
"Real people who have lived real lives should also be able to [hold important positions]."
Yes, but if they do really stupid things which will prevent people from wanting them in important positions, they have to accept the fact that some things they choose to do may hurt them in the future.
But actually from reading the article, it never says she admits the story Max printed is true. The "accurate facts" about her may just be her name, address, and what pageants she won. Max could just be making up everything about an affair, but obviously he would use these "accurate facts" to make it sound legitimate. He couldn't very well say he had sex with Katy Johnson when they lived in Colorado from 1996 to 1999, as she obviously wasn't living in Colorado then.
I think one was the Miss America camp, and the other was the Miss USA camp. Look at her site, http://www.katyjohnson.com/katy.html , after the slashdotting is over.