There is nothing special or unusual about Bush2 administration, in terms of looking-the-other-way on antitrust violations.
...Except that they are the ones who looked the other way on this particular set of antitrust violations.
Put away your axe, and your grindstone, read what I actually wrote, and maybe try to remember a little of what happened around 6-7 years ago when Bush came into power, and the lawsuit just quietly...disappeared...
In two more years, evidence of this might actually get somewhere with the DoJ. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still entirely controlled by the exact same administration that let Microsoft off in the first place?
Now, if Congress could somehow manage to get involved, that might make some difference...
...due to your limited "Internet Silver" subscription which only supports the top 200 major websites.
No, that's not what lack of net neutrality would get you. The reason you wouldn't be able to get Slashdot is because of Slashdot's limited subscription, which only gives it 10% as much bandwidth as sites of a similar size that paid through the nose for premium access to the pipes of 5 different middlemen, who have nothing directly to do with either you or Slashdot.
OK, I'm lost here. Why are WMV, Real, and Flash the only possibilities? What's wrong with an MPEG-4 based codec, like h264? It's excellent at any bitrate, and widely supported (to my understanding)...though I don't know offhand how well it performs when streaming, or what software can be used to do so (though I'd bet Darwin Streaming Server can do it, and the server side of VLC certainly could).
Is it you that doesn't consider it, or were they being ridiculously oblivious?
I propose that science would be much more advanced in the US if not for the influences of religion.
Oh, I agree with that completely. However, what you said was that this:
Being a theist isn't a barrier to accepting most of the scientific community's conclusions, nor to participating in advanced research.
...was pure drivel, and followed that up with the series of rhetorical questions naming three particular beliefs which are, by and large, held by only the most zealous of theists. If you weren't intending to imply that all theists are like that, then why did you write that?
The fact that there are idiots in this world who believe that science is useless to them because they have faith in no way implies that scientific progress in this country is being slowed by religion. That both statements are true does not make a link between them true. There are also people in this world who believe that the Moon landing was faked--and we haven't been back to the Moon for decades. Does that mean that it's these conspiracy theorists who are holding us back from going to the Moon?
Why study the natural universe if anything could change at any time due to magic? Why try to cure a disease through science when you could just pray? Why should you learn science if it is OBVIOUSLY a flawed process (since it contradicts the abrahamic legends)?
Why try to argue with someone who only sets up straw men that are totally unrepresentative of the actual truth?
Here's a hint: the only people who actually seriously believe that science might change because of an act of God, God will cure a disease simply because of prayer with no medicine involved, and everything in the Bible is absolute truth are religious zealots--not your average person who believes in God and goes to church on Sunday.
But go ahead and keep believing that theist == fundamentalist, because I'm sure it's more comforting to hold onto your own delusions...
Oh, and by the way: I'm more or less agnostic myself.
However, many of these same people go on to say (in so many words), "Evolution is merely Gods plan."
Huh? How can one claim to be a scientist and claim that an unknown, unseeable, untestable supreme being is responsible for a testable, documented, natural function? That's my point.
I don't see the disconnect.
Science attempts to explain how things happen. Religion attempts to explain why. I am not a particularly religious person myself, but looking at it from the perspective of logic, I don't see anything inconsistent with someone being a scientist, believing that all processes in the world can be explained by testable, measurable, understandable forces and laws, and yet believing that there is a God who wrote all those laws according to some Grand Plan.
You see, when you're 9000KMs from home in an African country with your laptop, there is no such thing as simply opening itunes and connecting to the Internet to beg for permission to use something that you already bought. It's just not an option in a lot of places.
Yes, I can definitely see how that would be a problem. In such cases, DRM is definitely absolutely bad. (And, as you probably guessed, I hadn't even been thinking in those terms...thanks for opening my eyes to that particular piece of the DRM problem.)
However, my perspective is this: the choice is not between "iTunes Music Store with FairPlay DRM" and "iTunes Music Store without any DRM". The choice is between "iTunes Music Store with FairPlay DRM" and "no iTunes Music Store".
Personally, even though I haven't bought very much from it, I very much prefer the latter...especially since, due to its very unintrusive nature, it has set the bar for music DRM, and more restrictive schemes will, of necessity, be compared to it, and found wanting. Of course, I would prefer no DRM. Personally, I think the state of copyright in the US, and the measures being taken to perpetuate and lock it in are nothing short of criminal. However, I consider myself a pragmatist, and, for now, the best we're going to get for 95% of music is the iTMS.
However, as I know I'm highly unlikely to convince you, and very much respect your position, I'm not going to bother arguing this further.:-)
Well, unless you've already authorized your 5 devices, all you need to do is open up iTunes (necessary to play the song in the first place...) and authorize the computer you want to play it on. You don't have to jump through any flaming hoops...
And this doesn't give any indication that the Zune is somehow better—indeed, it seems to me it would be much worse, putting DRM on songs that didn't have it in the first place. If you're against any DRM at all on principle, I can understand and respect that...but it's hardly germane to the discussion at hand.
I have not played FF12, but from what I have read in reviews and these posts it sounds like FF12 involves robot movement through a story where you are given the illusion of choice. Random battles were what is needed to make choices seem less like an illusion (not that this will completely destroy the illusion; see FF7). For example: when you get to point X in the story you know EXACTLY how many xps you will have (if this game even uses xps). You will be EXACTLY level Y. Every time. It will never change. Whats the point?
Way to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about.
"No random battles" isn't exactly the right way to put it: there are still plenty of random battles. It's just that you can see them, and thereby, if you choose, avoid them. All enemies are visible as you walk around, and there's no transition between "walking" and "battle." If you want, you can loop through a half-dozen connected areas cleaning them out over and over again and racking up the XP and license points. Better than that, it seems from what I've seen of the game so far that you the flexibility to start some of the sidequests much earlier than you would in most such games. (You're likely to die unless you level up a lot, a fact to which I can personally attest, but you can do it, if you really want to.)
And yes, I, in fact, have played the game (just saved and put up the controller 5 minutes ago), so I know what I'm talking about.
I really wish Slashdot would stop doing this. Taking a patent, making the most ludicrous assumptions about the scope, and then criticising these assumptions as ludicrous. It doesn't help. It undermines the anti-patent argument.
Indeed. Specifically, they seem to read the abstract of the patent--or even a third-party summary of the abstract--and fixate on one or two words from it, and say, "OH NOES THEIR TRYING TO PATENT TAGGING!!11!!!" or, "I have prior art for that! I saw someone with a tagging system back in '95!" when the actual claims for the patent (you know, the part that says what's actually patented) say something quite different, very specific, and not particularly worrying at all. Or even when they say something quite different, overly broad, and somewhat worrying...it still doesn't help, because you're arguing a completely different issue.
I am as distressed with the real broken state of patent law in this country as most others here...but the way in which it is treated is, as you say, very counterproductive. It would be very nice if there were some kind of standards for acceptance of such articles--and, though I'm generally not too critical of the editors, it would be much nicer if they would pay enough attention so as to not make completely worthless and off-base comments when they post them. Commenting is fine, just make it an informed, useful, and correct comment.
And no, before you ask, I'm not new here, I'm just annoyed.
I've never actually believed that this is true; I think that except for a very, very small proportion, most Americans would prefer to live above a subsistence level, even if that means they have to get out and do some work. I would tend to blame the War on Drugs for the cycle of violence and poverty more than welfare.
However, I do think it's less than useful to get extra for more children. People should have to pay more for more children; that's the only way we're ever going to shift population growth from those least able to afford it to those most able...
My rough recommendation would be something like half the amount of the current child tax credit should be the amount of the tax, and if you can't pay it, after a certain length of time you get your tubes tied...or something like that.
Basically, people want to "restore the balance" in the OS market by stopping Microsoft from delivering the product its customers want...
Nope. I would be largely satisfied with Microsoft if they opened up all their APIs fully, thus allowing any application vendor to compete equally with their applications division. That wouldn't stop Microsoft from producing anything; it would just put them on a more even footing with anyone else who wants to produce something similar. That said, I don't know that I would trust Microsoft to keep doing so thereafter...
...there are numerous easily accessible alternatives to Windows.
Easily accessible? Maybe. Functionally equivalent? Not a chance, and Microsoft does their best to ensure that this remains the case.
Uh, seems to me I'm interested in ensuring the same standards are applied to everyone.
While that sounds just fine in theory, in practice it just doesn't work--once someone has obtained a monopoly, it is no longer in their interests to do what is best for consumers, so these laws were created to protect competition, and, by doing so, protect consumers from inferior products at higher prices.
"Fair" doesn't always mean "treat everyone the same"--especially when they start out extremely unequal. Even more so when one party has a long history of using questionable and downright illegal tactics to make sure that no one has a chance to compete fairly against them.
Indeed, and it was clearly dreamed up by someone with a "we had to destroy the village to save it" mentality.
Well, see, there are a few problems with that argument.
It doesn't make any sense.
If they hadn't made those laws, we would likely be living now in the United States of Standard Oil, ruled by the First Rockefeller Dynasty.
Just because you don't like the laws doesn't change the fact that we're not just a bunch of geeks applying hypocritical double standards to companies we like and companies we hate--it's the law, and many of us believe it's a good law.
So...got any more crushingly cogent arguments to make my head spin?
We can't have a double standard that says it's ok for most companies to do that, but not Microsoft because they're the nasty 8000 ton gorilla.
Actually, yes, we can, and we do, and it's not just us "M$ IS TEH SUXXORZ" geeks, it's the American legal system. Said "double standard" is called the Sherman Antitrust Act (among, I believe, other laws), and it says that when you become a monopoly, you have to play by different rules, primarily regarding pushing into other markets on the strength of your monopoly power.
That's interesting...on a Mac with a US keyboard, you can access any of those with the right combinations of Shift and Option. Of course, I've only once used a non-US-QWERTY keyboard, and I was completely lost on it, so I don't know what international keyboards & keymaps are like...it just seems odd that you can't get at them with Shift and appropriate modifiers everywhere.
My understanding of the Caps Lock key is it's supposed to act exactly like a held-down Shift key, but only for the letters.
Yeah, he's just spreading FUD with that. While it's true that there are no separate PgUp/PgDn/Home/End keys, they're secondary functions on the arrow keys (so Fn-Up is PgUp, etc).
I've heard various people say, "But I can't possibly manage with the extra modifier keypress to access PgUp/PgDn/Home/End! It will totally ruin my productivity! I will never buy an Apple laptop!"...frankly, I think these people are nuts. I've been functioning this way for 3 years, and never had a serious problem. Of course, YMMV (and just because they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong, I suppose...).
Hate to worry you, mate, but you're reasoning from A to purple. If evolution is the truth, it is exactly as likely that there is an afterlife as if it is not. If an almighty God created us all 4000 years ago...we still might just be fused brains, with no soul and nothing beyond death. The two questions are completely separate.
Of course, I can hardly blame you, as you're far from the only one making that mistake, and in fact, that's a lot of the problem. There are far too many people, especially in our dysfunctional country, who believe that either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true. Of course, the truth is in between. The truth is always in between, and things are (almost) always shades of grey, not black or white. It's just that people don't want to deal with that kind of ambiguity, because that would be too much like thinking.
99% of the software out there either supports Mac, supports Linux, has a perfectly good alternative for one of these that can read and write its formats, or isn't worth buying in the first place.
For the other 1%, well, personally, I live just fine without it.
Actually, my understanding is that it is unlawful to serve alcohol to a minor, unless you are said minor's legal guardian, or sell alcohol to a minor. I don't think there's anything illegal about drinking as a minor.
However, I dare say that possession of a fake ID is at least worth a small fine...
Now, I've no particular relation to the legal system, but I was under the impression that what hiring a lawyer "on contingency" meant was that they got their fee out of the winnings...
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, I'm just confused...can you point me to something that refutes that belief, and proves that your lawyer wasn't just a first-class jerk?
1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex.
Well, that's a ludicrously disingenuous way to begin a rebuttal...
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. [...] What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.
The former sounds just about right, as long as you're not gay (which I would assume you're not). I would say that it does have to do with both the law and the rights of homosexuals. The latter, on the other hand, I would say is something of a grey area, as you have to consider a) where the line between "loose-constructionist" and "activist" lies, and b) that if laws are found to violate basic human rights or relevant Constitutions, striking them down can't reasonably be considered "activist."
2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke.
While that is clearly true in the case of someone's home, I would contend that it's fuzzier when you look at spaces that are privately owned, but still very clearly "public spaces," such as stores, malls, and restaurants.
You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition.
I would argue that it is precisely whether that is a natural right that is at the center of the debate around smoking bans. At the moment, it looks like those who believe it is such are winning. Personally, I look forward to a future where such laws are unnecessary because no one is dumb enough to want to destroy their health with such a destructive pastime...however, I also recognize that that's not likely to happen within any of our lifetimes.
3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.
I will concede the stated facts for the sake of argument (like I said, my knowledge of such things is limited); however, I would say that the liberal attitude can also be seen as "live and let live," or perhaps, "live and help live:" such legislation is, I believe, generally aimed at preventing corporations from pushing things on consumers that they know to be unhealthy, simply for a little more profit, and at (as I said earlier) young people less able to make rational informed decisions. Beyond that, I will admit (as a liberal Democrat myself) to being somewhat ambivalent on, for instance, laws that require people old enough to know better to wear helmets when riding motorcycles.
As an aside, it strikes me as peculiar that while it is traditionally considered "conservative" to oppose such "public health" initiatives, it is also traditionally considered "liberal" to oppose hard-line stances on recreational drug use, which I see as being a very closely related issue.
If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do?
I think they're attempting to make it illegal for people to enforce their societal norms on others.
What, you think it's your (or anyone's) right to live in a world where homosexuals can't get married?
What do you think anti-smoking campaigns
Same thing. Smoking in public spaces violates my right to breathe clean air, which smokers have no inalienable right to pollute.
helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns
These fall somewhat more under the category of "enforcing social norms" (though more under the category of "public health and safety legislation"), but to my knowledge, anti-fast food campaigns are primarily fought in the court of public opinion, and helmet laws (at least in my state; can't speak for the whole US) apply only to minors for bikes and those under 21 for motorcycles...and are thus aimed at those considered to be less able to make an informed decision based on a proper evaluation of the risks. (Of course, I would argue that there are plenty of people over 21 who are similarly unable to make such decisions, but that's a different argument;-) )
Slashdot Mirror
...Except that they are the ones who looked the other way on this particular set of antitrust violations.
Put away your axe, and your grindstone, read what I actually wrote, and maybe try to remember a little of what happened around 6-7 years ago when Bush came into power, and the lawsuit just quietly...disappeared...
Dan Aris
In two more years, evidence of this might actually get somewhere with the DoJ. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still entirely controlled by the exact same administration that let Microsoft off in the first place?
Now, if Congress could somehow manage to get involved, that might make some difference...
Dan Aris
No, that's not what lack of net neutrality would get you. The reason you wouldn't be able to get Slashdot is because of Slashdot's limited subscription, which only gives it 10% as much bandwidth as sites of a similar size that paid through the nose for premium access to the pipes of 5 different middlemen, who have nothing directly to do with either you or Slashdot.
Dan Aris
OK, I'm lost here. Why are WMV, Real, and Flash the only possibilities? What's wrong with an MPEG-4 based codec, like h264? It's excellent at any bitrate, and widely supported (to my understanding)...though I don't know offhand how well it performs when streaming, or what software can be used to do so (though I'd bet Darwin Streaming Server can do it, and the server side of VLC certainly could).
Is it you that doesn't consider it, or were they being ridiculously oblivious?
Dan Aris
Oh, I agree with that completely. However, what you said was that this:
...was pure drivel, and followed that up with the series of rhetorical questions naming three particular beliefs which are, by and large, held by only the most zealous of theists. If you weren't intending to imply that all theists are like that, then why did you write that?
The fact that there are idiots in this world who believe that science is useless to them because they have faith in no way implies that scientific progress in this country is being slowed by religion. That both statements are true does not make a link between them true. There are also people in this world who believe that the Moon landing was faked--and we haven't been back to the Moon for decades. Does that mean that it's these conspiracy theorists who are holding us back from going to the Moon?
Dan Aris
Why try to argue with someone who only sets up straw men that are totally unrepresentative of the actual truth?
Here's a hint: the only people who actually seriously believe that science might change because of an act of God, God will cure a disease simply because of prayer with no medicine involved, and everything in the Bible is absolute truth are religious zealots--not your average person who believes in God and goes to church on Sunday.
But go ahead and keep believing that theist == fundamentalist, because I'm sure it's more comforting to hold onto your own delusions...
Oh, and by the way: I'm more or less agnostic myself.
Dan Aris
I don't see the disconnect.
Science attempts to explain how things happen. Religion attempts to explain why. I am not a particularly religious person myself, but looking at it from the perspective of logic, I don't see anything inconsistent with someone being a scientist, believing that all processes in the world can be explained by testable, measurable, understandable forces and laws, and yet believing that there is a God who wrote all those laws according to some Grand Plan.
Or is this not what you're saying?
Dan Aris
Yes, I can definitely see how that would be a problem. In such cases, DRM is definitely absolutely bad. (And, as you probably guessed, I hadn't even been thinking in those terms...thanks for opening my eyes to that particular piece of the DRM problem.)
However, my perspective is this: the choice is not between "iTunes Music Store with FairPlay DRM" and "iTunes Music Store without any DRM". The choice is between "iTunes Music Store with FairPlay DRM" and "no iTunes Music Store".
Personally, even though I haven't bought very much from it, I very much prefer the latter...especially since, due to its very unintrusive nature, it has set the bar for music DRM, and more restrictive schemes will, of necessity, be compared to it, and found wanting. Of course, I would prefer no DRM. Personally, I think the state of copyright in the US, and the measures being taken to perpetuate and lock it in are nothing short of criminal. However, I consider myself a pragmatist, and, for now, the best we're going to get for 95% of music is the iTMS.
However, as I know I'm highly unlikely to convince you, and very much respect your position, I'm not going to bother arguing this further. :-)
Dan Aris
Well, unless you've already authorized your 5 devices, all you need to do is open up iTunes (necessary to play the song in the first place...) and authorize the computer you want to play it on. You don't have to jump through any flaming hoops...
And this doesn't give any indication that the Zune is somehow better—indeed, it seems to me it would be much worse, putting DRM on songs that didn't have it in the first place. If you're against any DRM at all on principle, I can understand and respect that...but it's hardly germane to the discussion at hand.
Dan Aris
Care to back that up with any non-big-fat-lies?
Dan Aris
Way to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about.
"No random battles" isn't exactly the right way to put it: there are still plenty of random battles. It's just that you can see them, and thereby, if you choose, avoid them. All enemies are visible as you walk around, and there's no transition between "walking" and "battle." If you want, you can loop through a half-dozen connected areas cleaning them out over and over again and racking up the XP and license points. Better than that, it seems from what I've seen of the game so far that you the flexibility to start some of the sidequests much earlier than you would in most such games. (You're likely to die unless you level up a lot, a fact to which I can personally attest, but you can do it, if you really want to.)
And yes, I, in fact, have played the game (just saved and put up the controller 5 minutes ago), so I know what I'm talking about.
Dan Aris
Indeed. Specifically, they seem to read the abstract of the patent--or even a third-party summary of the abstract--and fixate on one or two words from it, and say, "OH NOES THEIR TRYING TO PATENT TAGGING!!11!!!" or, "I have prior art for that! I saw someone with a tagging system back in '95!" when the actual claims for the patent (you know, the part that says what's actually patented) say something quite different, very specific, and not particularly worrying at all. Or even when they say something quite different, overly broad, and somewhat worrying...it still doesn't help, because you're arguing a completely different issue.
I am as distressed with the real broken state of patent law in this country as most others here...but the way in which it is treated is, as you say, very counterproductive. It would be very nice if there were some kind of standards for acceptance of such articles--and, though I'm generally not too critical of the editors, it would be much nicer if they would pay enough attention so as to not make completely worthless and off-base comments when they post them. Commenting is fine, just make it an informed, useful, and correct comment.
And no, before you ask, I'm not new here, I'm just annoyed.
Dan Aris
I've never actually believed that this is true; I think that except for a very, very small proportion, most Americans would prefer to live above a subsistence level, even if that means they have to get out and do some work. I would tend to blame the War on Drugs for the cycle of violence and poverty more than welfare.
However, I do think it's less than useful to get extra for more children. People should have to pay more for more children; that's the only way we're ever going to shift population growth from those least able to afford it to those most able...
My rough recommendation would be something like half the amount of the current child tax credit should be the amount of the tax, and if you can't pay it, after a certain length of time you get your tubes tied...or something like that.
Dan Aris
Basically, people want to "restore the balance" in the OS market by stopping Microsoft from delivering the product its customers want...
Nope. I would be largely satisfied with Microsoft if they opened up all their APIs fully, thus allowing any application vendor to compete equally with their applications division. That wouldn't stop Microsoft from producing anything; it would just put them on a more even footing with anyone else who wants to produce something similar. That said, I don't know that I would trust Microsoft to keep doing so thereafter...
Easily accessible? Maybe. Functionally equivalent? Not a chance, and Microsoft does their best to ensure that this remains the case.
Uh, seems to me I'm interested in ensuring the same standards are applied to everyone.
While that sounds just fine in theory, in practice it just doesn't work--once someone has obtained a monopoly, it is no longer in their interests to do what is best for consumers, so these laws were created to protect competition, and, by doing so, protect consumers from inferior products at higher prices.
"Fair" doesn't always mean "treat everyone the same"--especially when they start out extremely unequal. Even more so when one party has a long history of using questionable and downright illegal tactics to make sure that no one has a chance to compete fairly against them.
Dan Aris
Indeed, and it was clearly dreamed up by someone with a "we had to destroy the village to save it" mentality.
Well, see, there are a few problems with that argument.
So...got any more crushingly cogent arguments to make my head spin?
Dan Aris
We can't have a double standard that says it's ok for most companies to do that, but not Microsoft because they're the nasty 8000 ton gorilla.
Actually, yes, we can, and we do, and it's not just us "M$ IS TEH SUXXORZ" geeks, it's the American legal system. Said "double standard" is called the Sherman Antitrust Act (among, I believe, other laws), and it says that when you become a monopoly, you have to play by different rules, primarily regarding pushing into other markets on the strength of your monopoly power.
Dan Aris
I think I need to go scrub the inside of my brain now...
Dan Aris
That's interesting...on a Mac with a US keyboard, you can access any of those with the right combinations of Shift and Option. Of course, I've only once used a non-US-QWERTY keyboard, and I was completely lost on it, so I don't know what international keyboards & keymaps are like...it just seems odd that you can't get at them with Shift and appropriate modifiers everywhere.
My understanding of the Caps Lock key is it's supposed to act exactly like a held-down Shift key, but only for the letters.
Dan Aris
Yeah, he's just spreading FUD with that. While it's true that there are no separate PgUp/PgDn/Home/End keys, they're secondary functions on the arrow keys (so Fn-Up is PgUp, etc).
I've heard various people say, "But I can't possibly manage with the extra modifier keypress to access PgUp/PgDn/Home/End! It will totally ruin my productivity! I will never buy an Apple laptop!"...frankly, I think these people are nuts. I've been functioning this way for 3 years, and never had a serious problem. Of course, YMMV (and just because they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong, I suppose...).
Dan Aris
Hate to worry you, mate, but you're reasoning from A to purple. If evolution is the truth, it is exactly as likely that there is an afterlife as if it is not. If an almighty God created us all 4000 years ago...we still might just be fused brains, with no soul and nothing beyond death. The two questions are completely separate.
Of course, I can hardly blame you, as you're far from the only one making that mistake, and in fact, that's a lot of the problem. There are far too many people, especially in our dysfunctional country, who believe that either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true. Of course, the truth is in between. The truth is always in between, and things are (almost) always shades of grey, not black or white. It's just that people don't want to deal with that kind of ambiguity, because that would be too much like thinking.
Dan Aris
99% of the software out there either supports Mac, supports Linux, has a perfectly good alternative for one of these that can read and write its formats, or isn't worth buying in the first place.
For the other 1%, well, personally, I live just fine without it.
Dan Aris
Actually, my understanding is that it is unlawful to serve alcohol to a minor, unless you are said minor's legal guardian, or sell alcohol to a minor. I don't think there's anything illegal about drinking as a minor.
However, I dare say that possession of a fake ID is at least worth a small fine...
Dan Aris
Now, I've no particular relation to the legal system, but I was under the impression that what hiring a lawyer "on contingency" meant was that they got their fee out of the winnings...
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, I'm just confused...can you point me to something that refutes that belief, and proves that your lawyer wasn't just a first-class jerk?
Dan Aris
1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex.
Well, that's a ludicrously disingenuous way to begin a rebuttal...
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. [...] What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.
The former sounds just about right, as long as you're not gay (which I would assume you're not). I would say that it does have to do with both the law and the rights of homosexuals. The latter, on the other hand, I would say is something of a grey area, as you have to consider a) where the line between "loose-constructionist" and "activist" lies, and b) that if laws are found to violate basic human rights or relevant Constitutions, striking them down can't reasonably be considered "activist."
2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke.
While that is clearly true in the case of someone's home, I would contend that it's fuzzier when you look at spaces that are privately owned, but still very clearly "public spaces," such as stores, malls, and restaurants.
You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition.
I would argue that it is precisely whether that is a natural right that is at the center of the debate around smoking bans. At the moment, it looks like those who believe it is such are winning. Personally, I look forward to a future where such laws are unnecessary because no one is dumb enough to want to destroy their health with such a destructive pastime...however, I also recognize that that's not likely to happen within any of our lifetimes.
3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.
I will concede the stated facts for the sake of argument (like I said, my knowledge of such things is limited); however, I would say that the liberal attitude can also be seen as "live and let live," or perhaps, "live and help live:" such legislation is, I believe, generally aimed at preventing corporations from pushing things on consumers that they know to be unhealthy, simply for a little more profit, and at (as I said earlier) young people less able to make rational informed decisions. Beyond that, I will admit (as a liberal Democrat myself) to being somewhat ambivalent on, for instance, laws that require people old enough to know better to wear helmets when riding motorcycles.
As an aside, it strikes me as peculiar that while it is traditionally considered "conservative" to oppose such "public health" initiatives, it is also traditionally considered "liberal" to oppose hard-line stances on recreational drug use, which I see as being a very closely related issue.
Dan Aris
If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do?
I think they're attempting to make it illegal for people to enforce their societal norms on others.
What, you think it's your (or anyone's) right to live in a world where homosexuals can't get married?
What do you think anti-smoking campaigns
Same thing. Smoking in public spaces violates my right to breathe clean air, which smokers have no inalienable right to pollute.
helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns
These fall somewhat more under the category of "enforcing social norms" (though more under the category of "public health and safety legislation"), but to my knowledge, anti-fast food campaigns are primarily fought in the court of public opinion, and helmet laws (at least in my state; can't speak for the whole US) apply only to minors for bikes and those under 21 for motorcycles...and are thus aimed at those considered to be less able to make an informed decision based on a proper evaluation of the risks. (Of course, I would argue that there are plenty of people over 21 who are similarly unable to make such decisions, but that's a different argument ;-) )
Dan Aris