Combined with massively increasing shareholder and employee accountability for said corporation's actions.
I haven't examined Badnarik's positions especially, but the Libertarian Party in general favors reducing accountability across the board (for individuals as well as groups).
As long as it's not force and it's not fraud, they're all for it. Defective products? Misleading contracts? 16 hour workdays? Loan-sharking? Toxic-pollution?
It's all good. *
a faceless, unaccountable government
This isn't Russia. The USA government is actually accountable to the people. Frequently the level of accountability seems insufficient, but the government always knows that if 51% of the people really turned against it, they'd be out of work.
Corporations haven't even got that worry.
* Note that there are standard Libertarian Party rebuttals to my accuastion, which do not ultimately work. They usually begin by equating each of my listed abuses to "force" or "fraud", and then explaining that the legal system will still exist to arrest or sue the offenders. But down that path lies a judicial branch with all the complexity and powers of the FDA, EPA, WTO, FBI, and more...
Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border?
Yes. If you haven't heard, you must not've listened to the debate last Wednesday.
In brief, Kerry says he will cut down on illegal aliens by heavily punishing US employers who hire them. (Although at the same time, he will raise minimum wage, increasing the incentive for hiring illegals)
Bush, in contrast, will eliminate illegal migrant workers by simply legalizing them. (If you can't beat em, legalize em) (How that idea co-exists with Homeland Security, he didn't say)
At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.
An invalid analogy. Your garbage-carrier is doing more than he promised; Bush did less.
He said "I want authority, to enforce UN demands". He didn't do that, he did something else entirely.
Since you like analogies, consider a lad who asks Mum, "May I have $50 to buy any supplies needed for science class?", and then, when the teacher doesn't suggest any supplies at all, he goes gets an electric car to race on the sidewalk.
If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar.
As I already said, no circumstances changed between the time Bush made the promise and broke it. No new information was learned, no discoveries or unforseen setbacks occured. Anyone who thinks that new info was actually acquired was simply insufficiently informed in the begining.
It was obvious at the time of his speech that the UN Security Council wouldn't change their minds inside in just 20 days. Following his promise would've meant working to convince them; and, if after several months of increasing pressure that still fails, returning to Congress for an unconditional declaration of war.
Members of his administration have revealed that he was fully committed to the Iraq invasion timetable beforehand. At the time he said he wanted an option to use an invasion as a last resort, he was lying, because he had already made up his mind.
and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed.
Huh? That's complete nonsense. Any WMD that was shipped to Syria has already been given to international terrorists. (Syria and Iraq, you see, are different "nations")
Even in the context of the movie, the directors thought that a fit astronaut was a requirement
No, the director obviously felt fitness wasn't a requirement, or the protagonist wouldn't have been able to pass the tests.
The people of that society clearly continue the NASA tradition of using attractive astronauts as a symbol of national greatness, akin to the Nazi ubermensch, and subject them to the tests more for propaganda reasons than actual science/engineering value.
By the same argument a conman deserves the money he fleeces from the mark, and a thief deserves the goods he steals from a house.
That's not the same at all. In Gattaca, he was actually doing all the same work as the other astronauts. More and better, actually.
clearly demonstrate that he wasn't _perfectly_ eligible.
All they show is that the people evaluating candidates were using the wrong criteria.
Imagine if the Democratat's primary elections had produced a candidate that was much closer to the middle.
Hm? Kerry is more middling than Edwards, Kuccinhi, or especially Dean.
I think you would find a lot of otherwise Republican voters defecting.
The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary, and then selected someone closer to the middle- like, oh, John McCain.
Then he'd be thrashing Kerry, holding the AnyoneButBush crowd, and even pulling in a few defecting Democrats.
It doesn't have to be. A Constitutional Amendment could change it. True, that's unlikely to happen, but it's more plausible than states doing the change on their own.
As the prohibition amendment shows, you can sometimes convince the nation to pass an amendment that the individual people don't actually want to obey themselves, if they think it's for the betterment of everyone else.
I know Badnarik won't win. I'll vote for him anyway. Why? Because I am sick and tired of seeing corporate shill #1 versus corporate shill #2
Uh, you know that Badnarik is more pro-corporate than Kerry or even Bush, right?
That's what the Libertarian Party is all about: reducing the functions of government will mean shifting power to those corporations that provide the service.
No one seems to care we are in debt up to our eyeballs....
Which is why the logical states to change how they vote are non-swing states. Suddenly, they're back in the game, they're important again.
Yes, and they've also given 20-30% of their electoral votes to the opposing Presidential candidate. Imagine yourself as a Texan Republican or a Massachusett Democrat: would you seriously approve of a change to split your state's votes proportionately? It's exactly like voting for the other candidate (and this is becoming a very close election!). And since your party controls the state legislature, why would you willingly help the opposing party nationally?
And then, once that change happens- how much is the state really back in the game? The game is "importance to presidential candidates", and swing-states are valued because a few thousand votes can turn a whole 30 million state behind you. But if California goes proportional, then the most Bush can hope to gain is 2-3 electoral votes, because they're proportional to the popularity gain he makes there. Even if it was 5-6 votes, that's still not a big attraction.
While the state votes Republicion nationally, it's been Democratic locally for quite some time,
That's a rare oddity that won't last long. Georgia: Where even the Democrats can be Republicans.
A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method?
You can't effectively write-in candidates today. You can pretend, but it's not doing anything, it's not really counted.
4 years ago, the US election gave up counting in FL after just a few days. Counting countrywide write-in votes would take 300x the effort as completing the existing election.
The chance of Badnarik winning next month are effectively zero, yet they're thousands of times greater than the probability of a write-in winner.
Anyhow, the balloting for Condoret is the same as IRV- only the counting is different. In both cases, the voter gives a sorted list of names. The problem of how to add write-ins is the same.
not one of them has ever turned out to be a mad obscene creation bent on destroying me and everything I hold dear
You must be doing it wrong.
Maybe you haven't been picking subjects with a history of abnormal, violent delusions? Or did you forget to multiate his face into a gruesome mask? What about the part where he's kept alone for years in a dank stone tower while you, the only human who has appeared to love him, gradually turn your affections away towards a fetching woman?
it requires an oppressive system that can mandate it
No it doesn't. All it requires is the freedom for parents to electively modify their offspring's genes. Since many people will view that as positive, they will do it entirely willingly.
The "hero" was entirely inadequate for the position of an astronaut.
No he wasn't. Even today, "astronaut" is an artificially elevated profession. Although there are high-G events at the beginning and end of a trip, that's a brief effect that even average people can survive with no trouble.
Nobody needs to run 5 km to be an astronaut. And you certainly don't need unassisted perfect vision either! Since space and robotic technology are presumably increased in the future, being an astronaut then would be even less demanding than it is today.
we're supposed to feel happy for this idiot?
He's plainly not an idiot, because he's doing a mentally challenging job, on top of fooling everyone around him.
(Idiocy is a measure of intelligence, not wisdom)
I personally look forward to the day when genetic screening is as accurate as that in the movie. I'd like nothing better than for imbeciles to be sacked from positions they should never have held in the first place.
The movie was about a couple unfairly barred from positions for which they were perfectly eligible.
Maybe I'll give it another try this weekend. Maybe some of the other levels are more interesting (or well lit at least).
No such luck. Only the final 2 levels are brightly lit. Ironically, those take place in an long-abandoned Egyptian-style pyramid, which still somehow has better illumination than a modern Mars station.
Even when the rooms start to fill with boiling lava, the game still isn't bright. If the darkness bothers you, then look for a 3rd-party patch to increase brightness (the "duct-tape mod", which attaches a light to the shotgun, is most popular)
But it's covered under MENTAL reasons for a medical abortion-
If so, then that's too fuzzy to be the basis of an law. Imagine if some other illegal act, like buying heroine, was permitted if a doctor certified it as mentally healthful.
Very few women would actually suicide if forced to bear a rape-child... in fact, they'd probably be more likely to blame & punish themselves if the pregnancy was an avoidable accident (and thus genuinely her own fault). Many people can spin vicitimization into social capital.
It's almost Catch-22: a woman not wanting a child for social or economic reasons would be incentivized to appear unstable, so she can have an abortion for mental health... but not wanting to raise an unaffordable child is a sign of sanity... so you can only have an abortion if you don't want one...
and non-birth control reason;
All abortion is birth control, by definition.
this form of triage isn't illegal either- in fact it's quite common in accident, natural disaster, and battle medicine.
That you called it "common" suggests that you're unaware of what you actually wrote (or what the words actually mean). It's not "triage" by any stretch of definition. If it's truely common, you'd be able to provide a citation of it ever happening.
Note that the USA has not engaged in any large-scale battles conducive to extensive triage since the surgical technique for aortic grafting was invented...
Which makes 20% of Americans into terrorists from my point of view.
That's a lovely quote. Just lovely. Be careful writing like that, if you want anyone to take you seriously ever again (slashdot subscribers can dig up very old comments... even ones you thought were forgotten deep in threads)
Yes, that's exactly the AC's point. But the whole story of Star Wars is that Annykin's righteous anger turns him into an evil monster (and later, that Luke risks the same fate). That's what Yoda says.
Note that this AC isn't doing anything original. His main points are all from a 5-year old article, which spawned some net-nerd flamewars in its day.
You're not purchasing the software (where the first sale doctrine is in force), you are licensing it (where first sale does not apply).
Says who? What proof is there that I'm not purchasing it?
If you follow a customer at Computer World through the process of legally acquiring a copy of Microsoft(tm) WindowsXP(r), all the evidence suggests he is buying it.
When a customer brings a box to the counter, asks "How much to buy this?", pays the money, and then gets a reciept stating "Proof of sale"... then a purchase is indeed taking place!
Arguing that a piece of paper included inside that box can change a sale into a license is invalid, because that paper has no authority unless it already was a license (not a sale).
There was no "first sale" involved at all per the above situation with software being licensed.
That court is just wrong. The case they were presented with was somewhat muddled, however, because the plaintiffs were not merely vendors of software, but also operators of an online service. An agreement for an ongoing service is on stronger ground than an EULA, and that may have helped confuse justice.
How could a software program that reads EULAs ever result in a meeting of the agreement parties' minds?
You may as well ask how ANY click-thru EULA could meet that standard. There can't be a meeting of "the minds" unless at least 2 minds are involved, and from my vague recollection of purchasing OTS software, the customer is alone by the time the license comes up.
So this program is no more or less valid than EULAs in general.
(As a side note, this program will be illegal in most states, because it is an unlicesned law practitioner)
The ones I'm thinking of usually had their own defenses against rampaging brigands- they had to, for they were originally designed to withstand the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages.
I still deny that they really did it on their own. The respesct and protection co-religionists afford to monastics should not be underestimated. Suppose some brigands did, hypothetically, attack a monestary: everyone who heard of it would be out for their blood.
Thus, even if the monestary had some means of protection, it's like the night-watchman at a warehouse: he's not an effective defense on his own, but crooks are deterred by the tremendously more-powerful response if he were harmed.
True enough- though Cuba had X- and it's arguably the most successfull Marxist rebellion yet.
Another of Marx's preconditions was an extensive, mechanized industrial base. Cuba circa 1900 was just a quasi-colony of the USA, who propped up the friendly government to keep the tourism and agriculture exchagne going.
I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only.
I really don't think so. It seems that very few of the public would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion. (As I already mentioned) The thought of the rapist being (Darwinistcally) rewarded as the woman is forced to bear his child is basically repugnant.
That's certainly not a medical reason. And anyone who takes that viewpoint has already moved away from the "abortion is murder" position, and agreed that sometimes it is acceptable only according to the desire of the mother. Then it's a question of degree, not kind.
or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient
That is absolutely not allowed in the USA today. It's just as illegal as euthanasia (which is to say, some doctors can and do get away with it)
Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion
No. It's not up to him anymore. He would allow his daughters (and their male counterparts, and their doctor+priest) to make that decision, even though he'd advocate against it himself. Arguing against is separate from disallowing.
However, I doubt he'd hold to that position in every possible case. As always, there is the example of his daughter becoming impregated by a rapist.
where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend
I wish we had proof of that. But he's too well-respected in certain circles for such evidence to survive.
However, Bush's supporters have demonstrated a willingness to ignore any non-recent behavior, especially if it's before his Christian awakening. (Then again, they ignore actions during his time in office too...)
If he did more than was proposed, this was not a lie, it was an omission of information.
No, it wasn't a "omission". At best, it was a broken promise. I have been lumping intentional promise-breaking in the same category as lying, but if you think it's less immoral, then that's up to you.
Here's a test:
I will give you $50.
Was that a lie? The only way to find out it wait and see.
How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.
Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen. It was predicted 11 years ago, in fact.
The USA already had a nation-building project going on in Afganistan, so they had a good idea of the level of effort required. Why, then, did they only give Iraq 1/7th the security force? That's just stupid.
How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made?
His lying statement was not "I intend to", but "I will". If he only wanted to state intent, he could've said so at the time. Instead he claimed "I will", which has been proven to be false, thus making him a liar.
The black woman in your example is not primarily trying to create an artificial media event, she is trying to take control of her rights as a human being.
You still have no idea what civil disobedience is.
"Articifical media events" are exactly the point!
So, in summary, the black woman is performing the act with the intent of actually maintaining her rights,
No. She's not "maintaining" anything, because she doesn't have those rights yet. But she wants them, and thinks she deserves them, and believes that making a scene in public will help.
whereas Badnarik intended solely to create a media event, without actually attempting to participate directly in the event at hand.
He thinks it would be right for him to participate in the debates. He wants that right, thinks he deserves it, and believes that making a scene in public will help.
Seriously, you know that all the major civil disobeidence from the 20th century civil rights movement was pre-planned media events, and not spontaneous outpourings, right?
It was the last question of the debate, it was loaded,
Wrong. It was not the last question. The actual last question was a puffball, designed to end things on a comfy note.
Kerry isn't in office and wouldn't have to answer with three of his own mistakes
Wrong. Kerry is in office. Notice the word "Senator" they keep using before his name? That's his office. As a senator, he makes decisions with nationwide impact, and has plenty of opportunity to make mistakes.
instead he used his two minutes to further trash Bush
If Bush has actually answered that question and given a mistake, then Kerry would've been obliged to answer too, with his own mistake.
Bush did what he had to do, which was say
Correct. Bush does need to evade and mislead if he wants to get a 2nd term.
Slashdot Mirror
Combined with massively increasing shareholder and employee accountability for said corporation's actions.
I haven't examined Badnarik's positions especially, but the Libertarian Party in general favors reducing accountability across the board (for individuals as well as groups).
As long as it's not force and it's not fraud, they're all for it. Defective products? Misleading contracts? 16 hour workdays? Loan-sharking? Toxic-pollution?
It's all good. *
a faceless, unaccountable government
This isn't Russia. The USA government is actually accountable to the people. Frequently the level of accountability seems insufficient, but the government always knows that if 51% of the people really turned against it, they'd be out of work.
Corporations haven't even got that worry.
* Note that there are standard Libertarian Party rebuttals to my accuastion, which do not ultimately work. They usually begin by equating each of my listed abuses to "force" or "fraud", and then explaining that the legal system will still exist to arrest or sue the offenders. But down that path lies a judicial branch with all the complexity and powers of the FDA, EPA, WTO, FBI, and more...
honest, hardworking Mexicans were hiding
The words "honest" and "hiding" don't really belong together...
Especially when you go on to suggest blatant dishonesty in their defense.
Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border?
Yes. If you haven't heard, you must not've listened to the debate last Wednesday.
In brief, Kerry says he will cut down on illegal aliens by heavily punishing US employers who hire them. (Although at the same time, he will raise minimum wage, increasing the incentive for hiring illegals)
Bush, in contrast, will eliminate illegal migrant workers by simply legalizing them. (If you can't beat em, legalize em) (How that idea co-exists with Homeland Security, he didn't say)
At best, it was an omission of complete information. When I say to my spouse I will take out the trash, and I do so, but also wash out the trash can, and repair its lid, I neither lied nor mislead nor broke a promise.
An invalid analogy. Your garbage-carrier is doing more than he promised; Bush did less.
He said "I want authority, to enforce UN demands". He didn't do that, he did something else entirely.
Since you like analogies, consider a lad who asks Mum, "May I have $50 to buy any supplies needed for science class?", and then, when the teacher doesn't suggest any supplies at all, he goes gets an electric car to race on the sidewalk.
If you say "I will give you $50", and then circumstances change such that it is impossible or unreasonable or inappropriate, I do not call you a liar.
As I already said, no circumstances changed between the time Bush made the promise and broke it. No new information was learned, no discoveries or unforseen setbacks occured. Anyone who thinks that new info was actually acquired was simply insufficiently informed in the begining.
It was obvious at the time of his speech that the UN Security Council wouldn't change their minds inside in just 20 days. Following his promise would've meant working to convince them; and, if after several months of increasing pressure that still fails, returning to Congress for an unconditional declaration of war.
Members of his administration have revealed that he was fully committed to the Iraq invasion timetable beforehand. At the time he said he wanted an option to use an invasion as a last resort, he was lying, because he had already made up his mind.
and the threat of the Baathists giving WMD to international terrorists is reduced from what it was, because those WMD were either hidden, shipped to Syria, lost, or destroyed.
Huh? That's complete nonsense. Any WMD that was shipped to Syria has already been given to international terrorists. (Syria and Iraq, you see, are different "nations")
Even in the context of the movie, the directors thought that a fit astronaut was a requirement
No, the director obviously felt fitness wasn't a requirement, or the protagonist wouldn't have been able to pass the tests.
The people of that society clearly continue the NASA tradition of using attractive astronauts as a symbol of national greatness, akin to the Nazi ubermensch, and subject them to the tests more for propaganda reasons than actual science/engineering value.
By the same argument a conman deserves the money he fleeces from the mark, and a thief deserves the goods he steals from a house.
That's not the same at all. In Gattaca, he was actually doing all the same work as the other astronauts. More and better, actually.
clearly demonstrate that he wasn't _perfectly_ eligible.
All they show is that the people evaluating candidates were using the wrong criteria.
Imagine if the Democratat's primary elections had produced a candidate that was much closer to the middle.
Hm? Kerry is more middling than Edwards, Kuccinhi, or especially Dean.
I think you would find a lot of otherwise Republican voters defecting.
The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary, and then selected someone closer to the middle- like, oh, John McCain.
Then he'd be thrashing Kerry, holding the AnyoneButBush crowd, and even pulling in a few defecting Democrats.
That's completely up to the states.
It doesn't have to be. A Constitutional Amendment could change it. True, that's unlikely to happen, but it's more plausible than states doing the change on their own.
As the prohibition amendment shows, you can sometimes convince the nation to pass an amendment that the individual people don't actually want to obey themselves, if they think it's for the betterment of everyone else.
I know Badnarik won't win. I'll vote for him anyway. Why? Because I am sick and tired of seeing corporate shill #1 versus corporate shill #2
Uh, you know that Badnarik is more pro-corporate than Kerry or even Bush, right?
That's what the Libertarian Party is all about: reducing the functions of government will mean shifting power to those corporations that provide the service.
No one seems to care we are in debt up to our eyeballs....
Kerry is at least willing to admit that fact.
Which is why the logical states to change how they vote are non-swing states. Suddenly, they're back in the game, they're important again.
Yes, and they've also given 20-30% of their electoral votes to the opposing Presidential candidate. Imagine yourself as a Texan Republican or a Massachusett Democrat: would you seriously approve of a change to split your state's votes proportionately? It's exactly like voting for the other candidate (and this is becoming a very close election!). And since your party controls the state legislature, why would you willingly help the opposing party nationally?
And then, once that change happens- how much is the state really back in the game? The game is "importance to presidential candidates", and swing-states are valued because a few thousand votes can turn a whole 30 million state behind you. But if California goes proportional, then the most Bush can hope to gain is 2-3 electoral votes, because they're proportional to the popularity gain he makes there. Even if it was 5-6 votes, that's still not a big attraction.
While the state votes Republicion nationally, it's been Democratic locally for quite some time,
That's a rare oddity that won't last long. Georgia: Where even the Democrats can be Republicans.
A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method?
You can't effectively write-in candidates today. You can pretend, but it's not doing anything, it's not really counted.
4 years ago, the US election gave up counting in FL after just a few days. Counting countrywide write-in votes would take 300x the effort as completing the existing election.
The chance of Badnarik winning next month are effectively zero, yet they're thousands of times greater than the probability of a write-in winner.
Anyhow, the balloting for Condoret is the same as IRV- only the counting is different. In both cases, the voter gives a sorted list of names. The problem of how to add write-ins is the same.
not one of them has ever turned out to be a mad obscene creation bent on destroying me and everything I hold dear
You must be doing it wrong.
Maybe you haven't been picking subjects with a history of abnormal, violent delusions? Or did you forget to multiate his face into a gruesome mask? What about the part where he's kept alone for years in a dank stone tower while you, the only human who has appeared to love him, gradually turn your affections away towards a fetching woman?
it requires an oppressive system that can mandate it
No it doesn't. All it requires is the freedom for parents to electively modify their offspring's genes. Since many people will view that as positive, they will do it entirely willingly.
The "hero" was entirely inadequate for the position of an astronaut.
No he wasn't. Even today, "astronaut" is an artificially elevated profession. Although there are high-G events at the beginning and end of a trip, that's a brief effect that even average people can survive with no trouble.
Nobody needs to run 5 km to be an astronaut. And you certainly don't need unassisted perfect vision either! Since space and robotic technology are presumably increased in the future, being an astronaut then would be even less demanding than it is today.
we're supposed to feel happy for this idiot?
He's plainly not an idiot, because he's doing a mentally challenging job, on top of fooling everyone around him.
(Idiocy is a measure of intelligence, not wisdom)
I personally look forward to the day when genetic screening is as accurate as that in the movie. I'd like nothing better than for imbeciles to be sacked from positions they should never have held in the first place.
The movie was about a couple unfairly barred from positions for which they were perfectly eligible.
Maybe I'll give it another try this weekend. Maybe some of the other levels are more interesting (or well lit at least).
No such luck. Only the final 2 levels are brightly lit. Ironically, those take place in an long-abandoned Egyptian-style pyramid, which still somehow has better illumination than a modern Mars station.
Even when the rooms start to fill with boiling lava, the game still isn't bright. If the darkness bothers you, then look for a 3rd-party patch to increase brightness (the "duct-tape mod", which attaches a light to the shotgun, is most popular)
But it's covered under MENTAL reasons for a medical abortion-
If so, then that's too fuzzy to be the basis of an law. Imagine if some other illegal act, like buying heroine, was permitted if a doctor certified it as mentally healthful.
Very few women would actually suicide if forced to bear a rape-child... in fact, they'd probably be more likely to blame & punish themselves if the pregnancy was an avoidable accident (and thus genuinely her own fault). Many people can spin vicitimization into social capital.
It's almost Catch-22: a woman not wanting a child for social or economic reasons would be incentivized to appear unstable, so she can have an abortion for mental health... but not wanting to raise an unaffordable child is a sign of sanity... so you can only have an abortion if you don't want one...
and non-birth control reason;
All abortion is birth control, by definition.
this form of triage isn't illegal either- in fact it's quite common in accident, natural disaster, and battle medicine.
That you called it "common" suggests that you're unaware of what you actually wrote (or what the words actually mean). It's not "triage" by any stretch of definition. If it's truely common, you'd be able to provide a citation of it ever happening.
Note that the USA has not engaged in any large-scale battles conducive to extensive triage since the surgical technique for aortic grafting was invented...
Which makes 20% of Americans into terrorists from my point of view.
That's a lovely quote. Just lovely. Be careful writing like that, if you want anyone to take you seriously ever again (slashdot subscribers can dig up very old comments... even ones you thought were forgotten deep in threads)
Not WILL- MIGHT
Yes, that's exactly the AC's point. But the whole story of Star Wars is that Annykin's righteous anger turns him into an evil monster (and later, that Luke risks the same fate). That's what Yoda says.
Note that this AC isn't doing anything original. His main points are all from a 5-year old article, which spawned some net-nerd flamewars in its day.
You're not purchasing the software (where the first sale doctrine is in force), you are licensing it (where first sale does not apply).
Says who? What proof is there that I'm not purchasing it?
If you follow a customer at Computer World through the process of legally acquiring a copy of Microsoft(tm) WindowsXP(r), all the evidence suggests he is buying it.
When a customer brings a box to the counter, asks "How much to buy this?", pays the money, and then gets a reciept stating "Proof of sale"... then a purchase is indeed taking place!
Arguing that a piece of paper included inside that box can change a sale into a license is invalid, because that paper has no authority unless it already was a license (not a sale).
There was no "first sale" involved at all per the above situation with software being licensed.
That court is just wrong. The case they were presented with was somewhat muddled, however, because the plaintiffs were not merely vendors of software, but also operators of an online service. An agreement for an ongoing service is on stronger ground than an EULA, and that may have helped confuse justice.
How could a software program that reads EULAs ever result in a meeting of the agreement parties' minds?
You may as well ask how ANY click-thru EULA could meet that standard. There can't be a meeting of "the minds" unless at least 2 minds are involved, and from my vague recollection of purchasing OTS software, the customer is alone by the time the license comes up.
So this program is no more or less valid than EULAs in general.
(As a side note, this program will be illegal in most states, because it is an unlicesned law practitioner)
The ones I'm thinking of usually had their own defenses against rampaging brigands- they had to, for they were originally designed to withstand the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages.
I still deny that they really did it on their own. The respesct and protection co-religionists afford to monastics should not be underestimated. Suppose some brigands did, hypothetically, attack a monestary: everyone who heard of it would be out for their blood.
Thus, even if the monestary had some means of protection, it's like the night-watchman at a warehouse: he's not an effective defense on his own, but crooks are deterred by the tremendously more-powerful response if he were harmed.
True enough- though Cuba had X- and it's arguably the most successfull Marxist rebellion yet.
Another of Marx's preconditions was an extensive, mechanized industrial base. Cuba circa 1900 was just a quasi-colony of the USA, who propped up the friendly government to keep the tourism and agriculture exchagne going.
I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only.
I really don't think so. It seems that very few of the public would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion. (As I already mentioned) The thought of the rapist being (Darwinistcally) rewarded as the woman is forced to bear his child is basically repugnant.
That's certainly not a medical reason. And anyone who takes that viewpoint has already moved away from the "abortion is murder" position, and agreed that sometimes it is acceptable only according to the desire of the mother. Then it's a question of degree, not kind.
or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient
That is absolutely not allowed in the USA today. It's just as illegal as euthanasia (which is to say, some doctors can and do get away with it)
Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion
No. It's not up to him anymore. He would allow his daughters (and their male counterparts, and their doctor+priest) to make that decision, even though he'd advocate against it himself. Arguing against is separate from disallowing.
However, I doubt he'd hold to that position in every possible case. As always, there is the example of his daughter becoming impregated by a rapist.
where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend
I wish we had proof of that. But he's too well-respected in certain circles for such evidence to survive.
However, Bush's supporters have demonstrated a willingness to ignore any non-recent behavior, especially if it's before his Christian awakening. (Then again, they ignore actions during his time in office too...)
No, it wasn't a "omission". At best, it was a broken promise. I have been lumping intentional promise-breaking in the same category as lying, but if you think it's less immoral, then that's up to you.
Here's a test:
Was that a lie? The only way to find out it wait and see.
How do you know? Even Kasparov loses a game now and then, because there are unforeseen actions planned by his adversary.
Nothing about what's happening in Iraq now is unforseen. It was predicted 11 years ago, in fact.
The USA already had a nation-building project going on in Afganistan, so they had a good idea of the level of effort required. Why, then, did they only give Iraq 1/7th the security force? That's just stupid.
How do you know he did not intend to do exactly this at the time the statement was made?
His lying statement was not "I intend to", but "I will". If he only wanted to state intent, he could've said so at the time. Instead he claimed "I will", which has been proven to be false, thus making him a liar.
The black woman in your example is not primarily trying to create an artificial media event, she is trying to take control of her rights as a human being.
You still have no idea what civil disobedience is.
"Articifical media events" are exactly the point!
So, in summary, the black woman is performing the act with the intent of actually maintaining her rights,
No. She's not "maintaining" anything, because she doesn't have those rights yet. But she wants them, and thinks she deserves them, and believes that making a scene in public will help.
whereas Badnarik intended solely to create a media event, without actually attempting to participate directly in the event at hand.
He thinks it would be right for him to participate in the debates. He wants that right, thinks he deserves it, and believes that making a scene in public will help.
Seriously, you know that all the major civil disobeidence from the 20th century civil rights movement was pre-planned media events, and not spontaneous outpourings, right?
If so, who's mistake was it that 3000 people died in a single attack in 2001?
President Herbert Walker Bush.
If so, who's mistake was it that 6 people died in an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993?
President Herbert Walker Bush.
It was the last question of the debate, it was loaded,
Wrong. It was not the last question. The actual last question was a puffball, designed to end things on a comfy note.
Kerry isn't in office and wouldn't have to answer with three of his own mistakes
Wrong. Kerry is in office. Notice the word "Senator" they keep using before his name? That's his office. As a senator, he makes decisions with nationwide impact, and has plenty of opportunity to make mistakes.
instead he used his two minutes to further trash Bush
If Bush has actually answered that question and given a mistake, then Kerry would've been obliged to answer too, with his own mistake.
Bush did what he had to do, which was say
Correct. Bush does need to evade and mislead if he wants to get a 2nd term.
And Nader has never really had to make any decisions of national importance
He decided to remove the chrome spikes from dashboards- although there's no way to interpret that as a mistake.