If you say you would act any less agressively, you're either a pacifist or a liar.
Or maybe you're a secularist. If not for a religiously-motivated desired to keep Israel a Jewish state, then Muslim "Palestinians" and others could live there perfectly peacefully.
The state of Israel is a theocracy, by Jews, for Jews.
Theocracy is incompatible with democracy. By defending their goal of religious-purity, you are conceding to the various attacks made against them. It's an explanation, not an excuse.
Jews want to have a nation where it's safe to be Jewish, where they are never prosecuted for their religion or ancestry.
Try the USA. Israel is way, way more dangerous for Jews than any North American or European country.
Every Arab living in Israel can vote in every Israeli election.
False.
Every Israeli citizen can vote in every Israeli election, for that matter.
That's by definition. It's who gets to be a "citizen" that matters.
The settlers are basically Israeli citizens living 'abroad'
It's not "abroad". It's land that Israel has conquered. They chose not to annex it in name because that would make the disenfranchisement of the "Palestinans" more blatant.
Compare it with North America in 1771. Was it right for the British Empire to control those people without allowing them to vote, just hanging it on "Oh, they don't live in Britian, just in a land totally under our military and economic control?"
PS. Some people don't know that Palestine is critically valuable to the Israeli economy. Their single most important natural resource comes from there.
Seems to be a false dilemma. Why can't they build the wall at the agreed upon border?
Exactly- the wall at the declared border would be shorter and straighter. It would've been finished quicker, it would be easier to guard, and it would incite less Palestinian anger. In other words, it would protect life better than the actual twisted land-grab barrier they're constructing.
So Sharon's government does, apparently, put land over life.
Sure. Orthodox Rabbis have a special ability to confer the rights of citizenship and voting to immigrants. Even Rabbis from other traditions don't have that power. This is a serious intermingling of government and religious authority, and a step towards theocracy.
You shouldn't really call it "racist", because it's not so much about biology. But it's still anti-democratic religious discrimination. And race often correlates highly with religion.
Israel has some Christian and Muslim citizens who can vote- but they can't invite their family members to immigrate and vote too, like a Orthodox Jew could. This is for the express purpose of limiting the non-Jewish influence on elections results.
It's not like people are being tricked into agreeing with these terms, they are always spelled out in black and white.
But nobody agrees to those terms! They just rip stickers or click buttons, which are not ways of forming an agreement.
Performing an action only signifies an agreement with someone else if you performed it for no purpose but to signify agreement.
If I'm renting a house or buying insurance, I enter agreements, because if I don't, then the other party won't give me what I want. In the case of buying software, I already have it. Since the sale is over, they have no right to take back the software. They have no hold over me- the sticker is now my physical property, so I can rip it or not, and they have no say in the matter.
Any arguments that "You're only buying a license, not a copy of the software" are still circular- that interpretation depends on the EULA being binding, so it cannot itself be used as support for the EULA's validity!
Israel has occupied the territory called Palestine. They send settlers there to build homes and bear children. A child born in Palestine can vote in Israeli elections if and only if a rabbi (Orthodox only) approves.
If that were not the case, then obviously their government would look very different.
One could argue "But they don't intend to control Palestine forever- it's not a permanent part of the country". But the presence of state-sponsored settlers reveals that lie.
In the 1700s the power to declare war needed to rest with the legislative. Afterall, the ability of a foreign power to do any real damage to the country inside of hte time frame it would take congress to react was insignificant.
Wrong. Although warfighting was slower back then, so too was communication. If a situation broke out in the Mediterranean, it would take most of a year for Congress to hear about it. Then wait to be in session to rule on a response, and wait again for the message to travel back... that's too much time wasted.
(I refer, of course, to the USA's 1801 war against the Barbary Pirates, which was enjoined solely by executive power, without congressional permission)
I also doubt you fully appreciate the three requirements of a patent -- that it be new, useful, and nonobvious.
How can you say that on the same planet where Amazon owns a patent on one-click ordering? Those are decent guiding principles, but real-life patent offices don't care about them. As long as there's no prior art (which would prove non-obviousness beyond a shadow of a doubt), it's good enough for them.
eventually reign in the "software patent monster" by increasing the availability of prior art.
NO! Just because documented prior art isn't available, it doesn't mean that something is so non-obvious that granting a patent for it will promote the progress of science! It usually just means that the preconditions for the "invention" weren't yet available.
It took roughly 7 million years (6.8, IIRC) for those tree apes that became men to develop the (modern) steam engine. It took approximately 200 years from the development of the modern steam engine for man to land on the moon
That's a totally invalid comparison. The effort needed to build or research isn't measured in wallclock time, but man-hours (time elapsed * number of people). What was the population for those 6.8 million years? For much of it, less than 100,000 people. The past 3 centuries saw a population explosion.
Also, 7 million years is wrong to count from too. 7000 years back would be more fair.
Innovation during the latter interval was protected by an effective patent system while innovation in the former interval was not.
Swapping cause and effect. Also binary perceptual disease.
'What is the cutoff income for Kerry's tax increases?' (50k, 100k, 200k, or 500k)
That quiz is biased towards Kerry supporters. All the other questions can be answered simply by thinking of the stereotypical Democrat or Republican position, but this one requires paying attention to the detail's of Kerry's proposals, and it's obvious that people who enjoy listening to him will have a better chance of remembering the number.
The American public doesn't even know what the two candidates stand for
Although I never like to see ignorance, in fairness, the job of President is actually the one with the least to do with "issues" such as you listed. More than any other elected position, it's about having a man in place to resopnd to unforseen international emergencies. Tax levels and social security should not be under the power of the Executive branch.
Why is it racist to have a Jewish state when there are 22 Arab states that are by definition Muslim
It's still racist either way- but Israel continually advertises itself as different and better: "The only democracy in the Middle East", they say. Well, newsflash- if the right to vote is contingent on religion, you're not a democracy.
PS. You're wrong about that 22 Arab states. Not all of them are systemically racist.
.ie democrates in democrat dominated districts in Texas could give electorial votes to a democrate candidate
Right. So the Republican-controlled state of Texas is going to agree to give only 70% of their votes to the Republican candidate, instead of 100% like they're doing now?
Why would any sane politician agree to that? "Yeah, I'll give the opposition party 30-50% more votes that I couuld've just kept for us!"
you could easily just check the areas trees when you move into a new area.
And you don't seem to have played Fable either.
Because if you'd played it, you'd know that areas are ridiculously tiny, and that the load times for walking between them are already almost unbearable. 15% longer load times just to update the trees when you cross a boundary would be unacceptable.
Plus, Starvation, Homelessness, and Bankruptcy work far better for workplace retention than a horsewhip ever did.
Statements like that don't even deserve refutation.
basic surival needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care)
Food is all they get. Clothing is an annual $20 expense. Medical care- that's a joke, right? You assign one slave to help the others. Anyone with a major condition that needs real treatment (asthma, etc)- let him die. They'll probably keep their teeth for a while, because one meal/day doesn't allow much bacteria to build up.
Heck- $2.50/day comes to about $912.50 annually; shelter alone in my town is more than that monthly
What "town" do you live in? The most expensive town in the USA is White Plains, where $700/month will rent you a 15x10 walk-in closet. I could house 4 slaves in that space, and I'm not especially brutal.
So no- that figure is incorrect.
You're assuming that the slave somehow gets shelter comprable to what free Americans accept. Slaves don't get that choice- you can put them in places worse than homeless shelters, worse than max-security prisons. You could even chain them to a pipe on the side of the factory floor, and add responsibility to cleaning up as one more of their forced duties.
The most blatant flaw of your argument is that you claim that slavery is economically untenable- that even an evil, greedy industrialist wouldn't use slaves, because free workers would be cheaper. But the fact that slavery still exists today contradicts you- or why do you think USA manufacturers are so happy to outsource?
I'm not aware that there is a scientific consensus on what is basically a moral issue.
There is no moral issue about stem cell research. Morally, you may believe tiny embryos have a right to life, or not.
But scientifically, stem cell research does not destroy embryos. It merely recycles embryos that were being destroyed in other lab processes (mainly assisted fertility).
There are two reasonable positions on embryos: 1) They don't deserve protection, go crazy. 2) They deserve protection, so ban in-vitro fertilization techniques that create & destroy 10 embryos for every 1 fetus produced.
But Bush's position- embryos deserve protection, so ban stem cell research- just doesn't make any sense. Holding back money from stem-cell work won't save embryos.
Why, that would be almost as stupid as invading Iraq to protect us from Osama bin Laden!
In fact, the worst punishment the Catholic Church can level on one of its memebers is excommunication , and there is serious discussion that such punishment should be laid upon Catholics that openly support abortion.
Exactly right. The Catholic Church has this mechanism of "excommunication" to expel members who go against their teachings.
So, please give me a URL to the Pope's press release announcing Kerry's excommunication. Or just show me a news article about some priest refusing him communion, even. Either of those would make fine proof that he's not a member of the Catholic church.
Until you do, his weekly attendance at mass somewhat undermines your little theories. Those ordained priests have somewhat more authority than you...
a Catholic who supports abortion is no Catholic at all.
Not everything that's wrong and sinful needs a law passed against it.
You are confusing the outcome of state voting with the outcome of national voting.
Nope. You, however, are trying to change the subject. I was talking about stability, and you're going off in all different directions.
where as under the electoral college the person would need to win by one vote in every state till the sum of required electoral votes in order to win the election were attained.
When someone posts something as stupid as that, I normally just stop responding, because such blatant idiocy is immune to reason. It's hard to believe that anyone who'd say that could follow even the simplified equations I'm using.
"the copy was made at the other end and I'm just using it, Your Honour".
Not similar. This claim fails because it's balantly untrue. Downloading with Kazaa means several copies are made, both on the sender's and reciever's computers.
a sticker over the mouse and keyboard ports that say, "Don't use the computer with Windows until you've read the Rights of Use agreement. If you disagree with your rights of use, don't install Windows and ship the CD containing it back to the vendor still sealed along with all documentation for a full refund of the software price," then I'd consider that an agreement.
You might think so, but that doesn't meet the USA legal standard for an agreement.
If, for example, I go to your house and put a sticker on the doorknob reading "Opening this means you agree to pay me $100. Every day. Forever", that is invalid of course.
Why? Because I have NO RIGHT to prohibit you from opening that door. It's your property, you can do what you want with it. Similarly, after the sale has taken place and money has been exchanged for a computer, the PC (and any stickers included) are your property, and you can rip them or burn them or whatever.
A person cannot declare that someone else operating some of his own property is a kind of agreement to a contract... not even if the property was recently purchased.
Better yet, make the vendors get a signature for each Windows user showing they agree to the terms.
Yes, that'd be binding. It would also drive people towards Mac or Linux.
Sure it is! For example, is it OK for 4 cops to fill an innocent, unarmed man with bullets? Of course not- unless they were ignorant of the fact that he was innocent and unarmed. Then they get off free.
* Copyright covers different things in different places. There is no such thing as "copyright law" in a single, global sense.
Thanks to the WTO / WIPO, copyright law is becoming more globally standardized every day. However you are correct that UK-based copyright law is different from USA/French/Japanese law in an important way. In the UK, running software is considered an infringing copy, so EULAs are much stronger there than elsewhere.
# You can believe what you like about EULAs, but they have been held up as valid in court in several test cases in several jurisdictions.
The specific USA case that "upheld" EULAs is so laughably incorrect that it's obvious the Supreme Court will never uphold it. That's probably why Microsoft has never pushed for a court battle to validate EULAs- because they know they'd lose. (Instead, they're holding off and trying to get Congress to change the law)
If PERSONA writes a pice of software and tells PERSONB they can only buy it if they agree not to copy it and give it out to friends or sell it and PERSONB agrees
Fine, but that never happens. Does the clerk at CompUSA make you sign or even read a license before selling the software? Of course not.
You can't make an agreement by tearing open a box or clicking through a dialog box.
(In some cases you can make click-though agreements, of course, such as when you are using the computer to communicate with a person someplace else. But that's not what happens during normal software install)
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds fine, except that Kirk was killed in Star Trek Generations, made in 1994.
Did you see the corpse? There's a good rule of thumb "Nobody who's died inside a temporal-paradox pocket-dimension is ever truely dead"
If you say you would act any less agressively, you're either a pacifist or a liar.
Or maybe you're a secularist. If not for a religiously-motivated desired to keep Israel a Jewish state, then Muslim "Palestinians" and others could live there perfectly peacefully.
The state of Israel is a theocracy, by Jews, for Jews.
Theocracy is incompatible with democracy. By defending their goal of religious-purity, you are conceding to the various attacks made against them. It's an explanation, not an excuse.
Jews want to have a nation where it's safe to be Jewish, where they are never prosecuted for their religion or ancestry.
Try the USA. Israel is way, way more dangerous for Jews than any North American or European country.
Every Arab living in Israel can vote in every Israeli election.
False.
Every Israeli citizen can vote in every Israeli election, for that matter.
That's by definition. It's who gets to be a "citizen" that matters.
The settlers are basically Israeli citizens living 'abroad'
It's not "abroad". It's land that Israel has conquered. They chose not to annex it in name because that would make the disenfranchisement of the "Palestinans" more blatant.
Compare it with North America in 1771. Was it right for the British Empire to control those people without allowing them to vote, just hanging it on "Oh, they don't live in Britian, just in a land totally under our military and economic control?"
PS. Some people don't know that Palestine is critically valuable to the Israeli economy. Their single most important natural resource comes from there.
Seems to be a false dilemma. Why can't they build the wall at the agreed upon border?
Exactly- the wall at the declared border would be shorter and straighter. It would've been finished quicker, it would be easier to guard, and it would incite less Palestinian anger. In other words, it would protect life better than the actual twisted land-grab barrier they're constructing.
So Sharon's government does, apparently, put land over life.
Sure. Orthodox Rabbis have a special ability to confer the rights of citizenship and voting to immigrants. Even Rabbis from other traditions don't have that power. This is a serious intermingling of government and religious authority, and a step towards theocracy.
You shouldn't really call it "racist", because it's not so much about biology. But it's still anti-democratic religious discrimination. And race often correlates highly with religion.
Israel has some Christian and Muslim citizens who can vote- but they can't invite their family members to immigrate and vote too, like a Orthodox Jew could. This is for the express purpose of limiting the non-Jewish influence on elections results.
It's not like people are being tricked into agreeing with these terms, they are always spelled out in black and white.
But nobody agrees to those terms! They just rip stickers or click buttons, which are not ways of forming an agreement.
Performing an action only signifies an agreement with someone else if you performed it for no purpose but to signify agreement.
If I'm renting a house or buying insurance, I enter agreements, because if I don't, then the other party won't give me what I want. In the case of buying software, I already have it. Since the sale is over, they have no right to take back the software. They have no hold over me- the sticker is now my physical property, so I can rip it or not, and they have no say in the matter.
Any arguments that "You're only buying a license, not a copy of the software" are still circular- that interpretation depends on the EULA being binding, so it cannot itself be used as support for the EULA's validity!
Newsflash to you - Arabs can vote in Israel.
Israel has occupied the territory called Palestine. They send settlers there to build homes and bear children. A child born in Palestine can vote in Israeli elections if and only if a rabbi (Orthodox only) approves.
If that were not the case, then obviously their government would look very different.
One could argue "But they don't intend to control Palestine forever- it's not a permanent part of the country". But the presence of state-sponsored settlers reveals that lie.
In the 1700s the power to declare war needed to rest with the legislative. Afterall, the ability of a foreign power to do any real damage to the country inside of hte time frame it would take congress to react was insignificant.
Wrong. Although warfighting was slower back then, so too was communication. If a situation broke out in the Mediterranean, it would take most of a year for Congress to hear about it. Then wait to be in session to rule on a response, and wait again for the message to travel back... that's too much time wasted.
(I refer, of course, to the USA's 1801 war against the Barbary Pirates, which was enjoined solely by executive power, without congressional permission)
I also doubt you fully appreciate the three requirements of a patent -- that it be new, useful, and nonobvious.
How can you say that on the same planet where Amazon owns a patent on one-click ordering? Those are decent guiding principles, but real-life patent offices don't care about them. As long as there's no prior art (which would prove non-obviousness beyond a shadow of a doubt), it's good enough for them.
eventually reign in the "software patent monster" by increasing the availability of prior art.
NO! Just because documented prior art isn't available, it doesn't mean that something is so non-obvious that granting a patent for it will promote the progress of science! It usually just means that the preconditions for the "invention" weren't yet available.
It took roughly 7 million years (6.8, IIRC) for those tree apes that became men to develop the (modern) steam engine. It took approximately 200 years from the development of the modern steam engine for man to land on the moon
That's a totally invalid comparison. The effort needed to build or research isn't measured in wallclock time, but man-hours (time elapsed * number of people). What was the population for those 6.8 million years? For much of it, less than 100,000 people. The past 3 centuries saw a population explosion.
Also, 7 million years is wrong to count from too. 7000 years back would be more fair.
Innovation during the latter interval was protected by an effective patent system while innovation in the former interval was not.
Swapping cause and effect. Also binary perceptual disease.
'What is the cutoff income for Kerry's tax increases?' (50k, 100k, 200k, or 500k)
That quiz is biased towards Kerry supporters. All the other questions can be answered simply by thinking of the stereotypical Democrat or Republican position, but this one requires paying attention to the detail's of Kerry's proposals, and it's obvious that people who enjoy listening to him will have a better chance of remembering the number.
The American public doesn't even know what the two candidates stand for
Although I never like to see ignorance, in fairness, the job of President is actually the one with the least to do with "issues" such as you listed. More than any other elected position, it's about having a man in place to resopnd to unforseen international emergencies. Tax levels and social security should not be under the power of the Executive branch.
(they often are, but shouldn't be)
Why is it racist to have a Jewish state when there are 22 Arab states that are by definition Muslim
It's still racist either way- but Israel continually advertises itself as different and better: "The only democracy in the Middle East", they say. Well, newsflash- if the right to vote is contingent on religion, you're not a democracy.
PS. You're wrong about that 22 Arab states. Not all of them are systemically racist.
Two of them already HAVE WMDS, you don't have to go hunting for them, for fuck's sake.
You are confusing. You list several countries with an amount of anti-USA sentiment, and then say two of them have WMDs?
Nations already with nuclear weapons: China, North Korea, Pakistan
Nations known to have non-nuclear WMD: Iran
You won't be convincing in argument if you don't know basic facts.
.ie democrates in democrat dominated districts in Texas could give electorial votes to a democrate candidate
Right. So the Republican-controlled state of Texas is going to agree to give only 70% of their votes to the Republican candidate, instead of 100% like they're doing now?
Why would any sane politician agree to that? "Yeah, I'll give the opposition party 30-50% more votes that I couuld've just kept for us!"
Keep dreaming.
you could easily just check the areas trees when you move into a new area.
And you don't seem to have played Fable either.
Because if you'd played it, you'd know that areas are ridiculously tiny, and that the load times for walking between them are already almost unbearable. 15% longer load times just to update the trees when you cross a boundary would be unacceptable.
Any political leader who earns more than $100,000/year needs to be on call, directly, 24x7.
You mean like Californian Sheriffs?
Plus, Starvation, Homelessness, and Bankruptcy work far better for workplace retention than a horsewhip ever did.
Statements like that don't even deserve refutation.
basic surival needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical care)
Food is all they get. Clothing is an annual $20 expense. Medical care- that's a joke, right? You assign one slave to help the others. Anyone with a major condition that needs real treatment (asthma, etc)- let him die. They'll probably keep their teeth for a while, because one meal/day doesn't allow much bacteria to build up.
Heck- $2.50/day comes to about $912.50 annually; shelter alone in my town is more than that monthly
What "town" do you live in? The most expensive town in the USA is White Plains, where $700/month will rent you a 15x10 walk-in closet. I could house 4 slaves in that space, and I'm not especially brutal.
So no- that figure is incorrect.
You're assuming that the slave somehow gets shelter comprable to what free Americans accept. Slaves don't get that choice- you can put them in places worse than homeless shelters, worse than max-security prisons. You could even chain them to a pipe on the side of the factory floor, and add responsibility to cleaning up as one more of their forced duties.
The most blatant flaw of your argument is that you claim that slavery is economically untenable- that even an evil, greedy industrialist wouldn't use slaves, because free workers would be cheaper. But the fact that slavery still exists today contradicts you- or why do you think USA manufacturers are so happy to outsource?
I'm not aware that there is a scientific consensus on what is basically a moral issue.
There is no moral issue about stem cell research. Morally, you may believe tiny embryos have a right to life, or not.
But scientifically, stem cell research does not destroy embryos. It merely recycles embryos that were being destroyed in other lab processes (mainly assisted fertility).
There are two reasonable positions on embryos:
1) They don't deserve protection, go crazy.
2) They deserve protection, so ban in-vitro fertilization techniques that create & destroy 10 embryos for every 1 fetus produced.
But Bush's position- embryos deserve protection, so ban stem cell research- just doesn't make any sense. Holding back money from stem-cell work won't save embryos.
Why, that would be almost as stupid as invading Iraq to protect us from Osama bin Laden!
In fact, the worst punishment the Catholic Church can level on one of its memebers is excommunication , and there is serious discussion that such punishment should be laid upon Catholics that openly support abortion.
Exactly right. The Catholic Church has this mechanism of "excommunication" to expel members who go against their teachings.
So, please give me a URL to the Pope's press release announcing Kerry's excommunication. Or just show me a news article about some priest refusing him communion, even. Either of those would make fine proof that he's not a member of the Catholic church.
Until you do, his weekly attendance at mass somewhat undermines your little theories. Those ordained priests have somewhat more authority than you...
a Catholic who supports abortion is no Catholic at all.
Not everything that's wrong and sinful needs a law passed against it.
Doesn't the Catholic church condemn destroying embryos for stem cells?
They condemn destroying embryos, period. Including for purposes of abortion, or assisted in-vitro fertilization.
However, stem-cell research does not destroy embryos. It collects embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway, and uses bits of them.
If you want to oppose embryo-destruction on religious grounds, then go after reproductive biotechnology, and leave stem cells out of it.
You are confusing the outcome of state voting with the outcome of national voting.
Nope. You, however, are trying to change the subject. I was talking about stability, and you're going off in all different directions.
where as under the electoral college the person would need to win by one vote in every state till the sum of required electoral votes in order to win the election were attained.
When someone posts something as stupid as that, I normally just stop responding, because such blatant idiocy is immune to reason. It's hard to believe that anyone who'd say that could follow even the simplified equations I'm using.
"the copy was made at the other end and I'm just using it, Your Honour".
Not similar. This claim fails because it's balantly untrue. Downloading with Kazaa means several copies are made, both on the sender's and reciever's computers.
a sticker over the mouse and keyboard ports that say, "Don't use the computer with Windows until you've read the Rights of Use agreement. If you disagree with your rights of use, don't install Windows and ship the CD containing it back to the vendor still sealed along with all documentation for a full refund of the software price," then I'd consider that an agreement.
You might think so, but that doesn't meet the USA legal standard for an agreement.
If, for example, I go to your house and put a sticker on the doorknob reading "Opening this means you agree to pay me $100. Every day. Forever", that is invalid of course.
Why? Because I have NO RIGHT to prohibit you from opening that door. It's your property, you can do what you want with it. Similarly, after the sale has taken place and money has been exchanged for a computer, the PC (and any stickers included) are your property, and you can rip them or burn them or whatever.
A person cannot declare that someone else operating some of his own property is a kind of agreement to a contract... not even if the property was recently purchased.
Better yet, make the vendors get a signature for each Windows user showing they agree to the terms.
Yes, that'd be binding. It would also drive people towards Mac or Linux.
And ignorance is never a defense - law or not.
Sure it is! For example, is it OK for 4 cops to fill an innocent, unarmed man with bullets? Of course not- unless they were ignorant of the fact that he was innocent and unarmed. Then they get off free.
* Copyright covers different things in different places. There is no such thing as "copyright law" in a single, global sense.
Thanks to the WTO / WIPO, copyright law is becoming more globally standardized every day. However you are correct that UK-based copyright law is different from USA/French/Japanese law in an important way. In the UK, running software is considered an infringing copy, so EULAs are much stronger there than elsewhere.
# You can believe what you like about EULAs, but they have been held up as valid in court in several test cases in several jurisdictions.
The specific USA case that "upheld" EULAs is so laughably incorrect that it's obvious the Supreme Court will never uphold it. That's probably why Microsoft has never pushed for a court battle to validate EULAs- because they know they'd lose. (Instead, they're holding off and trying to get Congress to change the law)
If PERSONA writes a pice of software and tells PERSONB they can only buy it if they agree not to copy it and give it out to friends or sell it and PERSONB agrees
Fine, but that never happens. Does the clerk at CompUSA make you sign or even read a license before selling the software? Of course not.
You can't make an agreement by tearing open a box or clicking through a dialog box.
(In some cases you can make click-though agreements, of course, such as when you are using the computer to communicate with a person someplace else. But that's not what happens during normal software install)