You whatever. Most traffic tickets are a sin tax, just like on alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise, speed limits would be set at the 85th percentile. Otherwise, red light cameras would be set at dangerous intersections, not busy intersections with short yellow light times. Otherwise, the "loss of revenue" wouldn't be the first thing municipalities complain about when they are forced to lower fines.
If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."
Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, and our spy satellites as the Constitution "only" grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy.
Well, that would be incorrect in this particular case, as Apple posts its EULAs publicly on its website
Irrelevant. 1) online is not in-store, and 2) nothing stops me from printing out said EULA, modifying it to say Apple owes me a million dollars a week, and have it be equally binding.
and also has them in the packaging of the product
No, they don't.
Do you care putting forth any other blatantly false arguments?
I really do wish people making such bold assertions would do a little research to back them up.
Yeah, you should do that some time.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, EULAs may (at least in the US in some circumstances) be perfectly enforceable, so it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you make out.
Actually, it is. You simply cannot impose contractual terms AFTER money has changed hands. ESPECIALLY when most stores will not let you return open software, when obviously you have to open the box to read said license.
Because when you "buy" software you aren't actually buying the software. You're buying into a licensing contract. That contract can limit you in any way that doesn't break any laws. It can limit what hardware it's used on.
Industry propaganda with no basis in reality. You simply cannot enforce the terms of a contract AFTER money has changed hands.
Sounds nice. But at the moment intellectual properly law states otherwise.
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
He said teabaggers, Slick. But much like the militia movement from the 90's, that stockpiled guns in preparation for Clinton's "New World Order", they took a vacation when Bush actually started to dismantle the Constitution.
Complete nonsense. The 4th Amendment is quite, quite clear on the subject:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So yes, warrantless wiretaps on as you say "US persons" are indeed illegal, and barring a new Constitutional amendment, that's not going to change.
And the Democrats are apparently trying to create a government modeled after Chairman Mao's communist philosophy.
"Apparently", you need to take a nice vacation to North Korea to see a proctologist about your little "problem". Once he's finished extracting your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what Mao's policies actually look like.
Because 60% of the people sure as hell don't want what it is that the lefties have actually come up with.
Unsurprisingly, the facts do not meet with your storyline. Even a majority of Republicans support a public option when you separate them from the "Death Panel" lies.
People want something different, but when they see the actual nuts and bolts (forcing young people to buy health care they're not using in order to pay for other people who use it - and fining kids who don't buy it?
On what planet do you think mandates are a liberal idea? Liberals hate mandates. The liberal position is single payer - which is also supported by a majority of Americans.
The Soviets constantly referred to themselves as both socialist and communist;
You say that as if there is a contradiction somewhere, sort of like the people who insist that we are in a republic, not a democracy - when we're in a democratic republic.
is it any wonder that people associated those terms with them?
Sure, because of decades of capitalist propaganda. Socialism is as big a threat to Wal-Mart and Wellpoint as Communism is.
It obviously means "in favor of abortion being legal" since that's the whole fucking point of the debate: the legality of abortion.
No, it means being pro-choice. You can personally oppose abortion while supporting the choice of others to have them. Pro-abortion means straight up that you are in favor of more abortions, and that's not the case for anyone.
I think the problem is that she was not conservative at all.
Naturally. The hardboiled conservative from 10-15 years ago is today's moderate. The hardboiled conservative from 30 years ago is today's liberal. Case in point: St. Ronnie freaking Ray Gun signed a treaty requiring the prosecution of torturers, which Obama wont touch with a ten foot pole.
To prove the point, she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat that is running and losing by 14% points according to the latest poll.
Which might not have happened if Hoffman wasn't such an asshole. Contrast this statement from Owens:
"Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has been an honorable public servant for years now and I have a tremendous amount of respect for her and her commitment to her principles. While we disagree on certain issues, we share a dedication to serving the best interests of Upstate New York and the Obama administration's efforts to get our economy back on track. Those interests will always be my highest priority."
To Hoffman's:
"This morning's events prove what we have said for the last week; this campaign is a horserace between me and Nancy Pelosi's handpicked candidate, Bill Owens. At this moment, the Democratic Party, the Working Families Party, ACORN, Big Labor and pro-abortion groups are flooding the district with troops and they are flooding the airwaves with a million dollars worth of negative ads. They are throwing mud; they are trying to stop me."
With that said, I'm a conservative because I prefer freedom and you can't have freedom without personal responsibility.
Exactly, which is why you support regulation and oversight to promote said personal responsibility, right?
The more the government gives you, the more they control.
But with government, the highest paid bureaucrat makes $400k a year. Contrast that to CEO's and hedge fund managers with a high incentive to screw you over so they can make $40 million a year, or more.
The government can not take away your ability to fail without taking away your ability to succeed.
On what planet? So if you get cancer and don't lose your house because treatment is covered under universal health care, you'd stop wanting to succeed? Well, if you're that lazy...
We just don't want them teaching elementary school kids about their lifestyle and how it's OK.
1. It is okay, and 2. why do you think gays would talk about the messy details any more than a heterosexual, Bible fearing lady would share the fact that she likes a little anal from time to time?
As for gay marriage, I think the government should not recognize it.
And you've hated equal protection of the law for how long?
Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway? Convert all marriages to civil unions and allow anyone to enter them.
So long as you do it across the board.
That's how us redneck-conservatives see it. It's a human rights issue.
The problem with you redneck-conservatives is that you are pro-birth, not pro-life. To use the power of the state to prevent abortions while simultaneously refusing state aid to the mother is about the most asinine, indefensible positions yet invented.
There's the Second Amendment, and I say this as someone who would probably count as a liberal.
That just gets you shot. You have guns, the feds will just bring more and bigger guns until they kill you. Just ask the Weaver family, the Branch Dividians or the Black Panthers.
You might draw it in one place but other people feel differently.
Then those people are wrong, and stupid in continuing to compare apples to oranges. Hey, lets compare embezzlement or forgery to child murder. They're all crimes so they're all the same thing, right?
Yes, there is. We have freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily requires the ability to travel. And for much of the United States, traveling necessitates driving.
While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap, sleep deprivation is a problem for pilots, air traffic controllers and truckers, among others. And why is it a problem? Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours. Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.
One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it's easier to keep a high level of alertness. But Reagan fixed that little union problem, and now ATC's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts. If there's two groups of people we don't want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops (like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building), it's pilots and air traffic controllers.
The OTHER reason is much bigger : consoles are vastly cheaper to purchase than a gaming PC. Just $300, and any game works immediately without hassle.
Funny how console fanboys always leave out the cost of the HDTV, the stereo system, and the price of a new console every 4-5 years (sooner if it breaks down). Whereas the PC I built in 2004 is still good enough to play Crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
You whatever. Most traffic tickets are a sin tax, just like on alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise, speed limits would be set at the 85th percentile. Otherwise, red light cameras would be set at dangerous intersections, not busy intersections with short yellow light times. Otherwise, the "loss of revenue" wouldn't be the first thing municipalities complain about when they are forced to lower fines.
If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."
Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, and our spy satellites as the Constitution "only" grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy.
As is usually the case, the facts don't meet your storyline.
That same logic applies to physical goods too. Or labor.
No it doesn't.
By your logic
Nope, sorry.
"That guy ALREADY mowed my lawn so why should I pay him?"
Opportunity cost, Google it.
Well, that would be incorrect in this particular case, as Apple posts its EULAs publicly on its website
Irrelevant. 1) online is not in-store, and 2) nothing stops me from printing out said EULA, modifying it to say Apple owes me a million dollars a week, and have it be equally binding.
and also has them in the packaging of the product
No, they don't.
Do you care putting forth any other blatantly false arguments?
Do you, Mr. Pot?
I really do wish people making such bold assertions would do a little research to back them up.
Yeah, you should do that some time.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, EULAs may (at least in the US in some circumstances) be perfectly enforceable, so it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you make out.
Actually, it is. You simply cannot impose contractual terms AFTER money has changed hands. ESPECIALLY when most stores will not let you return open software, when obviously you have to open the box to read said license.
Because when you "buy" software you aren't actually buying the software. You're buying into a licensing contract. That contract can limit you in any way that doesn't break any laws. It can limit what hardware it's used on.
Industry propaganda with no basis in reality. You simply cannot enforce the terms of a contract AFTER money has changed hands.
Sounds nice. But at the moment intellectual properly law states otherwise.
Liar.
Psystar is distributing unauthorized copies
They're distributing retail copies, fuckwit. Your entire argument is based on bullshit.
They paid for a license to use the software and a CD
No, they didn't. As there was no contract signed before money changed hands, there is no license involved, only a copy of the software.
There were a number of anti-war/anti-Bush protests. I know because I attended one of them.
He said teabaggers, Slick. But much like the militia movement from the 90's, that stockpiled guns in preparation for Clinton's "New World Order", they took a vacation when Bush actually started to dismantle the Constitution.
Complete nonsense. The 4th Amendment is quite, quite clear on the subject:
So yes, warrantless wiretaps on as you say "US persons" are indeed illegal, and barring a new Constitutional amendment, that's not going to change.
No, he doesn't. At all.
And the Democrats are apparently trying to create a government modeled after Chairman Mao's communist philosophy.
"Apparently", you need to take a nice vacation to North Korea to see a proctologist about your little "problem". Once he's finished extracting your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what Mao's policies actually look like.
Because 60% of the people sure as hell don't want what it is that the lefties have actually come up with.
Unsurprisingly, the facts do not meet with your storyline. Even a majority of Republicans support a public option when you separate them from the "Death Panel" lies.
People want something different, but when they see the actual nuts and bolts (forcing young people to buy health care they're not using in order to pay for other people who use it - and fining kids who don't buy it?
On what planet do you think mandates are a liberal idea? Liberals hate mandates. The liberal position is single payer - which is also supported by a majority of Americans.
The Soviets constantly referred to themselves as both socialist and communist;
You say that as if there is a contradiction somewhere, sort of like the people who insist that we are in a republic, not a democracy - when we're in a democratic republic.
is it any wonder that people associated those terms with them?
Sure, because of decades of capitalist propaganda. Socialism is as big a threat to Wal-Mart and Wellpoint as Communism is.
Only if you're an idiot.
Except you're projecting.
It obviously means "in favor of abortion being legal" since that's the whole fucking point of the debate: the legality of abortion.
No, it means being pro-choice. You can personally oppose abortion while supporting the choice of others to have them. Pro-abortion means straight up that you are in favor of more abortions, and that's not the case for anyone.
I think the problem is that she was not conservative at all.
Naturally. The hardboiled conservative from 10-15 years ago is today's moderate. The hardboiled conservative from 30 years ago is today's liberal. Case in point: St. Ronnie freaking Ray Gun signed a treaty requiring the prosecution of torturers, which Obama wont touch with a ten foot pole.
To prove the point, she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat that is running and losing by 14% points according to the latest poll.
Which might not have happened if Hoffman wasn't such an asshole. Contrast this statement from Owens:
To Hoffman's:
With that said, I'm a conservative because I prefer freedom and you can't have freedom without personal responsibility.
Exactly, which is why you support regulation and oversight to promote said personal responsibility, right?
The more the government gives you, the more they control.
But with government, the highest paid bureaucrat makes $400k a year. Contrast that to CEO's and hedge fund managers with a high incentive to screw you over so they can make $40 million a year, or more.
The government can not take away your ability to fail without taking away your ability to succeed.
On what planet? So if you get cancer and don't lose your house because treatment is covered under universal health care, you'd stop wanting to succeed? Well, if you're that lazy...
We just don't want them teaching elementary school kids about their lifestyle and how it's OK.
1. It is okay, and 2. why do you think gays would talk about the messy details any more than a heterosexual, Bible fearing lady would share the fact that she likes a little anal from time to time?
As for gay marriage, I think the government should not recognize it.
And you've hated equal protection of the law for how long?
Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway? Convert all marriages to civil unions and allow anyone to enter them.
So long as you do it across the board.
That's how us redneck-conservatives see it. It's a human rights issue.
The problem with you redneck-conservatives is that you are pro-birth, not pro-life. To use the power of the state to prevent abortions while simultaneously refusing state aid to the mother is about the most asinine, indefensible positions yet invented.
Where grass roots Conservatives told their party elders to take a hike.
Other than the party elders backing Hoffman, of course.
There's the Second Amendment, and I say this as someone who would probably count as a liberal.
That just gets you shot. You have guns, the feds will just bring more and bigger guns until they kill you. Just ask the Weaver family, the Branch Dividians or the Black Panthers.
You might draw it in one place but other people feel differently.
Then those people are wrong, and stupid in continuing to compare apples to oranges. Hey, lets compare embezzlement or forgery to child murder. They're all crimes so they're all the same thing, right?
First of all there is no "right to travel".
Yes, there is. We have freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily requires the ability to travel. And for much of the United States, traveling necessitates driving.
While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap, sleep deprivation is a problem for pilots, air traffic controllers and truckers, among others. And why is it a problem? Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours. Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.
One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it's easier to keep a high level of alertness. But Reagan fixed that little union problem, and now ATC's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts. If there's two groups of people we don't want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops (like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building), it's pilots and air traffic controllers.
The wonder of the free market in action....
The OTHER reason is much bigger : consoles are vastly cheaper to purchase than a gaming PC. Just $300, and any game works immediately without hassle.
Funny how console fanboys always leave out the cost of the HDTV, the stereo system, and the price of a new console every 4-5 years (sooner if it breaks down). Whereas the PC I built in 2004 is still good enough to play Crisis.
...crickets.
Damn, looks like your facts messed up his storyline.
Or he doesn't have a Nokia, so why bother looking up stuff for a device you don't have? Stop being a pretentious ass.