Speaking of Abbot and Costello references:
I've been meaning to change my name for awhile now, being as my parents gave me an esoteric hard to pronounce gutteral sounding name that ended up getting mis-spelled on my birth certificate. So I'm going to change my name to Who. I think it would be funny. "What's your name?" "Who." "You, what's your name?" Heh heh. And I'll be on first. You can mod me down now.
Why? The Judicial branch is mostly the only form of government that is not corrupted. They don't take bribes like Senators and the Executive branches do. This allows them to speak sense without restriction. This is a rare example of how the United States is supposed to function; it is a little glimpse into our great paste. Savor in this moment people, for it is rare.
You're generally right, except for judges in states where they need to be elected. There is growing concern in the judicial community that this practice hinders the judge's ability to be impartial because they have to fund raise like any other politician. Interestingly enough,
Missouri has both systems in place.
In Missouri , judges are selected by one of two methods: election; and the so-called " Missouri system." Most counties elect trial court judges . The rest of the judges , including the judges of the three courts of appeals and the justices of the supreme court, are appointed by the Governor. The trial court judges selected in this way are mainly in urban areas where election fraud, etc., was a problem in the time of the political machines.
However, the Governor does not have every lawyer in the state from whom to choose. Rather, nominees must be screened by a judicial selection commission composed of lawyers from the jurisdiction who themselves have been by all lawyers in the area. The commission presents the Governor with a panel of three names from which to choose. The Governor may either choose one, or reject the entire panel, whereupon the entire process begins anew.
In this case, it sounds like we're looking at an appointed judge, which explains why he was so literal with the law (in this case, it's a good thing ). I think it might be an interesting exercise to look at the verdicts passed in favor of the entertainment industry, and then cross reference that with the method by which judges are appointed/elected, and weather or not any of them took money from the entertainment industry in the form of campaign contributions in the case of elected judges.
I wonder if anyone else has done any research like that. I imagine Groklaw has probably played with the idea.
1>Notice a little too late in the game that the brand still has some tangible value.
2>buy commodore name and threaten to sue those companies so you get media coverage.
3>make games yourself, and use brand to market new hardware and devices of some sort. (still an iffy proposition, because the brand has no credibility other than nostalgia at this point).
Thing is, now it's Wifi, which is theoretically an outgoing signal. But what happens when Wifi is replaced by Wimax, which is for the most part an incoming signal? If aluminum paint will block that kind of signal (which is preposterous.), don't you think it would work on both types of signal, in both directions?
There aren't many incredibly useful, really innovative ideas coming out of Microsoft these days, or ever for that matter. From a technical standpoint, Passport was brilliant. Think about it. You sign up once at a central location, and then you can use that user id practically anywhere... in theory anyway. Thing is, no matter who you are, the only way something like that is going to work is if you create it with an open interface that you allow people to use (and forcing end users to use it didn't help things either).
Microsoft may have a couple great ideas once in awhile, but openness isn't exactly their strong suit. By the time they realized that they couldn't charge people to use Passport on their sites if their goal was to get people using the system, it was too late.
As it happens with Microsoft, I think this whole thing acts as a learning experience. The idea of Passport was neat, and I would like to see something like it pop up. It's a very useful, very logical, very practical idea. But it needs to be free to use, and open to developers. There probably isn't a practical way to suck money out of it, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing... again.
The fact is: The FSF came up with the ONLY English word for what they are talking about. That word is free . The consequence that "free of charge" is the aspect that most English speakers necessarily associate with the word free is no fault of those who believe in freedom. The members of the FSF have chosen the correct word.
A bunch of narrow minded, money-worshipping businessmen have twisted its meaning to their normally asinine point of view. Money may be important, but it does not govern everything. And freedom, certainly, is not wholly restricted to freedom from this or that expense.
You make it sound like this happened after the fact. The FSF knew exactly what the commercial connotation of free meant before they did it.They probably thought they could handle it, or that explaining it constantly wouldn't be a problem. Maybe they just didn't care. Seems to me that the whole as in beer thing was probably a joke that went too far. There are other words and combinations of words they could have used. Liberal Software could have easily worked.
The term "open source" has a lot more exposure in the media, which does not draw the line between open source and free software. Speaking to your average Best Buy customer, you are a lot more likely to have them understand the term open source, than "free software" which can be bad, if you are trying to sell them something. I could see it now, "But uh thaught it wuz free!"
It has been my experience that there is one major difference between the free software people and the open source people, and it's not the software. In my dealings with both groups, I have formed the opinion that open source people want commercial acceptance bye and large (there are exceptions). They want everyone in the world to use Linux and other open source products, whereas free software people fight commercial influence to the point where it completely stops making sense.
Open Source people worry about creating usable applications. They occasionally worry about a flagrant GPL violation, but their focus is not the license itself.
Free software people on the other hand believe that they are ideologically superior to everyone else in the world, and that all software should be free, but not as in beer, or was is free as in beer? Oh crap, I can never keep that one straight. Anyway, rather than focusing on building software for the sake of sharing it, they tend to get more involved in the activist "you should never have to pay for anything" spiel.
They say that they mean free and not free, but they really do seem to mean both. Read anything Richard Stalman has ever posted anywhere for more background on this. Any of his interviews are prime material. His more recent work is especially insightful to that end.
It's a militant attitude towards the software itself, maybe even towards the world that few sane people have, which is why the distinction needs to be made. It is also why projects like Hoard have never taken off the way Linux has.
When it comes to it, you can't just be against something like the "free software" movement itself seems to be. (They're against the imprisonment of innocent code!) You have to be for something or about something positive as well. It also helps the name of your movement is simple and straight forward.
If they're in the market for a new name, how about "Commercially Unencumbered Software?" or "CUS" Isn't that their mission? How about "Systems that unite people in darkness" or "Stupid?" Regardless as to how I feel about them, I think that a simple name that explains in basic English what they are about without this "free as in beer" bull shit would do the movement a world of good.
"The citizen-journalists of the blogsphere are where journalism is heading. There's a million fact-checkers out there, and the Old Media better wake up to it, or be cast aside."
But how much content in the blogsphere can really be taken seriously. Most of it reminds me of talk radio in that it's all slanted to one side or another, with little actual news (you know, that objective stuff with facts and useful analysis) to be found.
Show me one blog site that comes anywhere near Slate in regard to professionalism and quality of content (don't be a wise ass and say/.), and I'll admit I'm wrong. Although, I don't think I am.
"I wouldn't be suprised if Sun came out with a responce to this article. I mean Linus essentially just called thier operating system a joke. I wonder what kind of responce Sun will have to that."
He also said they have a habit of talking too much. Responding to it would just prove his point.
I enjoy how you apply human properties to a machine, hoping for a resolution. As a matter of fact, applying things this way is what causes problems.
That was the whole point of the excercise. Had you read the aricle, you would know that this was about the idea of computer personhood, and the reletive merits and problems such a thing would cause. My post was one of the few that was actually directly on topic, and I believe it also answered your question.
You are too lazy to think up new laws and impliment them, and therefore try to work out a shitty and crappy version which ruins the world. (this is also known as compromise)
Why would I need to think up new laws? I'm a programmer, not a congressman or a judge. If the assertion of the author is true, which I have some doubts about, it may only be a matter of time (didn't he say 2019?) before laws like this start making their way through congress and the courts.
All laws are dirivitive of the laws that came before them. That's how the system works in this country. There are very few completely new laws. The inputs and outputs keep changing, but the basic assumptions and premises that make law are the same. It is for that reason that laws in the united states have not signifigantly changed in any meaningful way since 1776.
Someone like you would produce M$ windows.
Microsoft isn't ready for someone like me. But I don't see what that has to do with anything.
"just let them code, we'll slap it together afterwards" I justify this statement by the overall ignorance in your post.
Huh? Next time, take one thought, and think it out before making yourself look like an idiot on Slashdot. At least I can construct a coherent sentace. The same cannot be said for you, my half retarded friend.
YOU ASSUME all of these human properties apply.
Again, That was the whole point. You rant and you rave about how stupid you think I am, and that you think I'm a Microsoftie, yet you haven't once in your post done anything to refute anything in my original post.
Don't make assumptions.
Why not? It's all about assumptions. Why are you so scared? You never coherently explained why I'm even wrong, or what part of the post you had a specific issue with.
You're just pissed off because I called Alabama a comatose state. If your post is indicitive of the sort of thing I can expect to see coming from Alabama, I don't see any reason to recant that statement.
Right, and please mod this redundant if it's already been said, but the argument is what is a person? Is a person simply a being capable of making determinations on his or her own? Or does it require a body of flesh and blood? The constitution does not make that distinction at the present time. If a person is clearly defined as being a human being of flesh and blood that can make decisions autonomously, then you run into the problem of dealing with people on life support or in comatose states (like Alabama). But if you rule that it's the body alone that makes a person a person, then you're running into dangerous civil rights territory, and something that will inevitably get over turned.
As entertaining as this is to read about in scientific publications, legal journals, sci-fi novels and the like. I think there's one big problem with this particular case that goes beyond how you should define a person. I wonder, how do you define BINA48? Is BIN48 the complete computer system that seems to have been designed with the ability to write it's own software (not sure why, but okay), generate holograms, and handle customer support calls? Or is BINA48 something else?
If BINA48 is simply a software program; can BINA48 be copied and placed on another piece of hardware, and then have the original piece of hardware shut off? Or would that simply double the problem? If that was the case, how do you handle a hard drive crash? If BINA48 is a sentient being, could you ethically restore a hard drive from an earlier point in time and still consider it the same being? Remember, the first hard drive which housed the "essence" of BINA48 has died. If it were a person, you would hold a funeral. So how do you handle it if you're talking about something that is for all practical purposes a software solution?
How do you handle moving such a machine? Would you need a printed and signed letter of consent every time you needed to move it from one facility to another? Would you need its permission to shut it down for scheduled maintenance?
How do you handle the issue of memories? Until now, databases of corporate data like support call information has been assumed to be owned by the corporation. I don't think anyone has put much thought into the memories stored in an employees head. But if that employee is a computer, and those memories are the corporate database itself... who owns the data, if the computer has assumed personhood?
And what happens when such a machine dies. I mean really dies. It happens now, and it's assumed that the company or corporation is responsible for disposing of it. Could such a computer have next of kin? Could such a computer marry? If so, who? How? You think the republicans got in a hissy about blacks and gays getting married. Just wait until marriage needs to be extended to entities outside the human race. Christ, I can't wait to see those debates on C-span. "Okay, yuh got this toaster an' uh box turtle, see, an they wanna go to Cuba..." I can see it now. But I digress.
Most importantly, how many cases like this do you figure there would really be? If corporations realized that they would need to treat a computer the way they would a human being, don't you think they would stop developing computers they would need to treat that way? Since it is not every computer that has these capabilities (as is currently evident), don't you think that they could develop systems that come just short of crossing the line and still be okay? If faced with this, don't you think they would?
Which brings us to the question: Just because you can find brain surgeons to work for 2.20+- an hour, should you?
Or rather, Just because you can build software to make a computer self aware... should you? Is it really going to do anything to make your life easier?
Wouldn't having a neurotic self aware computer that refuses to do what you want it to do be a real pain in the ass? Imagine Woody Allen in a box. No thank you.
That's about the size of it. Look at the facts. These people are anything but fiscally conservative (which is why you have to put the "Neo" prefix onto it). They have an obvious social agenda, and they believe in bigger government. Bush and his cronies by their own definition... liberals, er... Neo-Cons. Same difference.
I just think it's ironic when the BSA, the trade cartel that is always backwards, and generally wrong on everything becomes the champion of open source rights. Which, essentially they are now.
On the bright side, I don't think there's much of a case here. Of all the asinine ideas. Software copyrights are good for everyone, people, companies, pirates, courts, etc. Even if it does make it through, I think it will get shot down on appeal.
And the Neo-cons are any better? They're radical liberals with extreme right wing values and a poor understanding of how government works. Christ we're in trouble.
I've had worse typos here. But you will note that he said nothing about your post other than the spelling. As egregerious as it was. Don't feel bad. Bush has been making up words for years. At least yours could be a word.
I really want this to be true. I want to see proof that the vote in south Florida was tampered with so that I could tell all these sanctimonious assholes, "I told you so." But this whole thing smacks of an angry older programmer trying to get even with his former employer. In a case like that, there's no telling how true these statements are, or how reliable they are. Now if they dissected a voting machine in south Florida, and it had these invisible buttons, that would be another issue entirely. But I would like to see more proof before looking like an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a different HP, the old godly HP is a brown spicey sauce that British members of parliament enjoy in their bacon and egg sarnies.
Yes... it might be delicious, but can it compute the value of pi?
Speaking of Abbot and Costello references: I've been meaning to change my name for awhile now, being as my parents gave me an esoteric hard to pronounce gutteral sounding name that ended up getting mis-spelled on my birth certificate. So I'm going to change my name to Who. I think it would be funny. "What's your name?" "Who." "You, what's your name?" Heh heh. And I'll be on first. You can mod me down now.
Why? The Judicial branch is mostly the only form of government that is not corrupted. They don't take bribes like Senators and the Executive branches do. This allows them to speak sense without restriction. This is a rare example of how the United States is supposed to function; it is a little glimpse into our great paste. Savor in this moment people, for it is rare.
You're generally right, except for judges in states where they need to be elected. There is growing concern in the judicial community that this practice hinders the judge's ability to be impartial because they have to fund raise like any other politician. Interestingly enough, Missouri has both systems in place.
According to this:
In Missouri , judges are selected by one of two methods: election; and the so-called " Missouri system." Most counties elect trial court judges . The rest of the judges , including the judges of the three courts of appeals and the justices of the supreme court, are appointed by the Governor. The trial court judges selected in this way are mainly in urban areas where election fraud, etc., was a problem in the time of the political machines.
However, the Governor does not have every lawyer in the state from whom to choose. Rather, nominees must be screened by a judicial selection commission composed of lawyers from the jurisdiction who themselves have been by all lawyers in the area. The commission presents the Governor with a panel of three names from which to choose. The Governor may either choose one, or reject the entire panel, whereupon the entire process begins anew.
In this case, it sounds like we're looking at an appointed judge, which explains why he was so literal with the law (in this case, it's a good thing ). I think it might be an interesting exercise to look at the verdicts passed in favor of the entertainment industry, and then cross reference that with the method by which judges are appointed/elected, and weather or not any of them took money from the entertainment industry in the form of campaign contributions in the case of elected judges.
I wonder if anyone else has done any research like that. I imagine Groklaw has probably played with the idea.
Classic post man.
You're probably right.
Something like that.
It's more like
1>Notice a little too late in the game that the brand still has some tangible value.
2>buy commodore name and threaten to sue those companies so you get media coverage.
3>make games yourself, and use brand to market new hardware and devices of some sort. (still an iffy proposition, because the brand has no credibility other than nostalgia at this point).
4>profit... if you're smart and reaallly lucky.
Or their asses. Many celebs insure their asses for big bucks. Me, I'm going to be altruistic and donate mine to science.
Yet. I'm convinced that this training will be available for download at some point. Good old practical applications of wet wires ala Matrix.
Thing is, now it's Wifi, which is theoretically an outgoing signal. But what happens when Wifi is replaced by Wimax, which is for the most part an incoming signal? If aluminum paint will block that kind of signal (which is preposterous.), don't you think it would work on both types of signal, in both directions?
Or maybe it means that the security system is made out of clay and possessed by a benign demon who does not possess the power of speech? Never mind...
Hmmm...
I wonder if it would store safely with my Wifi Speed Spray
There aren't many incredibly useful, really innovative ideas coming out of Microsoft these days, or ever for that matter. From a technical standpoint, Passport was brilliant. Think about it. You sign up once at a central location, and then you can use that user id practically anywhere... in theory anyway. Thing is, no matter who you are, the only way something like that is going to work is if you create it with an open interface that you allow people to use (and forcing end users to use it didn't help things either).
Microsoft may have a couple great ideas once in awhile, but openness isn't exactly their strong suit. By the time they realized that they couldn't charge people to use Passport on their sites if their goal was to get people using the system, it was too late.
As it happens with Microsoft, I think this whole thing acts as a learning experience. The idea of Passport was neat, and I would like to see something like it pop up. It's a very useful, very logical, very practical idea. But it needs to be free to use, and open to developers. There probably isn't a practical way to suck money out of it, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing... again.
The fact is: The FSF came up with the ONLY English word for what they are talking about. That word is free . The consequence that "free of charge" is the aspect that most English speakers necessarily associate with the word free is no fault of those who believe in freedom. The members of the FSF have chosen the correct word.
A bunch of narrow minded, money-worshipping businessmen have twisted its meaning to their normally asinine point of view. Money may be important, but it does not govern everything. And freedom, certainly, is not wholly restricted to freedom from this or that expense.
You make it sound like this happened after the fact. The FSF knew exactly what the commercial connotation of free meant before they did it.They probably thought they could handle it, or that explaining it constantly wouldn't be a problem. Maybe they just didn't care. Seems to me that the whole as in beer thing was probably a joke that went too far. There are other words and combinations of words they could have used. Liberal Software could have easily worked.
Not necessarily.
The term "open source" has a lot more exposure in the media, which does not draw the line between open source and free software. Speaking to your average Best Buy customer, you are a lot more likely to have them understand the term open source, than "free software" which can be bad, if you are trying to sell them something. I could see it now, "But uh thaught it wuz free!"
It has been my experience that there is one major difference between the free software people and the open source people, and it's not the software. In my dealings with both groups, I have formed the opinion that open source people want commercial acceptance bye and large (there are exceptions). They want everyone in the world to use Linux and other open source products, whereas free software people fight commercial influence to the point where it completely stops making sense.
Open Source people worry about creating usable applications. They occasionally worry about a flagrant GPL violation, but their focus is not the license itself.
Free software people on the other hand believe that they are ideologically superior to everyone else in the world, and that all software should be free, but not as in beer, or was is free as in beer? Oh crap, I can never keep that one straight. Anyway, rather than focusing on building software for the sake of sharing it, they tend to get more involved in the activist "you should never have to pay for anything" spiel.
They say that they mean free and not free, but they really do seem to mean both. Read anything Richard Stalman has ever posted anywhere for more background on this. Any of his interviews are prime material. His more recent work is especially insightful to that end.
It's a militant attitude towards the software itself, maybe even towards the world that few sane people have, which is why the distinction needs to be made. It is also why projects like Hoard have never taken off the way Linux has.
When it comes to it, you can't just be against something like the "free software" movement itself seems to be. (They're against the imprisonment of innocent code!) You have to be for something or about something positive as well. It also helps the name of your movement is simple and straight forward.
If they're in the market for a new name, how about "Commercially Unencumbered Software?" or "CUS" Isn't that their mission? How about "Systems that unite people in darkness" or "Stupid?" Regardless as to how I feel about them, I think that a simple name that explains in basic English what they are about without this "free as in beer" bull shit would do the movement a world of good.
Just my two cents.
"The citizen-journalists of the blogsphere are where journalism is heading. There's a million fact-checkers out there, and the Old Media better wake up to it, or be cast aside."
But how much content in the blogsphere can really be taken seriously. Most of it reminds me of talk radio in that it's all slanted to one side or another, with little actual news (you know, that objective stuff with facts and useful analysis) to be found.
Show me one blog site that comes anywhere near Slate in regard to professionalism and quality of content (don't be a wise ass and say /.), and I'll admit I'm wrong. Although, I don't think I am.
" I wouldn't be suprised if Sun came out with a responce to this article. I mean Linus essentially just called thier operating system a joke. I wonder what kind of responce Sun will have to that."
He also said they have a habit of talking too much. Responding to it would just prove his point.
Clinical studies have already shown plenty of evidence of dopey brains.
Many of which can be seen right here on Slashdot.
I'm sold. Sign me up for the trials!
I enjoy how you apply human properties to a machine, hoping for a resolution. As a matter of fact, applying things this way is what causes problems.
That was the whole point of the excercise. Had you read the aricle, you would know that this was about the idea of computer personhood, and the reletive merits and problems such a thing would cause. My post was one of the few that was actually directly on topic, and I believe it also answered your question.
You are too lazy to think up new laws and impliment them, and therefore try to work out a shitty and crappy version which ruins the world. (this is also known as compromise)
Why would I need to think up new laws? I'm a programmer, not a congressman or a judge. If the assertion of the author is true, which I have some doubts about, it may only be a matter of time (didn't he say 2019?) before laws like this start making their way through congress and the courts.
All laws are dirivitive of the laws that came before them. That's how the system works in this country. There are very few completely new laws. The inputs and outputs keep changing, but the basic assumptions and premises that make law are the same. It is for that reason that laws in the united states have not signifigantly changed in any meaningful way since 1776.
Someone like you would produce M$ windows.
Microsoft isn't ready for someone like me. But I don't see what that has to do with anything.
"just let them code, we'll slap it together afterwards" I justify this statement by the overall ignorance in your post.
Huh? Next time, take one thought, and think it out before making yourself look like an idiot on Slashdot. At least I can construct a coherent sentace. The same cannot be said for you, my half retarded friend.
YOU ASSUME all of these human properties apply.
Again, That was the whole point. You rant and you rave about how stupid you think I am, and that you think I'm a Microsoftie, yet you haven't once in your post done anything to refute anything in my original post.
Don't make assumptions.
Why not? It's all about assumptions. Why are you so scared? You never coherently explained why I'm even wrong, or what part of the post you had a specific issue with.
You're just pissed off because I called Alabama a comatose state. If your post is indicitive of the sort of thing I can expect to see coming from Alabama, I don't see any reason to recant that statement.
Right, and please mod this redundant if it's already been said, but the argument is what is a person? Is a person simply a being capable of making determinations on his or her own? Or does it require a body of flesh and blood? The constitution does not make that distinction at the present time. If a person is clearly defined as being a human being of flesh and blood that can make decisions autonomously, then you run into the problem of dealing with people on life support or in comatose states (like Alabama). But if you rule that it's the body alone that makes a person a person, then you're running into dangerous civil rights territory, and something that will inevitably get over turned.
As entertaining as this is to read about in scientific publications, legal journals, sci-fi novels and the like. I think there's one big problem with this particular case that goes beyond how you should define a person. I wonder, how do you define BINA48? Is BIN48 the complete computer system that seems to have been designed with the ability to write it's own software (not sure why, but okay), generate holograms, and handle customer support calls? Or is BINA48 something else?
If BINA48 is simply a software program; can BINA48 be copied and placed on another piece of hardware, and then have the original piece of hardware shut off? Or would that simply double the problem? If that was the case, how do you handle a hard drive crash? If BINA48 is a sentient being, could you ethically restore a hard drive from an earlier point in time and still consider it the same being? Remember, the first hard drive which housed the "essence" of BINA48 has died. If it were a person, you would hold a funeral. So how do you handle it if you're talking about something that is for all practical purposes a software solution?
How do you handle moving such a machine? Would you need a printed and signed letter of consent every time you needed to move it from one facility to another? Would you need its permission to shut it down for scheduled maintenance?
How do you handle the issue of memories?
Until now, databases of corporate data like support call information has been assumed to be owned by the corporation. I don't think anyone has put much thought into the memories stored in an employees head. But if that employee is a computer, and those memories are the corporate database itself... who owns the data, if the computer has assumed personhood?
And what happens when such a machine dies. I mean really dies. It happens now, and it's assumed that the company or corporation is responsible for disposing of it. Could such a computer have next of kin? Could such a computer marry? If so, who? How? You think the republicans got in a hissy about blacks and gays getting married. Just wait until marriage needs to be extended to entities outside the human race. Christ, I can't wait to see those debates on C-span. "Okay, yuh got this toaster an' uh box turtle, see, an they wanna go to Cuba..." I can see it now. But I digress.
Most importantly, how many cases like this do you figure there would really be?
If corporations realized that they would need to treat a computer the way they would a human being, don't you think they would stop developing computers they would need to treat that way? Since it is not every computer that has these capabilities (as is currently evident), don't you think that they could develop systems that come just short of crossing the line and still be okay? If faced with this, don't you think they would?
Which brings us to the question: Just because you can find brain surgeons to work for 2.20+- an hour, should you?
Or rather,
Just because you can build software to make a computer self aware... should you? Is it really going to do anything to make your life easier?
Wouldn't having a neurotic self aware computer that refuses to do what you want it to do be a real pain in the ass? Imagine Woody Allen in a box. No thank you.
That's about the size of it. Look at the facts. These people are anything but fiscally conservative (which is why you have to put the "Neo" prefix onto it). They have an obvious social agenda, and they believe in bigger government. Bush and his cronies by their own definition... liberals, er... Neo-Cons. Same difference.
I just think it's ironic when the BSA, the trade cartel that is always backwards, and generally wrong on everything becomes the champion of open source rights. Which, essentially they are now.
On the bright side, I don't think there's much of a case here. Of all the asinine ideas. Software copyrights are good for everyone, people, companies, pirates, courts, etc. Even if it does make it through, I think it will get shot down on appeal.
And the Neo-cons are any better? They're radical liberals with extreme right wing values and a poor understanding of how government works. Christ we're in trouble.
I've had worse typos here. But you will note that he said nothing about your post other than the spelling. As egregerious as it was. Don't feel bad. Bush has been making up words for years. At least yours could be a word.
I really want this to be true. I want to see proof that the vote in south Florida was tampered with so that I could tell all these sanctimonious assholes, "I told you so." But this whole thing smacks of an angry older programmer trying to get even with his former employer. In a case like that, there's no telling how true these statements are, or how reliable they are. Now if they dissected a voting machine in south Florida, and it had these invisible buttons, that would be another issue entirely. But I would like to see more proof before looking like an idiot.