Sue them. It's worth the filing fees, which aren't that bad. Sue them for more than the cost of the game - just in case they don't bother to show up.
They probably won't care - but if you win, maybe another lawyer will start a class action lawsuit for $39.95 X the number of people that own copies. That would get their attention.
"I'm sorry if I'm asking the obvious here, but why not buy a copy from a store instead of a used copy from someone? I mean it's a monthly charge and you're sneaking out of the $39.95 or whatever it is for the base version?"
That really isn't the point. It sounds like the EULA allows one to transfer ownership of the game, the same way you could transfer ownership of a CD, DVD, bike, or lawnmower. Now it seems like Blizzard is attempting to squash the rights of someone to participate in a secondary sale.
I don't see why this is an issue for Blizzard, where the other person paid for the merchandise, and no longer wants to pay the monthly subscription, yet this guy does want to send them money. If the original owner has stopped his monthly payment, that should be indication that he no longer wants to maintain an active account.
If they want to impose controls to protect against piracy, it should be Blizzards problem to implement a system that is flexible enough to not trample the consumers rights.
To address your point about "sneaking out" of the $39.95, Blizzard could always charge an account activation fee and give the disks away free. Instead, they chose the business model where money changes hand at the retail level. Once the item has been paid for, the consumer owns it and has a right to sell it. Under their licensing scheme, only one account can be active at a time per physical disk purchased anyways - since the other guy isn't using the software anymore, and the physical disk has been transferred, so should the rights to an account. No "sneaking" is going on. Blizzard just doesn't approve of a secondary market which may hurt additional retail sales they aren't entitled to.
"Hibrid cars and regular sedans with good gas mileage are readily available. But our streets are clogged with huge living-room sized SUVs which get crappy mileage, and also only have to meet truck emmission regulations, not stricter car regulations. Do most people EVER take thieir SUVs off-road? No."
What if I don't support your sedan and hybrid driving lifestyle, when you could take a bike or walk?
People who drive SUVs already pay more gas taxes and more on gas due to the lower MPG. The government does not need to step in here. If you want to save the environment, don't have any children - you'll do more to save the planet than you could ever accomplish by driving a lower emission vehicle.
Property taxes are constantly going up. Every time I move, property taxes increase. Every time a house on my block is sold, property taxes increase.
Over the last 5 years, housing prices have gone up from ~$175k to > $500k in my area. Given that property taxes are a percent of the sale price, the property taxes have more than doubled on any property that is newly assessed. And a lot of houses have turned over in that time.
If the schools are hurting in CA, it has nothing to do with property taxes. Most property taxes don't even stay in the local community - they go to Sacramento for pillaging and redistribution.
I hate it when people want to increase the % of tax on anything. As prices, income and inflation rise, so should government revenues without touching a thing. Our government, like Governor Arnold S. pointed out, increases spending automatically whenever revenue increases as part of the system. That is part of the problem. We have too many programs, too much beurocracy, and too much spending in general.
Maybe if we cut back some of the wasteful programs, we could concentrate on ones that are important like education and public safety.
"Pay a relatively small amount of money out of your check"
Social Security (and medicare) have been steadily increasing as a percentage of pay since the inception of the program. Contributions are around 12-14%. Self employed pay all their share. Otherwise, your company kicks in half and you pay half.
When you add that to 25% income tax, 11% state tax, unemployment tax, and other taxes, you're lucky if you keep even 60% of what you make. And then, you get hit with property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, taxes on your phone, taxes on cable, taxes on electric service.
I've paid into the system for over 10 years. If I could opt out now, or even 5 years from now and know I will not get any benefits, I would if they would stop taking from my takehome pay.
Those low income workers pay the same percentage as me - maybe if they weren't taxed as much, they could save more or take part in employer sponsored 401k programs, and not be so dependent on the government.
Think of how much money you will have contributed over 50 working years. If the money you contribute was actually yours to manage, you would be better off. Consider this, if you invested since 1950 in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, you would have a colossal retirement, even if you started drawing at the collapse of the telecom stock market bubble. One of the protection mechanisms is that you have time and compounded interest on your side, and you will not be drawing your money out all at once.
"The potential for extremely adverse outcome of a terrorist attack on USA chemical and nuclear facilities is high, yet neither chemical or nuclear facilities have been required to adhere to any codified improvements in security."
Um, you have no clue. Nuclear facilities have always had strong security, but since 9-11, there have been many MANDATED changes. The intent of the changes is to do them for enhancement, not just to publicize them so people feel better.
If you have any doubt, check with your public utility commission, and you'll see that millions have been poured into plants for required security upgrades.
One of the things you have to realize is that MMORPGs are designed specifically to generate monthly subscriptions.
They do this by limiting how fast players progress, by forcing you to do the same actions over and over again, and by introducing item scarcity. The game is only made fun enough so the greatest number of people maintain their monthly subscriptions.
A great game would be a vast world, where you really only have to do something once or twice, and you are never waiting in line to camp a monster spawn. But that game would be over with in a month or two at the most, and that wouldn't be too profitable.
This is one the the points I told my wife about when we got her a new phone for her already existing Verizon account.
While it should be possible for us to take our music which we have collected (hundreds of CDs worth), and create a ringtone clip out of media we own using a simple program, the cell phone company makes it difficult if not impossible to do this with their built in locks so they can make a buck a song reselling something we already bought. They also do this to lock out any competition in the name of security.
Anybody know a way around this with Verizon service on a LG phone?
I would expect it to work similar to two separate cards in SLI - with maybe some extra efficiencies from being on the same card, with the exception of having to split the memory...unless of course they have found a way for the chips to avoid redundant memory use.
I would expect it to be at least as good as 2 128MB 6800s.
Someone please answer this if you know a solution. Whenever clicking on a picture link or thumbnail on a webpage, firefox always wants to open the picture through another window. And it always asks permission, no matter what settings I have. Even worse, when right clicking and selecting open in new window, firefox displays a blank window followed by the other extra picture display window.
Am I missing something? Is there a way to set it so it functions like IE and displays within the current window or just displays in a second window if I click open new window?
Please help...I really want to support competetive products.
Another problem was that there was no market mechanism to pass the cost directly on to consumers.
Had prices risen in the Southern California Edison and PG&E markets, like they did in San Diego (SDG&E), there would have been considerable incentives to cut back, and the market would have corrected itself somewhat.
When 70% of power users are using power that costs them.06-.10 a kWh and the utilities have a requirement to purchase the power to serve all customers, even at prices exceeding $1.00 kWh, it's no surprise that SCE and PG&E were placed in a world of hurt. And now we are all paying for that $1.00 kWh power we used, only over a longer period of time.
The inaction by the legislature to correct this early on cost us several Billions of dollars.
While it always takes more than an hour, Cults Across America is a great game, particularly if you have 3-5 players.
The object of the game is to either form a chain of controlled cities from the east to the west coast, or to earn enough victory points (from victory cards) to win.
The game involves strategy and some amount of luck. With more than 2 players, it often involves alliances and backstabbing.
Like Risk, you need to cover your front lines with enough troops (cult members, priests, tanks, and weapons) and spread out. The more territory you control, the more cult members you can recruit, or sacrifice in a war against an opposing cult controlled city. Unlike risk, you earn a certain amount of money each round that you can spend to buy extra cultists, weapons, trucks/tanks, or even a death ray gun.
It takes a little bit to learn, but this game is one of the best.
I doubt that any of the more liberal supreme court justices will retire in the next 4 years, at least not voluntarily.
Bush will most likely end up replacing one conservative (maybe 2) with conservatives. The balance will likely remain the same.
And over 20-30 years, supreme court justices even change.
Not the end of the world. Now if RvW does get overturned due to a Republican appointment, it will likely hurt the republican party, which may give the Libertarian Party a better chance to pull some votes.
"1. Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected. 2. Get Bush out of office."
That is a little too black and white.
My reasons are:
1) Vote for the candidate I actually want to represent me - or will take this country in the direction I think it should go.
2) Break up the 2-party duopoly. If enough people vote for 3rd parties, and that changes the election, they may finally get press coverage, and may get a chance to bring alternative ideas to debate.
3) Vote for a candidate that does not advocate increasing government size, spending, and intervention.
Bush and Kerry are just too much alike for the things that matter to me, and they are both on the wrong side: patriot act, corporate handouts, corporate campaign donations, taxation, spending, foreign intervention, regulations (economic or morality).
"the message you want to send is you don't like the two-party system?
You should really think about your vote."
I like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Democrats spend irresponsibly and give too many handouts. Democrats believe the government is in the best position to provide for your needs and make decisions for you economically. Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative, and they want to control or influence personal decisions (morality).
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, the Libertarian Party represent most of my viewpoints. I wouldn't care to see all of their ideals fully implemented, but we are a long way away from that and I will worry about that if we ever get there. A vote for Dems or Republicans is a vote for bigger government, fiscal irresponsibility, and less control over our lives, either economically or personal decisions.
Since I live in California, neither Kerry nor Bush needs my vote. If they did, I wouldn't care. Neither has earned it. And I won't endorse bad policy since both are bad and the only way to vote for change is to vote for a third party.
"The law says (and for some time has said) that the airwaves are public and as such should bend to the public will."
Given Howard Sterns ratings, I believe there is a significant number of people whom his program does serve.
The problem is that some people want to take away something that is popular to many people, to either impose morality, "protect children", or because they are personally offended by it.
I don't understand why a minority of people should be able to censor something that is so popular. The airwaves are the limited resource they once were.
"This is a fascinating example of why, despite what a bunch of people in this thread have stated, Online worlds are every bit as real as the 'real' one because they're inhabited by real people."
In the real world, we have checks and balances, 3 branches of government, and the constitution.
In the game world, the only document that has any weight is the EULA, and it is designed to protect them, not you.
So you are automatically a virtual slave, without any rights beyond what they grant you at the time being. If you don't like it, don't play, vote with your $, the only real voice you have and that they care about.
2:54PM Michael Kielsky of the Arizona LP explains in detail:
The Arizona Libertarian Party and co-plaintiff Warren Severin were represented by attorney David Euchner.
Arizona State University was represented by Carrie Brennan of the Attorney General's office.
Commission on Presidential Debates was represented by Glen Hallman of the firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, physically in court, as well as Lewis Loss, General Counsel for the CPD by phone.
The judge started by ruling that the service was sufficient for purpose of notice of this hearing. Then, each side was given 30 minutes to argue the issue.
Euchner reserved 15 minutes of his argument for rebuttal, and argued the case based on the violation of Arizona's Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 7, which prohibit gifts to private entities. He presented additional arguments based on the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and case law which was on point.
Carrie Brennan argued the doctrine of latches (that the delay in bringing this suit worked an unfairness against the defendants). She further argued that the funding was provided by private parties, that there is great value to the University in hosting this, and that case law provides that such expenditures are allowed as long as they are not excessive or unreasonable.
Finally, she stated that there is an adequate remedy for any violations of the constitutional gift clause, therefore injunction is not appropriate.
Glen Hallman argued that Libertarians are not a special protected class, thus only a rational basis test applies to the equal protection argument, and using that test, the Libertarians were not discriminated against.
Lewis Loss argued that the CPD is non-partisan, and that Bush & Kerry would not proceed if Badnarik were admitted to the debate.
Euchner then rebutted, arguing that nobody remembers the location of the debates, and thus there is no value to the University in this expenditure, in other words, it is a gift to these two parties. As an example, Euchner argued that the only way debates are even remembered for any time is if they are parodied, such as on Saturday Night Live, and the rerun repeatedly. Further, even with a rational basis test on the equal protection clause, the judge should find for the Libertarians, because the discrimination is so blatant.
At the conclusion of the arguement, the judge issued his ruling from the bench:
1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate.
2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions.
In summary, we couldn't stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages.
What I would like to see is a single debate that includes all the parties that have a potential to win, regardless of likelihood. If that number is 6, so be it.
After that debate, which should be the first televised debate, I wouldn't mind so much if they used the CPD 3rd criteria of 15%. At least it would offer the 3rd party candidates an opportunity to promote their platform and afford the public a greater opportunity to see a real debate beyond choice A or B only.
It's not just about students deciding where they want to go, although that does have some impact.
I was following a Cal Poly case where the university was attempting to punish a student whose speech some individuals disagreed with and wanted to silence. The university, not being able to charge the student for his speech, held an unfair judicial hearing charging the student with "disrupting a meeting" when no such thing happened.
Luckily, the student decided to stand up for his rights. Eventually, the bad publicity caused the university to drop the charges.
http://www.thefire.org/pr.php?doc=cal_poly_ongoing _injustice.html
When the university called me up asking for alumni donations, I declined. I was going to support the university, but knowing how much money they wasted to persecute someone, I can't in good conscience send support any more.
If more alumni are informed and join the students in support, the bad publicity will eventually force the university to cave. It also helps to have someone on your side, www.thefire.org , to help get your side out in the media.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
"If you don't vote for kerry, you're voting for bush"
This is complete BS. First off, you are assuming that someone would otherwise vote for Kerry. Second, you are assuming that those who vote for a third party actually could swing the election for Kerry away from Bush.
I live in California. Kerry wins California, by a considerable margin. I'm calling it now. California, along with many other states, are not contested.
Since there is 1 realistic outcome for California, people in California, whether traditionally Republican or Democrat, can vote for whomever they feel would make the best candidate, or alternatively, in which direction they feel the country should go.
Maybe you don't support all of the ideals of a third party, like the Libertarian party. I can't agree with everything any party claims as part of their platform. But I also know that government is slow to react, and that getting a few votes, or even 1 person in office will not equate to instant sweeping change. Things will instead drift more towards the ideals of the party.
John Kerry said it pretty close, "If you want more of the same, vote for Bush and Cheney." If you want more of the same, vote for the Republicrat or Demican party.
Neither side cares about whose vote they need to throw out or which group they need to disenfranchise.
Both major parties have 1 overriding issue: Stay in power.
Both major parties do this by creating laws, regulations, and agreements to shut out any other choice or ideas. Both major parties report directly to their true constituents - the campaign donors - major corporations and special interest groups. Money buys access, advertisements, lawyers and airwaves.
A vote for them is a vote for more of the same. If you are in a swing state and trying to choose between the lesser evil, I sympathize. If you are not in a contested state and you don't vote for the person you think is the best or the direction you want things to move, you get what you vote for - more of the same.
Re:They're ignoring the most important part...
on
Can Coal Be Green?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"This is what happened in California back in y2k... the company that owned the plants"
You must be talking about the regulated utilities. What you fail to understand is that, based on legislation passed, the regulated utilities were forced to sell off generation in order to create an energy market. In addition, the utilities were barred from entering into long term contracts. In addition, the utilities were forced (for a long time) to accept Cogeneration contracts, which far exceed the costs of conventional generation.
The problems in California were caused by high consumption, not passing costs on to consumers (to curb demand), no long term contracts for stability, and bad legislation which created a market that was capitalized on (assisted by the above conditions).
Slashdot Mirror
Sue them. It's worth the filing fees, which aren't that bad. Sue them for more than the cost of the game - just in case they don't bother to show up.
They probably won't care - but if you win, maybe another lawyer will start a class action lawsuit for $39.95 X the number of people that own copies. That would get their attention.
"I'm sorry if I'm asking the obvious here, but why not buy a copy from a store instead of a used copy from someone? I mean it's a monthly charge and you're sneaking out of the $39.95 or whatever it is for the base version?"
That really isn't the point. It sounds like the EULA allows one to transfer ownership of the game, the same way you could transfer ownership of a CD, DVD, bike, or lawnmower. Now it seems like Blizzard is attempting to squash the rights of someone to participate in a secondary sale.
I don't see why this is an issue for Blizzard, where the other person paid for the merchandise, and no longer wants to pay the monthly subscription, yet this guy does want to send them money. If the original owner has stopped his monthly payment, that should be indication that he no longer wants to maintain an active account.
If they want to impose controls to protect against piracy, it should be Blizzards problem to implement a system that is flexible enough to not trample the consumers rights.
To address your point about "sneaking out" of the $39.95, Blizzard could always charge an account activation fee and give the disks away free. Instead, they chose the business model where money changes hand at the retail level. Once the item has been paid for, the consumer owns it and has a right to sell it. Under their licensing scheme, only one account can be active at a time per physical disk purchased anyways - since the other guy isn't using the software anymore, and the physical disk has been transferred, so should the rights to an account. No "sneaking" is going on. Blizzard just doesn't approve of a secondary market which may hurt additional retail sales they aren't entitled to.
"Hibrid cars and regular sedans with good gas mileage are readily available. But our streets are clogged with huge living-room sized SUVs which get crappy mileage, and also only have to meet truck emmission regulations, not stricter car regulations. Do most people EVER take thieir SUVs off-road? No."
What if I don't support your sedan and hybrid driving lifestyle, when you could take a bike or walk?
People who drive SUVs already pay more gas taxes and more on gas due to the lower MPG. The government does not need to step in here. If you want to save the environment, don't have any children - you'll do more to save the planet than you could ever accomplish by driving a lower emission vehicle.
Property taxes are constantly going up. Every time I move, property taxes increase. Every time a house on my block is sold, property taxes increase.
Over the last 5 years, housing prices have gone up from ~$175k to > $500k in my area. Given that property taxes are a percent of the sale price, the property taxes have more than doubled on any property that is newly assessed. And a lot of houses have turned over in that time.
If the schools are hurting in CA, it has nothing to do with property taxes. Most property taxes don't even stay in the local community - they go to Sacramento for pillaging and redistribution.
I hate it when people want to increase the % of tax on anything. As prices, income and inflation rise, so should government revenues without touching a thing. Our government, like Governor Arnold S. pointed out, increases spending automatically whenever revenue increases as part of the system. That is part of the problem. We have too many programs, too much beurocracy, and too much spending in general.
Maybe if we cut back some of the wasteful programs, we could concentrate on ones that are important like education and public safety.
"Pay a relatively small amount of money out of your check"
Social Security (and medicare) have been steadily increasing as a percentage of pay since the inception of the program. Contributions are around 12-14%. Self employed pay all their share. Otherwise, your company kicks in half and you pay half.
When you add that to 25% income tax, 11% state tax, unemployment tax, and other taxes, you're lucky if you keep even 60% of what you make. And then, you get hit with property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, taxes on your phone, taxes on cable, taxes on electric service.
I've paid into the system for over 10 years. If I could opt out now, or even 5 years from now and know I will not get any benefits, I would if they would stop taking from my takehome pay.
Those low income workers pay the same percentage as me - maybe if they weren't taxed as much, they could save more or take part in employer sponsored 401k programs, and not be so dependent on the government.
Think of how much money you will have contributed over 50 working years. If the money you contribute was actually yours to manage, you would be better off. Consider this, if you invested since 1950 in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, you would have a colossal retirement, even if you started drawing at the collapse of the telecom stock market bubble. One of the protection mechanisms is that you have time and compounded interest on your side, and you will not be drawing your money out all at once.
"The potential for extremely adverse outcome of
a terrorist attack on USA chemical and nuclear
facilities is high, yet neither chemical or
nuclear facilities have been required to adhere
to any codified improvements in security."
Um, you have no clue. Nuclear facilities have always had strong security, but since 9-11, there have been many MANDATED changes. The intent of the changes is to do them for enhancement, not just to publicize them so people feel better.
If you have any doubt, check with your public utility commission, and you'll see that millions have been poured into plants for required security upgrades.
One of the things you have to realize is that MMORPGs are designed specifically to generate monthly subscriptions.
They do this by limiting how fast players progress, by forcing you to do the same actions over and over again, and by introducing item scarcity. The game is only made fun enough so the greatest number of people maintain their monthly subscriptions.
A great game would be a vast world, where you really only have to do something once or twice, and you are never waiting in line to camp a monster spawn. But that game would be over with in a month or two at the most, and that wouldn't be too profitable.
This is one the the points I told my wife about when we got her a new phone for her already existing Verizon account.
While it should be possible for us to take our music which we have collected (hundreds of CDs worth), and create a ringtone clip out of media we own using a simple program, the cell phone company makes it difficult if not impossible to do this with their built in locks so they can make a buck a song reselling something we already bought. They also do this to lock out any competition in the name of security.
Anybody know a way around this with Verizon service on a LG phone?
I would expect it to work similar to two separate cards in SLI - with maybe some extra efficiencies from being on the same card, with the exception of having to split the memory...unless of course they have found a way for the chips to avoid redundant memory use.
I would expect it to be at least as good as 2 128MB 6800s.
What is wrong with Firefox?...
Someone please answer this if you know a solution. Whenever clicking on a picture link or thumbnail on a webpage, firefox always wants to open the picture through another window. And it always asks permission, no matter what settings I have. Even worse, when right clicking and selecting open in new window, firefox displays a blank window followed by the other extra picture display window.
Am I missing something? Is there a way to set it so it functions like IE and displays within the current window or just displays in a second window if I click open new window?
Please help...I really want to support competetive products.
I wonder if Geico could make a TM infringement claim against "Gecko Insurance Company" whose mascot is a rabbit.
Another problem was that there was no market mechanism to pass the cost directly on to consumers.
.06-.10 a kWh and the utilities have a requirement to purchase the power to serve all customers, even at prices exceeding $1.00 kWh, it's no surprise that SCE and PG&E were placed in a world of hurt. And now we are all paying for that $1.00 kWh power we used, only over a longer period of time.
Had prices risen in the Southern California Edison and PG&E markets, like they did in San Diego (SDG&E), there would have been considerable incentives to cut back, and the market would have corrected itself somewhat.
When 70% of power users are using power that costs them
The inaction by the legislature to correct this early on cost us several Billions of dollars.
While it always takes more than an hour, Cults Across America is a great game, particularly if you have 3-5 players.
The object of the game is to either form a chain of controlled cities from the east to the west coast, or to earn enough victory points (from victory cards) to win.
The game involves strategy and some amount of luck. With more than 2 players, it often involves alliances and backstabbing.
Like Risk, you need to cover your front lines with enough troops (cult members, priests, tanks, and weapons) and spread out. The more territory you control, the more cult members you can recruit, or sacrifice in a war against an opposing cult controlled city. Unlike risk, you earn a certain amount of money each round that you can spend to buy extra cultists, weapons, trucks/tanks, or even a death ray gun.
It takes a little bit to learn, but this game is one of the best.
I doubt that any of the more liberal supreme court justices will retire in the next 4 years, at least not voluntarily.
Bush will most likely end up replacing one conservative (maybe 2) with conservatives. The balance will likely remain the same.
And over 20-30 years, supreme court justices even change.
Not the end of the world. Now if RvW does get overturned due to a Republican appointment, it will likely hurt the republican party, which may give the Libertarian Party a better chance to pull some votes.
And if you like big government, vote Kerry.
Neither Bush nor Kerry wants to make government smaller or curb spending.
"1. Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
2. Get Bush out of office."
That is a little too black and white.
My reasons are:
1) Vote for the candidate I actually want to represent me - or will take this country in the direction I think it should go.
2) Break up the 2-party duopoly. If enough people vote for 3rd parties, and that changes the election, they may finally get press coverage, and may get a chance to bring alternative ideas to debate.
3) Vote for a candidate that does not advocate increasing government size, spending, and intervention.
Bush and Kerry are just too much alike for the things that matter to me, and they are both on the wrong side: patriot act, corporate handouts, corporate campaign donations, taxation, spending, foreign intervention, regulations (economic or morality).
"the message you want to send is you don't like the two-party system?
You should really think about your vote."
I like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Democrats spend irresponsibly and give too many handouts. Democrats believe the government is in the best position to provide for your needs and make decisions for you economically. Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative, and they want to control or influence personal decisions (morality).
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, the Libertarian Party represent most of my viewpoints. I wouldn't care to see all of their ideals fully implemented, but we are a long way away from that and I will worry about that if we ever get there. A vote for Dems or Republicans is a vote for bigger government, fiscal irresponsibility, and less control over our lives, either economically or personal decisions.
Since I live in California, neither Kerry nor Bush needs my vote. If they did, I wouldn't care. Neither has earned it. And I won't endorse bad policy since both are bad and the only way to vote for change is to vote for a third party.
"The law says (and for some time has said) that the airwaves are public and as such should bend to the public will."
Given Howard Sterns ratings, I believe there is a significant number of people whom his program does serve.
The problem is that some people want to take away something that is popular to many people, to either impose morality, "protect children", or because they are personally offended by it.
I don't understand why a minority of people should be able to censor something that is so popular. The airwaves are the limited resource they once were.
"This is a fascinating example of why, despite what a bunch of people in this thread have stated, Online worlds are every bit as real as the 'real' one because they're inhabited by real people."
In the real world, we have checks and balances, 3 branches of government, and the constitution.
In the game world, the only document that has any weight is the EULA, and it is designed to protect them, not you.
So you are automatically a virtual slave, without any rights beyond what they grant you at the time being. If you don't like it, don't play, vote with your $, the only real voice you have and that they care about.
http://badnarik.org
2:54PM
Michael Kielsky of the Arizona LP explains in detail:
The Arizona Libertarian Party and co-plaintiff Warren Severin were represented by attorney David Euchner.
Arizona State University was represented by Carrie Brennan of the Attorney General's office.
Commission on Presidential Debates was represented by Glen Hallman of the firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, physically in court, as well as Lewis Loss, General Counsel for the CPD by phone.
The judge started by ruling that the service was sufficient for purpose of notice of this hearing. Then, each side was given 30 minutes to argue the issue.
Euchner reserved 15 minutes of his argument for rebuttal, and argued the case based on the violation of Arizona's Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 7, which prohibit gifts to private entities. He presented additional arguments based on the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and case law which was on point.
Carrie Brennan argued the doctrine of latches (that the delay in bringing this suit worked an unfairness against the defendants). She further argued that the funding was provided by private parties, that there is great value to the University in hosting this, and that case law provides that such expenditures are allowed as long as they are not excessive or unreasonable.
Finally, she stated that there is an adequate remedy for any violations of the constitutional gift clause, therefore injunction is not appropriate.
Glen Hallman argued that Libertarians are not a special protected class, thus only a rational basis test applies to the equal protection argument, and using that test, the Libertarians were not discriminated against.
Lewis Loss argued that the CPD is non-partisan, and that Bush & Kerry would not proceed if Badnarik were admitted to the debate.
Euchner then rebutted, arguing that nobody remembers the location of the debates, and thus there is no value to the University in this expenditure, in other words, it is a gift to these two parties. As an example, Euchner argued that the only way debates are even remembered for any time is if they are parodied, such as on Saturday Night Live, and the rerun repeatedly. Further, even with a rational basis test on the equal protection clause, the judge should find for the Libertarians, because the discrimination is so blatant.
At the conclusion of the arguement, the judge issued his ruling from the bench:
1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate.
2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions.
In summary, we couldn't stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages.
Post this far and wide.
What I would like to see is a single debate that includes all the parties that have a potential to win, regardless of likelihood. If that number is 6, so be it.
After that debate, which should be the first televised debate, I wouldn't mind so much if they used the CPD 3rd criteria of 15%. At least it would offer the 3rd party candidates an opportunity to promote their platform and afford the public a greater opportunity to see a real debate beyond choice A or B only.
It's not just about students deciding where they want to go, although that does have some impact. I was following a Cal Poly case where the university was attempting to punish a student whose speech some individuals disagreed with and wanted to silence. The university, not being able to charge the student for his speech, held an unfair judicial hearing charging the student with "disrupting a meeting" when no such thing happened. Luckily, the student decided to stand up for his rights. Eventually, the bad publicity caused the university to drop the charges. http://www.thefire.org/pr.php?doc=cal_poly_ongoing _injustice.html
When the university called me up asking for alumni donations, I declined. I was going to support the university, but knowing how much money they wasted to persecute someone, I can't in good conscience send support any more.
If more alumni are informed and join the students in support, the bad publicity will eventually force the university to cave. It also helps to have someone on your side, www.thefire.org , to help get your side out in the media.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
"If you don't vote for kerry, you're voting for bush"
This is complete BS. First off, you are assuming that someone would otherwise vote for Kerry. Second, you are assuming that those who vote for a third party actually could swing the election for Kerry away from Bush.
I live in California. Kerry wins California, by a considerable margin. I'm calling it now. California, along with many other states, are not contested.
Since there is 1 realistic outcome for California, people in California, whether traditionally Republican or Democrat, can vote for whomever they feel would make the best candidate, or alternatively, in which direction they feel the country should go.
Maybe you don't support all of the ideals of a third party, like the Libertarian party. I can't agree with everything any party claims as part of their platform. But I also know that government is slow to react, and that getting a few votes, or even 1 person in office will not equate to instant sweeping change. Things will instead drift more towards the ideals of the party.
John Kerry said it pretty close, "If you want more of the same, vote for Bush and Cheney." If you want more of the same, vote for the Republicrat or Demican party.
Neither side cares about whose vote they need to throw out or which group they need to disenfranchise.
Both major parties have 1 overriding issue: Stay in power.
Both major parties do this by creating laws, regulations, and agreements to shut out any other choice or ideas. Both major parties report directly to their true constituents - the campaign donors - major corporations and special interest groups. Money buys access, advertisements, lawyers and airwaves.
A vote for them is a vote for more of the same. If you are in a swing state and trying to choose between the lesser evil, I sympathize. If you are not in a contested state and you don't vote for the person you think is the best or the direction you want things to move, you get what you vote for - more of the same.
"This is what happened in California back in y2k... the company that owned the plants"
You must be talking about the regulated utilities. What you fail to understand is that, based on legislation passed, the regulated utilities were forced to sell off generation in order to create an energy market. In addition, the utilities were barred from entering into long term contracts. In addition, the utilities were forced (for a long time) to accept Cogeneration contracts, which far exceed the costs of conventional generation.
The problems in California were caused by high consumption, not passing costs on to consumers (to curb demand), no long term contracts for stability, and bad legislation which created a market that was capitalized on (assisted by the above conditions).