As far as I know, the term 'Synchronous' refers to the use the same clock signal at both ends of the communication link to synchronize the data transfer; in that sense, USB wouldn't be synchronous. You are right, it was early and I didn't feel like digging deeply for the correct terms. However, my description of the behaviour of the protocols is correct to the best of my knowledge.
In the controller, likely. I'm getting 30% higher transfer rates with FW400 than with USB 2.0 on the same external disk. It's as least as likely the problem is in the protocol. USB is synchronous - data every packet received must be acknowledged in a return packet before the next data packet can be transmitted. That back and forth for each data packet means a lot of wasted time where the channel is essentially idle. Sometimes using a shorter cable can make a noticeable improvement.
Firewire has both synchronous and asynchronous modes. In async mode, a bunch of packets can be transmitted before any acknowledgment back is required. That's bad if the cables is flakey, since it will result in a lot of retransmits, but bad firewire cables are the exception, not the rule. So async is almost always way more efficient than synch. I'm pretty certain that you are using the async mode for talking to your disk.
I cannot see how your idea of coding games to a customer spec could possibly work in reality. Entertainment like games isn't a situation where each customer has hard requirements like inventory control, point of sale, industrial automation, accounting, etc types of systems do. The developer need only define the scope of the game and customers who want that, based on both the spec description and the developer's track record, can pony up.
In essence, that's no different from what he's doing now - rather than a paper spec, the spec is the implementation and customers decide if they want to pay for it.
And yet he NEVER patented any of his own inventions - he gave them away freely Which is certainly his right, as it is the right of every other inventor. He never begrudged the rights of other inventors to choose an alternate path. He didn't rally against property rights, ever, for anyone else. He recognized the natural right to profit from one's own labour and to control interests in his works. You are so are so full of bola bola. The ONLY reason you said he was an inventor was because you mistakenly thought he claimed patents on his own inventions. I've already shown you two quotes from him demonstrating that he felt strongly that property rights in ideas were dubious at best and there are lots more where those came from. Even twenty years after the establishment of the patent office he regularly expressed his view that patents were counter productive and ought to be abolished. You seem to be the victim of a single minded prof who misinformed you about Jefferson and are unable to reconcile yourself with reality.
Sure, Jefferson thought property rights in tangible property were valid, but that's irrelevant unless all you care about is an obscure point of abstract law - in which case get your ass to some other website where that matters. But he did everything in his power to eliminate property rights in ideas. Just because the political reality made it impossible for him to completely succeed in eliminating them doesn't mean he didn't try. And he certainly wasn't alone in that belief - George Mason a fellow virginian and member of the constitutional convention refused to sign it precisely because of that one clause and the ratifying conventions of North Carolina, Massachusetts and New Hampshire all wanted it stricken too.
You start disregarding the law in your day to day actions and you let me know how far you get before the lawfully delegated neutral third parties start applying force to your person. Done. Easy enough. Now what do I get? Done huh? So you are now experiencing the application of force to your person? Interesting it was so quick, I guess you didn't get far at all. Or is it that your reading comprehension is just poor, like your reality comprehension?
Maybe the prize of you shutting up, since you have yet to provide a natural rights argument for why you have an inherent right to the work of others or to interfere with that which they can control. Actually the problem here is that you have confused the work of others with the results of work of others. I've never once claimed that I can force others to work for me. But I sure do claim that the results of their work can be mine, just as the constitution does when it says that they can only be secured for a limited time. The only difference is that congress has interpreted "limited time" to approach infinity and I have interpreted it to be so short as to be negligible.
The threat of "force" (by which you mean physical violence) is not what underscores the law in any modern case. It is irrational to arrive at that conclusion, but not surprising, given your clear lack of ability to consider your surroundings. Tell you what. You start disregarding the law in your day to day actions and you let me know how far you get before the lawfully delegated neutral third parties start applying force to your person.
A gross mischaracterization. That's the same as saying that they implemented government in general grudgingly--there was no superior option and still is none. Sorry bub, but THAT is the gross mischaracterization. There are plenty of parts of the constitution that Jefferson whole heartedly supported, and other parts that he only supported because it was necessary to come to a compromise with the other authors who felt differently than he did.
Jefferson was never opposed to investing property interests in inventors--he was one! And yet he NEVER patented any of his own inventions - he gave them away freely. You really are ignorant of your history. Feeling tickled now?
No, you started talking about a mugging.
YOU: You can't own land. ME: ba lo ney... It only requires the ability to defend possession. PS, "By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud."--Jefferson again
You keep sticking with the laws of man, I'll stick with the laws of nature. I suggest that you lobby your representative to get a law passed declaring that pigs fly.
No, it doesn't. "Nature" didn't make some guy rob me with a gun. He did it himself. The consequence of a free society is that law can only respond to threats. There is absolutely nothing that can restrain the free will of a person. Of course you are responding to an entirely different point with pretty much random verbiage. It does not matter WHY he robbed you, the fact is that a law can't stop him. Just like it can't stop a bear from mauling you for whatever reason - is that analogy close enough to your misunderstanding of the word natural for you?
The law doesn't shoot people for trivial violations or on whims. It doesn't, in fact, shoot anyone. Could you please leave the word games in the classroom? The only reason the law works is because it is backed by threat of force.
Your selective Jefferson quote always tickles those in the legal community, and I'm glad you took the bait. It proves your ignorance and clearly demonstrates that you're a fish out of water here--just like when you talk about "real property" (hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means). Put your money where your mouth is. I think real property is just about anything that can be termed real estate, we were talking about owning land weren't we? So, what does it really mean then mr law student?
You do know that Jefferson was the person who first implemented patents and copyrights in this country, right? And I also know that he did so grudgingly. To think that he was actually in favor of copyrights is ignorant, as demonstrated in a letter of his to James Madison: "The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
You also know that the letter you're quoting from doesn't refer to patents or to copyrights, but merely to knowledge, right? That he drew the distinction, which still stands in the law, that the property rights were the copyright and the patent, not the information? A point that is completely irrelevant when regarding the cost and effectiveness of enforcement. Next thing you know, you'll be trying to claim that property rights are excludable because law makes them so.
That the writings and actions of Jefferson prove the very point you're arguing? Yes, they do prove the point I am arguing. They don't prove the point I am arguing against.
The lack of law in your colorful situation wouldn't change the outcome, either, Bingo was his name-o! Law takes a back seat to nature. Glad you got it.
A neutral third party. That's the difference of society over your wild-ass chaos island. Sure it is. You keep right on believing that. Shot dead is shot dead, doesn't matter who does the shooting.
I agree. Unfortunately for you, intellectual property isn't control of information. It's control of property rights. You have no natural rights argument for profiting from the work of others. Conversely, they have a natural rights argument for barring your action--it's the fruit of their labour, not yours. You're going up against Jefferson, Locke, Hume, Beard, the Framers, the common law, statutory law, the Constitution, and logic. You are so sure of that aren't you? Too bad.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." --Guess who!
yes i do pay them in advance. Completely? And again, that's not their only risk. Education of wage earners and such is pretty much a red herring. Your sub-contractors are not wage earners.
The difference between me and the contractors is they get paid regardless of the sales of the product and I do not. I thought this was obvious, having stated it before. You really seem to think that venture capitalism is the only "true" capitalism. What you do is venture capitalism - you take a higher risk in return for a theoretically unlimited potential return - you can theoretically sell your work product a infinite number of times. They take a lower risk in exchange for a limited return - they can only sell their work product once (just like a shop that sells food). But in both cases capital is risked for return.
They are, as I tire of saying, anarchists and communists. So stop saying it! Look, I know it is hard for you to wrap your head around this concept. It is for most copyright believers who have never ever thought deeply about the business model. But you'll never get anywhere just repeating the same stuff. Come on, just humor me when I tell you that I am talking about pure capitalism and anarchists and communists have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Ok? Because if you can't get past that point, you are just arguing a red herring.
If I run a shop that sells food, I need criminal law to prop up my business model, else thugs will just smash my windows and take the food. I guess you object to that too? How about a car analogy while you are at it? The difference is very simple - if you don't pay your spec artists you don't get anything. You can't get anything, because they have it and you don't and they won't give it to you until they are paid. No laws are required to enforce that. So why don't you take a cue from them and do the same with your own work? Develop your games on spec for your customers. Once you get paid, they get the game and can do whatever they want with it and then it doesn't matter one bit what a million pirates do and you are no longer reliant on the double-edged sword of the DMCA or copyright law in general.
don't pretend you can be a capitalist, yet opposed to rewarding capital investment, because thats an illogical position. You are making a really huge logical error. You are implying that ANY business model employing capital investment is equally legitimate in a capitalist system. Like the CueCat.
You also make a very large error when you say that the people working on spec are not taking a risk. Do you pay them up front? Do they not have to invest in their own tools and facilities? They are just as much a "capitalist" as you are. Except for one small difference. They don't need copyright law to prop up their business model.
My point is that one does not need to be a communist nor an anarchist to believe that copyright is not a valid business model. That in fact, it is quite possible to be just as strong a believer in the capitalist system as anyone else and still think that copyright should be abolished.
he lunged to get away from the cops; from that point on he was violently resisting arrest by struggling Violently resisting is not the same as actively resisting. He didn't attack anyone, nor did he threaten to. No attack, no violence. And warning someone doesn't give the police a free pass to use excessive force - lethal or not.
No. The law has subsumed nature for the governance of the actions of men. I really doubt that you can see clear of your own fog, no matter what I write. But here's a really simplistic example - you can have all the laws you want, one mugger has a gun. That mugger will take whatever he wants from you. Now you go ahead and tell me all about how the law will govern that mugger into resolving the dispute. Meanwhile, he's long gone and you're dead.
Your system sucks. The first person to shoot wins? Come on. You think the law is any different? Seriously, who enforces the law? The men with the guns who will shoot. Just because a formalized system has been developed around the fundamental excludability of real property does not change the fact that it all boils down to excluding people with force.
Are you honestly trying to make a natural law argument about technology? Technology isn't natural. Pulease, forest for the trees. You did get one thing right it is all about control. Control is only feasible when there is excludability. Real property is excludable, information is not excludable. Thus exerting control of information is infeasible. No law can make it feasible just as no law can make gravity work in reverse or prevent that mugger from shooting you.
Unless you are an anarchist / communist who believes copyright should be abolished, then you have to accept that we need a law that spells out the way in which copyright can be enforced. You know, you were doing pretty well at supporting your position until you started the name calling. You even referred to hiring artists on spec yourself - they don't see a dime anytime you resell their work in your product, do they? Do you consider yourself an anarchist/communist then? I didn't think so.
Perhaps you should consider a way to work on spec yourself. Then you would never have to worry about those people who go "out of their way" to try and wreck your business.
I never pushed that line, and I'm not changing my story. See above. I've always said that he deserved tasering because he resisted arrest. My pleasure is just a two-fer. Well, whatever then. I can only see the words you write, not the ones in your head. I won't bother requoting your own contradictory words to you a second time.
Taser has to refer to them as less lethal because they can't claim that they're non-lethal when they have caused deaths. The fact remains that deaths by taser are far fewer, per use, than chokehold or beating deaths by police. That's why police have adopted them wholesale. You are mistaken. The reason they are being adopted is because they are less lethal than guns. I mean, come on "less lethal than beating deaths" well, they would be wouldn't they? If you really know that chokeholds have a far higher higher fatality rate than taser usage, I'd be impressed. You really seem to think that tasers are an appropriate method of coercing a non-violent individual. I suspect you'll never be dissuaded of that.
There is no contradiction between my two sentences. You and others are pushing the line that he was tasered because he disrupted the event, spoke badly to Kerry or whatever. You yourself were the one pushing that line, when you said things like, "I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was."
Now that you are changing your story, I guess our disagreement is over.
My pleasure at seeing him get tasered had nothing to do with what he said either--I'm still unsure what point he was trying to make. The fact that you don't understand his 'blather' is irrelevant, btw. What matters is that you didn't like that he was 'blathering.' Now you say that 'blather' does not deserve a "smack into reality." Ok.
Second, tasers are not lethal weapons. You are so far off the chart with that one that it calls your entire perspective into question. Taser's own website refers to them as "less lethal" Please don't tell me you think that "less" means "not."
An irrelevant analogy, and a really cheap, ham handed attempt to emotionally slant the issue in your favor. Rape is always wrong. The application of force by police, including lethal force, is justified or not depending on the circumstances. You call it emotional because you prefer to avoid the issue, I call it simple and to the point. Lethal force is never justified as a response to non-lethal force. Period.
I don't think the police should punish him for what he was saying. I was pleased to see a self-righteous asshole run smack into reality because his hubris told him that his blather was more important than it was. Apparently you don't see the contradiction between your first sentence and your second.
Perhaps I am giving the police too much leeway to use force to remove an inappropriately disruptive element. If so, it's because I have zero sympathy for someone who had every opportunity to avoid what happened to him. His tasering was a direct result of his choices. It's all her fault that she got raped, did you see what she was wearing? Since when is the use of a lethal weapon justified because someone talked out of line?
And the root of yours is ignoring the fact that he physically resisted arrest for several minutes and was tazered because of his unlawful resistance. It had nothing to do with what he said at the podium. I was responding to what the OP said. But if you want to go down that path, since when is application of potentially lethal force an acceptable response when the subject is unarmed and down on the ground?
I'm not sure where you read this. I haven't seen any paper on the internal policies of the police dept. in question. Can you provide a link to the department documentation? Not got the time to dig that up for you. You are the one who seems to think that use of a lethal weapon is OK.
The gentleman was clearly resisting arrest and refused to place his arms behind his back so he could be cuffed. More importantly, assuming he was still resisting arrest after being cuffed, exactly how do you propose the police move him to the squad car? 1) Resisting does not mean violence. He was not even close to being violent. 2) How do you think police moved resisting people before tasers? Do you think that tasing people is so common that it is used every time someone in handcuffs squirms around and won't stand up?
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You really do think the law determines the world and not that the world determines the law.
It most certainly does. How do you stake a record of ownership? How do you 'defend possession' without law? By shooting people? Unless you can shoot everyone in your city before they shoot you, that's a losing prospect. "Stake a record of ownership" -- man you are so deep you can't even hear yourself, that's a law term. There is no need to "shoot everyone in your city" just the ones who try to take your property, which is a much more manageable number. Do I really have to explain this?
Nature doesn't govern society. Oh yeah? Tell that to the tens of millions of pirates on the net, the ones who generate at least a third of total internet traffic. The law doesn't make a bit of difference to them. The only thing that matters is that it information is not naturally excludable.
You'll have a point when everyone lives in log cabins they built themselves with no roads, no utilities, and no technology. Society is not possible without a civilized and binding method of dispute resolution. And if that 'civilized and binding method of dispute resolution' is not firmly rooted in natural law, it can't ever hope to work because going against nature is too expensive to be feasible.
Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling? You must have watched an edited video, because what I heard was at least one woman screaming at the police - telling them to stop it and in turn being threated by the police too. Furthermore, if the approval of the crowd really means ANYTHING at all as to the legitimacy of his questions, I heard at least as many people applaud some of his questions, as I heard applaud when they cut his mike.
He kept yelling like a self-righteous little bitch who doesn't understand that his parent's college money doesn't buy him camera time. And so he got tasered. And here we have the root of your problem - you don't like what he had to say, and you think the police the are the ones who should punish him for it. It's hard to imagine a more un-American set of values than that.
(and as we all learned in Hibel v. Nevada, you may not have to show ID, but you do have to identify yourself to police officers). That would false. Hibel v Nevada ruled on the constitutionality of a state law that required a person to identify themselves when asked. Similar laws exist in only 29 states, maybe less now since Hibel.
More importantly, once they wrestle this guy to the ground (after about a minute of his resisting arrest) they tell him numerous times that if he doesn't place his hands behind his back and comply with the officers' requests that he's going to be tased. WTF? Taser use is supposed to be restricted to a response to physical threat. The guy was on the ground, unarmed, no indications of violence and restrained by about 6 officers. People regularly die from being tased, so much so that they are classified as "less lethal" not "non lethal" weapons. Tasers are not cattle prods to be used to enforce compliance.
The guy was getting out of control and wouldn't relinquish control of the microphone (plus, his questions were a little loopy). Loopy? I guess I must be a nutjob because I've had the same questions myself - just why the hell did Kerry concede so quickly when so much of the election was in question? This guy seemed to think it was a skull & bones thing, maybe it was, not that Kerry would ever admit to it in public if it were.
I think Kerry did the country a huge disservice by conceding. Never mind all the bad policy that continued in Bush's 2nd term -- the US voting system is flawed, with way too much opportunity for corruption. Flaws only get fixed when they get attention. At the very least he could have stuck it out for a week. There was plenty of time to get things sorted out before the next inauguration.
Real property isn't a thing. You can't own land. You can only own rights to that land guaranteed by the government. There is no difference. Ba lo ney.
Ownership of real property does not require a government. It only requires the ability to defend possession. Ownership of "intellectual property" can only exist with the aid of a government. You seem to think that everything begins and ends with the law, completely ignorant of nature.
The only way to circumvent them is by RF jamming, wire cutting and creating a bright spot around you at all times to flood the camera view - which involves wearing bright LED's or a laser. Until they wise up and start using IR filters, you could use bright infra-red LEDs - invisible to the human eye but plenty bright for most cameras.
I have no idea why almost anyone else would write open source code that isn't under a more permissive license if they really want to 'help the community', I think part of the problem is that your definition of 'the community' is different from that of GPL users. To the FSF, the community does not include closed-source implementors. To you, it sounds like software developers in general.
Intent on design != only use, or even most common use (see: napster) Clearly it is being used by a sufficiently large number of the "intended people" if this guy was able to collect 100 legit account details with just one Tor node: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1730258
Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for the crimes that gun users commit. Car manufacturers aren't responsible for the 4,000 automobile related deaths that occur each month in just the USA. Toll road operators aren't responsible for drug smugglers that drive on their roads. ISPs aren't responsible for their users who pirate music and movies. etc, etc
If you aren't willing to take the bad with the good then put your money with your mouth is -- go live in a cave and only wear a hairshirt because in a free society there is hardly anything that can't be misused. That's the price of freedom, bub.
Slashdot Mirror
Firewire has both synchronous and asynchronous modes. In async mode, a bunch of packets can be transmitted before any acknowledgment back is required. That's bad if the cables is flakey, since it will result in a lot of retransmits, but bad firewire cables are the exception, not the rule. So async is almost always way more efficient than synch. I'm pretty certain that you are using the async mode for talking to your disk.
In essence, that's no different from what he's doing now - rather than a paper spec, the spec is the implementation and customers decide if they want to pay for it.
Sure, Jefferson thought property rights in tangible property were valid, but that's irrelevant unless all you care about is an obscure point of abstract law - in which case get your ass to some other website where that matters. But he did everything in his power to eliminate property rights in ideas. Just because the political reality made it impossible for him to completely succeed in eliminating them doesn't mean he didn't try. And he certainly wasn't alone in that belief - George Mason a fellow virginian and member of the constitutional convention refused to sign it precisely because of that one clause and the ratifying conventions of North Carolina, Massachusetts and New Hampshire all wanted it stricken too. You start disregarding the law in your day to day actions and you let me know how far you get before the lawfully delegated neutral third parties start applying force to your person. Done. Easy enough. Now what do I get? Done huh? So you are now experiencing the application of force to your person? Interesting it was so quick, I guess you didn't get far at all. Or is it that your reading comprehension is just poor, like your reality comprehension? Maybe the prize of you shutting up, since you have yet to provide a natural rights argument for why you have an inherent right to the work of others or to interfere with that which they can control. Actually the problem here is that you have confused the work of others with the results of work of others. I've never once claimed that I can force others to work for me. But I sure do claim that the results of their work can be mine, just as the constitution does when it says that they can only be secured for a limited time. The only difference is that congress has interpreted "limited time" to approach infinity and I have interpreted it to be so short as to be negligible.
It only requires the ability to defend possession. PS, "By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud."--Jefferson again
You keep sticking with the laws of man, I'll stick with the laws of nature. I suggest that you lobby your representative to get a law passed declaring that pigs fly.
"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression." You also know that the letter you're quoting from doesn't refer to patents or to copyrights, but merely to knowledge, right? That he drew the distinction, which still stands in the law, that the property rights were the copyright and the patent, not the information? A point that is completely irrelevant when regarding the cost and effectiveness of enforcement. Next thing you know, you'll be trying to claim that property rights are excludable because law makes them so. That the writings and actions of Jefferson prove the very point you're arguing? Yes, they do prove the point I am arguing. They don't prove the point I am arguing against.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [(candle)] at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
--Guess who!
Look, I know it is hard for you to wrap your head around this concept. It is for most copyright believers who have never ever thought deeply about the business model. But you'll never get anywhere just repeating the same stuff. Come on, just humor me when I tell you that I am talking about pure capitalism and anarchists and communists have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Ok? Because if you can't get past that point, you are just arguing a red herring. If I run a shop that sells food, I need criminal law to prop up my business model, else thugs will just smash my windows and take the food. I guess you object to that too? How about a car analogy while you are at it? The difference is very simple - if you don't pay your spec artists you don't get anything. You can't get anything, because they have it and you don't and they won't give it to you until they are paid. No laws are required to enforce that. So why don't you take a cue from them and do the same with your own work? Develop your games on spec for your customers. Once you get paid, they get the game and can do whatever they want with it and then it doesn't matter one bit what a million pirates do and you are no longer reliant on the double-edged sword of the DMCA or copyright law in general.
You also make a very large error when you say that the people working on spec are not taking a risk. Do you pay them up front? Do they not have to invest in their own tools and facilities? They are just as much a "capitalist" as you are. Except for one small difference. They don't need copyright law to prop up their business model.
My point is that one does not need to be a communist nor an anarchist to believe that copyright is not a valid business model. That in fact, it is quite possible to be just as strong a believer in the capitalist system as anyone else and still think that copyright should be abolished.
Perhaps you should consider a way to work on spec yourself. Then you would never have to worry about those people who go "out of their way" to try and wreck your business.
See above. I've always said that he deserved tasering because he resisted arrest. My pleasure is just a two-fer. Well, whatever then. I can only see the words you write, not the ones in your head. I won't bother requoting your own contradictory words to you a second time. Taser has to refer to them as less lethal because they can't claim that they're non-lethal when they have caused deaths. The fact remains that deaths by taser are far fewer, per use, than chokehold or beating deaths by police. That's why police have adopted them wholesale. You are mistaken. The reason they are being adopted is because they are less lethal than guns.
I mean, come on "less lethal than beating deaths" well, they would be wouldn't they? If you really know that chokeholds have a far higher higher fatality rate than taser usage, I'd be impressed. You really seem to think that tasers are an appropriate method of coercing a non-violent individual. I suspect you'll never be dissuaded of that.
Now that you are changing your story, I guess our disagreement is over. My pleasure at seeing him get tasered had nothing to do with what he said either--I'm still unsure what point he was trying to make. The fact that you don't understand his 'blather' is irrelevant, btw. What matters is that you didn't like that he was 'blathering.' Now you say that 'blather' does not deserve a "smack into reality." Ok. Second, tasers are not lethal weapons. You are so far off the chart with that one that it calls your entire perspective into question.
Taser's own website refers to them as "less lethal" Please don't tell me you think that "less" means "not." An irrelevant analogy, and a really cheap, ham handed attempt to emotionally slant the issue in your favor. Rape is always wrong. The application of force by police, including lethal force, is justified or not depending on the circumstances. You call it emotional because you prefer to avoid the issue, I call it simple and to the point.
Lethal force is never justified as a response to non-lethal force. Period.
2) How do you think police moved resisting people before tasers? Do you think that tasing people is so common that it is used every time someone in handcuffs squirms around and won't stand up?
I think Kerry did the country a huge disservice by conceding. Never mind all the bad policy that continued in Bush's 2nd term -- the US voting system is flawed, with way too much opportunity for corruption. Flaws only get fixed when they get attention. At the very least he could have stuck it out for a week. There was plenty of time to get things sorted out before the next inauguration.
Ownership of real property does not require a government. It only requires the ability to defend possession. Ownership of "intellectual property" can only exist with the aid of a government. You seem to think that everything begins and ends with the law, completely ignorant of nature.
What's their problem? Why didn't Comcast use standard units?
Everybody knows data transfers are measured in LoC's - Libraries of Congress.
Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for the crimes that gun users commit.
Car manufacturers aren't responsible for the 4,000 automobile related deaths that occur each month in just the USA.
Toll road operators aren't responsible for drug smugglers that drive on their roads.
ISPs aren't responsible for their users who pirate music and movies.
etc, etc
If you aren't willing to take the bad with the good then put your money with your mouth is -- go live in a cave and only wear a hairshirt because in a free society there is hardly anything that can't be misused. That's the price of freedom, bub.