It doesn't demand that they test just as well. It demands that those segments continue to improve, but there is nothing demanding that they catch up to regular students. Although NCLB may have issues, this is not one of them.
The real issue with NCLB is implementation. As I understand it, the method of selecting groups was largely up to states and districts, although it required minorities and disabled to be considered as subgroups. There is no reason the basic groups couldn't be "students who started first grade in a given year" instead of grouping by grade. No one has actually chosen the first option even though it would basically guarantee constant improvement in each group, unless the schools are even more horrible than supposed. OTOH, the second option allows them to claim the law has impossible goals and fight to get the additional funding without jumping through any new hoops for it.
Teachers as a whole refuse to accept accountability for how well their students do. See the NEA's stance on merit pay for example, and tenure. The unions generally fight differential pay based on subject matter too, so that a calculus teacher gets paid the same as a freshmen english instructor and a second grade teacher. The first one is in much lower supply than the latter 2, which pre-NCLB caused districts to pay people with a pure teaching degree and little understanding of math to teach those courses. In my local district, teacher pay is solely a function of degree obtained + years of employment.
From the "it's not funny if it has to be explained department", i believe the insinuation was that mac users are gay. The response which mentioned the word gay, was itself playing along with the joke.
I did specify interesting, not powerful. A fighter will generally do it better with a spiked chain, but the spiked chain base damage is lower, and he would lose some of the unique benefits of a monk. A multiclass fighter/monk is probably better, but a full monk is still viable. At least the first time, most NPCs would not expect someone with a reach weapon to also be able to attack next to them, so they will probably try to get inside the reach. Just like most npcs don't have tumble even at high levels. They also probably shouldn't assume that you have that many attacks of opportunity, so there's no particular reason for the second one to stop. I'd be more inclined to have the third be a little more cautious.
The reason I suggested a trip build at all is that monks get improved trip and combat reflexes for free, so it's a whopping one manual feat for the weapon proficiency (no ref materials, so if those are at the same level it's one additional feat slot). A monk's BAB is usually sufficient unless the DM is power gaming his npcs, especially given that trip attacks are touch attacks. The ranged attackers I just charged will be right next to me so they can't step back and shoot, so they're going to have to drop their weapon and draw melee, giving them at most 1 attack each barring quick draw. I'm not assuming my str will consistently over power theirs, I'm assuming my str+imp trip will overcome their str or dex, at least more than half the time even though stat choice for a monk is probably dex > con > str. Yep, another reach weapon user won't have the drawbacks, but most melee combatants do not use reach weapons. The monk reach user eliminates the penalty of reach weapons other than the spiked chain. Ranged attacks are the biggest problem, but moving in forces them to use melee as well, and with a monk's speed bonus, I can almost certainly move in. If they're spread out sufficiently, I'd have to run away instead, but again with monk's speed it can be done.
As for casters raining death from above, the single biggest benefit a monk has is his saving through bonuses, followed by a high touch AC, then a movement speed that can't be beat even with magic at high levels) I'd much rather face a caster as a monk than as a fighter or rogue. I can't do much about magic missiles, but neither could any other melee character. I'd have to pull out a crossbow or take full cover.
Any tactic has a counter tactic. Any class has situations that make it useful, and others which don't. You mentioned monk abilities being duplicateable with magic, but that's not really true with move speed. The best magic bonus to land speed is +10 feet, and they're all enhancement bonuses. Monks can use the exact same magical effect. Fly is faster, but limited duration.
Most interesting use of a monk, with standard rules: take proficiency with a good reach weapon. Yeah, you can't use flurry of blows when attacking with that weapon, but you can still use your full monk attacks if anything is in reach. It's better than using a spiked chain. Gear and feat selection are critical to an effective monk. Spring attack is practically designed for them, and I love the idea of using a spring attack with a glaive for instance. Alternately, Improved trip+ combat reflexes + reach weapon that can be used to trip makes attacks of opportunity interesting, although focusing on trips begs for the prone attack feat.
Oh look, 5 people charging me. I trip you all 10 feet away. 3rd one beat me, managed to trip me and finish his charge, well I still trip the 4th one with no penalty, so i'm standing again. Next round i beat the one next to me and trip all the others again as they try to stand up OR just move away 50 feet after a solitary attack so they all have to charge again to have a chance to hit me. Using range weapons? I'll charge you instead.
Heh... I took "odious personal habit: punning" once, and roleplayed it. Got some a few bonus points for it actually, although it tended to both annoy and amuse the other players.
One purpose of the electoral college is also to average out the power of large states and small states. That's why it's the average of the number of reps (nominally based on population) and the number of senators (each state has the same number). Technology doesn't magically make this purpose go away. I'd like to see a flat 1 rep per 100,000 population instead of the artifically capped number we have now, as technology really has made it easier to have a large group of people debate issues instead of being limited to fitting in one giant room.
No, actually I wouldn't want to be left to die painfully. But you voluntarily choosing to help me out, which I think is the right thing to do, is still a choice. I didn't force you to do it. I want to be a part of a voluntary social group, but that word voluntary is important. I would happily voluntarily donate to help out people in distress, and do so via the red cross, but forcing me to do so under threat of violence makes me less inclined to do so.
Nothing gives me the right to force you to associate with me, or to help me, and the reverse is also true. The only major thing I disliked on your original post was recasting it as me imposing costs, because it was an attempt to make it seem as though I was forcing something on you to justify forcing something on me, instead of admitting that you were imposing those costs on yourself. You may not have realized you were redefining terms, but you did. I don't object to putting conditions on that assistance, I object to denying me the right to refuse those conditions if I also refuse the care. As it is, I can refuse care for myself, but not the things said care was used as a justification for. If I were a smoker (i'm not, because it's a foolish thing to do) I should be able to sign a waiver of any government payment for my future health care, and be able to buy tobacco without government taxes on it.
Frankly, I'd rather do away with most non-explicit reciprocal responsibilities when it comes to government programs in particular, but also for any number of arrangements. If everyone had to sign an actual contract when they became an adult in exchange for citizenship, at least everyone would be on the same page regarding what responsibilities exist. As it is, people disagree as to the existence of some of them and end up claiming the other person is evil because they don't have the same expectations. Beyond government programs, I think a number of marriages would work out better (or not happen, which is better than divorce sometimes) if marriage contracts were an explicit, exhaustive list of responsibilities. I would sign such a citizenship contract, or better a series of such contracts with each one handling different areas of the law.
Actually, that was sort of a Y2K artifact due to a change in data sources from that year forward combined with smoothing alogorithms. The current warmest year on record is 1934. The difference is negligible between the 2 years, but it was negligible before too and definitely wasn't packaged as such.
Fine, take your benefits that I didn't request and shove them. I didn't impose any costs on you if I got in an accident, you chose to force me to pay into a medical care pool for everyone in exchange for medical benefits. Since I don't agree to the terms you require in order to receive those benefits, the most you can justifiably do is remove those benefits and the taxes to pay for it as a unit. But people like you don't want to let me make that choice.
I resent the constant use of misleading terminology to claim I am doing something to you or society by harming myself. It's everywhere, and your choice of the word impose is a prime example of it. You are imposing a program on me, I never imposed costs on you.
I agree for the most part, except they really shouldn't have capped the number of representatives in the House, and they never should have made senators be directly elected. Fixing the house to a set ratio of reps to populace would make both congress as a whole and presidential elections more closer to their original intended operations. The house would have to move away from direct vocal debate to accomodate 1 rep per 100,000 (number pulled from thin air)people, but it's certainly doable. I think written debate works better in the long run anyways, and reps wo
I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?
I'm curious what it would look life if they measured aggressive behaviour in a group, then exposed them to violent images daily measuring behaviour both before and after, and then measured it at the end. I suspect it would be a downward treading sawtooth.
I think I do disagree. Your situation you described with the ATM is not an example of force. They no longer offer a service you liked, but they don't compel you to do anything. You are free to have no business with the bank whatsoever. Granted, it's convenient and useful to use, but limiting the quality of one's service can not legitimately be called 'force'. They never did anything to you.
As for the bakeries, delis, etc... competition is also not force. If I out compete you in an area, I have in no way done anything to you. All the people who voluntarily purchased from you before, and ceased to do so because I offered a better service from their perspective, cannot legitimately be compelled to purchase from either one of us. You described McDonalds as '...making the choice less...". That word "making" is deceptive, as they in no way make anyone do anything. They offer a better choice (from some perspectives), but everyone is free to choose otherwise. Now, if the government or someone else actively used force on their behalf, say via eminent domain, zoning laws to lock out competition, tax breaks that their competition doesn't get, they came over to your restaurant and released cockroaches, or someone firebombed your restaurant, etc you could say they used or benefited from force.
I need to give you credit for saying "closer to force", but I think my original statement was a correct simplification rather than an oversimplification. The complications you described didn't change the underlying principals, merely obscured them. I frequently see people, like jaquesm in the post that started this little thread, conflate force with competition. Since this is so often used as a justification to use actual force (such as the fire-bombings), I find the practice extremely distasteful. If he had said "figuratively" instead of "literally" I probably wouldn't have responded at all. I think many people who do it don't realize they are conflating two different things, but the effect is still corrosive to a culture of liberty.
Let's back up a step. I think a more important point than defining freedom is defining force, but I don't think it's a purely subjective valuation the way freedom can be.
Taking the WalMart example, employement contracts, like every other agreement in a free market, are a form of voluntary exchange. WalMart offers me a certain amount of pay, and in exchange I perform in whatever way is stipulated. We are both bound by the contract, and only that contract. Unless explicitly limited, we are both free to walk away from the agreement. I'm free to try to form a union, but I can't force my will on them by requiring them to hire me. WalMart is free to put an escape clause in their agreement about ending the contract early if I try to form a untion, but can't actually force me to work for them if I don't want to. Any further restrictions by government require using force against one party or the other or both. You might claim that such government use of force is good in some fashion, but it is the government using force in that case, not one of the contracting parties.
I explicitly reject your claim that WalMart choosing not to continue to employee people who try to form a union is an example of them subjugating my freedom. Workers are still free to freely associate and bargain collectively all they want, but they can only bargain with WalMart, they cannot legitimately force it to hire them. Failure to exert effort on my behalf (by paying me) unless I do as they wish is not the same as exerting force against me. They have no obligation to hire me in the first place. Claiming that putting conditions on hiring is the same as using force to subjugate my freedoms is implicitly redefining terms.
What a lovely straw man you've constructed there. Examine, just for example, the Cato Institute's take on the war. Show me an example of libertarians promoting strong goverment. When do they suggest goverment prevention of unions or protests? You can easily find examples of claims that unions or protests are a bad idea, but you will not find Eric Raymond, or any other self proclaimed libertarian suggesting that the government prevent voluntary association of any sort.
Voluntary trade is not force. The people behind the fire-bombings are free to not buy McDonalds, but because other people in France voluntarily choose to do so and they can't imagine why someone would do that, they choose to pretend it's involuntary so they can justify retalitory actual force.
What precisely makes the libertarians extreme right? Extreme pro-freedom, both market and social, doesn't correlate well with the standard left/right divide.
Universal Health Care, Welfare, and Socialist ideas are not social liberalism. Those would be better described as left wing. Social liberalism as I understand it is more or less just leaving people alone regarding their personal lives. Unfortunately, a large portion of the left wing in the US thinks it's legitimate to interfere with those lives once material wealth is involved. This is generally called economic liberalism in the US, but it's something of a misnomer.
Something you might try out of desperation that wasn't on that thread. Open display propterties, settings tab, advanced button, troubleshooting tab. Move the hardware acceleration slider down. I had to move it down halfway to run Soul Reaver, although it wasn't necessary for system shock for me. For system shock, I needed to eliminate safe disc, set affinity, and increase priority to high. I ended up writing a batch file to start it with the affinity and priority I wanted.
I just noticed that the thread you linked did not indicate the priority issue. Try it to see if it helps.
From a different libertarian leaning perspective, here is how I see it. I disapprove of google's action, and wish they hadn't done it. I nonetheless fully support their right to do it, and wouldn't dream of forcing them to do otherwise. I think it's important to distinguish approval from allowing. I suspect that reboot246 (GGGP?) thinks the same, but I'm not sure about your parent poster, glock27.
hmm... "We can say" is not the same as "This is true". I wonder if she'll use that as a weasel phrase...
In any case, copying != stealing, both by the standard meaning of the terms and the way copyright violations are handled in law. There is a reason that copyright violations are handled as civil rather than criminal cases, although the DMCA made it criminal to create a way to bypass copy protection mechanisms.
That's not a separate rule, but is a natural consequence of the stated rule. Rule of the strongest by definition means some people are NOT letting others lead their own lives.
Legally, yes they did, unless my hazy memories of what happened are way off. Embassies are part of a country's sovereign territory, despite being located in the middle of a different country.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't demand that they test just as well. It demands that those segments continue to improve, but there is nothing demanding that they catch up to regular students. Although NCLB may have issues, this is not one of them.
The real issue with NCLB is implementation. As I understand it, the method of selecting groups was largely up to states and districts, although it required minorities and disabled to be considered as subgroups. There is no reason the basic groups couldn't be "students who started first grade in a given year" instead of grouping by grade. No one has actually chosen the first option even though it would basically guarantee constant improvement in each group, unless the schools are even more horrible than supposed. OTOH, the second option allows them to claim the law has impossible goals and fight to get the additional funding without jumping through any new hoops for it.
Teachers as a whole refuse to accept accountability for how well their students do. See the NEA's stance on merit pay for example, and tenure. The unions generally fight differential pay based on subject matter too, so that a calculus teacher gets paid the same as a freshmen english instructor and a second grade teacher. The first one is in much lower supply than the latter 2, which pre-NCLB caused districts to pay people with a pure teaching degree and little understanding of math to teach those courses. In my local district, teacher pay is solely a function of degree obtained + years of employment.
From the "it's not funny if it has to be explained department", i believe the insinuation was that mac users are gay. The response which mentioned the word gay, was itself playing along with the joke.
I did specify interesting, not powerful. A fighter will generally do it better with a spiked chain, but the spiked chain base damage is lower, and he would lose some of the unique benefits of a monk. A multiclass fighter/monk is probably better, but a full monk is still viable. At least the first time, most NPCs would not expect someone with a reach weapon to also be able to attack next to them, so they will probably try to get inside the reach. Just like most npcs don't have tumble even at high levels. They also probably shouldn't assume that you have that many attacks of opportunity, so there's no particular reason for the second one to stop. I'd be more inclined to have the third be a little more cautious.
The reason I suggested a trip build at all is that monks get improved trip and combat reflexes for free, so it's a whopping one manual feat for the weapon proficiency (no ref materials, so if those are at the same level it's one additional feat slot). A monk's BAB is usually sufficient unless the DM is power gaming his npcs, especially given that trip attacks are touch attacks. The ranged attackers I just charged will be right next to me so they can't step back and shoot, so they're going to have to drop their weapon and draw melee, giving them at most 1 attack each barring quick draw. I'm not assuming my str will consistently over power theirs, I'm assuming my str+imp trip will overcome their str or dex, at least more than half the time even though stat choice for a monk is probably dex > con > str. Yep, another reach weapon user won't have the drawbacks, but most melee combatants do not use reach weapons. The monk reach user eliminates the penalty of reach weapons other than the spiked chain. Ranged attacks are the biggest problem, but moving in forces them to use melee as well, and with a monk's speed bonus, I can almost certainly move in. If they're spread out sufficiently, I'd have to run away instead, but again with monk's speed it can be done.
As for casters raining death from above, the single biggest benefit a monk has is his saving through bonuses, followed by a high touch AC, then a movement speed that can't be beat even with magic at high levels) I'd much rather face a caster as a monk than as a fighter or rogue. I can't do much about magic missiles, but neither could any other melee character. I'd have to pull out a crossbow or take full cover.
Any tactic has a counter tactic. Any class has situations that make it useful, and others which don't. You mentioned monk abilities being duplicateable with magic, but that's not really true with move speed. The best magic bonus to land speed is +10 feet, and they're all enhancement bonuses. Monks can use the exact same magical effect. Fly is faster, but limited duration.
Most interesting use of a monk, with standard rules: take proficiency with a good reach weapon. Yeah, you can't use flurry of blows when attacking with that weapon, but you can still use your full monk attacks if anything is in reach. It's better than using a spiked chain. Gear and feat selection are critical to an effective monk. Spring attack is practically designed for them, and I love the idea of using a spring attack with a glaive for instance. Alternately, Improved trip+ combat reflexes + reach weapon that can be used to trip makes attacks of opportunity interesting, although focusing on trips begs for the prone attack feat.
Oh look, 5 people charging me. I trip you all 10 feet away. 3rd one beat me, managed to trip me and finish his charge, well I still trip the 4th one with no penalty, so i'm standing again. Next round i beat the one next to me and trip all the others again as they try to stand up OR just move away 50 feet after a solitary attack so they all have to charge again to have a chance to hit me. Using range weapons? I'll charge you instead.
Heh... I took "odious personal habit: punning" once, and roleplayed it. Got some a few bonus points for it actually, although it tended to both annoy and amuse the other players.
Competition goes both ways.
One purpose of the electoral college is also to average out the power of large states and small states. That's why it's the average of the number of reps (nominally based on population) and the number of senators (each state has the same number). Technology doesn't magically make this purpose go away. I'd like to see a flat 1 rep per 100,000 population instead of the artifically capped number we have now, as technology really has made it easier to have a large group of people debate issues instead of being limited to fitting in one giant room.
No, actually I wouldn't want to be left to die painfully. But you voluntarily choosing to help me out, which I think is the right thing to do, is still a choice. I didn't force you to do it. I want to be a part of a voluntary social group, but that word voluntary is important. I would happily voluntarily donate to help out people in distress, and do so via the red cross, but forcing me to do so under threat of violence makes me less inclined to do so.
Nothing gives me the right to force you to associate with me, or to help me, and the reverse is also true. The only major thing I disliked on your original post was recasting it as me imposing costs, because it was an attempt to make it seem as though I was forcing something on you to justify forcing something on me, instead of admitting that you were imposing those costs on yourself. You may not have realized you were redefining terms, but you did. I don't object to putting conditions on that assistance, I object to denying me the right to refuse those conditions if I also refuse the care. As it is, I can refuse care for myself, but not the things said care was used as a justification for. If I were a smoker (i'm not, because it's a foolish thing to do) I should be able to sign a waiver of any government payment for my future health care, and be able to buy tobacco without government taxes on it.
Frankly, I'd rather do away with most non-explicit reciprocal responsibilities when it comes to government programs in particular, but also for any number of arrangements. If everyone had to sign an actual contract when they became an adult in exchange for citizenship, at least everyone would be on the same page regarding what responsibilities exist. As it is, people disagree as to the existence of some of them and end up claiming the other person is evil because they don't have the same expectations. Beyond government programs, I think a number of marriages would work out better (or not happen, which is better than divorce sometimes) if marriage contracts were an explicit, exhaustive list of responsibilities. I would sign such a citizenship contract, or better a series of such contracts with each one handling different areas of the law.
Actually, that was sort of a Y2K artifact due to a change in data sources from that year forward combined with smoothing alogorithms. The current warmest year on record is 1934. The difference is negligible between the 2 years, but it was negligible before too and definitely wasn't packaged as such.
Fine, take your benefits that I didn't request and shove them. I didn't impose any costs on you if I got in an accident, you chose to force me to pay into a medical care pool for everyone in exchange for medical benefits. Since I don't agree to the terms you require in order to receive those benefits, the most you can justifiably do is remove those benefits and the taxes to pay for it as a unit. But people like you don't want to let me make that choice.
I resent the constant use of misleading terminology to claim I am doing something to you or society by harming myself. It's everywhere, and your choice of the word impose is a prime example of it. You are imposing a program on me, I never imposed costs on you.
I agree for the most part, except they really shouldn't have capped the number of representatives in the House, and they never should have made senators be directly elected. Fixing the house to a set ratio of reps to populace would make both congress as a whole and presidential elections more closer to their original intended operations. The house would have to move away from direct vocal debate to accomodate 1 rep per 100,000 (number pulled from thin air)people, but it's certainly doable. I think written debate works better in the long run anyways, and reps wo
I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?
I'm curious what it would look life if they measured aggressive behaviour in a group, then exposed them to violent images daily measuring behaviour both before and after, and then measured it at the end. I suspect it would be a downward treading sawtooth.
I think that comment was insulting to hookers. At least they only sell their own property, not other peoples...
I think I do disagree. Your situation you described with the ATM is not an example of force. They no longer offer a service you liked, but they don't compel you to do anything. You are free to have no business with the bank whatsoever. Granted, it's convenient and useful to use, but limiting the quality of one's service can not legitimately be called 'force'. They never did anything to you.
As for the bakeries, delis, etc... competition is also not force. If I out compete you in an area, I have in no way done anything to you. All the people who voluntarily purchased from you before, and ceased to do so because I offered a better service from their perspective, cannot legitimately be compelled to purchase from either one of us. You described McDonalds as '...making the choice less...". That word "making" is deceptive, as they in no way make anyone do anything. They offer a better choice (from some perspectives), but everyone is free to choose otherwise. Now, if the government or someone else actively used force on their behalf, say via eminent domain, zoning laws to lock out competition, tax breaks that their competition doesn't get, they came over to your restaurant and released cockroaches, or someone firebombed your restaurant, etc you could say they used or benefited from force.
I need to give you credit for saying "closer to force", but I think my original statement was a correct simplification rather than an oversimplification. The complications you described didn't change the underlying principals, merely obscured them. I frequently see people, like jaquesm in the post that started this little thread, conflate force with competition. Since this is so often used as a justification to use actual force (such as the fire-bombings), I find the practice extremely distasteful. If he had said "figuratively" instead of "literally" I probably wouldn't have responded at all. I think many people who do it don't realize they are conflating two different things, but the effect is still corrosive to a culture of liberty.
Let's back up a step. I think a more important point than defining freedom is defining force, but I don't think it's a purely subjective valuation the way freedom can be.
Taking the WalMart example, employement contracts, like every other agreement in a free market, are a form of voluntary exchange. WalMart offers me a certain amount of pay, and in exchange I perform in whatever way is stipulated. We are both bound by the contract, and only that contract. Unless explicitly limited, we are both free to walk away from the agreement. I'm free to try to form a union, but I can't force my will on them by requiring them to hire me. WalMart is free to put an escape clause in their agreement about ending the contract early if I try to form a untion, but can't actually force me to work for them if I don't want to. Any further restrictions by government require using force against one party or the other or both. You might claim that such government use of force is good in some fashion, but it is the government using force in that case, not one of the contracting parties.
I explicitly reject your claim that WalMart choosing not to continue to employee people who try to form a union is an example of them subjugating my freedom. Workers are still free to freely associate and bargain collectively all they want, but they can only bargain with WalMart, they cannot legitimately force it to hire them. Failure to exert effort on my behalf (by paying me) unless I do as they wish is not the same as exerting force against me. They have no obligation to hire me in the first place. Claiming that putting conditions on hiring is the same as using force to subjugate my freedoms is implicitly redefining terms.
What a lovely straw man you've constructed there. Examine, just for example, the Cato Institute's take on the war. Show me an example of libertarians promoting strong goverment. When do they suggest goverment prevention of unions or protests? You can easily find examples of claims that unions or protests are a bad idea, but you will not find Eric Raymond, or any other self proclaimed libertarian suggesting that the government prevent voluntary association of any sort.
Ahem... "Nuke the moon!"
Voluntary trade is not force. The people behind the fire-bombings are free to not buy McDonalds, but because other people in France voluntarily choose to do so and they can't imagine why someone would do that, they choose to pretend it's involuntary so they can justify retalitory actual force.
What precisely makes the libertarians extreme right? Extreme pro-freedom, both market and social, doesn't correlate well with the standard left/right divide.
Universal Health Care, Welfare, and Socialist ideas are not social liberalism. Those would be better described as left wing. Social liberalism as I understand it is more or less just leaving people alone regarding their personal lives. Unfortunately, a large portion of the left wing in the US thinks it's legitimate to interfere with those lives once material wealth is involved. This is generally called economic liberalism in the US, but it's something of a misnomer.
Something you might try out of desperation that wasn't on that thread. Open display propterties, settings tab, advanced button, troubleshooting tab. Move the hardware acceleration slider down. I had to move it down halfway to run Soul Reaver, although it wasn't necessary for system shock for me. For system shock, I needed to eliminate safe disc, set affinity, and increase priority to high. I ended up writing a batch file to start it with the affinity and priority I wanted.
I just noticed that the thread you linked did not indicate the priority issue. Try it to see if it helps.
From a different libertarian leaning perspective, here is how I see it. I disapprove of google's action, and wish they hadn't done it. I nonetheless fully support their right to do it, and wouldn't dream of forcing them to do otherwise. I think it's important to distinguish approval from allowing. I suspect that reboot246 (GGGP?) thinks the same, but I'm not sure about your parent poster, glock27.
hmm... "We can say" is not the same as "This is true". I wonder if she'll use that as a weasel phrase...
In any case, copying != stealing, both by the standard meaning of the terms and the way copyright violations are handled in law. There is a reason that copyright violations are handled as civil rather than criminal cases, although the DMCA made it criminal to create a way to bypass copy protection mechanisms.
That's not a separate rule, but is a natural consequence of the stated rule. Rule of the strongest by definition means some people are NOT letting others lead their own lives.
Legally, yes they did, unless my hazy memories of what happened are way off. Embassies are part of a country's sovereign territory, despite being located in the middle of a different country.