The problem is that there is then no indication of which way the page has turned. If I had a physical button, I would agree. However, with touch screens being the current fad, there is ambiguity in knowing whether the machine knows which direction you have turned the page. An animation as the page turns displays this.

Words that are arranged are not owned. Rather, you are given a limited monopoly on the reproduction of those words, for a limited time. This monopoly is society's way of saying "Thank you" for having contributed to society, and is the way by which incentive is given to enrich society.

You are not given absolute control, nor is the control you are granted to last forever.

I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.

In addition, you then do not need to have the deadly fear of public attributes that permeates Java programming. If I want a boolean configuration for some class, I can just make a public boolean value to be modified. If I later decide to add some extra processing whenever that value is changed, I can make it into a property, without changing the outward-facing interface. This change from publicly accessible variable to a function is impossible in Java without changing the calling code, and so you end up with the common wisdom that everything must be accessed through getters and setters in case you want to change it later.

I count once, and come up with a number. I count again, and come up with a different number. Obviously there is a margin of error in my counting.

Wrong. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Mods. Bethesda has one of the best user communities for making mods. Any Bethesda game should only ever be purchased for the PC because the mods will extend and improve the game dramatically.

"Oh, there's a game-breaking bug for this quest?" There's a mod for it, faster than the official patch.
"I find the levelling system to be annoying." There's a mod for it.
"I want a new guild, with new questlines, and new NPCs across the world." There's a mod for it.
"I want a complete world conversion with a brand new storyline, balanced gameplay, and an in-depth world." There's a mod for it.
"I want to ride a pink zebra while casting spells that will turn villagers into anthropomorphic wombats." There's a mod for it.

Except that this clause has already made it to the Supreme Court and has been upheld as valid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-backs-binding-arbitration-agreements/2012/01/16/gIQAg4LuGQ_story.html

I develop my wheel in North America. You then develop your wheel in Europe. Later on, there is communication between us. I claim that you have violated my patent, and indeed, you have. If something is obvious enough to be developed in parallel, why are we giving a monopoly to the one that happens to be first?

Yes. I realized after the post that I was using terms rather ambiguously and without clear definitions. In this post, I will use the word "human" to refer to a being which must be respected in order to be acting ethically. Only a human can be murdered, all other forms of life are only killed. I will use "homo sapien" to refer to something that is biologically human, rather than ethically human.

All currently known humans are homo sapiens, but that is not something inherent to the definition. It is incidental to the idea of human. In a similar manner, all hunters wear orange, but wearing orange is not something that is inherent to the act of being a hunter. Being a homo sapien is not a condition necessary to be a human, but is simply a property held by all known humans.

I would say that abortion kills a developing homo sapien. The growing homo sapien is killed, and will never develop further. However, I would say that the question of whether the homo sapien is indeed human is of key importance. If the homo sapien is not human, then murder is not possibile. I would not call the destruction of bacteria by my immune system murder, even though they are alive and that I am indeed killing them. Similarly, if the developing homo sapien is not human, then any killing of it cannot be murder. Note that I do not say that if it is human, then the killing is a murder. The condition of humanity is a necessary condition for murder, not a sufficient condition.

This sounds rather similar to the Unconscious Violinist argument. Even if the developing homo sapien is human, its killing is not necessarily murder. I think that we are in agreement about this, if I have read your argument correctly.

Any Jew is a human, because one cannot be Jewish without also being human. An embryo is something separate and distinct from human. A human develops from an embryo, but an embryo is not a human.

As to a definition of "child", I would say that it is a developing "human". Though, that just diverts the question back to what is a "human". I would say that being a "human" is not a statement of genetics, or parentage, or potential, but one of intelligence. That which can think is "human" for all purpose of ethics. That which cannot think is not "human" for all purposes of ethics. If we were to find some intelligent species outside of homo sapien, then murdering such a creature would be just as unethical as murdering an adult homo sapien.

A person who has brain damage and no longer has any ability to think is no longer "human", and turning off the life support has no more ethical ramifications than burying a corpse. Something to be done with respect, but not something equivalent to murder. Embryos, being unable to think, fall under this same category. Abortions are not something to be taken lightly, nor performed without respect, but the flesh being killed is not human, and so there is no murder in the act.

The job of the military is to follow orders of the executive branch. The point of the military is to kill or intimidate foreigners and to protect national power.

I would argue that there is language to prohibit it.

Removing things from the public domain, including works upon which derivative works may have been made, does nothing "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" and is therefore prohibited.

On an unrelated not, I could see an argument being made that copyrights may neither be signed off to another person nor inherited in any manner. After all, the rights are secured only "to authors and inventors", not "to authors, inventors, and other related people".

I have noticed that one of the amazing things about politics (Using "amazing" as "It amazes me that it happens.", not "This is an awesome thing.".) is the skill by which politicians name things. Wordings are carefully chosen for the maximum emotional impact without regard to the truth. In this matter, I think that we need to look both for accuracy and emotional impact.

Therefore, I propose saying "habeus corpus being ignored" instead of "habeus corpus has been revoked". The Constitution is the the supreme law of the land, and any laws passed under it must be in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore, "being ignored" is more accurate than "has been revoked", since a law passed by Congress has no authority to override the Constitution. Yes, they ignore it on a frequent basis, but it is important to frame the issues in ways that benefit us.

In addition, "being ignored" gives a better emotional impact as compared to "has been revoked". "Being ignored" has the implication that the change is temporary, illicit, and to be worked against. "Has been revoked" has the implication that the change is permanent, legitimate, and something that may be a good change, none of which are implications that we wish to have.

I agree that citizens should yell and screech at politicians when they misbehave. However, in an ideal world, it should not be necessary to constantly baby-sit the politicians. Such a system has all of the disadvantages of a direct democracy (Citizens need to stay aware of every issue.) and all of the disadvantages of a republic (Politicians may not represent those who voted for them.) with none of the advantages of either (Citizens having a direct voice on issues for direct democracy, or politicians allowing citizens to devote more time to other issues for a republic.).