That's what needs to happen to begin to restore justice. And that's what isn't going to happen.

If I understand the legal system correctly, if you communicate something to anyone who isn't in an attorney-client relationship with you, the authorities will claim that it is no longer private information, even if the other party is contractually obligated to not release it. And the authorities will usually be supported by the courts...or just not let the matter come to trial.

Do I believe that this is correct? No. Do I believe that this is what the laws meant at the time they were written? No. But I do believe this is how they are being enforced by those with power today.

How are you going to rertroactively kill them? Or are you claiming that because they would have rather have died prior to some experiences that they have had, that, having endured them, they now want to die anyway? But the enduring is a sunk cost, so if that's what you mean, your argument is fallacious.

Define your terms. Do it in such a way that an existence proof for a soul is possible. (Or, failing that, that it is possible to prove the absence of a soul, though that is distinctly inferior.)

14th problem in the same series: Justify refusing to kill something which has an immortal soul, while being willing to kill something which does not. (This one is a paraphrase from Voltaire.)

Well.... My first reaction was to say "Bingo!", but then I thought. Doesn't "sexting" imply that it was only text messages?

That's what they say. Why do you believe them? They are obviously a bunch of criminals attempting to cover their asses.

(N.B.: I'm not claiming it isn't true, I'm claiming that in context there is no reason to believe them. It sounds like the kind of lie they would invent to be a cover story, and no proof is offered. AND even if so it wouldn't justify their actions.)

You wear strange glasses. Most people I know criticize the president and the rest of the admininstration. They'v e even pretty much stopped saying "Well, they're well intentioned." And I'm talking about generally liberal people here. (Yes, I do know some who criticize the adminstration for not being conservative enough, for some definition or other of conservative, but I think of most of them as dingbats.)

Have they solve the problem of Hydrogen leaking rapidly through every thin membrane? Perhaps aluminized mylar would be impermeable? (That's a wild guess. I've done *NO* research. But it *would* be flashy.)

to:
in this case I don't think there could be any claim made under trademark law by the person distributing the GPL code.

For that matter, copyright doesn't cover functionally required material. So copyright can't touch it...if you have a good lawyer. Patents, however, and trademarks, are totally different categories of law. Both are applicable, though in this case I don't think there could be any claim made by the person distributing the GPL code. But someone you've never heard of may hold a trademark that it could be ruled to be infringing. And there's NO reasonable protection from patents. Even a good lawyer, a clear case, and a fat wad of cash isn't a guarantee.

Well, much of the open source community got its start when ESR got upset that he couldn't make a proprietary printer driver do what he wanted it to. Perhaps you should look at your question again. You may still decide that it's reasonable that a corp should decide what capabilities the hardware it sold you should make available, but you also might change your mind.

That's not what Object programming considers an object. It would be more like:
"A struct and all the functions that use it as the first argument" depending on the language. Some languages would have it be a pointer to the above. One of the critical aspects of an object is that is has a local scope for each instance. In C this either means you are holding it on the stack, or you've done a malloc.

That said, you can definitely do object programming in C. Existence proof is offered by valac -C which takes Vala code and emits a C equivalent. (It uses the GObject protocol to do so.) Mind you, the code that it emits is nearly unreadable, but it *is* object programming in C.

It's definitely true that a lot of the problem can be explained by things being built in places that they shouldn't be. That's also clearly not the whole story.

Still, I don't know how I'd approportion the "blame". Sometimes you need both to happen before there's a disaster, sometimes one alone suffices. Sometimes even both together don't yield a disaster. Weather is chaotic. So is climate, though the scale is different. But even in chaos there are attractors. You don't often get snow in June (North of the Equator), unless you are on a really high mountain.

Anyone who tries to deny climate change, as in global warming (which doesn't meant warming in every locale), is either blindly prejudiced, lying, or just unwilling to look at the evidence.

True. Half the damages should be divided between the boards of directors and upper management.

In organizations where there is not a lot of publicity driven voting with funding from biased sources that should work fairly well, but that doesn't describe the US political system. Even so it should act to moderate the extremism. But note that that system is hardly describable as "plurality wins".

Even so, to me it looks as if the system that you have proposed will act so as to maintain and increase the concentration of wealth and power among those that already have it, and squeeze out those on the edges of power. This isn't something that I consider healthy in a society.