My argument against DRM is that I want to use the shit that I fucking paid for.

If it was just about getting shit for free, I wouldn't be bitching about it on Slashdot. I'd be downloading the pirated version, which doesn't have a limit on the number of installs and doesn't require me to ask permission from some company's server before I can play.

I can get shit for free now, regardless of DRM.

It's open source. You'd starve the company, force it into bankruptcy, and then everybody would get their source code.

Can I be both anti-tax and anti-war?

If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.

My girlfriend is a bit of the jealous type, but she's also as lecherous as I am. She can't catch me looking if she's too busy looking herself. ;)

How about:

e) Lock the bastards up for fraud -- They lured in new users with the promise of unlimited broadband but didn't allocate enough of their profits to upgrading the network to support them.

I'll happily let the telcos choose between d and e.

You can't overdo it, and you have to tailor your approach to the woman your dealing with. My previous girlfriend responded quite well to me making snide comments about other women, but she would have seen right through feigned outrage.

My current girlfriend is bi. That's a much better solution to the problem.

Congress has passed blatantly unconstitutional laws in the past. They get away with it as long as they remain unchallenged. The Constitution still applies, but applying it would require an AIG exec to take the matter up with the courts.

Disclaimer: A friend of mine was laid off from Tesla.

I think their demand for government money says more about their greed than their viability. If this government subsidy weren't available then they'd be raising capital in the private market, as private ventures ought to.

But the sort of people who normally invest in such ventures are annoying and demanding. If the company does well, they want to share in that profit. If they invest a lot of money, the kind of money that Tesla's looking for, then they might even want a say in how things are run.

A cheap government loan gets around all that. Taxpayers are suckers. We'll loan Tesla $350 million and not demand a single share of stock or a seat on the board. If Tesla crashes and burns then we lose all of the investment, as do the current shareholders. The difference is if Tesla takes off and becomes hugely profitable, then all we get is the interest on the loan. The rest of the profits go to the guys who put in the first $200 million.

So this isn't really a bailout. It is, however, and attempt to privatize profits while socializing losses.

I went to the link you posted previously. I think the ACLU explains pretty clearly:

So they don't see the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. And up until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them.

And didn't Valve already show that one solution was to charge less for games?

In my experience, yes. A private school is a business. The parents of students are customers. If the customers decide that they're getting bad service, then they take their money elsewhere.

I can only think of one reason. And I sorely wish I could unthink it.

Circuit City is bankrupt. Apparently this tactic didn't actually keep them competitive. I suspect Office Depot will follow suit.