not the one I was thinking of...

It will be interesting seeing these cruise down the highway. I forget the scifi movie I saw with these things. They were basically like big robotic road trains... I think they were getting robbed in some sort of mad max type situation.

ANYWAY... Always nice to be reminded on occasion I do actually live in the future.

The main issue with cellphone firmwares is that they either have to have custom drivers or the vendor requires that the firmware be tweaked in someway... typically fucking things up for the user.

Going forward, I think android should be morel like a desktop operating system in that, the drivers are seperate and can be queried for update as needed. But the central OS works regardless. Yes, drivers get broken by updates. But allow people to do other things like roll back to an earlier version if you want. One of the more annoying things with the updates is that they will pester you until you say yes and then you can't go back.

Beyond that, look at limiting some of the shitty things venders do to lock phones down. Android is big enough at this point that if google puts their foot down no one will be able to say anything against them on it.

This just in, unicorns aren't real either... programming like damn near everything else is a bell curve.

Most people are okay at it if they put some time into it. A minority are hopeless and will never be useful and a minority will be rockstars.

As to my insistance versus yours... your insistence on making it about influence is likewise not my point and you have no power to force me to change my position to take 180 degree opposing view to yours.

What is more, THIS IS MY THREAD. Who said "Our Democracy is broken"? Was that me or you? Okay. So if you want to do a dick measuring contest, I have primacy on determining what MY thread is about.

You want a more centralized system where fewer people get a say? Okay.

My thread, my rules. By your own logic, it is YOU that is in violation by not talking about MY topic.

We're done. you're a waste of bandwidth.

First, your belief that the oath to do no harm stops doctors from providing assistance to the military is adorable. Doctors are broadly consulted all the time to figure out how to do harm. At most you might have to offer them a little bit of a bonus. But really most of the doctors you'd query for something like that are going to be open to the idea. Your notion that doctors all belong to some sort of holy religious order is laughable.

Second, the knowledge to kill being offered is quite anatomically specific and shows deep medical knowledge. Knowledge about nerve clusters, pressure points, blood vessels, etc. You want to think this didn't come out of the medical field? Okay. You can believe the moon is made out of cheese if you want. But the medical community helps the military just like EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE.

Are the engineers bad people because they build tanks and submarines and cruise missiles? Nope. And neither are the doctors that bend their knowledge to the same tasks.

The point of "do no harm" is to preserve doctor patient trust.

Lets back out a bit so you can grasp how fucking clueless you are here. Remember the LSD and sodium pentothal drugs that the military was using in the 60s? How do you think the CIA got their hands on those drugs? And how do you think they even became aware of them? They offered grants for research. Sometimes just for theoretical papers where a doctor would theorize the best way to do something given current technology.

And the CIA would order those compounds from the relevant pharma companies and do what they do.

I regret to inform you, that you're a fucking clueless muppet. *shrugs*

By all means, get mad... *yawn*

Why do you need medical licenses for informed consent?

Anyway, as I said at the beginning, your entire position collapses down to a singularity of tautology. The entire justification of your position is "that is the law"... which is fine if you're a police officer and typically if you're a judge.

However, in any other situation one would expect and actually require a more nuanced thoughtful position.

You will not offer that though. You've had every opportunity and have refused to step out of that box. And that's fine. I can't argue against circular logic. That is doubtless why you find circular logic so attractive. I find this with a lot of people on the internet. They find some means of arguing that cannot be countered and then specialize in it.

The problem with all such forms of argument is that they are ultimately logically invalid. Its fallacious.

And I'm not incredible bored with this futile attempt to get you to offer a more reasonable rebuttal.

We're done.

Good day.

Rapid Christians aren't killing people in relevant numbers. So... it is a false comparison.

The issue is not that the Islamists are fanatical about their religion. It is that they kill people that offend their faith.

If Christians did that your the tolerant and largely polyglot society we have today would never have come into existence. Look at Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran. That is what our civilization would look like.

It doesn't. So... *yawn*

it was the perfect end to the day... the event couldn't have asked for better if they had planned the whole thing.

Seriously, if we could get a few of these violent loonies to out themselves daily to suicide by cop... Every day.

Obviously I don't want to provoke a terrorist attack... but dead terrorists is in the common good.

An aspect of material support is that I have to know they're terrorists when I help them. If you randomly define some person as being a terrorist and don't tell anyone until our day in court... then you can't cite me for material support. I have to know BEFORE I help them.

As to your cynicism about the government, I sympathize however hyperbole in this issue is not constructive. We must choose our battles and not just kneejerk react to everything.

First, why is informed consent relevant here but not relevant elsewhere in contract law?

I can make a multimillion dollar contract stick on a napkin. But you say you need a doctor for informed consent here? I'm calling bullshit.

If you wanted a notary that would be one thing. But you're not asking for a notary. And what is more, doctors are not trained to be notaries.

As to verifying that no one is tryign to get around the state child support laws... how? How is the doctor verifying that? Is he performing a background check? He is in now way preventing that. If I wanted to get around those laws and brought my lady friend into the doctor exactly how would you doctor figured out what I'm up to? He wouldn't.

As to verifying health, since when do you have to be healthy to have a baby? Fucking crackheads have kids all the time. This is just desperate grasping on your part.

As to binding contracts, very little that can be binding in ANY contract is not binding on a napkin. You might want a notary if there is a lot of money involved but it is merely a hedge against future lawsuits. Assuming the napkin does accurately express the intentions of the signatories, it is quite binding.

I didn't say I didn't understand. I asked why you felt it was a problem. I feel I understand what material support means. The term doesn't seems vague to me at all. I know material support when I see it and I know when I don't.

As to human rights groups working with terrorist groups, the issue is that a fair number of them are fronts. The Palestinians are big fans of using charity and relief groups to mask the logistics for their terrorist networks. So giving charity groups a pass is not acceptable without serious oversight.

As to freedom of speech, bullshit. Material support does not silence you. If you want to say you support the terrorists that is not material support. Saying something is not material support. Speak all you want and it won't qualify.

As to freedom of thought... wait what? Are you claiming the US government is going to mind probe you to find out what you're thinking and make sure you only Goodthink? Hyperbole isn't helping you.

As to freedom of association, here you are correct... associating with terrorists can be construed as material support. However this is a gray area. Going to a bar and sharing some beers with them won't be material support. However buying them dinner might be. So it is a a very fine line there. Best recommendation is to not associate with terrorists. Honestly, I have a hard time grasping why you people think you'd get away with something like that.

During WW2, if you were associating with some Nazis in the US exactly how long do you think that would be allowed to fly? And you can try that in WW2 England, or Australia, etc. Don't be silly.

We're at war with these fucksticks. And they've absolutely no honor so we're not allowing them to hide behind Western conventions like aid relief because they just use the vans to move weapons into the area or do other perversions.

On the one hand you have an indigenous population that basically had their land stolen from them and their country coopted by the US.

Nothing new for the US only it happened a good deal later than usual. But most Americans believe we should be respectful of these people and do our level best to see that we do what we can to make the nastiness of whole situation more bearable. To that end, they were given exclusive control over one of the smaller Islands along with a lot of rights and subsidies etc. Does that make up for what happened? Nope. Nothing short of leaving the islands and making restitution can really make up for it. But that isn't going to happen.

Then you have the issue of how the islands are used now that they are a US state? The natives are blocking a lot of stuff that makes things difficult. They have some sort of religious connection to the volcano and that makes using it for anything difficult. Geothermal power for example could power all the islands. Instead we tank in diesel fuel to run diesel generators. Some sort of compromise needs to be worked out there. Maybe let the natives help design and then operate the power plants and telescopes? I think the power companies and scientists would be happy to make them administrators of these facilities etc so long as they took up the positions in good faith.

It just seems like these things are hitting impasses for no good reason. The natives aren't getting their islands back. But they can take a leadership role in various controversial projects if they are worried about their sacred spaces being desecrated. No one wants to offend them. Help us not do that and offer a more constructive solution besides banning vital technology.

As to the distinction between legal and ethical corruption, I am referring to ethical corruption which stands indifferent to the law. One can be both legal and unethical.

As to strawmen, my unwillingness to take the 180 degrees opposition to your position is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty on my part. My argument is my argument. You can't define my argument. You can define your own and I am able to define mine. You do not get to say "you're not taking the 180 degree opposition to my position so you're breaking some rule"... that's just stupidity.

I am talking about corruption and you are talking about influence. So be it. However, our issues intersect at several key points and on those issues we're talking about the same thing in that context.

You say the Canadian system has fewer legal opportunities to apply influence? That may be but I'd need to do an in-depth analysis of the system. A would not expect a foreigner to understand the US political and legal system in detail and I am a foreigner to Canada. So I can't speak to their corruption or influence peddling. I am cynical on the subject and unless I have evidence to the contrary, I will assume they have lots of issues.

That is my bias and I am entitled to them.

As to the meaning of republic... How can someone have so much education and be so fucking silly? I am literally giggling now.

Explain what is a "public thing"... what does that mean. Process "public thing" into a contextually coherent concept.

You're going to come up with law. And then I'm going to laugh at you because you apparently took a big course in latin and some jackass on the internet... which is me... was able to process the meaning more clearly.

I know I know... you're full of lots of retard rage. I get that. The spittle flowing over your lips is apparent and does not impress me. Please... tell me what public thing mean, little one.

And while you're doing that, lets look at the definition of the word Republic:

"A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body[1][2] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. "

So, the first part of the definition is the same as a democracy where in everything happens by some sort of majority vote, but what is this thing we find at the end? Law? what the fuck!

Go through some other definitions of governmental models and you'll find that they stress something else with "law" often not even being mentioned prominently.

As to your final statement that you'd prefer daughter slaying and dictators... I gathered that from your previous praising of centralized power.

You're a funny little monkey. :D

*gives cupcakes*

Run along and play nice. :)