I think he was asking "why do you want an SD slot?". What are you planning on doing with it?

Who voted in favor of the legislation? The politicians.

Who voted the politicians into power? You and me.

That really depends on what dialect of English you speak. I speak the one that is commonly used by most Americans. You apparently speak one that is normally only used by English teachers while grading papers.

That's the problem with asking "who can we blame?". When something bad happens usually there are many people who contributed to it happening. So people usually blame the person they dislike the most. In this example you dislike unscrupulous corporate executives more than you dislike unscrupulous lawyers, so you blame the executives. The person you responded to blamed the lawyers. They're both responsible.

A more useful question would be "how can we prevent this in the future?". There is no shortage of unscrupulous lawyers and corporate executives. As long as the patent system exists in it's current form someone will abuse it. The only way to prevent abuses like this is to change the patent laws.

Yeah. As long as the US government isn't the most oppressive government in the world Americans have no right to complain about government oppression.

Here you go.

Web surfers could click on a "donate now" button that went to a local organization and that organization could eventually write a single check.

Wikileaks had systems like that, the US government just shut down payments to the organizations that were accepting money for Wikileaks.

Why would the government go through the trouble of shutting down payments to wikileaks if it wouldn't hurt wikileaks financially?

I can't tell if you realise that the 19th century is 1800 to 1899. I seriously doubt they had 100mph cars in 1899.

Suppose you need to hire someone to design a car engine. Would it be better to hire a mechanic or an engineer? Or are they the same because they both work in the automobile industry?

The lawyers win, everyone else loses. Just like most patent disputes between large companies.

The members of Anonymous are risking going to jail in order to reveal corruption in the government and corporations. You are saying these people are dumb for taking a risk to stand up for something they believe in. It's not dumb, it's courageous.

I am impressed that you're so confident you're right considering you haven't presented a single fact or supreme court case to back up your argument.

You say your position is backed by case law. I looked and I haven't found a supreme court case regarding whether or not a contract like the one in the article is enforceable, so any statements about how the supreme court would rule is speculation. Personally I find it hard to believe that any court would enforce a contract like the one in the article.

My previous post already refutes the first two arguments you made, so I'm not going to respond to them.

Someone who presents a rational argument as clearly as possible is not a sophist.

I looked over some of your other posts and you're mean and unnecessarily abusive. If you're right you shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks to win an argument. I honestly don't understand how you can be that abusive day after day. For me whenever I'm mean to someone, even someone I hate, it makes me feel horrible. You must be a miserable person and I feel sorry for you.

In order to have 'accurately labeled' foods by those standards every product sold would need to have fifty different labels describing the various properties of the food that goes in it. This would cause consumers to stop reading government mandated labels, including actual warning labels.

If the government mandates labeling GMOs, but all the other mandatory labels are warnings, people who haven't studied the issue will assume 'may contain GMOs' is also a warning.

If the government requires GMO food to be labeled people might assume there is evidence that GMO food is dangerous. It would make more sense for producers of non-GMO food to label it that way.

There is no question that Americans have less rights today then they did ten years ago. Why does it matter whether or not the constitution allowed them to be taken away?