You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is. You think you have a right to dictate to other people and to take their rights away to get your entitlements, you see rights as something that must be taken away from somebody else and given to you.

Rights are protections against government abuse, you can't have a moral society where some people use violence of the State to steal rights of others and give themselves entitlements they believe they have a 'right' to.

Your belief is a belief of somebody who wants to enslave others to himself and that is definitely immoral.

- civil rights movement did one (1) of 2 things that was correct, it insisted that government must treat everybody equally and it must.

It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.

Too little or too much iodine can fuck up your thyroid (only because it uses iodine directly), but otherwise it's not real sensitive to lifestyle or diet... however it can influence what you want to do and eat (low thyroid causes sugar craving and lack of motivation/energy to do anything). TSH levels fluctuate depending on iron, selenium, and sugar intake, but there's no strong evidence that any of these will cause more than transient deficiency; indeed, low thyroid is a known cause of poor iron absorption, so it's rather the reverse -- eat well and you still won't get good use of it. At least one gene has been identified that causes poor T4-to-T3 conversion, IOW the DNA that controls the required enzyme is defective. Anyway, if you try treating hypothyroid with diet and exercise you won't get far. I can point at myself as a good example -- I'm more active than most folks (I've done physical work my whole life) and I eat almost entirely home-cooked, nutrient-dense food, but that doesn't do a thing for my Hashimoto's.

With under 50 comments per spoof, you'd think those responsible would get the message that very few are interested.

But apparently not.

Oh well. See everyone tomorrow, when the site is over this.

The funniest thing is that every story is filled with comments from whingers who don't realize they're being trolled by Slashdot. The editors are no doubt sitting in a conference room, keeping score on all of the comments. Maybe they've even turned it into a drinking game where they drink every time someone types 'stop', and have to chug for each goatse.

YHBT. HTH. HAND.

- that's not what I said. A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you. USA founders said exactly that, some where more insistent than others that the Constitution is the exact literal enumeration of powers allocated to the government, the powers that allow government to step over the rights of an individual under specific conditions. Government is violence by definition, that is all it is and for the governed to accept the government they have to see good reason for it and the way the USA Founders saw it, government had to have very specific powers given to it to deal with cases where people would be denied their rights.

A person in jail is a person, whose right to freedom is denied by government oppression, that oppression has to be enumerated as one of the powers allocated to the government. Government has to prove that it can oppress the right of that individual to freedom.

A person murdered by another person or a person hurt somehow by a company (which is really just another person or a group of people) is an individual situation, where criminal code may apply in order to establish guilt or innocence and to hand out oppression of rights again to those, who basically broke the criminal code rules.

So you can see that rights are related to individual or business and government, while criminal code is related to dealing between individuals or companies.

Government officials can break the law as well of-course, then it also has to be punished according to the criminal code, but government as a system cannot be punished by any criminal code, there is nobody personally to punish, so because government is a system it has to adhere to rules defined in the Constitution, rules as to how the government can oppress/abuse individuals, who have all the rights until the government can use its authority to deny that right.

Sorry, I thought I had been clear.

I wasn't talking about regional control of distribution by publishers, I was talking about arbitrary interference with materials intended for the end user, where the end user is interfered with by bad actors, most notably, government busybodies.

I own a literary agency and deal with copyright and regional issues a great deal more often, and in more ways, than most people. But that isn't what I was talking about, as it seems like a non-issue to me -- as long as we have nations and varying costs of distribution, we'll have some effective form of regional controls. So I had gone off on what I thought was an obvious tangent. Apparently not.

The right means exactly that: government cannot oppress you and abuse you (and murdering you is a form of oppression and abuse), there is no concept of a 'right' between 2 individuals or businesses and there cannot be, because out of 2 individuals or businesses none of them have any legal authority to dictate to another and/or to use any form of violence. We have to have rights when we are dealing with a government, because government has legal authority to use violence (unfortunately), so to counterbalance that legal authority to violence we have to have rules that prevent governments from just using that violence however they like.

As to violence between 2 individuals or companies, that has nothing to do with rights, that has to do with criminal law as it is understood within that locality. You could have a completely private criminal justice system and still deal with violence that way. People did give up their right to deal with criminal code to governments in most cases, but because the governments are (supposed to be) bound by the rules that are established as individual rights, governments also cannot just pretend to deal with criminal cases without abiding by those rules.

These are completely different issues, a right is about an individual or a company (which I also see as an individual) dealing with the violent government authority and criminal code is about individual and private matters, where individuals are interested in preventing crime committed by other individuals.

That's a premature pronouncement, too. My Windows tablet is also now my laptop, just smaller and lighter. Not as light as my iPad, but the iPad has been relegated to a desk drawer because it's essentially useless compared to carrying around a tablet with a fully functioning OS.

If Apple were to install OSX on the iPad family of devices, that would indeed change the game again. But that would mean cutting into their insanely lucrative monopoly with their App Store model, so that's not likely to happen.

If you know of grammar errors or other writing problems / errors on my page(s), I will be delighted to fix them, and also to learn how to do better. Because doing the best one can is important. Better to strive to paint like an actual painter than to be satisfied with finger-painting like an addled child. So fire away. :)

Full sentences harder. They verbs.
That why liberal arts and humanities important, otherwise sentences would no verbs.

-

Just don't bring the green orb with you.

But I like toast and jam.

Was this a Fareed original, or yet another of his pieces of plagiarism?

Humans have learned to focus sound too. We've already gone the cetacean/bat route, and are now working merrily on the crustacian's methods.