You only need to shield sleeping quarters and living quarters. not the entire ship. and you don't need to use dead weight. the shielding need not be 6 feet of homogenous lead. How about 20 feet of supplies, machinery, computers, drinking water, oxygen, rocket fuel etc etc. most of that stuff is perfectly happy being exposed to that degree of cosmic radiation.

Don't worry. We spend far far far more attention to what is happening in football than we do on space travel.

Yes. but your analogy is terrible.

At what age do you think a woman is mature enough to choose to have her genitals mutilated in order to make herself look pretty? How about having her face mutilated? Would you EVER consider such consent to be valid?

In Canada the definition of child porn also includes actresses who appear to be or are depicted as being under 18 regardless of their actual age.

If the government is spending money, then that money is circulating and doing our economy good. If the government is sitting on a pile of cash in the bank and not spending it (or investing, or anything else to keep it moving) then that is when it actually hurts the economy. Having it spend metric buttloads of cash on crazy inventions is not only good for the economy and the lower-class folks in it, but it's also good for society because, heaven forbid, the government might actually discover something useful -- even if it's not quite what it was trying to do.

if I have a choice between letting rich guys waste money and letting the government tax the rich guys and waste the money. I have more reason to support the system that actually lets me vote and participate and is at least officially supposed to be looking out for the publics best interests and not merely itself. That system is a democratic government - not private ownership.

Hell... with enough courage the government might even figure out how to put a man on the moon someday. oh wait.. it did that already!

By your reasoning, anything that is non-sequitur can be falsely claimed to be analogous to anything else thus proving whatever you want to prove.

And rightly so! Why should the owners of a failed company get to keep cash if there are still debts left unpaid?

And yet, all you will be remembered for is gorging yourself on blackberries and ice cream and someone else will be remembered for being the first living human being to step foot on mars.

It's too bad you can't figure out why 1 accomplishment is more significant than the other.

Enjoy the rest of your meaningless life.

if the copy was made by someone authorized to make the copy (for instance the copyright holder), and someone authorized by to sell the copy sold you the copy (for instance an authorized distributor) then the copy is an authorized copy - i.e. "legally obtained copy" to re-use the phrase we both agree on. There is no additional requirement in copyright law beyond possession of the authorized copy to execute software on the computer even though the computer makes its own internal copies as a result of execution.

At least - this is explicit in Canadian Copyright Law. I'm not going to argue about US law.

So in Canadian law, unless you agreed to some kind of restriction in connection to that act of Distribution then once the distribution is concluded you may rely on the full extent of copyright law and execute it on your computer. You can tear up that EULA because you don't NEED a license. You have the law.

your analogy of a ticket is invalid. You can be denied entry to the venue in accordance with terms because those terms are terms for entry into the venue. A venue which does not belong to you.

On the other hand, your copy DOES belong to you. so nobody can impose additional terms without your consent.

it would be more like if you buy a hair drier for $20 from an authorized distributor: Then it arrives at your house with a sticker on the "on" button, saying that "you must agree to the following EULA in exchange for the license to use the hair drier. pressing the ON button on the hair drier indicates that you agree."

Since you don't need permission to press the "on" button on your own property, you can freely ignore the sticker and use the hair drier. Further more since pressing the ON button does not communicate anything to anybody except yourself, it can't be said to signify an agreement. agreements require a meeting of the minds.

having sold you the hair drier, they can't hold YOUR "on" button hostage in order to compel you to agree to their additional terms.

This may almost all be moot as software has largely moved beyond consisting of merely a physical copy, but often now depends on access to online services. Access which in fact DOES require permission to access somebody elses computer system.

Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).

yes. the big flaw with our legal system is that you have to PROVE your case in court.

it would be much more efficient if the plaintif could just show up at the defendants house with a baseball bat and break his legs.

Our judges are not elected. They don't have to impress anybody.

what a load of crap.

You sir are part of the problem with this world.

The GP clearly does not think religion is genetically transmitted. he was accusing the GPP of thinking that religion is genetically transmitted.

So you are the stupid one.

the law.