If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.

... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.

"Say you a girlfriend/boyfriend who's straddling the legal border and a year or two younger than you, no problem in state X... but what if she lives just across the "magical line" in state Y... now you're a criminal"

Different age of consent between states may be confusing, but in the end, the "answer" is that you're bound by the laws of the state you're currently standing in.

"How about two persons of the same gender get married in state X and receive marital benefits, but then need to move to state Y due to work relocation or whatever. Are they still married?"

This one is easy: yes. The United States has something called full faith and credit. It means that most things, like marriages and driver's licenses, are equally valid in any state no matter which state issued them.

I can see how the Quebec stop light difference would be annoying though. Oregon does something a bit different, which almost got me in a wreck, but I'm still not sure what the hell happened (I took off when I got the green light and was almost destroyed by a wall of cars).

This post is off the front page, so no idea whether you'll ever see my reply, but... Ron Paul says in the first five seconds that Lincoln didn't have to use war to end slavery. He states clearly and multiple times that slavery should not be allowed, that it is not a state's rights to enslave, and that his only point is that slavery could have been ended without the loss of 600k American lives.

Seriously, are you psychotic? Mentally challenged? I don't see why you can't understand the plain English in that minute-long video.

You're seeing this all wrong. No one said that the Constitution is perfect and should remain unchanged. The only thing that has been said is that the federal government should be forced to operate within the terms of the Constitution. If new situations mean that the Constitution must be changed, then great. Some of the best parts of the Constitution are the changes that were made since it was written.

And you're wrong about the level of interaction between citizens in the early US states. They were tightly linked in terms of trade, culture and defense. In a crude 5th grade summary: tobacco and cotton came from the south, machined tools and clothing came from the north. Grain, lumber, gunpowder, lead, iron, coal, cattle, etc. were all shipped between states in a web of supply and demand.

Furthermore, news was not rare. The early US had several successful newspapers that were widely distributed.

Anyway the question of the best balance between state and federal power doesn't matter until we the people have some way to effect it. Our current way, the drafting and protection of laws and documents like the Constitution, don't mean shit if the federal government can do as they please without regard for the rules. That most important first step is to demand that everyone play by the rules as they are written. The second step is to debate what rules we should make or repeal.

You're a liar and an imbecile. Ron Paul never said a thing in favor of slavery, or in favor of making slavery a state's rights issue.

And to suggest that Libertarian is the party of the rich... what a fucking moron you are.

The US government was never meant to be a collection of provinces ruled tightly by a central government. The territories were known as "states", which as you know is the term usually reserved for independent nations or nations in a collective, rather than for provinces as is the case with Canada.

The big problem with the federal government is that they stole way, way more power than they were ever intended to have. If the people or states had voted to give the federal government these powers, it wouldn't matter. But the government stole those powers, and continues to steal powers even in direct contradiction to the Constitution (Patriot Act, etc.).

Ron Paul has always said, if we need the federal government to do something, let's give them the power legally. We can't let them steal power and continue stealing power without objection. It's hard to imagine that so many people just accept that we're ruled by an all powerful central government, when our supposedly most sacred document explicitly says that such shit is not allowed.

With that said, I'd be happy to let the federal government handle some things, like universal health care, if it were properly accomplished according to rules setup for our country.

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Ron Paul and his history. It's forgivable that you think he's just looking for publicity, but I encourage you to look at his record. He's been saying the same things, and voting the same way, for 30 years.

You should also take a look at his policies if you think that corporations are happy with Ron Paul (they're not) or that he has a lust for power (he's consistently humble and well mannered).

There's plenty I disagree with Ron Paul about, but one of the main things that attracted me was his honesty. You can tell, not just from the way he speaks, but from the way he gives the same answer every time regardless of who's asking, that he's a honest person who sincerely cares about the country.

Obama, Kerry, Dean, Clinton, Regan, Bush Sr., Cheney, all have this bullshit slickness to their speech, where they dance and talk circles and refuse to speak clearly and refuse to make firm answers to difficult or unflattering questions. Some people suck that up and look at policies, etc. That's fine for them, I guess, but it's probably also the reason that lying assholes run this country for the benefit of the rich.

Give me an honest guy, who is highly qualified and sincere, over a lying mouthpiece any day.

Bullshit like this comment shows your ignorance and you ability to be affected by propaganda.

If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know that he is a unwavering supporter of the Constitution. That includes denouncing blatantly unconstitutional actions like spy vans, warrant-less wiretaps, etc.

To suggest that Ron Paul would allow states to do anything they like, in violation of the constitution, is so stupid it's almost hard to believe you're not intentionally trolling. His entire political basis for states rights is that *it's what the fucking Constitution says*. Like it or not, the federal government has expanded way, way beyond the powers given to it in the foundational framework of the union.

Want a federal government that's stronger than what the Constitution allows for? That's fine with me. I think I do too. But to shit on Ron Paul because wants to follow the fucking rules and insist that such changes be made properly through amendments, etc. rather than just bussed in by the crooked politicians de jour, is shockingly stupid.

There might be *some* money in making shovelware for the Chinese market.

For one thing, you could rip off the sounds, textures and models from any western games you want. Art production is a considerable chunk of development cost.

For another, one or two guys could crank out a game in a month or two, and possibly make a fair profit off the number of legally sold copies, considering the minimal manpower investment.

A third factor is online play. From what I can guess, it must be a lot harder to write a custom pirate server than to simply crack a one player game. If you price it right for the market, there's probably not a whole lot of incentive. If you can make $0.50 per game and sell it to 100k people over the course of a year or so, and if you can make three or four games a year, that's definitely a viable strategy for an independent developer.

It comes in shades, but for the worst cases, I agree. The damage done by a terrible early slaughter will heal over time, but the wounds of a 10 years occupation will stay fresh.