I am wounded to the core that you don't think I am an attorney. Just please don't try representing yourself in court. Believe me, I am doing you a big favor by telling you this. Consider it free legal advice.

P.S. There is no such thing as retrospective law.

It's pretty sad that normal relatively non-crazy people have come to accept this view of legal interpretation, when it is so severely fucked up.

What is sad is people who don't understand basic Constitutional principles sneering at those who do. In addition, it is not viewed as a "legal interpretation," but a "legal finding." That means it is a combination of the facts in evidence, and the law. Appellate law addresses laws in controversy, by definition. A jury, which is *the* fact-finding body, cannot find a law un-Constitutional, or wrongly interpreted. But if one decides to appeal to an appellate court for a determination, the appeals court must focus on the law and precedent only, and may not refute the jury's finding of facts. YANAL, but I am.

First, it's fucked up because it incorporates a totalitarian assumption is that every possible circumstance should be governed by law, and that whenever someting happens that isn't covered by law it must have been some sort of oversight that should immediately be rectified.

First, it's fucked up because you obviously don't understand what the word "totalitarian" means. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I do believe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." A common misinterpretation.

Secondly, *everything* is covered by the law in the US. That is the foundational principle of the country. You might want to take a Constitutional law course, and brush up, so you can stop pulling stuff out of your ass.

It is impossible for legislators to foresee every possible variation of crime or tort that falls under a new statute. For instance, it can be very difficult to determine if a burglary has taken place, even though the words on their face are clear. That is when the Judiciary steps in, to determine the intent of a statute, and whether or not a statute is valid in the first place

Second, it's fucked up because it implies an unthinking acceptance of retrospective law. When judges make up new rules and apply them to the case at hand they are *always* applying those rules retrospectively.

Your argument would stand on firmer ground if you knew the correct terms of art. RETROACTIVE, not retrospective. Geez. That is pretty rudimentary. And you are just wrong, whether you use the correct word or not.

Under this sort of view it doesn't matter what you do, even if the law makes no mention of it now, when you get hauled off to court suitable rules will be made up to cover whatever it was you did.

Do you even understand how statutory law works? The final interpretation of a law under which someone has been convicted, and then appealed, is already in existence. Therefore, it is not ex post facto (another term of art that I believe you misunderstand, and one I think you were confusing with "retrospective" (sic)). An Ex Post Facto law is one made up *specifically* to criminalize an act AFTER the act has been committed. It is not just an appellate determination that doesn't go the way the plaintiff may wish.

You are not thinking clearly.

Oops, that was me, I didn't mean to post as an AC

First of all, not being a moron, I don't run AV software on either my PC or my Mac, because I don't need it. I use common sense. I have never downloaded a virus or worm. Secondly, the reason your previous post struck the prior poster as a general attack on the rich is due to your rather ungrammatical sentence "Targeting some of the richest and yet least security-aware computer users could be a very profitable niche indeed." First of all, there is no grammatical conjunction "and yet." This makes the literal meaning of your sentence unclear. If you meant "richest and least security-aware," it could be arguing you are speaking about a Venn's diagram of Mac users. If you meant "richest yet least security-aware," your sentence is in fact an attack on people who are better off than you, as you are implying an inverse ratio between wealth and security-awareness. Not to mention your "profitable niche indeed" line clearly smacks of anticipatory schadenfreude.

That is a good idea in theory, but she's a really, really dumb dog. I work with dogs, and even the other trainers admit, she's cute, but reactive, and a dumb blonde. Plus, she is a breed that is supposed to be a watch dog, so it isn't totally surprising.

WHOOSH!

How would it know? The bud from 300 million years ago probably hadn't even evolved to be sticky.

Should you even be here? Slashdot is a FAMILY website. :)

Why don't you actually do some reading. There is more and more evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, genetically based. The AMA, the APA, and the APS published a joint paper many years ago (1999) asserting that homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexual behavior. Do you have the evidence to refute them? Didn't think so.

You need to read that more closely. First of all, the original French did refer to the bundle of sticks used to burn heretics, and guess what, "sodomites" were considered heretics. French homosexuals have just as many nerve endings as English ones. The fact that English executions were different doesn't change the basic etymology of the word.

Yes. And slavery was pretty much accepted by, oh, most of the whole world at one point as well. Great argument. Not to mention, you don't seem to know much about Native American, Sub-Saharan, or Ancient Greek culture. But I guess that doesn't count as part of the world.

You are confusing homophobia's etymology with its definition. Homophobia has long had a psychiatric connotation, in the context of latent homosexuality. I am not a psychiatrist, but was raised by a psychiatrist who was a contributor to the DSM III and IV, and wrote my thesis on cultural attitudes and psychiatry. Homophobia is *often* (but not always) a fear directed at the realization that one might be a member of the maligned group, not at the group itself. The fact that it is not always a factor does not mean that it is not ever a factor. And the gusto with which you protest is certainly of note.

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on *gender* not sexual orientation. I advocate for the expansion of the Act to GLBT individuals, but right now, they are not covered, except for sexual harassment claims.

A private *club* that has membership fees can discriminate. The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin, at any business, without a compelling state interest. However, they would probably throw you out for being an asshole, which is not a protected class. Unfortunately, thanks to charmers such as yourself, and many of the other Anonymous Cowards, GLBT individuals are not yet covered by the law. So which all white country club do you belong to, Senator?