July 27th, 2004

Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

Your LJ Friend RPG Party by Jennifurret
Username
Obligatory Love Interestkatieshrike
Macho Guy who is really a softyvoideity
Mysterious Girl with Hidden Pastsarawr
Annoying Little Kidspiritlove
The Perfect One that Diescommand_four
Badguy gone Goodheteroclitic
The Androgynous Looking Onejameth
Pointless Fanservice Hot Onejeffbuckley
Furry Useless Mascotprettypurplebra
And the real villian is...stephogroove
Quiz created with MemeGen!
Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

I'm just curious. I know a good number of you are against the war in Iraq. Under what circumstances would you feel attacking another country is justified?
Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

Legal code is much like software code. It specifies what can and can not take place in specific events. The constitution is like the processor, with a basic instruction set that the laws must follow. And I feel that, like with software, as the legal code ages it tends to bloat with new "features" and bugs unexpected events occure with more and more patches to the code being applied.

Sometimes I wonder, like with software, if we need "Legal System 2.0", a complete re-write of the legal code to clean it up, simplify it. In general, make it easier to understand and less buggy.

At this point in time, I think any such rewrite would be a disaster, due to how much influence special interest groups have, but in the long term, I do think rewriting the system instead of continually patching it would be for the best. As the saying goes, "Keep It Simple, Stupid."
Ceci n'est pas une personne.

(no subject)

It seems Australia has managed to reduce spam through fines upto $1,000,000 per day for violators.

This is a good stop, but why are governments not going after the companies that hire the spammers? They are much easier to catch and fine, and if they are afraid using spam, the spam houses will wither on the vine.

In other news... How much in bribes campaign contributions is Orrin Hatch taking? He wants makers of equiptment that could be used to copy music and movies to be sueable by recordings labels and movie studios if an individual uses their product to copy copyrighted material. So, if someone mis-uses a product, he want to be able to sue the maker of the product. At the same time, if someone misuses a gun he does not want the victims and the families to be able to sue the gun makers. So if some one misuses a product, he does not want the maker of the product sued. A case of Dr. Orrin and Mr. Hatch? I think it's rather fucked up that he is more concerned about studio losses than with human life.