response 175 of 199:

Apr 2 00:41 UTC 2002

My dad's oxygen compressor reads:
INVICARE 6 with SensO2 (t)

response 177 of 199:

Apr 2 03:06 UTC 2002

Re #171:  Lots of legal fictions are important for keeping the
wheels turning, true.  But capitalism gets a lot from the public
domain too, and there should be no confusion about the oxymoronic
nature of "intellectual property".  A piece of matter can only
be in one place at a time, and most objects can only be used by
one person at a time; information has no such limitations, and
should not be thought of (or legislated about) in anything like
the same way.  The mere cost of tying up the legal system in
disputes about who has the right to do what with a certain piece
of IP is an excellent reason to place firm limits (both in breadth
and in duration) on the rights of the owners.

I speak as the inventor of US patents 5297063, 5297065 and 5323336.

response 179 of 199:

Apr 2 18:22 UTC 2002

Yes, but they have to file the patent in the employee's name and then pay
them for it -- often some nominal amount as specified in the employment
contract.  (This is colloquially called the "Edison Law" in honor of
Thomas Edison's penchant for patenting his employees' inventions in his
own name.)

No idea whether Russ's patents are still his or not, of course.

response 181 of 199:

Apr 3 07:09 UTC 2002

I have no idea why I am wasting my time on this. So I'll just deal with
#161, which seems to pack in the lies better than most of the responses.

 Vietnam bad example we lost there at the terrible cost of 50,000 American
 boys and 2 million Vietnamese, all over the the admitted lie of the Gulf
 of Tonkin.  

FALSE. Vietnam was _not_ about the Gulf of Tonkin. Vietnam was about
containing Communist expansion (which was happening, no matter how you
try to deny it) in a strategically important area. I don't support the
Vietnam war but this is absolute bullshit.

 As for Sharon he is a a war criminal who would be tried in
 a court in Belgium for his war crimes in 1982 if he ever had the balls
 to go to Belgium:

FALSE. A recent International Court of Justice ruling protects Sharon from
such prosecution in states that recognise compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, of
which Belgium is one. Submitted for your consideration the Independent,
March 6 2002 edition (by a man who is no doubt one of your heroes, Robert 
Fisk):

"In Sabra and Chatila, where many survivors who watched the slaughter of
their families still live amid open drains and rat-crawling garbage tips,
there was dismay when the World Court's ruling was followed by a statement
from the legal adviser to the Belgian Foreign Minister, who said that the
international tribunal's decision ruled out any indictment against Mr
Sharon in Brussels." (no URL, got it off Nexis)

Also, even if Sharon was indicted in Belgium if he went there in his
capacity as prime minister he would have diplomatic immunity under the
Vienna Convention. So he could go, and not be arrested.

 Furthermore Israel has been in violation of U.N. resolution 242 since
 1967 calling for an end of it's occupation of the Palestinian territory
 and awithdraw to the 1967 borders.  So again a bad example.

FALSE. Can you read? SC Res. 242 states (relevant bits printed below):

 1. Affirms  that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the
recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for
and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace
within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways
in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political
independence of every State in the area, through measures including the
establishment of demilitarized zones;

That document calls for withdrawal from the territories (not all the
territories, it should be mentioned) in the context of a peace settlement.
Also, no time frame for such a withdrawal is specified.
And there's also this bit in there about the "acknowledgement of political
sovereignty..." something many Arab states have rather conspicuously not
done. So it's debatable whether the Israelis have violated it, while the
Arab states certainly have. The overall point is 242 does _not_ call for a
total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, and says nothing at all about
occupation. So you're dead wrong on this point.

 Iraq is not threat to the continental United States 

No, they just want nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to show off
at the Baghdad trade show. Please.

 let Israel fight it's own damn bloody wars of oppression against the Arab
 world.  

Saeb Erekat _today_ on CNN openly threatened the Israeli people with more 
terrorism ("If this does not stop you have not seen the worst yet") and
Israel can't defend itself? Of course by this point anyone who can still
subscribe to this sort of foul moral calculus isn't likely to respond to
nasty things like reason or facts.

response 185 of 199:

Apr 3 20:28 UTC 2002

So you've actually done both, to make a valid comparison?

response 187 of 199:

Apr 3 23:04 UTC 2002

I have to agree with what pthomas said (#181).

response 189 of 199:

Apr 6 07:02 UTC 2002

raven demonstrates singular support for arafat's 40 years of terrorist
incitations versus a few days of israeli retaliation.
  
how nice to see another american taliban in the conversation - NOT!
  
however, since hope springs eternal, he might 'get religion' some day.
oh, wait - raven is islamic, i forgot.

response 191 of 199:

Apr 8 18:26 UTC 2002

Is m-net's policy conf interesting again?  Policy is far and away the funniest
part of m-net, occasionally.  The rest of the time it's just boring.

response 193 of 199:

Apr 8 21:00 UTC 2002

I'll say.

response 195 of 199:

Apr 8 22:00 UTC 2002

Occasionally, yes.  The difference, for me, at least, is that I feel obligated
to read and pay attention to coop, and possibly act based on what gets
decided.  policy is sheer amusement. 

response 197 of 199:

Apr 12 22:36 UTC 2002

I think any time you try to govern an organization by open public 
discussion, you get a lot of absurdity.  Public comment periods in city 
government are a pretty good example too.  I think if the absurdity and 
idiocy ever goes away on either Grex or M-Net, then it'll be time to 
write off the system as dead.

response 199 of 199:

May 16 18:08 UTC 2002

Oh my god like the milatery spends sooooo much the presient liike should put
a limit to wat they can spend in a week month or watever.