Lean meat? Fat is flavor.

It probably would but then I'd have to figure out what she has done since then, back it up, reinstall, etc...
I could just copy her home dir to a USB stick or something if it comes to that. I thought there would be an easier way.

yes, but the senate approved a resolution stating just that in 2008. in any case its a no-brainer. American military base = American territory = natural born citizens.

Maybe not a "no brainer" but I agree that it it sensible. It is also sensible to believe Hawaii when they say Obama's BC is legit.
My point is that these kooks would be up in arms about the "will of the people" being usurped if their guy had won.

I'm a rocker, I don't care for rules.

Well that's one way, sure. Protecting your IP and the legitimacy of IP in the first place is sort of a different discussion. But creative works are copyrighted at the moment of their creation in whatever manner the creator chooses.  Novel ideas/invention type things are a little different, you do have to file a patent application to have it protected. There are also ways of demonstrating prior art in the case where someone patents something you created. That doesn't necessarily grant you one, but it can keep them from profiting from your work. This is all assuming you have the $$$ to get a patent granted in the first place, or the $$$ to fight it if you didn't file for one. The whole thing is pretty screwed and there is not much room for the little guy. Most patents are obscure minutiae filed by employees of corporations, and most of those times the patent will be owned by the employer, not the employee. Lots of times the company will "buy" the patent from the employee for a token $1 fee or something like that.

Not true!
You own the copyrights of your works by the act of creating them

Maybe if you would quit bragging about yourself so much. That's a real turn off for employers 

Driving drunk has been defined by our society as "something bad". So when you drive drunk, your are "doing something bad".

Maybe your argument should instead be that driving drunk is not a bad thing. If you convince enough people that driving drunk is not a bad thing, then maybe the drunk driving laws will be repealed. Then we can work on other restrictive laws, like the silly ban on driving while blind, or driving while three, or driving while too old to remember your name.

I think that's what the essence of the original post is, yes - drunk driving, in and of itself, is not inherently bad.  Irresponsible, yes. Morally wrong, probably so. But not harm to life, limb, or property. A threat to those things, but there are plenty of threats that are perfectly legal.

False advertising. Neither a captain nor awesome.

If showing you the implications of your generalized statements is not a legitimate "debate tactic" then I don't know what is.

You smoking does not kill me. Go ahead and smoke. You fucking does not infect me. Go ahead and fuck. You going outside does not affect me. Go ahead and go outside.

Now, your driving can affect me, especially if you are unable to stay in your goddam lane. I prefer you not drive at all, but I'll settle for asking that you at least be able to properly operate that deadly machine of yours.

And wars should be out of the question.

Secondhand smoke? Clearly irresponsible.
My rogering certainly can affect you. I can be hammering you. Or could have been plowing someone in the past that you are screwing now or plan to boink in the future.
My pisspoor driving does not affect you *until I do something bad*. That's sort of the point of this thread.

edit: Oh, and, I agree wars are generally bad, mmmk, but you also imply that some body out there should be able to enforce the no wars law. Who would that be? And if you were, say, fighting for US independence, or WWII, would you be ok with that?

? Please explain. I'm not following you on this one. Are you implying that driving in itself is irresponsible (to the environment), and that a carbon tax is essentially functioning the same as an arrest for DUI?

I'm saying that polluting is seen as irresponsible and can easily be legislated that way, and for a consequence that may or may not ever occur. Are you for the state punishing CO2 spewers?
The point is that lots of things can be seen as irresponsible in some way or another.

Would you say that if the subject were, say, carbon tax instead of DUI?

"if someone is that irresponsible; stop them before they encroach on me or mine".

This is such a slippery slope... the implications are just horrific. When they encroach on you or yours is when your rights have been violated. Not before.

Come to think of it I've never really had an intelligent conversation with someone... relationships just aren't my thing (21 years and I've only been on one date which was a sympathy date from a lesbian). And as far as friendships go I usually only talk about Videogames and Rock Music.

I know this was one of you. 'Fess up.