IdentityCrisis

I saw this one over a year ago, so my memory may be a bit faded. But there were two things I recall liking quite a bit: 1) Regardless of how much of a failure the main character was before the invasion, you have to admit he held up wonderfully during the crisis. He should have commited to staying away from the cities instead of trying to reach his urban relatives, but aside from that foolishness he generally kept his head and showed a lot of courage and intelligence under fire. Enough even to single-handedly destroy a tripod, although he wouldn't have survived it without that serviceman's help. 2) Speaking of a serviceman's help, I liked the way the military was portrayed. Namely as being disciplined, powerful (even if way out of their league), courageous and genuinely commited to saving as many civilians as they could. At no point do I recall seeing a man in uniform and thinking that he didn't deserve to wear it; rather, my emotional sense was that if my life must depend on protection by others, then those are the kind of people I want doing the protecting. Kind of refreshing given current events. Aside from those two points, though, I mostly agree with what you said.

Where do you get the free trial? I've downloaded and installed the client, but it expects $19.95 to create an account.

What are the odds of a movie actually getting made anytime soon? At the rate this is going I could see us playing the "cast Atlas Shrugged" game with the kids from the Harry Potter movies before the thing actually gets produced. Emma Watson as Dagny Taggert...?

But it would stop rounds from another officer's handgun, right? I'm guessing that's the reason for the new policy. I'm also guessing that you aren't the only officer who will be "religious" about wearing ballistics now, mandentory policy or not. That squares with an experience I had years ago. I was walking by a police car parked outside the Wal-Mart I worked at, and my first clue that a police dog was inside it was when it charged up to the edge of the back-seat cage and started menacing me. Quite an alarm, until I realized that the dog couldn't get out. I do remember being quite disturbed at the time by the idea that a police-trained dog would just randomly attack someone, but now I assume that you just never let them out of the cages unless you're expecting trouble to begin with. So, acknowledge him without challenging or alarming him. Almost like recognizing a dominant pack-mate, I guess. Does this work if you're not in uniform, or would I be screwed either way then? Maybe a vacation and some time on the day shift would help? Even if it did happen, couldn't you just turn down the promotion? Or not apply for it in the first place? How does that work? I hope it isn't mangled, but it probably will be. Too bad AR didn't live long enough to finish the script herself. No problem. Sounds like you've just got a lot to think about lately.

Ouch. I'm sure you've heard this enough to be sick of it, but I want to say I'm sorry for what happened and I appreciate what you guys do. After reading the attorney's report, though, I do have some questions. Keep in mind that I know almost nothing about policework: 1) Why weren't Darden and Canfield wearing vests? Didn't they come to the scene straight from a job in which they were instructed to wear "ballistics" at all times? Ballistics means a bulletproof vest, right? Between that and Darden's apparently failing to make the radio call he was supposed to, it sounds like they were ignoring proper procedure. 2) Was Darden personally familiar with Barry's dog? It sounds like the dog recognized Darden as a cop. Kind of a shame, actually, since if the dog had brought Darden down as intended he would probably still be alive. 3) From what you've said, it sounds like things are getting worse where you are. Have non-fatal police injuries been increasing as well?

I just beat the game yesterday, and while I admit it was fun (bloody camera issues aside) I have no idea where you get the following from: I don't think his character changes at all in this game. First, Dante was never after power. Vergil explicitly berates him for not seeking power in their first encounter. If anything Dante's problem is that he's a thrill-seeker and show-off, which definitely does not change by game's end. Remember him yelling how he lives for this sort of thing right before the demon attack in the closing credits? Second, I think Dante already had a soft spot for humans to begin with. He let Lady live even though she tried to kill him multiple times (the first time before she even knew who or what he was). By contrast, he was ready to blow body parts off of Jester just for annoying him.

I think we're straying a little too far afield here. It was never my intention to get into details of implementation (which I admit I haven't really thought about in detail), only to explain how fraud could be considered a form of force. I trust I've accomplished that much, at least?

Perhaps my use of the term "null and void" was misleading. I didn't mean to imply that ownership reverts back once the courts officially declare the contract void, I meant that it reverts once the conditions spelled out in the contract are broken. You just go to the courts to get legal recognition and enforcement of it, if necessary.

My broad definition for the term "force" is "physical contact by the property of one person with the property of a second without the second's consent." I should clarify that I consider a person's own body to be his property. I use the term "violence" for such things. But I can see why you don't think that fraud is subsumed under force. By your definition of the term, it isn't. There's a big difference between a statement of intent and a contract. In a contract you are not only stating an intention to do something, but you are also granting to someone the right to forcibly hold you accountable if you don't follow through. The legal mechanisms involved in proving it are a separate issue.

Here's my understanding of it, perhaps this will help you: When you buy a good or service, the agreement typically takes the form: "I will transfer ownership of this quantity of money to you ON THE CONDITION that you do X," where X is the good or service you're purchasing. The "on the condition that" is the important part here. If I give you $10 now to mow my lawn next Sunday, that $10 only remains yours if you actually mow my lawn next Sunday. If you don't, then the condition I placed on the transfer of ownership has been violated, the agreement becomes void and ownership of the money reverts back to me. You are now holding MY $10 without my permission, which comes under the definition of force. Of course, not every such case will be a case of fraud. If you weren't able to mow my lawn because of an unforseen rainstorm, for instance, the contract is still null and void but it wasn't a criminal act on your part. That's an accidental use of force, not a deliberately coercive one. It becomes fraud when you intentionally do not fulfill the conditions and yet still refuse to return my money. Does that help?

Actually, the nick is just a joke. Back when I tried to sign up on my first ISP I couldn't proceed because all the nicks I kept trying were already taken. I got agitated because all I wanted to do was check out the internet and I was being held up over what should have been a trivial issue, so I typed in "IdentityCrises" (refering to my inability to even pick a name for myself) as a frustrated joke. The misspelling (plural form instead of singular) was unintentional, but it's probably why it didn't get rejected. Though I can see why such a nick would be a bad thing on this forum. I really should pick a new one.

Hmm... I figured that if a blatant self-contradiction like "passionately indifferent" didn't give it away, the smiley would. On the other hand, if JMS took it seriously it would explain why she didn't respond. So maybe you're right. <shrug> Oh well. Making friends was never my strong point.

I'll second Felipe on wanting to know what you're talking about. Was this in response to what I said? Claiming to be neutral and "passionately indifferent" was only a joke, in response to JMS's crack about using my powers for good. Whether she was joking is another matter, but hey...

Reminds me of an amusing slip-up on my part years ago. After glancing at a newspaper article about a woman who had decided to stay in a physically abusive marriage because she believed that she would burn in hell if she broke her wedding vows, I muttered "thank God I'm an atheist" under my breath. A split second after the words left my mouth, I realized what I had just said. It was one of those moments where you really wish someone else had had a camera ready to go, because you know the look on your face must have been priceless.

...Unless she's inspired by George Lucas...