Qwertz

I have never met anyone who actually went looking for HIV. I'm inclined to think the practice is mythical, though I would not be entirely surprised to find otherwise. Some people. Anywho, the answer to the question ("Is it moral to date an HIV+ person?") is: "It depends, but generally no." Dating is exploratory. The purpose is to determine whether romance is possible/desirable with this person. Sex is an integral part of romance. HIV is transmitted by, inter alia, sex. If the risk of infection is such that it makes sex undesirable, then romance will likewise be undesirable. Therefore, continuing to date would be dishonest. The risk of infection can be mitigated by limiting sexual practice to a greater (e.g., abstaining from intercourse) or lesser (e.g., using a condom) extent. These are, nonetheless, limitations on sex (though some, e.g., condom use, may be de minimis limitations), and therefore are limitations on romance. And the risk cannot be eliminated, except perhaps through total abstinence, which would be immoral because it leaves off a critical component of romance. It is not per se immoral to engage a less-than-ideal romance, but to do so at the risk of your life and health demands extraordinary circumstances, to the degree that the risk is not mitigated. (The greater the mitigation of the risk, the less extraordinary the circumstances.) For example, if you are under some condition that makes romance much more difficult than ordinary (say, for example, you have HIV), then it may be moral to date a person with HIV. Sex between HIV+ persons is still risky (arguably as risky as sex between an infected and non-infected person, because separate HIV strains can cause separate, concurrent infections), but you are in a condition where a less risky romance is practically impossible. Therefore, you are not foregoing a higher value by engaging in a romance where the sex will be risky and worrisome. But for a healthy, HIV- person under ordinary circumstances, it is immoral to short-change yourself by pursuing a romance with whom sex will be such a dangerous and worrisome activity, and it is immoral to lie to yourself by continuing to date someone with whom sex is undesirable. I don't think the question of how someone became infected is necessarily relevant to a decision to date. I rather think the overriding factor is the fact of infection, not how it came to be. ~Q

Quite so. You might, might be able to get away with it in a place like Sealand. Someplace teensy. With very few people in it. ~Q

That I did. Having a single court system is fine. Having a single court would be monstrously inefficient in a country as large as the US. One thing I particularly don't like is coordinate federal-state jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). We call that "Federalism" today, but I don't think it is at all necessary and causes far more problems than it was meant to solve. Assuming a perfect, monolithic government, a single court system (e.g. the federal court system as a model) would be fine, but it would necessarily (like the federal system) be broken up into inferior courts with limited geographic jurisdiction but broad subject matter jurisdiction, while the superior courts will have broad geographic jurisdiction but narrow subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., limited to appellate jurisdiction). That makes sense as a management feature for a government that covers a large geographical area, and as a way of managing the binding effect of precedent. ~Q

I was going to ramble on and on about the benefits of Federalism, but then I remembered you were asking about legislative power. Assuming a perfect government, there's no need for inferior legislatures - one will do you. But there are plenty of reasons to have inferior courts that operate in geographically smaller areas. Same with police. Imagine if there was exactly one court in the whole country. Yikes. But having inferior legislatures would only make sense if protecting individual rights required different laws in different geographic areas. ~Q

There's already a thread on the LHC, which includes some remarks about the lawsuit and its merits. ~Q

I saw that. It could have been really good. But they had to go and Event Horizon it up at the end. Blah. ~Q

Titanic is not my favorite movie, but I don't think it's as entirely overrated as you suggest. It is a very well-made melodrama. Where it falls down is in its ultimate view of love as sacrificial - a view it nevertheless only mostly accepts. Sure it isn't as good as it is often made out to be, but it is still very, very good. I will be happy to write an in-depth review, if you would care to see my full analysis. ~Q

Strike it down, on the grounds that Congress has no express constitutional authority to run a national industry. Even the gaping maw of the Commerce Clause couldn't swallow this one. Congress can run the railroads (and did for a while) because they are instrumentalities of interstate commerce; and Congress can regulate all sorts of industries because they affect interstate commerce, but actually running an industry is far and away different from regulation - even very heavy-handed regulation. Even the most liberal of the Justices currently on the Court (Stevens, Ginsburg) would not go along with out-and-out nationalization. An outright nationalization à la Hugo Chavez would be struck down 9-0. De facto nationalization through heavy-handed regulation with a nominal retention of property rights by the oil companies, however, might well come out differently. It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether. ~Q

The Federalist Papers are generally decent, but I don't think they give insight into what the Founders wanted. The Founders wrote only one document together - the Declaration of Independence. That is the only document which displays a consistent founding intent prior to the founding. The Constitution was written by a different group of people. Some of the same people were there, but not all of them, and there were many others. This group is called the Framers. They were not unified in intent - the Constitution was a compromise. Many of the delegates shared ideas, and they broke down roughly into the federalist and anti-federalist camps. But the Federalist Papers only represent one side of the argument. They might be the better side of the argument, but they don't speak to the intent behind the Constitution. The Framers' intent was to forge a compromise. Mixed premises. That's an unfortunate way to start a country, given what the Founders had intended. (Most legal scholars would disagree. Either because they reject the need for consistency - mixed premises are OK - or because they think it is the People's prerogative to have a government of mixed premises, if that's what the People want.) ~Q

The clip is absolutely precious! Look how terrified she is that she let her guard down. Look how she realizes -- "Oops, that sort of slipped out!" -- and starts backpedaling and trying to think of a way to take back what's already on the record. Then watch her commit to it so she doesn't look like a waffler -- so it doesn't look like a mistake. And the guy on her right just gives up in exasperation and the woman next to him covers her mouth and positively titters. Best television I've seen all week. ~Q

The Preamble is not positive law. The phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble is not what lets Congress promote the general welfare. The "general Welfare" of positive law comes from Art. I, § 8, cl. 1: The Spending Clause gives Congress explicit authority to tax and spend in the promotion of the "general Welfare." ~Q

12 April 1937. Nowadays EPA regulations (which have the force of law, but are not enacted like laws) have a more concrete, direct effect on oil production, but the fundamentals of all industrial regulation started with the New Deal. Legally, it all begins on 12 April 1937, the day the Commerce Clause exploded. See National Labor Review Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301. U.S. 1 (1937). EPA regs can be searched at the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/index.html. You can search by industry, and they have a whole page dedicated to petroleum industry regs: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/bizsector/petroleum.html Random factoid: did you know that the various administrative agencies of the US Federal Gov't (of which EPA is one) collectively enact more law every day (in terms of pages) than Congress does in a year? ~Q

Remember: the Founding Fathers (the writers and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) are a different set of people from the Framers of the Constitution (the convention delegates). The Declaration is a resounding philosophical statement, but the Constitution is a compromise. It doesn't have a coherent philosophy, but parts of it are motivated by the competing philosophies present at the convention. It is not, nor has it ever been (despite over 200 years of judicial struggling to pretend it is) a consistent instrument. ~Q

Of course we shouldn't expect Rand to have managed to fit her entire philosophy into a single 60 minute talk and still have time for the high-level, specific Q&A that was the purpose of the event. Taken in the context of her whole philosophy, the quoted remarks make a great deal of sense. Parents should hold off on introducing their children to the idea of a broken man until after they first have a solid grip on the idea of a man. The quote is out of context, because you have not presented it with any understanding of Objectivist epistemology, esp. Rand's approach to concepts and concept formation. ~Q Edit: I should hit that point harder - Rand's statement about keeping the mentally handicapped away from children is not a political remark.

Ayn Rand uses instinct to mean "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge," (From Galt's Speech), whereas modern liberal academia (esp. sociology) uses instinct to mean "inborn behavior." Rand's definition is narrower, because it draws a distinction between acts based on knowledge and acts in general. Modern academia generally denies the human ability to know, so it makes sense that they would object to Rand's narrower definition. ~Q

These are really scores, not soundtracks: Gattaca - Michael Nyman's finest work The Piano - Michael Nyman's 2nd finest work Funny, I really hate most of Nyman's other work. See, e.g. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, which is a beautiful film about some really awful people and has a rather obnoxious score. ~Q

There was a time when I had little opposition to the government providing a sort of short-form "marriage contract" to cover all those legally cognizable matters associated with marriage - joint property, intestacy, power of attorney, &c. But really, even in this very limited role, the state ends up acting like an attorney, advising couples on what legal features they should or should not incorporate into their relationship. The more I think about it, the less I like even this limited role. Government should stay out of the business of giving legal advice. (I should point out that I am opposed to gay marriage only in the current legal/political context - a position I explored in a recent blog entry. The short form of that position is that in the case of gay marriage (and perhaps in all cases), Equal Protection does not provide a valid excuse for expanding the welfare state. I am not, nor have I ever been, opposed to gay couples enjoying the same legitimate legal protections, founded in contract, enjoyed by straight couples.) I'm with David in that government should play no role in marriage except in enforcing valid contracts. ~Q

If Dying Mother so dearly wants to control Son from beyond the grave she would have been well advised to consult a competent estate attorney before her death, so as to provide a decent testamentary incentive for Son to comply with Dying Mother's wishes. Perhaps in the form of a trust. Any disappointment on Dying Mother's part in her own failure to deal with Son rationally when she had the chance is her own problem, not Son's. (Sorry that has nothing to do with lying, but the lying issue has been fairly well covered.) ~Q

Exactly why Plaintiff's proposed class definition would fail - most people who fall into his proposed class (including you?) were smart enough to understand what was going on. ~Q

I've read the complaint, and it is, like most complaints, short on facts. One fact I would like, if anyone has it, is whether Google requires subscribers to its advertising service to agree to particular contract text before asking for bid amounts, and what that text says. Or said, at the time Mr. Almeida subscribed. I'm sure Google has clarified the meaning of a blank field by now. Based solely on Plaintiff's recital of facts in the complaint, my guess is that this is just a case of "I didn't read the fine print and now I'm mad." One wonders why Mr. Almeida didn't call Google right away as soon as he saw that he was being over-charged. Based on Plaintiff's recital of facts in the complaint, it looks like leaving the "CPC Content Bid (optional)" field blank indicates the subscriber's intent that the field immediately above it, "Default CPC Bid," should govern. The proposed class will not be certified, because the class definition is too broad. Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: Note that the class does not exclude those people who read the fine print and understood that leaving the field blank meant that the "Default CPC bid" should apply. Plaintiff's claims are not applicable to these people, and the class definition must exclude them. When we try to craft a proper class definition, we find that we must insert something like "who did not want third-party ads" in there somewhere and our class gets substantially smaller. Small enough to cause numerosity problems and maybe amount in controversy problems. Aside Class actions based on diversity of citizenship in US Federal courts, like this one, may be brought under either: a) normal diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)-©, which requires complete diversity of citizenship between all the named plaintiffs (in this case Almeida, a citizen of Massachusetts) and all the defendants (in this case Google, a "citizen" of both Delaware and California) and an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, to which at least one of the named plaintiffs must have a claim ( see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah, 545 U.S. 546 (2005)) or the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) et al., which requires only minimal diversity of citizenship (at least one plaintiff a citizen of a state different from at least one defendant) among the parties and a total amount in controversy of at least $5M, which may be met by aggregating the claims of all members of the proposed class. In this case, there is no way Almeida can claim $75,000 on his own. He must aggregate as a class under CAFA if he wants to be in Federal court. But if we cut his proposed class back to where it should be, the likelihood of the class meeting the $5M requirement dwindles. All this is important because it means the class won't be certified in Federal court. If Almeida can't certify the class in Federal court, he could try to certify the class in the state courts of California, but that is likely to be more difficult. If the class is not certified, Google will not be faced with the possibility of a huge class action to settle or litigate. Acceptable settlement figures plummet, and Google gets to avoid the whole thing by settling for a few grand, which would be the easiest and cheapest thing to do, because it doesn't set a precedent and is a heck of a lot cheaper than litigating. Google will probably end up settling this for a low dollar amount and will (perhaps already has?) clarify its system so subscribers are less likely to be confused. Neither action would mean that Google is saying "we did something wrong," or "we messed up." Only that it is cheaper for them to settle than to litigate. If they did decide to litigate, which I find very unlikely, they could easily win on a summary judgment motion once discovery reveals that Almeida just didn't read the fine print. This is the sort of case that would never, ever go to an actual trial. ~Q PS - Chops' screenshots tell us that Google has already clarified the issue, but they don't help with the lawsuit unless they were taken in 2006, when Almeida signed up. We don't have the facts from 2006, so the case can't be dismissed before discovery. EDIT: Now that's very annoying -- when I type [open parenthesis][letter 'c'][close parenthesis], it comes out [copyright], despite the fact that emoticons are turned off. I tried changing it in the editor, but it won't let me type a 'c' inside parentheses. Sorry.

You would be amazed at how much constitutional legal doctrine is built up around trying to avoid the contradictions arising out of public property. My con law professor has stopped calling on me in class because he knows my answer is always "but if all property were privately owned, we wouldn't have this problem." ~Q

With the added benefit of exposing young children to the wonderful world of anorexia and other eating disorders. ~Q

HK is Chinese only for defense and foreign affairs. HK is otherwise fully autonomous until 2047 (handover + 50 years). ~Q

In chat, I find the smilies much more visually intrusive and no more effective than their text-based equivalents. I like that the new chat lets me choose to see text-based equivalents instead of graphical smiley-face icons. I never use smilies in posts, and I dislike it when I type something like "" and the system turns it into a smiley. I always have to remember to scroll down and de-select "enable smilies" when I post something. I think it would be more convenient to have "enable smilies by default" be an option I can set on my options page so that I no longer have to scroll down and un-check the box for each and every post. I'm not suggesting disabling smilies universally in either chat or the forum. ~Q

I can turn off the bleeding smilies! I'm delirious with ecstasy. I burble. I am transported. You have made my month. Now if only you could make "Enable Smilies" when posting in the forum a persistent setting, so I could set it to "Off" and have it stay that way, I should be reduced to some quivering mass of really, really happy goo. Or something. ~Q