Grey Matters

In ancient times (as personal computers go), some software came with a postcard to be mailed in, agreeing to the brief EULA (It was just called a license, or software license back then) contained thereon. One was required to sign it and send it in before using the new software. It also served to register the s/w with the particular publisher.

Because I actually read these things, I’d often line through the objectionable parts on the card, initial the line-outs and then sign and send in the card. In one case I recall, there was so much BS on it that I crossed out everything and put it into an envelope with my own EULA stating that I promised not to copy the software for anyone else and nothing more. I said that if that wasn’t good enough, let me know and I’d be happy to return the software for a refund. Sent it off to the address where the postcard would have gone. Never heard from them. I assume they found my terms acceptable.

Someone in the software community had the bright idea that using the software indicated acceptance of the license, whether or not one signed it. This became a common term on software licenses. When I first encountered this, I quipped to one of my friends that it wouldn’t be long before simply reading the license obligated one to abide by it. Sure enough…

It was C compiler. It came in a transparent, sealed envelope that was large enough so that the 8.5 x 11″ license and documentation pages did not have the be folded. I could read the first page of the license in its entirety without even opening the package. I did, but then, to proceed, I had to open the package before I could read the second page of what turned out to be a two-page license. Sure enough, on page two of the license, it stated that opening the package indicated acceptance of the license conditions! Very clever, eh? I have a photo of it, before opening, somewhere — evidence that I was unable to read the license in its entirety without opening the package. I took the photo because I suspected chicanery.

My prediction had come true. Since reading the license in its entirety had required me to open the package, and, according to the license, opening the package had bound me to the terms of the license, reading the license had indeed bound me to it.

It was the immediate forebear of the “shrink wrap” license. (It was clear but not heat shrunken.)

“September 11th taught me that there are people in the world who… it’s rather harsh to say it — if you don’t get them before they get you, you’ll suffer. It’s the hardest thing about this terrorist fight, We don’t have an option to let them commit the crime and then punish it afterwards. Quite literally, we have to get them before they get us.” — Condoleezza Rice

I’m a long-time fan of Condi Rice and just watched her interview on Oprah’s “Oprah Presents Master Class.” Every kid in America ought to watch that episode.

In the course of the interview, Condi said that her dad was a Republican because the Democrat party (Birmingham, AL) refused to register him to vote. The Republicans registered him though. [I’ve never really understood why blacks eschew the party of Lincoln in favor of the party of, well, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and the like.]

Since practically as far back as I can remember, I’ve referred to the accommodation of slavery at the founding of the U.S.A. as its “Achilles heel.” Condi referred to it as a “birth defect” of the U.S. I like her expression better and plan to use that in the future.

Forget Palin, forget Hillary, gimme a chance to vote for Condoleezza Rice for president.

Everybody knows that guns cause gun violence (we’re told this constantly), but are you aware just how racist guns are?

The firearm homicide rate is 18 per 100,000 members of the population for blacks, and 1.5 per 100,000 for whites, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

For reasons only guns know, guns have been picking on blacks quite  disproportionately. The conclusion is inescapable: guns are horribly racist beings!

I mean, if guns cause violence (and we all know they do), then it’s pretty clear that guns have it in for blacks. Who knew that guns were so darned racist!

It’s astonishing how very little the Congress have and are addressing the actual budget problem. The latest proposal would cut just shy of a trillion dollars.

Ooooh, saving almost a *trillion* dollars (over ten years). It’s a trifling amount in the overall FedGov budget (estimated at 3.82 trillion in 2011). A savings of 100 billion a year. So next year’s deficit will be 1.4 trillion instead of 1.5 trillion. If all goes according to plan. Clearly, no one is serious about addressing the deficit problem.

When Republicans wanted to include a mandatory Balanced Budget Amendment, the Senate Majority Leader said it was the “most outrageous idea” put forth so far. Gawd forbid we live within our means.

Ultimately, the solution, the reform, will not, cannot come from within Congress. It must come from without: <http://TakeBackThePower.us/> It is not just the right but the DUTY of the states to enforce the Constitution when the federal government exceeds its delegated authority.

I think it’s funny that Obama quoted Reagan in regards to the need for “a balanced approach” to solving a budgetary crisis. What we should not forget about the Reagan situation is that the Democrat-controlled congress promised Reagan two dollars in spending cuts for each dollar of tax increase.

Well, taxes were raised but spending was not cut. It wasn’t cut at all, much less at a 2:1 ratio.

Now the sticking point is that Democrats won’t allow any “teeth” in the proposals. Democrats want us to accept promises of forthcoming cuts with no mechanism to ensure that cuts are made.

As far as I’m concerned, Democrats still owe us the cuts promised to Reagan.