That's just the early adopter's dilemma. US had a enormous push to get dial tone service available everywhere for voice communication. But as data comm transitioned from dialup to broadband, there was, and is still, all this old infrastructure to deal with where the new stuff can't work properly, yet it's not cost effective to update the old stuff.

Style in timing and presentation of content, if not with the actual generation of the content.

But regarding the quote, no, it doesn't allow for self sacrifice by choice. It has two parameters, "I will never live for the sake of another" and "nor ask another man to live for mine", neither of these allow for something as basic as family relations.

It suggests Ms Rand's focus may have been overly narrow, or perhaps she simply lacked any positive feelings for her own family, and it never occurred to her that other people might feel differently.

Tsk, tsk. You had style up until the esoteric ad hominem. But perhaps I took some liberties with Ms Rand's character.

On the other hand, if John Galt's parents had lived by that maximum, he'd have starved in the cradle.

John Galt is famous for saying "If you won't play the game by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home!"

To think the SCOTUS decision in this case is a victory for free speech is to be utterly confused by the difference between a flesh and blood person and the legal fiction of a corporate "person".

A corporation is a legal entity, completely imaginary in most ways, and it's primary purpose is to absolve the individuals who comprise the corporation from individual responsibility for the actions of the corporation.

If you were to imagine a commercial corporation as some sort of living entity, it might be more accurate to picture as a giant omnivorous worm, shaihulud if you will, without the mobility. Ideally, it consume resources at one end and excretes profits out the other. Blind and dumb, always hungry, it lives or dies based on the efforts of its employees to keep it fed and protected. If they do this well, and if they train their successors to do it well, then the corporation can live forever.

I don't know about you, but that's not much like any person I've ever known.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all about preserving the rights of individual citizens against the collective power of other entities, be they military, religious, political, or commercial.

Somehow I feel pretty sure in saying that the authors of our nations founding documents did not anticipate the possibility that someone would later try to apply these individual rights to commercial enterprises dressed up as imaginary persons.

The poor are greedy? Next you'll be chastising the hungry for coveting food.

Congrats to Ms Palin on her book sales. It's hard to find a paperback these days for $4.95, much less a first edition hardback.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Just how hungry for validation are you?

V, the original, was a crappy series to begin with. V, the remake, brings better visuals but not much else. The fact that it was made at all points up nothing but the Hollywood's phobia of originality and risk.

The fact that people are talking about it's political undertones means there's a PR flack out there who is worth his or her salt.

Dance, puppets, and give this turd some free publicity!

So you get to have a tizzy when he gets the painting, /and/ pitch a fit when they get rid of it.

You must be, like, the zen master of the no-win situation.