Slashdot Mirror

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back..."

Robert A. Heinlein
"The Past Through Tomorrow" by Robert A. Heinlein, G. P. Putnam Inc., (p. 25), 1967.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/410042

I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.

He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.

citations

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/... https://www.azquotes.com/autho... https://www.naturalnews.com/04...

Link above was mangled, here's the real link:

Feinstein quotes

"Open Source" failed "Free Software" succeeded.

The FSF has been around since 1984 and has been widely more successful.

Today, 99 out of the top 100 websites run GNU/linux, the exception being one FreeBSD shop.

Today, most cell phones run either Linux, with Android, which at its core is Free software, or iOS, which at its core is darwin, more free software. Without FreeBSD to make darwin, or a powerful linux kernel, neither of these would exist. And no, kernels that powerful could have not been developed commericially on time, on a budget.

Free software fueled the dotcom boom allowing small companies and even not for profits access to server hosting resources on cheaper x86 platforms.

"Open Source" was coined by Eric Raymond to troll Free software and ruin it. By 1997, Apache, MySQL, GNU, Linux, PHP, etc.. and other commonly used software already existed and was deployed. He's convinced few people or companies to contribute. The ones that do, its clearly the power and circumstances of successful powerful software like GNU, Linux, Apache, nginx, et al and their ability to perform is more a factor that ESR's inane ramblings

Speaking of "Open Source". Its time we stop repeating what this terrible concern troll, likely sociopath Eric Raymond has to say. He hasn't really contributed anything except trying to discredit actual content producers. His anti social antics are the stuff which makes nerds look bad.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/...

Does any person or company want to be associated with that? The OSI is merely a publicity org, and their founder is public relations poison.

The only "success" Open Source and the OSI has had is convincing people to use the term "Open Source" instead of Free Software. Other than that they've been a dismal failure while Richard Stallman, the FSF and the Free Software moving have been a blinding success.

Speaking of RMS. Despite all the nasty things people say about Stallman, he's got a phenomenal personal brand, die hard followers and people trust hiim. If you plan on releasing your source code to the public, he has far more credibility than a forgotten anti-social liability like ESR.

"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases." - Adolf Hitler

This is the movie trope about a superweapon developed by the bad guys falling into the hands of the good guys. Some of the good guys say destroy it, others say use it to advance the cause of good. The latter wins out and the weapon is used to defeat the bad guys. But then in the future, new bad guys infiltrate the good guys' government and gain control of the superweapon, and use it to carry out the goal of the original bad guys. At which point there's a great big war to fight the bad guys, millions of people die all, of which could've been prevented if they'd destroyed the superweapon in the first place.

Censorship, even well-intended, is just a bad idea fraught with risks and danger. Better to destroy it to prevent it from ever falling into the wrong hands.

Your addition of a condition even "informed" isn't democracy.

Obfuscant is completely correct, as evidenced by "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate", attributed to Thomas Jefferson. The founders of the United States understood what aspects were important for a representative democracy. In addition to the informed electorate, voluntary association "plays a vital, although sometimes not very visible, role in American society as engines of innovation in political and civic life".

Your choice to travel during vote means you choose to pay the fine.

What if I choose not to vote, and choose not to pay the fine? Then what?

You are an autocrat in denial, which is the most dangerous type. Examine your faulty beliefs for your own benefit.

I am informed, but I don't vote because I think voting encourages them. You wish to compel me to do something I don't want to do, in order to give legitimacy to those in power. You, sir, are the autocrat in denial.

"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases." - Adolf Hitler

The issue here is something recent anti-white supremacist protesters need to take to heart. The principle of free speech is agnostic. You cannot claim to uphold free speech while simultaneously attempting to deny it to those you disagree with. Either you believe in free speech, even when that speech offends you. Or you believe in suppression of certain viewpoints and their expression. The latter puts you in the same category as China, Russia, and Nazi Germany - the only difference is which ideas you've decided to suppress.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

The idea behind free speech is that you can't counter a negative with a negative. If you consider it to be justified to impose negative policies against ideas you consider to be negative, you are by definition justifying negative policies towards your ideas by those people if the tables are ever turned. After all, from their perspective, you have negative ideas and thus they are justified in imposing negative policies against you And all of society devolves into a self-perpetuating cycle of negativity.

Free speech attempts to break this cycle by saying everyone is allowed to have their say. And instead of actively fighting against the expression of ideas we don't like, we'll simply rely on rational people (who hopefully make up the overwhelming majority of the population) to judge and dismiss those ideas as ridiculous. The proper response to white supremacist propaganda is citing historical examples of where their beliefs have led the world in the past - innocents living (or hiding) in fear, mob lynchings of innocents, genocide, world war. Convince rational people that we don't want to go down that direction again.

They are retards that still think coding is all about the language you do it in (which is about as far from the truth as you can get, and which has been known to smart people for something like half a century

Smart people have also claimed the exact opposite.

Of course this may be written to fit the leftard agenda:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.bruceonpolitics.com...
http://www.bruceonpolitics.com...

Both sound socialist.

http://media.factmyth.com/2016...

https://www.thoughtco.com/g00/...
"Thereâ(TM)s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history."
Of course wishing to preserve your people, nation and culture shouldn't be viewed as imperialism, genocide and slavery either. But that's what they claim it result in. With borders and no immigrants the risks would had been close to none. Then again even in the case of civil war and deportations genocide is some way off.

Reading those texts seem about as dumb as wasting too much time on the subject and calling people diagnoses.
In the end what title you throw at it may not explain all and all which use the same title may not be the same, because people and in this case politics may be more complex than just one single trait.

http://www.azquotes.com/pictur...

No. I was thinking of Robert Byrd who did his best to continue segregation until political reasons forced his to pretend to change. And pretend was all it was. You just had to listen to the man.

Quick google search would show you that
http://www.azquotes.com/author...

Democrat Senator Reid is the same way (but he is bat-shit crazy so I almost want to give him a pass.)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITI... He made these comments in 2008, long after Thurmond dies (so much more recent.)

Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.

I am reminded of the quote from Ernest Hemingway: "How did we go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden."

Well, it's the UK so HMRC rather than the IRS, but Alan Sugar pays his tax.

Trump pays his tax, too. It's just that he uses the laws and regulations as best he is able to minimize his tax burden. Like pretty much everyone does. There's nothing illegal, or even unethical about that. As Judge Learned Hand (a staunch progressive from the 20th century, who "has been quoted more often by legal scholars and by the Supreme Court of the United States than any other lower-court judge") states:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

I personally don't know anyone who does not avail themselves of every potential deduction and tax reduction strategy. And if a person feels they are paying too little in taxes (for example, Warren Buffet who's famous for "complaining" about a low tax burden), one can always just give more money to the Federal Government.

Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

That's entirely possible. However, it is also possible that he is misquoting me, since I have been using that tagline since the days of logging into BBSs using Telix on a 286 in the late 80s. I am sure that I copied it accurately from the guy I swiped it from, because my tagline management program was really good at that.

Oh, so HE misquoted Emo. ;-)

I just noticed because I've used that line off and on since I first heard it around 1990 or so (I think).

Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

That's entirely possible. However, it is also possible that he is misquoting me, since I have been using that tagline since the days of logging into BBSs using Telix on a 286 in the late 80s. I am sure that I copied it accurately from the guy I swiped it from, because my tagline management program was really good at that.

Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

Tori Amos said it best: Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie.

I laughed out loud. I'm in full agreement.

Tori Amos said it best:
Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie.