This to me looks like the federal government trying to force the other states to adopt the same pollution laws that California has.
The story faults the car makers for "not wanting" to sell a cleaner version of the same car. I call bullshit on that. It's a fishy as "partly zero" If they make it, and people want to pay for it, then why wouldn't they sell that version to anyone in any state? It's like making a automatic and a limited manual version. The law is the reason they wont sell it, and its government acting in its usual strong arm fashion.
If they allow these cars in 3 states, are they not denying them and thus encouraging pollution in 47 states? God dammit, I wish the fed would get the hell out of the way and let people buy what they want.
Please stop trying to buy the internet. I don't want you to control my access or anyone elses because then you will be able to control *what* I have access to.
Government and the internet are like Pirates and Ninja.. they don't mix ok.
Hea man.. don't let your emotions get in the way or anything. You hate real and any illogical excuse you have to keep away from it is dammed well good enough for you, right?
Sure.. It's just like when you are being robed at gunpoint.. you *choose* to give them your money instead of getting shot.. so its ok right? They are not even forcing him to go to jail.. he has the choice to fight the cops when they come to take him, and in that case the cops will kill him. It's all his *choice* ya see.
The only reason they would come out and say, "Ohh you all were right and we are going to end this project." Is because they must have something better. Otherwise they would defend it, and tell us we needed it.. also why wait 2 months? Because the new system must be in testing..
May I ask who is being held accountable for implementing this citizen tracking system? Wait, let me guess.. nobody as usual, right?
This is a really good sign, I hope they are successful even if they don't control the backbone, because if they are then it will show the other telco's that this is something people want.
We don't need or want government regulation of the internet EVER. Remember the Prius? It was created by popular demand and had nothing to do with any government law. The people wanted it and someone went out and created it.
So long as we can keep AT&T from buying the entire world, we will be able to prevent a need for net neutrality as their competition will always try to get a leg up on them.
Not living in the United States you probably don't understand the difference between the state and federal governments. The US is not a "Democracy" as the word defines it, it falls under that term loosely because we do vote, but our vote is by in large meaningless at a federal level. It is a Federated Republic...by concept at least.. (although some may call it a Corporatist Empire now)
Ideally the government should be 50 independent governments loosely organized together. This is what the US was for the first 100 to about 150 years. It works good because people have a lot of control at the local level.. you can actually go and meet your representation in most states. But now feds want to make us one massive government irregardless of states.. again this makes our representation very limited and weak.
The sims are not changable in the iphone. You can not use it on another network apperntly there were changes to the core AT&T network system and this thing doesnt even go through the MAG.
Doesn't falsely indicating that games only run on their new OS violate the terms of their agreement with the DOJ? I hope so.. but Microsoft DOES now make regulare campaign contrubutions..
I'm calling BS on that one. If the government needs money it just prints it (actually they get a loan from the FED), there is no national tresuary or anything like that.
"Oh look at us we are SOOO broke protecting freedom that we need 800 million dollars so we can have power."{
Sorry guys.. you have far more of my money that I would ever willfully give you. Deal with it.
Err, no. At least in the US, they would at worst throw you in jail. They certainly don't have the right to kill you for smoking marijuana. ..but what if I don't want to go to jail? Then what will happen? Can I reason with them?
That's because you haven't thought it through. It's not just a matter of the police not driving by. Imagine a scenario where the US government has ceased to function (say, due to a biological attack that killed 95% of the government officials, or something). Now you (and your neighbors) all know that not only will the police not be driving down your block today or tomorrow or next week, but possibly there won't be a police department ever again. And furthermore, your neighbors know that you have some good stuff that they would really like to have for themselves (perhaps a big screen TV, or some canned food), and that they can come and take it from you with absolutely no consequences, because the police force no longer exists. How many days do you think it would be before someone comes to your door and demands that you give them what they want, or they will just beat you up and take it? Not too many, I'd bet. I'm hopeful government will die off someday.. Why don't you go and steal some gangsters drugs right now? They wont call the cops, will they? You don't because there are consequences to your actions. People that would come to take my stuff may find out that I will protect it.. if its stolen I will go get it back.. I think few people will be willing to get shot over a TV. Perhaps me and my neighbors can chip in and hire a private security company to keep watch while we are at work, if they start beating up black people like cops do today, we can fire them.
I think you must be very young or naive, because you only think about the drawbacks of government and never about the benefits (which you take for granted because you've never had to worry about losing them). Suffice it to say, the government is what keeps you from being the bitch of the biggest strongest meanest guy on your block. I'm old enough to be president, and older than Jesus when he died on the cross. Is that good enough for you?
I would like you to tell me one benefit to government. Tell me one thing that they do better and cheaper than a private company could.
:: rolls eyes:: your wrong "Fascism" is not corporation control of government. In a Fascist's government your property and rights are second to that of the governments. Go back to school.
Hea, I'd like to know.. Where did you get the authority to tell me I have to follow this system? This majority doesn't rule and even if they did they would be a brutal dictator.
So whats the difference? so long as I continue to follow their laws our of fear I'm ok. But if I !*DARE*! smoke a marijuana cigarette they they have the right to kill me..? between you and me I'd take my changes without this violent gangs so called "protection"
I have a hard time believing that my neighbor would be laying an ambush for me, *IF ONLY* that police car didn't drive by every 12 hours. I'm so sure you would have conversations at the bowling ally like "Ya know Bob, I would rob you f'in blind and kill all your kids an shit, if it just wasn't for that pesky security guard you hired." What a joke, your neighbors are not out out kill you, and government does not protect you from them.
They don't keep us safe.. they enforce our oppression, we protect ourselves.. they clean up the mess.
Thats not what you said.. you said "where the people themselves are in charge via their votes." That *is* Democracy and that is not what we have. If you believe you are in charge, go break a law then explain to the cops that your in charge, see how far that gets you. Try to go against his government and we will see who is "in charge" of who.
In the system we have now, everyone agrees on a single system of taxation and (in theory, at least) has the ability to lobby to change it if they feel it's not fair. In an anarchy, there is no agreement as to who has the authority to wield power, and thus there are constant battles between factions. If you want to see what anarchy is like, take a trip to Baghdad (either right now, or better yet, in the months after the US soldiers finally pull out and leave everyone to their own devices). See if you can tell the difference between that and "what we have now", and whether you think anarchy is an improvement, or not. That's bullshit.. I agreed to no such thing. I don't know anyone that signed an agreement to be taxed or agreed to be governed by the feds. I vote every year and so far I have voted against every single law and power that I can find, yet they still seem to pass a majority of them. I have never voted for a candidate that has won any major office. I see this system as a mockery and fail to see the point in voting.. but I do it anyhow. When you are in the minority you have no voice at all.
Let me see if we can go over this again to see how our current system compares to this "anarchy" thing you describe..
Anarchy is a system that you do not agree to. (I didn't agree to it, check.) Anarchy is a system where people with guns have the power. (I don't have as many guns as the Feds. check) Anarchy is a system where my money is stolen against my will. (yes, the IRS people do that. check) Anarchy is a system you can not change because you don't have the power. (I have no power to change it. check)
By your measure we must have "anarchy" in the US. Why go to Baghdad? The gangs that run things here are so brutal that you could never stand a chance against them.. that is why I follow their rules.. I mean "laws".
I frankly can't see much of a difference.. If I agree with this "majority" then.. I ALREADY AGREE.. there is no argument, I would have done so without them! But if I *dare* to tell the "majority" no.. Then they will fine me, if I don't pay the fine, then I will go to jail and if I don't want to go to jail.. and fight the men that try to take me there.. they will fucking kill me.
I've always been partial to that whole 'representative democracy' thing, where the people themselves are in charge via their votes. Of course, that would require an informed electorate, and some sort of public financing system, so that every election doesn't degenerate into a game of "whoever can raise the most money and buy the most TV time, wins" So you want to become a Democracy in the US? because we do not have one now and if we did we could vote on whatever we wanted to any time we wanted to, we could vote to end the war today and then tomorrow we could vote on what color to paint the white house. The US is a Representative Republic currently. The fact that everyone just calls it a Democracy does not make it so.
Democracy is a terrible system of force and oppression.. When you take a vote on something you will end up with winners you get freedom and losers who get tyranny. Those who find themselves in the minority have no escape from the force a majority may use upon them. (You have heard the old saying that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner before right?) Democracy also will end up terribly broke as people decide.. "I like pony's so the government should pay to give kids pony's."..and they vote themselves the treasury. Democracy is a system where everybody looses. What I want is a system where everybody wins, a system of liberty.
Nah, you're thinking of anarchy. Anarchy isn't freedom, because in an anarchy, the only people who are "free" to live their lives the way they want are those that can afford to buy the necessary machine guns, platoons of bodyguards, etc, to protect themselves. For the average person, having a stable, government (one with a monopoly on violence and the wisdom not to abus that monopoly) gives them much more freedom than they would have without one. Let me get this straight.. your saying that anarchy is not freedom because men with guns will come and use force on you to make you pay what they call "taxes"? How is this any different than the system we have now? Using force on others is wrong. It is the root of all the great evils of man.. war, slavery, imprisonment, poverty, theft, rape, and its all been sanctioned by some government claiming that it was "legal" in one form or another.
The Constitution gets it right here.. it says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" Notice how its phrased.. it says any government at all. I agree.. the only reason to create a gang of thugs that we call government is to secure your rights from others that would take them away.. it is the only legitimate reason they exist and EVERY OTHER THING that they do is oppression.
I've only watched the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, so I'm not a Moore expert. But he didn't just give me "his opinion." He didn't just stand there and say "I'm a liberal who hates Bush. I'm smart, so believe me." He gave evidence, linked to sources in the mainstream media, government reports, interviews, and other verifiable sources. You didn't watch closely enough then. He is insinuating and suggesting a great many things that are contrary to fact in this movie.
He will say that "The patriot act was voted on without the representatives even reading the bill." The first part is true, but then he will ask a misleading question. "Was that because Rove bought them all off, with millions in haircut cupons?" The second part is the lie.. well its not really a "lie" as it is a question but it is suggesting something that is not true. He does this over and over again in his movies.
I hate bush, I think hes a scumbag, but I don't like Michael Moore much more.
Slashdot Mirror
This to me looks like the federal government trying to force the other states to adopt the same pollution laws that California has.
The story faults the car makers for "not wanting" to sell a cleaner version of the same car. I call bullshit on that. It's a fishy as "partly zero" If they make it, and people want to pay for it, then why wouldn't they sell that version to anyone in any state? It's like making a automatic and a limited manual version. The law is the reason they wont sell it, and its government acting in its usual strong arm fashion.
If they allow these cars in 3 states, are they not denying them and thus encouraging pollution in 47 states? God dammit, I wish the fed would get the hell out of the way and let people buy what they want.
Please stop trying to buy the internet. I don't want you to control my access or anyone elses because then you will be able to control *what* I have access to.
Government and the internet are like Pirates and Ninja.. they don't mix ok.
Ok, yeah.. I'm sold, putting YouTube on my phone.. thats a sweet deal, ahaha who needs a $500 iPhone and worse a $200 at&t phone bill. lol
Yeah, I really like the Linux player, hopefully they port this one properly. Its clean and does the job.. thats all people really want.
Oddly enough MPlayer for Windows does a good job too (I like MPUI front end actually the most)
Hea man.. don't let your emotions get in the way or anything. You hate real and any illogical excuse you have to keep away from it is dammed well good enough for you, right?
::sheash:: With all the money AT&T makes you would think they could set up an answering machine with the time on it.
You are too clever.
Maybe I will buy one yet. This goes to show all those lies about "special modifications" to the AT&T network were total bullshit.
Sure.. It's just like when you are being robed at gunpoint.. you *choose* to give them your money instead of getting shot.. so its ok right? They are not even forcing him to go to jail.. he has the choice to fight the cops when they come to take him, and in that case the cops will kill him. It's all his *choice* ya see.
--
Lesson: Coercive force *is* force.
Too true.
They already have a replaement however.
The only reason they would come out and say, "Ohh you all were right and we are going to end this project." Is because they must have something better. Otherwise they would defend it, and tell us we needed it.. also why wait 2 months? Because the new system must be in testing..
May I ask who is being held accountable for implementing this citizen tracking system? Wait, let me guess.. nobody as usual, right?
This is a really good sign, I hope they are successful even if they don't control the backbone, because if they are then it will show the other telco's that this is something people want.
We don't need or want government regulation of the internet EVER. Remember the Prius? It was created by popular demand and had nothing to do with any government law. The people wanted it and someone went out and created it.
So long as we can keep AT&T from buying the entire world, we will be able to prevent a need for net neutrality as their competition will always try to get a leg up on them.
Err.. maybe the Rudy McRomney campaign..
Not living in the United States you probably don't understand the difference between the state and federal governments. The US is not a "Democracy" as the word defines it, it falls under that term loosely because we do vote, but our vote is by in large meaningless at a federal level. It is a Federated Republic ...by concept at least.. (although some may call it a Corporatist Empire now)
Ideally the government should be 50 independent governments loosely organized together. This is what the US was for the first 100 to about 150 years. It works good because people have a lot of control at the local level.. you can actually go and meet your representation in most states. But now feds want to make us one massive government irregardless of states.. again this makes our representation very limited and weak.
Yes, AT&T was a very bad call for Apple to make.
The sims are not changable in the iphone. You can not use it on another network apperntly there were changes to the core AT&T network system and this thing doesnt even go through the MAG.
AT&T has a 5 year contract.
There domestic spy program is so large now they cant even power it.
I'm calling BS on that one. If the government needs money it just prints it (actually they get a loan from the FED), there is no national tresuary or anything like that.
"Oh look at us we are SOOO broke protecting freedom that we need 800 million dollars so we can have power."{
Sorry guys.. you have far more of my money that I would ever willfully give you. Deal with it.
I would like you to tell me one benefit to government. Tell me one thing that they do better and cheaper than a private company could.
:: rolls eyes :: your wrong "Fascism" is not corporation control of government. In a Fascist's government your property and rights are second to that of the governments. Go back to school.
Hea, I'd like to know.. Where did you get the authority to tell me I have to follow this system? This majority doesn't rule and even if they did they would be a brutal dictator.
So whats the difference? so long as I continue to follow their laws our of fear I'm ok. But if I !*DARE*! smoke a marijuana cigarette they they have the right to kill me..? between you and me I'd take my changes without this violent gangs so called "protection"
I have a hard time believing that my neighbor would be laying an ambush for me, *IF ONLY* that police car didn't drive by every 12 hours. I'm so sure you would have conversations at the bowling ally like "Ya know Bob, I would rob you f'in blind and kill all your kids an shit, if it just wasn't for that pesky security guard you hired." What a joke, your neighbors are not out out kill you, and government does not protect you from them.
They don't keep us safe.. they enforce our oppression, we protect ourselves.. they clean up the mess.
Let me see if we can go over this again to see how our current system compares to this "anarchy" thing you describe..
Anarchy is a system that you do not agree to. (I didn't agree to it, check.)
Anarchy is a system where people with guns have the power. (I don't have as many guns as the Feds. check)
Anarchy is a system where my money is stolen against my will. (yes, the IRS people do that. check)
Anarchy is a system you can not change because you don't have the power. (I have no power to change it. check)
By your measure we must have "anarchy" in the US. Why go to Baghdad? The gangs that run things here are so brutal that you could never stand a chance against them.. that is why I follow their rules.. I mean "laws".
I frankly can't see much of a difference.. If I agree with this "majority" then.. I ALREADY AGREE.. there is no argument, I would have done so without them! But if I *dare* to tell the "majority" no.. Then they will fine me, if I don't pay the fine, then I will go to jail and if I don't want to go to jail.. and fight the men that try to take me there.. they will fucking kill me.
Democracy is a terrible system of force and oppression.. When you take a vote on something you will end up with winners you get freedom and losers who get tyranny. Those who find themselves in the minority have no escape from the force a majority may use upon them. (You have heard the old saying that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner before right?) Democracy also will end up terribly broke as people decide.. "I like pony's so the government should pay to give kids pony's."
The Constitution gets it right here.. it says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" Notice how its phrased.. it says any government at all. I agree.. the only reason to create a gang of thugs that we call government is to secure your rights from others that would take them away.. it is the only legitimate reason they exist and EVERY OTHER THING that they do is oppression.
He will say that "The patriot act was voted on without the representatives even reading the bill." The first part is true, but then he will ask a misleading question. "Was that because Rove bought them all off, with millions in haircut cupons?" The second part is the lie.. well its not really a "lie" as it is a question but it is suggesting something that is not true. He does this over and over again in his movies.
I hate bush, I think hes a scumbag, but I don't like Michael Moore much more.