Wars are when you declare an enemy then go out and kill the enemy. If the enemy is being protected by someone else then they are declared and enemy and destroyed.
Diplomacy should be used as much as possible before a war is begun. Once the first battle has begun all diplomacy should cease until there is a decisive victory.
Infrastructure would be a Government job you are correct. But that is what needs to happen. Because I have NEVER seen a government do anything other than war well. There are other things that we need them to do but they do it like shit. Nothing but cost over runs, shoddy work, what it is designed for never comes to pass and / or the unintended consequences are more horrible than the original problem.
Or maybe the put this out so that the masses say "Um yeah. I remember now he is right." and go on using Google and at the same time they may actually be looking how to improve the results.
The sig would be more accurate if it said...
If Google can scan unprotected WiFi networks, then I can listen to you scream at the top of your lungs to your neighbors.
No. The government should be ensuring that there is real competition and truth. That is all. If provider A wants to not let me go to certain sites and charge $45/mnth for 1TB of bandwidth and provider B offers me $20/mnth for ad filled DNS rerouted unlimited bandwidth and provider C want to charge $90 / Mnth for Unlimited bandwidth and a dumb pipe and the speeds for each are the same. That is good.
I can make my own fucking choices and so can you. All of those things should be allowed. As long as there is real competition and truth it is good.
Why the automatic assumption that anybody that doesn't live an isolated staid existence is inherently and immediately making bad choices?
I don't. I only think you make bad choices if I can see you make bad choices.If I can see you make bad choices I get to judge you on those choices. The excuse that well I did not put them online my friend did holds no water with me. Bad friends are a choice as well. After that is pointed out I get "Well a friend of a coworkers cousins buddy put them online" line. Make sure that you take no responsibility for anything in your life.
Can I judge you for the positions you take in this conversation? Can I take from the lengths you are willing to go to to show how you can not possibly be faulted for the outcome that you have some practice doing that in your professional life as well? I did.
I agree that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and all the fuckers out there like them are asshats. I also agree that "my" ISP should be a plain old pipe to the content "I" want.
It dose not follow that I want the government to decide who can do what. I was kind of hoping that the Government would get the fuck out and allow real competition so that I can buy a pipe and grandma can have her Apple branded AOL service.
I guess I just want freedom of choice. Where the governments job is not to make the choices for me but just to make sure that i have real choices.
Let me make my point clearer for the simple people.
Like I made "Not clear enough for you" in my previous post. I would not judge him because I knew that he was drinking irresponsibly, or smoking a joint. I would judge him on the stupidity of his choices to post these behaviors to the internet with no thought whatsoever.
Like those who permanently mark themselves in areas hard to hide with temporary thoughts and beliefs. I do not think that tattoos or drinking are reasons to judge the young.
Though if you put a tattoo on your forehead that said "Party till you Puke!" or posted pics of you being drunk and mooning nuns on Facebook I would and will believe you to be a person who can not think beyond what you want at the moment. And. I will be right.
Why do we need to chip away at this problem. As an employer I would not judge a person as unreliable because they posted pics of them doing beer bongs at 22. I would though judge them to be not the brightest of applicants. It is good to know.
If you are going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere you must balance that by killing off lots of plant life. Otherwise we would not have enough CO2. Then the world would freeze over and we would all be DOOMED! We must kill trees at an even faster rate now.
Hmm. I did not realize that the UK had extra money. What a cool thing to do for people if you suddenly find yourself with a huge pile of extra cash that is not needed for the necessities of a Government.
What makes it treason? Giving away important technology? Where do you draw the line? Was it treason when garment manufacturers moved manufacturing operations offshore? Is it treason to buy food produced in other countries? Is it treason to have software developed in India? Exactly what international trade is treason, and what isn't? How do you determine that? Some people seem to think buying a Japanese car is "treason", but buying an American car (made in Hermosillo, Mexico) isn't, even if the Japanese car is made in Mississippi. Do we need to seal the borders and stop all trade in order to not be treasonous?
Treasonous trade I would think is fairly simple. Not perfectly simple but still. Trading with an Enemy State that gives them technology that they can turn around and use to drop bombs on the US could be construed as treasonous without stretching much at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No. You are right it is not limited to one culture or religion. But it can come in some very high or low concentrations.
While it looked good and did in fact make it to the moon. A private corporation would have psent less. Got there faster and done something with it.
Wars are when you declare an enemy then go out and kill the enemy. If the enemy is being protected by someone else then they are declared and enemy and destroyed.
Diplomacy should be used as much as possible before a war is begun. Once the first battle has begun all diplomacy should cease until there is a decisive victory.
Infrastructure would be a Government job you are correct. But that is what needs to happen. Because I have NEVER seen a government do anything other than war well. There are other things that we need them to do but they do it like shit. Nothing but cost over runs, shoddy work, what it is designed for never comes to pass and / or the unintended consequences are more horrible than the original problem.
Or maybe the put this out so that the masses say "Um yeah. I remember now he is right." and go on using Google and at the same time they may actually be looking how to improve the results.
The sig would be more accurate if it said...
If Google can scan unprotected WiFi networks, then I can listen to you scream at the top of your lungs to your neighbors.
If you are embarrassed by your choice to wear "fancy dress". Then yes. You are an idiot. Good luck with your life.
I can make my own fucking choices and so can you. All of those things should be allowed. As long as there is real competition and truth it is good.
Why the automatic assumption that anybody that doesn't live an isolated staid existence is inherently and immediately making bad choices?
I don't. I only think you make bad choices if I can see you make bad choices.If I can see you make bad choices I get to judge you on those choices. The excuse that well I did not put them online my friend did holds no water with me. Bad friends are a choice as well. After that is pointed out I get "Well a friend of a coworkers cousins buddy put them online" line. Make sure that you take no responsibility for anything in your life.
Can I judge you for the positions you take in this conversation? Can I take from the lengths you are willing to go to to show how you can not possibly be faulted for the outcome that you have some practice doing that in your professional life as well? I did.
Right. No difference there that I can see.
It dose not follow that I want the government to decide who can do what. I was kind of hoping that the Government would get the fuck out and allow real competition so that I can buy a pipe and grandma can have her Apple branded AOL service.
I guess I just want freedom of choice. Where the governments job is not to make the choices for me but just to make sure that i have real choices.
You choose to call these people your friends? I am the idiot?
Interesting thought processes you have going on there.
Then wait. After all using a search tool and refining searches are skills that go WAY beyond the abilities of the average Apple product luser.
You realize that judging a person by the company that they keep is valid?
That is so old fashioned of me. Thank God there was an AC here to set me straight.
Like I made "Not clear enough for you" in my previous post. I would not judge him because I knew that he was drinking irresponsibly, or smoking a joint. I would judge him on the stupidity of his choices to post these behaviors to the internet with no thought whatsoever.
Like those who permanently mark themselves in areas hard to hide with temporary thoughts and beliefs. I do not think that tattoos or drinking are reasons to judge the young.
Though if you put a tattoo on your forehead that said "Party till you Puke!" or posted pics of you being drunk and mooning nuns on Facebook I would and will believe you to be a person who can not think beyond what you want at the moment. And. I will be right.
1. Those are not your friends.
2. You make bad decisions. (This is based on your choice of "Friends" not the image itself.)
Why do we need to chip away at this problem. As an employer I would not judge a person as unreliable because they posted pics of them doing beer bongs at 22. I would though judge them to be not the brightest of applicants. It is good to know.
I kind of like having a quick and easy way to identify the terminally stupid.
If you are going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere you must balance that by killing off lots of plant life. Otherwise we would not have enough CO2. Then the world would freeze over and we would all be DOOMED! We must kill trees at an even faster rate now.
I guess I forgot the sarc tag.
Sorry.
Hmm. I did not realize that the UK had extra money. What a cool thing to do for people if you suddenly find yourself with a huge pile of extra cash that is not needed for the necessities of a Government.
Then Iran can have Nuclear Weapons. The only thing I ask is that they can only be aimed at you.
What makes it treason? Giving away important technology? Where do you draw the line? Was it treason when garment manufacturers moved manufacturing operations offshore? Is it treason to buy food produced in other countries? Is it treason to have software developed in India? Exactly what international trade is treason, and what isn't? How do you determine that? Some people seem to think buying a Japanese car is "treason", but buying an American car (made in Hermosillo, Mexico) isn't, even if the Japanese car is made in Mississippi. Do we need to seal the borders and stop all trade in order to not be treasonous?
Treasonous trade I would think is fairly simple. Not perfectly simple but still. Trading with an Enemy State that gives them technology that they can turn around and use to drop bombs on the US could be construed as treasonous without stretching much at all.
You should definitely work on reading comprehension though. Also context may help you. Did you read the whole post or just the bit you quoted?