If you care, you could buy your phone and not lease it. Then make sure you buy one that allows you to "own" it. You can change the ROM anytime you want. Apply patches and customize however you want. Google allows this.
Or you can get a shiny S7 Edge or a iPhone 7 and bitch about "The Man" keeping you down.
At what point did we come to the conclusion that all the voters thought that there would be no consequences to an action. There always is. Only hard core, head up ass people think that an action only has the surface effects and nothing outside of it will ever be changed.
You get a shit ton of points though for pointing out what everyone knows and that has nothing to do with the question I asked.
I was simply pointing out that the opposition to Brexit picks one evil reason why people may vote for it and tags all the voters with this shit. It is wrong, it is misleading and quite simply it is a shady tool pulled out and used by pathetic shits stomping out of the playroom when they lose.
Open borders are fucking stupid at best. Immigration, controlled immigration is awesome. Open borders is a fucking nightmare that only thoughtless SJWs can think is an even remotely good idea.
Is it even possible that some voted to leave because they thought that their country should be run by its own government and not by the EU?
Every single one of those people are just "morons"? There is no reason at all to want your country run by your laws and nothing else?
Not saying that this is in fact the way the law would work, but....
The Lawyers may actually be worried about macros and such, which they might believe would be covered under the license and require that those be put back out into the community as well. Not sure if this is an actual fact, but I could see lawyers worrying about this kind of thing and if something similar is available at the same cost that completely does away with any confusion for me on that topic, I might be a bad enough lawyer to do the same thing.
No. Not "The proponents of free markets"
Big businesses that use government to protect their positions are not proponents of a free market. They may say it, but what they do is anti free market.
Many people who want a job, or run small businesses want to see more of a truer version of a free market. Do not paint the partners of big government regulations with the same brush as real people that encourage free market capitalism.
The first thing that should be done should be on the local levels.
MAKE LOCAL FRANCHISES ILLEGAL!
Cities making it impossible for competition to come in is and always has been a bad idea.
The government WANTS control.
They never really had any before. They started it and left it.
The internet grew on its own. Now the governments want to regulate it. There is not much of it at the moment. But government covets power and there is a lot of it to be had by regulating the internet.
Want better, less restricted, less spyed upon internet?
Give the government more control.
This will give us all we want.
No, it will not. Government guaranteed net neutrality is a farce. It is only there to give the government more control over this wonderful thing. This thing that grew up and out mostly because of the lack of interference from government.
This will be regretted.
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
So. If Hillary gave away control of 20% of US Uranium deposits to Russia whos leader has stated multiple times he wants to bring back the USSR (An Enemy of the US) in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton foundation, I would say that it meets the definition of "betraying ones country". Not that anything will ever come of it.
Well then. In order to not treat you like a child...
Don't worry, nothing is your fault. All your life problems are beyond any hope of you fixing or having any control over. You are noting but a blameless victim
If removing tax penalties for getting married and making the drug laws sane and effective is "Nanny State", I do not think you understand "Nanny State".
Not sure why you think I feel a deep seated need to fall in with the Republican party?
Do you think that every person that values family and responsibility is a Republican? Do you think that all Republicans hold these ideals to be truth?
Would be nice, That though is simply not true. The Republican party is closer to the Democratic party than you would like to think.
Fuck the masses over to save the one.
I get it. I do. It sucks to think that life might be hard for some people. You want to help.
You can not do it, "At any cost" though.
If 50 mothers and their children have tougher lives, but we reduce killings in Chicago by 85% and poverty by 70%....
Evil, I know. Look at it another way. In order to make life easier for 50 single mothers you must kill 1500 poor people and increase overall poverty by 50%.
Even more evil.
I have no such fantasy.
I guess if I wanted to I could gain the skills and lose some benefits and live off the grid.
I do not want to though and most people have no such want.
But the TSA does not make you safe. More police on the streets, does not make us safe.
The Patriot act does not make us safe. Safety is an illusion that we are selling our freedoms for.
Minimum wage laws have created no jobs. When people are not taking shitty jobs because the benefits that come from not having a job are better, it causes real issues.
I tell my children this all the time. "When something is wrong in your life. Finding someone other than yourself to be "At Fault" will never benefit you. Always strive to find what you can do differently. This is where you gain power."
It is just truth. If you ever truly can find nothing you can do in your life differently to get better results, you win. You are a powerless victim. No fualt can be assigned to you. Nothing you could ever do to change things.
Feel better?
Sure. None of the text in my post blamed the poor people. You would have to show where it did.
That assumes the worst crimes are in the poor, which is not a given.
Does not really make sense, but I will assume that you are stating that the "Worst " crimes are committed by the rich.
Ok. Sure. Let us just give that to you, because... Still most of the crime that is destroying lives in poor areas would be solved by reducing poverty.
Ok, prove it, also provide your method of reduction.
There have been many studies done that show that the single biggest predictor of poverty is growing up in a single parent home. Why? Do not know. Do not care. Does not even matter. It just is. So. What now? We fix it. We do things that encourage the rebuilding of the family unit and stop doing things that hurt it. We stop tax punishing people for getting married. Make it easier to raise children in a full family and harder to do it the other way. Single parent households will go down. Children will have 2 parents. Crime reduces and poverty goes down?
What makes you hate that so fucking much?
Also.
Unless you are crazy, poor is not normally a "decision" that people living in poverty make. So...
People who don't live as you want, it's their fault for being poor.
is just an insane thing to say. I am not hating poor people for deciding to live differently than me. Fuck. I am broke half the fucking time.
What are these policies you allege, and do they really cause such rates, or is it something else that you haven't proven?
Hmm. Well. First lets start with simple things. Like using tax code to punish those who get married.
Then we can reduce payments to people having multiple children they can not pay for themselves. (More controversial)
Edit drug laws to put fewer people in prison and to put the ones we do put in prison in there for a fuck ton of time.
I am sure there are many things that can be done to encourage and foster full families raising their children.
Will it solve all the problems in the world? No.
Tell me though. What exactly do you see as the downside to rebuilding the family unit?
Slashdot Mirror
If you care, you could buy your phone and not lease it. Then make sure you buy one that allows you to "own" it. You can change the ROM anytime you want. Apply patches and customize however you want. Google allows this. Or you can get a shiny S7 Edge or a iPhone 7 and bitch about "The Man" keeping you down.
At what point did we come to the conclusion that all the voters thought that there would be no consequences to an action. There always is. Only hard core, head up ass people think that an action only has the surface effects and nothing outside of it will ever be changed.
You get a shit ton of points though for pointing out what everyone knows and that has nothing to do with the question I asked.
I was simply pointing out that the opposition to Brexit picks one evil reason why people may vote for it and tags all the voters with this shit. It is wrong, it is misleading and quite simply it is a shady tool pulled out and used by pathetic shits stomping out of the playroom when they lose.
Open borders are fucking stupid at best. Immigration, controlled immigration is awesome. Open borders is a fucking nightmare that only thoughtless SJWs can think is an even remotely good idea.
Is it even possible that some voted to leave because they thought that their country should be run by its own government and not by the EU?
Every single one of those people are just "morons"? There is no reason at all to want your country run by your laws and nothing else?
Not saying that this is in fact the way the law would work, but ....
The Lawyers may actually be worried about macros and such, which they might believe would be covered under the license and require that those be put back out into the community as well. Not sure if this is an actual fact, but I could see lawyers worrying about this kind of thing and if something similar is available at the same cost that completely does away with any confusion for me on that topic, I might be a bad enough lawyer to do the same thing.
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art. All credit to Al.
The real problem is that he did not effectively preview before posting?
How is that acceptable default behavior?
Government has never really been known to stop regulating where you want them to. They sort of excel at expanding regulatory power.
No. Not "The proponents of free markets"
Big businesses that use government to protect their positions are not proponents of a free market. They may say it, but what they do is anti free market.
Many people who want a job, or run small businesses want to see more of a truer version of a free market. Do not paint the partners of big government regulations with the same brush as real people that encourage free market capitalism.
The first thing that should be done should be on the local levels.
MAKE LOCAL FRANCHISES ILLEGAL!
Cities making it impossible for competition to come in is and always has been a bad idea.
The government WANTS control.
They never really had any before. They started it and left it.
The internet grew on its own. Now the governments want to regulate it. There is not much of it at the moment. But government covets power and there is a lot of it to be had by regulating the internet.
No.
It started with the government.
It had no interference at all by them. Just some research money thrown at it early on.
No regulations, no overwatch, Nothing. This allowed enormous growth and a massive, almost unheard of rate of innovation.
ISPs have monopolies in areas simply because local governments have given them the monopolies.
Your problem is still government.
Want better, less restricted, less spyed upon internet?
Give the government more control.
This will give us all we want.
No, it will not. Government guaranteed net neutrality is a farce. It is only there to give the government more control over this wonderful thing. This thing that grew up and out mostly because of the lack of interference from government.
This will be regretted.
They are incompetent and incapable.
Still. 30% is nowhere near an "Insignificant" amount.
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
So. If Hillary gave away control of 20% of US Uranium deposits to Russia whos leader has stated multiple times he wants to bring back the USSR (An Enemy of the US) in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton foundation, I would say that it meets the definition of "betraying ones country". Not that anything will ever come of it.
Instead of redesigning everything just require that a camera and mic that live broadcasts to the authorities be installed in every person.
Fixed.
Yup. Let us find a candidate running for president who has most likely committed treason.
Trump is the obvious answer. Right?
Well then. In order to not treat you like a child ...
Don't worry, nothing is your fault. All your life problems are beyond any hope of you fixing or having any control over. You are noting but a blameless victim
Feel better?
Truth.
Yes the Democrats do not think that I have the right to protect myself.
But
The Republicans are not far behind. They think I should not be able to protect myself from them.
If removing tax penalties for getting married and making the drug laws sane and effective is "Nanny State", I do not think you understand "Nanny State".
Not sure why you think I feel a deep seated need to fall in with the Republican party?
Do you think that every person that values family and responsibility is a Republican? Do you think that all Republicans hold these ideals to be truth?
Would be nice, That though is simply not true. The Republican party is closer to the Democratic party than you would like to think.
Fuck the masses over to save the one. ....
I get it. I do. It sucks to think that life might be hard for some people. You want to help.
You can not do it, "At any cost" though.
If 50 mothers and their children have tougher lives, but we reduce killings in Chicago by 85% and poverty by 70%
Evil, I know. Look at it another way. In order to make life easier for 50 single mothers you must kill 1500 poor people and increase overall poverty by 50%.
Even more evil.
I have no such fantasy.
I guess if I wanted to I could gain the skills and lose some benefits and live off the grid.
I do not want to though and most people have no such want.
But the TSA does not make you safe. More police on the streets, does not make us safe.
The Patriot act does not make us safe. Safety is an illusion that we are selling our freedoms for.
Minimum wage laws have created no jobs. When people are not taking shitty jobs because the benefits that come from not having a job are better, it causes real issues.
I tell my children this all the time. "When something is wrong in your life. Finding someone other than yourself to be "At Fault" will never benefit you. Always strive to find what you can do differently. This is where you gain power."
It is just truth. If you ever truly can find nothing you can do in your life differently to get better results, you win. You are a powerless victim. No fualt can be assigned to you. Nothing you could ever do to change things.
Feel better?
Really, can you show it?
Sure. None of the text in my post blamed the poor people. You would have to show where it did.
That assumes the worst crimes are in the poor, which is not a given.
Does not really make sense, but I will assume that you are stating that the "Worst " crimes are committed by the rich. ... Still most of the crime that is destroying lives in poor areas would be solved by reducing poverty.
Ok. Sure. Let us just give that to you, because
Ok, prove it, also provide your method of reduction.
There have been many studies done that show that the single biggest predictor of poverty is growing up in a single parent home. Why? Do not know. Do not care. Does not even matter. It just is. So. What now? We fix it. We do things that encourage the rebuilding of the family unit and stop doing things that hurt it. We stop tax punishing people for getting married. Make it easier to raise children in a full family and harder to do it the other way. Single parent households will go down. Children will have 2 parents. Crime reduces and poverty goes down? ...
What makes you hate that so fucking much?
Also.
Unless you are crazy, poor is not normally a "decision" that people living in poverty make. So
People who don't live as you want, it's their fault for being poor.
is just an insane thing to say. I am not hating poor people for deciding to live differently than me. Fuck. I am broke half the fucking time.
What are these policies you allege, and do they really cause such rates, or is it something else that you haven't proven?
Hmm. Well. First lets start with simple things. Like using tax code to punish those who get married.
Then we can reduce payments to people having multiple children they can not pay for themselves. (More controversial)
Edit drug laws to put fewer people in prison and to put the ones we do put in prison in there for a fuck ton of time.
I am sure there are many things that can be done to encourage and foster full families raising their children.
Will it solve all the problems in the world? No.
Tell me though. What exactly do you see as the downside to rebuilding the family unit?