The fact you think I'm a Marxist is pretty hilarious considering that it requires you to jump about 75% of the length of the political chart to get there from me.
Your post also made no sense. I made three statements.
1) The movement wants the 1% to share with the 99% 2) The movement does not specify how the 1% should share with the 99% 3) Once inequality goes beyond a certain point you get a revolution.
While 1) requires wealth redistribution, and thus some amount of socialism 2) means that its unspecified to which degree. It doesn't even imply that the underlying economic system needs to change. We already have wealth redistribution as is. 3) is a well established truth.
They aren't hypocrites though, that's not what hypocrite means.
Being a hypocrite is a contradiction between what you say and what you do.
I'll show an example. If I like riding carousels, however I think they should be built from wood rather then steel. I'm not a hypocrite if I enjoy a ride in a steel carousel because I never said that I wouldn't.
My opposition was against building them in the first place, thus if I -built- a steel carousel, then I'd be a hypocrite.
The argument is built on the misguided notion that because you're against one aspect of something, you're against all aspects.
Another example, if I protest politicians pensions, it does not make me a hypocrite if I use government services. Because I'm protesting -one aspect- of the government, not its entirety.
These protesters are not protesting that the companies make hats/t-shirts/backpacks/pants/iPhones/food. They're protesting abuse and exploitation. They'd be perfectly happy if they'd continue making the products and stop the abuse.
Is the argument then supposed to be that the abuse is intrinsically linked to the products? I have a hard time imagining you'll be able to pull that argument off.
What are you on about? Bitcoin does exactly nothing when it comes to banking finance.
The most fundamental aspect of Banks is the guarantee that any money you give them, is money you're going to get back, even if the bank goes bankrupt, you'll still get your money(up to a certain amount). The reason this guarantee can be made is because the government takes it upon itself to make it so in order to create that verified trust. And this is also the reason that we can't allow the banks to fail, because if a bank fails, the government has to take the entire hit either way.
Bitcoin doesn't even pretend to do anything about that trust issue.
Since they're a movement and not an organisation, no they do not have any specific demands.
The core of the movement is the idea that the 1% should be forced to share their wealth with the other 99%, which will have to happen sooner or later, or we'll get another French revolution.
The specifics of -how- the 1% should be forced to share, and how their wealth should be distributed is not an area where there is any notable unity yet.
Isn't the point that they want the government to grow some balls and bring down actual justice to the economy sector? If we punished people in proportion to the damage they caused half of wall-street would have life sentences by now and the other half would probably think twice before they do stupid shit to get 0.5% more profit.
If they store it, and it counts as personal information, they're required to hand it over. The European data laws have no exception for "too complicated'.
As far as I know that's actually how it is. You generally don't mess with companies who you rely on for cross-patenting deals because the counter-suit could destroy you.
The standards body does not in fact (according to other posts) check the terms of the licensing agreements.
It's not discriminatory if you have a clause that says "If you sue us for any reason, we get to sue you with these patents". Though I don't know what their actual agreement if any is (Some posters have claimed that Apple in fact never licenced 3G at all, people just haven't pushed the issue yet) , we'll probably see the details once it goes up in court.
Well, the thing is that normally you get to license those patents on FRAND terms, but Samsung will argue that suing the patent holder with bullshit design patents invalidates the right to FRAND licensing.
This is why they only do it against Apple, and not say Nokia.
Well, since Samsung sits on some of the patents that you -have- to infringe to provide 3G, they know you infringe if you provide 3G without paying them.
Apple will probably try to argue that they should be let off for that reason, we'll see how that works out for them.
The chances of the Earth being consumed by a supernova is higher then the chances of the European Peoples to support a Federal Government in the next few decades. Have you somehow missed that the entire region is struggling to contain its nationalistic elements already?
The law requires you to verify your identity (Imagine if they allowed random people to request your personal information!). Facebook are however legally required to delete the information after they've processed the request.
If you watched that video you'd see it was completely unprovoked. If I knew any of those women I'd probably arrange to have him kidnapped and pepper-sprayed repeatedly for about an hour since his identity is known.
You can survive 10g momentarily, what kills you is that it's 10g for an -entire minute- which above poster points out is long enough for your brain to die from oxygen deprivation.
No powerplant is forced to insure the real cost. Imagine what it would cost to run a coal power plant if they were forced to pay for all the damages and death caused by the pollution.
It would be considered criminal in any society that expects people not to fuck with peoples funerals and memorials. Which is almost every society I know off.
What is the difference exactly between giving you $100 and lowering your tax by $100? Of course they're the same and that's why the governments favourite way to partially subsidize projects is tax breaks.
Even the politicians are honest about it, when they lower the tax on say food or books they actually say they're subsidising food or books.
"There are a bunch of "fragility" issues with some of U.S. military equipment - the whole clusterfuck that is M16/M4 comes to mind - but reliability of equipment is not a sole factor winning the war. U.S. has logistical capabilities superior to pretty much everyone else out there, so things breaking down in the field is less of an issue; and, of course, in any case training is far more important, and U.S. military is also very advanced in that department. Another aspect is that even if some equipment is fragile, well, so what, so long as there are loads of it to use, way more than the enemy can afford? There's a reason why U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined."
The only reasons I can think off are 1) They want to fight the entire world at once 2) They have a fetich for burning money on things they don't need
Slashdot Mirror
The fact you think I'm a Marxist is pretty hilarious considering that it requires you to jump about 75% of the length of the political chart to get there from me.
Your post also made no sense. I made three statements.
1) The movement wants the 1% to share with the 99%
2) The movement does not specify how the 1% should share with the 99%
3) Once inequality goes beyond a certain point you get a revolution.
While 1) requires wealth redistribution, and thus some amount of socialism 2) means that its unspecified to which degree. It doesn't even imply that the underlying economic system needs to change. We already have wealth redistribution as is.
3) is a well established truth.
They aren't hypocrites though, that's not what hypocrite means.
Being a hypocrite is a contradiction between what you say and what you do.
I'll show an example. If I like riding carousels, however I think they should be built from wood rather then steel. I'm not a hypocrite if I enjoy a ride in a steel carousel because I never said that I wouldn't.
My opposition was against building them in the first place, thus if I -built- a steel carousel, then I'd be a hypocrite.
The argument is built on the misguided notion that because you're against one aspect of something, you're against all aspects.
Another example, if I protest politicians pensions, it does not make me a hypocrite if I use government services. Because I'm protesting -one aspect- of the government, not its entirety.
These protesters are not protesting that the companies make hats/t-shirts/backpacks/pants/iPhones/food. They're protesting abuse and exploitation. They'd be perfectly happy if they'd continue making the products and stop the abuse.
Is the argument then supposed to be that the abuse is intrinsically linked to the products? I have a hard time imagining you'll be able to pull that argument off.
What does using an iPhone have to do with protesting inappropriate wages/bonuses/other exploitations?
They're protesting abuse, not the production of consumer goods o.O
Social Democracy works just great however. Pretending that there isn't a middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism is stupid.
What are you on about? Bitcoin does exactly nothing when it comes to banking finance.
The most fundamental aspect of Banks is the guarantee that any money you give them, is money you're going to get back, even if the bank goes bankrupt, you'll still get your money(up to a certain amount). The reason this guarantee can be made is because the government takes it upon itself to make it so in order to create that verified trust. And this is also the reason that we can't allow the banks to fail, because if a bank fails, the government has to take the entire hit either way.
Bitcoin doesn't even pretend to do anything about that trust issue.
Since they're a movement and not an organisation, no they do not have any specific demands.
The core of the movement is the idea that the 1% should be forced to share their wealth with the other 99%, which will have to happen sooner or later, or we'll get another French revolution.
The specifics of -how- the 1% should be forced to share, and how their wealth should be distributed is not an area where there is any notable unity yet.
Isn't the point that they want the government to grow some balls and bring down actual justice to the economy sector? If we punished people in proportion to the damage they caused half of wall-street would have life sentences by now and the other half would probably think twice before they do stupid shit to get 0.5% more profit.
If they store it, and it counts as personal information, they're required to hand it over. The European data laws have no exception for "too complicated'.
Well, the bank is liable if the chip was cloned. However those cases are rare and the bank will be less then willing to admit that could be the case.
Well, while you -can- skip using the chip, the -entire- liability for the transaction is then on the merchant.
As far as I know that's actually how it is. You generally don't mess with companies who you rely on for cross-patenting deals because the counter-suit could destroy you.
The standards body does not in fact (according to other posts) check the terms of the licensing agreements.
It's not discriminatory if you have a clause that says "If you sue us for any reason, we get to sue you with these patents". Though I don't know what their actual agreement if any is (Some posters have claimed that Apple in fact never licenced 3G at all, people just haven't pushed the issue yet) , we'll probably see the details once it goes up in court.
It's the slashdotters enjoying Schadenfreude (Joy from seeing damage) from watching the companies destroy eachother with patents.
Well, the thing is that normally you get to license those patents on FRAND terms, but Samsung will argue that suing the patent holder with bullshit design patents invalidates the right to FRAND licensing.
This is why they only do it against Apple, and not say Nokia.
Well, since Samsung sits on some of the patents that you -have- to infringe to provide 3G, they know you infringe if you provide 3G without paying them.
Apple will probably try to argue that they should be let off for that reason, we'll see how that works out for them.
The chances of the Earth being consumed by a supernova is higher then the chances of the European Peoples to support a Federal Government in the next few decades. Have you somehow missed that the entire region is struggling to contain its nationalistic elements already?
Well, the point is that the law requires them to send you a physical copy.
The law requires you to verify your identity (Imagine if they allowed random people to request your personal information!). Facebook are however legally required to delete the information after they've processed the request.
If you watched that video you'd see it was completely unprovoked. If I knew any of those women I'd probably arrange to have him kidnapped and pepper-sprayed repeatedly for about an hour since his identity is known.
You can survive 10g momentarily, what kills you is that it's 10g for an -entire minute- which above poster points out is long enough for your brain to die from oxygen deprivation.
No powerplant is forced to insure the real cost. Imagine what it would cost to run a coal power plant if they were forced to pay for all the damages and death caused by the pollution.
It would be considered criminal in any society that expects people not to fuck with peoples funerals and memorials. Which is almost every society I know off.
What is the difference exactly between giving you $100 and lowering your tax by $100? Of course they're the same and that's why the governments favourite way to partially subsidize projects is tax breaks.
Even the politicians are honest about it, when they lower the tax on say food or books they actually say they're subsidising food or books.
Basically option 2:
Burning money on things they don't need.
It's fairly well established they could achieve their current strategic goals with just a fraction* of their current budget.
*Why do we use that expression? It's used to imply less then half, but the actual words mean any number below the current number.
"There are a bunch of "fragility" issues with some of U.S. military equipment - the whole clusterfuck that is M16/M4 comes to mind - but reliability of equipment is not a sole factor winning the war. U.S. has logistical capabilities superior to pretty much everyone else out there, so things breaking down in the field is less of an issue; and, of course, in any case training is far more important, and U.S. military is also very advanced in that department. Another aspect is that even if some equipment is fragile, well, so what, so long as there are loads of it to use, way more than the enemy can afford? There's a reason why U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined."
The only reasons I can think off are
1) They want to fight the entire world at once
2) They have a fetich for burning money on things they don't need