we've constrained ourselves to Latin America? that's news. i thought we had something to do with forcing Japan to trade with us in the mid 1800s by rolling a fleet into Tokyo Bay or helping the Brits hose Iran in the 1950s.
X11 would defeat any security provided by lower layers. Something newer, better, and stronger is needed. It should be able to leap tall buildings in s aingle bound also.
Did I just read correctly that somewhere a college is allowing a "potential revenue stream" to go untapped? $5 for 25' from a college is startlingly low considering the vendor.
You give him/her too much credit. Lackeys think for themselves and have a shot at becoming the evil genius eventually. This person is either a mook or a goon.
blahblahblah...improve spammers' ROI in elected representatives by giving spammers direct access to unsuspecting people who are already more likely to fall prey to their scams.
In fact, I would guess that there are many fewer fatalities due to accidents with guns than with cars. So why not take away everyone's car? Both guns and cars provide utility. For brevity, I will cut short the reductio ad absurdam.
In any case, your desire to prevent me or anyone else from having a gun infringes on the freedoms of others predicated on a perceived risk, not on a committed crime, and thus you prejudge people before they have in fact comitted a crime which is generally a no-no.
And besides which, your safety concerns (if they were genuinely only safety concerns) would easily be remedied by civilian firearms training programs. These are required by several states, especially for concealed carry permits. If you would still see this as a safety issue even with adequate training (whatever that may be), why don't you feel the same about government employees having those weapons? I grew up in DC and I feel a vague sense of unease when an armed government employee is in close proximity. Perhaps this is because I've been around much more police violence than you have. But surely you remember Rodney King.
Secondly you make an assumption that if everyone were armed then those who would seek to do harm would be interested in the continuance of thier lives. This is also a falsehood in todays current climate. Those who would seek to do harm in the situation you're likely describing care nothing more than completing a 'mission' with no regards to their own lives.
Here you misread my argument. The vast majority of crime is still robbery/rape/etc. and is motivated by self-interested greed/power hunger. These are people to whom death may not scare to the same extent it scares most people in our society, but these are not suicidal people in general. My argument in its main is directed at what a traveler would do to protect him/herself in their destination after the flight (though yes, armed people will also protect their lives against those unconcerned with the loss of their own). It is sad that people believe that they are safer when frequently apathetic "public servants" and criminals have weapons. This next link is only a sample of what is beginning to happen as we entrust more of our safety to people in government. http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/04/08/2656511-did-transit-workers-do-enough-in-subway-rape-case
The answer is that we must each take responsibility for our own safety to a large extent.
As far as "opposite ends of the political spectrum" goes, you may be right, but only if you're of the socialist-fascism bent rather than the socialist bent. I'm (as you should be able to tell from my posting history) also very much against the majority of the acts of the Republicans in the last decade. I am a civil libertarian on all fronts.
The next logical step will then be exploitation of class warfare memes to make the shipping companies pay for the destroyer. Which is probably a lot more cost than they will be willing/able to absorb. Arming merchants is a far more cost effective step for similar benefit. Face it, you just don't like the idea of someone who isn't employed by a government having a weapon. It's ok for you to feel that way, but be honest. The problem with that mode of thinking is the distinction drawn between people employed by a government and those not employed by a government. They're all still people, with all the attendant weaknesses of our kind.
also, since we're talking about history, privateers for governments (individual civilian captains with a letter from the government recognizing them) were also commonly used tools for fighting piracy.
Only sociopaths believe that their freedom is absolute. One's freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. The social contract is the general agreement to recognize and limit one's behaviors so as to not violate the freedom of others. In my case I participate because I believe in natural rights. Many utilitarians participate (at least publicly) because they see that it's the best shake for them in a world wherein there is always a bigger fish. It's a pretty robust and supple system if allowed to function properly. I believe that persistent risk of personal harm is necessary to keep some members of society who begrudgingly participate from violating my (and others') freedoms. The odd chance of an employee of the designated governing power being present and intervening in a crime (violation of my freedom by another citizen) perpetrated against me is too tenuous and unlikely to be sustainable in the long run and will allow too many instant cases of injustice on its way.
And no, there is no slavery involved here. You and the poster you replied to have very different expectations of normal social behavior. You seem to perceive the *presence* of another armed individual who is not an employee of the designated governing group as an incursion on your freedom. It is not. He views the disallowance of weapons as stripping him of his protection from crime at his destination (and however remotely possible, on the flight). He is correct, and the current prohibitions don't make much sense. If a significant portion of travelers were armed, then one may suppose that they will be sufficiently interested in the continuance of their lives to take action against criminals bent on taking theirs and others'.
But I thought the value proposition in closed-source, pay software was that it was more robust, with better responsiveness to the needs of the customer base, etc...
Where were you the last 8 years? Cheering on W as he gutted our liberties? While he laid the biggest, most glaring precedents for ignoring the Constitution? Few conservatives have any right to complain now that the big brother government shoe is on the other foot. By the way, how does torture jive with your Christianity?
No, freedom = (being treated as an adult that can make the correct decisions). Those people on his flight 30 years ago weren't anarchists. They obeyed the social contract. They also had tools on hand to deal with those who didn't feel like holding up their end of the deal. They also didn't have (and wouldn't tolerate) government shoving a leash so far up their collective a$$es they could taste shoe leather. Which is where we're getting to these days. Orwell was only off by a couple of decades.
See for example the state secrets policies of both major parties in the US. Also see the primary challenges the *Republicans* funded against their own incumbents who voted against the patriot act.
Ron Paul looks like a better president every day that has passed of both W's and O's terms.
Slashdot Mirror
we've constrained ourselves to Latin America? that's news. i thought we had something to do with forcing Japan to trade with us in the mid 1800s by rolling a fleet into Tokyo Bay or helping the Brits hose Iran in the 1950s.
correlation is not causation
What about making lithium batteries in Bolivia? Or making fair trade practices part of any extraction contracts.
but the good people covering this issue in NC believe it is. FTFA:
it's the mime menace that needs your attention. stay focused. kill the mimes.
X11 would defeat any security provided by lower layers. Something newer, better, and stronger is needed. It should be able to leap tall buildings in s aingle bound also.
Did I just read correctly that somewhere a college is allowing a "potential revenue stream" to go untapped? $5 for 25' from a college is startlingly low considering the vendor.
keep drinking the koolaid, I think you can do better at repeating the Belkin marketing FUD than that.
You give him/her too much credit. Lackeys think for themselves and have a shot at becoming the evil genius eventually. This person is either a mook or a goon.
blahblahblah...improve spammers' ROI in elected representatives by giving spammers direct access to unsuspecting people who are already more likely to fall prey to their scams.
there, fixed that for you.
No more so than say, mayors goofing around with assault rifles. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/02/restoring-right-to-resist.html
In fact, I would guess that there are many fewer fatalities due to accidents with guns than with cars. So why not take away everyone's car? Both guns and cars provide utility. For brevity, I will cut short the reductio ad absurdam.
In any case, your desire to prevent me or anyone else from having a gun infringes on the freedoms of others predicated on a perceived risk, not on a committed crime, and thus you prejudge people before they have in fact comitted a crime which is generally a no-no.
And besides which, your safety concerns (if they were genuinely only safety concerns) would easily be remedied by civilian firearms training programs. These are required by several states, especially for concealed carry permits. If you would still see this as a safety issue even with adequate training (whatever that may be), why don't you feel the same about government employees having those weapons? I grew up in DC and I feel a vague sense of unease when an armed government employee is in close proximity. Perhaps this is because I've been around much more police violence than you have. But surely you remember Rodney King.
Here you misread my argument. The vast majority of crime is still robbery/rape/etc. and is motivated by self-interested greed/power hunger. These are people to whom death may not scare to the same extent it scares most people in our society, but these are not suicidal people in general. My argument in its main is directed at what a traveler would do to protect him/herself in their destination after the flight (though yes, armed people will also protect their lives against those unconcerned with the loss of their own). It is sad that people believe that they are safer when frequently apathetic "public servants" and criminals have weapons. This next link is only a sample of what is beginning to happen as we entrust more of our safety to people in government. http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/04/08/2656511-did-transit-workers-do-enough-in-subway-rape-case
And that's when the police themselves aren't the criminals: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w84.html
Or inciting/perpetrating violence at demonstrations and trying to cover it up. http://digg.com/world_news/British_police_kill_passer_by_at_London_G20_protests_Video
The answer is that we must each take responsibility for our own safety to a large extent.
As far as "opposite ends of the political spectrum" goes, you may be right, but only if you're of the socialist-fascism bent rather than the socialist bent. I'm (as you should be able to tell from my posting history) also very much against the majority of the acts of the Republicans in the last decade. I am a civil libertarian on all fronts.
and /. dropped my first reply to this:
who said intercept their communications? carrier detection will do. increasing dB (bars) = someone coming to get you.
forgot to mention that always-on monitoring (video would probably be the choice) by satellite would be to use your incredulity, fscking expensive.
then they might want to read a bit of history, recognize that shipping has always been a risky business, and pick another occupation.
i would agree, but savvy pirates would then monitor for the monitoring signals and bug out before the privateers got to them. Savvy?
The next logical step will then be exploitation of class warfare memes to make the shipping companies pay for the destroyer. Which is probably a lot more cost than they will be willing/able to absorb. Arming merchants is a far more cost effective step for similar benefit. Face it, you just don't like the idea of someone who isn't employed by a government having a weapon. It's ok for you to feel that way, but be honest. The problem with that mode of thinking is the distinction drawn between people employed by a government and those not employed by a government. They're all still people, with all the attendant weaknesses of our kind.
not exclusively. see for example, the Merchant Marine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine#History
also, since we're talking about history, privateers for governments (individual civilian captains with a letter from the government recognizing them) were also commonly used tools for fighting piracy.
Only sociopaths believe that their freedom is absolute. One's freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. The social contract is the general agreement to recognize and limit one's behaviors so as to not violate the freedom of others. In my case I participate because I believe in natural rights. Many utilitarians participate (at least publicly) because they see that it's the best shake for them in a world wherein there is always a bigger fish. It's a pretty robust and supple system if allowed to function properly. I believe that persistent risk of personal harm is necessary to keep some members of society who begrudgingly participate from violating my (and others') freedoms. The odd chance of an employee of the designated governing power being present and intervening in a crime (violation of my freedom by another citizen) perpetrated against me is too tenuous and unlikely to be sustainable in the long run and will allow too many instant cases of injustice on its way.
And no, there is no slavery involved here. You and the poster you replied to have very different expectations of normal social behavior. You seem to perceive the *presence* of another armed individual who is not an employee of the designated governing group as an incursion on your freedom. It is not. He views the disallowance of weapons as stripping him of his protection from crime at his destination (and however remotely possible, on the flight). He is correct, and the current prohibitions don't make much sense. If a significant portion of travelers were armed, then one may suppose that they will be sufficiently interested in the continuance of their lives to take action against criminals bent on taking theirs and others'.
But I thought the value proposition in closed-source, pay software was that it was more robust, with better responsiveness to the needs of the customer base, etc...
Where were you the last 8 years? Cheering on W as he gutted our liberties? While he laid the biggest, most glaring precedents for ignoring the Constitution? Few conservatives have any right to complain now that the big brother government shoe is on the other foot. By the way, how does torture jive with your Christianity?
No, freedom = (being treated as an adult that can make the correct decisions). Those people on his flight 30 years ago weren't anarchists. They obeyed the social contract. They also had tools on hand to deal with those who didn't feel like holding up their end of the deal. They also didn't have (and wouldn't tolerate) government shoving a leash so far up their collective a$$es they could taste shoe leather. Which is where we're getting to these days. Orwell was only off by a couple of decades.
See for example the state secrets policies of both major parties in the US. Also see the primary challenges the *Republicans* funded against their own incumbents who voted against the patriot act.
Ron Paul looks like a better president every day that has passed of both W's and O's terms.
Sunday.Sunday.Sunday
Yah, your post sounded quite as triumphalist and exclusionary as the neocons when they were firmly entrenched in power.
if only the next two steps would come from the microsoft playbook...
extend, extinguish.