Republicans prefer more local control, less centralized decision-making. (Push a Republican far enough, he's a Libertarian.) It's the Democrats who want to run things from the top.
The typical flavor of Liberalism today is Statism: they hate the fact that there are institutions beyond their control. But what kind of body could control the multi-nationals? Only a "one-world" type of governmental agency. I'd rather take my chances with many companies and many governments duking it out with each other.
Multi-national companies aren't swashbuckling rapists; they comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Sometimes those laws don't conform to the anti-globalist (AG) agenda. Are the people in those countries too stupid to see they are being exploited? Or are they taking advantage of an opportunity for economic development? The AGs have decided that they know better; this is hubris.
Take a woodworking class.
Learn how to cook.
Pound nails with Habitat for Humanity.
Build a web site for the PTA.
Contra dance.
Learn Latin.
Brew beer.
Become an expert on something (eg, Central Asian history).
These are some of the things I have done over the past 20+ years to recharge my batteries. Programming is just one part of my life. Learn how to live; life is short. Dump the cable company, the computer games, and all the other time-wasters.
A vinyl record contains a "program", encoded in a wavy groove. The "decoder" or "player" has the means to interpret the program & turn it into music. The record even contains non-musical control "instructions", in the form of a straight groove leading between tracks, and at the beginning & end of the program, er, music.
In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?
OK, argue away. But you are begging the question, is it even proper for governments to "preserve the environment,...."? I, for one, don't think it's Uncle Sam's job to "distribute new technologies equitably".
Actually, this quote is classic Katz: anti-US logorrhea that seems to make a point, but actually is moronic. I challenge anyone to name a non-democratic government that does any of these better than the US. I'll give you the last one, I don't doubt there are lots of places that have a firm grip of the press.
There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries
I can think of a couple off the top of my head: the state has an interest in enforcing the contract between you and the casino, viz., that the game is fair. Also, states hate to have untaxed economic activity within their borders.
Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous
By this reasoning, laws against murder are also contrary to the 1st amendment. (Thou shalt not...) The Constitution does not prohibit an ethics, even one based on a religion, from influencing the law. Indeed, Christianity *does* influence Western law, Islam *does* influence law in the Middle east, etc.
Now, what about online prostitution?
It's run by companies like Covad: you give them your money, you get fucked.
In Section 2 of the bill, Findings, there appears "[TO BE SUPPLIED]". In other words, they'll make the law first, then "find" the facts to support the law later.
where it's hard to fire an employee, and we know how that works. Take a look at their growth, their unemployment rate. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick to the American model.
You can move to the front of the line for $4000 of your wages, so you'll have a better chance of getting at least something. For the balance, you are thrown in with the other chumps who loaned your employer money. Read about it here.
I find the whole idea of killing those responsible amazingly short sighted.
Well, it's not.
Consider this: don't you think it's curious that you hardly ever hear about foiled terrorist attacks? You know that for every one that succeeds, there must be many more that fail. But it's not in the interest of the Security establishment to publicize the failures. And even though they hardly ever succeed, the terrorists are still at work.
Terrorists, the good ones, are already motivated. They don't need a martyr to inspire them. Martyrs are only useful to sway public sentiment (their public) toward them.
The benefit to taking out the leaders of this organization is obvious: they know what they are doing. It takes time & money to develop these skills. The hope is that with better intelligence & the application of deadly force, the bad guys won't build up this level of skill.
'The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved'
These terrorists don't give a flying fuck about our liberties, our way of life, or how Mariah is doing these days. They resent the tremendous influence we have in the world, and sincerely believe that that influence is a threat to their way of life. Their goal is to reduce that influence. They believe that the way to make themselves look strong & the US to look weak is to perform acts such as this.
due process and all of the other niceties of normal prosecution go out the window to be replaced by only nominally binding international rules of war.
You have been brainwashed by the spirit of litigiousness that reigns today. The only "rule of war" is that the victor makes the rules. What, somebody is going to sue the JCOS for bombing the wrong terrorist camp? Is the Dutch Army going to raid Arlington to take the generals off to some International Tribunal?
This situation is governed by politics, not law. If we demonstrate to the world that are actions are justifiable, we will be supported. We have much to gain by acting with prudence, but the important thing is that we act.
Reminds me of that cartoon by Bill Mauldin. You know, the one where Joe & Willie are peering out of a foxhole:
Joe: Hey, someone just shot at us! Think we should shoot back?
Willie: Naw, we need to wait for the lawyers to give us the green light. We don't want to violate anyone's due process rights.
Interview on All Things Considered
on
Parasitic Computing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Those in Central, Mountain & further timezones might be able to catch it later today, or listen to it tomorrow on the ATC web site.
LOTR has been felled by the "Curse of Star Trek": if you try to mess with it, people howl. Nobody wants their favorite fantasy to grow, they want to skin it, hang it on the wall to dry, then start to embroider on it. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" shows how mythology (Homer's Odyssey) can inspire something new while retaining its core message.
I suppose the fact that Tolkien is dead has something to do with the slowdown in new installments, but you get my drift.
Read it here: The woman simply didn't prove her case.
I disagree with Judge Berzon's dissent, especially where she writes:
The fact that using a computer is so essential to modern life that teaching that skill universally has become embedded in our national educational policy must inform our understanding of the ADA's disability definition.
Using a computer is not essential to modern life, just as having a new pair of Skechers is not essential to my daughter's happiness. (And just what do we do to teach kids computing skills? Let them draw pictures & try to find pr0n on the web.) The ADA does not say that you are entitled to everything you had before you were disabled; it says you must have a fair shot at a job in spite of your disability. Cleary, she no claim.
have always wanted to maintain their power. One of their best tools is to control the spread of information. From the Statues of the White Tawyers (London, 1346):
3.Persons from outside the city, except apprentices, are not to work as White Tawyers.
13.No one who has not served an apprenticeship in the trade shall practice it unless the overseers or four members of the trade testify that he is sufficiently skilled in it.
The brethren still get mad when an "outsider" learns the secrets of the trade without observing the guild rules. Better communication networks make it easier to find previously obscure information, so it is no surprise to learn that even 15-year olds take advantage of them.
When did kids *not* regard their elders as "clueless, hostile, and incompetent" - and when did their elders not feel likewise about them? Never.
Well, at least since the writer of the Proverbs was alive: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Prov 22:15
Seems to me that there's no such thing as a conditional freedom. At the risk of sounding like I'm making a false either/or proposition, either speech is free -- whether or not we like what is said -- or it's not.
Well, if you think "the promise we made to ourselves" is a positive "freedom of speech", you're wrong. For the first 81 years of the republic, the 1st amendment prohibited only Federal abridgement of speech. States could, and did, pass such laws. In 1868, the 14th amendment was passed, and then the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well. The funny thing is, nobody knew that until 1925 when SCOTUS told New York they couldn't make Gitlow shut up because the 14th amendment incorporates all the other amendments. Now, this reasoning is faulty, because unlike the 2nd amendment which asserts a positive "right to bear arms", the 1st amendment still doesn't. An incorporation would mean that a State can't force Congress to create a speech-abridging law, but of course, that is absurd.
Those of us who are truly interested in our rights, online or otherwise, don't like this kind of legal hocus pocus. If the Constitution can be made to mean anything, then it means nothing. The question of whether or not there should be a right of free speech, or privacy, or protecting the children, or almost anything else, is a policy question, not a legal one. These issues are properly decided by legislators, not judges.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS wasn't there.
then why do Brits get to see tits on the telly & we don't?
Republicans prefer more local control, less centralized decision-making. (Push a Republican far enough, he's a Libertarian.) It's the Democrats who want to run things from the top.
I see this all the time. What does it mean? It's either one or the other.
That's like saying "awk/perl" or "vi/emacs".
The typical flavor of Liberalism today is Statism: they hate the fact that there are institutions beyond their control. But what kind of body could control the multi-nationals? Only a "one-world" type of governmental agency. I'd rather take my chances with many companies and many governments duking it out with each other.
Multi-national companies aren't swashbuckling rapists; they comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Sometimes those laws don't conform to the anti-globalist (AG) agenda. Are the people in those countries too stupid to see they are being exploited? Or are they taking advantage of an opportunity for economic development? The AGs have decided that they know better; this is hubris.
Take a woodworking class.
Learn how to cook.
Pound nails with Habitat for Humanity.
Build a web site for the PTA.
Contra dance.
Learn Latin.
Brew beer.
Become an expert on something (eg, Central Asian history).
These are some of the things I have done over the past 20+ years to recharge my batteries. Programming is just one part of my life. Learn how to live; life is short. Dump the cable company, the computer games, and all the other time-wasters.
Same, same.
OK, argue away. But you are begging the question, is it even proper for governments to "preserve the environment, ...."? I, for one, don't think it's Uncle Sam's job to "distribute new technologies equitably".
Actually, this quote is classic Katz: anti-US logorrhea that seems to make a point, but actually is moronic. I challenge anyone to name a non-democratic government that does any of these better than the US. I'll give you the last one, I don't doubt there are lots of places that have a firm grip of the press.
I can think of a couple off the top of my head: the state has an interest in enforcing the contract between you and the casino, viz., that the game is fair. Also, states hate to have untaxed economic activity within their borders.
Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous
By this reasoning, laws against murder are also contrary to the 1st amendment. (Thou shalt not...) The Constitution does not prohibit an ethics, even one based on a religion, from influencing the law. Indeed, Christianity *does* influence Western law, Islam *does* influence law in the Middle east, etc.
Now, what about online prostitution?
It's run by companies like Covad: you give them your money, you get fucked.
The exemption refers to combinations, not monopolies.
In Section 2 of the bill, Findings, there appears "[TO BE SUPPLIED]". In other words, they'll make the law first, then "find" the facts to support the law later.
where it's hard to fire an employee, and we know how that works. Take a look at their growth, their unemployment rate. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick to the American model.
You can move to the front of the line for $4000 of your wages, so you'll have a better chance of getting at least something. For the balance, you are thrown in with the other chumps who loaned your employer money. Read about it here.
some Mindstorms hacker builds one of these out of Lego?
Consider this: don't you think it's curious that you hardly ever hear about foiled terrorist attacks? You know that for every one that succeeds, there must be many more that fail. But it's not in the interest of the Security establishment to publicize the failures. And even though they hardly ever succeed, the terrorists are still at work.
Terrorists, the good ones, are already motivated. They don't need a martyr to inspire them. Martyrs are only useful to sway public sentiment (their public) toward them.
The benefit to taking out the leaders of this organization is obvious: they know what they are doing. It takes time & money to develop these skills. The hope is that with better intelligence & the application of deadly force, the bad guys won't build up this level of skill.
This situation is governed by politics, not law. If we demonstrate to the world that are actions are justifiable, we will be supported. We have much to gain by acting with prudence, but the important thing is that we act.
Reminds me of that cartoon by Bill Mauldin. You know, the one where Joe & Willie are peering out of a foxhole:
Joe: Hey, someone just shot at us! Think we should shoot back?
Willie: Naw, we need to wait for the lawyers to give us the green light. We don't want to violate anyone's due process rights.
Those in Central, Mountain & further timezones might be able to catch it later today, or listen to it tomorrow on the ATC web site.
LOTR has been felled by the "Curse of Star Trek": if you try to mess with it, people howl. Nobody wants their favorite fantasy to grow, they want to skin it, hang it on the wall to dry, then start to embroider on it. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" shows how mythology (Homer's Odyssey) can inspire something new while retaining its core message.
I suppose the fact that Tolkien is dead has something to do with the slowdown in new installments, but you get my drift.
u cn b a stngrfr!
I disagree with Judge Berzon's dissent, especially where she writes:Using a computer is not essential to modern life, just as having a new pair of Skechers is not essential to my daughter's happiness. (And just what do we do to teach kids computing skills? Let them draw pictures & try to find pr0n on the web.) The ADA does not say that you are entitled to everything you had before you were disabled; it says you must have a fair shot at a job in spite of your disability. Cleary, she no claim.
Well, at least since the writer of the Proverbs was alive: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Prov 22:15
Seems to me that there's no such thing as a conditional freedom. At the risk of sounding like I'm making a false either/or proposition, either speech is free -- whether or not we like what is said -- or it's not.
Well, if you think "the promise we made to ourselves" is a positive "freedom of speech", you're wrong. For the first 81 years of the republic, the 1st amendment prohibited only Federal abridgement of speech. States could, and did, pass such laws. In 1868, the 14th amendment was passed, and then the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well. The funny thing is, nobody knew that until 1925 when SCOTUS told New York they couldn't make Gitlow shut up because the 14th amendment incorporates all the other amendments. Now, this reasoning is faulty, because unlike the 2nd amendment which asserts a positive "right to bear arms", the 1st amendment still doesn't. An incorporation would mean that a State can't force Congress to create a speech-abridging law, but of course, that is absurd.
Those of us who are truly interested in our rights, online or otherwise, don't like this kind of legal hocus pocus. If the Constitution can be made to mean anything, then it means nothing. The question of whether or not there should be a right of free speech, or privacy, or protecting the children, or almost anything else, is a policy question, not a legal one. These issues are properly decided by legislators, not judges.
And don't get me started on the Commerce Clause.