Shhh, we're still giving Bill Clinton credit for misleading accounting tricks and booking tax revenue based on an overheated stock market in the midst of a speculative bubble. Somehow this makes him an economic genius.
No, as soon as you noticed it was stolen - which could be a long time after it happened. Let's not be stupid in our haste to shoot down a perfectly valid point just because Slashdot seems to love criminals.
I agree that our military expenditures are insane, deficit or otherwise. Well out of line with any form of reason.
I totally disagree on the general welfare clause bit, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Clearly I'm in a tiny minority who realizes the danger in taking wildly broad interpretations of two words - even though those dangers stare us in the face every day.
I do think funding education makes sense under that clause, but not managing it. Because of that line of thinking, we've ended up with the standardized testing regime that I don't think many people on Slashdot support, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's considered a massive success and I've missed something. I can see equalizing funds, though.
Anyway, what's 14 trillion between friends? Certainly I'll never be responsible to pay it, so why should I care to try and reign in the sort of thinking that produces such a bizarrely large number?
Let's not even think about the dangers of concentrating so much power into such few hands - only silly jackasses like me would rather have that power spread out amongst hundred and thousands of entities so that no one could dominate it. Concentration of power works so much better. It's neverabusedatall.
At what point does the bankrupt government stop spending money? Every dollar has defenders, so there's no way to get rid of any of it. Clearly the answer is to continue until it all falls over. Obviously anyone who points this out is a moron teabagger who sleeps with Dick Cheney 6 inches deep in his ass. And really, what's 130 million between friends? A few billion for this, a few billion for that... it's nothing. Somewhere along the way, the rich people will pay for it. Yeah, that's it.
And it's cute that you got snarky about it, considering you one half-addressed one of my three rebuttals - nothing indicates that Charles Francis Jenkins invented television on the government dime. And saying you half-addressed it is me being generous - he is given credit for introducing it in America, but he wasn't the first to create it.
The military is one of the few things the federal government does that it is actually empowered to do. I don't know where all this domestic law enforcement or social entitlement or education management came from, but I can't find any of it in the Constitution anywhere.
Funding science, while perhaps laudable, is similarly nowhere to be found.
It's not like the Constitution matters anymore, of course, since people are totally willing to ignore it for their pet purposes. You just can't expect any of it to matter if you get to ignore the parts you don't like.
You're basically delusional if you think that those things were developed purely as a result of government research. The protocols that formed the predecessor to the Internet, OK, sure, that was ARPA. A microprocessor in some form may have been funded by the Air Force, but it wasn't made public until the late 90s. Intel had by 1971 created their own, so you don't get that one. The television wasn't even invented in the US, so that one is straight from your ass. Velcro similar was not invented in the US.
There's a lot wrong with spouting it off on every tangentially related article... particularly when it's 99% bullshit and 1% unmeasurable personal experience.
Fairness isn't the goal of capitalism, and it never will be, and that's exactly how we like it. Fair is fairy tale you teach to children so they don't hog the toys in day care. In the real world, you get what you get, and if you can't compete, you complain and no one listens.
Businesses love complex regulation. That's how you get loopholes in the first place. Simple regulation is harder to defeat.
Non-regulation is of course their real goal, but they have to be realistic so they actually go the other way, and no one even addresses the real problem.
It's like everyone is watching a boxing match so intently that they don't realize it's taking place in the center ring of a three ring circus. So to speak.
And if you continually strengthen the government, instead of a whole bunch of smaller corporate oligarchs running things, you have one all-powerful entity running things.
How is that better, exactly? How do you make a government the size of the US federal government accountable? Who can even understand everything that it does now? How does making it more powerful fix anything?
You don't solve problems rooted in complexity by adding onto the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh, we're still giving Bill Clinton credit for misleading accounting tricks and booking tax revenue based on an overheated stock market in the midst of a speculative bubble. Somehow this makes him an economic genius.
No, as soon as you noticed it was stolen - which could be a long time after it happened. Let's not be stupid in our haste to shoot down a perfectly valid point just because Slashdot seems to love criminals.
I agree that our military expenditures are insane, deficit or otherwise. Well out of line with any form of reason.
I totally disagree on the general welfare clause bit, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Clearly I'm in a tiny minority who realizes the danger in taking wildly broad interpretations of two words - even though those dangers stare us in the face every day.
I do think funding education makes sense under that clause, but not managing it. Because of that line of thinking, we've ended up with the standardized testing regime that I don't think many people on Slashdot support, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's considered a massive success and I've missed something. I can see equalizing funds, though.
Anyway, what's 14 trillion between friends? Certainly I'll never be responsible to pay it, so why should I care to try and reign in the sort of thinking that produces such a bizarrely large number?
Let's not even think about the dangers of concentrating so much power into such few hands - only silly jackasses like me would rather have that power spread out amongst hundred and thousands of entities so that no one could dominate it. Concentration of power works so much better. It's never abused at all.
You presented one that didn't actually rebut anything... so I'm not sure how you're counting that as a win.
But cool by me. You're pretty clearly just talking out of your ass at this point, so you have fun with that.
At what point does the bankrupt government stop spending money? Every dollar has defenders, so there's no way to get rid of any of it. Clearly the answer is to continue until it all falls over. Obviously anyone who points this out is a moron teabagger who sleeps with Dick Cheney 6 inches deep in his ass. And really, what's 130 million between friends? A few billion for this, a few billion for that... it's nothing. Somewhere along the way, the rich people will pay for it. Yeah, that's it.
You ever hear of Paul Gottlieb Nipkow?
And it's cute that you got snarky about it, considering you one half-addressed one of my three rebuttals - nothing indicates that Charles Francis Jenkins invented television on the government dime. And saying you half-addressed it is me being generous - he is given credit for introducing it in America, but he wasn't the first to create it.
It was balanced with accounting tricks, on the back of a speculative stock boom. You might remember all that dotcom stuff? It wasn't real.
The military is one of the few things the federal government does that it is actually empowered to do. I don't know where all this domestic law enforcement or social entitlement or education management came from, but I can't find any of it in the Constitution anywhere.
Funding science, while perhaps laudable, is similarly nowhere to be found.
It's not like the Constitution matters anymore, of course, since people are totally willing to ignore it for their pet purposes. You just can't expect any of it to matter if you get to ignore the parts you don't like.
You're basically delusional if you think that those things were developed purely as a result of government research. The protocols that formed the predecessor to the Internet, OK, sure, that was ARPA. A microprocessor in some form may have been funded by the Air Force, but it wasn't made public until the late 90s. Intel had by 1971 created their own, so you don't get that one. The television wasn't even invented in the US, so that one is straight from your ass. Velcro similar was not invented in the US.
Yeah there you go, lets improve the quality of life in Afghanistan by putting them to work in the mines...
There's a lot wrong with spouting it off on every tangentially related article... particularly when it's 99% bullshit and 1% unmeasurable personal experience.
Fairness isn't the goal of capitalism, and it never will be, and that's exactly how we like it. Fair is fairy tale you teach to children so they don't hog the toys in day care. In the real world, you get what you get, and if you can't compete, you complain and no one listens.
"i think it's retarded" isn't really a reason.
I was asking rhetorically, btw. I knew you didn't have a reason beyond your own wants.
Good question. Are you asking me for fun or just assuming I implicitly made that accusation since I'm not "rah rah hackers" about it?
What argument could you possibly make that it should be free?
Whose right to what is being protected by this attack?
One gets the feeling that news reports of hacking attempts in the future are going to be ever more surreal
So lets stipulate the long term existence of this exclusion zone.
Does that justify ceasing all nuclear power production? All research? And how?
Yeah, in a world with universal excellence in software development practices, you'd have a shot of that ever happening.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda don't amount to did.
You clearly have little exposure to the real world of computer users.
Businesses love complex regulation. That's how you get loopholes in the first place. Simple regulation is harder to defeat.
Non-regulation is of course their real goal, but they have to be realistic so they actually go the other way, and no one even addresses the real problem.
It's like everyone is watching a boxing match so intently that they don't realize it's taking place in the center ring of a three ring circus. So to speak.
And if you continually strengthen the government, instead of a whole bunch of smaller corporate oligarchs running things, you have one all-powerful entity running things.
How is that better, exactly? How do you make a government the size of the US federal government accountable? Who can even understand everything that it does now? How does making it more powerful fix anything?
You don't solve problems rooted in complexity by adding onto the problem.
and Linux users wonder what sex is.
Who's making all the new humans in this weird mess? Apparently we're out of hetero-active people.
I laughed. I might be the only one who got it, though.
Liberals have a well-known liberal bias, as the truth goes...