In other words, "voting 3rd party is wasting your vote."
You voted for evil. Either you think that it was the right things to do, or you think that it was wrong the wrong thing to do. It looks to me that deep down you know that it was the wrong thing to do, or else you wouldn't have tried so hard to re-state "voting 3rd party is wasting your vote" in such an obfuscated way.
The fact that the largest 3rd party got 1% of the vote (is it actually a fact? I wont even bother) holds no relevance to the actual fact that you voted for evil. You know that, right?
This man is trying to rationalize the most common excuse. It is not rational to think that putting an evil person into office will decrease evil, yet here he is rationalizing that very idea to himself.
If enough of the voting American people saw the problem and agreed to vote for a third party, perhaps a third party whose only platform was to change the laws to allow non-republicrats easier access to power in future, then that would be it.
What I am about to say I say often on here:
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting to increase evil.
Many people dont get it, and will try to rationalize the most common excuse. The sad thing is that such excuses are so trivially destroyed by the obvious: Even if it were true that voting a 3rd party is "wasting" your vote, that is still not as bad as voting to increase evil.
In the end there can be no excuse for willingly and knowingly voting to increase evil. Really. No excuse at all.
"Voting 3rd party is wasting your vote" is the official platform of both of the major parties. No surprise there.
Ah, the old "only one way towards progress now let me dictate it" argument.
If only Oklahoma's 1st district had the right Senator, for then we could force China to not be on track to producing half of the worlds CO2 emissions by 2050.
Except you don't really want that, do you? You want the people protected "because it's the corporation, not that individual", but the corporation held blameless "because it's the people in there, not the corporation".
You seem to claim to know what I want, and yet get it wrong.
..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from."
Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."
Basically, stop lying. We understand that the phrase "equal rights" has powerful connotations that automatically get a large group of drones to stand with you, but its still a fucking lie.
The reasoning is likely much more simple than that:
One American Senator is completely meaningless and will continue to be meaningless with regards to "Climate Change," however one American Senator can be quite meaningful with regards to our business operations in his district.
Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.
Blaming corporations, calling them "greedy," is silly and foolish. Its people that are "greedy."
You can work in the American factory demanding that people buy over-priced products all you want, but consumers of products don't actually give a shit that you sit there making those demands. They don't "feel you" because they have their own problems, such as how to utilize the fruits of their own labors effectively.
While you sit there being hostile towards business, friendly business environments are eating your lunch. Think about it.
More/. paranoia over a company that has been "suspected" and it seems to be even more so since Obama has been in the white house, but it "seemed", when republicans were in the white house it wasn't as big a deal.
If Africa cannot get itself together they have an opportunity to grow and become a whole country. [snip]
You begin with a political rant of some kind (was that anti-Obama or anti-Bush?) , and then prove yourself horribly educated by repeatedly calling Africa a country.
By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.
Behold the left-wing argument, complete with no substance yet full of appeal-to-emotion bullshit like "living wage" and "slavery."
This is an appeal to people to hate the Libertarians. More hate from the left, and ironically the one thing this man didn't quote from the person he replied to was about the intolerance and hate of the left-wing.
Note that he was at -1 before even being modded down.
You know why the left hates the libertarians? Because the libertarians are everything that the left wing used to be before they sacrificed their ideals to the alter of political correctness. Now they can't even be tolerant. Behold his hate.
As an outsider, you should learn the history of the constitution before using modern meanings of words (you know, that whole 'twisting the meaning') to judge it.
The 4th amendment dealt with the problem of general Writs of Assistance which the royalty on the other side of the pond used as weapons against the colonists.
In response to the much-hated general writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they established independent governments in 1776; the phrase "particularity requirement" is the legal term of art used in contemporary cases to refer to an express requirement that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. Later, the Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and writs of assistance were generally proscribed.
The problem isnt the monitoring of traffic on corporate networks. The problem is that corporations must allow them to do it involuntarily and indiscriminately. Its the Generat Writ all over again. Now get your fucking ass schooled up before making fucking ignorant "I'm just an outsider" comments.
No matter how much precision the forecasters have, there is still an element of randomness.
Do you want a 10% chance of bad things and are well prepared because of it, or 1% of bad things and not at all prepared because of it?
Also, your first responders should always be prepared, right? Sounds to me like you folks have issues with what the responsibilities of first responders are supposed to be. Hint: Its not "be unprepared most of the time."
Ahh, no. It does not find the company with the best prospects, it finds the company who is willing to spend the most money to gain a monopoly over a finite resource
..and which company is willing to do that?
You anti-free-market types are like little children.
Do you have any idea what that bit of spectrum is going to be worth in 10 years? 20 years? Neither do I, so who do you trust to put a fair price on it?
With this line of thinking, why should the 10-year or 20-year point be the benchmark? Why not 5-years or 50-years?
Suppose a private company ends up paying an average amount of money for these frequency bands, but then the private company makes thousands of times more than any other company has ever made before on similar frequency bands.
Is that a good or bad outcome for society? You get different answer depending on who you ask.
The reason that we get different answers is because of a basic misunderstanding of economics, that people confuse currency with goods and services.
The federal government spends about $10 billion per day, so how much value can we really assign to the goods and services that the government might provide with any realistic purchase price?
So that leads to the grand misconception of the original argument:
The idea that an auction is to raise money for the government is wrong. Completely wrong. The purpose of the auction is to find the company with the best prospects (not just 10-year or 20-year) using the most unbiased a way that we know of.
This does not tackle the issue as to if the frequency bands should be auctioned at all, but it does eliminate the arguments about 'fair prices.'
Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.
Some bad behavior is obvious and not at all subjective.
It is easy to see why this happened. It is because the poster pakar (813627) had no idea what the number meant, but he felt that he just had to comment on the number anyways. Its plainly stupid behavior.
When you dont understand something, the good and right course of action is to question, not to comment. This is obvious. In his 9 words post, he managed to fulfill every single definition of the word stupid. Not just one of them.. all of them.
This is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, same group that oversees electricity and gas companies (and doesn't always do that job well either). This is not at all the same thing as NYC where you need medallions.
"Under the original permitting setup, drivers who wanted to become medallion holders were placed on a waitlist for the turnover of one of 1,500 medallions in circulation. In most cases, it took decades for a coveted permit to become available and drivers only had to pay $1,600."
One has to wonder what any of your statements are worth, on any subject, when you blatantly lie about reality and defend tyranny on this subject.
'cept in this case it seems that its simply the word 'Sky' that is supposedly trademarked. Sky Broadcasting does not offer any similar services in any markets, hence they are claiming the word itself. The closest thing they are associated with is that Sky Broadcasting owns a subsidiary company that has a wifi hotspot service. That companies name is The Cloud.
What the summary doesnt make clear is that Microsoft and BSkyB reached a secret settlement on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, "voting 3rd party is wasting your vote."
You voted for evil. Either you think that it was the right things to do, or you think that it was wrong the wrong thing to do. It looks to me that deep down you know that it was the wrong thing to do, or else you wouldn't have tried so hard to re-state "voting 3rd party is wasting your vote" in such an obfuscated way.
The fact that the largest 3rd party got 1% of the vote (is it actually a fact? I wont even bother) holds no relevance to the actual fact that you voted for evil. You know that, right?
You supported evil.
See?
This man is trying to rationalize the most common excuse. It is not rational to think that putting an evil person into office will decrease evil, yet here he is rationalizing that very idea to himself.
If enough of the voting American people saw the problem and agreed to vote for a third party, perhaps a third party whose only platform was to change the laws to allow non-republicrats easier access to power in future, then that would be it.
What I am about to say I say often on here:
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting to increase evil.
Many people dont get it, and will try to rationalize the most common excuse. The sad thing is that such excuses are so trivially destroyed by the obvious: Even if it were true that voting a 3rd party is "wasting" your vote, that is still not as bad as voting to increase evil.
In the end there can be no excuse for willingly and knowingly voting to increase evil. Really. No excuse at all.
"Voting 3rd party is wasting your vote" is the official platform of both of the major parties. No surprise there.
Don't see a problem with it. What do you think of the phrase "hey government, get the fuck out of my marriage!"
Ah, there's the attitude of progress!
Ah, the old "only one way towards progress now let me dictate it" argument.
If only Oklahoma's 1st district had the right Senator, for then we could force China to not be on track to producing half of the worlds CO2 emissions by 2050.
Except you don't really want that, do you? You want the people protected "because it's the corporation, not that individual", but the corporation held blameless "because it's the people in there, not the corporation".
You seem to claim to know what I want, and yet get it wrong.
How often are you wrong, mr anonymous coward?
..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from."
Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."
Basically, stop lying. We understand that the phrase "equal rights" has powerful connotations that automatically get a large group of drones to stand with you, but its still a fucking lie.
The reasoning is likely much more simple than that:
One American Senator is completely meaningless and will continue to be meaningless with regards to "Climate Change," however one American Senator can be quite meaningful with regards to our business operations in his district.
Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.
Blaming corporations, calling them "greedy," is silly and foolish. Its people that are "greedy."
You can work in the American factory demanding that people buy over-priced products all you want, but consumers of products don't actually give a shit that you sit there making those demands. They don't "feel you" because they have their own problems, such as how to utilize the fruits of their own labors effectively.
While you sit there being hostile towards business, friendly business environments are eating your lunch. Think about it.
More /. paranoia over a company that has been "suspected" and it seems to be even more so since Obama has been in the white house, but it "seemed", when republicans were in the white house it wasn't as big a deal.
If Africa cannot get itself together they have an opportunity to grow and become a whole country. [snip]
You begin with a political rant of some kind (was that anti-Obama or anti-Bush?) , and then prove yourself horribly educated by repeatedly calling Africa a country.
Strange that you continue to think that the NSA is beholden to the defense industry.
How on earth can you "know" that didn't happen?
Maybe because the only place that the 'jocks' are the bullies is in Hollywood.
By insisting that they be able to pay people whatever the market will bear rather than a living wage, libertarians are insisting that they should be able to keep slaves.
Behold the left-wing argument, complete with no substance yet full of appeal-to-emotion bullshit like "living wage" and "slavery."
This is an appeal to people to hate the Libertarians. More hate from the left, and ironically the one thing this man didn't quote from the person he replied to was about the intolerance and hate of the left-wing.
Exactly.
Why can't the CIA shoot him?
...
Seems to me that you are in error. They can shoot him and very little will come of it if they do.
They wouldn't shoot him tho, but not because they can't. It's because there are better ways to kill him.
Cardiac arrest. Car accident. Accidental fall. Overdose.
Note that he was at -1 before even being modded down.
You know why the left hates the libertarians? Because the libertarians are everything that the left wing used to be before they sacrificed their ideals to the alter of political correctness. Now they can't even be tolerant. Behold his hate.
As an outsider, I don't read it that way at all.
As an outsider, you should learn the history of the constitution before using modern meanings of words (you know, that whole 'twisting the meaning') to judge it.
The 4th amendment dealt with the problem of general Writs of Assistance which the royalty on the other side of the pond used as weapons against the colonists.
Writes of Assistance: Legacy
In response to the much-hated general writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they established independent governments in 1776; the phrase "particularity requirement" is the legal term of art used in contemporary cases to refer to an express requirement that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. Later, the Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and writs of assistance were generally proscribed.
The problem isnt the monitoring of traffic on corporate networks. The problem is that corporations must allow them to do it involuntarily and indiscriminately. Its the Generat Writ all over again. Now get your fucking ass schooled up before making fucking ignorant "I'm just an outsider" comments.
Were we to have had more precision...
No matter how much precision the forecasters have, there is still an element of randomness.
Do you want a 10% chance of bad things and are well prepared because of it, or 1% of bad things and not at all prepared because of it?
Also, your first responders should always be prepared, right? Sounds to me like you folks have issues with what the responsibilities of first responders are supposed to be. Hint: Its not "be unprepared most of the time."
Ahh, no. It does not find the company with the best prospects, it finds the company who is willing to spend the most money to gain a monopoly over a finite resource
You anti-free-market types are like little children.
while if it is a democrat their affiliation is conveniently left out
Its worse than that. What you actually see is: "Rep. Harry Reid" when its a story that makes Harry Reid, a Democrat, look bad.
Do you have any idea what that bit of spectrum is going to be worth in 10 years? 20 years? Neither do I, so who do you trust to put a fair price on it?
With this line of thinking, why should the 10-year or 20-year point be the benchmark? Why not 5-years or 50-years?
Suppose a private company ends up paying an average amount of money for these frequency bands, but then the private company makes thousands of times more than any other company has ever made before on similar frequency bands.
Is that a good or bad outcome for society? You get different answer depending on who you ask.
The reason that we get different answers is because of a basic misunderstanding of economics, that people confuse currency with goods and services.
The federal government spends about $10 billion per day, so how much value can we really assign to the goods and services that the government might provide with any realistic purchase price?
So that leads to the grand misconception of the original argument:
The idea that an auction is to raise money for the government is wrong. Completely wrong. The purpose of the auction is to find the company with the best prospects (not just 10-year or 20-year) using the most unbiased a way that we know of.
This does not tackle the issue as to if the frequency bands should be auctioned at all, but it does eliminate the arguments about 'fair prices.'
It seems pretty likely to me that you'll do nothing to defend effective or even vital intelligence.
First, you have to defend the intelligence gathering as 'effective' and 'vital' -- saying that its true is not a defense. The onus is on you.
Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.
Some bad behavior is obvious and not at all subjective.
It is easy to see why this happened. It is because the poster pakar (813627) had no idea what the number meant, but he felt that he just had to comment on the number anyways. Its plainly stupid behavior.
When you dont understand something, the good and right course of action is to question, not to comment. This is obvious. In his 9 words post, he managed to fulfill every single definition of the word stupid. Not just one of them.. all of them.
How about forgetting the name calling entirely and just pointing out what they were not taking into account?
Maybe the people that make such simplistic errors of substance while rushing to try to get their two error-laden cents in deserve to be called stupid?
Reward good behavior. Punish bad behavior.
This is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, same group that oversees electricity and gas companies (and doesn't always do that job well either). This is not at all the same thing as NYC where you need medallions.
You are making the baseless claim that there isnt an artificially limited number of taxi's in SF which reality does not agree with. Its more like New York than ever before, including medallions.
"Under the original permitting setup, drivers who wanted to become medallion holders were placed on a waitlist for the turnover of one of 1,500 medallions in circulation. In most cases, it took decades for a coveted permit to become available and drivers only had to pay $1,600."
One has to wonder what any of your statements are worth, on any subject, when you blatantly lie about reality and defend tyranny on this subject.
'cept in this case it seems that its simply the word 'Sky' that is supposedly trademarked. Sky Broadcasting does not offer any similar services in any markets, hence they are claiming the word itself. The closest thing they are associated with is that Sky Broadcasting owns a subsidiary company that has a wifi hotspot service. That companies name is The Cloud.
What the summary doesnt make clear is that Microsoft and BSkyB reached a secret settlement on the matter.