I, personally, feel that this is the very acme of human civilization. It's all downhill from here. We have achieved out existential duty, fulfilled the will of the universe in bringing about Facebook Credit Gift Cards. This is the Great Will of the Cosmos.
Whatever counts as "journalism" is arbitrary and you know it, and letting the government define "press" and giving their buddies in the journalism special privileges is just another form of protectionism and cronyism.
The civil war started over slavery particularly because of laws regarding having help turn over slaves back to their owners, and government protecting enslavement as "property rights," additionally, the federal government is trying to trump state marijuana and drug laws. I don't understand your support for the war on drugs.
I did this, too, and did quite well in some classes without the book.
I had a professor that required us to buy a book he co-authored but he gave each student that bought a new copy a few bucks, approximately what we would've made in royalties or something. It was a pretty good textbook for the material covered.
And many more civilians have been killed by the military alone. One guy possibly killed due to the leaks; many more dead, will be dead, severely affected by, or injured/made ill due to the war. Every civilian death is ignored, any possible death due to the leaks proves it should never have been done.
How about the war? Maybe we should've never went to war...!
Exactly. It's incredible that people will defend Obama on this just because Bush started it, as if Bush is somehow sticking his hand up Obama's ass and making him his puppet.
It's like a little kid justifying bullying other children because another kid who left the room "started it." "Don't blame me," Obama said, with a smirk as he blew cigarette smoke into your face, "Bush started this all."
The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens.
So it's just whether they're a law-abiding citizen, eh? When the speech controls are put into place, you'd be find with dealing with those horrible people that expressed the wrong opinion of the government, right?
If the act is not illegal than providing the means to do it should not be illegal. Basic law, maybe, but the law is an insane, stupid thing all too frequently.
One could use this logic to arrest someone for selling computers since computers are used for piracy--the means was provided, after all.
One big feature of jailbreaking iPhones is that you can install apps on your iPhone in a similar manner that you could install NDS games on an R4. Does this also mean that jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal there, too? It should be noted that a major feature of the R4s, and similar devices, was that you can run homebrew on your NDS, which I have. There's some decent homebrew (not that great of a selection, but still some good stuff) available, such as the (excellent) roguelike game POWDER.
Citizens and proud patriots of America, look away! Such things are not for your eyes. It is not for you to know how our war (done on your behalf, my steadfast Americans!) is going. Such things will only hurt the morale of our troops--and recruitment numbers! We beseech you, our countrypeople, you have no right to any of this information, for we do not belong to you--you belong to us.
>>Your simplistic libertarian views demonstrate that you have only a glib, self serving, and superficial understanding of what freedom means. Freedom is a contract between individuals where both people give up something they value less in order to gain something they value more. As such, freedom is something that is defined by society, not individuals. Individuals, by themselves, have only power. Freedom is a moot concept outside of society. Inside society, it is always a trade off, and it means something far more than "I get to do whatever I want and you can't tell me what to do."
?
Freedom is equated with rights; since you deny individual freedom, you must reject individual rights, including "basic rights." Either you're trolling or your views are murky and undeveloped.
You even claim that the government has a right to arbitrarily claim land as its own, and rule people on it, and the only recourse for people is to live on unclaimed land in places inhabitable like Antarctica or the moon.
In addition, the world governments have claimed that Antarctica is basically a zone for scientific research; oil drilling, etc, is not allowed there. So even if they don't touch Antarctica, they can decide what to do there, and even if someone could they likely couldn't start their own nation there. But that's OK with you, I'm sure; what's important is obedience to the world's governments, so long as they are something labeled "democratic."
In short, the land is owned by the community - not you - and the government, voted in by the community, holds it on behalf of the community. You may not like what they do with it (and sometimes I don't either) but you need to work to change their minds and support those who think similarly. If you have a political environment in which many people don't vote (USA, Britain and other such places) then sure, you've got a hard road to hoe. Nonetheless, there are so many examples of how change has been brought about by voting and political agitation, that there's no need to quote them here.
But what justifies, for example, the government claiming an entire forest as its own, or other undeveloped and untouched land,
spun claimed that we're free to move to Antarctica as "unclaimed land" (I'm not sure that land is all unclaimed) but that's no more to the point than saying we're free to move to the bottom of the ocean or the moon or at the bottom of the volcano to live. What justifies governments claiming ownership of land that goes untouched by them? Why can't people decide to settle on virgin soil and make their own government there? Why can't the Amish (and I am not advocating that lifestyle) have their own, for example, amish country on their own farmlands?
This comment is completely and utterly contradictory. I don't know what passes for liberalism where you live, but you appear to confuse dictatorship of a party or junta with liberal values of equality, freedom of speech and other such weirdly liberal things as freedom of association, the rights of workers and the poor and so on. Liberal views have never justified anything you suggest here. Freedom from slavery was a 'liberal' 'humanist' movement which was opposed by those who opposed liberal views.
That's the face of liberalism in the American sense of the word, nowadays, though; "You will obey because we told you to, because we decided it, and because it was some majority of us, you will recognize this as freedom, no matter what is being done to you." Liberals do not recognize or believe in tyranny of the majority, because they believe majority opinion IS freedom. That is exactly what spun here is saying in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I, personally, feel that this is the very acme of human civilization. It's all downhill from here. We have achieved out existential duty, fulfilled the will of the universe in bringing about Facebook Credit Gift Cards. This is the Great Will of the Cosmos.
Whatever counts as "journalism" is arbitrary and you know it, and letting the government define "press" and giving their buddies in the journalism special privileges is just another form of protectionism and cronyism.
This thing probably just scours the internet for these keywords in stories:
Obama
Apple, Mac, iPad, iPod, Macbook
Marijuana
Obama
Police
Linux
Sex
Westboro
Funny picture, cat picture
Obama
The civil war started over slavery particularly because of laws regarding having help turn over slaves back to their owners, and government protecting enslavement as "property rights," additionally, the federal government is trying to trump state marijuana and drug laws. I don't understand your support for the war on drugs.
Because "rich" people are always a tax bracket or two higher than oneself.
Like with not hiding away Jews during the holocaust? I feel real disgust for the people that kept Anne Frank hidden away...
"Fuck."
Well, so is our government.
Instead, they're more susceptible to Hugo Chavez's brainwashing.
That's basically the role of the intellectual left in Latin America.
On the plus side, I am now aware of lulu.com and quite possibly I may use their services in the future...
I did this, too, and did quite well in some classes without the book.
I had a professor that required us to buy a book he co-authored but he gave each student that bought a new copy a few bucks, approximately what we would've made in royalties or something. It was a pretty good textbook for the material covered.
And many more civilians have been killed by the military alone. One guy possibly killed due to the leaks; many more dead, will be dead, severely affected by, or injured/made ill due to the war. Every civilian death is ignored, any possible death due to the leaks proves it should never have been done.
How about the war? Maybe we should've never went to war...!
Exactly. It's incredible that people will defend Obama on this just because Bush started it, as if Bush is somehow sticking his hand up Obama's ass and making him his puppet.
It's like a little kid justifying bullying other children because another kid who left the room "started it." "Don't blame me," Obama said, with a smirk as he blew cigarette smoke into your face, "Bush started this all."
So it's just whether they're a law-abiding citizen, eh? When the speech controls are put into place, you'd be find with dealing with those horrible people that expressed the wrong opinion of the government, right?
News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.
If the act is not illegal than providing the means to do it should not be illegal. Basic law, maybe, but the law is an insane, stupid thing all too frequently.
One could use this logic to arrest someone for selling computers since computers are used for piracy--the means was provided, after all.
Well, you have to admit, Obama did promise more openness and transparancy. You just didn't realize he meant yours.
I can't see why that distinction would matter. Of course, laws never adhere to logic or reason.
One big feature of jailbreaking iPhones is that you can install apps on your iPhone in a similar manner that you could install NDS games on an R4. Does this also mean that jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal there, too? It should be noted that a major feature of the R4s, and similar devices, was that you can run homebrew on your NDS, which I have. There's some decent homebrew (not that great of a selection, but still some good stuff) available, such as the (excellent) roguelike game POWDER.
That's a good citizen. Bow to your masters.
Get on a better site.
Citizens and proud patriots of America, look away! Such things are not for your eyes. It is not for you to know how our war (done on your behalf, my steadfast Americans!) is going. Such things will only hurt the morale of our troops--and recruitment numbers! We beseech you, our countrypeople, you have no right to any of this information, for we do not belong to you--you belong to us.
How can you say that, and this, at the same time:
>>Your simplistic libertarian views demonstrate that you have only a glib, self serving, and superficial understanding of what freedom means. Freedom is a contract between individuals where both people give up something they value less in order to gain something they value more. As such, freedom is something that is defined by society, not individuals. Individuals, by themselves, have only power. Freedom is a moot concept outside of society. Inside society, it is always a trade off, and it means something far more than "I get to do whatever I want and you can't tell me what to do."
?
Freedom is equated with rights; since you deny individual freedom, you must reject individual rights, including "basic rights." Either you're trolling or your views are murky and undeveloped.
You even claim that the government has a right to arbitrarily claim land as its own, and rule people on it, and the only recourse for people is to live on unclaimed land in places inhabitable like Antarctica or the moon.
In addition, the world governments have claimed that Antarctica is basically a zone for scientific research; oil drilling, etc, is not allowed there. So even if they don't touch Antarctica, they can decide what to do there, and even if someone could they likely couldn't start their own nation there. But that's OK with you, I'm sure; what's important is obedience to the world's governments, so long as they are something labeled "democratic."
But what justifies, for example, the government claiming an entire forest as its own, or other undeveloped and untouched land,
spun claimed that we're free to move to Antarctica as "unclaimed land" (I'm not sure that land is all unclaimed) but that's no more to the point than saying we're free to move to the bottom of the ocean or the moon or at the bottom of the volcano to live. What justifies governments claiming ownership of land that goes untouched by them? Why can't people decide to settle on virgin soil and make their own government there? Why can't the Amish (and I am not advocating that lifestyle) have their own, for example, amish country on their own farmlands?
That's the face of liberalism in the American sense of the word, nowadays, though; "You will obey because we told you to, because we decided it, and because it was some majority of us, you will recognize this as freedom, no matter what is being done to you." Liberals do not recognize or believe in tyranny of the majority, because they believe majority opinion IS freedom. That is exactly what spun here is saying in the first place.