I thought anyone trained in economics would understand that technological innovation increases productivity and overall wealth through capital investment, whether that comes from machines which weave fabric, or engines that search for legal precedent, thus making the same goods available at lower cost.
There is an adjustment to the economy's structure as these are introduced, but without the benefits of specialization and diversification of the labor pool, married with capital equipment, we would never enjoy the lifestyle we do today in first (and second) world countries.
Perhaps Krugman would suggest we switch all gas engines back to coal-fired steam so we can re-employ the idle coal miners?
I guess you would rather not know that they don't hesitate to send good men to their deaths without any justification but their own greed?
I am sure that the relatives to all those soldiers that lost their lives (and still lose their lives) in a war that was entirely avoidable and entirely inspired by the greed of a few disagree.
I have found that people who are closer to the losses are more likely to blindly believe that the cause was just, shutting out any clue that it wasn't. It's tragic, but I think it's easier for them to close their eyes to the truth than face the horror of loss for something which was unjust. Better to lose a son in defense of our rights than for Blackwater/Xe no-bid contracts, or for Donald Rumsfeld's ego. I don't want to think about how that must feel.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal.
That's a good answer, and I see what you mean now. However, it's also a very convenient answer for the people who run a system that's engaged in widespread criminal behavior. It's easy to point at any single order or duty and say clearly how it's not illegal, and so failure to obey is punishable. It should be apparent, though, to someone insightful, that this is an easy way to spread the responsibility for criminality in such a way to make everyone part of a criminal gang feel innocent. Surely you wouldn't say that preparing an MRE is unconstitutional? Yet that preparation of the MRE, along with the development of missile technology, along with the conveyance of fuel, along with relaying information and much more all make military action possible. That the action itself is illegal is never apparent along the way at all the small steps. That's why I think it's important to defend acts such as Manning's.
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
You are balls-on correct. I would say better than 95% of US citizens have no clue that our government's open military activities have a huge civilian toll. Probably closer to 99% don't even think about the secret activities. This country is full of ignorant creeps who are more concerned about iPhones than the consequences of a corrupt foreign policy for people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
Maybe you missed it - he said "Republicrat" party, correctly identifying the group of nominally divided thieves who have successfully conspired to prevent real change in politics for nearly a century now.
I'm sorry, I thought that soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign or domestic. So when the Executive Branch continuously violates the Constitution, it is their duty to refuse to help to do so, and in fact actively prevent such crimes. One such way is to use political speech, such as pointing out repeated unconstitutional acts by the government. Or am I wrong here? Are you saying US troops do not have a responsibility to defend the supreme law of the land? Is it OK for them to follow orders, even when those orders are unconstitutional?
Secret murder. The US government killed people in Yemen and paid off the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. No declaration of war by Congress, just some drone attacks with the usual undisclosed "collateral damage" via a high-pressure freedom dispersal unit (some call them missiles). That's one really obvious one. Need more examples? I'll say it again: It's not legal just because the government is doing it.
The Civil War? The one before which Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? The one where "the enemy" was anyone who believed in states' rights? Yes, I am aware the Constitution was repeatedly violated by the Federal government during that war. Just because it's the government doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Country, or government? The government started an illegal war with Iraq based on faked "evidence" and the testimony of an Iraqi dissident. Even the Bush administration admitted there were no WMDs, and changed it to a "war of liberation". That's illegal, wrong, and violates the Constitution, and is the real treason here (along with Bush II and Obama's continuing war on civil rights). You place more importance on orders than right or wrong, which is just plain wrong, and EXACTLY the thing that led the Germans to atrocities. Are you kidding? What world do you live in where it's OK for my government to order killings of people who have never threatened me on my behalf in secret?
Really? Even the feds admitted there were no tactical threats from his release, and that it consisted largely of embarrassing diplomatic emails. If you make this claim, you should back it up, because when even the feds admit there was no threat. Innocent until proven guilty, so you need to provide proof.
Are you kidding? When the powers that be commit treason by disregarding the Constitution, it is freedom of speech, like that exercised by Manning, that allows us to tell the world about it.
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
Of course he resented you. While I have friends who are public school teachers, and though they're great people, for many of them it's inconceivable that children can learn without them, and they find it threatening, as though the secret might get out that there are alternatives to public schooling which work well for some people. Why do you think states with stronger teacher unions have laws which make it harder to home-school?
By trying to now establish a VP8 patent pool they are telling the world at large that WebM is just as good as what they have.
In addition, they're telling the world they're not going to be extending the royalty free-period on H.264 beyond the ten year period already established.
I guess you haven't seen HP aggressively promoting their TouchSmart line of home PCs. In a bizarre cross-branding effort, HP sponsored a special event on "Project Runway" where a bunch of designers used TouchSmart PCs and special software to create their own fabric prints. Ina strange segment Vera Wang was shilling for HP "making the computer personal again". Touchy-feely computers which are easy to use and require no keyboarding skills, etc. My wife thought it was interesting (even I thought it was pretty cool from a software perspective, and found the way the fabric manufacturer created the prints to be innovative). So I think you're missing the point on the Pre devices. HP will be going after other markets.
I'm certain the application can't usurp OS scheduling, and question how they plan to manage that goal (or under what specific circumstances they're limiting it to). I'm also curious why you'd be distracting yourself while doing critical R/T work...that seems like a bad idea. If I were paying you to record me, and you messed up levels while playing angry birds, I'd be pretty miffed.
More accurately he is just repackaging *traditional* republican arguments (which may or may not resemble some contemporary republicans).
Did you mean lowercase "republican", as in a form of government, or did you mean pre-neocon "Republican", as in the political party before Bill Kristol/Karl Rove?
Little things like the obvious expansion of government under Reagan and Bush II (which was consistently and vocally opposed by Ron Paul) are details which do not matter? Don't expect to ignore reality and not get called out on it here. If you can't be troubled to understand what's going on, rather than use your preconceived notions as a source of knowledge, you are unlikely to have anything worth saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I was so confused I was checking to see whether this summary was about the article linked to, or something else completely.
I thought anyone trained in economics would understand that technological innovation increases productivity and overall wealth through capital investment, whether that comes from machines which weave fabric, or engines that search for legal precedent, thus making the same goods available at lower cost.
There is an adjustment to the economy's structure as these are introduced, but without the benefits of specialization and diversification of the labor pool, married with capital equipment, we would never enjoy the lifestyle we do today in first (and second) world countries.
Perhaps Krugman would suggest we switch all gas engines back to coal-fired steam so we can re-employ the idle coal miners?
I guess you would rather not know that they don't hesitate to send good men to their deaths without any justification but their own greed?
I am sure that the relatives to all those soldiers that lost their lives (and still lose their lives) in a war that was entirely avoidable and entirely inspired by the greed of a few disagree.
I have found that people who are closer to the losses are more likely to blindly believe that the cause was just, shutting out any clue that it wasn't. It's tragic, but I think it's easier for them to close their eyes to the truth than face the horror of loss for something which was unjust. Better to lose a son in defense of our rights than for Blackwater/Xe no-bid contracts, or for Donald Rumsfeld's ego. I don't want to think about how that must feel.
Nicely put.
Their duty in that regard is to refuse specific orders that are clearly illegal.
That's a good answer, and I see what you mean now. However, it's also a very convenient answer for the people who run a system that's engaged in widespread criminal behavior. It's easy to point at any single order or duty and say clearly how it's not illegal, and so failure to obey is punishable. It should be apparent, though, to someone insightful, that this is an easy way to spread the responsibility for criminality in such a way to make everyone part of a criminal gang feel innocent. Surely you wouldn't say that preparing an MRE is unconstitutional? Yet that preparation of the MRE, along with the development of missile technology, along with the conveyance of fuel, along with relaying information and much more all make military action possible. That the action itself is illegal is never apparent along the way at all the small steps. That's why I think it's important to defend acts such as Manning's.
You say this because during the revolutionary war the continental army didn't do anything wrong or underhanded in fighting the british and it was only after that there were atrocities in war?
I believe that was a war of defense of our rights to self-rule, not a pattern of imperialist interference in the governments of other countries, by force or otherwise.
I also don't agree that a member of the military should be allowed to disseminate classified information to foreign nationals during a time of war and not be penalized for it.
We're not at war, because Congress didn't make a declaration of war. Therefore, the continued military activities are illegal, period. It's not just a technicality, it's part of the larger point that our Congress has allowed things to go completely off the rails.
You are balls-on correct. I would say better than 95% of US citizens have no clue that our government's open military activities have a huge civilian toll. Probably closer to 99% don't even think about the secret activities. This country is full of ignorant creeps who are more concerned about iPhones than the consequences of a corrupt foreign policy for people in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
Maybe you missed it - he said "Republicrat" party, correctly identifying the group of nominally divided thieves who have successfully conspired to prevent real change in politics for nearly a century now.
I'm sorry, I thought that soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign or domestic. So when the Executive Branch continuously violates the Constitution, it is their duty to refuse to help to do so, and in fact actively prevent such crimes. One such way is to use political speech, such as pointing out repeated unconstitutional acts by the government. Or am I wrong here? Are you saying US troops do not have a responsibility to defend the supreme law of the land? Is it OK for them to follow orders, even when those orders are unconstitutional?
Secret murder. The US government killed people in Yemen and paid off the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. No declaration of war by Congress, just some drone attacks with the usual undisclosed "collateral damage" via a high-pressure freedom dispersal unit (some call them missiles). That's one really obvious one. Need more examples? I'll say it again: It's not legal just because the government is doing it.
The Civil War? The one before which Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? The one where "the enemy" was anyone who believed in states' rights? Yes, I am aware the Constitution was repeatedly violated by the Federal government during that war. Just because it's the government doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz1FXksZKgb
Country, or government? The government started an illegal war with Iraq based on faked "evidence" and the testimony of an Iraqi dissident. Even the Bush administration admitted there were no WMDs, and changed it to a "war of liberation". That's illegal, wrong, and violates the Constitution, and is the real treason here (along with Bush II and Obama's continuing war on civil rights). You place more importance on orders than right or wrong, which is just plain wrong, and EXACTLY the thing that led the Germans to atrocities. Are you kidding? What world do you live in where it's OK for my government to order killings of people who have never threatened me on my behalf in secret?
Really? Even the feds admitted there were no tactical threats from his release, and that it consisted largely of embarrassing diplomatic emails. If you make this claim, you should back it up, because when even the feds admit there was no threat. Innocent until proven guilty, so you need to provide proof.
Are you kidding? When the powers that be commit treason by disregarding the Constitution, it is freedom of speech, like that exercised by Manning, that allows us to tell the world about it.
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
As petty as it sounds I think he resented me.
Of course he resented you. While I have friends who are public school teachers, and though they're great people, for many of them it's inconceivable that children can learn without them, and they find it threatening, as though the secret might get out that there are alternatives to public schooling which work well for some people. Why do you think states with stronger teacher unions have laws which make it harder to home-school?
By trying to now establish a VP8 patent pool they are telling the world at large that WebM is just as good as what they have.
In addition, they're telling the world they're not going to be extending the royalty free-period on H.264 beyond the ten year period already established.
I guess you haven't seen HP aggressively promoting their TouchSmart line of home PCs. In a bizarre cross-branding effort, HP sponsored a special event on "Project Runway" where a bunch of designers used TouchSmart PCs and special software to create their own fabric prints. Ina strange segment Vera Wang was shilling for HP "making the computer personal again". Touchy-feely computers which are easy to use and require no keyboarding skills, etc. My wife thought it was interesting (even I thought it was pretty cool from a software perspective, and found the way the fabric manufacturer created the prints to be innovative). So I think you're missing the point on the Pre devices. HP will be going after other markets.
But perhaps your band just plain sucks, and Angry Birds is the only thing between you and the door.
You deserve at least +1 Funny for that.
I'm certain the application can't usurp OS scheduling, and question how they plan to manage that goal (or under what specific circumstances they're limiting it to). I'm also curious why you'd be distracting yourself while doing critical R/T work...that seems like a bad idea. If I were paying you to record me, and you messed up levels while playing angry birds, I'd be pretty miffed.
Yes, but how to make it happen peacefully?
More accurately he is just repackaging *traditional* republican arguments (which may or may not resemble some contemporary republicans).
Did you mean lowercase "republican", as in a form of government, or did you mean pre-neocon "Republican", as in the political party before Bill Kristol/Karl Rove?
details do not matter
Little things like the obvious expansion of government under Reagan and Bush II (which was consistently and vocally opposed by Ron Paul) are details which do not matter? Don't expect to ignore reality and not get called out on it here. If you can't be troubled to understand what's going on, rather than use your preconceived notions as a source of knowledge, you are unlikely to have anything worth saying.
does anyone have any about Wall Street or Congress?
Why bother? They steal openly now.