That is not even a remotely reasonable comparison.
Physics is the study of phenomena associated with actual physical interactions and have verifiable facts and information.
Humanity still escapes any significant scientific classification and to this date the actual location, mechanism, or source of "consciousness" is unknown. I have the capacity to think about things that concern my person and other persons.
However, there is a wealth of information that makes it clear that gravity is going to affect me with a well defined and exhaustively studied precision. Which is why it is an "engineering" subject.
Humanity, well what works for me, does not work for others, they have their own ideas, preferences, likes, dislikes... whatever and why it is not an "engineering" subject.
The only goal is to elevate the important of a certain group of people over another group. This is not a reasonable or even a wise academic pursuit. It just creates division and more misunderstanding... rather than inclusion and understanding.
"Nonetheless, expertise counts for something, as a time-saver if nothing else."
I agree, but this is about humanities, who is really the expert here? I am a human, I am every bit an expert as you or that person holding a degree. In short, who can you technically reason with yourself that he, or you, or I are more "qualified" to human?
"It doesn't matter if that someone is Noam Chomsky or Jordan Peterson."
No, you mean... it does not matter if it is anyone or anyone! If they are human they are qualified experts! Think of the movie K-Pax... every being has the capacity to help other heal. Yes, we also harm because we act stupid, but the action of healing does not start with expertise, it starts with understanding... something I am currently not seeing from the professionals. Even Jordan Peterson has no problem lambasting folks, which is probably why I like him a lot, he is no stupid person, but I have come to almost the exact same conclusions that he has come to and I can assure you that I am no where near as "qualified" as he his on things. How is it that I can arrive at many of the same conclusions that he has about life? By thinking, that is how... and I do not need to do this in an academic setting and the idea that I should to be "qualified" is the problem I want to point out here!
The entire problem with liberal arts and the humanities is that they are classes to begin with. You do not need to pay a college tuition to discuss humans and their problems or potential solutions. It only creates a pseudo intellectualism, where a group of people sit around massaging their minds to the point they no longer able to effectively communicate with rest of the humans they think they are helping enlighten.
"See, this is why liberal arts and the humanities are so important. If you'd studied them, you might have thought to check the motherfucking article before spouting off about how this guy is just some liberal arts loser."
You do realize that where they have taught, what certifications or accreditation they have, or what their ideas are, does not preclude them from saying stupid things. You are helping prove my claim that the entire purpose of "The Humanities" is to generate people exactly like you. To make it so that only certain people can have opinions... the ones that went to these classes and passed them.
"I would think that someone who jumped straight to, "he studied macrame" without even glancing at the article might not want to throw any stones about "critical thinking"."
I would say this same thing about you. do you know for a fact that this poster is not as known as the other? Perhaps they are and do not wish to reveal their real name because of folks like you? You know... the ones that says the only people allowed to have a legitimate opinion must pass your version of ideas.
This argument is such BS. Like you said... they have to have taken a class, they can only have an opinion based on YOUR idea of things, they can only have a say or voice in the way you thing they should have it.
You basically just said, you are not allowed to have an opinion of something because you did not attend a class. What about if they have experience garbage coming out of the mouths of those that did attend? Is that not a fair assessment? The first foundation of science is observation. If people are observing these people making fools of themselves then it is totally legitimate for them to have concerns about classes they did not attend. This is not like doing a review for a movie where you need to see it to give a good evaluation. All you need is to see the product of these courses and come to more than enough of a realization that these classes are not unbiased as you appear to be proving right now.
Where did you get the idea that I was accusing them of political correctness? I agree with you, many of them are hardly politically correct, but what is the natural pursuit of most education? Take in information, process it as the professor wants it processed and then to regurgitate that information to their satisfaction in order to get a passing grade.
You see, unless the professor is passing everyone based on participation only, then indoctrination is occurring this is not an accusation for any particular group or politic. Psychology and Sociology has the same "Newton's Third Law". Just like "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." there is also "For every Psycology/Saying/Philosophy there is and equal and opposite Psycology/Saying/Philosophy."
The humanities teaches nothing accept discrimination and indoctrination because it has now relegated itself to an "in crowd" echo chamber and is becoming more and more anti-science as time has gone by.
It pretty much creates the premise that only "accredited" people are allowed to discuss human issues with any authority which is total bunk. The goal seems to be taking possession of humanity/liberal arts as an idea away from everyone else that did not attend. Every person unto themselves, regardless of race, minority/majority, religion, politic, ethnic, or whatever "label" you can think of has a right to represent their own ideas about humanity and life. It is a natural extension of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy except it is now a formally indoctrinated fallacy.
You want to be a philosopher then go be it, Academia needs to keep its pie hole clamped on the subject as it no longer caters to all possible philosophers and only says that "certain ones" should be allowed the right to speak.
Again, bad idea, this only helps the browser and will add a common well known attack vector, it will not help any installed applications or services making internet calls.
Keep it separate, if you want to avoid resolving DNS over your network connection get a service/application that will curate your hosts file or act as a local personal DNS server/service itself. This way more than just your browser gets the benefits.
Free only 'legally' means you don't have to pay cash, but it is never actually free, you just pay for it with other currencies like privacy, control/ownership, social/political/economic standing, liberty/prison/indenture/employment, and sadly but occasionally life itself through war/crime/tyranny/accident/health.
You are going to pay one way or another, even when it is 'free'!
I am not pro Trump, is there a reason you think that I am? Or are you the type of person that assumes anyone not agreeing to your dogma is automatically a Trump supporter?
Here is a news flash for you, there are more than just Democrats and Republics in the world. Perhaps you are not able to view or comprehend the world as more than just either R vs D?
And as far as making sure nothing will happen? You are greatly mistaken, if anything Trump is more likely to cause the same counter stroke effort in the left that Obama caused in the right.
It looks like President George Washington warning in his farewell address is coming true...
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
Even though the founding fathers of this nation were just humans almost every single one of them on their own posses more wisdom than the entire government collectively today. A true shame that they were, even then, still able to predict that we would become like we have now, even warned us what would happen and despite the wonder of the internet we will not learn. We will never learn.
History teaches only one lesson, that people will not learn it and will constantly repeat it.
New things get the benefit of being open for a while but as is human nature more than enough of someones are going to come along and decide what you are doing with it must be regulated.
It is the basic nature of humans. adults regulate the children, economics regulate the adults, and government regulates it all. You can slice and dice it up however you like but the end result is NEVER different. It will be regulated.
Even in the ever anti-regulation (is that really a thing or just gas people emit?) state of texas you need to a permit to handle unpackaged food. https://www.learn2serve.com/te...
Isn't it nice that your legislators are so busy that you can't even legally carry a tray of food from the kitchen to a table without a license or permit of some kind in some places?
Like I said, stop with these pipe dreams a free and open internet is no longer possible because it is no longer new enough to escape the clutches of human meddling. There are numerous calls to regulation on it by businesses and lay people and it will become just another arm of the bureaucracy. It's not prophecy, it's not politics, it is just flat human reality! Or you could say everybody's religion. Because that is tribalism in it's most basic form. Grouping up to gain power to tell people how to live and is as natural for humans as talking to each other!
"The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions"
uh... did they not vote a clown in that thinks just exactly this? Apparently even the citizens themselves believe they are too stupid to make their own decisions. It seems to me that Peskin is just reflecting what his voters want. I believe that is his job as their elected, right?
governments are a reflection of its people. A truth many people will refuse to their very graves, very much to their detriment.
umm.... A "Representative Democracy" is what an "indirect democracy" is. Sure we can argue over semantics by looking at a specific nation and see if their actual system of government in practice actually creates the effect of a direct or indirect democracy, but the words do have a meaning.
In the case of a "Representative Democracy" it means a person that wins an election because they have the popular vote. Or are you prepared to say that a Democracy is possible when a minority will can trump a majority will? Because if you are, you are participating in double talk and need to start explaining how a Democracy works when a minority is controlling what the majority can do.
Democracy is the Will of the Majority, and using the words "Representative Democracy" does not change that dynamic. The only thing that changes is the "mechanism" by how the will of the majority is executed... Specifically, in a direct democracy, the people vote directly on the laws and decide what they will be. In an indirect or "representative democracy" the people vote on the people voting on the laws they will have. And if you even pay a little bit of attention to the elections... even in a republic a candidate has to at least win by some "majority" mechanism. In the American Republic, the Majority Mechanism is by Districts instead of voter body count. Now, the reason this is not "democratic" because a candidate can win because they do not have a majority of the people. Which is the defacto requirement in a Democracy. Take the brexit vote... that was a Democratic process... and I can but you right now... many of those people are hating that "democratic action" and is living proof of how democracy can destroy nations. Hopefully they will survive it, but if they keep playing at democracy they are going to suicide themselves.
"Those of us that think they know everything really piss of those of us that actually do."
You don't say!
US is NOT a democracy of any kind. We have several anti-Democracy controls in place "specifically there to prevent Democracy".
Seriously, are you folks so ignorant that you won't even take the time to pick up a book on history and read what the founders of our nation wrote? Several efforts were take to specifically prevent America from being a Democracy of any kind. It is 'literally' in the history books, the Constitution, and in the writings of the very founders. It is amazing that some many people can possess this level of ignorant in the "information age".
More like "misinformation age".
Yea... your pissed off all right... that you think you actually know anything at all!
And since you posted a link to a load of ignorance, let me give you a link to a little enlightenment.
--- Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams --- Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death. James Madison ---
And my personal favorite by a person that is not even an American --- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill ---
And Churchill was talking about you AND every other person that calls America a Democracy.
so yea... those of you whom think you know everything...
Wow, even bragging about learning to be ignorant... you are brave!
We are not a representative Democracy either. A Republic does not equal a Representative Democracy, this is a farce only believed by ignorant people that cannot read and comprehend things. A representative Democracy would have results in Hillary winning the election because she had the majority vote. Additionally, SCOTUS would either be abolished or have their ability to rule laws as Unconstitutional removed. Also, to be a Representative Democracy the Veto power of the Executive would need to be removed as well. As long as there is a mechanism in place where a minority power can overrule a Majority then you just do not have a Democracy... no matter how much you kick scream and whine about it.
"I'm quite certain that the Founding Fathers did not intend this in the slightest."
Uhmm... that was my point, I guess we can add poor comprehension to the list of issues you have.
The founding Fathers intended for us to be a "Republic" and most definitely not a democracy of any kind. Seriously go and read what many of them have said about what a Democracy is.
A democracy of any form be it direct or indirect will only commit suicide. The reason people like to run around calling things a democracy is to keep ignorant folks like you thinking the government should operate in a way it actually does not operate. Keeping you ignorant, helps keeps them in power.
Let's just say we have already lost the republic, because of many people like you that do not even know what form their own government takes and will even get on a forum and double down in their ignorance despite there being a mountain of proof and evidence in the form of writing by the very founders of the nation. You are essentially the equivalent of a flat-earther refusing to believe the facts and proof readily available to you.
Judges have used the "All Writs" clause to overstep authority for a long time. Both parties approve of Judges acting this way, just in different contexts. Naturally this means that Judges get at the very least short term legislative powers without due process or constitutional authority.
Additionally, we are not a Democracy, never have been. Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
We do not even have Democratically elected representatives, why do you think gerrymandering is a thing? You do not have to gain the Majority of the vote to win an election as recently proven by Trump's win over Hillary. She had more votes, but the system was setup to intentionally prevent a majority vote win. It is designed for the votes to be carved by district and for those to be used to count votes for candidates specifically to prevent Democracy voting. Additionally, in the case of a court system, like this case here. Just a single person can change the law... where is the democracy in that? In a Democracy a court should not have any of these veto or legislation from the bench powers, they only should have the power of rendering guilty/innocent verdicts. And since we have a large system of courts able to overturn laws by the power of a select few, we are definitely anti-Democracy Judicially. Additionally, we do not allow citizens to either directly or indirectly create or vote on laws federally. Some states do this like California, but as proven in the Case of Prop 8, a single judge there can overturn the will of the Democracy for whatever reason they want. And last but not least, Veto power by the Executives... in short, just a single person can veto any law their legislatures bring them refusing to sign it into law, often requiring a super majority of overcome.
We are not a Democracy, in fact our system of government actively subverts democracy at every available turn. Why do you think the citizens feel powerless? Because they are! They can vote anyone they want in, but they cannot force anyone they vote into power to even fulfill any campaign promises. The best you can do is attempt to recall them and that requires a lot of effort as well.
But by all means, go ahead and keep calling it a Democracy... it's really working out well is it not?
We are a Republic and the founding fathers are "expressly" on record as being very anti democracy. If you want a democracy that is fine, but it only reveals ignorance to call what we have a democracy of any kind!
You can be shot dead for any reason by law enforcement, and it has happened a lot, with some outcry from time to time mostly from the black community with little concern from other communities. You can be put in jail for any reason by any leader and it has happened to many people with little outcry. Just ask the minorities and poor folks. You can be pretty much be screwed by big business or government at any time of their choosing.
Tell me just exactly how in the hell a "democracy" would allow all that to keep happening, if it were actually a "democracy"?
Then why do you think that a criminals should not be consulted on punishment? Sure individually they are going to be biased, but collectively they are likely not because at that point, they are no longer evaluating themselves, they are evaluating others that have performed the same crime and you may find that they will be far more insightful than you would be about the problem.
"We do indeed treat white collar crime very differently from lower-class crime,"
I agree
", even though white collar crime is more often motivated by greed rather than (say) desperation."
I do not subscribe to this logic. I have seen desperate rich people still screw people over and greedy poor assholes steal in a mixture to call this into question. Imagine a rich klepto, some people do it because they have a problem. Some people do it because they are just desperate, and not just for reasons of economic destitution, though I will say that nearly universally, greed is a majority driving factor. Again, I am not talking about exceptions disproving the rule here... I am talking about greed, in general, being the driving force no matter the economic situation.
If someone broke into my house to steal a loaf of bread because they were hungry and had no money, I would forgive them. If someone kept breaking into my house to steal bread because they were too greedy with their money to buy their own, I would press charges. If someone broke into my house to steal a loaf of bread because they thought I owed it to them, I would consider them a deadly threat and shoot to kill because they are clearly "hostile" in their intent.
Greed fits 2 of those scenarios and desperation only 1.
You are not even trying to mask your reverence for the state.
"Then you would see that regulation by the state is absolutely essential."
What does that even mean? No one is saying complete zero regulation? You are just implying that they mean that and then using overbroad and meaningless batter to soak your message in.
"The alternative is all the power coalescing in a few commercial interests (bad)."
Bad argument, we already have that problem even with the regulations. Can you at least get an honest statement in here somewhere?
"The end point of unrestrained capitalism is a slave class of underlings"
Again with the overt obtuse batter, no one is asking for unrestrained capitalism. Free-Market is a Restraint on capitalism because it freely allows a good competitor to replace a bad competitor, even if they have a monopoly. Of course we already know that people like you are going to be lazy will not perform your civic duty and resist doing business with bad actors and instead ask for an easy to buy politician to do it for you.
And now, even with all of your regulations saddled all over society the environment is still being damaged and people are still being treated like slaves in many cases. I don't see your regulations being anything other than "theater". There to make you "feel good" about having done something while actually having done nothing at all.
If you could town down your "regulation" rhetoric and detailed what "regulations" you want then we can have a discussion, but until then... the only thing you are saying is... regulation... and if you have not noticed we are getting it. Lots of it, but I do not see any real material improvements. The only thing I am seeing is that the screwing post keeps getting moved around in circles keeping you dizzy.
Indeed they were, but it also speaks to another often undiscussed issue that voters have.
*Eternal Vigilance*
We the People are supposed to be in a free market where we can apply our Eternal Vigilance to everything. But we don't, why? Because it is just easier to say... I don't want to fight the big businesses, I want government to do it for me. I don't want to be eternally vigilant... it's too much work.
Shortly after they all wonder why their nation is falling apart. There is no eternal vigilance any longer. It has all fallen victim to the tragedy of the commons, but people are not able to see it or understand how and why it is.
This lack will also result in the loss of the 1st, in fact, it is already lost, we are now just discussing how lost it will be.
O wait, you mean regulate them in such a way as to benefit or protect the consumers? Why didn't you say that? Here let me get my lobbyist oiled up with some "gifts" for your elected officials. I am sure they are going to listen to you on regulations over me right? After all, you are ARE calling for more regulations and the politicians hear that call for more regulations. Let's have more regulations, I am just going to tweak them just a touch to improve my prospects if you know what I mean as you cheer things on. One of these days we are going to wake up and realize that the dagger in our backs is the same one we handed them via calls to regulation in the first place.
I would like to point out that your data is in fact way more valuable than you give credit for.
In a vacuum it might seem that it is not that valuable, but what if that "data" connects you to the sale of a home, or other large expense. It becomes real valuable then, to the potential tune of thousands per successful sale. Think of it like being a car salesman... how many customers does he lose before he gets one? The value of a lost customer is very little... those are the.00005 cent people... but to the one that is a Sale? Just one successful sale moves that decimal point several positions to the right.
So don't dare try to minimize the value of data, they are after it for some very good reasons, and for the same reasons it is a good idea to protect it!
"The oligarchs are the victors. They're the ones teaching you that "free markets" and "less regulation" are a good thing. You have been lied to."
When why do they call for regulations and install revolving doors between themselves? Are you that easy to fool? They stand at the podiums and decry that they hate regulation for your ears and then they run to the back rooms and create themselves deals.
What they say and what they do are two very different things. Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, and many like them are all calling for regulations on multiple things. According to you, these "oligarchs" should be shunning regulations right?
It would be you that has been well indoctrinated. I wait for the day for you to question what you have been told. Have you not noticed the trend? We have more regulations than ever before, and we also also have a larger wealth gap than ever before. Do you know what else we have? More large monolithic monopolistic umbrella and holding companies than ever before. We have mega-mergers now.
The Oligarchs have been successful in making you give them what you think they do not want. Regulation. In truth they want regulation, just not the type of regulation you are pedaling. But you are not clear headed enough to know that regulations is a meaningless buzzword that means absolutely nothing. Regulation can be good or bad, productive or counter productive. You have damaged your own position by boiling regulation down to a partisan issue where regulation = good even when those regulations grant monopolies and harm consumers and de-regulation = bad even when the removal of those regulations would invite new competition.
The only thing you have is the illusion of choice. Less regulation means nothing, more regulation means nothing. If you want more regulation we can give that to you, but it will all benefit the businesses more than the consumers you "claim" to seek to protect. More it is then! Enjoy!
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "
~Madison
I would say that Madison was very short sighted in his prognostications... he failed realize or at least mention that these dangers, real or pretended, can also be from home. But then again, in those days "free enterprise" was the ideal so very few quotes directly mention them, but still apply 'in logic' all the same.
At first yes... we will do the same as well... at first! But like I said... how do you get them to ONLY do that? Look at what is going on now. The EU now wants to add more regulations... like the ones I said would come after these making my very point. Again... how are you going to keep them from doing more than what we want? You can't. They will quickly become drunk on the power of regulation.
There is at least a double whammy to this issue. One is the opening of the flood gates to regulate now... each and every time a group of politicians get their knickers in a wad they will think of ways to control social media, they are already visible salivating over the prospect. The other whammy? That will be social media quashing anything that looks suspect, anything that can even be construed as false or fake news and whammo... the government has just "indirectly" but still successfully stifled free speech even more.
Of course they are going to start with the good stuff first... it's the same strategy from since before any of us where born. You get the nice tasting stuff fed to them and make them happy... and right as they open their mouth for the next bite you powerslam a plate full of shit right down their gullet!
Slashdot Mirror
That is not even a remotely reasonable comparison.
Physics is the study of phenomena associated with actual physical interactions and have verifiable facts and information.
Humanity still escapes any significant scientific classification and to this date the actual location, mechanism, or source of "consciousness" is unknown. I have the capacity to think about things that concern my person and other persons.
However, there is a wealth of information that makes it clear that gravity is going to affect me with a well defined and exhaustively studied precision. Which is why it is an "engineering" subject.
Humanity, well what works for me, does not work for others, they have their own ideas, preferences, likes, dislikes... whatever and why it is not an "engineering" subject.
The only goal is to elevate the important of a certain group of people over another group. This is not a reasonable or even a wise academic pursuit. It just creates division and more misunderstanding... rather than inclusion and understanding.
"Nonetheless, expertise counts for something, as a time-saver if nothing else."
I agree, but this is about humanities, who is really the expert here? I am a human, I am every bit an expert as you or that person holding a degree. In short, who can you technically reason with yourself that he, or you, or I are more "qualified" to human?
"It doesn't matter if that someone is Noam Chomsky or Jordan Peterson."
No, you mean... it does not matter if it is anyone or anyone! If they are human they are qualified experts! Think of the movie K-Pax... every being has the capacity to help other heal. Yes, we also harm because we act stupid, but the action of healing does not start with expertise, it starts with understanding... something I am currently not seeing from the professionals. Even Jordan Peterson has no problem lambasting folks, which is probably why I like him a lot, he is no stupid person, but I have come to almost the exact same conclusions that he has come to and I can assure you that I am no where near as "qualified" as he his on things. How is it that I can arrive at many of the same conclusions that he has about life? By thinking, that is how... and I do not need to do this in an academic setting and the idea that I should to be "qualified" is the problem I want to point out here!
The entire problem with liberal arts and the humanities is that they are classes to begin with. You do not need to pay a college tuition to discuss humans and their problems or potential solutions. It only creates a pseudo intellectualism, where a group of people sit around massaging their minds to the point they no longer able to effectively communicate with rest of the humans they think they are helping enlighten.
"See, this is why liberal arts and the humanities are so important. If you'd studied them, you might have thought to check the motherfucking article before spouting off about how this guy is just some liberal arts loser."
You do realize that where they have taught, what certifications or accreditation they have, or what their ideas are, does not preclude them from saying stupid things. You are helping prove my claim that the entire purpose of "The Humanities" is to generate people exactly like you. To make it so that only certain people can have opinions... the ones that went to these classes and passed them.
"I would think that someone who jumped straight to, "he studied macrame" without even glancing at the article might not want to throw any stones about "critical thinking"."
I would say this same thing about you. do you know for a fact that this poster is not as known as the other? Perhaps they are and do not wish to reveal their real name because of folks like you? You know... the ones that says the only people allowed to have a legitimate opinion must pass your version of ideas.
This argument is such BS. Like you said... they have to have taken a class, they can only have an opinion based on YOUR idea of things, they can only have a say or voice in the way you thing they should have it.
You basically just said, you are not allowed to have an opinion of something because you did not attend a class. What about if they have experience garbage coming out of the mouths of those that did attend? Is that not a fair assessment? The first foundation of science is observation. If people are observing these people making fools of themselves then it is totally legitimate for them to have concerns about classes they did not attend. This is not like doing a review for a movie where you need to see it to give a good evaluation. All you need is to see the product of these courses and come to more than enough of a realization that these classes are not unbiased as you appear to be proving right now.
Where did you get the idea that I was accusing them of political correctness? I agree with you, many of them are hardly politically correct, but what is the natural pursuit of most education? Take in information, process it as the professor wants it processed and then to regurgitate that information to their satisfaction in order to get a passing grade.
You see, unless the professor is passing everyone based on participation only, then indoctrination is occurring this is not an accusation for any particular group or politic. Psychology and Sociology has the same "Newton's Third Law". Just like "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." there is also "For every Psycology/Saying/Philosophy there is and equal and opposite Psycology/Saying/Philosophy."
The humanities teaches nothing accept discrimination and indoctrination because it has now relegated itself to an "in crowd" echo chamber and is becoming more and more anti-science as time has gone by.
It pretty much creates the premise that only "accredited" people are allowed to discuss human issues with any authority which is total bunk. The goal seems to be taking possession of humanity/liberal arts as an idea away from everyone else that did not attend. Every person unto themselves, regardless of race, minority/majority, religion, politic, ethnic, or whatever "label" you can think of has a right to represent their own ideas about humanity and life. It is a natural extension of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy except it is now a formally indoctrinated fallacy.
You want to be a philosopher then go be it, Academia needs to keep its pie hole clamped on the subject as it no longer caters to all possible philosophers and only says that "certain ones" should be allowed the right to speak.
Again, bad idea, this only helps the browser and will add a common well known attack vector, it will not help any installed applications or services making internet calls.
Keep it separate, if you want to avoid resolving DNS over your network connection get a service/application that will curate your hosts file or act as a local personal DNS server/service itself. This way more than just your browser gets the benefits.
keep it separate
once again, this is a bad idea!
browsers are not the only things using DNS, additionally, it is just one more attack vector on an already sizable surface area.
And if FF enforces this feature... they will only risk losing market share in the browser space every time their "vision" is used to attack systems.
Free only 'legally' means you don't have to pay cash, but it is never actually free, you just pay for it with other currencies like privacy, control/ownership, social/political/economic standing, liberty/prison/indenture/employment, and sadly but occasionally life itself through war/crime/tyranny/accident/health.
You are going to pay one way or another, even when it is 'free'!
I am not pro Trump, is there a reason you think that I am? Or are you the type of person that assumes anyone not agreeing to your dogma is automatically a Trump supporter?
Here is a news flash for you, there are more than just Democrats and Republics in the world. Perhaps you are not able to view or comprehend the world as more than just either R vs D?
And as far as making sure nothing will happen? You are greatly mistaken, if anything Trump is more likely to cause the same counter stroke effort in the left that Obama caused in the right.
It looks like President George Washington warning in his farewell address is coming true...
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
Even though the founding fathers of this nation were just humans almost every single one of them on their own posses more wisdom than the entire government collectively today. A true shame that they were, even then, still able to predict that we would become like we have now, even warned us what would happen and despite the wonder of the internet we will not learn. We will never learn.
History teaches only one lesson, that people will not learn it and will constantly repeat it.
New things get the benefit of being open for a while but as is human nature more than enough of someones are going to come along and decide what you are doing with it must be regulated.
It is the basic nature of humans. adults regulate the children, economics regulate the adults, and government regulates it all. You can slice and dice it up however you like but the end result is NEVER different. It will be regulated.
Even in the ever anti-regulation (is that really a thing or just gas people emit?) state of texas you need to a permit to handle unpackaged food.
https://www.learn2serve.com/te...
There is even a temporary suspension in some areas for training for hurricane relief.
http://dshs.texas.gov/food-han...
Isn't it nice that your legislators are so busy that you can't even legally carry a tray of food from the kitchen to a table without a license or permit of some kind in some places?
Like I said, stop with these pipe dreams a free and open internet is no longer possible because it is no longer new enough to escape the clutches of human meddling. There are numerous calls to regulation on it by businesses and lay people and it will become just another arm of the bureaucracy. It's not prophecy, it's not politics, it is just flat human reality! Or you could say everybody's religion. Because that is tribalism in it's most basic form. Grouping up to gain power to tell people how to live and is as natural for humans as talking to each other!
"The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions"
uh... did they not vote a clown in that thinks just exactly this? Apparently even the citizens themselves believe they are too stupid to make their own decisions. It seems to me that Peskin is just reflecting what his voters want. I believe that is his job as their elected, right?
governments are a reflection of its people. A truth many people will refuse to their very graves, very much to their detriment.
"There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy."
umm.... A "Representative Democracy" is what an "indirect democracy" is. Sure we can argue over semantics by looking at a specific nation and see if their actual system of government in practice actually creates the effect of a direct or indirect democracy, but the words do have a meaning.
In the case of a "Representative Democracy" it means a person that wins an election because they have the popular vote. Or are you prepared to say that a Democracy is possible when a minority will can trump a majority will? Because if you are, you are participating in double talk and need to start explaining how a Democracy works when a minority is controlling what the majority can do.
Democracy is the Will of the Majority, and using the words "Representative Democracy" does not change that dynamic. The only thing that changes is the "mechanism" by how the will of the majority is executed... Specifically, in a direct democracy, the people vote directly on the laws and decide what they will be. In an indirect or "representative democracy" the people vote on the people voting on the laws they will have. And if you even pay a little bit of attention to the elections... even in a republic a candidate has to at least win by some "majority" mechanism. In the American Republic, the Majority Mechanism is by Districts instead of voter body count. Now, the reason this is not "democratic" because a candidate can win because they do not have a majority of the people. Which is the defacto requirement in a Democracy. Take the brexit vote... that was a Democratic process... and I can but you right now... many of those people are hating that "democratic action" and is living proof of how democracy can destroy nations. Hopefully they will survive it, but if they keep playing at democracy they are going to suicide themselves.
"Those of us that think they know everything really piss of those of us that actually do."
You don't say!
US is NOT a democracy of any kind. We have several anti-Democracy controls in place "specifically there to prevent Democracy".
Seriously, are you folks so ignorant that you won't even take the time to pick up a book on history and read what the founders of our nation wrote? Several efforts were take to specifically prevent America from being a Democracy of any kind. It is 'literally' in the history books, the Constitution, and in the writings of the very founders. It is amazing that some many people can possess this level of ignorant in the "information age".
More like "misinformation age".
Yea... your pissed off all right... that you think you actually know anything at all!
And since you posted a link to a load of ignorance, let me give you a link to a little enlightenment.
http://libertyunderfire.org/20...
http://thecrux.com/what-the-fo...
---
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
---
Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
James Madison
---
And my personal favorite by a person that is not even an American
---
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
---
And Churchill was talking about you AND every other person that calls America a Democracy.
so yea... those of you whom think you know everything...
Wow, even bragging about learning to be ignorant... you are brave!
We are not a representative Democracy either.
A Republic does not equal a Representative Democracy, this is a farce only believed by ignorant people that cannot read and comprehend things. A representative Democracy would have results in Hillary winning the election because she had the majority vote. Additionally, SCOTUS would either be abolished or have their ability to rule laws as Unconstitutional removed. Also, to be a Representative Democracy the Veto power of the Executive would need to be removed as well. As long as there is a mechanism in place where a minority power can overrule a Majority then you just do not have a Democracy... no matter how much you kick scream and whine about it.
"I'm quite certain that the Founding Fathers did not intend this in the slightest."
Uhmm... that was my point, I guess we can add poor comprehension to the list of issues you have.
The founding Fathers intended for us to be a "Republic" and most definitely not a democracy of any kind. Seriously go and read what many of them have said about what a Democracy is.
A democracy of any form be it direct or indirect will only commit suicide. The reason people like to run around calling things a democracy is to keep ignorant folks like you thinking the government should operate in a way it actually does not operate. Keeping you ignorant, helps keeps them in power.
And said best by...
https://www.bartleby.com/73/15...
Benjamin Franklin...
"A republic, if you can keep it".
Let's just say we have already lost the republic, because of many people like you that do not even know what form their own government takes and will even get on a forum and double down in their ignorance despite there being a mountain of proof and evidence in the form of writing by the very founders of the nation. You are essentially the equivalent of a flat-earther refusing to believe the facts and proof readily available to you.
Judges have used the "All Writs" clause to overstep authority for a long time. Both parties approve of Judges acting this way, just in different contexts. Naturally this means that Judges get at the very least short term legislative powers without due process or constitutional authority.
Additionally, we are not a Democracy, never have been.
Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
We do not even have Democratically elected representatives, why do you think gerrymandering is a thing? You do not have to gain the Majority of the vote to win an election as recently proven by Trump's win over Hillary. She had more votes, but the system was setup to intentionally prevent a majority vote win. It is designed for the votes to be carved by district and for those to be used to count votes for candidates specifically to prevent Democracy voting.
Additionally, in the case of a court system, like this case here. Just a single person can change the law... where is the democracy in that? In a Democracy a court should not have any of these veto or legislation from the bench powers, they only should have the power of rendering guilty/innocent verdicts. And since we have a large system of courts able to overturn laws by the power of a select few, we are definitely anti-Democracy Judicially.
Additionally, we do not allow citizens to either directly or indirectly create or vote on laws federally. Some states do this like California, but as proven in the Case of Prop 8, a single judge there can overturn the will of the Democracy for whatever reason they want.
And last but not least, Veto power by the Executives... in short, just a single person can veto any law their legislatures bring them refusing to sign it into law, often requiring a super majority of overcome.
We are not a Democracy, in fact our system of government actively subverts democracy at every available turn. Why do you think the citizens feel powerless? Because they are! They can vote anyone they want in, but they cannot force anyone they vote into power to even fulfill any campaign promises. The best you can do is attempt to recall them and that requires a lot of effort as well.
But by all means, go ahead and keep calling it a Democracy... it's really working out well is it not?
We are a Republic and the founding fathers are "expressly" on record as being very anti democracy. If you want a democracy that is fine, but it only reveals ignorance to call what we have a democracy of any kind!
You can be shot dead for any reason by law enforcement, and it has happened a lot, with some outcry from time to time mostly from the black community with little concern from other communities.
You can be put in jail for any reason by any leader and it has happened to many people with little outcry. Just ask the minorities and poor folks.
You can be pretty much be screwed by big business or government at any time of their choosing.
Tell me just exactly how in the hell a "democracy" would allow all that to keep happening, if it were actually a "democracy"?
"You don't know me."
Then why do you think that a criminals should not be consulted on punishment? Sure individually they are going to be biased, but collectively they are likely not because at that point, they are no longer evaluating themselves, they are evaluating others that have performed the same crime and you may find that they will be far more insightful than you would be about the problem.
"We do indeed treat white collar crime very differently from lower-class crime,"
I agree
", even though white collar crime is more often motivated by greed rather than (say) desperation."
I do not subscribe to this logic. I have seen desperate rich people still screw people over and greedy poor assholes steal in a mixture to call this into question. Imagine a rich klepto, some people do it because they have a problem. Some people do it because they are just desperate, and not just for reasons of economic destitution, though I will say that nearly universally, greed is a majority driving factor. Again, I am not talking about exceptions disproving the rule here... I am talking about greed, in general, being the driving force no matter the economic situation.
If someone broke into my house to steal a loaf of bread because they were hungry and had no money, I would forgive them.
If someone kept breaking into my house to steal bread because they were too greedy with their money to buy their own, I would press charges.
If someone broke into my house to steal a loaf of bread because they thought I owed it to them, I would consider them a deadly threat and shoot to kill because they are clearly "hostile" in their intent.
Greed fits 2 of those scenarios and desperation only 1.
Sorry, you are being detrimentally obtuse.
You are not even trying to mask your reverence for the state.
"Then you would see that regulation by the state is absolutely essential."
What does that even mean? No one is saying complete zero regulation? You are just implying that they mean that and then using overbroad and meaningless batter to soak your message in.
"The alternative is all the power coalescing in a few commercial interests (bad)."
Bad argument, we already have that problem even with the regulations. Can you at least get an honest statement in here somewhere?
"The end point of unrestrained capitalism is a slave class of underlings"
Again with the overt obtuse batter, no one is asking for unrestrained capitalism. Free-Market is a Restraint on capitalism because it freely allows a good competitor to replace a bad competitor, even if they have a monopoly. Of course we already know that people like you are going to be lazy will not perform your civic duty and resist doing business with bad actors and instead ask for an easy to buy politician to do it for you.
And now, even with all of your regulations saddled all over society the environment is still being damaged and people are still being treated like slaves in many cases. I don't see your regulations being anything other than "theater". There to make you "feel good" about having done something while actually having done nothing at all.
If you could town down your "regulation" rhetoric and detailed what "regulations" you want then we can have a discussion, but until then... the only thing you are saying is... regulation... and if you have not noticed we are getting it. Lots of it, but I do not see any real material improvements. The only thing I am seeing is that the screwing post keeps getting moved around in circles keeping you dizzy.
Indeed they were, but it also speaks to another often undiscussed issue that voters have.
*Eternal Vigilance*
We the People are supposed to be in a free market where we can apply our Eternal Vigilance to everything. But we don't, why? Because it is just easier to say... I don't want to fight the big businesses, I want government to do it for me. I don't want to be eternally vigilant... it's too much work.
Shortly after they all wonder why their nation is falling apart. There is no eternal vigilance any longer. It has all fallen victim to the tragedy of the commons, but people are not able to see it or understand how and why it is.
This lack will also result in the loss of the 1st, in fact, it is already lost, we are now just discussing how lost it will be.
They DO regulate them... quite heavily in fact.
O wait, you mean regulate them in such a way as to benefit or protect the consumers? Why didn't you say that? Here let me get my lobbyist oiled up with some "gifts" for your elected officials. I am sure they are going to listen to you on regulations over me right? After all, you are ARE calling for more regulations and the politicians hear that call for more regulations. Let's have more regulations, I am just going to tweak them just a touch to improve my prospects if you know what I mean as you cheer things on. One of these days we are going to wake up and realize that the dagger in our backs is the same one we handed them via calls to regulation in the first place.
I would like to point out that your data is in fact way more valuable than you give credit for.
In a vacuum it might seem that it is not that valuable, but what if that "data" connects you to the sale of a home, or other large expense. It becomes real valuable then, to the potential tune of thousands per successful sale. Think of it like being a car salesman... how many customers does he lose before he gets one? The value of a lost customer is very little... those are the .00005 cent people... but to the one that is a Sale? Just one successful sale moves that decimal point several positions to the right.
So don't dare try to minimize the value of data, they are after it for some very good reasons, and for the same reasons it is a good idea to protect it!
"The oligarchs are the victors. They're the ones teaching you that "free markets" and "less regulation" are a good thing. You have been lied to."
When why do they call for regulations and install revolving doors between themselves? Are you that easy to fool? They stand at the podiums and decry that they hate regulation for your ears and then they run to the back rooms and create themselves deals.
What they say and what they do are two very different things. Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, and many like them are all calling for regulations on multiple things. According to you, these "oligarchs" should be shunning regulations right?
It would be you that has been well indoctrinated. I wait for the day for you to question what you have been told. Have you not noticed the trend? We have more regulations than ever before, and we also also have a larger wealth gap than ever before. Do you know what else we have? More large monolithic monopolistic umbrella and holding companies than ever before. We have mega-mergers now.
The Oligarchs have been successful in making you give them what you think they do not want. Regulation. In truth they want regulation, just not the type of regulation you are pedaling. But you are not clear headed enough to know that regulations is a meaningless buzzword that means absolutely nothing. Regulation can be good or bad, productive or counter productive. You have damaged your own position by boiling regulation down to a partisan issue where regulation = good even when those regulations grant monopolies and harm consumers and de-regulation = bad even when the removal of those regulations would invite new competition.
The only thing you have is the illusion of choice. Less regulation means nothing, more regulation means nothing. If you want more regulation we can give that to you, but it will all benefit the businesses more than the consumers you "claim" to seek to protect. More it is then! Enjoy!
So true, it has happened so many times.
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "
~Madison
I would say that Madison was very short sighted in his prognostications... he failed realize or at least mention that these dangers, real or pretended, can also be from home. But then again, in those days "free enterprise" was the ideal so very few quotes directly mention them, but still apply 'in logic' all the same.
At first yes... we will do the same as well... at first! But like I said... how do you get them to ONLY do that? Look at what is going on now. The EU now wants to add more regulations... like the ones I said would come after these making my very point. Again... how are you going to keep them from doing more than what we want? You can't. They will quickly become drunk on the power of regulation.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
There is at least a double whammy to this issue. One is the opening of the flood gates to regulate now... each and every time a group of politicians get their knickers in a wad they will think of ways to control social media, they are already visible salivating over the prospect. The other whammy? That will be social media quashing anything that looks suspect, anything that can even be construed as false or fake news and whammo... the government has just "indirectly" but still successfully stifled free speech even more.
Of course they are going to start with the good stuff first... it's the same strategy from since before any of us where born. You get the nice tasting stuff fed to them and make them happy... and right as they open their mouth for the next bite you powerslam a plate full of shit right down their gullet!
Works most of the time too!