RIAA Lawyer: Your Honor, we need to disclose our trade secrets to you, in private. Judge: Okay, step into my chambers. Now, what's this big secret of yours? RIAA Lawyer: (points) Judge: Well that looks like a briefcase full of hundreds, a kilo of Peruvian Marching Powder, and a coupon book for 'Escorts R Us.' RIAA Lawyer: Sssshhh! That's a trade secret!
Right on, libertarian brother! We should do the same for roads, sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, and the armed forces. Enough with this damned socialism!
We despise intellectuals. We kiss the feet of 'smart, successful people' like captains of industry and Wall street bankers. And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.
No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.
The problem with basic scientific research is that, more often than not, it will be worthless for decades. No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health. That is econ 101.
Nice, but it needs a better last line. Frick. Block? Rock? Sock! Something about sock puppets. More puppets they're going to sock? Frick. That sucks too. Okay, well the original rhyme just ends with 'hickory dickory dock' again. Ah, I have it!
Wiki-dickery-sock The lawyers ran up the clock Flushed with new power They billed by the hour Wiki-dickery-sock
This way we can add new stanzas to describe other forms of wiki-dickery. The vandals defaced 'Iraq.' The admins all LOLed and mocked. Deletionists erased 'Dave Ocke.' Okay I made that last one up.
I don't think we can safely assume the penises are of average size. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between dick size and the likelihood of getting in a dick fight.
Wikipediart is put up by two no-name 'artists' attempting to use Wikipedia to publicize themselves. Of course they are going to lie about Wikipedia's intentions in order to get more attention.
Their little ploy worked. If it were any other group but Wikipedia they were pulling this stunt on, I'd be offended. As it is, I say let the nutcases fight it out amongst themselves, they are the only ones who care one way or another.
The 'artists' of Wikipediart sound like spoiled art-college students with no talent except spouting lit-crit style post-sensical 'analysis.' Art is more than just standing on someone else's roof shouting 'Look at me! I'm an Artist!'
No, it is not simply an action taken by the foundation. It's a classic case of wikidickery. Some unknown artists create a page, call it wikipediart, throw some bullshit self referential art criticism nonsense up on it, and sit back waiting for the shit to hit the fan. They KNOW that wikipedia is chock full of nuts who will come gunning for them and their fake page. THAT is that performance art they were aiming for. So the page gets deleted, as they knew it would, and they set up a site infringing on wikipedia's trademark. They KNOW that the foundation has to protect their trademark, and they will get more free publicity for their 'art.'
These guys aren't artists, they are pretentious tools. Screwing with other people to get some free publicity isn't art. But the fine folks at wikipedia are pretentious tools too, so this whole thing is just a big dick-fight.
So what do you say about the privatization off the water facilities in Central and South America? It was a fiasco, people revolted because it was so bad. The privatization of natural monopolies like utilities very rarely works. Privatization of factories and the like works great. Just not natural monopolies.
Sales taxes would still be paid by a government entity.Other forms of taxes, such as payroll taxes, would also be paid. No income tax would be paid, because the government entity isn't raping the consumer by stealing profits. No profits, no tax. Boo hoo, the robber barons have to pay a tax on the money they steal from consumers, while governments that do not steal money, pay no taxes. So unfair!
Forming a co-op is essentially what was done here. The project does not use tax dollars, it is revenue supported. It works and people are happy with it. It delivers better service for less money than anyplace in the US. Who cares that some corporation was not given the opportunity to suckle off the public teat yet again? Boo hoo.
It must suck when your ideology says 'the free market will always be better than government,' but then reality goes and proves you wrong like this. What do you do, just rationalize it all away by claiming we don't really have a free market, this wasn't really the government, and it all wasn't as good as it seems?
What if I don't want to pay somebody else's profit? What if we, as a community, decide we want to start a service cooperative, where no one takes any profit, rather than shoveling our money into some fat cat's pockets? We as a community decide what to do, and we do it. And nobody profits, which is how it should be. We put up the money to do it, we reap the reward, and the capitalist vultures can go steal someone else's money.
Presumably, the AC who posted this has sex with chickens. He just hides that fact, it's worked for centuries. Now the question is, if we replace the chickens with ducks, as his neighbor, do I still pay taxes to subsidize his bird rodgering?
Wrong, the article talks about getting a warrant from the FISA court. This is a much older program than the whole Bush warrantless wiretap thing. Mentioning the fact that the Bush warrantless wiretapping debacle is illegal is entirely off topic. Do try to RTFA before commenting.
How does your argument prove that warrantless wiretapping is not illegal?
More importantly, why are conservatives so eager to have the government spy on us all? What was the point of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War if we're just going to turn ourselves into a bad copy of their government?
Um, because they had a warrant? The FISA court gave them a warrant, thus it was legal. Oh, and I wouldn't know why conservatives do anything.
They were investigating the foreign operatives. They caught them bribing a congresswoman. That can not possibly fall outside the scope of their investigation.
Good point, but wherever the foreign agents were located, wherever they were tapped, our guys got a legal warrant from the FISA court to tap them. I personally think FISA is unconstitutional, but it is, for now, legal.
Who says it was illegal? We may WISH it were illegal, we may get it declared illegal, it may in fact be unconstitutional, but the fact is, the agents performed what was at the time a LEGAL warrantless wiretap against foreign agents and happened to catch them bribing a congresswoman. They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.
The point is that this was NOT illegal. Agents were investigating foreign operatives using warrentless wiretapping. They caught the foreign operatives bribing a congresswoman. The Bush administration declined to press charges because said congresswoman supported warrantless wiretapping.
Don't worry, you are in no danger of thinking for yourself. You've adopted a partisan world-view, and simply parrot back the things you are told are important. You Obviously view politics as a sporting event where the only thing that matters is that your team 'wins.'
Because they use more government services. Do cops protect the property of homeless people? Do fireman put out the cardboard box he sleeps in if it catches fire? No. Public education benefits the rich more than the poor, a person's education benefits themselves, and the person who will hire them. Our infrastructure benefits businesses more than individuals. In fact, without government, the rich wouldn't be rich. There are plenty of countries that don't tax the rich the way we do. If they wanted to, the rich could move there. Why don't they? Because it's still a bargain to stay here, considering all the benefits they get.
In order to gain the benefits of a society, you have to follow that society's rules. If a society required you to perform five jumping jacks in order to get police protection, say, it might be silly but it wouldn't be amoral if it was voluntary. If you don't like it, leave. Same goes for higher taxes on the rich. It isn't amoral, it's just how we do things here. If the rich don't like it, let them go someplace else.
Beyond a certain level of wealth, all money is good for is reducing the free will of other people by forcing them to do what you want.
Any A/C troll response to this post is the work of mfh [slashdot.org]
You know you're bragging by advertising about your stalker, right? I mean, if you have a stalker, it's obvious. People can totally see that you've pissed someone off so much that they have sworn vengeance against you. You don't need to point it out. Everyone interesting on the Internet has had a stalker at one point or another. Not to be elitist or anything.
Look, to be nude, you have to take your clothes off. If the parents hadn't provided the clothes, how could the kids be nude? Burn them!!!!
Anyway, I appreciate a good wit, which you've al;ways had. Wlecome to teh/. you have won one Internets, where would you like it delivered?
Oh damn it. That's what I get for modding drunk. I accidentally hit 'insghtful,' 'funny,' and 'informative' eight times ion a row instead of 'stupid slashdot prick trying to look good before the old dogs' before I realized what I was doing. Damn itr. Now I only have two mod points left to fuck with you./ Curse you, Hognoxious!
Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawyer: Your Honor, we need to disclose our trade secrets to you, in private.
Judge: Okay, step into my chambers. Now, what's this big secret of yours?
RIAA Lawyer: (points)
Judge: Well that looks like a briefcase full of hundreds, a kilo of Peruvian Marching Powder, and a coupon book for 'Escorts R Us.'
RIAA Lawyer: Sssshhh! That's a trade secret!
Right on, libertarian brother! We should do the same for roads, sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, and the armed forces. Enough with this damned socialism!
Right?
We despise intellectuals. We kiss the feet of 'smart, successful people' like captains of industry and Wall street bankers. And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.
No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.
The problem with basic scientific research is that, more often than not, it will be worthless for decades. No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health. That is econ 101.
Ooo! Ooo! I've got one!
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Deletionists erased 'River Ock'
The river's not notable,
The water's not potable,
Wiki-Dickery-Sock
Nice, but it needs a better last line. Frick. Block? Rock? Sock! Something about sock puppets. More puppets they're going to sock? Frick. That sucks too. Okay, well the original rhyme just ends with 'hickory dickory dock' again. Ah, I have it!
Wiki-dickery-sock
The lawyers ran up the clock
Flushed with new power
They billed by the hour
Wiki-dickery-sock
This way we can add new stanzas to describe other forms of wiki-dickery. The vandals defaced 'Iraq.' The admins all LOLed and mocked. Deletionists erased 'Dave Ocke.' Okay I made that last one up.
I don't think we can safely assume the penises are of average size. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between dick size and the likelihood of getting in a dick fight.
Wikipediart is put up by two no-name 'artists' attempting to use Wikipedia to publicize themselves. Of course they are going to lie about Wikipedia's intentions in order to get more attention.
Their little ploy worked. If it were any other group but Wikipedia they were pulling this stunt on, I'd be offended. As it is, I say let the nutcases fight it out amongst themselves, they are the only ones who care one way or another.
The 'artists' of Wikipediart sound like spoiled art-college students with no talent except spouting lit-crit style post-sensical 'analysis.' Art is more than just standing on someone else's roof shouting 'Look at me! I'm an Artist!'
No, it is not simply an action taken by the foundation. It's a classic case of wikidickery. Some unknown artists create a page, call it wikipediart, throw some bullshit self referential art criticism nonsense up on it, and sit back waiting for the shit to hit the fan. They KNOW that wikipedia is chock full of nuts who will come gunning for them and their fake page. THAT is that performance art they were aiming for. So the page gets deleted, as they knew it would, and they set up a site infringing on wikipedia's trademark. They KNOW that the foundation has to protect their trademark, and they will get more free publicity for their 'art.'
These guys aren't artists, they are pretentious tools. Screwing with other people to get some free publicity isn't art. But the fine folks at wikipedia are pretentious tools too, so this whole thing is just a big dick-fight.
So what do you say about the privatization off the water facilities in Central and South America? It was a fiasco, people revolted because it was so bad. The privatization of natural monopolies like utilities very rarely works. Privatization of factories and the like works great. Just not natural monopolies.
Sales taxes would still be paid by a government entity.Other forms of taxes, such as payroll taxes, would also be paid. No income tax would be paid, because the government entity isn't raping the consumer by stealing profits. No profits, no tax. Boo hoo, the robber barons have to pay a tax on the money they steal from consumers, while governments that do not steal money, pay no taxes. So unfair!
Forming a co-op is essentially what was done here. The project does not use tax dollars, it is revenue supported. It works and people are happy with it. It delivers better service for less money than anyplace in the US. Who cares that some corporation was not given the opportunity to suckle off the public teat yet again? Boo hoo.
It must suck when your ideology says 'the free market will always be better than government,' but then reality goes and proves you wrong like this. What do you do, just rationalize it all away by claiming we don't really have a free market, this wasn't really the government, and it all wasn't as good as it seems?
What if I don't want to pay somebody else's profit? What if we, as a community, decide we want to start a service cooperative, where no one takes any profit, rather than shoveling our money into some fat cat's pockets? We as a community decide what to do, and we do it. And nobody profits, which is how it should be. We put up the money to do it, we reap the reward, and the capitalist vultures can go steal someone else's money.
Presumably, the AC who posted this has sex with chickens. He just hides that fact, it's worked for centuries. Now the question is, if we replace the chickens with ducks, as his neighbor, do I still pay taxes to subsidize his bird rodgering?
I've been here long enough to play curmudgeon and get away with it. Now get off my lawn.
Wrong, the article talks about getting a warrant from the FISA court. This is a much older program than the whole Bush warrantless wiretap thing. Mentioning the fact that the Bush warrantless wiretapping debacle is illegal is entirely off topic. Do try to RTFA before commenting.
How does your argument prove that warrantless wiretapping is not illegal?
More importantly, why are conservatives so eager to have the government spy on us all? What was the point of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War if we're just going to turn ourselves into a bad copy of their government?
Um, because they had a warrant? The FISA court gave them a warrant, thus it was legal. Oh, and I wouldn't know why conservatives do anything.
Because they got a warrant from the FISA court. I wish that weren't the case, and we need to change the law, but it was legal, end of story.
They were investigating the foreign operatives. They caught them bribing a congresswoman. That can not possibly fall outside the scope of their investigation.
Good point, but wherever the foreign agents were located, wherever they were tapped, our guys got a legal warrant from the FISA court to tap them. I personally think FISA is unconstitutional, but it is, for now, legal.
Who says it was illegal? We may WISH it were illegal, we may get it declared illegal, it may in fact be unconstitutional, but the fact is, the agents performed what was at the time a LEGAL warrantless wiretap against foreign agents and happened to catch them bribing a congresswoman. They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.
The point is that this was NOT illegal. Agents were investigating foreign operatives using warrentless wiretapping. They caught the foreign operatives bribing a congresswoman. The Bush administration declined to press charges because said congresswoman supported warrantless wiretapping.
Don't worry, you are in no danger of thinking for yourself. You've adopted a partisan world-view, and simply parrot back the things you are told are important. You Obviously view politics as a sporting event where the only thing that matters is that your team 'wins.'
Because they use more government services. Do cops protect the property of homeless people? Do fireman put out the cardboard box he sleeps in if it catches fire? No. Public education benefits the rich more than the poor, a person's education benefits themselves, and the person who will hire them. Our infrastructure benefits businesses more than individuals. In fact, without government, the rich wouldn't be rich. There are plenty of countries that don't tax the rich the way we do. If they wanted to, the rich could move there. Why don't they? Because it's still a bargain to stay here, considering all the benefits they get.
In order to gain the benefits of a society, you have to follow that society's rules. If a society required you to perform five jumping jacks in order to get police protection, say, it might be silly but it wouldn't be amoral if it was voluntary. If you don't like it, leave. Same goes for higher taxes on the rich. It isn't amoral, it's just how we do things here. If the rich don't like it, let them go someplace else.
Beyond a certain level of wealth, all money is good for is reducing the free will of other people by forcing them to do what you want.
Yer funny. I like you now.
Any A/C troll response to this post is the work of mfh [slashdot.org]
You know you're bragging by advertising about your stalker, right? I mean, if you have a stalker, it's obvious. People can totally see that you've pissed someone off so much that they have sworn vengeance against you. You don't need to point it out. Everyone interesting on the Internet has had a stalker at one point or another. Not to be elitist or anything.
Look, to be nude, you have to take your clothes off. If the parents hadn't provided the clothes, how could the kids be nude? Burn them!!!!
Anyway, I appreciate a good wit, which you've al;ways had. Wlecome to teh /. you have won one Internets, where would you like it delivered?
Oh damn it. That's what I get for modding drunk. I accidentally hit 'insghtful,' 'funny,' and 'informative' eight times ion a row instead of 'stupid slashdot prick trying to look good before the old dogs' before I realized what I was doing. Damn itr. Now I only have two mod points left to fuck with you./ Curse you, Hognoxious!
Oh, and I totally have ten mod points right now, and I'm going to go back and mod everything dopey you've said in the last two weeks down. Hah-hah!