Have you got a liquid observers license in her state? No? Then you lose. Only people licensed to observe liquids can testify in court, sorry. Wait, what the hell were we talking about? See, I knew I should have used a car analogy. This poison analogy is just too confusing.
WRONG. There are at least 20 states where it is illegal for gays to marry. California is one of them, thus why the big case trying to overturn that law. Get your facts straight. Reading comprehension: you fail it SO badly. To restate the GP for the mentally challenged: gays can marry. They do it all the time. They can even marry other gays, as long as it is (for instance) a gay man marrying a gay woman.
Here's a better one: Someone sees a jar labeled poison on your windowsill and turns you in to the Poison Industry of America, who file suit against you for having poison, which their clients have a patent on. However, all you had was a jar labeled poison, and no one actually proved that it contained anything but water, let alone the PIA patented poison.
No, you quite being an idiot who didn't RTFA. MediaSentry searched for certain files without downloading them. Sorry, but it is you and the GP who are both imprecise slackers who couldn't be bothered to read the article and posted without knowing what you were talking about.
Why would the USAF want a botnet? One, a botnet is distributed and harder to block than a centralized computing facility, or even a reasonably distributed one. Two, a botnet can grow as needed. When fighting an enemy botnet, this could prove very necessary.
Not that I'm condoning any of this, mind you. Just saying, I don't think the Air Force brass are all total idiots.
You cannot petition the Lord with prayer. Sure you can. "Oh Lord, smite this unbeliever who says I can't petition you." Look, I just petitioned the Lord, right there, plain as day.
Simple. Nothing is just a definition. By positing Nothing, it's opposite, Everything, must also exist. In true Nothingness, there are no definitions or boundaries, but there is also no lack of definitions or boundaries because the lack of something is a definition or boundary. The true void contains every possibility as well as the lack thereof. Duh.
666 is the number of the beast. Whose number is this? The Super-Devil. He is at least six inches taller than the regular devil, rides a flying motorcycle, and carries a jar of marmalade that causes adultery.
What, didn't you know Yottabyte was a Great Old One? First cousin of Nyarlothep, half brother of Shub Niggurath. Described as a multidimensional vortex of spinning disks emitting a terrible screeching, Yottabyte records the souls of the damned.
Oh shit, someone noticed what I'm up to. That's it, I gotta change my routine! I think I'll go troll boingboing for a while, Cory needs a good pranking.
You get to the crux of my argument in your last paragraph, and then you don't address it. The question is larger than the picture given, of course, and it is this. Money is a form of power, power can be used to gain money. Where are the checks and balances? You see the question is not only about property boundaries, but other forms of financial manipulation and control.
How does B get goods and services when his neighbors won't let him on their land? Or in the larger picture, how does he avoid unfairness when a cartel of large players seek to corner the market in a certain good? Or when they use any of the various modes of market failure to game the system, what then?
The only recourse you fellows propose is a simplified legal system where any poor sot is going to be able to find a pro bono lawyer the equal of the moneyed interests he is going up against. Or, Plan B, let him give in and accept an unfair deal because he has no choice. Nice.
Would the wind turbines be more efficient if they brought a bunch of politicians into the town? It's hot air, but it's not moving very fast and there's a hell of a lot turbulence. I'm thinking politician fueled Stirling engine.
Now, is there any place where a large number of our founding father's are buried? Because we could double our efficiency by putting the politicians over their graves and harnessing the founding father's spinning motion.
Yes, but the interesting Trolls all come out today. Or Thursday; there was a great Rift between the Trolls some years back. And then there's us reconciliationists who just Troll on any day starting with a 'T.'
You're new so I will point out that there is an old tradition here at Slashdot that few even mention anymore. It's called Troll Tuesday. Welcome to Slashdot!
Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like: AAA ABC CCC Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.
Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.
The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?
In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"
If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?
There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.
OH SNAP! Tell it like it is, Stephen, tell it like it is.
There is really only one workable style of free market Anarchism, and that is distributism. Personally, I favor the Anarcho-syndicalist approach, but they both boil down to the workers controlling the means of production. And that is something you never hear the Libertarians talking about. Or rather, they just assume it will happen magically when evil government steps out of the way. Unfortunately for them, history is not on their side.
How much do you want to bet that when they say: "No portion of the server will be closed source," what they actually mean is: "We will be developing separate closed source backup tools rather than incorporating that functionality into the server, to keep you bitches from whining."
Really, the left invented farm subsidies and corporate bailouts? Anything else you want to pull out of your ass while you're at it? You guys are shameless, you don't give a rats ass about the truth, it's all about whatever lies you can get enough idiots to believe. Fucking sophists.
If you aren't trying to keep the poor down in order to get yourself more cheap labor, then why do all your policies have that effect? Why is it that when Republicans get power, wages of the middle class stagnate, the poor get poorer, and the rich make out like bandits? Just coincidence, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you got a liquid observers license in her state? No? Then you lose. Only people licensed to observe liquids can testify in court, sorry. Wait, what the hell were we talking about? See, I knew I should have used a car analogy. This poison analogy is just too confusing.
It's a good thing the Chumby comes in a soft fabric case if Mr. Pogue is going to go gushing over it.
There, that's at least mildly offensive. Damn ACs making the rest of us do all the work.
Here's a better one: Someone sees a jar labeled poison on your windowsill and turns you in to the Poison Industry of America, who file suit against you for having poison, which their clients have a patent on. However, all you had was a jar labeled poison, and no one actually proved that it contained anything but water, let alone the PIA patented poison.
No, you quite being an idiot who didn't RTFA. MediaSentry searched for certain files without downloading them. Sorry, but it is you and the GP who are both imprecise slackers who couldn't be bothered to read the article and posted without knowing what you were talking about.
Why would the USAF want a botnet? One, a botnet is distributed and harder to block than a centralized computing facility, or even a reasonably distributed one. Two, a botnet can grow as needed. When fighting an enemy botnet, this could prove very necessary.
Not that I'm condoning any of this, mind you. Just saying, I don't think the Air Force brass are all total idiots.
Seriously, this would be a boon for Linux development in general, filling in the big gaps left by the LSB.
Oh sm62704, be nice, ILuvRamen is all of 14, by my guess. The larval stage of dorkdom can be so awkward.
Simple. Nothing is just a definition. By positing Nothing, it's opposite, Everything, must also exist. In true Nothingness, there are no definitions or boundaries, but there is also no lack of definitions or boundaries because the lack of something is a definition or boundary. The true void contains every possibility as well as the lack thereof. Duh.
What are we playing? That's Numberwang!
Oh crap. Now, who can I sacrifice to get out of this one? I know somebody here has got to be a virgin...
What, didn't you know Yottabyte was a Great Old One? First cousin of Nyarlothep, half brother of Shub Niggurath. Described as a multidimensional vortex of spinning disks emitting a terrible screeching, Yottabyte records the souls of the damned.
Oh shit, someone noticed what I'm up to. That's it, I gotta change my routine! I think I'll go troll boingboing for a while, Cory needs a good pranking.
Hey, you've seen the skit I refer to in my sig, cool!
You get to the crux of my argument in your last paragraph, and then you don't address it. The question is larger than the picture given, of course, and it is this. Money is a form of power, power can be used to gain money. Where are the checks and balances? You see the question is not only about property boundaries, but other forms of financial manipulation and control.
How does B get goods and services when his neighbors won't let him on their land? Or in the larger picture, how does he avoid unfairness when a cartel of large players seek to corner the market in a certain good? Or when they use any of the various modes of market failure to game the system, what then?
The only recourse you fellows propose is a simplified legal system where any poor sot is going to be able to find a pro bono lawyer the equal of the moneyed interests he is going up against. Or, Plan B, let him give in and accept an unfair deal because he has no choice. Nice.
Now, is there any place where a large number of our founding father's are buried? Because we could double our efficiency by putting the politicians over their graves and harnessing the founding father's spinning motion.
Yes, but the interesting Trolls all come out today. Or Thursday; there was a great Rift between the Trolls some years back. And then there's us reconciliationists who just Troll on any day starting with a 'T.'
You're new so I will point out that there is an old tradition here at Slashdot that few even mention anymore. It's called Troll Tuesday. Welcome to Slashdot!
Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like:
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.
Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.
The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?
In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"
If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?
There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.
OH SNAP! Tell it like it is, Stephen, tell it like it is.
There is really only one workable style of free market Anarchism, and that is distributism. Personally, I favor the Anarcho-syndicalist approach, but they both boil down to the workers controlling the means of production. And that is something you never hear the Libertarians talking about. Or rather, they just assume it will happen magically when evil government steps out of the way. Unfortunately for them, history is not on their side.
How much do you want to bet that when they say: "No portion of the server will be closed source," what they actually mean is: "We will be developing separate closed source backup tools rather than incorporating that functionality into the server, to keep you bitches from whining."
Really, the left invented farm subsidies and corporate bailouts? Anything else you want to pull out of your ass while you're at it? You guys are shameless, you don't give a rats ass about the truth, it's all about whatever lies you can get enough idiots to believe. Fucking sophists.
If you aren't trying to keep the poor down in order to get yourself more cheap labor, then why do all your policies have that effect? Why is it that when Republicans get power, wages of the middle class stagnate, the poor get poorer, and the rich make out like bandits? Just coincidence, I suppose.