I object to gambling for the same reason I object to handing a beer to an alcoholic. It's enabling their disease and you are the pimp.
If a private person wants to run gambling halls, that's fine with me, but the government should take a higher moral stance. The government should not be running Lotteries to prey upon gambling addicts. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed via their addiction to the State Lotto. Instead the government should be providing assistance to these people to help them stop (as we do with anti-drink and drive campaigns).
And no I'm not a nutter. I'm a historian. Do you know what the number one killer was this last century? Governments. They shot, gassed, macheteed, or hung 110 million of their own citizens from 1910 to 2010. What's that saying? "You're not paranoid if the government really IS after you."
Fortunately here in America nobody was killed, but we saw plenty of citizens deprived of their liberty due to being asian descent. Or being colored when entering a "whites only" establishment. And therefore jailed. Who is next? I am now one of those folks who will be fined nearly $1000 simply because I chose not to buy a product. Is it any wonder I don't trust the folks in Washington DC? Or Brussels EU? Or Beijing China? Or any other government?
>>>So now the US can launch missiles that buzz the Kremlin before going on to hit targets in Iraq. Bitchin
We already have that capability with the extended range TLAMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles) and supersonic Fast Hawks. We could also buzz pass the EU Parliament and scare the MEPs shitless, on the way to an Afghanistan attack.
Ooops I've said to much. (whistles) Nothing to see here.
>>>Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
Not really. He promised to remove the troops by the end of 2009, but instead he sent more. Now he's trying to piss-off our ally Israel by demanding they stop building in the Palestinian zone, else they'll lose American military assistance, and so on.
I don't think Obama is a bad person. Just not a saavy leader. Also tends to break his promises. A lot.
The problem comes when your civilization declines, and you no longer have the resources to smash your neighbors into oblivion. The Roman Empire successfully used your strategy (kill all troublemakers/) for ~600 years until they eventually reached a stage where they no longer had enough strength to do that. Then their enemies invaded & took the remaining pieces of the crumbling empire.
>>>Our efforts to blow stuff up in Iraq and Afghanistan have only worsened our image in the Middle East and created even more rabid terrorists
I could have told you that on 9/12. In fact I did tell people that, saying going to war is not the solution, but at the time people were thinking like animals. All they could see was "red" and revenge.
If you're going to risk billions of dollars and millions of lives, you don't do it for just 1 or 2 criminals. That's just ridiculous and totally disproportionate. Plus all it did was create a lot of orphaned children who will grow-up and want to kill Americans & Europeans. The problem is now worse, not better.
A wiser course would be to mirror what we do in our own homes. Get better locks to keep out criminals. i.e. Close the borders, in order to prevent another Bin Laden from sneaking through, unless they first had permission (visa).
Funny... I always thought the Donkey Kong character's name was "Jumpman" and he did not acquire the Mario name until the later arcade game "Mario Bros"
>>>>Copyright laws have little teeth >> >>so you are saying you see absolutely nothing wrong with US copyright laws
No. Learn to read. And stop using strawman arguments (things I did not say). I never used the phrase "absolutely nothing". I said in comparison to libel laws, copyright has little teeth. Millions of people violate copyright laws every day and nothing happens to them. But someone says "That Dunkin Donuts is filthy," and suddenly they are drug into court for libel.
The only problem I have with copyright law is the length of time. Rather than 100+ years, the length should be tied to the average lifespan of a human author. That was originally 14 years with possibility of renewal, if the original human was still alive. i.e. Mickey Mouse should be in public domain now since Walt died in the 1960s and can no longer profit from his original labor.
>>>I'm pretty sure the constitution has no regulations around the internet, traffic analysis, blogs, search engines and the like
Maybe instead of guessing, you should just read the damn thing: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That of course applies to Google as well. No warrant; no search.
And since Google is located in California, they have this additional Constitutional law to protect them: "ARTICLE 1; SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized."
AND: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AND: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.
So if I buy more than one Prius, do I say I own two Priuses, Prius, or Prii? Most of the folks at toyota-prius@yahoogroups like the last form, but the dictionary is unclear which is correct.
>>>Using the made-up "virii" as a plural for viruses makes you look like a retard.
Technically we are BOTH retards (yes you too). "Virus" has no plural in the original Latin language, just like the words "air" and "rice" and "earth" have no plural form.
>>>a dev could've set a logic bomb when suspecting he'd be fired
Genius. All I did was take a few pens and packs of CDs from the supply closet - $100 tops. Whereas this hypothetical developer cost McAfee millions. Nice.
And people wonder why I rarely use virus software. The damage caused by the AVS is often worse than the actual virii or spybots. Seeing a "Windows XP can't boot" message is pretty damn annoying. I ended-up having to install KDE Ubuntu Linux instead, and never did recover my lost files (just videos fortunately).
If you mark me troll I will simply repost the same thing tomorrow. I will not be silenced. My little story about Brazil kidnapping U.S. (and European) children, and then never returning them as *required by treaty*, is not an invention of my imagination.
It's a fact and has been covered on mainstream media like ABC or BBC for several years now. If that fact makes you uncomfortable, then stand-up and demand your Brazilian politicians obey the international treaties they have signed.
...this is it. Like a modern-day Robin Hood: Steal from the thieves, and return the money to the poor citizens. McAfee is NOT going to reimburse the full amount of damage they caused? Damn corporation. It reminds me of Toyota who refused to fix engines that prematurely died after only 20-30,000 miles, thereby forcing innocent victims to cough-up $7000 in replacement costs, when by Toyota's own warranty the engines should have been replaced for free.
Why do these corporations act as if they have no morals whatsoever? Oh that's right..... because they have no more soul than a rock or tree. Therefore they should have no human rights
>>>Google published the post, they were not vandalized, and they _are_ responsible for it.
By that logic AT&T is responsible for all the gossip/slander passing over their telephone lines, or the New York Times should be responsible for the dishonest sellers publishing classified ads in their paper. ----- It is not a reasonable position to hold. The company should not be held liable for the actions of its users.
>>>Under US law, Google has to secretly give them whatever information they have.
And under Constitutional Law, google could tell the cops to "go fuck off" because Constitutional Law reigns ABOVE U.S. law and U.S. officials. Constitutional Law requires a search warrant issued by a judge.
If google provides this information, they do it voluntarily. Instead what they should be doing is taking a stand as they did in China, and rather than release the information to unconstitutional warrantless searches, instead erase the information from their databases.
>>>You're assuming a company has to do business in that country.
If only it were that simple. To quote Cicero: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the Roman Senate and their new King? Liberty is dead and so am I." We are not yet under the control of a single government, but our leaders appear intent upon making us "unified" under a single law (ACTA and other legal treaties). Today Brazil. In 2020, the entire world may have these anti-free speech laws that make it impossible to speak your mind, due to fear of jail.
And then somebody will be saying: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the RIAA or the UN administration?"
We need our governments to hand-out "internet licenses" to the serfs, before allowing them to have "publishing privileges" on the world wide web. You can read but not post unless you first type in your exclusive ID number. Furthermore every post must be tracked and if you say something damaging to our leaders or our culute (like "Obama is a corporatist"), then your license will be revoked, your computer removed, and further scanned for possible crime (like downloading porn). I imagine the first such license to be revoked would be foxnews.com.
Anyway: I agree with you. The internet must be closed down and strictly regulated because it is FAR more dangerous than real life.
What's REALLY going on is that Government Leaders want to be able to track down dissenters, and lock them in jail. By taking-away our ability to be anonymous, they make us ALL less free. You don't like the President and you say so in a public fora? Might as well pack your bags because your new home will be provided by the Brazilian Justice Ministry.
Free speech is free speech. If you must show an ID every time you open your mouth, then your mouth is no longer yours. It is owned by the government leaders, like a modern-day serf.
Slashdot Mirror
I object to gambling for the same reason I object to handing a beer to an alcoholic. It's enabling their disease and you are the pimp.
If a private person wants to run gambling halls, that's fine with me, but the government should take a higher moral stance. The government should not be running Lotteries to prey upon gambling addicts. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed via their addiction to the State Lotto. Instead the government should be providing assistance to these people to help them stop (as we do with anti-drink and drive campaigns).
Sociademocratic is still socialist..... handing-out monthly checks or free services is the very definition of socialism.
Actually I look more like Bill Gates at age 30.
And no I'm not a nutter. I'm a historian. Do you know what the number one killer was this last century? Governments. They shot, gassed, macheteed, or hung 110 million of their own citizens from 1910 to 2010. What's that saying? "You're not paranoid if the government really IS after you."
Fortunately here in America nobody was killed, but we saw plenty of citizens deprived of their liberty due to being asian descent. Or being colored when entering a "whites only" establishment. And therefore jailed. Who is next? I am now one of those folks who will be fined nearly $1000 simply because I chose not to buy a product. Is it any wonder I don't trust the folks in Washington DC? Or Brussels EU? Or Beijing China? Or any other government?
>>>So now the US can launch missiles that buzz the Kremlin before going on to hit targets in Iraq. Bitchin
We already have that capability with the extended range TLAMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles) and supersonic Fast Hawks. We could also buzz pass the EU Parliament and scare the MEPs shitless, on the way to an Afghanistan attack.
Ooops I've said to much.
(whistles)
Nothing to see here.
>>>Obama is more hawkish on a military matter than Bush ? Man that seems wierd...
Not really. He promised to remove the troops by the end of 2009, but instead he sent more. Now he's trying to piss-off our ally Israel by demanding they stop building in the Palestinian zone, else they'll lose American military assistance, and so on.
I don't think Obama is a bad person. Just not a saavy leader. Also tends to break his promises. A lot.
The problem comes when your civilization declines, and you no longer have the resources to smash your neighbors into oblivion. The Roman Empire successfully used your strategy (kill all troublemakers/) for ~600 years until they eventually reached a stage where they no longer had enough strength to do that. Then their enemies invaded & took the remaining pieces of the crumbling empire.
>>>Our efforts to blow stuff up in Iraq and Afghanistan have only worsened our image in the Middle East and created even more rabid terrorists
I could have told you that on 9/12.
In fact I did tell people that, saying going to war is not the solution,
but at the time people were thinking like animals. All they could see was "red" and revenge.
If you're going to risk billions of dollars and millions of lives, you don't do it for just 1 or 2 criminals. That's just ridiculous and totally disproportionate. Plus all it did was create a lot of orphaned children who will grow-up and want to kill Americans & Europeans. The problem is now worse, not better.
A wiser course would be to mirror what we do in our own homes. Get better locks to keep out criminals. i.e. Close the borders, in order to prevent another Bin Laden from sneaking through, unless they first had permission (visa).
"that bitch financee who dumped me for a sailor, and then didn't marry him anyway but instead married some other dude"
Nah. Too long.
Funny... I always thought the Donkey Kong character's name was "Jumpman" and he did not acquire the Mario name until the later arcade game "Mario Bros"
>>>>Copyright laws have little teeth
>>
>>so you are saying you see absolutely nothing wrong with US copyright laws
No.
Learn to read.
And stop using strawman arguments (things I did not say). I never used the phrase "absolutely nothing". I said in comparison to libel laws, copyright has little teeth. Millions of people violate copyright laws every day and nothing happens to them. But someone says "That Dunkin Donuts is filthy," and suddenly they are drug into court for libel.
The only problem I have with copyright law is the length of time. Rather than 100+ years, the length should be tied to the average lifespan of a human author. That was originally 14 years with possibility of renewal, if the original human was still alive. i.e. Mickey Mouse should be in public domain now since Walt died in the 1960s and can no longer profit from his original labor.
>>>I'm pretty sure the constitution has no regulations around the internet, traffic analysis, blogs, search engines and the like
Maybe instead of guessing, you should just read the damn thing: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That of course applies to Google as well. No warrant; no search.
And since Google is located in California, they have this additional Constitutional law to protect them: "ARTICLE 1; SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized."
AND: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AND: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.
So if I buy more than one Prius, do I say I own two Priuses, Prius, or Prii? Most of the folks at toyota-prius@yahoogroups like the last form, but the dictionary is unclear which is correct.
MicroSoft Explorer? That *is* a virus. ;-) (And unfortunately the only browser that works with my ISP's web compression.)
>>>Using the made-up "virii" as a plural for viruses makes you look like a retard.
Technically we are BOTH retards (yes you too). "Virus" has no plural in the original Latin language, just like the words "air" and "rice" and "earth" have no plural form.
>>>a dev could've set a logic bomb when suspecting he'd be fired
Genius. All I did was take a few pens and packs of CDs from the supply closet - $100 tops. Whereas this hypothetical developer cost McAfee millions. Nice.
And people wonder why I rarely use virus software. The damage caused by the AVS is often worse than the actual virii or spybots. Seeing a "Windows XP can't boot" message is pretty damn annoying. I ended-up having to install KDE Ubuntu Linux instead, and never did recover my lost files (just videos fortunately).
If you mark me troll I will simply repost the same thing tomorrow. I will not be silenced. My little story about Brazil kidnapping U.S. (and European) children, and then never returning them as *required by treaty*, is not an invention of my imagination.
It's a fact and has been covered on mainstream media like ABC or BBC for several years now. If that fact makes you uncomfortable, then stand-up and demand your Brazilian politicians obey the international treaties they have signed.
...this is it. Like a modern-day Robin Hood: Steal from the thieves, and return the money to the poor citizens. McAfee is NOT going to reimburse the full amount of damage they caused? Damn corporation. It reminds me of Toyota who refused to fix engines that prematurely died after only 20-30,000 miles, thereby forcing innocent victims to cough-up $7000 in replacement costs, when by Toyota's own warranty the engines should have been replaced for free.
Why do these corporations act as if they have no morals whatsoever? Oh that's right..... because they have no more soul than a rock or tree. Therefore they should have no human rights
>>>Google published the post, they were not vandalized, and they _are_ responsible for it.
By that logic AT&T is responsible for all the gossip/slander passing over their telephone lines, or the New York Times should be responsible for the dishonest sellers publishing classified ads in their paper. ----- It is not a reasonable position to hold. The company should not be held liable for the actions of its users.
>>>Under US law, Google has to secretly give them whatever information they have.
And under Constitutional Law, google could tell the cops to "go fuck off" because Constitutional Law reigns ABOVE U.S. law and U.S. officials. Constitutional Law requires a search warrant issued by a judge.
If google provides this information, they do it voluntarily. Instead what they should be doing is taking a stand as they did in China, and rather than release the information to unconstitutional warrantless searches, instead erase the information from their databases.
And which one is our president a product of?
>>>You're assuming a company has to do business in that country.
If only it were that simple. To quote Cicero: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the Roman Senate and their new King? Liberty is dead and so am I." We are not yet under the control of a single government, but our leaders appear intent upon making us "unified" under a single law (ACTA and other legal treaties). Today Brazil. In 2020, the entire world may have these anti-free speech laws that make it impossible to speak your mind, due to fear of jail.
And then somebody will be saying: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the RIAA or the UN administration?"
You're right.
We need our governments to hand-out "internet licenses" to the serfs, before allowing them to have "publishing privileges" on the world wide web. You can read but not post unless you first type in your exclusive ID number. Furthermore every post must be tracked and if you say something damaging to our leaders or our culute (like "Obama is a corporatist"), then your license will be revoked, your computer removed, and further scanned for possible crime (like downloading porn). I imagine the first such license to be revoked would be foxnews.com.
Anyway: I agree with you. The internet must be closed down and strictly regulated because it is FAR more dangerous than real life.
I hope ye agree with my "modest proposal".
>>>worse than libel laws..... U.S. copyright laws
The fact that I just downloaded 5 seasons of "House" and "Bones" seems to indicate otherwise. Copyright laws have little teeth.
What's REALLY going on is that Government Leaders want to be able to track down dissenters, and lock them in jail. By taking-away our ability to be anonymous, they make us ALL less free. You don't like the President and you say so in a public fora? Might as well pack your bags because your new home will be provided by the Brazilian Justice Ministry.
Free speech is free speech. If you must show an ID every time you open your mouth, then your mouth is no longer yours. It is owned by the government leaders, like a modern-day serf.