Who said this one came as a surprise? I understand why it happens, I even understand why (some/many of the) politicians do very little about it. What I don't understand is the reaction of the OP AC that cheers for TPP because the only parties that oppose the process are the Greens and s/he doesn't like them.
Speaking for myself... if the internet freedom comes only in green colours (i.e. no other parties would support them), I'm fully green then (possibly with the black-sail of the local pirate party)
There's lots and lots of problems here, but the fundamental one is that the workers are at a marked disadvantage over the Capitalists. Those employees can't really do anything about any of this. OnLive wins, they lose.
The original investors have also lost in the process.
I was just reading Wikipedia's articles on Voluntary Slavery and Wage Slavery.
It is usually called a mortgage. If your parents were not wealthy enough to give you a home (or tuition fees), you'll need to take a job.
You'll need the same if you can't live without that shiny gadget (i...whatever-apple-is-pushing-now) or want to drive an SUV or...
I guess my point is this: "Free Market" Capitalists argue that freedom will win out in the end.
Well, I think they may be actually right. Except that nobody is able to tell the cost of this victory.
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists
on
OnLive Acquires OnLive
·
· Score: 1
This looks to me like classic example of a fundamental problem with free market capitalism. All perfectly legal too. So come on: defend this. Seriously. Not trolling. I'm dying to know why it is that we should tolerate this sort of thing.
Because the investors decided to throw more money into the game (the original investment is lost in the bankruptcy). It's like somebody says: "Well, I liked the original software concept. They failed in the implementation throwing in a lot of feature creep... it's gone/lost/bankrupt/whatever, I lost something myself. Let's fork, clean the garbage and give a new try"
Sounds like some loophole method of getting out of your debts
Not quite. My understanding: after putting their money down (and loosing them with the bankruptcy), one (Lauder Partners) of the original investors decided to throw more money. They want a better control on how these extra money are going to be used, but they have little or no control on how much of their original investment are going to recovered (they have no control over the "Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors" process).
That's what they were doing. He wasn't arrested, he was detained for psychiatric treatment.
I can understand that as a rational reaction. I can't understand why "fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off" cannot be related "to talking about anything freedom" as the GGP post suggests.
I don't condone violence, I don't make use of it (other than truly exceptional cases), but I dislike giving away a liberty because of fear.
This is a mentally unstable trained killer making death threats. Next.
Either: 1. you are his personal shrink and you came with the diagnostic from your authority... in which case, you are violating the confidentiality of your patient; *or* 2. you actually know nothing about this specific case and present a wild guess as the truth... (do you usually get satisfaction from spreading some FUD around?)
and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things
You reckon? Maybe this is coming from a time the US justice was still fully sane, but...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. ...
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)... ...
As of 2011, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969.
Or did lately any post on FB become a concrete action?
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
As long as it's just fantasizing it is talk only.
Have any other actions to confirm a crime? Then arrest and charge for the crime (ah, right, I forgot: linking to locations on internet may be a crime in US, not need for a real-life action against somebody). Have other signs of mental imbalance? Then see how you can offer medical treatment (oh, right, I forgot... universal medical care in US is seen as the most evil thing there can be...God forbids that even veterans, who lost their health for their country, are to benefit of medical care free of charge).
Rate me flamebait, but here's my sincere opinion: this is coming from the dystopian saga of the "Weird Planet America"... beat me if I can rationally understand it (or am I batshit crazy? Will one come to arrest me for it?)
But... would a "power user" be stopped by a "sealed computer"? Let me give you an example: I have woodworking for a hobby and I can tell you that my circular saw draw some power when started. Well... I guarantee you, a shiny Mac - sealed or not - is not match for the circular saw (this is not to say that using a piece of wood wouldn't be cheaper and more useful)
The conclusion... "a power user is defined by the tool set s/he uses"??? Nah... I'd rather say "a power user will choose the tools and materials that make sense for their purposes"
and may hold promise for helping address humanity's food crisis
I imagine the ultimate solution would be to literally transform part of the human population into vegetables... able to absorb CO2, feed themselves in the Sun light and be happy no matter what the govts do to exploit them (+ be actually grateful for being pissed on). Maybe, in the first stage, FauxNews can help?
Let me return the advice for you: do as the Swiss people, stay the hell in your country and let the whole world breath free and I won't care if you accept or not whatever international court.
That was indeed a typical response from most Americans until Winston Churchill stepped in and push America into going to war against Germany in the 1940's
Maybe it was so for a brief period (was it because the great depression?), so I'd wish you were right... but you are not 100% right.
As for the Churchill pushing US in war... I'd rather say "Churchill making a case for it" and US population agreeing (this letting aside it wasn't quite a no strings attached help, but help it was nonetheless).
Of course, don't expect me to believe that US needed Churchill to push after Pearl Harbour - which came a bit more than 3 years after the WW2 began (if one considers the pre-existing Japan war in China as the start of WW2, it would make 4-5 years).
What the hell is this? A contest of "who's pissing better/stronger on the people in this world" or what?
No its not, its keeping perspective. Having an appreciation for the reality of the situation
My apologies, it's only now that I managed to properly read your post.
Not that I agree with it, it is too close to a pretence of "picturing the reality" - it seems that you are trying to find ex post facto justifications for the "shameful what our nation has become" situation. But anyway, as your subjective appreciation of the reality, I guess you have the right to see the things the way you like (as long as US doesn't "start pissing on the people of this world" based on it).
Most of what you say is true, and it is shameful what our nation has become but I take issue with two statements.
has become more oppresive and arbitrary than what you would have experienced in the Soviet Union during the cold war years
I find this doubtful at best, and difficult to prove. Having a look at the now much more open Russian the recent head lines coming out of there, it does not seem to be much different from the way things are here currently.
What the hell is this? A contest of "who's pissing better/stronger on the people in this world" or what?
I think you miss the point of what the USA is doing here.
I think you are missing lots of points here.
1. Switzerland doesn't want to be subordinated to any other government, either: for about 300 years, they managed to avoid it quite well. But, unlike US, they managed to do it without engaging in rackets... multiple times, during the history (probably this is how US learnt what happens when sovereignty is surrendered... except I fail to remember when would they been at the receiving end?)
2. it is not unusual for people to desire not to be subordinated to foreign governments (heck, some can't stand even their own). Does it surprise you they don't like US govt, with its pretence of acting as sort of a global government and unchecked power?
3. you mentioned Iran, China and North Korea. Well, it seems to me that citizens on not only those countries would fear US, but its allies as well (or even more?). With such "friends" who the heck need enemies?
I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here
Let me return the advice for you: do as the Swiss people, stay the hell in your country and let the whole world breath free and I won't care if you accept or not whatever international court.
On your account, Clinton getting a blow job shouldn't have been news.
Mind you, that was borderline date rape at the 1st highest level!
No wonder Hillary is so determined to have Assange's balls on a plate, that would be the second man to humiliate her in front of the whole world (or... was Assange the 3rd, with Obama winning the nomination ahead of her being the 2nd?)
Slashdot Mirror
Why is any of this surprising to anybody?
Who said this one came as a surprise? I understand why it happens, I even understand why (some/many of the) politicians do very little about it. What I don't understand is the reaction of the OP AC that cheers for TPP because the only parties that oppose the process are the Greens and s/he doesn't like them.
There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.
Then a story named "Ex-Marine Detained For Facebook Posts..." should be fiction literature
Do you have the same reaction to EFF?
Speaking for myself... if the internet freedom comes only in green colours (i.e. no other parties would support them), I'm fully green then (possibly with the black-sail of the local pirate party)
There's lots and lots of problems here, but the fundamental one is that the workers are at a marked disadvantage over the Capitalists. Those employees can't really do anything about any of this. OnLive wins, they lose.
The original investors have also lost in the process.
I was just reading Wikipedia's articles on Voluntary Slavery and Wage Slavery.
It is usually called a mortgage. If your parents were not wealthy enough to give you a home (or tuition fees), you'll need to take a job. You'll need the same if you can't live without that shiny gadget (i...whatever-apple-is-pushing-now) or want to drive an SUV or ...
I guess my point is this: "Free Market" Capitalists argue that freedom will win out in the end.
Well, I think they may be actually right. Except that nobody is able to tell the cost of this victory.
This looks to me like classic example of a fundamental problem with free market capitalism. All perfectly legal too. So come on: defend this. Seriously. Not trolling. I'm dying to know why it is that we should tolerate this sort of thing.
Because the investors decided to throw more money into the game (the original investment is lost in the bankruptcy).
It's like somebody says: "Well, I liked the original software concept. They failed in the implementation throwing in a lot of feature creep... it's gone/lost/bankrupt/whatever, I lost something myself. Let's fork, clean the garbage and give a new try"
Sounds like some loophole method of getting out of your debts
Not quite. My understanding: after putting their money down (and loosing them with the bankruptcy), one (Lauder Partners) of the original investors decided to throw more money.
They want a better control on how these extra money are going to be used, but they have little or no control on how much of their original investment are going to recovered (they have no control over the "Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors" process).
Here's something I do know - when someone in the military makes threats against his superiors or the civilian government, that's NOT protected speech.
While the above rings true... pray do tell, it is related with the ex-marine exactly how?
1. a. "i'm going to chop people's heads off"
b. authorities do nothing, guy chops heads off
c. "why didn't you anything!"
2. a. "i'm going to chop people's heads off"
b. authorities get involved
c. "it's just fantasy! orwell! freedom! WHARGARBBL"
Please consider the context of the post I was responding to. The one saying:
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
(i.e. my point: "fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off" cannot be thrown in the pile of never related to "talking about anything freedom")
(I forgot to mark the above with a (grin). If you are taking it seriously, please receive my apologies along with the obligatory whoosh!)
" Then see how you can offer medical treatment "
That's what they were doing. He wasn't arrested, he was detained for psychiatric treatment.
I can understand that as a rational reaction. I can't understand why
"fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off" cannot be related "to talking about anything freedom" as the GGP post suggests.
I don't condone violence, I don't make use of it (other than truly exceptional cases), but I dislike giving away a liberty because of fear.
... isn't apt-get good enough?
This is a mentally unstable trained killer making death threats. Next.
Either:
1. you are his personal shrink and you came with the diagnostic from your authority... in which case, you are violating the confidentiality of your patient; *or*
2. you actually know nothing about this specific case and present a wild guess as the truth... (do you usually get satisfaction from spreading some FUD around?)
and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things
You reckon? Maybe this is coming from a time the US justice was still fully sane, but...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
...
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)...
...
As of 2011, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969.
Or did lately any post on FB become a concrete action?
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
As long as it's just fantasizing it is talk only .
Have any other actions to confirm a crime? Then arrest and charge for the crime (ah, right, I forgot: linking to locations on internet may be a crime in US, not need for a real-life action against somebody).
Have other signs of mental imbalance? Then see how you can offer medical treatment (oh, right, I forgot... universal medical care in US is seen as the most evil thing there can be...God forbids that even veterans, who lost their health for their country, are to benefit of medical care free of charge).
Rate me flamebait, but here's my sincere opinion: this is coming from the dystopian saga of the "Weird Planet America"... beat me if I can rationally understand it
(or am I batshit crazy? Will one come to arrest me for it?)
Right.
But... would a "power user" be stopped by a "sealed computer"?
Let me give you an example: I have woodworking for a hobby and I can tell you that my circular saw draw some power when started. Well... I guarantee you, a shiny Mac - sealed or not - is not match for the circular saw (this is not to say that using a piece of wood wouldn't be cheaper and more useful)
The conclusion... "a power user is defined by the tool set s/he uses"???
Nah... I'd rather say "a power user will choose the tools and materials that make sense for their purposes"
nature has a purpose for everything.
Stop anthropomorphizing nature: it hates when you do it!
Really the first? Vespa Orientalis has been shown to harvest sunlight for energy. Or does that not strictly count as photosnthesis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_orientalis
Maybe because the mechanism is still uncertain?
and may hold promise for helping address humanity's food crisis
I imagine the ultimate solution would be to literally transform part of the human population into vegetables... able to absorb CO2, feed themselves in the Sun light and be happy no matter what the govts do to exploit them (+ be actually grateful for being pissed on).
Maybe, in the first stage, FauxNews can help?
Nice photo gallery too (but no mentions on the phone brands!)
Let me return the advice for you: do as the Swiss people, stay the hell in your country and let the whole world breath free and I won't care if you accept or not whatever international court.
That was indeed a typical response from most Americans until Winston Churchill stepped in and push America into going to war against Germany in the 1940's
Maybe it was so for a brief period (was it because the great depression?), so I'd wish you were right... but you are not 100% right.
As for the Churchill pushing US in war... I'd rather say "Churchill making a case for it" and US population agreeing (this letting aside it wasn't quite a no strings attached help, but help it was nonetheless).
the American position was to help the British but not enter the war ... Only 22 percent were unqualifiedly against ...
Of course, don't expect me to believe that US needed Churchill to push after Pearl Harbour - which came a bit more than 3 years after the WW2 began (if one considers the pre-existing Japan war in China as the start of WW2, it would make 4-5 years).
It's interesting that only one of these is really "chemical." Old school chemistry is dead.
Everything is a chemical.
It's a bit funny to pretend a neutron start is "chemical", don't you think? (go no further than the Sun for a counter-example).
Anyone who makes anything, or studies something that is made of "stuff" is really just an applied chemist.
Well, can you write the chemical reaction between oxygen and the Higgs boson? (you know? The later is still "stuff").
(and yes, yes, us chemists are just applied physicists...) ;)
Oblig xkcd
What the hell is this? A contest of "who's pissing better/stronger on the people in this world" or what?
No its not, its keeping perspective. Having an appreciation for the reality of the situation
My apologies, it's only now that I managed to properly read your post.
Not that I agree with it, it is too close to a pretence of "picturing the reality" - it seems that you are trying to find ex post facto justifications for the "shameful what our nation has become" situation.
But anyway, as your subjective appreciation of the reality, I guess you have the right to see the things the way you like (as long as US doesn't "start pissing on the people of this world" based on it).
Most of what you say is true, and it is shameful what our nation has become but I take issue with two statements.
has become more oppresive and arbitrary than what you would have experienced in the Soviet Union during the cold war years
I find this doubtful at best, and difficult to prove. Having a look at the now much more open Russian the recent head lines coming out of there, it does not seem to be much different from the way things are here currently.
What the hell is this? A contest of "who's pissing better/stronger on the people in this world" or what?
I think you miss the point of what the USA is doing here.
I think you are missing lots of points here.
1. Switzerland doesn't want to be subordinated to any other government, either: for about 300 years, they managed to avoid it quite well. But, unlike US, they managed to do it without engaging in rackets ... multiple times, during the history (probably this is how US learnt what happens when sovereignty is surrendered... except I fail to remember when would they been at the receiving end?)
2. it is not unusual for people to desire not to be subordinated to foreign governments (heck, some can't stand even their own). Does it surprise you they don't like US govt, with its pretence of acting as sort of a global government and unchecked power?
3. you mentioned Iran, China and North Korea. Well, it seems to me that citizens on not only those countries would fear US, but its allies as well (or even more?). With such "friends" who the heck need enemies?
I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here
Let me return the advice for you: do as the Swiss people, stay the hell in your country and let the whole world breath free and I won't care if you accept or not whatever international court.
On your account, Clinton getting a blow job shouldn't have been news.
Mind you, that was borderline date rape at the 1st highest level!
No wonder Hillary is so determined to have Assange's balls on a plate, that would be the second man to humiliate her in front of the whole world (or... was Assange the 3rd, with Obama winning the nomination ahead of her being the 2nd?)