I have quite a few friends who regularly give money to online organizations. None of them give money to Wikipedia. Yes, small sample size, but still, none of them.
Don't set up an admin system that shits all over people who disagree with you. Maybe then your appeal for donations would be considered by a larger number of people. I've been sending SomaFM at least $50 per year for most of this decade and even/. gets $5 from me every now and then. I bought one Wikipedia coaster set back in '03 before I discovered your incompetence and now I quickly close your 'appeals' without reading them. Some may consider that I'm being too picky, but when I saw that Barack Obama had less criticism on his page than Ghandi or Jesus Christ, I knew your system was still flawed, and the Climate Doctor debacle didn't work in your favor, either - and hey, that was, like, 12 months ago, and now you're running out of money - coincidence? Fix that shit and I'll kick down a Ben Franklin.
The right to travel includes all methods. If we want to change that, we must amend the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare a state of war, as was done in the Civil War and WWII. Congress has not currently declared a state of war.
The middle ground is in the Constitution. Each state is nearly sovereign and can pass nearly whatever laws it wants to with only a few limitations, such as the right to travel, who can vote, who is a citizen, not entering trade wars with other states, due process, etc. This middle ground is eroded by the nationalists on both the left and the right who want to make the entire nation conform to their respective ideology. This is what starts the fight for control of Washington where the only real winner can be special interests who profit regardless.
The 1st amendment protects people who do not break the law. I forget which one, but at least one of the sites taken down has never hosted a single illegal file, and thus has never stolen anything.
I was driving around one day and found myself hungry and wanting something to eat and I thought to myself, "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten at a Taco Bell in years!" I drove to the nearest Taco Bell and got a taco, a tostada, and an Enchirito(tm), my old favorite. Man, was I disappointed. "That's why I never eat at Taco Bell!"
So a couple years later I'm driving and thinking how I'm kinda' hungry and I see a Taco Bell. "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten there in years!" I go in and order up my favorite meal and end up thinking, "Geez, that was awful! So that's why I never eat a Taco Bell!
So a couple years later I'm driving and thinking how I'm kinda' hungry and I see a Taco Bell. "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten there in -- wait, I hate Taco Bell!"
I've found this applies to many things in life and have thus dubbed it the Taco Bell Syndrome.
I bet less than 1% of the population owned slaves, in fact - yet the 99%+ wouldn't vote to abolish it as a gesture of conciliation to the north? Why?
The same question can be asked of the soldiers who executed the My Lai Massacre, the American public allowing the formation of Japanese Internment Camps, and any number of unjustified atrocities. I don't know the answer, other than to say it seems to be an undesirable trait of human nature. If we look at the facts of history, we find that the voting Americans were racists. Here is a little something about Ulysses S. Grant (p. 33):
Grant as a Talker
He Threatened to Resign and Cast His Lot with the South
"...The editor of the Randolph Citizen recalls some interesting reminiscenses of the great Reticent. He had a tongue at one time, it would seem:
Ulysses the Silent was Ulysses the Garrulous, and embraced every fair opportunity which came in his way to express his sentiments and opinions in regard to political affairs. One of these declarations we distinctly remember. In a public sterling conversation in Ringo's banking-house, a sterling Union man put this question to him: "What do you honestly think was the real object of this war on the part of the Federal Government?"
"Sir," said Grant, "I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat - every man in my regment is a Democrat - and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else than what I have mentioned, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier tha I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people."
I don't listen to a single radio personality. I get my information from books that are well researched with citations and bibliographies. I find this is much better than just making guesses and assumptions about history. Your postulate is completely false. The most successful farms were the ones that stopped using slaves. This was done to compete better in the international market because voluntary labor is more efficient than forced labor and many competing nations had abolished slavery.
Why is this considered right-wing? Everything I stated was solid fact. Even the typically liberal-leaning Wikipedia can't hide from the facts. From the Emanicpation Proclamation article:
The proclamation did not cover the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia or Delaware, which had never declared a secession; slaves there were freed by separately state and federal actions. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.
The Emancipation Proclamation was ridiculed for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Over 50,000 were freed the day it went into effect[3] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).[4] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves[3][4] were freed at once on January 1, 1863.
Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census)[5] were freed by July 1865.
Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.
That the school systems have failed to educate people doesn't make facts any less correct.
Fewer than 20% of farms in Confederate states had slaves and had been in decline for decades. Several Union states allowed slavery. The cost of the War Between the States to the Union was enough to purchase every Confederate slave's freedom and 20 acres of land for each one of them. The Emancipation Proclimation only freed slaves in the areas controlled by the Confederacy and was a weak attempt by Lincoln to gain strategic advantage over the south by encouraging rebellion from slaves who were being watched over by the wives of the Confederate soldiers. To argue that the War Between the States was about slavery, or that the South had slavery in mind as a reason for supporting states rights, is patently false.
If you want to learn more about the 'Civil War', read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. He goes to great trouble to quote every source for every bit of information presented.
I would argue this is more significant because it is in the open. If, as you say, they do more operations 'in shadows', then this direct assault on our liberties shows how far special interests have come and how much our liberty has deteriorated.
By that argument, Google should be #1 on their list of domains to seize. However, the first amendment has been violated as it uses absolute terms: "Congress shall make no law...". The sites were linking to other sites that carried the questionable material. This is the same as when a journalist is given illegally obtained information and then prints it. The journalist is not breaking the law and did not conspire to break the law and thus cannot be held liable for the crime.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."
“the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.”
Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk. We are seeing are the final nails in the Constitution's coffin. Their is no Constitutional justification for the seizing of these sites. It violates the core of the agreements made between the people and the Government. I really wish we could return to being a republic, where each state minds its own business but keep the Federal Government operating within the bounds of the Constitution. The people in Texas can have anarchy or whatever and the people in Massachussetes can have their pristine Government institutions. Those unhappy with their state are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to move.
I bet dollars to doughnuts that when net neutrality passes, buried deep in the legislation's text will be stronger measures than what we're seeing today.
My '85 E150 with almost 180,000 miles runs like a champ. Just failed smog because the cat failed, but they said the exhaust directly from the engine is clean as a whistle.
I read an article about this a while back. IIRC, juries are generally made up of old people, who also bias female, government employees and union members. Everyone else has to work or take care of their kids. The stats get stronger based on the length of the trial, which makes sense. I served on a trial that was one week, which was the same amount of time as the jury duty. Any longer and I would have had to bail because I couldn't afford to take unpaid time off.
The problem is that they generally set the laws up to bypass due process, which is essentially a violation of freedom of speech. There are many cases where the MPAA orders the taking down of things that are later declared by a court to be within the realm of fair use. It should be the opposite, where the work remains available until a court orders it to be taken down.
They still have to operate within all of the other limitations, which do not include closing businesses without due process. Closing them by policy I think is nearly a bill of attainder.
Slashdot Mirror
I have quite a few friends who regularly give money to online organizations. None of them give money to Wikipedia. Yes, small sample size, but still, none of them.
Don't set up an admin system that shits all over people who disagree with you. Maybe then your appeal for donations would be considered by a larger number of people. I've been sending SomaFM at least $50 per year for most of this decade and even /. gets $5 from me every now and then. I bought one Wikipedia coaster set back in '03 before I discovered your incompetence and now I quickly close your 'appeals' without reading them. Some may consider that I'm being too picky, but when I saw that Barack Obama had less criticism on his page than Ghandi or Jesus Christ, I knew your system was still flawed, and the Climate Doctor debacle didn't work in your favor, either - and hey, that was, like, 12 months ago, and now you're running out of money - coincidence? Fix that shit and I'll kick down a Ben Franklin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Assange accused of having consexual sex?
The right to travel includes all methods. If we want to change that, we must amend the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare a state of war, as was done in the Civil War and WWII. Congress has not currently declared a state of war.
The middle ground is in the Constitution. Each state is nearly sovereign and can pass nearly whatever laws it wants to with only a few limitations, such as the right to travel, who can vote, who is a citizen, not entering trade wars with other states, due process, etc. This middle ground is eroded by the nationalists on both the left and the right who want to make the entire nation conform to their respective ideology. This is what starts the fight for control of Washington where the only real winner can be special interests who profit regardless.
The 1st amendment protects people who do not break the law. I forget which one, but at least one of the sites taken down has never hosted a single illegal file, and thus has never stolen anything.
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly.
I think you are confusing the rule of law with martial law.
I was driving around one day and found myself hungry and wanting something to eat and I thought to myself, "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten at a Taco Bell in years!" I drove to the nearest Taco Bell and got a taco, a tostada, and an Enchirito(tm), my old favorite. Man, was I disappointed. "That's why I never eat at Taco Bell!"
So a couple years later I'm driving and thinking how I'm kinda' hungry and I see a Taco Bell. "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten there in years!" I go in and order up my favorite meal and end up thinking, "Geez, that was awful! So that's why I never eat a Taco Bell!
So a couple years later I'm driving and thinking how I'm kinda' hungry and I see a Taco Bell. "Taco Bell! I haven't eaten there in -- wait, I hate Taco Bell!"
I've found this applies to many things in life and have thus dubbed it the Taco Bell Syndrome.
I think you mean fuel dispersion. The 'fuel' is all going to be U-235.
My thoughts exactly. It's not sun that they have abundance; it's otherwise undesirable, uninhabitable land.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
I bet less than 1% of the population owned slaves, in fact - yet the 99%+ wouldn't vote to abolish it as a gesture of conciliation to the north? Why?
The same question can be asked of the soldiers who executed the My Lai Massacre, the American public allowing the formation of Japanese Internment Camps, and any number of unjustified atrocities. I don't know the answer, other than to say it seems to be an undesirable trait of human nature. If we look at the facts of history, we find that the voting Americans were racists. Here is a little something about Ulysses S. Grant (p. 33):
Grant as a Talker
He Threatened to Resign and Cast His Lot with the South
"...The editor of the Randolph Citizen recalls some interesting reminiscenses of the great Reticent. He had a tongue at one time, it would seem:
Ulysses the Silent was Ulysses the Garrulous, and embraced every fair opportunity which came in his way to express his sentiments and opinions in regard to political affairs. One of these declarations we distinctly remember. In a public sterling conversation in Ringo's banking-house, a sterling Union man put this question to him: "What do you honestly think was the real object of this war on the part of the Federal Government?"
"Sir," said Grant, "I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat - every man in my regment is a Democrat - and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else than what I have mentioned, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier tha I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people."
I don't listen to a single radio personality. I get my information from books that are well researched with citations and bibliographies. I find this is much better than just making guesses and assumptions about history. Your postulate is completely false. The most successful farms were the ones that stopped using slaves. This was done to compete better in the international market because voluntary labor is more efficient than forced labor and many competing nations had abolished slavery.
That the school systems have failed to educate people doesn't make facts any less correct.
I just don't want you to do it in my town. You see?
Fewer than 20% of farms in Confederate states had slaves and had been in decline for decades. Several Union states allowed slavery. The cost of the War Between the States to the Union was enough to purchase every Confederate slave's freedom and 20 acres of land for each one of them. The Emancipation Proclimation only freed slaves in the areas controlled by the Confederacy and was a weak attempt by Lincoln to gain strategic advantage over the south by encouraging rebellion from slaves who were being watched over by the wives of the Confederate soldiers. To argue that the War Between the States was about slavery, or that the South had slavery in mind as a reason for supporting states rights, is patently false.
If you want to learn more about the 'Civil War', read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. He goes to great trouble to quote every source for every bit of information presented.
I would argue this is more significant because it is in the open. If, as you say, they do more operations 'in shadows', then this direct assault on our liberties shows how far special interests have come and how much our liberty has deteriorated.
By that argument, Google should be #1 on their list of domains to seize. However, the first amendment has been violated as it uses absolute terms: "Congress shall make no law...". The sites were linking to other sites that carried the questionable material. This is the same as when a journalist is given illegally obtained information and then prints it. The journalist is not breaking the law and did not conspire to break the law and thus cannot be held liable for the crime.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."
“the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.”
Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk. We are seeing are the final nails in the Constitution's coffin. Their is no Constitutional justification for the seizing of these sites. It violates the core of the agreements made between the people and the Government. I really wish we could return to being a republic, where each state minds its own business but keep the Federal Government operating within the bounds of the Constitution. The people in Texas can have anarchy or whatever and the people in Massachussetes can have their pristine Government institutions. Those unhappy with their state are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to move.
I bet dollars to doughnuts that when net neutrality passes, buried deep in the legislation's text will be stronger measures than what we're seeing today.
Ford makes some damn fine vehicles
My '85 E150 with almost 180,000 miles runs like a champ. Just failed smog because the cat failed, but they said the exhaust directly from the engine is clean as a whistle.
I'm not going to dip into emergency funds to serve on a jury - those funds are for emergencies. Some cases take months.
I read an article about this a while back. IIRC, juries are generally made up of old people, who also bias female, government employees and union members. Everyone else has to work or take care of their kids. The stats get stronger based on the length of the trial, which makes sense. I served on a trial that was one week, which was the same amount of time as the jury duty. Any longer and I would have had to bail because I couldn't afford to take unpaid time off.
The problem is that they generally set the laws up to bypass due process, which is essentially a violation of freedom of speech. There are many cases where the MPAA orders the taking down of things that are later declared by a court to be within the realm of fair use. It should be the opposite, where the work remains available until a court orders it to be taken down.
They still have to operate within all of the other limitations, which do not include closing businesses without due process. Closing them by policy I think is nearly a bill of attainder.
The Constitution grants Congress specific powers. Anything beyond the stated powers is beyond Congress's purview.