When doing something you detest is legally mandated and appeals won't work, your only real recourses are dragging your feet or shutting down your company.
Like I said last time, this is trying to legislate a technological solution to a social problem.
People should not *care* what your past is if you've already atoned for it (crimes) or it was just your average dumb hijinks (drunk pics). Getting people to think this way would solve the problem without needing to damage the Internet.
I read his comment as "True" referring to the second paragraph of the OP, in which case he is arguing that no one should have the right to be forgotten and the Muslim reference was an example of why it was a bad idea, not an exception to whom should be protected.
Not to mention that it's not an irrational fear when they have a demonstrated history of bombings. It becomes a justified fear.
I've for some time been against the use of -phobia to mean "any negative attitude about" e.g. homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia (for a less recent example). It's overloading a psychiatric term to stigmatize a social viewpoint, and seems purposely misleading in a way that most people can't differentiate.
From what I've heard, the same could be said for certain Coptic neighborhoods in the middle east if you were a Muslim, though. Violence begets violence.
A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, through the forces of supply and demand without intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices. A Free-market economy is a market-based economy in which the forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.
Wouldn't a truly free market inevitably slide towards a monopoly without government interference? Sooner or later one producer will take advantage of circumstances in the product ecosystem to muscle out all competitors. So if we accept "free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority," wouldn't a free market be self-terminating because it would end up in a monopoly state, which disqualifies it from being free?
I suppose that's not really an argument against the definition, though.
Do you have the slightest clue about the complexity of this issue? How much money it costs to catch and deport people?
I'm not saying we go out searching for them necessarily, but if we run into them, yes. We already spend ridiculous amounts of money federally on bullshit programs, what's a bit more anyway. Raise the taxes on the 1% by 0.001% ought to cover it, I'm sure. Oh, but right...we don't do that.
How evil it is to send people who where brought as children back to a country where the know no one?
A) You're arguing a reductio ad absurdum. I highly doubt most illegal immigrants are unattended children, and if they are, their guardians should be ashamed of themselves for putting them in such a dangerous situation to begin with. Hell, if the guardians are still on the other side of the border one might argue it *is* better to send them back to be with their guardians rather than be placed in foster care.
B) Calling it "evil" is an emotionally loaded response and in no way objective. I wouldn't consider deportation in itself to be evil, but arguing this point at all is falling into your appeal to emotion.
Have you even tried to think about it from any perspective other then 'it's illegal'? Why does it's illegal = deport? hmm?
Well if there's middle-of-the-road solutions between "deport them" and "spend lots of federal money on them to ensure they're useful to society etc. etc. while just ignoring that it's illegal" I should like to hear them, I suppose; however I suspect you actually wouldn't want the conversation to go there. It's easier to just call me a hateful person.
There are plenty of government policies I may not like, but this is not one of them. Saying "to be compassionate people, we have to throw our hands up and let them all stay" seems be about the same as revoking whatever relevant laws cover it anyway. In which case, why don't we do that? See if they have the votes.
If you get a ticket for speeding, do they go back to where you started your drive, or do the fine you and let you continue on your way?
No of course not, but you're claiming that they shouldn't even get fined. It's a terrible analogy. Letting you go on your way would be letting you stay in the country, which is the very thing that they're catching you for so of course they won't let you still do it.
And where do you deport them to if you don't know the country of origin?
Well, if they're coming over the southern land border, it's pretty obvious they're coming from Mexico. If they come over in dinky only-hold-together-for-a-week boats, they're probably coming from Cuba. Their original country seems a bit immaterial to me. If they can get to Mexico, they should be able to figure out how to get out of Mexico I would hope. If they're going to flaunt our laws to get here it seems rather weird that we'd be expected to treat them as law-abiding citizens.
IF they where forced here?
How many do you think are? And how do you define "forced"? If you asked them, I bet the majority of them would say "we were forced." Social pressure/desire for a better life != gun to the head.
People like you keep focus on illegal and not on practicality, or the fact they're human beings.
Oh ho ho, that's rich, calling *me* not pragmatic. And your liberal crying about how I should have a heart ("Animals can feel! They should vote! You should be a vegan!") is mostly misplaced as I *am* pretty liberal when it's not a really stupid issue.
The current issue is the thousands of kids from all over south america are showing up. How do ou hand that? fo you send a 10 year old back to a country randomly? Back to someplace where they will die?
Well I suppose it would be too much to ask to get the countries they're coming from to get them to knock it of
There was also the small issue of being able to generate electricity involved with the Hoover Dam. I'm sure they had to kick in a few bucks for the generators.
Driverless cars would've prevented 99% of the crashes. Let's concentrate on rolling those out first and soon.
That the few dozen (or whatever) prototype driverless cars have not been in any accidents YET does not prove they can magically prevent 99.999arbitrary9s% of crashes. Scale that up to 10% of traffic on the roads and then show me some numbers.
In other news, I'm sure there are plenty of prototype aircraft that never got in any crashes. Of course, that's because they were never test-flown...
A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains.
Don't you just love it when the Gaians on the continent west of you start terraforming up mountain ranges and all your rainy squares start disappearing?
Oh, and then there's the whole part where even though they're supposed to be the ecologically-sensitive faction they'll build just as much, if not more, boreholes and shit everywhere. Totally not inconsistent at all:)
Are you saying doing NOTHING is equal to doing SOMETHING?
Yeah, like how we all know that security through obscurity is 100% ineffective and never ever helps anything at all.
Oh wait...
Obama's De Facto Amnesty program of "If you can get here, we won't kick you out".
Yeah, I have yet to hear someone explain why we should be incentivizing sneaking into the country illegally (other than being here being a big enough incentive already apparently). But then everybody starts shouting about how I'm racist if I don't want immigrants being paid below minimum wage for shitty jobs. (Yes, I skipped a step or two, but that seems to be the end result.)
Immigrate legally. If they won't let you in, you don't have a right to do it illegally anyway. That's why it's called illegal.
The J8M, Su-5, and I-250/MiG-13 never flew in combat.
In contract, the Me-163, Me-262, Ar-234, and He-162 all did, and in fact all got at least one kill (although the Ar-234s were bombers, I'm sure they hit something successfully).
I would have loved to have seen what it would do with a couple of merlins but it was designed at a time when it looked like the closest the Navy would get to a carrier was slapping some planks on a merchantman and by the time it was done they were ass deep in carriers.
Umm...according to the wiki page, the U.S. had at least one operational carrier since 1922. I'm not sure if you mean it was assigned to the Air Force or Marines or something so it wasn't a "Navy carrier?" By the time the war broke out in Europe, the U.S. had six...and the V-173 proposal looks like it was given to the Navy in 1939.
If you're referring to the BI-1 as the "Russian rocket fighter," A) it doesn't sound like they got it to fly as well as they liked, B) there is no mention on the Wikipedia article of it being sent to production, and C) no mention whatsoever of it being a fighter.
Plans for production were abandoned. Rocketplane testing in the USSR only resumed with the testing of German designs after the war..
If you're talking about the Ohka for the Japanese "much better version of the ME163," you at least hit the mark in that they were actually manufactured (which you can say about a lot of the German designs) and used in combat. Saying they were "much better" seems rather unreliable as they only sound like they were ever used for flying a straight line really fast and then ramming. The Me-163 had to, y'know, actually maneuver and fire and land again. Did they even bother putting landing gears on Ohkas? I think not.
I've heard of the ice carrier, yes, but the Flapjack was a U.S. design (unless there's another one that went by the same nickname). Which, pursuant to my first point, the U.K. had at least one carrier operational at the start of the war as well (the Ark Royal just off the top of my head...and that was an old one; I'm sure they had several more available).
P.S: Thanks for the interesting, if misleading, post for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
When doing something you detest is legally mandated and appeals won't work, your only real recourses are dragging your feet or shutting down your company.
Can you quantify the numbers of [dodgy politicians]
100%
Like I said last time, this is trying to legislate a technological solution to a social problem.
People should not *care* what your past is if you've already atoned for it (crimes) or it was just your average dumb hijinks (drunk pics). Getting people to think this way would solve the problem without needing to damage the Internet.
I read his comment as "True" referring to the second paragraph of the OP, in which case he is arguing that no one should have the right to be forgotten and the Muslim reference was an example of why it was a bad idea, not an exception to whom should be protected.
Not to mention that it's not an irrational fear when they have a demonstrated history of bombings. It becomes a justified fear.
I've for some time been against the use of -phobia to mean "any negative attitude about" e.g. homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia (for a less recent example). It's overloading a psychiatric term to stigmatize a social viewpoint, and seems purposely misleading in a way that most people can't differentiate.
From what I've heard, the same could be said for certain Coptic neighborhoods in the middle east if you were a Muslim, though. Violence begets violence.
the Jewish in Germany were killed for their religion as were communists and many other social minorities AFAIK.
Um, the communists were killed for being communists, which is a political ideology, not a religion.
Not that, y'know, the Nazis were trying very hard to justify their actions morally.
Just ignoring your random racism for a moment,
Actually religious discrimination, if anything.
just because there's a *request* does not mean it will be honoured.
In practice, yes--yes it does. Google seems to be practically the only company not rolling over and yanking stuff, and now they caved to this demand.
+1 Reinforcing The Parent's Point
A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, through the forces of supply and demand without intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices. A Free-market economy is a market-based economy in which the forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.
Wouldn't a truly free market inevitably slide towards a monopoly without government interference? Sooner or later one producer will take advantage of circumstances in the product ecosystem to muscle out all competitors. So if we accept "free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority," wouldn't a free market be self-terminating because it would end up in a monopoly state, which disqualifies it from being free?
I suppose that's not really an argument against the definition, though.
Do you have the slightest clue about the complexity of this issue? How much money it costs to catch and deport people?
I'm not saying we go out searching for them necessarily, but if we run into them, yes. We already spend ridiculous amounts of money federally on bullshit programs, what's a bit more anyway. Raise the taxes on the 1% by 0.001% ought to cover it, I'm sure. Oh, but right...we don't do that.
How evil it is to send people who where brought as children back to a country where the know no one?
A) You're arguing a reductio ad absurdum. I highly doubt most illegal immigrants are unattended children, and if they are, their guardians should be ashamed of themselves for putting them in such a dangerous situation to begin with. Hell, if the guardians are still on the other side of the border one might argue it *is* better to send them back to be with their guardians rather than be placed in foster care.
B) Calling it "evil" is an emotionally loaded response and in no way objective. I wouldn't consider deportation in itself to be evil, but arguing this point at all is falling into your appeal to emotion.
Have you even tried to think about it from any perspective other then 'it's illegal'? Why does it's illegal = deport? hmm?
Well if there's middle-of-the-road solutions between "deport them" and "spend lots of federal money on them to ensure they're useful to society etc. etc. while just ignoring that it's illegal" I should like to hear them, I suppose; however I suspect you actually wouldn't want the conversation to go there. It's easier to just call me a hateful person.
There are plenty of government policies I may not like, but this is not one of them. Saying "to be compassionate people, we have to throw our hands up and let them all stay" seems be about the same as revoking whatever relevant laws cover it anyway. In which case, why don't we do that? See if they have the votes.
If you get a ticket for speeding, do they go back to where you started your drive, or do the fine you and let you continue on your way?
No of course not, but you're claiming that they shouldn't even get fined. It's a terrible analogy. Letting you go on your way would be letting you stay in the country, which is the very thing that they're catching you for so of course they won't let you still do it.
And where do you deport them to if you don't know the country of origin?
Well, if they're coming over the southern land border, it's pretty obvious they're coming from Mexico. If they come over in dinky only-hold-together-for-a-week boats, they're probably coming from Cuba. Their original country seems a bit immaterial to me. If they can get to Mexico, they should be able to figure out how to get out of Mexico I would hope. If they're going to flaunt our laws to get here it seems rather weird that we'd be expected to treat them as law-abiding citizens.
IF they where forced here?
How many do you think are? And how do you define "forced"? If you asked them, I bet the majority of them would say "we were forced." Social pressure/desire for a better life != gun to the head.
People like you keep focus on illegal and not on practicality, or the fact they're human beings.
Oh ho ho, that's rich, calling *me* not pragmatic. And your liberal crying about how I should have a heart ("Animals can feel! They should vote! You should be a vegan!") is mostly misplaced as I *am* pretty liberal when it's not a really stupid issue.
The current issue is the thousands of kids from all over south america are showing up. How do ou hand that? fo you send a 10 year old back to a country randomly? Back to someplace where they will die?
Well I suppose it would be too much to ask to get the countries they're coming from to get them to knock it of
Somebody's watched that Dr. Who episode with the ATMOS one too many times.
There was also the small issue of being able to generate electricity involved with the Hoover Dam. I'm sure they had to kick in a few bucks for the generators.
Driverless cars would've prevented 99% of the crashes. Let's concentrate on rolling those out first and soon.
That the few dozen (or whatever) prototype driverless cars have not been in any accidents YET does not prove they can magically prevent 99.999arbitrary9s% of crashes. Scale that up to 10% of traffic on the roads and then show me some numbers.
In other news, I'm sure there are plenty of prototype aircraft that never got in any crashes. Of course, that's because they were never test-flown...
Gotta have something to burn off all that electricity on, duh.
Claiming it is "feasible", and that it "should" be easier than a skyscraper does not exactly instill confidence.
Maybe since we screw up so many projects that "should totally work," we'd have more success trying projects that are "almost totally impossible?"
I am inviiiiiiincible
A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains.
Don't you just love it when the Gaians on the continent west of you start terraforming up mountain ranges and all your rainy squares start disappearing?
Oh, and then there's the whole part where even though they're supposed to be the ecologically-sensitive faction they'll build just as much, if not more, boreholes and shit everywhere. Totally not inconsistent at all :)
Are you saying doing NOTHING is equal to doing SOMETHING?
Yeah, like how we all know that security through obscurity is 100% ineffective and never ever helps anything at all.
Oh wait...
Obama's De Facto Amnesty program of "If you can get here, we won't kick you out".
Yeah, I have yet to hear someone explain why we should be incentivizing sneaking into the country illegally (other than being here being a big enough incentive already apparently). But then everybody starts shouting about how I'm racist if I don't want immigrants being paid below minimum wage for shitty jobs. (Yes, I skipped a step or two, but that seems to be the end result.)
Immigrate legally. If they won't let you in, you don't have a right to do it illegally anyway. That's why it's called illegal.
or like Hadron's wall.
The Supercollider? Oh, you probably mean Hadrian's Wall.
The J8M, Su-5, and I-250/MiG-13 never flew in combat.
In contract, the Me-163, Me-262, Ar-234, and He-162 all did, and in fact all got at least one kill (although the Ar-234s were bombers, I'm sure they hit something successfully).
I would have loved to have seen what it would do with a couple of merlins but it was designed at a time when it looked like the closest the Navy would get to a carrier was slapping some planks on a merchantman and by the time it was done they were ass deep in carriers.
Umm...according to the wiki page, the U.S. had at least one operational carrier since 1922. I'm not sure if you mean it was assigned to the Air Force or Marines or something so it wasn't a "Navy carrier?" By the time the war broke out in Europe, the U.S. had six...and the V-173 proposal looks like it was given to the Navy in 1939.
If you're referring to the BI-1 as the "Russian rocket fighter," A) it doesn't sound like they got it to fly as well as they liked, B) there is no mention on the Wikipedia article of it being sent to production, and C) no mention whatsoever of it being a fighter.
http://www.astronautix.com/cra...
Plans for production were abandoned. Rocketplane testing in the USSR only resumed with the testing of German designs after the war..
If you're talking about the Ohka for the Japanese "much better version of the ME163," you at least hit the mark in that they were actually manufactured (which you can say about a lot of the German designs) and used in combat. Saying they were "much better" seems rather unreliable as they only sound like they were ever used for flying a straight line really fast and then ramming. The Me-163 had to, y'know, actually maneuver and fire and land again. Did they even bother putting landing gears on Ohkas? I think not.
I've heard of the ice carrier, yes, but the Flapjack was a U.S. design (unless there's another one that went by the same nickname). Which, pursuant to my first point, the U.K. had at least one carrier operational at the start of the war as well (the Ark Royal just off the top of my head...and that was an old one; I'm sure they had several more available).
P.S: Thanks for the interesting, if misleading, post for a change.
It was 4-6-3 to begin with so I'm not sure how 3-5-2 would make it any closer to a haiku...
(counting dangling as 3 syllables since dangle is 2)
so NSA cannot
I think the NSA has demonstrated there's very little they *can't* do, although there's plenty they *shouldn't* be doing.
And yet it's a useful term. What would you prefer, pseudofree market? Relatively free market? More-free-than-X-market?
What market would you say we have in the U.S.?