You don't like the war, then vote the politicians out of office. It can by no means be considered the fault of the warrior, upon whose head you seem to be all to eager to lay all the blame.
No. The troops made the choice to join the military. They either knew, or should have known that they would be used as nothing but tools to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs. You don't sign up to be an enforcer for the largest criminal organization in the world and not shoulder some of the blame for the crimes you commit.
Are the troops powerless? Hell no. They have the power to decide not to sign up, and they made the wrong choice. Fuck them all.
Use quotes. For "razor tight" with quotes, I get 18,800 results. Nearly every result on the first page is discussing what a weird term "razor tight" is for the media to have seized upon.
For comparison, "razor thin", with quotes, has 1,460,000 results.
Exactly what part of code updates requires an account on my part? Post the updates and let people download them. I don't need an account to update my OS, why should I need one to update my remote?
I see no big issue.
You will when Logitech stops supporting the device.
It isn't like there's some evil conspiracy here to break you remote.
How do you know? I don't see any other way to interpret a network dependency for a device that doesn't actually need to access the network. It's a deliberately brittle design.
Yes, but you can see if the methods used to predict these one time events are accurate for many one time events. The statistical methods used don't change from election to election.
Sure you can, you just have to do it in aggregate. If when Nate Silver says there's an 80% chance of X happening, go back and see if X happens 80% of the time.
That's some world class bullshit there. "The ends" means "the goal". The terms are synonymous. So you construct a tautology, and say "A -> A, regardless of B" so B doesn't matter. But really, you haven't said anything at all. You're just playing word games.
The ends justify the means. That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads these criminals in uniform to break laws we have for good reasons. Any evidence of any crime by any government official should be used to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Nonsense, he has the power to pardon whoever he wishes. Besides, he's already failed to discharge his duties as president by murdering US citizens without due process, that didn't get him impeached. And even if you're right, and he would be impeached, a good man would prefer that over being responsible for an atrocity.
I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information. If the generals and staff officers are withholding information, then it's congress's job to remove them from their post and punish them as is fit.
It's not the business of a private. But when the generals and congress have both failed, we should be thankful that a mere private decided to put his life on the line and do the right thing.
However, I do not agree that Obama's duplicity on this issue makes him a bad person
It's not the duplicity. He is currently presiding over a government that imprisons harmless people. He is doing this willingly, and could free them today. He chooses to let these good people languish in jail. He's a tyrant.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
What you are asking for is not a property right but a monopoly, the difference being that a property right is the right to use something, while a monopoly is a guarantee that others will be prevented from using it, by force, even when their use does not in any way infringe on your own.
There is no difference here. Property rights encompass both. Nobody can legally use my property without my permission, even if that use does not infringe on my own. Property entails both a right to use, and a right to exclude others from use. I can even buy property with the sole intent to exclude others from using it, and never use it myself.
It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true.
Nonsense. If they were good people with the best interests of the country in mind they would have engaged in a discussion of drug reform. You might be possible for a prohibitionist to be a good person. But nobody who refuses to even have a conversation on this very serious issue can possibly be a good person.
Obama promised to address all petitions on his website that got over 25,000 signitures. Over 70,000 people asked him why Cannabis couldn't be regulated like alcohol. His response didn't mention alcohol once.
How can you see something like that and consider Obama a good person? If he were actually a good person, he would have answered the question we asked.
but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.
Exactly, you know with complete certainty that Obama will repeatedly lie to us, and yet you still allow that he's a good person. WTF? Explain yourself.
Now again we see the same crap uttered by those who voted for the other team.
Have you considered that maybe they're both right? We have had nothing but contemptible, corrupt, crony capitalist candidates for decades.
No, just because the majority of Americans voted a different way then I did, it doesn't mean democracy has failed and the country is going to self-destruct
If you haven't noticed, the country has been self destructing for the past 30 years at least. Democracy has already failed by failing to provide us with any actual choices.
No, neither of them are good men. Both of them would have presided over a government that has long since exceeded the bounds of its constitutional authority. In other words, they would both be criminals.
Obama is a good man. I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer", the "Antichrist", the "Nigger in the White House", or any other hateful and decidedly unchristian thing so many morally ugly people are saying about him.
But he *has* murdered US citizens without any due process.
He's your president.
No, he's a thug selected by a process controlled by the powerful for the interests of the powerful. Legitimate authority comes from a mandate from the masses, not a farcical media ceremony.
It's more likely to be the banks stealing money from people. The true enemies of global peace and freedom are entities like Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs deliberately sunk the Greek economy and profited from it. They'll do the same to anywhere they can.
Slashdot Mirror
for MANY Americans joining the military is their ONLY chance to get a good education and a chance to a reasonable life.
That's all the more reason not to spend the best years of their life protecting the plutocracy.
Netbooks were started by PSION as an 'appliance' laptop
Is there a reason things like the Toshiba Libretto aren't considered netbooks? Besides the fact that they predate widespread adoption of the Internet?
A year ago you could get 1.5TB for that price.
You don't like the war, then vote the politicians out of office. It can by no means be considered the fault of the warrior, upon whose head you seem to be all to eager to lay all the blame.
No. The troops made the choice to join the military. They either knew, or should have known that they would be used as nothing but tools to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs. You don't sign up to be an enforcer for the largest criminal organization in the world and not shoulder some of the blame for the crimes you commit.
Are the troops powerless? Hell no. They have the power to decide not to sign up, and they made the wrong choice. Fuck them all.
Use quotes. For "razor tight" with quotes, I get 18,800 results. Nearly every result on the first page is discussing what a weird term "razor tight" is for the media to have seized upon.
For comparison, "razor thin", with quotes, has 1,460,000 results.
Sorry, advertising is objectionable no matter how entertaining it is. I will not have my purchasing decisions manipulated by marketers.
Good. That just means I'll remember not to buy that product. If I remember your advertising you get no sale from me.
The reason is for device code updates.
Exactly what part of code updates requires an account on my part? Post the updates and let people download them. I don't need an account to update my OS, why should I need one to update my remote?
I see no big issue.
You will when Logitech stops supporting the device.
It isn't like there's some evil conspiracy here to break you remote.
How do you know? I don't see any other way to interpret a network dependency for a device that doesn't actually need to access the network. It's a deliberately brittle design.
Jesus Fucking Christ ran in 2000? How did he not split the evangelical vote?
Yes, but you can see if the methods used to predict these one time events are accurate for many one time events. The statistical methods used don't change from election to election.
Sure you can, you just have to do it in aggregate. If when Nate Silver says there's an 80% chance of X happening, go back and see if X happens 80% of the time.
Don't forget Kinder eggs. Maybe we can get Colorado and Washington to legalize these too.
That's some world class bullshit there. "The ends" means "the goal". The terms are synonymous. So you construct a tautology, and say "A -> A, regardless of B" so B doesn't matter. But really, you haven't said anything at all. You're just playing word games.
Exactly. I expect to see ads anywhere and everywhere, except in apps distributed through my Linux distribution's software repository.
The ends justify the means. That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads these criminals in uniform to break laws we have for good reasons. Any evidence of any crime by any government official should be used to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Nonsense, he has the power to pardon whoever he wishes. Besides, he's already failed to discharge his duties as president by murdering US citizens without due process, that didn't get him impeached. And even if you're right, and he would be impeached, a good man would prefer that over being responsible for an atrocity.
I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information. If the generals and staff officers are withholding information, then it's congress's job to remove them from their post and punish them as is fit.
It's not the business of a private. But when the generals and congress have both failed, we should be thankful that a mere private decided to put his life on the line and do the right thing.
However, I do not agree that Obama's duplicity on this issue makes him a bad person
It's not the duplicity. He is currently presiding over a government that imprisons harmless people. He is doing this willingly, and could free them today. He chooses to let these good people languish in jail. He's a tyrant.
Yeah, "my" bubble.
What you are asking for is not a property right but a monopoly, the difference being that a property right is the right to use something, while a monopoly is a guarantee that others will be prevented from using it, by force, even when their use does not in any way infringe on your own.
There is no difference here. Property rights encompass both. Nobody can legally use my property without my permission, even if that use does not infringe on my own. Property entails both a right to use, and a right to exclude others from use. I can even buy property with the sole intent to exclude others from using it, and never use it myself.
It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true.
Nonsense. If they were good people with the best interests of the country in mind they would have engaged in a discussion of drug reform. You might be possible for a prohibitionist to be a good person. But nobody who refuses to even have a conversation on this very serious issue can possibly be a good person.
Obama promised to address all petitions on his website that got over 25,000 signitures. Over 70,000 people asked him why Cannabis couldn't be regulated like alcohol. His response didn't mention alcohol once.
How can you see something like that and consider Obama a good person? If he were actually a good person, he would have answered the question we asked.
but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.
Exactly, you know with complete certainty that Obama will repeatedly lie to us, and yet you still allow that he's a good person. WTF? Explain yourself.
Now again we see the same crap uttered by those who voted for the other team.
Have you considered that maybe they're both right? We have had nothing but contemptible, corrupt, crony capitalist candidates for decades.
No, just because the majority of Americans voted a different way then I did, it doesn't mean democracy has failed and the country is going to self-destruct
If you haven't noticed, the country has been self destructing for the past 30 years at least. Democracy has already failed by failing to provide us with any actual choices.
Both men were good men
No, neither of them are good men. Both of them would have presided over a government that has long since exceeded the bounds of its constitutional authority. In other words, they would both be criminals.
Obama is a good man. I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer", the "Antichrist", the "Nigger in the White House", or any other hateful and decidedly unchristian thing so many morally ugly people are saying about him.
But he *has* murdered US citizens without any due process.
He's your president.
No, he's a thug selected by a process controlled by the powerful for the interests of the powerful. Legitimate authority comes from a mandate from the masses, not a farcical media ceremony.
It's more likely to be the banks stealing money from people. The true enemies of global peace and freedom are entities like Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs deliberately sunk the Greek economy and profited from it. They'll do the same to anywhere they can.
What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.
Corporation?