What next? Complaining about hidden compartment in desks?
Complaining? There's at least one man in jail for building hidden compartments.
"I built these compartments just like any other business that I had, doing stereo business, customizing needs to peopleâ(TM)s needs in their vehicles, and I admit there was probably some irresponsibility of building these things, but I was onlyâ"I just figured it would be, like, as long as I didnâ(TM)t know what was going onâ"and donâ(TM)t want to knowâ"there was no law against it ⦠If I had known there was a law against it, I wouldnâ(TM)t be here. If there was a law that says these compartments are illegal to build, I would not build them. If I had known this was going to happen to me, I wouldnâ(TM)t have done it." ...
Above all, Anaya seems baffled that he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isnâ(TM)t specifically forbidden by federal law. âoeIf it takes me never building another compartment again for me to get out of here, thatâ(TM)s what Iâ(TM)m willing to do,â he says. âoeBut I think I should be able to.â
I'm not really heartless I've just grown sick of seeing deadbeats break a system put in place to help people with absolutely no options.
It's not the deadbeats that have broken the system. It's the rent seeking elites. Those who get paid when doctors call for unwarranted tests. Those who get paid when they deny care to dying people. Those who get paid when they stretch the billing process out as long as possible, and pass the bills through as many middle men as possible. Those are the real deadbeats.
The problem is, the deadbeats own the system. The only reason why we don't have single payer healthcare is because those deadbeats wouldn't get paid. But it would be cruel for us to punish the truly needy because of rent-seeking fat cats. So we do the only thing we can do, provide care for the needy, and pay the rentseekers their rent.
You're one of the 99%. The leeches you should be concerned about are the upper 0.1%. What we spend on social welfare is nothing compared to what the capitalist class extracts from the economy simply because they own. These are the people who are given vast amounts of your money without having to struggle.
But concerning your sister, she's an exception. Most of the uninsured are low income working families. These are people who have jobs, and are struggling to improve their lives. Almost half of the uninsured have full time jobs. Their employer either does not offer insurance, or does not pay them enough for them to afford insurance. This is not something any civilized country can allow.
Half of the remainder have part time jobs, and yes, about 25% of them are unemployed. But remember that these people do not control unemployment rates, the.1% do. Punishing the unemployed for not getting jobs that don't exist, is similarly uncivilized.
So stop letting your personal experience with your sister interfere with making the right choices for the country. I'm guessing that you're from a middle class background, you tend to associate with people from a middle class background, and the poor people you are familiar with are failure largely of their own accord. This is a selection bias on your part. In reality, most of the poor are working poor. They are a lot more like you and I than you'd expect. We struggle every day to make ends meet. They struggle every day, and cannot make ends meet. This is why we have civilization, instead of just letting the strong devour the weak.
And therein lies the entire conservative argument against public health care. Never mind that it provides better health outcomes at a lower cost. If you are so unwise as to be poor in an era of dramaticly rising inequality, and ever decreasing social mobility, it's your own damn fault and you deserve to die.
Why can't we have public health care? Because "Fuck you", that's why. Thanks for showing your true stripes.
A "technicality" that has a higher probability of keeping you safe from an overreaching government than you have of being harmed in a terrorist attack.
No, it's like someone putting a gun to your head, and saying "pay into this system that benefits us all, or pay a small fine that in no way comes close to covering your continued access to hospitals".
If you're not buying insurance, the only party getting fucked is the rest of us when we have to pay for your hospital stays. Why do you expect to "get a break" just for paying your fair share?
Not only that, but "parallel construction" allows the use of evidence obtained through knowingly illegal methods. What they do is illegally search everyone's records, find some suspects, and make up a story about how they found those suspects legally. They tell that lie to the court, and get a warrant based on complete fiction.
Since you can't prove that, e.g. an anonymous tip was not placed that lead the police to request your phone records and search your garbage (both of which are legal without a warrant), you can't ever get evidence obtained under that warrant excluded.
I think a store can differentiate on the things they sell without it being censorship.
That is true, not all cases of(for lack of a better term) inventory specialization are censorship. But when Amazon sells everything from Edgar Allen Poe to Calculus textbooks to cordless drills, I don't think "that's not our market" is a very convincing explanation.
Comic book superheroes are not scifi. I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, that it's not necessary for a movie to follow rules. But you seem to think it's always wrong to expect a movie to follow rules. I think there is good art to be found in movies that do follow scientific rules. What's the point of asking a "what if?" question, if the answer is always "In movies, anything can happen."?
If they got the science perfectly right, there would be no film. What they got wrong doesn't beggar belief, the way Armageddon does. Of all the problems this film has, the one that bothers me most is casting. I'd love to go see this in IMAX 3D, but I don't know if I can sit through 90 minutes of Cloony and Bullock.
I read the articles and discovered that instead of this being Bad Amazon, Bad B&N
It's not? But you say:
Had a smut author walked in the front door of Amazon or B&N and said "hey, will you sell my... works... centered around incest, rape, and pedophilia" they would be handed a copy of those store's book offering policy and shown the door
In what way is that not Amazon and B&N behaving badly?
they are removing content that violates their business model. That is their right
And it's our right to shame them for censorship.
Now if a Government makes broad sweep removals requirement for all businesses...then we can debate censorship.
When "more evil guy" is only negligibly more evil, that's a risk worth taking. One figurehead of the corporate autocracy isn't going to be significantly more evil than another figurehead of the corporate autoracy. What we all need to do is vote against the corporate autocracy by voting third party. It doesn't matter which one.
You know you're being played by the old "good cop, bad cop" routine, right? Or do you not have the minimal cognitive capabilities needed to figure that out?
It was absolutely apparent that Obama was a turd sandwich, all the way back in 2006 when he supported immunity for telcos that allowed warrantless wiretapping. YOU just didn't listen. May I say "I told you so."?
Indeed. Married people might have met online, but did they have the wedding online? What about the wedding night? Clearly, face to face interaction has advantages.
The first step towards thoughtful debate is to accurately demonize your opposition. Barack Obama and the Tea Party are both slightly different shades of corporate authoritarians. They're ALL fascists.
There would also be no freedom. Remember, it's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You don't get to decide how I pursue happiness. If you do, you're a tyrant.
Slashdot Mirror
GPG on a clean machine with an airgap is pretty much unassailable.
What next? Complaining about hidden compartment in desks?
Complaining? There's at least one man in jail for building hidden compartments.
Life in America is good by any sane standard.
More people are imprisoned in America than any other country in the world.
I'm not really heartless I've just grown sick of seeing deadbeats break a system put in place to help people with absolutely no options.
It's not the deadbeats that have broken the system. It's the rent seeking elites. Those who get paid when doctors call for unwarranted tests. Those who get paid when they deny care to dying people. Those who get paid when they stretch the billing process out as long as possible, and pass the bills through as many middle men as possible. Those are the real deadbeats.
The problem is, the deadbeats own the system. The only reason why we don't have single payer healthcare is because those deadbeats wouldn't get paid. But it would be cruel for us to punish the truly needy because of rent-seeking fat cats. So we do the only thing we can do, provide care for the needy, and pay the rentseekers their rent.
Long story short, you're mad at the wrong people.
Just use GPG with any email service you like. Nothing else is trustworthy.
You're one of the 99%. The leeches you should be concerned about are the upper 0.1%. What we spend on social welfare is nothing compared to what the capitalist class extracts from the economy simply because they own. These are the people who are given vast amounts of your money without having to struggle.
But concerning your sister, she's an exception. Most of the uninsured are low income working families. These are people who have jobs, and are struggling to improve their lives. Almost half of the uninsured have full time jobs. Their employer either does not offer insurance, or does not pay them enough for them to afford insurance. This is not something any civilized country can allow.
Half of the remainder have part time jobs, and yes, about 25% of them are unemployed. But remember that these people do not control unemployment rates, the .1% do. Punishing the unemployed for not getting jobs that don't exist, is similarly uncivilized.
So stop letting your personal experience with your sister interfere with making the right choices for the country. I'm guessing that you're from a middle class background, you tend to associate with people from a middle class background, and the poor people you are familiar with are failure largely of their own accord. This is a selection bias on your part. In reality, most of the poor are working poor. They are a lot more like you and I than you'd expect. We struggle every day to make ends meet. They struggle every day, and cannot make ends meet. This is why we have civilization, instead of just letting the strong devour the weak.
Fuck you.
And therein lies the entire conservative argument against public health care. Never mind that it provides better health outcomes at a lower cost. If you are so unwise as to be poor in an era of dramaticly rising inequality, and ever decreasing social mobility, it's your own damn fault and you deserve to die.
Why can't we have public health care? Because "Fuck you", that's why. Thanks for showing your true stripes.
Who's shooting store owners?
A "technicality" that has a higher probability of keeping you safe from an overreaching government than you have of being harmed in a terrorist attack.
Whether they deserved it is irrelevant. What matters is whether the government obeyed the law.
No, it's like someone putting a gun to your head, and saying "pay into this system that benefits us all, or pay a small fine that in no way comes close to covering your continued access to hospitals".
If you're not buying insurance, the only party getting fucked is the rest of us when we have to pay for your hospital stays. Why do you expect to "get a break" just for paying your fair share?
Not only that, but "parallel construction" allows the use of evidence obtained through knowingly illegal methods. What they do is illegally search everyone's records, find some suspects, and make up a story about how they found those suspects legally. They tell that lie to the court, and get a warrant based on complete fiction.
Since you can't prove that, e.g. an anonymous tip was not placed that lead the police to request your phone records and search your garbage (both of which are legal without a warrant), you can't ever get evidence obtained under that warrant excluded.
I think a store can differentiate on the things they sell without it being censorship.
That is true, not all cases of(for lack of a better term) inventory specialization are censorship. But when Amazon sells everything from Edgar Allen Poe to Calculus textbooks to cordless drills, I don't think "that's not our market" is a very convincing explanation.
Comic book superheroes are not scifi. I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, that it's not necessary for a movie to follow rules. But you seem to think it's always wrong to expect a movie to follow rules. I think there is good art to be found in movies that do follow scientific rules. What's the point of asking a "what if?" question, if the answer is always "In movies, anything can happen."?
If they got the science perfectly right, there would be no film. What they got wrong doesn't beggar belief, the way Armageddon does. Of all the problems this film has, the one that bothers me most is casting. I'd love to go see this in IMAX 3D, but I don't know if I can sit through 90 minutes of Cloony and Bullock.
I read the articles and discovered that instead of this being Bad Amazon, Bad B&N
It's not? But you say:
Had a smut author walked in the front door of Amazon or B&N and said "hey, will you sell my ... works ... centered around incest, rape, and pedophilia" they would be handed a copy of those store's book offering policy and shown the door
In what way is that not Amazon and B&N behaving badly?
they are removing content that violates their business model. That is their right
And it's our right to shame them for censorship.
Now if a Government makes broad sweep removals requirement for all businesses...then we can debate censorship.
Censorship is not limited to governments.
When "more evil guy" is only negligibly more evil, that's a risk worth taking. One figurehead of the corporate autocracy isn't going to be significantly more evil than another figurehead of the corporate autoracy. What we all need to do is vote against the corporate autocracy by voting third party. It doesn't matter which one.
You know you're being played by the old "good cop, bad cop" routine, right? Or do you not have the minimal cognitive capabilities needed to figure that out?
It was absolutely apparent that Obama was a turd sandwich, all the way back in 2006 when he supported immunity for telcos that allowed warrantless wiretapping. YOU just didn't listen. May I say "I told you so."?
Obama is a neocon.
If you're voting for politicians who support the war on drugs, the blood is on your hands.
Indeed. Married people might have met online, but did they have the wedding online? What about the wedding night? Clearly, face to face interaction has advantages.
No, not at all. When you meet your internet friends in real life, that's when you make memories that last a lifetime. That's what is meant.
The first step towards thoughtful debate is to accurately demonize your opposition. Barack Obama and the Tea Party are both slightly different shades of corporate authoritarians. They're ALL fascists.
There would also be no freedom. Remember, it's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You don't get to decide how I pursue happiness. If you do, you're a tyrant.