Corporations, as a collection of individuals, seek to create wealth, not destroy it.
Corporations seek to control wealth, by any means necessary.
A corporation has no power to dictate your life unless it coerces a government that is willing to do so.
We've all got to eat. Those who control the means of production control who eats. Those who control the finance system control who works and who doesn't, and who has a home to go to at night. That is every bit as coercive as any governmental power.
That is why government can never be allowed an excess of power and why government's sole purpose should be defend the rights of individuals
Defend individuals, mainly from corporations. Unfortunately, our government is wholly owned by those very corporations we need to be protected from.
They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem.
And that's why he'll lose the case. In America you only have rights if you can afford to exercise them. Freedom of the press goes only to those who can afford a press.
That is indeed one of the reasons why this will not work: there are people using all kinds of different OSes
This is one of the reasons why it will be done anyway. It's an excuse for governments to supply more customers to their most valuable constituents. They don't know or care about open source or your freedom.
A DDOS, if properly executed, is the digital equivalent of a sit-in. If the machines used were hacked however, it's a lot harder to justify. But if you run a public server, and the public decides to all use the server at the same time, it's hard to classify that as vigilantism.
These wars were possible because service members refused to use their conscience and not participate. Nobody gets absolved of evil because they were only following orders.
I offer you this excerpt from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience for your Saturday morning reading:
Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts â" a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be
"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(6)
[5] The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away,"(8) but leave that office to his dust at least: â"
"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."(9)
The only true hero of the Iraq war is Ehren Watada.
Yes, honest debate is exactly what I want. Marijuana is not harmless, of course it isn't. But it's less harmful than prohibition. That would be born out with a full and honest debate, which we have not yet had as a country.
If there is honest disagreement there should be honest debate. The lack of honest debate indicates that there is not honest disagreement, they know they're wrong and can't win a real argument on the subject. So they just shut the issue out.
I'd like to say "Fuck you" to the troops. If you had exercised your conscience instead of blind patriotism we could have avoided wasting a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
August 2nd, 2010. Obama promised that all "combat troops" would depart by the end of that month. Today we still have troops on the ground who are armed for combat, trained for combat, prepared for combat, and receiving combat pay. Obama lied.
Legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana. Not crazy. Crazy would be suggesting that the status quo is ok.
Forgiving student loan debt. An extreme solution to an extreme problem. Again, crazy would be suggesting that the status quo is ok.
The TSA? Every single dollar spent on the TSA has been wasted. They have caught not a single terrorist, and pretty much spend their time harassing grandmas and truckers. You despise it for good reason, yet don't want it abolished? You're the one who is crazy.
The majority of the country supports marijuana legalization now. That, along with having both facts and justice on his side would allow Obama to skin the republicans alive.
Obama's just too big of a pussy to stand up for what is right.
Are you really going to write off the unjust imprisonment of thousands of harmless Americans as "a dead subject"? Anyone who doesn't see this as a travesty of justice is sick. Your dietary issues are quite frankly pathetic next to the harm marijuana prohibition causes.
Obama has done this before. The number one question submitted was whether legalizing marijuana would contribute positively to the economy, in terms of providing jobs, tax revenue, and freeing up resources spent on law enforcement.
Obama laughed and said no. There was no discussion of any of the issues. I see no reason to believe he will take this any more seriously than he did before.
How long does he think he can keep up this charade of openness?
IIRC, Win 3.x left folders in a grid on the desktop. The icons for launching programs were in those folders, along with readme files, uninstallers etc. In Win 95, all that stuff was moved to the start menu and most programs just left a launcher icon on the desktop.
It's not a huge difference, no. But more people are familiar with 95 than 3.1 these days so I thought it made a better example.
What other party? America has one right wing party with two factions. The big scary socialist in office right now has policies that are mostly to the right of Nixon and Reagan.
Clinton and Obama are best described as centrist, and on the world stage they're well right of center. We haven't had a serious leftist contender for president since Eugene Debs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a non-linear dynamic system. Of course it's going to be chaotic.
Yes, that's a nice bit of leverage for Wall Street. "Do as we say or your retirement gets it!"
Corporations, as a collection of individuals, seek to create wealth, not destroy it.
Corporations seek to control wealth, by any means necessary.
A corporation has no power to dictate your life unless it coerces a government that is willing to do so.
We've all got to eat. Those who control the means of production control who eats. Those who control the finance system control who works and who doesn't, and who has a home to go to at night. That is every bit as coercive as any governmental power.
That is why government can never be allowed an excess of power and why government's sole purpose should be defend the rights of individuals
Defend individuals, mainly from corporations. Unfortunately, our government is wholly owned by those very corporations we need to be protected from.
So a powerful 1% owns 40% of the global wealth...
And in America, a powerful 1% owns 35% of national wealth.
where are the apps?
Here.
They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem.
And that's why he'll lose the case. In America you only have rights if you can afford to exercise them. Freedom of the press goes only to those who can afford a press.
Is that not a sufficient reason?
That is indeed one of the reasons why this will not work: there are people using all kinds of different OSes
This is one of the reasons why it will be done anyway. It's an excuse for governments to supply more customers to their most valuable constituents. They don't know or care about open source or your freedom.
A DDOS, if properly executed, is the digital equivalent of a sit-in. If the machines used were hacked however, it's a lot harder to justify. But if you run a public server, and the public decides to all use the server at the same time, it's hard to classify that as vigilantism.
These wars were possible because service members refused to use their conscience and not participate. Nobody gets absolved of evil because they were only following orders.
I offer you this excerpt from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience for your Saturday morning reading:
The only true hero of the Iraq war is Ehren Watada.
Yes, honest debate is exactly what I want. Marijuana is not harmless, of course it isn't. But it's less harmful than prohibition. That would be born out with a full and honest debate, which we have not yet had as a country.
"These are clear violations of the fourth amendment..."
If that were true, I don't think that "time and again" the courts would be ruling otherwise
You assume the courts are honest and forthright. In reality, they constantly approve blatantly unconstitutional laws.
Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, complete and utter legal ignoramuses do not end up as high-level judges
No, you have to be very smart and well trained in order to contort logic such that it appears to justify this under the Constitution.
If there is honest disagreement there should be honest debate. The lack of honest debate indicates that there is not honest disagreement, they know they're wrong and can't win a real argument on the subject. So they just shut the issue out.
I'd like to say "Fuck you" to the troops. If you had exercised your conscience instead of blind patriotism we could have avoided wasting a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Do you realize that this withdrawal date was determined by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W Bush in 2008?
The only thing you can say in favor of Obama here is that he was no worse than Bush would have been.
Fuck!
August 2nd, 2010. Obama promised that all "combat troops" would depart by the end of that month. Today we still have troops on the ground who are armed for combat, trained for combat, prepared for combat, and receiving combat pay. Obama lied.
Wait, where's the crazy here?
Legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana. Not crazy. Crazy would be suggesting that the status quo is ok.
Forgiving student loan debt. An extreme solution to an extreme problem. Again, crazy would be suggesting that the status quo is ok.
The TSA? Every single dollar spent on the TSA has been wasted. They have caught not a single terrorist, and pretty much spend their time harassing grandmas and truckers. You despise it for good reason, yet don't want it abolished? You're the one who is crazy.
Which one of these is not a genuine concern?
It's only a dead subject if you let it die. Thankfully, millions of Americans won't.
The majority of the country supports marijuana legalization now. That, along with having both facts and justice on his side would allow Obama to skin the republicans alive.
Obama's just too big of a pussy to stand up for what is right.
Are you really going to write off the unjust imprisonment of thousands of harmless Americans as "a dead subject"? Anyone who doesn't see this as a travesty of justice is sick. Your dietary issues are quite frankly pathetic next to the harm marijuana prohibition causes.
Obama has done this before. The number one question submitted was whether legalizing marijuana would contribute positively to the economy, in terms of providing jobs, tax revenue, and freeing up resources spent on law enforcement.
Obama laughed and said no. There was no discussion of any of the issues. I see no reason to believe he will take this any more seriously than he did before.
How long does he think he can keep up this charade of openness?
IIRC, Win 3.x left folders in a grid on the desktop. The icons for launching programs were in those folders, along with readme files, uninstallers etc. In Win 95, all that stuff was moved to the start menu and most programs just left a launcher icon on the desktop.
It's not a huge difference, no. But more people are familiar with 95 than 3.1 these days so I thought it made a better example.
What other party? America has one right wing party with two factions. The big scary socialist in office right now has policies that are mostly to the right of Nixon and Reagan.
Clinton and Obama are best described as centrist, and on the world stage they're well right of center. We haven't had a serious leftist contender for president since Eugene Debs.