While I doubt you realize it, by singling out one side of the Evil coin, and giving a free pass to the other, you actually weaken your own position.
Plenty of Democrats are equally as happy to erase your civil liberties, enough so that to see a difference between the two parties is impossible, short of doublethink.
There are downsides of course, such as these places not being where most of the jobs are, the hills sliding out from underneath you, the trees falling on your house, earthquakes, fires, floods. But hey, the air *is* great. Priorities. It's all about priorities. Personally, I'm fine driving to the woods once in a while. When rain taps on the roof it's soothing and helps me sleep. If Iived up in those hills, I'd be worried whenever it rained.
Uh, FWIW, not all the peaceful, verdant forests of the nation are located within the borders of CA.
For the business users still running XP, I don't see them flocking to buy new Windows 8 hardware. They are still on XP because either the software they run won't run on anything else, or they are small businesses that don't have an IT budget. As long as the hardware and software works, they aren't going to go out and buy new systems.
Until the first big virus hits that exploits a security hole that won't be fixed. When you realize you machines that can't be patched and will continuously be infected you may think differently about corporate security.
Please explain that to the folks who purchase/load software on the machines in my office - I have no less than 3 business-critical programs I use daily, that are only compatible with XP.
And if the metadata so meaningless, why collect it?
... And if the reasoning behind it is as innocuous as they want us to think, why the desire to crucify Snowden for publicly disclosing the data collection?
Kieran Healy's article linked from TFS is really really great.
That's a great comeback -- don't like something about your country? Well pack up, get out, and move someplace worse because america is perfect the way it is so you either need to accept that or get out - we don't need your changes!
Hence the reason I typically refer to such offal as "The Idiot's Adage"
If you're a bank executive you can make unethical gambles with other people's money, try to hide your losses, and bring down the world economy putting millions of people out of work. Go to jail? No, you don't even lose your annual bonus that's worth more than most people earn in 50 lifetimes.
But if you paint a sign and get out in the streets to protest, you run a serious risk of being billy-clubbed and pepper-sprayed by the police.
Guess which one of those two is most likely to be a Libertarian.
Hmmm... well, considering that the bank executive donates huge piles of money to both the Democrats and Republicans every election cycle...
You're responding to a DoubleThinker who has convinced themselves that Libertarian == Wrong.
No matter how many times you correct their incorrect thinking, or point out the facts that defy their incorrect claims, they will always think that Libertarian == Wrong. It's so ingrained in their psyche that to try and separate the fantasy from reality would surely destroy the mind itself.
You people keep lying about libertarianism is, trying to conflate it with its opposite. What is your motivation in doing this?
Doublethink + Fear of change.
These people who denigrate Libertarians, claiming that the movement is all about creating some fascist corporate oligarchy, are the same folks who without fail continually vote in Democrats and Republicans who are trying to create a fascist corporate oligarchy (doublethink).
Deep down, however, they know that a government run by Libertarians would be different than the one they know, and regardless whether that difference would be for better or worse, they're absolutely fucking terrified of the possibility that the (piss-poor, self-serving) government they've come to be comfortable serving under might not be there to tell them how to live tomorrow.
Side note: I do wish the Libertarian Party would change their antiquated, overly-simplistic economic views to something a bit more reasonable; not because I necessarily disagree with the current iteration, but rather that the way it's written now, it's entirely too easy for stupid people to conflate the rest of the platform with the one questionable plank.
the rationale for which should have been imparted on you in fucking high school, were you to actually pay attention in class instead of diddling your boyfriend in the back of the room
I totally agree Bennett is acting like a narcissistic, self-affirming, royal doucehbag, but your homophobic aside weakens your attack.
Meh, seemed like the kind of thing that would hit home with said personality type. Kinda like when you were a teenager, and called that asshole jock a 'fag,' not because he's gay or you have anything against gay people, but because you know his own homophobia will cause an extreme reaction.
For the record, I have nothing against homosexual people; hell, I was a theater geek as a kid, so I learned early on that they're no different than you or I, sexual preference notwithstanding (yes, I know, associating homosexuals with theater seems like stereotyping, but when the quite fashionable shoe fits...).
I'd had a chance to get laid instead of listening in history class, I wouldn't know why the Fifth Amendment is important, either.:-)
There've been huge improvements in auto safety over the last 40 years, and cars have fixed most of the obvious deathtraps. He was just pointing that out.
Try reading the thread again - the post Jawnn was replying to was about individual behavior, not legally mandated safety features.
Geez, where did this come from?
The fact that I am but a part of a growing segment of our population, who are just fed the fuck up with busybodies who have nothing better to do than mandate how we're allowed to live. Supposed to be a free country, right? Or have we finally stopped teaching children that particularly lofty ideal?
Besides, children can't make an informed decision whether or not to take safety precautions.
That's what parents are for. As I often tell people, if I wanted to be responsible for children, I'd have some of my own. Not in the business of forcing other people to raise their kids the way I think they should be raised, and no intention of ever doing so. Perhaps if everyone would extend such a philosophy to each other (your business is not my business, thus I should butt right the fuck out), the world would be a far more tolerant (and tolerable) place.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't know - never been there, planning to keep it that way.
What most find interesting is that it's actually a pretty accurate reflection of my personality.
Republicans
While I doubt you realize it, by singling out one side of the Evil coin, and giving a free pass to the other, you actually weaken your own position.
Plenty of Democrats are equally as happy to erase your civil liberties, enough so that to see a difference between the two parties is impossible, short of doublethink.
And he'll shoot you in the fucking dick for "resisting arrest."
FTFY
Any passenger in the car at the time could testify that you were not using the phone
Presuming the accident did not cause them to become unconscious / not alive.
FWIW, the justice system is built on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around.
A police offer exists to serve and protect.
Not according to the SCOTUS
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/lapd-terrorizes-community-in.html
Regardless of how you feel, it can and does happen.
Find where: jobTitle= (cop || police officer)
Replace with: jobTitle= (judge && jury && executioner)
Pardon me while I pull something out a my ass.
So I get my gerbil back?
Lemmiwinks! So that's where you've been hiding!
There are downsides of course, such as these places not being where most of the jobs are, the hills sliding out from underneath you, the trees falling on your house, earthquakes, fires, floods. But hey, the air *is* great. Priorities. It's all about priorities. Personally, I'm fine driving to the woods once in a while. When rain taps on the roof it's soothing and helps me sleep. If Iived up in those hills, I'd be worried whenever it rained.
Uh, FWIW, not all the peaceful, verdant forests of the nation are located within the borders of CA.
In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.
For the business users still running XP, I don't see them flocking to buy new Windows 8 hardware. They are still on XP because either the software they run won't run on anything else, or they are small businesses that don't have an IT budget. As long as the hardware and software works, they aren't going to go out and buy new systems.
Until the first big virus hits that exploits a security hole that won't be fixed. When you realize you machines that can't be patched and will continuously be infected you may think differently about corporate security.
Please explain that to the folks who purchase/load software on the machines in my office - I have no less than 3 business-critical programs I use daily, that are only compatible with XP.
I have never understood this.
Helmet laws seem very inconsistant.
Because some state lawmakers aren't completely retarded.
Mostly, but not completely.
Just wait until you hit a pothole with the dame thing.. Sheesh! Picasso, Calder, or Dali could have made a better design.
That won't be nearly the issues as, say, having a blowout on a control wheel and running off into the steeply graded ditch...
As far as I know I did, and a quick Google search of the phrase brings up precisely 4 results, 3 of which link back to the aforementioned post.
Propagate away.
"We must sacrifice our freedoms, in order to secure our freedoms."
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
-- philosopher George Carlin
The philosopher George Carlin wasn't very bright either.
Smart enough to know the meaning and purpose of a literary allusion...
FWIW, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that statement to be interpreted literally.
...why keep the system so hush-hush?
And if the metadata so meaningless, why collect it?
... And if the reasoning behind it is as innocuous as they want us to think, why the desire to crucify Snowden for publicly disclosing the data collection?
Kieran Healy's article linked from TFS is really really great.
+5 Hell Yea
"How's that hopey, changey thing working out for you?"
One would think, if for no other reason, he'd have done a better job just to prove that stupid bitch wrong.
*Sigh* You know the situation is royally fuckt when Sarah Palin quotes start to sound so much as half-assed intelligent...
Don't like it? Move to China.
That's a great comeback -- don't like something about your country? Well pack up, get out, and move someplace worse because america is perfect the way it is so you either need to accept that or get out - we don't need your changes!
Hence the reason I typically refer to such offal as "The Idiot's Adage"
If you're a bank executive you can make unethical gambles with other people's money, try to hide your losses, and bring down the world economy putting millions of people out of work. Go to jail? No, you don't even lose your annual bonus that's worth more than most people earn in 50 lifetimes.
But if you paint a sign and get out in the streets to protest, you run a serious risk of being billy-clubbed and pepper-sprayed by the police.
Guess which one of those two is most likely to be a Libertarian.
Hmmm... well, considering that the bank executive donates huge piles of money to both the Democrats and Republicans every election cycle...
Probably not that one.
You're responding to a DoubleThinker who has convinced themselves that Libertarian == Wrong.
No matter how many times you correct their incorrect thinking, or point out the facts that defy their incorrect claims, they will always think that Libertarian == Wrong. It's so ingrained in their psyche that to try and separate the fantasy from reality would surely destroy the mind itself.
You might as well be screaming at a wall, dude.
You people keep lying about libertarianism is, trying to conflate it with its opposite. What is your motivation in doing this?
Doublethink + Fear of change.
These people who denigrate Libertarians, claiming that the movement is all about creating some fascist corporate oligarchy, are the same folks who without fail continually vote in Democrats and Republicans who are trying to create a fascist corporate oligarchy (doublethink).
Deep down, however, they know that a government run by Libertarians would be different than the one they know, and regardless whether that difference would be for better or worse, they're absolutely fucking terrified of the possibility that the (piss-poor, self-serving) government they've come to be comfortable serving under might not be there to tell them how to live tomorrow.
Side note: I do wish the Libertarian Party would change their antiquated, overly-simplistic economic views to something a bit more reasonable; not because I necessarily disagree with the current iteration, but rather that the way it's written now, it's entirely too easy for stupid people to conflate the rest of the platform with the one questionable plank.
That is: someone who actually argues that Chinese hacking is the entirety of the U.S. security problem?
Yea - Sergei from totallylegitbankwebsite.ru
I totally agree Bennett is acting like a narcissistic, self-affirming, royal doucehbag, but your homophobic aside weakens your attack.
Meh, seemed like the kind of thing that would hit home with said personality type. Kinda like when you were a teenager, and called that asshole jock a 'fag,' not because he's gay or you have anything against gay people, but because you know his own homophobia will cause an extreme reaction.
For the record, I have nothing against homosexual people; hell, I was a theater geek as a kid, so I learned early on that they're no different than you or I, sexual preference notwithstanding (yes, I know, associating homosexuals with theater seems like stereotyping, but when the quite fashionable shoe fits...).
I'd had a chance to get laid instead of listening in history class, I wouldn't know why the Fifth Amendment is important, either. :-)
Ha - well played, sir.
There've been huge improvements in auto safety over the last 40 years, and cars have fixed most of the obvious deathtraps. He was just pointing that out.
Try reading the thread again - the post Jawnn was replying to was about individual behavior, not legally mandated safety features.
Geez, where did this come from?
The fact that I am but a part of a growing segment of our population, who are just fed the fuck up with busybodies who have nothing better to do than mandate how we're allowed to live. Supposed to be a free country, right? Or have we finally stopped teaching children that particularly lofty ideal?
Besides, children can't make an informed decision whether or not to take safety precautions.
That's what parents are for. As I often tell people, if I wanted to be responsible for children, I'd have some of my own. Not in the business of forcing other people to raise their kids the way I think they should be raised, and no intention of ever doing so. Perhaps if everyone would extend such a philosophy to each other (your business is not my business, thus I should butt right the fuck out), the world would be a far more tolerant (and tolerable) place.