Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
Which, coincidentally, is covered by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's almost as if the founders anticipated this sort of thing...
I don't see how your position is any less childish or black-and-white. You make blanket statements about people you couldn't even name and you take complex economic issues and simplify them to the point of "itz all cauzed by teh greedy banksters!". Do you honestly claim to understand the complexities of the events you just listed... or are your "facts" based in populist sentiment? (it's a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious).
Good, I was worried you were being a hyperbolic, presumptive ass.
Do we put the government in charge of distributing wealth? If you think that rich greedy people are a problem now, just wait until their money/power is controlled by a bureaucrat who not doesn't care about wasting huge sums of money, and has even less consequences for wrongdoing.
Isn't it interesting that you have so much hatred for people with more money than you...
I don't hate anybody. I hate the way people let their greed blind them to the suffering they cause others, but I don't hate the people themselves.
do you care about the 98% of the worlds population that has far less than you do?
Indeed. I would love to live in a world where those with the most willingly and happily share their excess wealth with the less fortunate so that everyone can live a better life. Did you even read my OP, or were you so amped up about posting your argumentum ad hominem that you didn't bother?
How would you feel if someone told you that you had to give up 75% of your property to make society more fair?
short answer: I'm a survivalist:) material possessions (outside those necessary for survival) mean nothing to me.
Long answer: It wouldn't bother me in the least, although I would question the intent of the person telling me that, as I personally own very little; save the house and the car (which one would assume would be part of the 25% I keep, as we're trying to lessen poverty here, not increase it) might bring a few thousand dollars if you could manage to get retail out of my old, used junk...
I'm not defending the super-rich here, just pointing out that the threshold for how much is too much is conveniently above what *you* think it should be.
And what, precisely, do "I" think it should be?
Oh please, I seriously doubt you understand the true complexity of the world around you.
Considering all the baseless accusations and speculation you've offered thus far, I'm somehow not surprised.
I know it's much easier to understand a half-truth that appeals to emotion than to put in the effort required to really understand something.
See response above.
The idea that the "elites" must be overthrown to get "justice" for the "people" is not new, it has been tried many times but always fails miserably.
Yea, just look what happened in 1776; no good came of that, did it mate?
As soon as group X overthrows group Y, group X then becomes just as greedy and selfish (many times more so) than group Y was.
Change "as soon as" to "eventually" and I have to agree with that one.
The altruistic utopian world view where everyone is equal *and* prosperous is a fantasy that has never existed.
If you object to exerting yourself for the betterment of your condition, but are only for the condition of others, then don't.
I object to a select, elite few rigging the system so their betterment increases exponentially at the expense of society at large. For examples, see the dot com bubble (2000's), oil bubble (2003 and, apparently, 2012), housing bubble (2008), "too big to fail" bailouts (2008), et. al. Your childish, absolute-black-and-white worldview has been duly noted.
But, you can quit with the "unfettered greed of a few" mantra. It's just haughty bullshit and you know it.
Rip van Winkle, is that you? I ask because as anyone who has possessed cognitive faculties since about 2003 knows that In the US, 80% of the nation's wealth is concentrated among.05% of the population. the other 20% is spread (unevenly) among the other 99.95%. Heck, there's even an xkcd that cover the topic.
No sense in getting all hyperbolic, just because you don't know what's going on in the world around you; I recommend self education as a viable alternative; or you can just stick your head back in the sand. Your call.
There’s money to be made too. And if there’s a market here, it means more people will receive help.
Which would be better worded as
Unless there’s money to be made, and unless there’s a market here, it means no people will receive help.
Thus is the reason I feel capitalism (in its current form) has outlived its usefulness: Societal advancement now takes a back seat to making money, and I for one refuse to believe that making the world a better place for all should take a back seat to the unfettered greed of a few.
I think the idea is that if criminals know a phone will become a useless hunk of metal and plastic the moment it's reported stolen, it's no longer worth stealing.
Castle laws, by definition require you to be in your home, vehicle, or place of business. Anywhere else and you have a legal duty to attempt deescalation and/or retreat. The name "castle law" is derived from the phrase "a man's home is his castle".
In this state, the castle laws also apply to "any property that you have permission to be on." That includes public areas where firearms are not prohibited by law (such as courthouses).
Contrary to what anti-2nd Amendment advocates want you to think, not all gun owners are psycho cowboys looking to get into a shootout; most of us are just law abiding citizens who know better than to expect the government to protect us.
And for the ones that aren't deterred, you think a firefight in the street is preferable to carriers simply blocking the phones and making the mugging less attractive in the first place?
No, but as an adult with full cognitive faculties, I don't believe it's anyone's duty but my own to protect myself and my property... especially considering recent SCOTUS decisions, such as the one that determined that police have no duty to protect citizens.
Expecting others to do what you should be doing yourself belongs in the realm of childhood, IMO.
Closest thing I could find was a thread on freerepublic in which a poster makes references to Rush Limbaugh making similar comments during a Katie Couric interview:
His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
...
I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.
Besides it's not like these companies have all of the staff and resources necessary to watch and monitor the thousands to millions of TV users all at once.
You're probably right. I mean, it's not as if clandestine government agencies are building huge data warehouses or anything, right?
OK, so maybe they are; but hey, the top clandestine government agent promises he's not spying on you, and what possible reason is there to not believe every word the country's top spy-master says?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe I speak for every computer geek on the planet when I say
The assertion from the article that success requires computer skills doesn't rule out success also requiring other things.
So you think Warren Buffet fixes his own computers?
Does Mitt Romney code his own webpage?
Methinks your interpretation of "success" differs from the social norm...
Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
Which, coincidentally, is covered by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's almost as if the founders anticipated this sort of thing...
I don't see how your position is any less childish or black-and-white. You make blanket statements about people you couldn't even name and you take complex economic issues and simplify them to the point of "itz all cauzed by teh greedy banksters!". Do you honestly claim to understand the complexities of the events you just listed... or are your "facts" based in populist sentiment? (it's a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious).
You mean, it's obvious that I track economic developments and read economics related news articles?
Good, I was worried you were being a hyperbolic, presumptive ass.
Do we put the government in charge of distributing wealth? If you think that rich greedy people are a problem now, just wait until their money/power is controlled by a bureaucrat who not doesn't care about wasting huge sums of money, and has even less consequences for wrongdoing.
Don't follow the news, do we?
Isn't it interesting that you have so much hatred for people with more money than you...
I don't hate anybody. I hate the way people let their greed blind them to the suffering they cause others, but I don't hate the people themselves.
do you care about the 98% of the worlds population that has far less than you do?
Indeed. I would love to live in a world where those with the most willingly and happily share their excess wealth with the less fortunate so that everyone can live a better life. Did you even read my OP, or were you so amped up about posting your argumentum ad hominem that you didn't bother?
How would you feel if someone told you that you had to give up 75% of your property to make society more fair?
short answer: I'm a survivalist :) material possessions (outside those necessary for survival) mean nothing to me.
Long answer: It wouldn't bother me in the least, although I would question the intent of the person telling me that, as I personally own very little; save the house and the car (which one would assume would be part of the 25% I keep, as we're trying to lessen poverty here, not increase it) might bring a few thousand dollars if you could manage to get retail out of my old, used junk...
I'm not defending the super-rich here, just pointing out that the threshold for how much is too much is conveniently above what *you* think it should be.
And what, precisely, do "I" think it should be?
Oh please, I seriously doubt you understand the true complexity of the world around you.
Considering all the baseless accusations and speculation you've offered thus far, I'm somehow not surprised.
I know it's much easier to understand a half-truth that appeals to emotion than to put in the effort required to really understand something.
See response above.
The idea that the "elites" must be overthrown to get "justice" for the "people" is not new, it has been tried many times but always fails miserably.
Yea, just look what happened in 1776; no good came of that, did it mate?
As soon as group X overthrows group Y, group X then becomes just as greedy and selfish (many times more so) than group Y was.
Change "as soon as" to "eventually" and I have to agree with that one.
The altruistic utopian world view where everyone is equal *and* prosperous is a fantasy that has never existed.
A guy can dream, can't he? (Answer: Yes, b
We are now free to mutate without fear of lawsuit. To the Transmogrifier!!!
Scientific progress goes 'Boink?'
Or is that only when you turn the Transmogrifier on its side?
If you object to exerting yourself for the betterment of your condition, but are only for the condition of others, then don't.
I object to a select, elite few rigging the system so their betterment increases exponentially at the expense of society at large. For examples, see the dot com bubble (2000's), oil bubble (2003 and, apparently, 2012), housing bubble (2008), "too big to fail" bailouts (2008), et. al. Your childish, absolute-black-and-white worldview has been duly noted.
But, you can quit with the "unfettered greed of a few" mantra. It's just haughty bullshit and you know it.
Rip van Winkle, is that you? I ask because as anyone who has possessed cognitive faculties since about 2003 knows that In the US, 80% of the nation's wealth is concentrated among .05% of the population. the other 20% is spread (unevenly) among the other 99.95%. Heck, there's even an xkcd that cover the topic.
No sense in getting all hyperbolic, just because you don't know what's going on in the world around you; I recommend self education as a viable alternative; or you can just stick your head back in the sand. Your call.
There’s money to be made too. And if there’s a market here, it means more people will receive help.
Which would be better worded as
Unless there’s money to be made, and unless there’s a market here, it means no people will receive help.
Thus is the reason I feel capitalism (in its current form) has outlived its usefulness: Societal advancement now takes a back seat to making money, and I for one refuse to believe that making the world a better place for all should take a back seat to the unfettered greed of a few.
Other than the fact that it will happily connect to Wifi networks and carry on as before?
If it's bricked it won't.
BDSM?
Now that's worth a laugh!
Learn to laugh, man! It's a joke!
Granted, a bad joke, but still...
I think the idea is that if criminals know a phone will become a useless hunk of metal and plastic the moment it's reported stolen, it's no longer worth stealing.
Castle laws, by definition require you to be in your home, vehicle, or place of business. Anywhere else and you have a legal duty to attempt deescalation and/or retreat. The name "castle law" is derived from the phrase "a man's home is his castle".
In this state, the castle laws also apply to "any property that you have permission to be on." That includes public areas where firearms are not prohibited by law (such as courthouses).
Contrary to what anti-2nd Amendment advocates want you to think, not all gun owners are psycho cowboys looking to get into a shootout; most of us are just law abiding citizens who know better than to expect the government to protect us.
And for the ones that aren't deterred, you think a firefight in the street is preferable to carriers simply blocking the phones and making the mugging less attractive in the first place?
No, but as an adult with full cognitive faculties, I don't believe it's anyone's duty but my own to protect myself and my property... especially considering recent SCOTUS decisions, such as the one that determined that police have no duty to protect citizens.
Expecting others to do what you should be doing yourself belongs in the realm of childhood, IMO.
HA, no, it's assholes like that who make responsible gun owners such as myself look bad.
I live in a state with strong castle laws.
Most would-be muggers are quickly deterred by the sight of the 1911 strapped to my hip. You want my celly? Come and get it.
Closest thing I could find was a thread on freerepublic in which a poster makes references to Rush Limbaugh making similar comments during a Katie Couric interview:
His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
...
I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so.
50% bat-shit crazy beats 100% crook any day in my book.
Surely many of your potential new hires also have accounts on youporn, adultfriendfinder.com, et. al.
I mean, if you're going to make giving up personal privacy a condition of employment, why not go full bore with it?
Only if she's really, really hot.
The grandparent didn't specify which OS.
The thread is titled 'Ask Slashdot: Which Multiple Desktop Tool For Windows 7?'; seems pretty damn specific to me.
We get it. You think Linux is the cat's ass. good for you.
Now, if you don't mind, the grown-ups are trying to have a discussion.
If memories are stored in meat...how come we still have them in the afterlife?
I doubt anyone but a dead man would know whether or not memories carry into the afterlife... and he ain't talking.
This transfer process occurs during sleep, especially during deep, dreamless sleep.
Hmm... so the fact that I A) seldom ever dream, and B) suffer from C.R.S. Syndrome, may possibly be related?
GNOME 3...
And that applies to a discussion about Windows how, precisely?
Chances are, this lengthy, nonsensical rant was written by one of the following:
1) Someone who works in an industry which would benefit greatly from being able to spy on people in their homes, or
2) Some troll who obviously watches entirely too much television.
One has to wonder how well the leash fits, and whether or not this mongrel is aware they're wearing one.
Now, sit, Ubu, sit... Good boy.
Besides it's not like these companies have all of the staff and resources necessary to watch and monitor the thousands to millions of TV users all at once.
You're probably right. I mean, it's not as if clandestine government agencies are building huge data warehouses or anything, right?
OK, so maybe they are; but hey, the top clandestine government agent promises he's not spying on you, and what possible reason is there to not believe every word the country's top spy-master says?