Yeah, and democrats had control of congress afterward, and many of them went along with the republicans anyway. He had his chance, Obama owns it just as much as Bush, same with the Wall Street handouts. If the democrats won't undo what the republicans did, what good are they?
Just bring back the Alpha chip. Whoops! Intel owns it. That sucks! Once again our technology is crippled by patents and copyrights. We could have a vastly superior chip right now. Oh well...
Really, this whole argument is so silly. I'm just looking forward to distributed servers, ad hoc mesh networks, whatever it takes to make censorship impossible, but I'll settle for impractical. Then we can argue about more important things, like, will it be over a hundred years before the Cubs win another World Series.or whether or not Liberace and Richard Simmons are really gay.
They can say what they want. They have a captive market. But maybe, hopefully, this means a nice big price drop on old inventory when the "fixed" chips come out.
Incitement implies there is no choice. What else could it possibly mean? Do you believe there is no choice? And let's not bring in the "law". The law is most fickle, being written by sometimes irrational people itself. Is there no choice not to riot when when someone "incites" you to do so? Why should the speaker be held responsible for what irrational people do? That doesn't make sense, we would have to admit that freedom of choice is a myth.
Only paper ballots can facilitate that. So, if "Big Tech" can make a better crayon, go for it!
As for majority rule hitting the brick wall due to an ignorant and antipathic majority, well, that's something that needs fixing pronto. We still haven't reached the bottom of that trench yet.
It's called 'precedent'. The courts use it all the time when making a ruling. No reason we can't do the same. And in this case, it certainly applies.The spying on public computer networks, not just in China, is ubiquitous. To believe the denials would be most naïve.
If humans were perfectly rational, incitement would be bullshit. The law recognises that's not the case.
Where's the incentive to be rational when I can just say *the devil made me do it*? Now, maybe you could plead temporary insanity. You still can't externalize the provocation. The action is on the rioters, rational or irrational, they are the ones that chose to riot. The message to send to them is "Turn your back, if you don't, you're the one that gets in trouble". Acting irrationally is the crime, not speaking to the irrational.
Had a beer with any Ukrainians lately? I have. Know any Romanians?
Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.
Well, if you don't want to believe in freedom of choice, that's your thing, I guess. Can't argue against the party faithful. Just remember, that freedom is the singular thing that differentiates us from all other lifeforms.
"facts" Your "facts" are tabloid hearsay and gossip, and somewhat amusing. The two biggest wars on the planet didn't start in Russia, much less caused by Russia. And please, don't try to tell me a (mythical) unified Europe couldn't protect itself from Russia without the American's help. Sorry, Russia isn't the problem, not even historically. In fact, historically and globally, Europe has proven to be the biggest aggressor by far, not that neo-liberalism isn't an easier sell than communism, productivity figures bear that out, but Russia is kind of a bit player, they never had a chance, still don't. But, I can't argue against the success of your pretext for continued occupation. They gotcha:-) The nature of your response only reveals you have a narrative to defend.
I think people were just trying to keep their bank accounts (and their houses) intact. War can screw that up pretty bad too. And really, up until 1945, war in Europe has been pretty continuous for at least a few thousand years. They will never enjoy the blessed isolation provided by huge bodies of water to keep them safe from invaders. I can understand the reluctance to start another hot one, even if everyone knew it was inevitable. I would be fascinated to hear what people think keeps the peace now. It's not hate speech laws, that, I hope, is obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why it passed. The party is worthless to anybody outside the circle.
Yeah, and democrats had control of congress afterward, and many of them went along with the republicans anyway. He had his chance, Obama owns it just as much as Bush, same with the Wall Street handouts. If the democrats won't undo what the republicans did, what good are they?
I was just asking about that in a previous thread. So, if MIPS is really unchained by patents etc, then we might have a chance.
Just bring back the Alpha chip. Whoops! Intel owns it. That sucks! Once again our technology is crippled by patents and copyrights. We could have a vastly superior chip right now. Oh well...
Once again suspicions are confirmed by official denial.
"We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind"
Now with free biolerplate bullshit
Don't people with sensitive personal files use burner phones and laptops to sidestep this argument? Why do people keep pontificating on it?
Everybody knows what needs to be done. Next opportunity comes in November. If you want change you have to *Sweep the House*.
Might be more comfortable too.
Really, this whole argument is so silly. I'm just looking forward to distributed servers, ad hoc mesh networks, whatever it takes to make censorship impossible, but I'll settle for impractical. Then we can argue about more important things, like, will it be over a hundred years before the Cubs win another World Series.or whether or not Liberace and Richard Simmons are really gay.
They can say what they want. They have a captive market. But maybe, hopefully, this means a nice big price drop on old inventory when the "fixed" chips come out.
Incitement implies there is no choice. What else could it possibly mean? Do you believe there is no choice? And let's not bring in the "law". The law is most fickle, being written by sometimes irrational people itself. Is there no choice not to riot when when someone "incites" you to do so? Why should the speaker be held responsible for what irrational people do? That doesn't make sense, we would have to admit that freedom of choice is a myth.
Sure they are. Lower and middle class employees just have to make more money for it to be worth the trouble.
:-) You sneaky pete, you!
Only paper ballots can facilitate that. So, if "Big Tech" can make a better crayon, go for it!
As for majority rule hitting the brick wall due to an ignorant and antipathic majority, well, that's something that needs fixing pronto. We still haven't reached the bottom of that trench yet.
Or conspiracy theorists.
Ah, yes, the ever present strawman ...
It's called 'precedent'. The courts use it all the time when making a ruling. No reason we can't do the same. And in this case, it certainly applies.The spying on public computer networks, not just in China, is ubiquitous. To believe the denials would be most naïve.
*Never Believe Anything Until It Is Officially Denied*
If humans were perfectly rational, incitement would be bullshit. The law recognises that's not the case.
Where's the incentive to be rational when I can just say *the devil made me do it*? Now, maybe you could plead temporary insanity. You still can't externalize the provocation. The action is on the rioters, rational or irrational, they are the ones that chose to riot. The message to send to them is "Turn your back, if you don't, you're the one that gets in trouble". Acting irrationally is the crime, not speaking to the irrational.
You don't let irrational people off the hook for being irrational. The choice to riot is still theirs. Incitement is still bullshit.
How's that? Keeping away from a crowd of irrational people would be most prudent.
Along with a chicken in every pot, there should be one of these on every counter top
Had a beer with any Ukrainians lately? I have. Know any Romanians?
Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.
What's to "debate"? All he offers up up are old press releases.
Well, if you don't want to believe in freedom of choice, that's your thing, I guess. Can't argue against the party faithful. Just remember, that freedom is the singular thing that differentiates us from all other lifeforms.
"facts" Your "facts" are tabloid hearsay and gossip, and somewhat amusing. The two biggest wars on the planet didn't start in Russia, much less caused by Russia. And please, don't try to tell me a (mythical) unified Europe couldn't protect itself from Russia without the American's help. Sorry, Russia isn't the problem, not even historically. In fact, historically and globally, Europe has proven to be the biggest aggressor by far, not that neo-liberalism isn't an easier sell than communism, productivity figures bear that out, but Russia is kind of a bit player, they never had a chance, still don't. But, I can't argue against the success of your pretext for continued occupation. They gotcha :-) The nature of your response only reveals you have a narrative to defend.
Which makes him imminently more readable and interesting.
Well, sure he is! But I'm not here to out troll him. Popular press is popular for a reason.
I think people were just trying to keep their bank accounts (and their houses) intact. War can screw that up pretty bad too. And really, up until 1945, war in Europe has been pretty continuous for at least a few thousand years. They will never enjoy the blessed isolation provided by huge bodies of water to keep them safe from invaders. I can understand the reluctance to start another hot one, even if everyone knew it was inevitable. I would be fascinated to hear what people think keeps the peace now. It's not hate speech laws, that, I hope, is obvious.