He was already famous. Anyone writing a similar essay while in high school would be investigated, if not suspended or expelled. Even hand gestures are grounds for punishment. And lord help you if you write anything about sex!
Why aren't we naming the anti-science liberals behind this cut?
Correction, neo-liberals. And why are you singling out a faction of the ruling institutional party? There's no need to answer. The question is rhetorical.
Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict [corrupt] process...
Because we all know the courts never just rubber stamp orders from powerful people. This is how the "right to be forgotten" will evolve. Goldman Sachs would like nothing better than to have K's flashy thing to help us forget we elected it to be king of the world.
The reelection rate will still remain above 90%. 98% of the voters will still vote republican or democrat, still believing they are in opposition to each other.. If this is what people want, who am I to argue? It's talking to the hand. I'm not cynical. I just don't give a damn.
Sorry, I'm not interested in rationalizations for religious meddling. Simple medicare for all is the only acceptable way. I can only hope the ruling will help give it a little extra push, and that people stop reelecting politicians that don't keep their promises.
The employer should pay the insurance. They have no right to meddle in what treatment a patient receives. They are not HMOs and they are not doctors. What goes on between doctor and patient is none of their business, in any way. Medicare for all will settle the issue.
Medicare for all, and if they're going to include Viagra, they damn well better approve of the antidote for the other half.
There... done
Since religious groups don't pay taxes, they have nothing to complain about... except that their "religious liberty" entails denying other people their liberty, by hook or by crook.
It was during the Articles of Confederation period...
Really? You mean there were no slaves and women could vote?
From what I've heard, the best times were during the revolutionary war, when the races were freely intersexing and the saloons, I mean pubs, served anyone with the cash any day, any hour, and working hours were rather... relaxed.
I find it impossible to argue with people who foolishly believe money has any intrinsic value aside from man's desire for it. It doesn't make any difference where it comes from. And you can always revoke a corporate charter, a much better alternative to violating free speech rights. The fascists are you who want to regulate speech and how it is practiced. You're thinking like a regular prohibitionist. Find and elect people who can resist temptation. That is your duty to the country, if you care for it. Don't poke their eyes out so they won't be tempted.
Money only has control over those who give up their own self control willingly. There is no force, no coercion outside the person who takes the money. You all have this exactly backwards. The true evil is in the desire. This is about revoking the 1st Amendment, overtly, and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Absolute nonsense! The voters voluntarily hand it to them on a silver platter. The power to render the money useless lies in your votes, not in legislation that will inevitably be corrupted by the same politicians that are owned. From their point of view, there is no reason to change anything. The present system has its rewards, and the voters are the only ones that can change that, but only if they desire it. Legislation is not a slippery slope, it's a cliff, and the lemmings are heading right for it.
Yes, I have, and I don't care. The voters are all adults and can and do make their own choices. I am not interested in "The devil made me do it." There is either free will, or there isn't. Either way, the 1st Amendment is extremely explicit, all the bad interpretations not withstanding.
You need to assume the worse. Chances are that it will be true. There needs to be a way to verify how the hardware operates, or you just have to trust the manufacturer. Personally, I wouldn't.
Copyright exists for a legitimate reason, to provide some incentive for people to create things and to distribute them, both of which have real costs in time and effort.
A mere pretext to protect established industries from new technologies that reduce the time and effort to create things. Today's developments are nothing new. It has always been the intent of these laws to restrict access to a means of production to an exclusive club, starting with the old writers guilds that initially created this mess when faced with the printing press. It was cronyism right from the get-go. These laws are corrupt by design, not defect.
Slashdot Mirror
He was already famous. Anyone writing a similar essay while in high school would be investigated, if not suspended or expelled. Even hand gestures are grounds for punishment. And lord help you if you write anything about sex!
Why aren't we naming the anti-science liberals behind this cut?
Correction, neo-liberals. And why are you singling out a faction of the ruling institutional party? There's no need to answer. The question is rhetorical.
Cut out corruption, and you will find you don't need a military. It is a business based on corruption, just like all other coercive hierarchies.
You get what you pay for.
Yes, Goldman Sachs bought themselves a nice compliant government. I would say they got a bargain.
Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict [corrupt] process...
Because we all know the courts never just rubber stamp orders from powerful people. This is how the "right to be forgotten" will evolve. Goldman Sachs would like nothing better than to have K's flashy thing to help us forget we elected it to be king of the world.
The only realistic check on government power is secession.
I'll have to assume you haven't studied American history.
The reelection rate will still remain above 90%. 98% of the voters will still vote republican or democrat, still believing they are in opposition to each other.. If this is what people want, who am I to argue? It's talking to the hand. I'm not cynical. I just don't give a damn.
Everything is going exactly as planned.
Sorry, I'm not interested in rationalizations for religious meddling. Simple medicare for all is the only acceptable way. I can only hope the ruling will help give it a little extra push, and that people stop reelecting politicians that don't keep their promises.
That doesn't always apply in the arts.
The employer should pay the insurance. They have no right to meddle in what treatment a patient receives. They are not HMOs and they are not doctors. What goes on between doctor and patient is none of their business, in any way. Medicare for all will settle the issue.
Medicare for all, and if they're going to include Viagra, they damn well better approve of the antidote for the other half.
There... done
Since religious groups don't pay taxes, they have nothing to complain about... except that their "religious liberty" entails denying other people their liberty, by hook or by crook.
It was during the Articles of Confederation period...
Really? You mean there were no slaves and women could vote?
From what I've heard, the best times were during the revolutionary war, when the races were freely intersexing and the saloons, I mean pubs, served anyone with the cash any day, any hour, and working hours were rather... relaxed.
Yeah. They're the group to focus on. The people who said a pile of shit was worth its weight in gold.
Them? Or the people who believe? Like the GP said, it's a psychological thing.
I find it impossible to argue with people who foolishly believe money has any intrinsic value aside from man's desire for it. It doesn't make any difference where it comes from. And you can always revoke a corporate charter, a much better alternative to violating free speech rights. The fascists are you who want to regulate speech and how it is practiced. You're thinking like a regular prohibitionist. Find and elect people who can resist temptation. That is your duty to the country, if you care for it. Don't poke their eyes out so they won't be tempted.
Let's try small government for a change. It worked when we did it that way.
Money only has control over those who give up their own self control willingly. There is no force, no coercion outside the person who takes the money. You all have this exactly backwards. The true evil is in the desire. This is about revoking the 1st Amendment, overtly, and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Absolute nonsense! The voters voluntarily hand it to them on a silver platter. The power to render the money useless lies in your votes, not in legislation that will inevitably be corrupted by the same politicians that are owned. From their point of view, there is no reason to change anything. The present system has its rewards, and the voters are the only ones that can change that, but only if they desire it. Legislation is not a slippery slope, it's a cliff, and the lemmings are heading right for it.
No, it's 8.11, for workgroups
It deserves fixing.
My sig is more succinct on the matter. Exclusivity is not a good thing.
Yes, I have, and I don't care. The voters are all adults and can and do make their own choices. I am not interested in "The devil made me do it." There is either free will, or there isn't. Either way, the 1st Amendment is extremely explicit, all the bad interpretations not withstanding.
You need to assume the worse. Chances are that it will be true. There needs to be a way to verify how the hardware operates, or you just have to trust the manufacturer. Personally, I wouldn't.
...Facebook could very easily manipulate elections with this sort of thing.
So can any other political campaign, what's your point?
It should be illegal.
Then you need to amend the constitution to make it so. Nobody is being forced to believe the things they read.
Copyright exists for a legitimate reason, to provide some incentive for people to create things and to distribute them, both of which have real costs in time and effort.
A mere pretext to protect established industries from new technologies that reduce the time and effort to create things. Today's developments are nothing new. It has always been the intent of these laws to restrict access to a means of production to an exclusive club, starting with the old writers guilds that initially created this mess when faced with the printing press. It was cronyism right from the get-go. These laws are corrupt by design, not defect.
You think the situation would be reversed in Phoenix, Barstow, or Vegas?