Good example is apologetics of Pinochet and his violent suppression of democratically elected but socialist Aliende. Many right wingers love Pinochet because of his economic policies and opposition to socialism.
I wouldn't say that people "love" Pinochet but given the two bad options that existed at the time, it is pretty obvious to me that the less bad one had won. Allende may have been democratically elected, but it is pretty well understood now that with Soviet and Castro's backing he was planning to nationalize industry and turn Chile into another Cuba.
Yeah, those dumbasses fucked up Democracy by electing the wrong guy when clearly the one we wanted was better for them, so it's a good thing we shoved our guy down their throats. Tens of thousands of people tortured to death and millions of people unable to enjoy basic political freedoms was really a small price to pay to avoid having to let those people suffer the government they chose, right?
Large secret shipments of weapons from Soviet Union were already on their way to Allende at the time of the coup.
Yeah, those scheming Soviets, how dare they send military support to a sovereign leader elected by his people? Much better to give military support to a vicious would-be dictator so he can overthrow said sovereign leader, like the US did.
Ask Chileans and Cubans today where they would rather live.
Really a moot point because Chile was under no threat of becoming "another Cuba". Allende's planned nationalization of industry was the extension of a grassroots mass-movement of workers who were already seizing industry and operating it in the name of the name of the Chilean people all over the country; Allende would only be formalizing what was already happening. Cuba's nationalization was the result of a top-down decree by a leader who came to power in a military revolution that never enjoyed the support of a majority of the Cuban populace. I know to some folks all nationalized industry looks the same, but it's not. Look closer and you can see the difference: it's like the difference between Red China before and after the Great Leap Forward, which shows dramatic and measurable differences between one basis for a socialist economy and another.
Liberrarians generally align more with Right in US, God knowd why, but they do not make Right. Neo-cons do.
Neo-cons are a group of (mostly) former marxists with a specific foreign interventionist agenda and not really particularly socially conservative. Left and right are completely inadequate terms to describe the political spectrum, I wish we would stop using them. But if by Right you mean the Republican party, then I think social conservatives still call the shots, not neo-cons. With Tea Party recently, and the economy in the toilet, more emphasis has been placed on small government, less spending etc, but there is still a long way to go. Any Republican candidate for high office still has to be socially conservative to have any chance.
I agree.
For me, as a libertarian, it's a matter of lesser of two evils. Social issues where I disagree with Republicans, are just less important to me than the economic issues where I disagree with Democrats.
So let me get this straight: if given the choice between a government that tells you to give it money so it can spend it on things that voters have deemed necessary but otherwise leaves you alone and a government that tells you what to do in most areas of your life but keeps its hands out of your pocketbook, you'd choose the latter? That would be the lesser evil?
BTW, there is less disagreement between two parties on social issues than you think. Just about all Democrat politicians, including Obama, are pretty conservative when it comes to religion, gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc.
Not between the rank and file of the two parties, but you're right, when it comes to the politicians nominated the parties they're so close it's sad.
I don't comprehend how you (and others) equate Fascism and "American Right" as being the same thing?
British Fascist Party in the 1930s: After the people democratically elect their leader, he should then have unlimited discretionary authority because he will enact the will of the people by virtue of having been elected leader, whereas having checks and balances will frustrate the will of the people.
Bush Administration of the 2000s: The President has the prerogative to make the entire executive branch do his personal will and bidding by virtue of having been elected President, including turning non-political offices to political functions and having members of the executive branch violate duly-enacted legislation when he determines that it is necessary.
Not the same, but scarily similar in their logic.
The American Right embraces constitutionally-limited government that is relatively weak and small in size...
For a suitably narrow definition of "American Right". Narrow enough to leave out all right-wing senators except one or two and all right-wing congressional representatives except a dozen or so. The rest of the American Right just uses Constitutional and small-government rhetoric while embracing no such thing.
... the exact opposite of a Totalitarian fascist state.
True, if that were what the "American Right" actually stood for. It would be really great if the majority of the American Right were libertarians, but they're not. The majority of the American Right believes the government should ban gays and atheists, fight wars wherever we feel like we're threatened, continue the war on drugs indefinitely regardless of the cost, and expand Medicare and Social Security while at the same time cutting taxes.
Law offices use a lot of software. Using open source in the office whenever it meets your needs, then mentioning you use and why you use it when talking to other lawyers, can go a long way to promoting open source, and the more popular open source software gets within the legal profession, the more people there will be who both have the requisite legal skills to help out and desire to do so. Also, a lot of lawyers end up as legislators or other government officials with the power to influence software purchasing decisions for public agencies; the more such people know about open source software and its public benefits, the better.
Summary already says the person in question didn't go into IP law, and is too far down another track to switch to IP. I think that rules out having "experience in copyright litigation".
So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity -- and I include the misleadingly edited "Collateral Murder" video in my consideration...
So a video of our own government gunning down unarmed journalists (admittedly in a war zone, but still against the laws of war) is neither, shocking, nor surprising, nor unlawful? Maybe not to you, but I still think that's something most Americans deserve to know about.
It's true, and actually I like it. I've begun to adopt that convention as an adult. The insertion of the generic verb "to be" into such constructions pretty much meaningless. I'm also sort of a stickler for rules, though, so I'm conflicted about it.
The "to be" sets up the relationship between the second verb and the subject in a way that is consistent with the logic of the rest of the English language. It establishes that the "washed" or "walked" is something done by another to the subject (passive voice). While most often this would be unambiguous anyway whether proper English or the new convention were used, in corner cases it's a problem; I'm too tired to think of any examples at the moment, but I know there are plenty, so I'll try to come up with some and get back to you. The new "convention" is also at odds with the way many other verbs are used such as "expect (to be) compensated", "want (to be) loved", "hate (to be) kicked" et cetera. You wouldn't say "the dog hates kicked" and expect anyone to understand WTF you meant, would you?
As a real linguist, I feel I should point out that there are dialects of American English which have a “need Verb-ed” construction which is approximated by “need to be Verb-ed” elsewhere.
Apparently also in Scottish English, as in "Their empty bellies needed filled" (Battlefield Band lyric).
I think you have Putin confused with Boris Yeltsin. In regard to the move to GNU/Linux, I suspect Putin has seen the number of exploits and malware written for Windows and is aware that much of it originates in Russia.
So why would he want to cripple one of his country's most productive industries?
Communist... postcommunistkleptocratic... just stick with Eevill Rooskies for constancy, people!:P
Yeah, but nobody really contends that Linux is Russian...wait...Finland was part of Imperial Russia up to the 1917 revolution...hmmm...you may be onto something...
But m-w.com does have a definition of "to wield" that seems to fit the article's use of the word: "to exert one's authority by means of".
While the usage in TFA does, strictly speaking, meet that definition as stated by m-w, it still smacks of Thesaurus Syndrome rather than authentic usage. I think m-w listed that def. more to cover cases like "Mao wielded the Red Guards to suppress opposition" or "the hacker wields his 0-day exploits" which are analogs of picking up a sword but can't literally fit under the "to pick something up..." definition. "Launching" or "mounting" a one-man crusade would make far more sense.
How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.
"Unlimited" does not mean "infinite." Think, "there is no two."
No shit. Why do you think I said "limited" rather than "finite"?
In this case, as with software, "unlimited" means that there is no arbitrary limitation on the number of plantiffs or lawsuits.
Well, the maximum of the number of plaintiffs discussed in the article is one.
Sure, there is a theoretical maximum of some 308 million plantiffs...
So, yeah, "unlimited" sounds about right.
Once again, I wasn't talking about the theoretical number of plaintiffs and lawsuits in the world. An article about that might be kind of awesome. What we got was an article about one dude, limited by the number of lawsuits that one dude has time to file. TFA made the summary a teensy bit misleading.
You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.
I think I see a solution.
1. Be in cahoots with Moscow.
2. Bring Russian court suits against spammers whose only way out of lawsuits is to pass suitcases of cash to Moscow.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps would teach them a lesson about obvious patents?
No, just recursive ones.
Who's the bigger ass, the ass or the ass that follows him?
Good example is apologetics of Pinochet and his violent suppression of democratically elected but socialist Aliende. Many right wingers love Pinochet because of his economic policies and opposition to socialism. I wouldn't say that people "love" Pinochet but given the two bad options that existed at the time, it is pretty obvious to me that the less bad one had won. Allende may have been democratically elected, but it is pretty well understood now that with Soviet and Castro's backing he was planning to nationalize industry and turn Chile into another Cuba.
Yeah, those dumbasses fucked up Democracy by electing the wrong guy when clearly the one we wanted was better for them, so it's a good thing we shoved our guy down their throats. Tens of thousands of people tortured to death and millions of people unable to enjoy basic political freedoms was really a small price to pay to avoid having to let those people suffer the government they chose, right?
Large secret shipments of weapons from Soviet Union were already on their way to Allende at the time of the coup.
Yeah, those scheming Soviets, how dare they send military support to a sovereign leader elected by his people? Much better to give military support to a vicious would-be dictator so he can overthrow said sovereign leader, like the US did.
Ask Chileans and Cubans today where they would rather live.
Really a moot point because Chile was under no threat of becoming "another Cuba". Allende's planned nationalization of industry was the extension of a grassroots mass-movement of workers who were already seizing industry and operating it in the name of the name of the Chilean people all over the country; Allende would only be formalizing what was already happening. Cuba's nationalization was the result of a top-down decree by a leader who came to power in a military revolution that never enjoyed the support of a majority of the Cuban populace. I know to some folks all nationalized industry looks the same, but it's not. Look closer and you can see the difference: it's like the difference between Red China before and after the Great Leap Forward, which shows dramatic and measurable differences between one basis for a socialist economy and another.
Liberrarians generally align more with Right in US, God knowd why, but they do not make Right. Neo-cons do. Neo-cons are a group of (mostly) former marxists with a specific foreign interventionist agenda and not really particularly socially conservative. Left and right are completely inadequate terms to describe the political spectrum, I wish we would stop using them. But if by Right you mean the Republican party, then I think social conservatives still call the shots, not neo-cons. With Tea Party recently, and the economy in the toilet, more emphasis has been placed on small government, less spending etc, but there is still a long way to go. Any Republican candidate for high office still has to be socially conservative to have any chance.
I agree.
For me, as a libertarian, it's a matter of lesser of two evils. Social issues where I disagree with Republicans, are just less important to me than the economic issues where I disagree with Democrats.
So let me get this straight: if given the choice between a government that tells you to give it money so it can spend it on things that voters have deemed necessary but otherwise leaves you alone and a government that tells you what to do in most areas of your life but keeps its hands out of your pocketbook, you'd choose the latter? That would be the lesser evil?
BTW, there is less disagreement between two parties on social issues than you think. Just about all Democrat politicians, including Obama, are pretty conservative when it comes to religion, gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc.
Not between the rank and file of the two parties, but you're right, when it comes to the politicians nominated the parties they're so close it's sad.
I don't comprehend how you (and others) equate Fascism and "American Right" as being the same thing?
British Fascist Party in the 1930s: After the people democratically elect their leader, he should then have unlimited discretionary authority because he will enact the will of the people by virtue of having been elected leader, whereas having checks and balances will frustrate the will of the people.
Bush Administration of the 2000s: The President has the prerogative to make the entire executive branch do his personal will and bidding by virtue of having been elected President, including turning non-political offices to political functions and having members of the executive branch violate duly-enacted legislation when he determines that it is necessary.
Not the same, but scarily similar in their logic.
The American Right embraces constitutionally-limited government that is relatively weak and small in size...
For a suitably narrow definition of "American Right". Narrow enough to leave out all right-wing senators except one or two and all right-wing congressional representatives except a dozen or so. The rest of the American Right just uses Constitutional and small-government rhetoric while embracing no such thing.
... the exact opposite of a Totalitarian fascist state.
True, if that were what the "American Right" actually stood for. It would be really great if the majority of the American Right were libertarians, but they're not. The majority of the American Right believes the government should ban gays and atheists, fight wars wherever we feel like we're threatened, continue the war on drugs indefinitely regardless of the cost, and expand Medicare and Social Security while at the same time cutting taxes.
Law offices use a lot of software. Using open source in the office whenever it meets your needs, then mentioning you use and why you use it when talking to other lawyers, can go a long way to promoting open source, and the more popular open source software gets within the legal profession, the more people there will be who both have the requisite legal skills to help out and desire to do so. Also, a lot of lawyers end up as legislators or other government officials with the power to influence software purchasing decisions for public agencies; the more such people know about open source software and its public benefits, the better.
EFF is looking for lawyers with experience in copyright litigation to help fight Righthaven.
Summary already says the person in question didn't go into IP law, and is too far down another track to switch to IP. I think that rules out having "experience in copyright litigation".
So far, Wikileaks has published approximately nothing that is shocking or surprising or that reveals unlawful activity -- and I include the misleadingly edited "Collateral Murder" video in my consideration...
So a video of our own government gunning down unarmed journalists (admittedly in a war zone, but still against the laws of war) is neither, shocking, nor surprising, nor unlawful? Maybe not to you, but I still think that's something most Americans deserve to know about.
It's true, and actually I like it. I've begun to adopt that convention as an adult. The insertion of the generic verb "to be" into such constructions pretty much meaningless. I'm also sort of a stickler for rules, though, so I'm conflicted about it.
The "to be" sets up the relationship between the second verb and the subject in a way that is consistent with the logic of the rest of the English language. It establishes that the "washed" or "walked" is something done by another to the subject (passive voice). While most often this would be unambiguous anyway whether proper English or the new convention were used, in corner cases it's a problem; I'm too tired to think of any examples at the moment, but I know there are plenty, so I'll try to come up with some and get back to you. The new "convention" is also at odds with the way many other verbs are used such as "expect (to be) compensated", "want (to be) loved", "hate (to be) kicked" et cetera. You wouldn't say "the dog hates kicked" and expect anyone to understand WTF you meant, would you?
As a real linguist, I feel I should point out that there are dialects of American English which have a “need Verb-ed” construction which is approximated by “need to be Verb-ed” elsewhere.
Apparently also in Scottish English, as in "Their empty bellies needed filled" (Battlefield Band lyric).
What caused Finland to no longer be part of Imperial Russia? Was it the replacement of Imperial Russia by the USSR?
No. USSR didn't exist until 4 or 5 years later.
I think you have Putin confused with Boris Yeltsin. In regard to the move to GNU/Linux, I suspect Putin has seen the number of exploits and malware written for Windows and is aware that much of it originates in Russia.
So why would he want to cripple one of his country's most productive industries?
Communist... postcommunistkleptocratic... just stick with Eevill Rooskies for constancy, people! :P
Yeah, but nobody really contends that Linux is Russian...wait...Finland was part of Imperial Russia up to the 1917 revolution...hmmm...you may be onto something...
Here I was thinking you'd just coined a fantastic new word---but it's already in Wikipedia...
I actually first encountered the word in America: the Book, but I think political scientists have been secretly using it among themselves for decades.
He is Russian. He probably doesn't care too much for beer, but would never turn down free vodka!
He probably plans to barter the beer for vodka. He's always scheming like that.
I think it its "free from American companies" that counts.
Yeah, but that's what counts for all of us, isn't it?
I smell a "In Soviet Russia" joke coming ....
I think you mean several...
With the backing of Putin, could this be the breakthrough free software has been waiting for?
I am pretty sure that Putin don't care about the freedom part of free software
For him, it's free beer that counts.
Linux really IS communist!
But this would indicate Linux is post-communist kleptocratic...
...This profile is for fertilizing your donkey in Farmville and playing all the FB games
No, no, no, no, NO!
You must play Farmville on the account with all your friends who play Farmville...Do you know anything about Farmville?
Clearly not, he thinks "fertilizing your donkey" is part of the game.
But m-w.com does have a definition of "to wield" that seems to fit the article's use of the word: "to exert one's authority by means of".
While the usage in TFA does, strictly speaking, meet that definition as stated by m-w, it still smacks of Thesaurus Syndrome rather than authentic usage. I think m-w listed that def. more to cover cases like "Mao wielded the Red Guards to suppress opposition" or "the hacker wields his 0-day exploits" which are analogs of picking up a sword but can't literally fit under the "to pick something up..." definition. "Launching" or "mounting" a one-man crusade would make far more sense.
Actually hmm, how about an opt-out class action for $10 per person plus an injunction to cease opt-out e-mail advertising?
That...would be awesome.
I'm allergic to almonds.
But are you allergic to almond-shaped non-almonds? That is the question.
Amygdala != Almond
How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.
"Unlimited" does not mean "infinite." Think, "there is no two."
No shit. Why do you think I said "limited" rather than "finite"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity
In this case, as with software, "unlimited" means that there is no arbitrary limitation on the number of plantiffs or lawsuits.
Well, the maximum of the number of plaintiffs discussed in the article is one.
Sure, there is a theoretical maximum of some 308 million plantiffs...
So, yeah, "unlimited" sounds about right.
Once again, I wasn't talking about the theoretical number of plaintiffs and lawsuits in the world. An article about that might be kind of awesome. What we got was an article about one dude, limited by the number of lawsuits that one dude has time to file. TFA made the summary a teensy bit misleading.
You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.
I think I see a solution.
1. Be in cahoots with Moscow.
2. Bring Russian court suits against spammers whose only way out of lawsuits is to pass suitcases of cash to Moscow.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Does no one here know German? Shame on you.
Many here know German...none of whom, unfortunately, are among the editors.