Intel and AMD now have graphics hardware built into their CPUs.
AMD has traditionally had better graphics, but worse CPUs when both are integrated when compared to intel's similar offerings. This trend appears to continue in next generation.
1. Begging is illegal in many places. 2. If it is illegal, and if promoting begging by giving to beggars is illegal, you have committed a crime. 3. Beggar has committed a crime if begging is illegal, or if money collection without permit is illegal.
You're yet again attempting to paint a black and white picture, and yet all that comes out is countless shades of gray.
I have a better angle: Same thing is happening there that happened in mechanical engineering and similar long researched fields. We've picked all the low-hanging fruit, and are now comparing the speed of reaching for that low hanging fruit to effort needed to pick ones high up.
There is little reason to attribute malice to what can be sufficiently explained with concepts well known and met in other fields by similar research.
We have plenty of cases where democratically elected leaders led to pretty horrific outcomes, no need to single out theocratic leaders for that one. You should start in Ancient Greece if you're into listing failures of democracy.
To quote Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried".
Ah, and there we come to the heart of the issue. "In my mind" are the key words. Look at case of Julian Assange as a great example of how there are other opinions on the issue.
There's an old saying. The main reason why there are wars in this world is because the amount of different concepts of justice equals the amount of people.
What about cases when person says no, is then orally talked to and then convinced to do the act? If this is still rape, I'm guilty of rape. As are most men in the world. Granted, essentially no law except perhaps Swedish qualifies this as rape.
What about person who like to be forced a bit, say "no", do it anyway, and then tell you how wonderful it was and tell you to call him/her and leave his/her number?
What about perosn that are into the act but get another idea after or even during the act?
You still do not understand the BASICS of what we're talking about, yet you're drawing significant conclusions.
I will simply state this one more time:
1. Piracy is not governmental action. 2. EEZ is not territorial waters but international ones. 3. Action taken on the ships falls under jurisdiction of the nation who's flag that ship flies while in international waters.
Considering that you just (accidentally?) conceded your main point that whaling is illegal in international waters in your Saudi Arabia/British reference - I think we're done here.
No. The measures are going to be designed by same people who designed the current patent laws, and therefore will have the same goal: to enforce position of incumbent powerhouses against small disruptors.
Therefore patents will likely be allowed to use as a method of suppressing competition for big companies. However small company use of patents to defend and attack anti-competitive practices will likely be destroyed in the name of "defending against patent trolls".
The actual patent reform would take power from incumbent companies, and as a result will simply not happen.
By this definition, every single vote is "manipulated". Voting manipulation can be basically argued to be distributed on the scale that goes from convincing to forcing. The difference here is akin to difference between seduction and rape, which you classify as one and same thing. The concept is simply too wide to capture the necessary nuances of the situation that make it acceptable or unacceptable.
Drawing the line on what is about convincing, and what is forcing is difficult for cultural reasons. Some cultures are far more accepting of some degree of very forcible coercion, such as for example family forcibly coercing one family member to vote in a certain way through threats of being cut off, or even violence than other cultures.
On a final note, according to the Western standards, it's NOT military's duty to overthrow a democratically elected government. Period. Therefore you come to the choice: Either you accept the fact that every nation has it's own cultural ways of doing things democratically, and you accept both the fact that military is right to stage coups and that current situation is acceptable because the government is legit according to local culture. Or you go with Western values and note that military has been committing illegal coups on regular basis, and that current government's actions while largely unacceptable by Western standards especially in terms of police brutality. But you also are forced to note that government is legit because it was elected democratically and many of its actions were to defend it from yet another illegal coup.
Reality, as it typically is, is a multifaceted gray rather then two sided black and white, and located somewhere between those two points of view.
1. Yes. Piracy in international waters is for example managed under various treaties and can be judged either by victim's home country's court. It requires an actual criminal activity that is accepted as criminal activity however. 2. You're talking about acts of warfare or enacting executive decisions. The entire point of piracy in Caribbean in last few centuries under letters of Marque was the plausible deniability. There is no such thing when performed by national navy. You are mixing seizure of assets at sea with piracy. Difference between the two is comparable to that of bombing a different country vs terrorist strike. I.e. bombing of Iraq vs 9/11.
Your incorrect definition of libertrarianism aside, the issue of international waters is that of consensus. International waters belong to everyone and no one at the same time. As a result, to enact rules on use of these waters, a consensus on what is a crime and what jurisdiction should be used to judge needs to be in place. This has nothing to do with libertrarianism and everything to do with sovereignty.
Otherwise you could for example claim that any people on a cruiser that is located in Saudi Arabian waters that have sex without marriage are performing adultery, and should be completely legally punished for it under Saudi Arabian laws.
That and other similar problems is why nations have territorial waters, which are in their jurisdiction, and international waters, which are governed by rules that are agreed upon by everyone. Rules such as for example those on piracy. More controversial topics that are covered by national laws are generally not applicable.
This is a very dangerous line of thinking, and one that most cruel and horrifying tyrants throughout the course of human history used to back their arguments. That they are the right ones, and the rest of the world that disagrees with them is "brainwashed". It essentially removes human value from people you believe to be "brainwashed" and assumes that they need protection from whatever it is that brainwashes them. And logically, as someone who is "not brainwashed", your kind should be the one to "protect" them.
This line of thinking has been used in pushing both pretty much every single instance of major war between two countries, as well as most civil wars. If you truly think this of any single nation, or large voting block, you're likely living in a country with significant propaganda machine effective "brainwashing" you into thinking this.
Because if you ever bothered to actually listen to what these "brainwashed" people say, in most cases except some fringe extremist ones, their opinions are understandable. Often very much disagreeable, but understandable from point of view of person expressing them.
1. Which court specifically? Did it have jurisdiction over international waters, or was this a local court of some nation that has no legal jurisdiction over international waters and applies local laws that again have no jurisdiction, not unlike applying laws forcing women to wear veil and be always escorted by male companion? 2. Piracy is a well established act that has remained largely unchanged in forms of violence and outcome for victims for thousands of years until it was largely eliminated as a form of violence in last century.
I must admit I'm intrigued at being called a libertrarian, considering just how critical I am of that particular political line of thinking.
Your logic has a glaring flaw from obvious legal standpoint: Australian EEZ is not Australian waters. There is no debate on the issue. EEZ is simply not territorial waters.
We are talking about humans. Not imaginary ideal beings. It is well documented throughout history that beings you describe have little in common with humans.
Not only is that a blatant lie, but he has actually done the exact opposite. He's improved conditions of various minorities (mostly with guidance of EU), including but not limited to right of kurds (government TV actually broadcasts in kurdish language now) and so on. In general, the whole EU process has worked to improve Turkeys conditions dramatically under Erdogan. And Erdogan had to push hard for it, as many Turks, especially the intelligencia has been traditionally opposed to even recognizing that they have a kurdish problem.
1. It's not a crime. Please cite evidence to it being a crime if you wish to persist in pushing this lie. 2. Because these facts about piracy are well established by credible historians worldwide over period of several thousands of years.
Their research is very clear cut when you stop listening to what Sea Sheperd et al think about it, and what the people actually doing the research tell you.
They look at things like contents of stomachs, cellular toxin levels and other things that you can't get without catching whales and based on observations map things like migratory routes, approximate size of current population of specific whales, effect of various types of pollution on whales and so on.
In most cases, while you can vote a war into existence, it will end when someone loses. Not when you vote it out of existence. Financial policies are similar. Once things like controls on capital movement have been lifted, it's essentially impossible to vote them back.
That is far from the only instance where you can vote to damage yourself severely. You can also vote for things like starting wars, or implementing policies that will take resources from you and give to others.
Cite actual numbers with sources please. Kroats were butchering almost as many, and Bosnians were butchering less simply because they were losing. It's usually victors that do the butchering.
NATO for example had to threaten kroats with bombing them after they successfully suppressed serb military and kroats basically took over as the biggest butchers of the region.
Slashdot Mirror
My reply was to your message. If you do not understand the reply, your problem is likely too deep to allow you to understand it.
Intel and AMD now have graphics hardware built into their CPUs.
AMD has traditionally had better graphics, but worse CPUs when both are integrated when compared to intel's similar offerings. This trend appears to continue in next generation.
1. Begging is illegal in many places.
2. If it is illegal, and if promoting begging by giving to beggars is illegal, you have committed a crime.
3. Beggar has committed a crime if begging is illegal, or if money collection without permit is illegal.
You're yet again attempting to paint a black and white picture, and yet all that comes out is countless shades of gray.
According to ICW rules, Japanese whaling is legal. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Not sure if serious...
I have a better angle: Same thing is happening there that happened in mechanical engineering and similar long researched fields. We've picked all the low-hanging fruit, and are now comparing the speed of reaching for that low hanging fruit to effort needed to pick ones high up.
There is little reason to attribute malice to what can be sufficiently explained with concepts well known and met in other fields by similar research.
We have plenty of cases where democratically elected leaders led to pretty horrific outcomes, no need to single out theocratic leaders for that one. You should start in Ancient Greece if you're into listing failures of democracy.
To quote Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried".
Ah, and there we come to the heart of the issue. "In my mind" are the key words. Look at case of Julian Assange as a great example of how there are other opinions on the issue.
There's an old saying. The main reason why there are wars in this world is because the amount of different concepts of justice equals the amount of people.
What about cases when person says no, is then orally talked to and then convinced to do the act? If this is still rape, I'm guilty of rape. As are most men in the world. Granted, essentially no law except perhaps Swedish qualifies this as rape.
What about person who like to be forced a bit, say "no", do it anyway, and then tell you how wonderful it was and tell you to call him/her and leave his/her number?
What about perosn that are into the act but get another idea after or even during the act?
What about countless other shades of gray?
You still do not understand the BASICS of what we're talking about, yet you're drawing significant conclusions.
I will simply state this one more time:
1. Piracy is not governmental action.
2. EEZ is not territorial waters but international ones.
3. Action taken on the ships falls under jurisdiction of the nation who's flag that ship flies while in international waters.
Considering that you just (accidentally?) conceded your main point that whaling is illegal in international waters in your Saudi Arabia/British reference - I think we're done here.
No. The measures are going to be designed by same people who designed the current patent laws, and therefore will have the same goal: to enforce position of incumbent powerhouses against small disruptors.
Therefore patents will likely be allowed to use as a method of suppressing competition for big companies. However small company use of patents to defend and attack anti-competitive practices will likely be destroyed in the name of "defending against patent trolls".
The actual patent reform would take power from incumbent companies, and as a result will simply not happen.
By this definition, every single vote is "manipulated". Voting manipulation can be basically argued to be distributed on the scale that goes from convincing to forcing. The difference here is akin to difference between seduction and rape, which you classify as one and same thing. The concept is simply too wide to capture the necessary nuances of the situation that make it acceptable or unacceptable.
Drawing the line on what is about convincing, and what is forcing is difficult for cultural reasons. Some cultures are far more accepting of some degree of very forcible coercion, such as for example family forcibly coercing one family member to vote in a certain way through threats of being cut off, or even violence than other cultures.
On a final note, according to the Western standards, it's NOT military's duty to overthrow a democratically elected government. Period. Therefore you come to the choice: Either you accept the fact that every nation has it's own cultural ways of doing things democratically, and you accept both the fact that military is right to stage coups and that current situation is acceptable because the government is legit according to local culture. Or you go with Western values and note that military has been committing illegal coups on regular basis, and that current government's actions while largely unacceptable by Western standards especially in terms of police brutality. But you also are forced to note that government is legit because it was elected democratically and many of its actions were to defend it from yet another illegal coup.
Reality, as it typically is, is a multifaceted gray rather then two sided black and white, and located somewhere between those two points of view.
1. Yes. Piracy in international waters is for example managed under various treaties and can be judged either by victim's home country's court. It requires an actual criminal activity that is accepted as criminal activity however.
2. You're talking about acts of warfare or enacting executive decisions. The entire point of piracy in Caribbean in last few centuries under letters of Marque was the plausible deniability. There is no such thing when performed by national navy. You are mixing seizure of assets at sea with piracy. Difference between the two is comparable to that of bombing a different country vs terrorist strike. I.e. bombing of Iraq vs 9/11.
Your incorrect definition of libertrarianism aside, the issue of international waters is that of consensus. International waters belong to everyone and no one at the same time. As a result, to enact rules on use of these waters, a consensus on what is a crime and what jurisdiction should be used to judge needs to be in place. This has nothing to do with libertrarianism and everything to do with sovereignty.
Otherwise you could for example claim that any people on a cruiser that is located in Saudi Arabian waters that have sex without marriage are performing adultery, and should be completely legally punished for it under Saudi Arabian laws.
That and other similar problems is why nations have territorial waters, which are in their jurisdiction, and international waters, which are governed by rules that are agreed upon by everyone. Rules such as for example those on piracy. More controversial topics that are covered by national laws are generally not applicable.
This is a very dangerous line of thinking, and one that most cruel and horrifying tyrants throughout the course of human history used to back their arguments. That they are the right ones, and the rest of the world that disagrees with them is "brainwashed". It essentially removes human value from people you believe to be "brainwashed" and assumes that they need protection from whatever it is that brainwashes them. And logically, as someone who is "not brainwashed", your kind should be the one to "protect" them.
This line of thinking has been used in pushing both pretty much every single instance of major war between two countries, as well as most civil wars. If you truly think this of any single nation, or large voting block, you're likely living in a country with significant propaganda machine effective "brainwashing" you into thinking this.
Because if you ever bothered to actually listen to what these "brainwashed" people say, in most cases except some fringe extremist ones, their opinions are understandable. Often very much disagreeable, but understandable from point of view of person expressing them.
1. Which court specifically? Did it have jurisdiction over international waters, or was this a local court of some nation that has no legal jurisdiction over international waters and applies local laws that again have no jurisdiction, not unlike applying laws forcing women to wear veil and be always escorted by male companion?
2. Piracy is a well established act that has remained largely unchanged in forms of violence and outcome for victims for thousands of years until it was largely eliminated as a form of violence in last century.
I must admit I'm intrigued at being called a libertrarian, considering just how critical I am of that particular political line of thinking.
Your logic has a glaring flaw from obvious legal standpoint: Australian EEZ is not Australian waters. There is no debate on the issue. EEZ is simply not territorial waters.
We are talking about humans. Not imaginary ideal beings. It is well documented throughout history that beings you describe have little in common with humans.
If you truly believe that, you need help. Psychiatric kind.
Not only is that a blatant lie, but he has actually done the exact opposite. He's improved conditions of various minorities (mostly with guidance of EU), including but not limited to right of kurds (government TV actually broadcasts in kurdish language now) and so on. In general, the whole EU process has worked to improve Turkeys conditions dramatically under Erdogan. And Erdogan had to push hard for it, as many Turks, especially the intelligencia has been traditionally opposed to even recognizing that they have a kurdish problem.
1. It's not a crime. Please cite evidence to it being a crime if you wish to persist in pushing this lie.
2. Because these facts about piracy are well established by credible historians worldwide over period of several thousands of years.
Their research is very clear cut when you stop listening to what Sea Sheperd et al think about it, and what the people actually doing the research tell you.
They look at things like contents of stomachs, cellular toxin levels and other things that you can't get without catching whales and based on observations map things like migratory routes, approximate size of current population of specific whales, effect of various types of pollution on whales and so on.
In most cases, while you can vote a war into existence, it will end when someone loses. Not when you vote it out of existence.
Financial policies are similar. Once things like controls on capital movement have been lifted, it's essentially impossible to vote them back.
Exactly the same argument is usable against:
US and it's handling of "we're the 99%" protests.
UK and it's handling of London riots.
Etc.
That is far from the only instance where you can vote to damage yourself severely. You can also vote for things like starting wars, or implementing policies that will take resources from you and give to others.
Cite actual numbers with sources please. Kroats were butchering almost as many, and Bosnians were butchering less simply because they were losing. It's usually victors that do the butchering.
NATO for example had to threaten kroats with bombing them after they successfully suppressed serb military and kroats basically took over as the biggest butchers of the region.