1. All those international human rights and justice agencies talking about slavery in modern times must be lying. How good of you to have set them all straight. 2. When did we ever talk about slavery in general rather then in reference to your claim of "you cannot own one person without being owned yourself". Which is solidly rebuked by history which is choke full of examples of exact opposite. 3. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. Source: wikipedia. Exactly what you are doing, misrepresenting the argument and pretending you beat the original argument by beating your own, purposefully misunderstood argument instead.
4. At least get enough balls to post on your own account instead of as AC. That alone shows just how well you know that you are in fact trolling.
History has crushed your logic on owning humans quite utterly, therefore I'll leave it to any modern history book to debunk that strawman.
On the topic of "evidence", it's worth noting that no one presented any in this argument, nor even MENTIONED it before you did. It was merely a discussion on principles. Another lame strawman.
Realistically though, does it have to be THIN for that? That's one thing I really don't understand about modern phones - the thinness fetish.
Think about it. When you hold the phone in your hand(s) for a prolonged amount of time, your hand is shaped to grab it. And the most comfortable shapes for that are found on various handles - fairly thick, rounded at the edges.
I remember comparing my current cheapo nokia 5230 with several android variants and ip4. In all cases I found that thinness actually detracted from comfortability of holding the phone.
Funnily now I use my phone primarily as a mobile video playback device when walking (I like to take long walks), where I hold my phone in outstretched hand in front of me for duration of entire walk. I find that weight is not as important (as in a hundred grams here or there, I now use fairly heavy winter gloves and they didn't make a noticeable difference) as phone being properly easy to hold, because the first thing to get tired is not the arm, but the fingers. So my next phone when this one dies will also have to be reasonably thick, so I can grab it naturally and have it fill my hand.
Actually I wasn't. You ignored OPs argument and proceeded to strawman it by claiming that issue was ownership in general, when his problem was with ownership being extended to objects that perhaps shouldn't be owned.
I countered your rather terrible strawman with another example of right of ownership that was found to be too far reaching. How is that trolling?
Hilariously, that's what caused the fire. The fuel tank is DRAINED after collision. Apparently people doing the test didn't drain the battery, as the manual told them to in addition to draining the fuel tank.
The issue is that people are made into SLAVES by the political system, by the government, and slaves cannot be entrepreneurs. Slaves do not innovate. Slaves do not try to do anything better.
The rest is extremely shaky at best imho and at points downright contravening itself (as is the case with much of the dogma on both political left and right), but that is, again, imho, and as I said above, it's highly unlikely for this argument to turn out well as this is a very emotional topic for you.
This is really sad part of it. Many IT folks in big companies pushed for FF support in their companies. Then in came new versioning and infamous "corporate world can go fuck themselves" post from Mozilla.
Nowadays, quite a few of those who were supporting mozilla are going full time IE again. To help them, MS actually made IE tolerably decent even for advanced users.
I wrote out a lengthy reply, and then understood something. We're going to go back and forth because this is clearly an emotional topic for you, and I will not be able to convince you, nor will you be able to convince me.
Suffice to say I also used to be a citizen of USSR, and my family got hit by Stalin's measures worse then most as I have both jewish and finnish lineage in my family. I also have direct lineage from people who lived in blocaded Leningrad and still recall with extreme amount of sorrow how they got to read about watching people dying around them from hunger when party members were eating fresh fruit and vegetables. That part of the regime was monstrous. But in the long run, it wasn't that different from most dictatures in the world, and it had very little to do with communism (in fact, things like Leningrad account would be impossible in a communist environment).
Our difference is where you choose to accept the commonly held misconceptions about the system in USSR, I chose to actually study how it really worked. As a result, I can repeat the same thing time and time again: the USSR "communism" was largely a capitalist system on top, controlling the bottom attempt of socialism. The main reason for poverty in it? Socialism was given a pittance of resources in comparison to capitalism on top. Army alone swallowed over 40% of the budget. Another big slice was swalloed to feed the excess of top 5% of the nation, which had its own life, with masses completely ignorant of their abundance. Did you know, for example, that above certain level in party hierarchy in USSR, you got access to special grocery shops that sold you excellent quality good essentially for free?
I suspect from your views that you moved to US. I moved to Finland, which is "another socialist country". And here, I got introduced to what happens when socialism is done properly, without the massive parasitic capitalism on top feeding the small elite and army and leaving the rest to fight over scraps, but is instead managed and slaved to the socialism to serve the people. The country ranks significantly higher then most of Western Europe (and US) on charts mentioning things like competitiveness of economy (!), quality of life and so on. This drove me to sociological studies about macroeconomics as to why what I experienced in one country was so different from the neighbour that had a system with "same name".
This is why I can look onto parasitic form of capitalism that is on the rise in the world with nothing but stupedified scorn, same as people who claim that "socialism and communism are dictatorial and monstrous". It truly is possible that West's elite learned nothing from USSR and its fall and instead opted to believe in their propaganda chosing to walk the same macroeconomic path with small elite slowly consuming more and more resources until the bottom of population deep in "slavery" of poverty (as you put it) grows big enough to start threatening the system with significant economic issues like inevitable corruption and low work efficiency, which is what ate USSR from inside in the end.
Hence, argument for "similarity of the economic systems".
It is? So every time you talk to your acquaintances in real life, you disclose all of the private information you talked about with your closest friend?
Using your japanese example, bow samurai lost to muskets in close quarters aimed combat. Specifically because the highly trained bow samurai... could not aim as effectively. What the bow samurai excelled at on the other hand is high trajectory "shelling" of the enemy army from long range.
In other words, GP is correct. Normal bows are very difficult to aim in a useful fashion for direct fire, and are typically useful for raining death on top of armies rather then direct aiming. Same can be observed across countless other armies that met European firearms in battles with bows. You can, with significant amount of training, learn to use bow effectively in direct fire, but this would require a significant amount of very rigorous training. To achieve better results with a firearm, you need but a few hours on a firing range.
Holy shit. Capitalism is "the most efficient system"?
Communism is "slavery"?
There is "nothing to tax in communism"?
"Communist system is a result of slavery"?
I think you need to pick up a book on what words actually mean, like a dictionary. Make sure you are sitting down when reading it. Hell, you presented one of the worst aspects of capitalism, US healthcare system, which is monstrously LESS EFFICIENT then socialist models of the Western Europe, as "a model of capitalist efficiency". I rest my case.
Assault rifle name comes from direct translation of original name of the gun that started this type of weaponry: STG-44 (Sturmgewehr).
The idea was a fusion of machine pistol (lightweight low caliber fully automatic weapon designed for close quarters combat), infantry rifle (medium weight long range, good accuracy weapon firing single shots of powerful ammunition) and a light machine gun (heavy infantry weapon designed for fully automatic engagements at medium ranges firing powerful ammunition but too heavy for close quarters).
STG-44 was the first time that a single weapon could perform all three roles successfully. It wasn't quite as good as a dedicated weapon in any of these roles, but it could perform all three competitively.
This is how assault rifle is more dangerous then shotgun or a hunting rifle. Shotgun is generally only good for close range combat (or with some specialized ammo, long range combat at cost of severe reduction of short range capability) and has no viable suppression capability of a machine gun due to low rate of fire. Hunting rifle is great for accurate fire at long range, but abysmal at close quarters combat and has little suppression ability due to low rate of fire even when semi-automatic. Modern assault rifle user can switch between these profiles with a flick of a switch and perform in all of these roles adequately. It can also function as a light machine gun in a limited fashion (usually limited by size of the clip and weapon barrel overheating from prolonged fire).
As a result of superiority of such a capable weapon, modern infantrymen who aren't specialists with extreme weapon requirements (such as snipers) usually use assault rifles.
So, in your opinion US and Western Europe is communist, because here we have largely similar acquisition system for major contractors?
Holy shit, I didn't know. McCarthy must have been on to something after all!
No wait, he was picking on artists and such. Defense contractors were model citizens to him. So McCarthy was... secretly communist?
All this trolling of yours and mine aside, reality is that on large company level, the system was similar for West and East. You had extreme competition for CAPITAL, which was invested into new technology. The only difference was in how this capital was generated, with West emphasizing private consumption and East emphasizing public consumption.
Capital being needed for investments did not change. Management of capital itself was different on personal level, with people having much less control over personal capital in USSR and Warsaw pact countries in comparison to NATO and West in general. None of this changes the fact that there was a very brutal form of capitalism on top of the food chain in both systems, and in both systems relationship between major companies and government is very close (while formally totally different, in reality is very similar in its symbiosis).
It's very EASILY enforceable. Your example is just slightly incorrect in all the important places:
- Hey, law says you have to remove access to that data for all but law enforcement - I did - But it's still on your hard drive - It is, but it's only accessible to a few people with proper authorization, and cannot be given to anyone or viewed by anyone but these people without legal authorisation, and the people who have authorisation are bound by legally mandated NDA in regards to this data - Oh, OK then.
This is not some hypothetical bullshit. This is how it works now in countries where such measures are required on data that requires them.
You must be either very young, or very naive if that's "seen everything" for you. Wait till I tell you that Warsaw pact countries called themselves people's democracies while actually being single party dictatures, or that "Western democracy" is actually a republican system that has nothing to do with democracy.
I do hope you were sitting down, for this must have been very shocking for you.
That would depend on what you're trying to achieve by deleting. If you want to maintain your privacy, then forbidding any kind of corporate use is sufficient. Keep in mind, this is EU, not US, most European countries have very different attitudes towards law enforcement and in return law enforcement people have a very different attitude towards general population - we largely do not have the authority-hating culture based on frontiersmen like one you have in US for historic reasons.
On the other hand, if you just want "full and complete purge", then it's insufficient. But I don't think that this is what people argue against when they argue about facebook et al abusing your information for financial gain.
Slashdot Mirror
1. All those international human rights and justice agencies talking about slavery in modern times must be lying. How good of you to have set them all straight.
2. When did we ever talk about slavery in general rather then in reference to your claim of "you cannot own one person without being owned yourself". Which is solidly rebuked by history which is choke full of examples of exact opposite.
3. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. Source: wikipedia. Exactly what you are doing, misrepresenting the argument and pretending you beat the original argument by beating your own, purposefully misunderstood argument instead.
4. At least get enough balls to post on your own account instead of as AC. That alone shows just how well you know that you are in fact trolling.
History has crushed your logic on owning humans quite utterly, therefore I'll leave it to any modern history book to debunk that strawman.
On the topic of "evidence", it's worth noting that no one presented any in this argument, nor even MENTIONED it before you did. It was merely a discussion on principles. Another lame strawman.
Realistically though, does it have to be THIN for that? That's one thing I really don't understand about modern phones - the thinness fetish.
Think about it. When you hold the phone in your hand(s) for a prolonged amount of time, your hand is shaped to grab it. And the most comfortable shapes for that are found on various handles - fairly thick, rounded at the edges.
I remember comparing my current cheapo nokia 5230 with several android variants and ip4. In all cases I found that thinness actually detracted from comfortability of holding the phone.
Funnily now I use my phone primarily as a mobile video playback device when walking (I like to take long walks), where I hold my phone in outstretched hand in front of me for duration of entire walk. I find that weight is not as important (as in a hundred grams here or there, I now use fairly heavy winter gloves and they didn't make a noticeable difference) as phone being properly easy to hold, because the first thing to get tired is not the arm, but the fingers. So my next phone when this one dies will also have to be reasonably thick, so I can grab it naturally and have it fill my hand.
False at least for Finland. I suspect it's also false for the rest of the continent.
Lack of localization is because of travel. People from one continent can travel to other and still need to contact emergency services.
Actually I wasn't. You ignored OPs argument and proceeded to strawman it by claiming that issue was ownership in general, when his problem was with ownership being extended to objects that perhaps shouldn't be owned.
I countered your rather terrible strawman with another example of right of ownership that was found to be too far reaching. How is that trolling?
Swiss as well as entire nothern part of Europe would like a long word with you about things like economic competitiveness and quality of life.
Therefore I require my rights to property on people, so I can buy you and re-educate you as I see fit.
Oh wait, slavery was abolished. How undemocratic.
Well, it is against democracy. Sadly most of the places calling themselves "democracies" are actually republics.
Hilariously, that's what caused the fire. The fuel tank is DRAINED after collision. Apparently people doing the test didn't drain the battery, as the manual told them to in addition to draining the fuel tank.
Indeed, losing THEIR heads would definitely reduce their interest...
I will simply say that I do agree with this:
The issue is that people are made into SLAVES by the political system, by the government, and slaves cannot be entrepreneurs. Slaves do not innovate. Slaves do not try to do anything better.
The rest is extremely shaky at best imho and at points downright contravening itself (as is the case with much of the dogma on both political left and right), but that is, again, imho, and as I said above, it's highly unlikely for this argument to turn out well as this is a very emotional topic for you.
This is really sad part of it. Many IT folks in big companies pushed for FF support in their companies. Then in came new versioning and infamous "corporate world can go fuck themselves" post from Mozilla.
Nowadays, quite a few of those who were supporting mozilla are going full time IE again. To help them, MS actually made IE tolerably decent even for advanced users.
We need "-1 goatse" mod...
I wrote out a lengthy reply, and then understood something. We're going to go back and forth because this is clearly an emotional topic for you, and I will not be able to convince you, nor will you be able to convince me.
Suffice to say I also used to be a citizen of USSR, and my family got hit by Stalin's measures worse then most as I have both jewish and finnish lineage in my family. I also have direct lineage from people who lived in blocaded Leningrad and still recall with extreme amount of sorrow how they got to read about watching people dying around them from hunger when party members were eating fresh fruit and vegetables. That part of the regime was monstrous. But in the long run, it wasn't that different from most dictatures in the world, and it had very little to do with communism (in fact, things like Leningrad account would be impossible in a communist environment).
Our difference is where you choose to accept the commonly held misconceptions about the system in USSR, I chose to actually study how it really worked. As a result, I can repeat the same thing time and time again: the USSR "communism" was largely a capitalist system on top, controlling the bottom attempt of socialism. The main reason for poverty in it? Socialism was given a pittance of resources in comparison to capitalism on top. Army alone swallowed over 40% of the budget. Another big slice was swalloed to feed the excess of top 5% of the nation, which had its own life, with masses completely ignorant of their abundance. Did you know, for example, that above certain level in party hierarchy in USSR, you got access to special grocery shops that sold you excellent quality good essentially for free?
I suspect from your views that you moved to US. I moved to Finland, which is "another socialist country". And here, I got introduced to what happens when socialism is done properly, without the massive parasitic capitalism on top feeding the small elite and army and leaving the rest to fight over scraps, but is instead managed and slaved to the socialism to serve the people. The country ranks significantly higher then most of Western Europe (and US) on charts mentioning things like competitiveness of economy (!), quality of life and so on. This drove me to sociological studies about macroeconomics as to why what I experienced in one country was so different from the neighbour that had a system with "same name".
This is why I can look onto parasitic form of capitalism that is on the rise in the world with nothing but stupedified scorn, same as people who claim that "socialism and communism are dictatorial and monstrous". It truly is possible that West's elite learned nothing from USSR and its fall and instead opted to believe in their propaganda chosing to walk the same macroeconomic path with small elite slowly consuming more and more resources until the bottom of population deep in "slavery" of poverty (as you put it) grows big enough to start threatening the system with significant economic issues like inevitable corruption and low work efficiency, which is what ate USSR from inside in the end.
Hence, argument for "similarity of the economic systems".
It is? So every time you talk to your acquaintances in real life, you disclose all of the private information you talked about with your closest friend?
Using your japanese example, bow samurai lost to muskets in close quarters aimed combat. Specifically because the highly trained bow samurai... could not aim as effectively. What the bow samurai excelled at on the other hand is high trajectory "shelling" of the enemy army from long range.
In other words, GP is correct. Normal bows are very difficult to aim in a useful fashion for direct fire, and are typically useful for raining death on top of armies rather then direct aiming. Same can be observed across countless other armies that met European firearms in battles with bows. You can, with significant amount of training, learn to use bow effectively in direct fire, but this would require a significant amount of very rigorous training. To achieve better results with a firearm, you need but a few hours on a firing range.
Holy shit. Capitalism is "the most efficient system"?
Communism is "slavery"?
There is "nothing to tax in communism"?
"Communist system is a result of slavery"?
I think you need to pick up a book on what words actually mean, like a dictionary. Make sure you are sitting down when reading it. Hell, you presented one of the worst aspects of capitalism, US healthcare system, which is monstrously LESS EFFICIENT then socialist models of the Western Europe, as "a model of capitalist efficiency". I rest my case.
Assault rifle name comes from direct translation of original name of the gun that started this type of weaponry: STG-44 (Sturmgewehr).
The idea was a fusion of machine pistol (lightweight low caliber fully automatic weapon designed for close quarters combat), infantry rifle (medium weight long range, good accuracy weapon firing single shots of powerful ammunition) and a light machine gun (heavy infantry weapon designed for fully automatic engagements at medium ranges firing powerful ammunition but too heavy for close quarters).
STG-44 was the first time that a single weapon could perform all three roles successfully. It wasn't quite as good as a dedicated weapon in any of these roles, but it could perform all three competitively.
This is how assault rifle is more dangerous then shotgun or a hunting rifle. Shotgun is generally only good for close range combat (or with some specialized ammo, long range combat at cost of severe reduction of short range capability) and has no viable suppression capability of a machine gun due to low rate of fire. Hunting rifle is great for accurate fire at long range, but abysmal at close quarters combat and has little suppression ability due to low rate of fire even when semi-automatic. Modern assault rifle user can switch between these profiles with a flick of a switch and perform in all of these roles adequately. It can also function as a light machine gun in a limited fashion (usually limited by size of the clip and weapon barrel overheating from prolonged fire).
As a result of superiority of such a capable weapon, modern infantrymen who aren't specialists with extreme weapon requirements (such as snipers) usually use assault rifles.
So, in your opinion US and Western Europe is communist, because here we have largely similar acquisition system for major contractors?
Holy shit, I didn't know. McCarthy must have been on to something after all!
No wait, he was picking on artists and such. Defense contractors were model citizens to him. So McCarthy was... secretly communist?
All this trolling of yours and mine aside, reality is that on large company level, the system was similar for West and East. You had extreme competition for CAPITAL, which was invested into new technology. The only difference was in how this capital was generated, with West emphasizing private consumption and East emphasizing public consumption.
Capital being needed for investments did not change. Management of capital itself was different on personal level, with people having much less control over personal capital in USSR and Warsaw pact countries in comparison to NATO and West in general. None of this changes the fact that there was a very brutal form of capitalism on top of the food chain in both systems, and in both systems relationship between major companies and government is very close (while formally totally different, in reality is very similar in its symbiosis).
It's very EASILY enforceable. Your example is just slightly incorrect in all the important places:
- Hey, law says you have to remove access to that data for all but law enforcement
- I did
- But it's still on your hard drive
- It is, but it's only accessible to a few people with proper authorization, and cannot be given to anyone or viewed by anyone but these people without legal authorisation, and the people who have authorisation are bound by legally mandated NDA in regards to this data
- Oh, OK then.
This is not some hypothetical bullshit. This is how it works now in countries where such measures are required on data that requires them.
Who spoke of power struggle in the government? Strawman much?
You must be either very young, or very naive if that's "seen everything" for you. Wait till I tell you that Warsaw pact countries called themselves people's democracies while actually being single party dictatures, or that "Western democracy" is actually a republican system that has nothing to do with democracy.
I do hope you were sitting down, for this must have been very shocking for you.
Except that it's the very DEFINITION of capitalism. Capitalism is the system where capital equals power.
You can very well have a capitalist economy controlled by "command economy" or planned economy as the real name goes. Reference: China.
That would depend on what you're trying to achieve by deleting. If you want to maintain your privacy, then forbidding any kind of corporate use is sufficient. Keep in mind, this is EU, not US, most European countries have very different attitudes towards law enforcement and in return law enforcement people have a very different attitude towards general population - we largely do not have the authority-hating culture based on frontiersmen like one you have in US for historic reasons.
On the other hand, if you just want "full and complete purge", then it's insufficient. But I don't think that this is what people argue against when they argue about facebook et al abusing your information for financial gain.