What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.
But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?
Well, that was one way to force people stop being assholes enforcing Jim Crow laws for instance. That's another way to force others to stop marrying minors (just another example.) This shit can go both ways, for good and for bad. How good or how bad it goes is a function of education, political participation, and how much the average person in a society indulges in being an asshole.
Pornhub is launching a bug bounty program for security researchers and pornography enthusiasts who are able to identify flaws on its platform.
Experienced with variable-load, multi-pronged penetration testing for detection (and plugging) of open ports with multiple penetration vectors. How would that sound? Because I don't know how I could keep a straight face if someone asks me about participation in such a program in an interview. Call me childish, but I would just smile like this at the interviewer : https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
Bullet train doors open for 30 seconds exactly. People line up and board in an orderly fashion.
You mean they don't hold the door open when the time runs out? Wow, you'd never get that discipline here.
The door closes, that's it. That's why they have helpers that, well, help passengers get in, and pack them up nicely and safely before the bell sounds that it is time to close the door. No limbs or noses will protrude from closed doors.
Plus, the typical Japanese passenger will not try to force his/her way once it's time to close the doors. That system works because the Japanese people make it work. It is something that it is almost impossible to grasp until you experience it (btw, being packed like a sardine sucks.)
That would never work here. You'll get a riot with assholes pushing themselves through the doors. I can only imagine: "Yo! Hold on, I'm still here, what is this closing of doors in 30 seconds. This is bullshit, this America! Huuur huuur! Get out of my way!" followed by someone pulling a gun and shooting as part of a new phenomenon: train rage.
I mean, people trample and beat the shit out of each other for some cheap shit on Black Friday, like if we were in a post-zombie apocalypse famine and everyone is fighting for the last burrito on the face of the Earth. We are that much of savage and dumb.
no accusing someone of being a bigot because you misunderstand what he is actually saying is simply stupid. I dont support trump, i refuse to vote for trump, but at the same time baseless lies like yours push me daily to defend this idiot and are pushing me towards voting for him. good job
The only person with a misunderstanding (or rather a problem with reading comprehension) is you. I didn't accuse the poster of being a bigot. Maybe I need to replace every occurrence of "you" with, I dunno, "you, the generic you" and break that shit down Barney stile for your benefit.
This is what I wrote:
Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let's vote for a bigot."
There, fixed that for you. That type of political grievance described by this that you call "significant Republican demographic", it amounts to a first world problem talked from a position of privilege. Because it is only through privilege that a person can think voting for a bigot is an acceptable idea. No legitimate grievance could morally justify this (they *can* explain, but never justify.)
I replaced the original "Let Trump burn the system down" with "Let's vote for a bigot" because that is the actual consequence of that action. And if you (again motherfucker, the generic you), vote for a bigot, then you, the generic you, are giving props to said bigot's bigoted platform.
You, the generic you, might have a grievance with the political establishment. But that doesn't justify voting for a bigot just to, and I quote, "burn the system down". There is nothing in my post that accuses the OP of being a bigot. I am accusing Trump of being one (because of his actions through history), and his supporters, regardless of reason, by transitivity for promoting his platform.
And as far as I can tell, the OP did not say he supported Trump, but he was explaining the thinking behind some Republicans for doing so. I corrected his statement by indicating that said Republicans cannot in good faith support a bigot without being bigots themselves (using the "you" as in "generic you" quite liberally.)
I am not going to break it down any further for your elucidation.
you didnt fix anything, you simply decided to insult someone because you are a dick
No. I pointed that Trump is a bigot (he is). And if someone supports a bigot, that person is a bigot himself. Whether I am a dick is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether my argument is valid or not (and it is unless you prove it otherwise.) If bigots get offended by accusations of bigotry, gee, maybe they should stop being bigots.
To be are afraid of a entire class of people with no room for personal distinction or nuance is to revel on spreading a negative generalization on a whole category of people (be it by race or religion). And to revel in such generalizations is to be a bigot.
This is not Europe. Muslims make up less than 1% of the population and Muslims have fought and died for this country. If that later part is not enough of a litmus test for being American, then this society is a piece of shit that deserves no future.
Same with the border. Illegal immigrants make up less than 3% of the population, and the numbers have been falling since 2008 (as predicted by most analysts). So much for "home of the brave" I'll say. I've heard some crazy uneducated shit about illegals. That because of them the auto industry fell (shit, didn't the Japanese auto industry surpassed US car production IN 1970)?
And while the Rust Belt is, well, rusting, foreign manufacturers are thriving in at-will states. But who cares about details when simple boogeymen suffice?
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse. No one can disagree anymore without resorting to hateful vitriol, slinging insults, rioting in the streets. I don't get it. It's one thing to have a sense of justice, but quite another to act out.
People confuse freedom with permissiveness. Freedom is the ordered pursuit of the good (or at least that's how I was taught). These days, if someone votes differently, acts differently, they are a bigot, a hater, a misogynist. It's time to restore decent public discourse.
I was with you up to this point.
Peter has a right to back whomever he wishes, despite what we may think.
He has a God-given right to back a vulgar misogynistic bigot (which Trump is, there is no question about that.) He does not have a God-given right for insulation from virulent criticism against such a virulent choice.
We don't have to lambast him for his God-given rights.
If you are old enough as you claim to be, I'm sure you remember people using their God-given rights to vote and oppose de-segregation. People do not deserve getting blasted for having the God-given right of choice. It is the exercise of that choice that makes a person deserving of praise or attack.
You would not want people to lambast you for your choices.
A pedo wouldn't want to be lambasted for his choices, wouldn't him. Choices have consequences for the people making them, specially if those choices affect 3rd parties. It is a that point that you crosses the Rubicon from the land of civility to the land of moral relativism where evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let's vote for a bigot."
There, fixed that for you. That type of political grievance described by this that you call "significant Republican demographic", it amounts to a first world problem talked from a position of privilege. Because it is only through privilege that a person can think voting for a bigot is an acceptable idea. No legitimate grievance could morally justify this (they *can* explain, but never justify.)
This isn't hardly news. It happened in the 80's when Auto manufacturers began putting bots on the assembly lines.
Everyone adjusted and there wasn't a 'basic income' needed.
Different conditions. Automation booted a lot of workers (not to mention the auto industry was getting a pummeling from the Japanese and German auto makers.) And currently the "traditional" auto makers in the rust belt are getting a pummeling by factories in Mexico and foreign manufactures setting up shop in at-will states in the south.
But here is the big difference between then and now/the near future: job decimation wasn't widespread then. People simply went to work somewhere else. Some with better wages than others.
Globalization changed that. All of the sudden jobs everywhere vanished. If you had nothing in to offer in terms of skill over a worker in Shenzhen, Bangalore or Panang, your job will go there. There is no right or wrong to this. It simply is.
And now we have robotics doing an actual credible job of replacing a shitload of jobs. Australians are seriously exploring to use agricultural robots en masse. The Japanese are for the first time pushing robots to replace millions of jobs (but, unlike us, are considering the social consequences of it, and planning for it.)
That is the difference. And if we do not plan for it, we are going to have with millions of people with nothing to do.
We had a similar prospect right out of WWII, and the solution was the GI Bill, the largest welfare program ever. And it single handle created the middle class and provided with technical education, opportunity, entrepreneurship and employment.
It was a tool that was great for that problem in that context, at that time.
We need to pull a magic rabbit, and fast, for the type of problems that we are about to face.
What's this term "unicorn" in this context? Obviously not a mythical horse with a horn. Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.
God, you are dumb. WTF is wrong with you? The bloody definition is right there in the first motherfraking sentence. Let me quote it and put in bold for you. I could try to spell it with kindergarten letter cubes while singing a Barnie's or Elmo's song, but I am not sure if that would register through that dumb skull of yours.
Unicorns, start-up companies valued at over $1 billion each, once a rare sighting for investors, have frolicked across Silicon Valley of late.
Fair enough, so when I talk about socialist countries I mean countries that are not afraid to introduce socialist programs.... such as the ones I mentioned.
That's like saying "when I talk about apples, I mean oranges". Those welfare programs you see in Nordic countries? Those stem from cultural norms coming all the way from the Viking era and their notion of what a community is supposed to be. These are programs established by these countries' respective monarchies, with the notion that the monarch, as representative of the state, had certain obligations towards the people (and ergo the state.)
Similar notions existed in other monarchies, kingdoms and empires, from Hammurabi all the way up to Aztec warlords and Inca rulers. Hardly any of these notions amount to socialism. Socialism is a very specific economic notion. It is one that at times crosses paths with humanism and welfare (and so does, say Christianity and Capitalism.)
There are notions of welfare and humanism that are the product of socialism, namely labor rights and syndicalism. Those notions that you mention, they are not (and we have the history to show us that), even if both have intersections in matters of welfare and the common good.
They've eaten a lot of rice for centuries. It's not the rice. It's the increase in meat, dairy and processed foods - they want to eat like Westerners.
The Dutch have been eating meat and dairy for centuries, and they didn't turn out obese - they turned out to be the tallest people in the world. Sudden increases in processed food intake and (equally sudden) changes in physical activity are the culprit.
At the point that you have enough evidence for a warrant, you would have enough for a conviction
You fucking retarded? You need probably cause for a warrant. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
I want two of whatever you're on.
As per the story, authorities had enough evidence to get a warrant (considering they had enough evidence to.... tada! get a warrant to seize his computer.)
Well, maybe they should have anticipated encryption and devised a way to obtain the encryption keys (surveillance, keylogger, whatever).
That would require a warrant (because this isn't a three letter agency prosecuting the defendant).
As per the details of the story, authorities had enough evidence to get a warrant from a judge to install a keylogger or some shit like that. I do not like this one bit, but we have to admit the authorities screwed up the case.
" If the evidence already exists (as encrypted data on the hard drive)"
Ah, but it's NOT known to exist. The prosecution only suspects there's evidence on the hard drive, and they're fishing.
I sympathize with the judge's intentions, but I have to agree with this. Evidence does not exist until it is decrypted. If authorities knew what the encrypted content was, then the evidence would be known to exist a-priori and there would not be a need to compel the pedo to hand over the key.
Morally and ethically, I have no problem keeping the bastard locked till he pukes the key. But legally, I have a problem. My guts instinct regarding the perp cannot override the mechanisms of our legal system. If they could, we should abandon all pretense of civilization and start wearing leather jackets, horned helmets, football shoulder pads while riding our wheels through the wastelands... or some shit like that.
And the countries people like you claim they are doing it right (the Nordic countries for instance) do not see themselves as socialists. You are just making up faux definitions to fit your arguments.
The Netherlands has enough socialist programs in the government to be considered a socialist country. According to Wikipedia, hospitals and insurance companies are mostly not for profit. Health care insurance is mandatory. Let's make a differentiation here. We are not talking necessarily about countries that are socialist in the constitution. We are talking about countries with the courage to use socialist policies in places where it makes things better for the citizens as a whole.
You are redefining the notion of socialism to fit your argument. Major logical fail right there buddy.
East Germany was saddled with all of the personal and political oppression, confiscation, corruption, pollution, and misery that Marxism could place upon it and everything else it touches. When you are gunned down on the spot for trying to leave, it's no capitalist/market economy or society. Stop pretending otherwise.
That still does not negate the existence of a capitalist system. Capitalism =/= freedom or democracy as many right wing dictatorships around the world were rather capitalist. The US was certainly not a democracy before the Civil Rights era and yet it was capitalist.
Disclaimer: I have no problem with Capitalism, and I think it is the best, most practical economic system ever created. The problem is that we conflate capitalism with positive notions of ethics and freedom. It is a production system, and ergo one that is amoral - neither moral or immoral. It is society around it, government and its power structures combined with an economic system that makes a nation moral or immoral, humane or inhumane.
You miss the point. It's not that there's any absolute moral justification for pillaging a planet, but as a drama, Avatar would have been more interesting if the people from Earth had been given some kind of "good" motivation and the indigenous planet residents had been given some kind of quality that made them bad.
Here's a kind of backstory:
Earth suffers a major internal military conflict, leaving its civilization in a shambles. Fortunately its moon colony wasn't involved, and it's charismatic leader Jesus Ngomo manages to unify Earth's factions and help rebuild the planet. The key to its restoration is the fusion system employing "unobtainium", an extremely rare material. Without this energy system, 80% of the population will die of disease or starvation.
The best known source of this is planet Avatar. Populated by a militant and warlike race whose civilization resembles pre-Columbian Mexico, the natives engage in slavery and human sacrifice. Unfortunately the easiest supplies of unobtainium are close to the native cities. The initial landing party who tried to negotiate with them were butchered. A fortified mining colony was established in an area believed inaccessible to the natives.
After establishing it, however, the Terrans discover that the natives are more mobile than they expected. The colony is attacked, resulting in significant reduction in output. The Terrans are forced to fight the natives against extreme odds. Earth weapons give them a slight advantage, but it results in the deaths of thousands of natives who continue to harass the colony.
Now you've got something more complicated -- a civilization struggling to rebuild itself which will collapse without the material from this planet, a material it can't obtain without brutal conflict with a violent and brutal society. Do we attempt to crush them mercilessly for our own benefit? If we don't, our civilization will collapse, resulting in the deaths of billions. If we do, we only succeed through brutalizing a people at the early stages of development whose defense of their world is no less justified than our attempt to save ours.
Asimov was russian. Blish was ok. The rest on your list are garbage, Niven in particular.
Truly great authors like Banks wrote in direct response to the infantile right wing ravings of US authors.
Unless it makes my coffee in the morning and is great in bed at night, I'm not really interested. I have the Kindle app on my tablet already so I don't need a crippled Kindle.
It sounds like your solution may be crippled in bright sunlight. Or crippled by short battery life. It's also likely crippled by its comparative weight. You're basically giving in to all the software/licensing drawbacks of using a hardware Kindle, but getting none of the benefits.
My thoughts exactly. I had a gen-2 kindle which was awesome for reading anywhere (indoors/outdoors), plus a battery life that would go on forever.
Then I switched to a Galaxy tablet and put the kindle app on it. It is great for browsing the internet and reading kindle books at home. But outdoors, man, that thing shines no matter how you angle it regardless of how you tune the screen down. Plus the battery is miserable compared to a real kindle.
I wish I could get a kindle with e-ink, as big as a galaxy tab 10, and with support for chrome. I can live with a B&W internet.
True, but if you're spending four years of your life learning how a particular machine works, at some point you'd think you'd learn how to turn the darn thing on.
Not exactly. CS program emphasizes on algorithm and concepts (not on programming and/or hardware). Some people do not have a budget to tinker with their machine (or any other machines) in order to learn more about hardware even though it should be a side interest for them from the CS program. However, some (if not most) for-profit schools aren't teaching anything emphasis of the program that at all but rather irrelevant courses for more money.
Since when pushing the damned power button on became "tinkering"? DaFuq?
Slashdot Mirror
What you don't have the right to do is force them to comply.
But it is perfectly acceptable to elect officials to carry out that task for us, to force others to comply. Right?
Well, that was one way to force people stop being assholes enforcing Jim Crow laws for instance. That's another way to force others to stop marrying minors (just another example.) This shit can go both ways, for good and for bad. How good or how bad it goes is a function of education, political participation, and how much the average person in a society indulges in being an asshole.
Pornhub is launching a bug bounty program for security researchers and pornography enthusiasts who are able to identify flaws on its platform.
Experienced with variable-load, multi-pronged penetration testing for detection (and plugging) of open ports with multiple penetration vectors. How would that sound? Because I don't know how I could keep a straight face if someone asks me about participation in such a program in an interview. Call me childish, but I would just smile like this at the interviewer : https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
Bullet train doors open for 30 seconds exactly. People line up and board in an orderly fashion.
You mean they don't hold the door open when the time runs out? Wow, you'd never get that discipline here.
The door closes, that's it. That's why they have helpers that, well, help passengers get in, and pack them up nicely and safely before the bell sounds that it is time to close the door. No limbs or noses will protrude from closed doors.
Plus, the typical Japanese passenger will not try to force his/her way once it's time to close the doors. That system works because the Japanese people make it work. It is something that it is almost impossible to grasp until you experience it (btw, being packed like a sardine sucks.)
That would never work here. You'll get a riot with assholes pushing themselves through the doors. I can only imagine: "Yo! Hold on, I'm still here, what is this closing of doors in 30 seconds. This is bullshit, this America! Huuur huuur! Get out of my way!" followed by someone pulling a gun and shooting as part of a new phenomenon: train rage.
I mean, people trample and beat the shit out of each other for some cheap shit on Black Friday, like if we were in a post-zombie apocalypse famine and everyone is fighting for the last burrito on the face of the Earth. We are that much of savage and dumb.
no accusing someone of being a bigot because you misunderstand what he is actually saying is simply stupid. I dont support trump, i refuse to vote for trump, but at the same time baseless lies like yours push me daily to defend this idiot and are pushing me towards voting for him. good job
The only person with a misunderstanding (or rather a problem with reading comprehension) is you. I didn't accuse the poster of being a bigot. Maybe I need to replace every occurrence of "you" with, I dunno, "you, the generic you" and break that shit down Barney stile for your benefit.
This is what I wrote:
Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let's vote for a bigot."
There, fixed that for you. That type of political grievance described by this that you call "significant Republican demographic", it amounts to a first world problem talked from a position of privilege. Because it is only through privilege that a person can think voting for a bigot is an acceptable idea. No legitimate grievance could morally justify this (they *can* explain, but never justify.)
I replaced the original "Let Trump burn the system down" with "Let's vote for a bigot" because that is the actual consequence of that action. And if you (again motherfucker, the generic you), vote for a bigot, then you, the generic you, are giving props to said bigot's bigoted platform.
You, the generic you, might have a grievance with the political establishment. But that doesn't justify voting for a bigot just to, and I quote, "burn the system down". There is nothing in my post that accuses the OP of being a bigot. I am accusing Trump of being one (because of his actions through history), and his supporters, regardless of reason, by transitivity for promoting his platform.
And as far as I can tell, the OP did not say he supported Trump, but he was explaining the thinking behind some Republicans for doing so. I corrected his statement by indicating that said Republicans cannot in good faith support a bigot without being bigots themselves (using the "you" as in "generic you" quite liberally.)
I am not going to break it down any further for your elucidation.
you didnt fix anything, you simply decided to insult someone because you are a dick
No. I pointed that Trump is a bigot (he is). And if someone supports a bigot, that person is a bigot himself. Whether I am a dick is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether my argument is valid or not (and it is unless you prove it otherwise.) If bigots get offended by accusations of bigotry, gee, maybe they should stop being bigots.
A libertarian would be for an absence of checks, but increased penalties for violating them.
No true Scotsman.
He's afraid of Muslims
Let's change Muslims with "Blacks" or "Jews".
He's afraid of Blacks
He's afraid of Jews
To be are afraid of a entire class of people with no room for personal distinction or nuance is to revel on spreading a negative generalization on a whole category of people (be it by race or religion). And to revel in such generalizations is to be a bigot.
This is not Europe. Muslims make up less than 1% of the population and Muslims have fought and died for this country. If that later part is not enough of a litmus test for being American, then this society is a piece of shit that deserves no future.
Same with the border. Illegal immigrants make up less than 3% of the population, and the numbers have been falling since 2008 (as predicted by most analysts). So much for "home of the brave" I'll say. I've heard some crazy uneducated shit about illegals. That because of them the auto industry fell (shit, didn't the Japanese auto industry surpassed US car production IN 1970)? And while the Rust Belt is, well, rusting, foreign manufacturers are thriving in at-will states. But who cares about details when simple boogeymen suffice?
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse. No one can disagree anymore without resorting to hateful vitriol, slinging insults, rioting in the streets. I don't get it. It's one thing to have a sense of justice, but quite another to act out.
People confuse freedom with permissiveness. Freedom is the ordered pursuit of the good (or at least that's how I was taught). These days, if someone votes differently, acts differently, they are a bigot, a hater, a misogynist. It's time to restore decent public discourse.
I was with you up to this point.
Peter has a right to back whomever he wishes, despite what we may think.
He has a God-given right to back a vulgar misogynistic bigot (which Trump is, there is no question about that.) He does not have a God-given right for insulation from virulent criticism against such a virulent choice.
We don't have to lambast him for his God-given rights.
If you are old enough as you claim to be, I'm sure you remember people using their God-given rights to vote and oppose de-segregation. People do not deserve getting blasted for having the God-given right of choice. It is the exercise of that choice that makes a person deserving of praise or attack.
You would not want people to lambast you for your choices.
A pedo wouldn't want to be lambasted for his choices, wouldn't him. Choices have consequences for the people making them, specially if those choices affect 3rd parties. It is a that point that you crosses the Rubicon from the land of civility to the land of moral relativism where evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let's vote for a bigot."
There, fixed that for you. That type of political grievance described by this that you call "significant Republican demographic", it amounts to a first world problem talked from a position of privilege. Because it is only through privilege that a person can think voting for a bigot is an acceptable idea. No legitimate grievance could morally justify this (they *can* explain, but never justify.)
There are two ways to get rich in the stock market:
* Win the lottery * Rig the game
Please tell us which of the two you find more likely and why.
That's not a counter-argument. That's an slogan.
This isn't hardly news. It happened in the 80's when Auto manufacturers began putting bots on the assembly lines.
Everyone adjusted and there wasn't a 'basic income' needed.
Different conditions. Automation booted a lot of workers (not to mention the auto industry was getting a pummeling from the Japanese and German auto makers.) And currently the "traditional" auto makers in the rust belt are getting a pummeling by factories in Mexico and foreign manufactures setting up shop in at-will states in the south.
But here is the big difference between then and now/the near future: job decimation wasn't widespread then. People simply went to work somewhere else. Some with better wages than others.
Globalization changed that. All of the sudden jobs everywhere vanished. If you had nothing in to offer in terms of skill over a worker in Shenzhen, Bangalore or Panang, your job will go there. There is no right or wrong to this. It simply is.
And now we have robotics doing an actual credible job of replacing a shitload of jobs. Australians are seriously exploring to use agricultural robots en masse. The Japanese are for the first time pushing robots to replace millions of jobs (but, unlike us, are considering the social consequences of it, and planning for it.)
That is the difference. And if we do not plan for it, we are going to have with millions of people with nothing to do.
We had a similar prospect right out of WWII, and the solution was the GI Bill, the largest welfare program ever. And it single handle created the middle class and provided with technical education, opportunity, entrepreneurship and employment.
It was a tool that was great for that problem in that context, at that time.
We need to pull a magic rabbit, and fast, for the type of problems that we are about to face.
NO.
What's this term "unicorn" in this context? Obviously not a mythical horse with a horn. Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.
God, you are dumb. WTF is wrong with you? The bloody definition is right there in the first motherfraking sentence. Let me quote it and put in bold for you. I could try to spell it with kindergarten letter cubes while singing a Barnie's or Elmo's song, but I am not sure if that would register through that dumb skull of yours.
Unicorns, start-up companies valued at over $1 billion each, once a rare sighting for investors, have frolicked across Silicon Valley of late.
Fair enough, so when I talk about socialist countries I mean countries that are not afraid to introduce socialist programs.... such as the ones I mentioned.
That's like saying "when I talk about apples, I mean oranges". Those welfare programs you see in Nordic countries? Those stem from cultural norms coming all the way from the Viking era and their notion of what a community is supposed to be. These are programs established by these countries' respective monarchies, with the notion that the monarch, as representative of the state, had certain obligations towards the people (and ergo the state.)
Similar notions existed in other monarchies, kingdoms and empires, from Hammurabi all the way up to Aztec warlords and Inca rulers. Hardly any of these notions amount to socialism. Socialism is a very specific economic notion. It is one that at times crosses paths with humanism and welfare (and so does, say Christianity and Capitalism.)
There are notions of welfare and humanism that are the product of socialism, namely labor rights and syndicalism. Those notions that you mention, they are not (and we have the history to show us that), even if both have intersections in matters of welfare and the common good.
They've eaten a lot of rice for centuries. It's not the rice. It's the increase in meat, dairy and processed foods - they want to eat like Westerners.
The Dutch have been eating meat and dairy for centuries, and they didn't turn out obese - they turned out to be the tallest people in the world. Sudden increases in processed food intake and (equally sudden) changes in physical activity are the culprit.
At the point that you have enough evidence for a warrant, you would have enough for a conviction
You fucking retarded? You need probably cause for a warrant. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
I want two of whatever you're on.
As per the story, authorities had enough evidence to get a warrant (considering they had enough evidence to.... tada! get a warrant to seize his computer.)
Well, maybe they should have anticipated encryption and devised a way to obtain the encryption keys (surveillance, keylogger, whatever).
That would require a warrant (because this isn't a three letter agency prosecuting the defendant).
As per the details of the story, authorities had enough evidence to get a warrant from a judge to install a keylogger or some shit like that. I do not like this one bit, but we have to admit the authorities screwed up the case.
" If the evidence already exists (as encrypted data on the hard drive)" Ah, but it's NOT known to exist. The prosecution only suspects there's evidence on the hard drive, and they're fishing.
I sympathize with the judge's intentions, but I have to agree with this. Evidence does not exist until it is decrypted. If authorities knew what the encrypted content was, then the evidence would be known to exist a-priori and there would not be a need to compel the pedo to hand over the key.
Morally and ethically, I have no problem keeping the bastard locked till he pukes the key. But legally, I have a problem. My guts instinct regarding the perp cannot override the mechanisms of our legal system. If they could, we should abandon all pretense of civilization and start wearing leather jackets, horned helmets, football shoulder pads while riding our wheels through the wastelands... or some shit like that.
Yeah well they're obviously not doing it right.
And the countries people like you claim they are doing it right (the Nordic countries for instance) do not see themselves as socialists. You are just making up faux definitions to fit your arguments.
The Netherlands has enough socialist programs in the government to be considered a socialist country. According to Wikipedia, hospitals and insurance companies are mostly not for profit. Health care insurance is mandatory. Let's make a differentiation here. We are not talking necessarily about countries that are socialist in the constitution. We are talking about countries with the courage to use socialist policies in places where it makes things better for the citizens as a whole.
You are redefining the notion of socialism to fit your argument. Major logical fail right there buddy.
East Germany was saddled with all of the personal and political oppression, confiscation, corruption, pollution, and misery that Marxism could place upon it and everything else it touches. When you are gunned down on the spot for trying to leave, it's no capitalist/market economy or society. Stop pretending otherwise.
That still does not negate the existence of a capitalist system. Capitalism =/= freedom or democracy as many right wing dictatorships around the world were rather capitalist. The US was certainly not a democracy before the Civil Rights era and yet it was capitalist.
Disclaimer: I have no problem with Capitalism, and I think it is the best, most practical economic system ever created. The problem is that we conflate capitalism with positive notions of ethics and freedom. It is a production system, and ergo one that is amoral - neither moral or immoral. It is society around it, government and its power structures combined with an economic system that makes a nation moral or immoral, humane or inhumane.
You miss the point. It's not that there's any absolute moral justification for pillaging a planet, but as a drama, Avatar would have been more interesting if the people from Earth had been given some kind of "good" motivation and the indigenous planet residents had been given some kind of quality that made them bad.
Here's a kind of backstory:
Earth suffers a major internal military conflict, leaving its civilization in a shambles. Fortunately its moon colony wasn't involved, and it's charismatic leader Jesus Ngomo manages to unify Earth's factions and help rebuild the planet. The key to its restoration is the fusion system employing "unobtainium", an extremely rare material. Without this energy system, 80% of the population will die of disease or starvation.
The best known source of this is planet Avatar. Populated by a militant and warlike race whose civilization resembles pre-Columbian Mexico, the natives engage in slavery and human sacrifice. Unfortunately the easiest supplies of unobtainium are close to the native cities. The initial landing party who tried to negotiate with them were butchered. A fortified mining colony was established in an area believed inaccessible to the natives.
After establishing it, however, the Terrans discover that the natives are more mobile than they expected. The colony is attacked, resulting in significant reduction in output. The Terrans are forced to fight the natives against extreme odds. Earth weapons give them a slight advantage, but it results in the deaths of thousands of natives who continue to harass the colony.
Now you've got something more complicated -- a civilization struggling to rebuild itself which will collapse without the material from this planet, a material it can't obtain without brutal conflict with a violent and brutal society. Do we attempt to crush them mercilessly for our own benefit? If we don't, our civilization will collapse, resulting in the deaths of billions. If we do, we only succeed through brutalizing a people at the early stages of development whose defense of their world is no less justified than our attempt to save ours.
That's a plot I'd love to read or see.
Asimov was russian. Blish was ok. The rest on your list are garbage, Niven in particular. Truly great authors like Banks wrote in direct response to the infantile right wing ravings of US authors.
Why is Niven garbage?
Unless it makes my coffee in the morning and is great in bed at night, I'm not really interested. I have the Kindle app on my tablet already so I don't need a crippled Kindle.
It sounds like your solution may be crippled in bright sunlight. Or crippled by short battery life. It's also likely crippled by its comparative weight. You're basically giving in to all the software/licensing drawbacks of using a hardware Kindle, but getting none of the benefits.
My thoughts exactly. I had a gen-2 kindle which was awesome for reading anywhere (indoors/outdoors), plus a battery life that would go on forever.
Then I switched to a Galaxy tablet and put the kindle app on it. It is great for browsing the internet and reading kindle books at home. But outdoors, man, that thing shines no matter how you angle it regardless of how you tune the screen down. Plus the battery is miserable compared to a real kindle.
I wish I could get a kindle with e-ink, as big as a galaxy tab 10, and with support for chrome. I can live with a B&W internet.
That's because CS programs do not teach hardware.
True, but if you're spending four years of your life learning how a particular machine works, at some point you'd think you'd learn how to turn the darn thing on.
Not exactly. CS program emphasizes on algorithm and concepts (not on programming and/or hardware). Some people do not have a budget to tinker with their machine (or any other machines) in order to learn more about hardware even though it should be a side interest for them from the CS program. However, some (if not most) for-profit schools aren't teaching anything emphasis of the program that at all but rather irrelevant courses for more money.
Since when pushing the damned power button on became "tinkering"? DaFuq?