Which party doesn't purport to be populist? I think that's pretty much a universal claim.
But I'm sure you mean Democrats. And then my question is, if Democrats supported, say, expansive gun ownership rights, what percentage of one-issue gun-rights voters would sway to the Democratic party? Like, one in five hundred? One in a thousand? Maybe one in ten thousand? I'm pretty well convinced that these voters don't choose who to vote for based on the party platform, but rather for the same reason Red Sox fans hate the Yankees: once you choose a team, you engage in whatever rationalization is required to keep rooting for that team.
Anyway, I'm a registered Democrat who strongly disagrees with their typical gun-rights stance. It's a big tent. Republicans also have a big tent.
That's nonsense. Power is not at all scarce. I am far more powerful than the middle class people when America was founded; yet so is the American government. Our power has grown for both, and to great effect. A powerful, centralized government has delivered a wonderfully happy and productive life to Americans. It isn't perfect, but it's way better than extremely small or extremely limited government would have been. I make that conclusion by comparing our medium-size government to small-size governments in places like Africa or Afghanistan. Three cheers for continued American moderation, medium-sized government, medium-rate taxes, and hopefully a return to moderate politics!
So basically everything you said is premised on a view of the world which, despite having tried, I just can't see. The country just isn't how you seem to think it is.
There was a story on Slashdot a while back positing that cosmic rays could flip a bit in memory and cause problems. Imagine a boolean value in a memory address IS_BRAKE_ON = 1 getting flipped to 0.
That seems, to me, extraordinarily unlikely to have happened more than once or maybe twice, so to me it's an unsatisfying answer.
Brake lights are controlled by a simple switch in the brake assembly.
Are you sure? I know that's how it was done for a long time, because it was the obvious simple solution, but some modern cars use token ring networks for things that used to be accomplished simply by closing a circuit. Do you actually know whether these brake lights work by closing a circuit, instead of by signaling a computer? (This is a trivial question of fact which can be answered by anyone who happens to know about recent-model-year Toyota vehicles, and I'm not that person, but maybe you are.)
What's wrong with putting your possessions inside your car? I completely disagree with people who claim that a person "deserved" to be the victim of a crime for one reason or another. Wearing a short skirt doesn't mean you deserve to be raped; wearing a blue jacket in the wrong neighborhood doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered; and putting your own belongings inside of your car -- or pretty much anywhere -- doesn't mean you deserve to be robbed.
It's perfectly reasonable to contact the federal police to prosecute easily solvable interstate crimes.
It's callous and disgusting for you and people like you to suggest otherwise.
Actually, that's not more important at all. People should be able to put their shit down, or put it in their car, without some asshole stealing it. Fuck this thief, I hope the owner harms him physically. Seriously, I honestly wish him a small to medium amount of physical harm -- maybe a black eye, broken finger, or busted lip. For legal purposes, the criminal would have to provoke the battery.
Having been rebuffed by the authorities (I use that term loosely), I feel you are now morally permitted to take law enforcement into your own hands. I suggest the following recipe:
1 part reverse-IP lookup 3 parts exercise of the Second Amendment (the "bear" part) 2 parts buddy to come along with you* 2 parts confrontation in front of the person's house while your buddy calls the local police
Indeed. Calling economics a science is like calling phrenology science: the conclusions all follow rationally from the assumptions, but the underlying assumptions (personality traits are reflected in morphological features, people are rational decision makers) are totally wrong.
Well, I certainly agree that I don't want fiscal policy like Zimbabwe's.
Anyway, I recognize many very legit arguments in favor of gold as a currency. And in fact gold IS a currency which many people accept. I see nothing wrong with that.
My point was to refute the suggestion that fiat currency is somehow invalid. It's not. We might prefer a commodity standard, or we might prefer a fiat standard, but both of those systems have significant benefits and drawbacks. This is a question of policy, and I reject ideology on this issue.
Damn, that one is actually an extremely good example of how to implementors can write two different functions which do a simple task, yet do that task differently. One programmer writes if(elf == 0) while the other uses if(!elf); they use different bracket styles; they use typedefs with different internal structure (or for some other reason cast output); one drops in an assert for good measure. All those differences in a mere 8 lines of code, which could be something like 4 lines.
Good example. And the plaintiff was going to try to use that as an example of copying? Boy, talk about doing the defendant's work for them.
He didn't use foo, bar, baz, qux, quux, quuux, quuuux? I rarely use more than $foo, but old-school hacker types often used those. Those were explicitly taught to me in CS 101, too -- but, luckily, I never made a habit of using them. I prefer annoyinglyLongAndExtremelyVerboseVarialbeNamesEndingWithDataTypeSuchAsString.
I can see that, but we also "actively burn" gold in the sense that we use it for industrial purposes.
When a bit of gold goes on top of a Duracell battery, then you throw it in the ground, it ain't coming back to become part of a dubloon.
Indeed, as a commodity, gold is not so bad a currency. We can trade commodities such as rice, gold, oil, beads, or other things of value. Those are all roughly equal.
Well, they were told to stop with their "timeshare" currency (if that's what you are talking about), because the Constitution gives the Federal government exclusive prerogative to mint coins, but that's not why they went to jail.
They went to jail for tax evasion. If you live in America, you have to pay American taxes, even if you make up some phony currency for your transactions. Those people didn't pay their taxes.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Screw those tax cheats.
Yes, still silly. But maybe not so silly as the alternative -- it would depend on the severity of the relative silliness.
Luckily, it's a moot point because so far, even though imperfect, history has shown again and again that the people in charge do successfully seem to keep things more or less upright.
For fifty years, the only valid currency has been crude oil. All national currencies trade against the cost of a barrel of oil. What makes you like gold? It's just soft yellow metal. You can't fill your gas tank with gold. Military might (which is the backing for most national currencies) is certainly more useful than your silly gold.
Slashdot Mirror
Which party doesn't purport to be populist? I think that's pretty much a universal claim.
But I'm sure you mean Democrats. And then my question is, if Democrats supported, say, expansive gun ownership rights, what percentage of one-issue gun-rights voters would sway to the Democratic party? Like, one in five hundred? One in a thousand? Maybe one in ten thousand? I'm pretty well convinced that these voters don't choose who to vote for based on the party platform, but rather for the same reason Red Sox fans hate the Yankees: once you choose a team, you engage in whatever rationalization is required to keep rooting for that team.
Anyway, I'm a registered Democrat who strongly disagrees with their typical gun-rights stance. It's a big tent. Republicans also have a big tent.
That's nonsense. Power is not at all scarce. I am far more powerful than the middle class people when America was founded; yet so is the American government. Our power has grown for both, and to great effect. A powerful, centralized government has delivered a wonderfully happy and productive life to Americans. It isn't perfect, but it's way better than extremely small or extremely limited government would have been. I make that conclusion by comparing our medium-size government to small-size governments in places like Africa or Afghanistan. Three cheers for continued American moderation, medium-sized government, medium-rate taxes, and hopefully a return to moderate politics!
So basically everything you said is premised on a view of the world which, despite having tried, I just can't see. The country just isn't how you seem to think it is.
Right. The accusation is that the throttle was wide open because people were stomping on the gas pedal by mistake, instead of the brake pedal.
But yes, still suspicious.
There was a story on Slashdot a while back positing that cosmic rays could flip a bit in memory and cause problems. Imagine a boolean value in a memory address IS_BRAKE_ON = 1 getting flipped to 0.
That seems, to me, extraordinarily unlikely to have happened more than once or maybe twice, so to me it's an unsatisfying answer.
Brake lights are controlled by a simple switch in the brake assembly.
Are you sure? I know that's how it was done for a long time, because it was the obvious simple solution, but some modern cars use token ring networks for things that used to be accomplished simply by closing a circuit. Do you actually know whether these brake lights work by closing a circuit, instead of by signaling a computer? (This is a trivial question of fact which can be answered by anyone who happens to know about recent-model-year Toyota vehicles, and I'm not that person, but maybe you are.)
I would call that "hard", but I agree that could be done.
Stealing and violence are both usually wrong, and both sometimes okay. I'm sure you already knew that.
It's hard to go bankrupt and then go to step 4 profit. Those are sort of exclusive steps.
That's a flamebait. I could type on and on here, but I'll save my time.
What's wrong with putting your possessions inside your car? I completely disagree with people who claim that a person "deserved" to be the victim of a crime for one reason or another. Wearing a short skirt doesn't mean you deserve to be raped; wearing a blue jacket in the wrong neighborhood doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered; and putting your own belongings inside of your car -- or pretty much anywhere -- doesn't mean you deserve to be robbed.
It's perfectly reasonable to contact the federal police to prosecute easily solvable interstate crimes.
It's callous and disgusting for you and people like you to suggest otherwise.
Actually, that's not more important at all. People should be able to put their shit down, or put it in their car, without some asshole stealing it. Fuck this thief, I hope the owner harms him physically. Seriously, I honestly wish him a small to medium amount of physical harm -- maybe a black eye, broken finger, or busted lip. For legal purposes, the criminal would have to provoke the battery.
Having been rebuffed by the authorities (I use that term loosely), I feel you are now morally permitted to take law enforcement into your own hands. I suggest the following recipe:
1 part reverse-IP lookup
3 parts exercise of the Second Amendment (the "bear" part)
2 parts buddy to come along with you*
2 parts confrontation in front of the person's house while your buddy calls the local police
* some may prefer a whole bunch of buddies
+1, Ironic
Indeed. Calling economics a science is like calling phrenology science: the conclusions all follow rationally from the assumptions, but the underlying assumptions (personality traits are reflected in morphological features, people are rational decision makers) are totally wrong.
People who equate taxation with robbery are mentally retarded, figuratively. Not only that, but the idea itself is stupid, too.
Well, I certainly agree that I don't want fiscal policy like Zimbabwe's.
Anyway, I recognize many very legit arguments in favor of gold as a currency. And in fact gold IS a currency which many people accept. I see nothing wrong with that.
My point was to refute the suggestion that fiat currency is somehow invalid. It's not. We might prefer a commodity standard, or we might prefer a fiat standard, but both of those systems have significant benefits and drawbacks. This is a question of policy, and I reject ideology on this issue.
That's the most absurd statement in support of copyright I have ever heard.
We must preserve and extend copyright protection because otherwise Jesus will shoot us with lightning bolts.
Okay, now that is no longer the most absurd statement in support of copyright you have ever heard, but it's still absurd.
Damn, that one is actually an extremely good example of how to implementors can write two different functions which do a simple task, yet do that task differently. One programmer writes if(elf == 0) while the other uses if(!elf); they use different bracket styles; they use typedefs with different internal structure (or for some other reason cast output); one drops in an assert for good measure. All those differences in a mere 8 lines of code, which could be something like 4 lines.
Good example. And the plaintiff was going to try to use that as an example of copying? Boy, talk about doing the defendant's work for them.
you can't copyright a word or a short sentence
Oh, give it time, soon I'll be paying copyright license fees for saying "give it time".
He didn't use foo, bar, baz, qux, quux, quuux, quuuux? I rarely use more than $foo, but old-school hacker types often used those. Those were explicitly taught to me in CS 101, too -- but, luckily, I never made a habit of using them. I prefer annoyinglyLongAndExtremelyVerboseVarialbeNamesEndingWithDataTypeSuchAsString.
I can see that, but we also "actively burn" gold in the sense that we use it for industrial purposes.
When a bit of gold goes on top of a Duracell battery, then you throw it in the ground, it ain't coming back to become part of a dubloon.
Indeed, as a commodity, gold is not so bad a currency. We can trade commodities such as rice, gold, oil, beads, or other things of value. Those are all roughly equal.
Well, they were told to stop with their "timeshare" currency (if that's what you are talking about), because the Constitution gives the Federal government exclusive prerogative to mint coins, but that's not why they went to jail.
They went to jail for tax evasion. If you live in America, you have to pay American taxes, even if you make up some phony currency for your transactions. Those people didn't pay their taxes.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Screw those tax cheats.
Yes, still silly. But maybe not so silly as the alternative -- it would depend on the severity of the relative silliness.
Luckily, it's a moot point because so far, even though imperfect, history has shown again and again that the people in charge do successfully seem to keep things more or less upright.
For fifty years, the only valid currency has been crude oil. All national currencies trade against the cost of a barrel of oil. What makes you like gold? It's just soft yellow metal. You can't fill your gas tank with gold. Military might (which is the backing for most national currencies) is certainly more useful than your silly gold.
Close. Really, you should pirate more movies because why? cause fuck 'em, that's why.