The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."
"Mostly". They could not flat-out reject it, as I said. Which, given their adoration for Illiberalism in general and Obama in particular, confirms, it is true.
If you choose to reply, be sure to state unambiguously:
Whether you agree, that such donations create — as a minimum — an appearance of impropriety. And, if not, what would create such an appearance in your opinion?
Phlease... Claiming, they had to "build on OS" implies an amount of work comparable with, you know, creating an OS, when in fact all they had to do was slightly modify their existing OS to disable (comment-out) the data-destruction functionality, which would've kicked-in upon too many invalid PIN-entries.
This would've been less work, than hackers were/are doing to disable various license-checking parts of binary files.
And certainly far less work than, for example, Ubuntu did, when they diverged from Debian — and, arguably, Ubuntu is not even an OS in its own right (still a Linux).
More like this. And, yeah, it is true — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.
But the point was not to blame a particular industry — only to remind, that any case of government bureaucrats either spending taxpayers' money or being in a position to allow or disallow something is fertile ground for corruption. Which, of course, leads to the immediate conclusion, that the fewer there are of such situations, the better.
calling socialism a lite version of communism is like saying an automobile is a kind of car
Huh?
your post history
Is that why you post anonymously? So that I can not refer to your post history?
Communism begins with that model, but then expands it to reduce the ownership of private property, while increasing the role of the citizen's obligation to the State as an abstract of the people.
Exactly! Which is why I claim, the differences between Communism and Socialism are merely quantitative (as opposite to qualitative) — you may still own a toothbrush under Socialism, but not a restaurant. And if you are lucky to own a car, you can not use it to make money — because that turns it into "means of production".
That "expansion" you mentioned happens gradually but inevitably as Individuals gradually lose rights to the amorphous Collective represented by the more equal.
Stalinism begins at [...]
Irrelevant. Not going into fine points of variations (Stalinism vs. Leninism vs. Trotskyism vs. Maoism vs. whoeverism). Though their adherents would kill the others over these fine points, all of them are disastrous to any country, where attempted in earnest.
If you wish to continue this lovely discussion, please:
Start posting under your own name (even if this undoes your moderations);
State for the record, whether you agree, that Communism is evil (I don't want to waste time convincing you of Socialism being "lite" version of it only to hear "so what?" at the end).
The San Bernardino case was different because Apple didn't actually have the data in its possession.
Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
However, it would not be reasonable for them to go to the company who made the locks the motel uses and insist that they provide a master key.
I do not think, this is what happened... More like the FBI asked the lock-maker to pick a particular lock...
Even if the FBI accidentally dropped the only key to the room down a sewer grate, it would still be unreasonable to have the lock manufacturer reduce the security of their product.
Unless the FBI wanted to keep the lock pick afterwards (which they did not, AFAIK), I fail to see, how the security of the rest of us is threatened — it would've remained at Apple's discretion.
The "San Bernardino" case was different because [...]
Different from what?.. You are answering the second part of the question without answering the first: is ever Ok for the police to demand other parties' cooperation?
they also have a pretty poor track record in keeping secret data secure. How many breaches shall I cite?
Cite two, please.
How long before foreign governments *cough China* has access to those universal keys as well?
Yet somehow I fail to see how you are tyrannized by:
basic scientific research
roads and infrastructure
NASA
people not dying in the streets of poverty
Whoever wishes to pay for these things, is welcome to do so. Using the government's monopoly on violence to pay for them is bona fide tyranny.
No. you are a sad sad little man
Love and kisses to you too, hater.
yet oddly, you still prefer to live HERE, rather than in Somalia
The stupid meme is so old, articles have been written to debunk it. Somalia was destroyed by an authoritarian (Socialist — hi, Senator Sanders) government , and is now slowly climbing back to life. The recovery does benefit from weak central government, but it still remains too unpleasant a place to move to.
Now, why wouldn't you move to (no, not North Korea) Venezuela?
Telephones were spurned on by the government mandated monopoly that ended up being called AT&T.
Another lie. The government-created monopoly came into being many years after various competing phone companies appeared — and froze innovation in it for decades, I might add.
Personal Automobiles were given their lease on life in the form of a road network that was er um, paid for by government.
Government-built roads existed, yes, but personal automobiles were created independent of government support — a risky investment, that paid off.
You need to get your libertarian thoughts out of your head and come into the real world
An anonymous liar is in no position to tell me — nor anyone — what I "need to do".
By the way, have you recently flown on an airliner? because if you have, you have benefited from government investment
I may have. But, if it were useful, had the government not made it, it would've been made anyway. And, likely, done better.
The point remains — tax-monies spent on things not required for the country to continue to exist represent tyranny.
Haters gonna hate. And downmod only to then post as cowards.
Private enterprise is extremely risk averse.
You mean, the private enterprise, that introduced:
Commercial air-travel
Telephones
Personal automobile
Cellular phones
Those "risk averse" enterprises?
It often takes a first push from government
The government has no money of its own — it forces citizens to pay for things. Forces as in "gunpoint". To spent the thus-collected monies on things not necessary for the continuing existence of the state is tyranny. Plain and simple.
What you are trying to say, is that "a little bit of tyranny may be good sometimes"... Statists gonna state.
If its the continued existence of the US against military threat that is the issue, you could probably secure that much cheaper than you currently do. Much cheaper...
Yes, you are very probably right. But this is irrelevant — the point was, military (of whatever size) must, unfortunately, be government-run.
Civilian space-exploration programs do not have that requirement and therefor must not.
Obviously, NASA should go further by outsourcing its software development — that's what the submitter's flamebaiting quip was all about. But my point was, the entire organization should be privatized (unlike the military, which, unfortunately, can not be).
Then, the arguing over how to best run it can be left to the willing shareholders, rather than the captive taxpayers.
NASA makes their technology available to private companies at no or little cost [...] Do private military contractors offer such a return on investment to the private sector?
Why should my tax dollars be available to the military to spend?
How about "Because the Constitution says so"? Not good enough? Ok, here is another. A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state — hopefully, you agree... Further, that military must be firmly under command of the country's government — expecting no disagreement here either. This means, the military must be run by government — because private enterprises in a reasonably free country are not (and should not be!) government-controlled.
So, we must have some kind of government-run military. We can argue (or agree) on the quantity of military spending or the size of the military necessary to protect us, but it is indisputable, that we need an army and that it must be government-run. It sucks, but it is unavoidable...
On the other hand, NASA's (civilian) projects are not required for our country to exist. Ergo, forcing taxpayers to pay for them is wrong and unjust.
And I don't see you mentioning the tiny size of NASA anywhere.
Ok, fine, but you did mention it. Twice now.
there is far FAR more waste
Waste?! What "waste"? I was not talking about "waste" — only that people, who do not wish to pay for NASA, should not have to. That is true even if NASA were a marvel of management efficiency...
no, not the only one I have
You've now missed a second chance to put forth anything else...
The only reason anyone picks on NASA is because [...]
Even if that were true, it would not make the picking itself invalid. Injustice anywhere, as we all know, is a threat to justice everywhere.
Except you are ascribing those hypothetical actions/arguments to a very real group of people
Which argument have I attributed to any group of people?
You claimed there was no harsh language
I never made such a claim, nor used the word "harsh". If you insist on accusing others of "lying" over such things, you better be "squeeky fucking clean" yourself.
I pointed out the absence of any significant passion in CronoLog's response. His language was harsh, but nothing to raise fists about or to chain oneself to one's car. As someone would say, it was "low energy"...
Sanders is not by any measure of anything "communist".
He certainly is. To avoid duplication, if you wish to continue this topic, please, follow up to this other post of mine — and be sure to to answer the three questions I ask at the end in your reply. Thank you.
you got really angry about something you yet again made up.
I didn't. Some AC did. I, actually, corrected him slightly.
tough job distinguishing fantasy from reality and you get very, very angry about those fantasies.
Sorry, I'm not going to argue the abuse of terms like "racist" with someone so deeply in denial as you. I consider your and others' disputing of Sanders being a Communist to be much more important this year but have limited bandwidth.
Lets do that right after we fund the military that way.
So long as the government retains the monopoly on violence, I'm with you. And we are already doing it that way — makers of the military hardware and supplies are all private (and competing with each other). Can't go much beyond this, because maintaining the military is one of the (very few) roles of the government according to our Constitution.
NASA is such a tiny drop in the federal budget that it's barely worth mentioning.
Well, you and I have already mentioned it, so let's not not continue on this "too small" argument. Oh, you don't have any other?.. I see...
It's far more noteworthy for the visibility of its accomplishments (and failures) than the size of it's budget.
And this relates to the proposal to privatize it how?
Yes it was [a "straw man"] because none of those events happened.
Talking about hypothetical events has nothing to do with a "strawman" argument which is defined thus:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Talking about a hypothetical can be a valid and useful rhetorical vehicle and not necessarily a "straw man". Talk about "grasp of English"... Or Logic, for that matter.
You absolute despicable liar. You cut off this bit of the quote
I cut off the part I deemed irrelevant. My linking to the original post is enough to refute accusations of "lying".
My god you have no idea what communism is.
Born and raised in the USSR, I have a much better idea of what Communism is, than 90% of Americans.
"socialist" is only an insult if you're an incredibly silly person
Khmm... One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dispensed with that line of reasoning a century and half ago... No, darling, simply calling anyone who believes something names is not enough. Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far — even Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism is but a distant second. So, yeah, to people who pay attention to semantics, "Socialism" is a dirty word.
You know, words mean things. "racist" and "homophobe" are actually words that have meanings.
Finally, we agree on something! Yes, the words have meanings and the very point of the starter of this thread was that SJWs have made these particular terms meaningless by applying them to everyone who disagrees with them.
If he aint talking about government ownership of all means of production....he isn't a communist.
He may not be talking about it openly, but there are enough dog whistles in there to attract vast packs. But, whether he talks about it is irrelevant — whether he believes in it is important. And he does... Bernie Sanders is a member of an organization, that is a thin front for Communists.
They know of the toxicity of the "Communist" label (preferring "Socialist" instead), but aren't shy about their admiration for Marx. For example, here DSA speaks fondly of the founder of Communist Party of Italy. Separately a member of DSA's "National Committee" David Green once wrote:
Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace.
Ah, you'll say, that's all from capitalist haters, just can't be true, right? Well, here is fresh from DSA's own mouth (emphasis mine):
And while Sanders’ platform calls primarily for government to heal the ravages of unrestrained capitalism, it also includes more radical reforms that shift control over capital from corporations to social ownership
But it was not a straw man — look at CronoCloud's post below, for example. According to that, we should be seeing something posts rebutting Weev like this:
This Weev is an idiot, you don't support a political philosophy by breaking the law and accessing a huge number of networked resources you don't have authorization to use.
See? Though the words are right, they are lukewarm and hatred and passion are missing. CronoCloud is not calling Weev "Communist", for example, which you have to be to really support Bernie Sanders, for example. Not even "Socialist" (a.k.a. Communist-lite), which Sanders calls himself.
And, certainly, no SJW would call Weev "racist" or "homophobe" in that case — which is what I actually predicted.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mostly". They could not flat-out reject it, as I said. Which, given their adoration for Illiberalism in general and Obama in particular, confirms, it is true.
If you choose to reply, be sure to state unambiguously:
By that logic, your speech is only protected if printed or actually spoken — the only means available, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
And the Second Amendment only applies to muskets (but not to knives and swords for some reason).
Phlease... Claiming, they had to "build on OS" implies an amount of work comparable with, you know, creating an OS, when in fact all they had to do was slightly modify their existing OS to disable (comment-out) the data-destruction functionality, which would've kicked-in upon too many invalid PIN-entries.
This would've been less work, than hackers were/are doing to disable various license-checking parts of binary files.
And certainly far less work than, for example, Ubuntu did, when they diverged from Debian — and, arguably, Ubuntu is not even an OS in its own right (still a Linux).
More like this. And, yeah, it is true — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.
But the point was not to blame a particular industry — only to remind, that any case of government bureaucrats either spending taxpayers' money or being in a position to allow or disallow something is fertile ground for corruption. Which, of course, leads to the immediate conclusion, that the fewer there are of such situations, the better.
Huh?
Is that why you post anonymously? So that I can not refer to your post history?
Exactly! Which is why I claim, the differences between Communism and Socialism are merely quantitative (as opposite to qualitative) — you may still own a toothbrush under Socialism, but not a restaurant. And if you are lucky to own a car, you can not use it to make money — because that turns it into "means of production".
That "expansion" you mentioned happens gradually but inevitably as Individuals gradually lose rights to the amorphous Collective represented by the more equal.
Irrelevant. Not going into fine points of variations (Stalinism vs. Leninism vs. Trotskyism vs. Maoism vs. whoeverism). Though their adherents would kill the others over these fine points, all of them are disastrous to any country, where attempted in earnest.
If you wish to continue this lovely discussion, please:
You seem to overstate the complexity of the task required here... Just a bit, no?
Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I do not think, this is what happened... More like the FBI asked the lock-maker to pick a particular lock...
Unless the FBI wanted to keep the lock pick afterwards (which they did not, AFAIK), I fail to see, how the security of the rest of us is threatened — it would've remained at Apple's discretion.
Appreciated.
Different from what?.. You are answering the second part of the question without answering the first: is ever Ok for the police to demand other parties' cooperation?
Cite two, please.
Please, China already gets Apple's cooperation — the company only plays "freedom fighter" in the US, where it is safe and helps their marketing.
Yeah. This would never, ever happen to solar-panel manufacturers — nor any other government-sponsored industry.
Whoever wishes to pay for these things, is welcome to do so. Using the government's monopoly on violence to pay for them is bona fide tyranny.
Love and kisses to you too, hater.
The stupid meme is so old, articles have been written to debunk it. Somalia was destroyed by an authoritarian (Socialist — hi, Senator Sanders) government , and is now slowly climbing back to life. The recovery does benefit from weak central government, but it still remains too unpleasant a place to move to.
Now, why wouldn't you move to (no, not North Korea) Venezuela?
Is it ever in, your opinion, acceptable for the law enforcement to demand (through courts) other parties' cooperation in accessing encrypted data?
If yes, please, list the circumstances, which would make it acceptable and explain, why the "San Bernardino" case was different. Thank you!
The differences are merely quantitative. And even the "lite" versions are dangerously destructive, with Venezuela being the most recent proof.
A lie.
What a liar you are! I never mentioned "Stalinism" at all. My claims are:
Now that was a classic "straw man" — you misattributed a claim ("Stalinism") to me and claimed "victory" over it.
A lie. The first fixed-wing commercial flight happened in 1914 (in Florida). USPS established airmail in 1918. How embarrassing, no wonder, you'd rather remain anonymous. Yes, carrying airmail was a big part of the early airlines' business, but it was not what started the industry. USPS was a (happy) customer — not an investor.
Another lie. The government-created monopoly came into being many years after various competing phone companies appeared — and froze innovation in it for decades, I might add.
Government-built roads existed, yes, but personal automobiles were created independent of government support — a risky investment, that paid off.
An anonymous liar is in no position to tell me — nor anyone — what I "need to do".
I may have. But, if it were useful, had the government not made it, it would've been made anyway. And, likely, done better.
The point remains — tax-monies spent on things not required for the country to continue to exist represent tyranny.
Haters gonna hate. And downmod only to then post as cowards.
You mean, the private enterprise, that introduced:
Those "risk averse" enterprises?
The government has no money of its own — it forces citizens to pay for things. Forces as in "gunpoint". To spent the thus-collected monies on things not necessary for the continuing existence of the state is tyranny. Plain and simple.
What you are trying to say, is that "a little bit of tyranny may be good sometimes"... Statists gonna state.
Yes, you are very probably right. But this is irrelevant — the point was, military (of whatever size) must, unfortunately, be government-run.
Civilian space-exploration programs do not have that requirement and therefor must not.
Obviously, NASA should go further by outsourcing its software development — that's what the submitter's flamebaiting quip was all about. But my point was, the entire organization should be privatized (unlike the military, which, unfortunately, can not be).
Then, the arguing over how to best run it can be left to the willing shareholders, rather than the captive taxpayers.
Irrelevant.
Under that interpretation, we don't have any limits on the government...
How about "Because the Constitution says so"? Not good enough? Ok, here is another. A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state — hopefully, you agree... Further, that military must be firmly under command of the country's government — expecting no disagreement here either. This means, the military must be run by government — because private enterprises in a reasonably free country are not (and should not be!) government-controlled.
So, we must have some kind of government-run military. We can argue (or agree) on the quantity of military spending or the size of the military necessary to protect us, but it is indisputable, that we need an army and that it must be government-run. It sucks, but it is unavoidable...
On the other hand, NASA's (civilian) projects are not required for our country to exist. Ergo, forcing taxpayers to pay for them is wrong and unjust.
Ok, fine, but you did mention it. Twice now.
Waste?! What "waste"? I was not talking about "waste" — only that people, who do not wish to pay for NASA, should not have to. That is true even if NASA were a marvel of management efficiency...
You've now missed a second chance to put forth anything else...
Even if that were true, it would not make the picking itself invalid. Injustice anywhere, as we all know, is a threat to justice everywhere.
Which argument have I attributed to any group of people?
I never made such a claim, nor used the word "harsh". If you insist on accusing others of "lying" over such things, you better be "squeeky fucking clean" yourself.
I pointed out the absence of any significant passion in CronoLog's response. His language was harsh, but nothing to raise fists about or to chain oneself to one's car. As someone would say, it was "low energy"...
He certainly is. To avoid duplication, if you wish to continue this topic, please, follow up to this other post of mine — and be sure to to answer the three questions I ask at the end in your reply. Thank you.
I didn't. Some AC did. I, actually, corrected him slightly.
Sorry, I'm not going to argue the abuse of terms like "racist" with someone so deeply in denial as you. I consider your and others' disputing of Sanders being a Communist to be much more important this year but have limited bandwidth.
Does this fall into Climate, which the scientists can predict with precision, or Weather which remains imprecise?
Yes, I know, I can't help it.
So long as the government retains the monopoly on violence, I'm with you. And we are already doing it that way — makers of the military hardware and supplies are all private (and competing with each other). Can't go much beyond this, because maintaining the military is one of the (very few) roles of the government according to our Constitution.
Well, you and I have already mentioned it, so let's not not continue on this "too small" argument. Oh, you don't have any other?.. I see...
And this relates to the proposal to privatize it how?
-1 Flamebait.
Talking about hypothetical events has nothing to do with a "strawman" argument which is defined thus:
Talking about a hypothetical can be a valid and useful rhetorical vehicle and not necessarily a "straw man". Talk about "grasp of English"... Or Logic, for that matter.
I cut off the part I deemed irrelevant. My linking to the original post is enough to refute accusations of "lying".
Born and raised in the USSR, I have a much better idea of what Communism is, than 90% of Americans.
Khmm... One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dispensed with that line of reasoning a century and half ago... No, darling, simply calling anyone who believes something names is not enough. Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far — even Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism is but a distant second. So, yeah, to people who pay attention to semantics, "Socialism" is a dirty word.
Finally, we agree on something! Yes, the words have meanings and the very point of the starter of this thread was that SJWs have made these particular terms meaningless by applying them to everyone who disagrees with them.
He may not be talking about it openly, but there are enough dog whistles in there to attract vast packs. But, whether he talks about it is irrelevant — whether he believes in it is important. And he does... Bernie Sanders is a member of an organization, that is a thin front for Communists.
They know of the toxicity of the "Communist" label (preferring "Socialist" instead), but aren't shy about their admiration for Marx. For example, here DSA speaks fondly of the founder of Communist Party of Italy. Separately a member of DSA's "National Committee" David Green once wrote:
Ah, you'll say, that's all from capitalist haters, just can't be true, right? Well, here is fresh from DSA's own mouth (emphasis mine):
Good enough for you? Far less evidence was used to claim "Trump is a KKK-supporter" or something like that...
Anyone replying to this post and expecting to continue the conversation, please, be sure to state unambiguously:
Responses missing clear answers to the above will be returned unopened. Thank you.
But it was not a straw man — look at CronoCloud's post below, for example. According to that, we should be seeing something posts rebutting Weev like this:
See? Though the words are right, they are lukewarm and hatred and passion are missing. CronoCloud is not calling Weev "Communist", for example, which you have to be to really support Bernie Sanders, for example. Not even "Socialist" (a.k.a. Communist-lite), which Sanders calls himself.
And, certainly, no SJW would call Weev "racist" or "homophobe" in that case — which is what I actually predicted.