His defense has been raising the Guantanamo bogeyman for too long. This is a regular criminal case, not a terrorism one, and the government has said it will prosecute it as such. It's time to lay off the fake, strawman Guantanamo angle and realize that he is simply another criminal suspect who should be extradited to stand trial.
As "leaders of the free world" and "worlds 1st superpower", shouldn't the US set an example and be held to a higher standard?
I think we tried that. We tried to get a peace deal for Israel and the Palestinians, we stopped Saddam from steamrolling the region with his army, and kept him at bay thereafter. We ship lots of weapons to Saudis and others so they can defend themselves. What was the response? A group of guys who either couldn't pilot for shit or wanted to kill a lot of innocent people. I think it was the latter.
This is precisely the attitude that Adolph Hitler had
We don't want to kill them, we just realize that people are personally responsible for their actions, be the intelligent or dumb. Dumb shouldn't be illegal. Flat-out fraud is a different matter.
There are some things that a society simply must draw the line and say "No, we can't permit this sort of activity within our community."
The problem here being that our government does allow gambling. We have state lotteries, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, horse racing, etc. All are legal as long as the government gets its cut and the native gambling lobby keeps the money flowing.
the government already has ways that they attempt to cut a cut of the action (read:taxed).
The main reason this ban is in place is because of the lobbying of the domestic gambling industry. The Indians, Atlantic City, Las Vegas, and the states with their lotteries did not want the competition. Our politicians were all to happy to accept bribes, er, campaign donations in return for banning online gambling.
Because the US is invariably on the wrong side of these issues.
A lot of time we're only on the "wrong side" because those who think the US is always on the wrong side don't know the whole story. Kyoto? An ineffective treaty essentially designed to milk money from the industrialized countries (for example, China is "developing" and Russia gets baselined in the ultra-polluting communist era). I'm sorry we didn't want to sign on to your socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Land mine ban treaty? You practically called us the Devil for not signing that one. It's to save civilians after a conflict, yet the only land mines the US currently uses are in the Korean DMZ, off-limits and meticulously mapped, so the need for the ban falls outside our use of them (we do abide by an earlier treaty restricting their use).
Aside from that, the WTO is usually a bunch of complaints flying back and forth over subsidies and dumping restrictions. We point to Airbus' subsidies, and they point to Boeing's defense contracts as subsidies (although Boeing's profit margin from defense contracts is tiny compared to their civilian sales, and they forget that EADS does defense work too).
But one I think we're on the right side of is case DS160/R, where we actually expanded Fair Use of copyrighted works (like playing a radio in a small restaurant) and the Europeans are complaining about it.
The United States aren't really united, and that's why these issues are causing such difficulty.
That's the whole point. The country is set up to as a federation of autonomous states, united for common interest and self defense. Many of our current problems are due to the fact that this system has been corrupted, the federal government taking too much power. It wouldn't have dared to sign a treaty that affected states so if it didn't have the unconstitutional power to so minutely dictate the actions of the states in the first place.
In the 70s I played a Pac-Man game written by some mainframe programmers and run on the one video display they had. If things got hairy there was a bug that allowed you to park next to the monster exit and wait for them to come to you from one direction but stall just before they got to you. With all of them gathered it was easy to grab a pill and off them all.
Apple tried this with Motorola, and the product sucked. Apple needs total control in order to make a product come out as good as, well, Apple products do. With that control they'll be special in the market, without they'll just be one of dozens of clones vying for marketshare.
It's not unresonable. If you do a large modification to anything, say replace the engine in your new car, then you are asking for trouble if you want warantee service.
I'd say the engine is the CPU, and you used another brand of gasoline in the car. Under warranty they will troubleshoot, and maybe even tell you that you're using crappy gas and should switch, but they won't just off-hand invalidate the warranty.
Yes. It's rare, but judges have in the past enjoined people from filing suit because they've been abusing the justice system through frivolous suits. Attorney fees can also be awarded to the target of the frivolous suits.
Greenpeace issued a horribly-biased report on toxins in computers counting, for example, what some manufacturers promised to do in the future vs. what Apple is doing now. Apple wouldn't play kiss-ass with Greenpeace, nor would Apple donate, so the report was unfairly scathing against Apple and roundly criticized for it.
You really don't know a damn thing about the Spanish Civil War, do you?
Nope, it's never been a subject that interested me beyond Hemingway.
Ah, the sweet sound of privilege.
And stated by one who was raised poor, in a rural trailer. I'm not rich now, but I'm doing pretty well, thanks to capitalism. There were definitely "worked to death" abuses, but by now we've corrected them in the US without resorting to socialism.
That's what you've been indoctrinated into believing. Saying that socialism doesn't work just becasue the USSR had very little freedom
USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. Everywhere it's been seriously tried. China is only doing well because it allows an essentially capitalist economy to flourish under a communist veneer, although the absence of basic rights is still there.
is just as ignorant as saying capitalism doesn't work because Nazi Germany had very little freedom.
Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist, although it allowed some capitalism within it (like China today). What part of "National Socialist German Workers' Party" ("Nazi") do you not understand?
why must you work completly under the command of an authoratative boss?
You don't have to. Start your own business. You have that freedom under capitalism.
Why don't the workers of a factory or company vote for who will lead them instead?
We have that. It's called an employee-owned business. But unlike with communism, it's a choice. You have the freedom to create or join such a business under capitalism.
"Is it possible for Socialism to work without collapsing into a different system even worse than capitalism?"
Socialism is already a worse system. People are driven to capitalism, that is to succeed as individuals, build better lives for themselves. Socialism must, by force, prevent that. We are not ants in a colony.
Counterexample: eyewitnesses have reported that there was quite a bit of freedom in Catalonia before the Communists decided to purge the Republic from all non-Communist elements.
Communists eventually have to do that. People will want to strive, to succeed as individuals. It's human nature. Communism is contrary to that nature, and requires force to stop it.
And quite frankly, to call the 19th-century proletariat free, at the height of laissez-faire capitalism, is stretching the definition.
Freedom to succeed means freedom to fail. I remember a story about a poor boy with a working-class background who immigrated to the US with almost no money. Little Andrew (Carnegie) did very well for himself eventually.
I for example would consider myself an anticapitalist,so you might say im left, but i definetly do NOT follow the idea of a traditional communist STASI-state where there is no room for individuality, so you might as well say im liberal
Unfortunately, history has shown us that you can't really have one without the other. Capitalism is about freedom. To abolish capitalism means abolishing freedom, and you need a STASI-like apparatus to help implement that.
The free software movement is all about "freedom", so thats a reason for liberals to like it.
You are correct that there are complicated dimensions, but you crossed one here. Social conservatives aren't too attracted to freedom (they like to tell everyone else what to do), but a governmental conservative is all about freedom -- less power for the government == more freedom for the people.
I understand you don't want to change your lifestyle but it will change because climate change will force a change.
I'm with him. I think the current global warming craze is a crock, as much as global cooling was. However, fuel-efficiency is always a top consideration in cars I buy (my current gas-sipper is actually too small for my family), use public transportation when I can, and buy efficient-everything (including almost all CFL in the house). In my younger days I did go to excess, I actually had a car with a moderately-tuned 2.5l V6. OMG!
Could I do more? I would if I had more money to do it with. But right now I'm doing my best to save energy. And I mean save REAL energy -- it's not like I'm Al Gore and suck up 20 times the national average for my house, but pay "carbon credits" back to myself to make me feel good.
In summary, it's not about greedily not wanting to change a lifestyle, but about intellectual honesty.
You can't "rewrite code" to overcome a patent claim
Research In Motion did in case the NTP patent was upheld. After losing a patent infringement suit brought by Stac Electronics, Microsoft rewrote DoubleSpace to work around the patents.
Ballmer is carrying on about "Intellectual Property" (ie patents), not copyright infringments.
It works the same. If Microsoft revealed what code in Linux violates their patents, then the Linux people can rewrite that section of code in a way that doesn't violate the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
His defense has been raising the Guantanamo bogeyman for too long. This is a regular criminal case, not a terrorism one, and the government has said it will prosecute it as such. It's time to lay off the fake, strawman Guantanamo angle and realize that he is simply another criminal suspect who should be extradited to stand trial.
We don't want to kill them, we just realize that people are personally responsible for their actions, be the intelligent or dumb. Dumb shouldn't be illegal. Flat-out fraud is a different matter.
The problem here being that our government does allow gambling. We have state lotteries, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, horse racing, etc. All are legal as long as the government gets its cut and the native gambling lobby keeps the money flowing.
A lot of time we're only on the "wrong side" because those who think the US is always on the wrong side don't know the whole story. Kyoto? An ineffective treaty essentially designed to milk money from the industrialized countries (for example, China is "developing" and Russia gets baselined in the ultra-polluting communist era). I'm sorry we didn't want to sign on to your socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Land mine ban treaty? You practically called us the Devil for not signing that one. It's to save civilians after a conflict, yet the only land mines the US currently uses are in the Korean DMZ, off-limits and meticulously mapped, so the need for the ban falls outside our use of them (we do abide by an earlier treaty restricting their use).
Aside from that, the WTO is usually a bunch of complaints flying back and forth over subsidies and dumping restrictions. We point to Airbus' subsidies, and they point to Boeing's defense contracts as subsidies (although Boeing's profit margin from defense contracts is tiny compared to their civilian sales, and they forget that EADS does defense work too).
But one I think we're on the right side of is case DS160/R, where we actually expanded Fair Use of copyrighted works (like playing a radio in a small restaurant) and the Europeans are complaining about it.
That's the whole point. The country is set up to as a federation of autonomous states, united for common interest and self defense. Many of our current problems are due to the fact that this system has been corrupted, the federal government taking too much power. It wouldn't have dared to sign a treaty that affected states so if it didn't have the unconstitutional power to so minutely dictate the actions of the states in the first place.
In the 70s I played a Pac-Man game written by some mainframe programmers and run on the one video display they had. If things got hairy there was a bug that allowed you to park next to the monster exit and wait for them to come to you from one direction but stall just before they got to you. With all of them gathered it was easy to grab a pill and off them all.
Apple tried this with Motorola, and the product sucked. Apple needs total control in order to make a product come out as good as, well, Apple products do. With that control they'll be special in the market, without they'll just be one of dozens of clones vying for marketshare.
Uh-oh, looks like Princess Peach is a member of Falun Gong and got "disappeared" before the race.
I'd say the engine is the CPU, and you used another brand of gasoline in the car. Under warranty they will troubleshoot, and maybe even tell you that you're using crappy gas and should switch, but they won't just off-hand invalidate the warranty.
Yes. It's rare, but judges have in the past enjoined people from filing suit because they've been abusing the justice system through frivolous suits. Attorney fees can also be awarded to the target of the frivolous suits.
So you're the guy...
9) IBM and Novell win counterclaims and the only fight left is how those two companies will divvy up SCO's carcass.
And all of the cool toys they get to play with.
Greenpeace issued a horribly-biased report on toxins in computers counting, for example, what some manufacturers promised to do in the future vs. what Apple is doing now. Apple wouldn't play kiss-ass with Greenpeace, nor would Apple donate, so the report was unfairly scathing against Apple and roundly criticized for it.
So the question, do we trust Greenpeace on this?
USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. Everywhere it's been seriously tried. China is only doing well because it allows an essentially capitalist economy to flourish under a communist veneer, although the absence of basic rights is still there.
Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist, although it allowed some capitalism within it (like China today). What part of "National Socialist German Workers' Party" ("Nazi") do you not understand?
You don't have to. Start your own business. You have that freedom under capitalism.
We have that. It's called an employee-owned business. But unlike with communism, it's a choice. You have the freedom to create or join such a business under capitalism.
Socialism is already a worse system. People are driven to capitalism, that is to succeed as individuals, build better lives for themselves. Socialism must, by force, prevent that. We are not ants in a colony.
Communists eventually have to do that. People will want to strive, to succeed as individuals. It's human nature. Communism is contrary to that nature, and requires force to stop it.
Freedom to succeed means freedom to fail. I remember a story about a poor boy with a working-class background who immigrated to the US with almost no money. Little Andrew (Carnegie) did very well for himself eventually.
Unfortunately, history has shown us that you can't really have one without the other. Capitalism is about freedom. To abolish capitalism means abolishing freedom, and you need a STASI-like apparatus to help implement that.
You are correct that there are complicated dimensions, but you crossed one here. Social conservatives aren't too attracted to freedom (they like to tell everyone else what to do), but a governmental conservative is all about freedom -- less power for the government == more freedom for the people.
I'm with him. I think the current global warming craze is a crock, as much as global cooling was. However, fuel-efficiency is always a top consideration in cars I buy (my current gas-sipper is actually too small for my family), use public transportation when I can, and buy efficient-everything (including almost all CFL in the house). In my younger days I did go to excess, I actually had a car with a moderately-tuned 2.5l V6. OMG!
Could I do more? I would if I had more money to do it with. But right now I'm doing my best to save energy. And I mean save REAL energy -- it's not like I'm Al Gore and suck up 20 times the national average for my house, but pay "carbon credits" back to myself to make me feel good.
In summary, it's not about greedily not wanting to change a lifestyle, but about intellectual honesty.
Or have a server that's always seeding instead of an http server. Anyone who wants a file to be always available should have this anyway.
Yes, I do.
Research In Motion did in case the NTP patent was upheld. After losing a patent infringement suit brought by Stac Electronics, Microsoft rewrote DoubleSpace to work around the patents.
So much for that statement.
It works the same. If Microsoft revealed what code in Linux violates their patents, then the Linux people can rewrite that section of code in a way that doesn't violate the patent.
The local Target sells out of Wiis within an hour or so of them hitting the shelves; however, you can always find some PS3s on the shelf.