I wouldn't trust that Wikipedia definition, as "fascism" under that understanding bears no resemblance to fascist Italy, Spain, or Nazi Germany (strictly speaking, the Nazis weren't fascists, they just had a lot of common ground). In reality, "fascism" as a political ideology has more to do with nationalism and elevation of the state over the individual than anything to do with granting corporations political power.
Well there you go. He'll never see his money again, even if proven innocent.
If things in the US and the UK are as screwed up as they are, in pretty much the same ways, remind me again why my ancestors* fought yours for independence???
*Technically, my ancestors were either eeking out a living in the slums around Manchester or conducting raids against English landlords in County Cork in 1776, depending on which branch of the family tree you follow.
Depends. Does the UK have civil asset forfeiture? Because in the US, that money would be found guilty and no one would ever see it again.
That's right, money can be guilty in the US if it associates with other money to a sum of $10,000 or more (or less, really, if the authorities really want it). Land of the free, my ass.
The argument is not "we're not free enough"; it's "we're not free at all, and if you think we are you have no idea what a free market is nor how onerous government regulations have gotten".
Other than Glass-Steagull, there's not a single regulation that was dismantled prior to the financial collapse. Instead, the collapse was pushed by various government programs that required certain mortgages to be available and tax structures that rewarded certain behavior. That is not a free market, my friend.
If the US government were to do this, Google would have recourse through the courts, which are an independent branch of government. Also, the right to petition for redress of grievances is codified in our Constitution; granted the government has been ignoring other parts of the Constitution more and more over the years, that part has yet to be completely gutted.
Speaking only for myself, I downloaded Chrome yesterday for the first time specifically because I now trust Google more with my personal data due to their leaving China. So while a sample size of one is useless for predicting the outcome of all this, for me at least it's made a difference.
Historically, that's been true. But the reason for that is to prevent contraband from coming into the country. With the advent of the Internet, anyone can download anything from anywhere. So searching laptops at the border isn't going to have any effect, whatsoever, on the flow of contraband digital items (pirated software, kiddie porn, whatever). It might (and has) nabbed a few individuals, but it certainly hasn't had an appreciable effect on the wider practice of these things.
Given that, is it worth the sacrifice to human rights to keep doing it? That's the question that needs to be answer, IMNSHO.
See what happens when you ignore posts above the one you're replying to and so ignore the context of someone's statement? You end up with a complete non-sequitur and look like a fool.
I'm a system administrator and I share a home office with my wife, who works in pharmaceutical research. By your logic, she should be able to swap out a replacement disk in a RAID array and I should be able to write a protocol for a new drug. Since neither of us can do either of those things, your premise does not hold.
District 9 wasn't new. It was The Odyssey with an alien father in place of Odysseus and an alien boy in place of Penelope. Add in some commentary on apartheid and race relations and you've got your movie.
That explains all that touchy-feely crap near the end. "I love you", "I'm your father", "We've got to go back." Blech. Less feelings, more exploding planets!
The Twilight Zone (and The Outer Limits) wasn't a series, per se. It was a collection of vignettes. As such, there's nothing to reboot. And while I'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling (vignettes on TV and short stories in literature), it just doesn't seem like something people want anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't trust that Wikipedia definition, as "fascism" under that understanding bears no resemblance to fascist Italy, Spain, or Nazi Germany (strictly speaking, the Nazis weren't fascists, they just had a lot of common ground). In reality, "fascism" as a political ideology has more to do with nationalism and elevation of the state over the individual than anything to do with granting corporations political power.
Well there you go. He'll never see his money again, even if proven innocent.
If things in the US and the UK are as screwed up as they are, in pretty much the same ways, remind me again why my ancestors* fought yours for independence???
*Technically, my ancestors were either eeking out a living in the slums around Manchester or conducting raids against English landlords in County Cork in 1776, depending on which branch of the family tree you follow.
Depends. Does the UK have civil asset forfeiture? Because in the US, that money would be found guilty and no one would ever see it again.
That's right, money can be guilty in the US if it associates with other money to a sum of $10,000 or more (or less, really, if the authorities really want it). Land of the free, my ass.
Ah, the "we're not Free Market enough" argument.
The argument is not "we're not free enough"; it's "we're not free at all, and if you think we are you have no idea what a free market is nor how onerous government regulations have gotten".
Other than Glass-Steagull, there's not a single regulation that was dismantled prior to the financial collapse. Instead, the collapse was pushed by various government programs that required certain mortgages to be available and tax structures that rewarded certain behavior. That is not a free market, my friend.
That sounds like an urban legend to me. What does Snopes say about it?
"Fair trial" in China means one where they only execute you and not your family.
If the US government were to do this, Google would have recourse through the courts, which are an independent branch of government. Also, the right to petition for redress of grievances is codified in our Constitution; granted the government has been ignoring other parts of the Constitution more and more over the years, that part has yet to be completely gutted.
Speaking only for myself, I downloaded Chrome yesterday for the first time specifically because I now trust Google more with my personal data due to their leaving China. So while a sample size of one is useless for predicting the outcome of all this, for me at least it's made a difference.
This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.
Ugh, I always thought that old dude looked like a pervert!
I agree with that view. If it's not accomplishing anything, there's no real compelling state interest to override everyone's rights.
Historically, that's been true. But the reason for that is to prevent contraband from coming into the country. With the advent of the Internet, anyone can download anything from anywhere. So searching laptops at the border isn't going to have any effect, whatsoever, on the flow of contraband digital items (pirated software, kiddie porn, whatever). It might (and has) nabbed a few individuals, but it certainly hasn't had an appreciable effect on the wider practice of these things.
Given that, is it worth the sacrifice to human rights to keep doing it? That's the question that needs to be answer, IMNSHO.
See what happens when you ignore posts above the one you're replying to and so ignore the context of someone's statement? You end up with a complete non-sequitur and look like a fool.
Ugh.
You wouldn't be if you knew her Slashdot ID is four digits.
I'm a system administrator and I share a home office with my wife, who works in pharmaceutical research. By your logic, she should be able to swap out a replacement disk in a RAID array and I should be able to write a protocol for a new drug. Since neither of us can do either of those things, your premise does not hold.
He popped the question to her on Slashdot; she knew what she was getting into.
Everybody Loves RAY-M0nd, with a robotic father who's creators live across the street. Sounds like a winner.
District 9 wasn't new. It was The Odyssey with an alien father in place of Odysseus and an alien boy in place of Penelope. Add in some commentary on apartheid and race relations and you've got your movie.
That explains all that touchy-feely crap near the end. "I love you", "I'm your father", "We've got to go back." Blech. Less feelings, more exploding planets!
I dunno. Honey, I Vivisectioned the Kids doesn't have the same ring to it.
The Twilight Zone (and The Outer Limits) wasn't a series, per se. It was a collection of vignettes. As such, there's nothing to reboot. And while I'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling (vignettes on TV and short stories in literature), it just doesn't seem like something people want anymore.
I wish I had a webcam and photobucket available right now.
How interesting, the rest of us are thankful you do not.
The real news about this story is that a post on Idle led to over 200 comments!
Don't worry, your money will be safe in my offshore account.
Actually I'm pretty sure 100% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past it was better at copying itself ;)
I am a pretty smart guy who doesn't understand the utility of pure research.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong!