It's those who would shut it down that made it about Assange. His name was basically unknown compared to WikiLeaks until the bogus sexual harassment character assassination thing hit.
An element consists of only one kind of atom, cannot be broken down into a simpler type of matter by either physical or chemical means, and can exist as either atoms (e.g. argon) or molecules (e.g., nitrogen).
Uranium can't become gold; it does decay to lead, however.
You don't mind me having a look around your house, do you? Oh, don't bother letting your wife know that we're going to be in - wouldn't want to bother her or anything. What? You don't want strangers poking around? What are you hiding?
Why is it that so many Ayn Rand fans seem to condemn unions as evil socialist leaches on society, but when it's them that's being squeezed, suddenly pushing back is a heroic titanic effort?
Well, if give credence to the whole peer review thing, and acknowledge the fact that 97% of the world's scientists say it's real and caused at least in part by man:
In fact, I'd argue that it is deniers who are going for the faith based approach. Something like believing that hiding under the blanket will protect you from the monsters under the bed.
We pour sewage, garbage and industrial waste just over the horizons and beyond the nearest hills, and don't expect it to come back at us.
We change the environment to the point that we're in danger of making a good chunk of the planet uninhabitable, but refuse to acknowledge it.
We deforest the planet, without thought to the fact that not only are we using up a renewable resource faster than it grows back, we're also chewing through the planet's primary carbon sink.
Don't shit in our nest? Absolutely untrue. As a race, we've taken the steroidal version of Ex-Lax, and are wallowing in our own filth.
We're supposed to be smarter, but really, not much difference when it comes down to it. Consume all the resources, over breed, destroy the habitat in which we live, die en masse.
There's a big difference here. We have allowed monopolies (and almost have to have them, as redundant physical networks doesn't make sense).
In the case of the dial up ISP's, they didn't own both the physical and virtual media. Now, since it's almost all cable these days in most areas, they do.
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
This pretty much brings software folks into parity with all the other engineering disciplines.
I always find it somewhat amusing when Tea (ahem) Partiers get upset about the term teabagger, given that it was them who came up with it, and they who wore bags of tea on hats to compare themselves to the folks in Boston who protested by throwing the East India Tea Company tea into the harbor.
The real American rebels heard the song Yankee Doodle Dandy (which really is quite insulting), turned it around, owned it, and threw it back in the British faces.
The Tea Partiers invent a name without considering what associations and connotations that name might have, then get all a twitter when it is used to refer to them.
But at least you admit the core difference between us. You are indeed willing to let your neighbor die to satisfy your personal greed. I am not.
I see the health and well being of the members of a society as being not just beneficial to a society as a whole, but also, one of those things that defines a society, that makes a civilization a civilization. You do not.
This is not a matter of charity. This is what defines the difference between civilization... and not.
It must be a truly empty existence you have, to live life with the moral compass and ethical framework of fevered hyena. The added shame of it is that you don't just do harm to yourself; you and your ilk undermine the fabric that differentiates a rabid mob from a civilized nation.
The problem that I see with the stripping of power from the government is that power abhors a vacuum. The only way to limit the overall exercise of power is to put the entities that have the potential to wield power into opposition with each other. When we strip away the government's power, we are basically handing it to a relatively small set of extremely powerful corporations.
Our government may be corrupt (and, for that matter, largely bought by above mentioned corporations). However, it is the only vehicle of power available to the people. At least there is the possibility of voting out a bad or ineffective or corrupt politician with government. If all the power is handed to the corporations, as will happen if we just dump what remains of our functional government, there is no voting, no prevention of the completion of monopoly, no recourse.
Jefferson wrote that to maintain fundamental rights, men form governments that derive their just powers from the governed. These days, our government seems to derive too many of its powers from corporations. Nevertheless, government is the tool that is supposed to balance other powers so that the people have those rights. If a government is broken, fix it - don't tear it all down in frustration. Because worse things are already trying to squeeze government out of its niche and take that power.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but I guess that I see the one for which there at least exists a frame work of control by the populous as being the less evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't give him too hard a time. He was probably hacked and some script kiddie is posting on his account from his iDevice...
Proof. It's what differentiates between bonafide conspiracy and tin foil.
It's those who would shut it down that made it about Assange. His name was basically unknown compared to WikiLeaks until the bogus sexual harassment character assassination thing hit.
But for "Atlas to shrug" - wouldn't you need the IT folks to participate en masse?
And wouldn't that effort therefore pretty much by definition be a union?
And thus, wouldn't that make you too an evil leach on society?
An element consists of only one kind of atom, cannot be broken down into a simpler type of matter by either physical or chemical means, and can exist as either atoms (e.g. argon) or molecules (e.g., nitrogen).
Uranium can't become gold; it does decay to lead, however.
You should probably ask for a refund on your education.
.... livermorium and onionium.
Except that said US court orders can be executed by a secret court with no oversight. Pretty much like China's.
You don't mind me having a look around your house, do you? Oh, don't bother letting your wife know that we're going to be in - wouldn't want to bother her or anything. What? You don't want strangers poking around? What are you hiding?
Difference is that we, like China, have declared that our secret police have carte blanche to examine your data.
Please - someone tell me that this is snark.
Why is it that so many Ayn Rand fans seem to condemn unions as evil socialist leaches on society, but when it's them that's being squeezed, suddenly pushing back is a heroic titanic effort?
Funny thing, though, that three of the four sponsors were Republicans, and the Democrat was from NC.
Well, if give credence to the whole peer review thing, and acknowledge the fact that 97% of the world's scientists say it's real and caused at least in part by man:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
Then it's science.
In fact, I'd argue that it is deniers who are going for the faith based approach. Something like believing that hiding under the blanket will protect you from the monsters under the bed.
We absolutely shit where we eat.
We poison the land, the air, the sea.
We pour sewage, garbage and industrial waste just over the horizons and beyond the nearest hills, and don't expect it to come back at us.
We change the environment to the point that we're in danger of making a good chunk of the planet uninhabitable, but refuse to acknowledge it.
We deforest the planet, without thought to the fact that not only are we using up a renewable resource faster than it grows back, we're also chewing through the planet's primary carbon sink.
Don't shit in our nest? Absolutely untrue. As a race, we've taken the steroidal version of Ex-Lax, and are wallowing in our own filth.
Then you were late to the party.
We're supposed to be smarter, but really, not much difference when it comes down to it. Consume all the resources, over breed, destroy the habitat in which we live, die en masse.
There's a big difference here. We have allowed monopolies (and almost have to have them, as redundant physical networks doesn't make sense).
In the case of the dial up ISP's, they didn't own both the physical and virtual media. Now, since it's almost all cable these days in most areas, they do.
This is what we get for giving/selling the whole thing off to the cable monopolies.
Note this bit:
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
This pretty much brings software folks into parity with all the other engineering disciplines.
I always find it somewhat amusing when Tea (ahem) Partiers get upset about the term teabagger, given that it was them who came up with it, and they who wore bags of tea on hats to compare themselves to the folks in Boston who protested by throwing the East India Tea Company tea into the harbor.
The real American rebels heard the song Yankee Doodle Dandy (which really is quite insulting), turned it around, owned it, and threw it back in the British faces.
The Tea Partiers invent a name without considering what associations and connotations that name might have, then get all a twitter when it is used to refer to them.
And now with the ad hominem. What a surprise.
But at least you admit the core difference between us. You are indeed willing to let your neighbor die to satisfy your personal greed. I am not.
I see the health and well being of the members of a society as being not just beneficial to a society as a whole, but also, one of those things that defines a society, that makes a civilization a civilization. You do not.
This is not a matter of charity. This is what defines the difference between civilization ... and not.
It must be a truly empty existence you have, to live life with the moral compass and ethical framework of fevered hyena. The added shame of it is that you don't just do harm to yourself; you and your ilk undermine the fabric that differentiates a rabid mob from a civilized nation.
Your argument is a complete non sequitur. What exactly is voluntary about going to the hospital when one is critically injured?
We thought we had this one bought and paid for.
Maybe their lobbyists should have gotten receipts....
I'm curious. Who, then, would you have draw it?
The problem that I see with the stripping of power from the government is that power abhors a vacuum. The only way to limit the overall exercise of power is to put the entities that have the potential to wield power into opposition with each other. When we strip away the government's power, we are basically handing it to a relatively small set of extremely powerful corporations.
Our government may be corrupt (and, for that matter, largely bought by above mentioned corporations). However, it is the only vehicle of power available to the people. At least there is the possibility of voting out a bad or ineffective or corrupt politician with government. If all the power is handed to the corporations, as will happen if we just dump what remains of our functional government, there is no voting, no prevention of the completion of monopoly, no recourse.
Jefferson wrote that to maintain fundamental rights, men form governments that derive their just powers from the governed. These days, our government seems to derive too many of its powers from corporations. Nevertheless, government is the tool that is supposed to balance other powers so that the people have those rights. If a government is broken, fix it - don't tear it all down in frustration. Because worse things are already trying to squeeze government out of its niche and take that power.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but I guess that I see the one for which there at least exists a frame work of control by the populous as being the less evil.