3D printers, makers, and the like have become enormously popular among libertarian types. There was quite a lot of attention devoted to these projects at last year's PorcFest gathering (1000+ attendees) for one.
Good to know which groups to dis-invite and boycott this year.
When the government takes money from people without their consent, it's not stealing, it's euphemistically called "taxation." But when someone figures out a clever way to avoid taxes---legally avoid them, mind you; these companies aren't breaking the law---that's called "stealing" by the U.S. Government, the biggest thief known to mankind.
I normally have nothing good to say about companies like Microsoft and Google, but in this case: Good for them. Starve the beast of every dollar you can.
So in other words, a car that intentionally kills its owner in order to prevent possibly killing random strangers. I can't wait to see that in the marketing materials.
Within two or three decades the difference between automated driving and human driving will be so great you may not be legally allowed to drive your own car,...
When people realize that these automated cars will do the above, banning the alternative will probably be the only way you'll ever see them take over the market.
Unless "the law" means "whatever the U.S. government wants." They filed a complaint in their own courts, which have no jurisdiction over Ireland, and an Irish company caved in under what was an empty threat.
Well, then you pretty much have to say "any police action which doesn't have the corresponding video will result in disciplinary action".
Should be even stronger: Require that video evidence by camera-wearing cops be used in court in lieu of the officer's testimony. If they were supposed to be wearing the camera and weren't, their testimony will not be allowed as a substitute.
First they'd have to figure out how to establish personal and territorial jurisdiction over someone living in New Hampshire who committed the allegedly criminal acts (of creating email addresses) well outside of California.
Even if they can do that, then they'd need to decide if extraditing someone across 3,000+ miles for "breach of the peace" or some other silliness is worth it. I don't remember all the details of the uniform extradition act, but basically a sheriff in the receiving state has to transport the person, or at least pay for the whole affair.
And if they get through all of that, they get to prosecute someone who has spent the past five years as a full-time, essentially "professional" liberty activist (1, 2, 3) who, among other things, fights petty criminal charges in court all the time---a couple of my own, and I've assisted several other activists here.
So, bring it on. If I were afraid of the thugs I wouldn't've made my initial post, now would I?
And they don't even need to crush you if you're so afraid of them you won't even act to oppose them.
In societies that have had it, slavery works so well because one overseer can keep dozens, or hundreds, of slaves in line---not through actual violence for the most part, but through the slaves' own fears that violence might befall them if they step out of line. Statism is no different.
But what happens when enough slaves are no longer afraid of the overseer?
All the addresses would deliver to the same mailbox. E.g., abc123@example.com and def456@example.com (and anything else) would all go to the username 'foo' on the server. The owner of the 'foo' account could get mail for all his @example.com email addresses just by logging into the 'foo' mailbox.
In Postfix, the configuration is as simple as:
@example.com foo
---in your/etc/mail/aliases file. Do something like this:
barbar@example.com bar @example.com foo
---and barbar@example.com goes to username 'bar' while everything else goes to 'foo'.
If the individuals affected by those false positives launched some expensive lawsuits against them, they sure would care. I've seen plenty of first-hand examples of the success of such tactics.
...or at least create an unmanageable amount of work for the data-entry bureaucrats: Create a "catch-all" email address, i.e., [anything]@example.com goes to you. This is trivial to do with Postfix. Then make up a list of thousands---or millions---of email addresses @example.com and submit that to them. Making the list is of course trivial with a simple Perl script. Also ensure there are a few specific addresses at the example.com domain that go to someone else, such that the bureaucrats can't simply add "[anything]@example.com" to the registry. (If they do do that, they'd be adding the email address of an innocent third party, which could result in another interesting lawsuit all by itself.)
If any RSOs in California are interested in doing this, contact me (jraxis -@- jraxis.com). I'll set you up a catch-all at one of my domains and generate you a list of a few million random addresses at that domain.
The right to privacy might not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, but case law has firmly established that it was implied by things such as the third, fourth, and fifth amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), just to name the most significant.
Most of what is written into the Constitution is explicitly a reaction to a specific abuse the British were engaging in at the time of the American Revolution. The British stationed soldiers in private residences on the frontier, so the Founders prohibited that. The British searched people's papers and effects with no judicial oversight, so they prohibited that; they forced people to testify against themselves, so they prohibited that. If the government of the time engaged in strip searches, had "naked body scanners," and wanted to peek into people's medical records and sexual practices, I'm sure they would've prohibited that, too. But even among the worst governmental abuses back then, they still seemed to retain a basic common sense of decency which our government has long since lost.
That article compares workers to workers, not the countries' populations as a whole. How is the higher productivity of each American worker offset by the huge number of Americans who are, for example, either unemployed (7.8%), on welfare or some other entitlement program (21.8% for federal programs alone), or engage in non-wealth-producing labor such as working for the government (4%)? (Obviously some of those categories overlap so you can't just add them together.)
We may have among the most productive workers, but how much is that being offset by the deadweight we're supporting with it?
Also, I am not sure why people single out bottled water. Ever looked at the ingredients of bottled soda? It's just water that has been made bad for you.
The criticism against bottled water is that these companies are literally selling something that is all around us in nature, and falls from the sky and (once you've dug a well at least) comes out of the ground for free. Soda, on the other hand, is a man-made product, so selling it seems more justifiable to people. Paying for bottled water would be like paying for air or sunlight. The criticisms have nothing to do with health.
The board of directors of the "Green Grid" is composed almost entirely of the companies that would benefit if data centers had to buy more computing hardware more frequently, rather than continued paying for cooling equipment.
I haven't read Google's TOS explicitly, but virtually every IT company I've ever dealt with---and especially the ones that provide free services---has a catch-all clause in their TOS that says something like "we can terminate your access to our service for any reason without notice, cause, or explanation." If Google doesn't have something like this, they damn well should.
Nobody is entitled to use Google. And certainly nobody is entitled to derive the absolutely free benefits from having Google list them in its search engine results.
Of course everything I'm stating here is based on ethical principles, not legal ones, so I'm probably completely wrong about how this will play out in practice. It's been a long, long time since the law bore any resemblance to genuine principles of right-and-wrong. Google is a private company that has become massively successful, so I suppose it's now time for every entitlement-seeker out there to ruthlessly punish them for their success with the coercive power of the U.S. Government behind them.
That's exactly how this country worked---how this country was built---until people started thinking it was the government's job to protect them against competition. Now the "American Dream" is all about fighting over who gets to control the power of government and whom they get to use it against.
See what it's like to argue with the deletionists? This is why so many editors have left Wikipedia in droves. This guy has nothing better to do than tell you what not to add to Wikipedia.
...wages are artificially high in the United States and only maintainable at that level when the government limits foreign competition.
The H-1B program should be abolished---and along with it, the government's power to prevent anyone, citizen or foreigner alike, from working here if they choose.
From whence comes the requirement that Google put anybody in their search engines?
I'd love to see an anti-trust action against Google---initiated by the spammers and keyword stuffers that Google constantly delists. Maybe that'd show people how ludicrous it is to think Google "has" to include anyone in their search engines. Of course I'm sure there'd be howls of "but that's different!" and the hypocrisy would be lost on most everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
3D printers, makers, and the like have become enormously popular among libertarian types. There was quite a lot of attention devoted to these projects at last year's PorcFest gathering (1000+ attendees) for one.
Good to know which groups to dis-invite and boycott this year.
Tax avoidance is good for the same reason you peel off leeches when they attach themselves to you. Who the hell wants to get sucked dry by parasites?
When the government takes money from people without their consent, it's not stealing, it's euphemistically called "taxation." But when someone figures out a clever way to avoid taxes---legally avoid them, mind you; these companies aren't breaking the law---that's called "stealing" by the U.S. Government, the biggest thief known to mankind.
I normally have nothing good to say about companies like Microsoft and Google, but in this case: Good for them. Starve the beast of every dollar you can.
So in other words, a car that intentionally kills its owner in order to prevent possibly killing random strangers. I can't wait to see that in the marketing materials.
When people realize that these automated cars will do the above, banning the alternative will probably be the only way you'll ever see them take over the market.
Unless "the law" means "whatever the U.S. government wants." They filed a complaint in their own courts, which have no jurisdiction over Ireland, and an Irish company caved in under what was an empty threat.
Should be even stronger: Require that video evidence by camera-wearing cops be used in court in lieu of the officer's testimony. If they were supposed to be wearing the camera and weren't, their testimony will not be allowed as a substitute.
...am I not surprised that this "shortage" is entirely caused by the imposition of government regulations?
First they'd have to figure out how to establish personal and territorial jurisdiction over someone living in New Hampshire who committed the allegedly criminal acts (of creating email addresses) well outside of California.
Even if they can do that, then they'd need to decide if extraditing someone across 3,000+ miles for "breach of the peace" or some other silliness is worth it. I don't remember all the details of the uniform extradition act, but basically a sheriff in the receiving state has to transport the person, or at least pay for the whole affair.
And if they get through all of that, they get to prosecute someone who has spent the past five years as a full-time, essentially "professional" liberty activist (1, 2, 3) who, among other things, fights petty criminal charges in court all the time---a couple of my own, and I've assisted several other activists here.
So, bring it on. If I were afraid of the thugs I wouldn't've made my initial post, now would I?
And they don't even need to crush you if you're so afraid of them you won't even act to oppose them.
In societies that have had it, slavery works so well because one overseer can keep dozens, or hundreds, of slaves in line---not through actual violence for the most part, but through the slaves' own fears that violence might befall them if they step out of line. Statism is no different.
But what happens when enough slaves are no longer afraid of the overseer?
All the addresses would deliver to the same mailbox. E.g., abc123@example.com and def456@example.com (and anything else) would all go to the username 'foo' on the server. The owner of the 'foo' account could get mail for all his @example.com email addresses just by logging into the 'foo' mailbox.
In Postfix, the configuration is as simple as:
@example.com foo
---in your /etc/mail/aliases file. Do something like this:
barbar@example.com bar
@example.com foo
---and barbar@example.com goes to username 'bar' while everything else goes to 'foo'.
If the individuals affected by those false positives launched some expensive lawsuits against them, they sure would care. I've seen plenty of first-hand examples of the success of such tactics.
...or at least create an unmanageable amount of work for the data-entry bureaucrats: Create a "catch-all" email address, i.e., [anything]@example.com goes to you. This is trivial to do with Postfix. Then make up a list of thousands---or millions---of email addresses @example.com and submit that to them. Making the list is of course trivial with a simple Perl script. Also ensure there are a few specific addresses at the example.com domain that go to someone else, such that the bureaucrats can't simply add "[anything]@example.com" to the registry. (If they do do that, they'd be adding the email address of an innocent third party, which could result in another interesting lawsuit all by itself.)
If any RSOs in California are interested in doing this, contact me (jraxis -@- jraxis.com). I'll set you up a catch-all at one of my domains and generate you a list of a few million random addresses at that domain.
The right to privacy might not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, but case law has firmly established that it was implied by things such as the third, fourth, and fifth amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), just to name the most significant.
Most of what is written into the Constitution is explicitly a reaction to a specific abuse the British were engaging in at the time of the American Revolution. The British stationed soldiers in private residences on the frontier, so the Founders prohibited that. The British searched people's papers and effects with no judicial oversight, so they prohibited that; they forced people to testify against themselves, so they prohibited that. If the government of the time engaged in strip searches, had "naked body scanners," and wanted to peek into people's medical records and sexual practices, I'm sure they would've prohibited that, too. But even among the worst governmental abuses back then, they still seemed to retain a basic common sense of decency which our government has long since lost.
ARM-based chips will be locking out third-party kernels (via UEFI) in the Microsoft world. Apple is probably trying to accomplish the same thing.
Your "study's" sample size is two. But gratuitous use of words like "shocking" and "chilling" will probably make most people ignore that.
That article compares workers to workers, not the countries' populations as a whole. How is the higher productivity of each American worker offset by the huge number of Americans who are, for example, either unemployed (7.8%), on welfare or some other entitlement program (21.8% for federal programs alone), or engage in non-wealth-producing labor such as working for the government (4%)? (Obviously some of those categories overlap so you can't just add them together.)
We may have among the most productive workers, but how much is that being offset by the deadweight we're supporting with it?
The criticism against bottled water is that these companies are literally selling something that is all around us in nature, and falls from the sky and (once you've dug a well at least) comes out of the ground for free. Soda, on the other hand, is a man-made product, so selling it seems more justifiable to people. Paying for bottled water would be like paying for air or sunlight. The criticisms have nothing to do with health.
The board of directors of the "Green Grid" is composed almost entirely of the companies that would benefit if data centers had to buy more computing hardware more frequently, rather than continued paying for cooling equipment.
I haven't read Google's TOS explicitly, but virtually every IT company I've ever dealt with---and especially the ones that provide free services---has a catch-all clause in their TOS that says something like "we can terminate your access to our service for any reason without notice, cause, or explanation." If Google doesn't have something like this, they damn well should.
Nobody is entitled to use Google. And certainly nobody is entitled to derive the absolutely free benefits from having Google list them in its search engine results.
Of course everything I'm stating here is based on ethical principles, not legal ones, so I'm probably completely wrong about how this will play out in practice. It's been a long, long time since the law bore any resemblance to genuine principles of right-and-wrong. Google is a private company that has become massively successful, so I suppose it's now time for every entitlement-seeker out there to ruthlessly punish them for their success with the coercive power of the U.S. Government behind them.
That's exactly how this country worked---how this country was built---until people started thinking it was the government's job to protect them against competition. Now the "American Dream" is all about fighting over who gets to control the power of government and whom they get to use it against.
If someone's voluntarily willing to work for less, that's the very opposite of it being "artificially" low.
See what it's like to argue with the deletionists? This is why so many editors have left Wikipedia in droves. This guy has nothing better to do than tell you what not to add to Wikipedia.
...wages are artificially high in the United States and only maintainable at that level when the government limits foreign competition.
The H-1B program should be abolished---and along with it, the government's power to prevent anyone, citizen or foreigner alike, from working here if they choose.
Oh no, some bureaucrat thinks he can tell me what I can do with my hardware...
From whence comes the requirement that Google put anybody in their search engines?
I'd love to see an anti-trust action against Google---initiated by the spammers and keyword stuffers that Google constantly delists. Maybe that'd show people how ludicrous it is to think Google "has" to include anyone in their search engines. Of course I'm sure there'd be howls of "but that's different!" and the hypocrisy would be lost on most everyone.