I'm not exactly a power droid user, but ad-blocking is absolutely something that will push me to go look outside of the google store. Is that really what they want to do?
We're rapidly approaching the point (assuming we're not already there) where a well-funded small group will be able to send a tailored package of bacteria to Mars and start trying to terraform it, with or without the permission or knowledge of the rest of the human race.
Drones are getting a lot of mindshare because they're the context in which this debate is happening. But the debate is not about drones. It's about the White House's authority to kill Americans, on American soil, just because the President wants them dead.
In this instance, everyone with a brain should agree with Senator Paul -the idea of killing Americans (especially in America) without any real due process ought to be abhorrent to everyone.
This isn't about the morality of drone strikes. (Although that's certainly something that ought to be given far more serious consideration that it has been getting.) It's about the fundamental rule of law in the US. Is the President someone who can kill Americans, in America, at will, or not. Are there *any* limits on the Presidential power to kill at the President's whim?
You're missing the point. This isn't about whether SWAT teams need Hellfire missiles, launched from drones, or tanks, or urban assault mecha. It's about whether or not the President can decide, "Hey, I want so-and-so dead!" And then sign a paper, make a phone call, and have a CIA (or Air Force) Reaper drop a missile into his house. Rand Paul is arguing that should *never* be legal, and I agree with him.
Deathspawner implicitly concedes the justification of the underlying premise (file-sharing is evil and deserving of serious punishment) and then compounds it with the fallacy of relative privation, claiming "it could always be worse". I don't know if he's depressingly ignorant or a corporate tool, but either way, he's wrong.
You're making the mistake of assuming all dissent is worth intellectual engagement. The point of encouraging a boycott of Mr. Card's work is to help fight the belief that gay people are subhumans. I think he should be boycotted just as much as someone openly advocating slavery or mass murder ought to be boycotted.
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. . " http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Mr. Card seems to be under the impression that so long as he doesn't advocate stoning homosexuals to death in the town square, he cannot be a bigot. He is wrong.
The vast majority of high-priced C-level hiring seems to be an exercise in some sort of magical thinking. Corporations see a success, and make a superficial attempt to imitate it. Throwing millions of dollars at one (or a handful) of executives is much easier than trying to understand their own internal dynamics.
"Steve Jobs turned Apple around, so what we need to do to make billions is find and hire the next Steve Jobs!" All while completely ignoring what Jobs actually did, leading to a situation where they'll pay millions for whichever executive wore more black turtlenecks over the last five years.
It's Cargo Cultism. Nice to see that the Swiss are taking a step away from it.
While you're right about the F35 being mainly a way to make bank for aerospace contractors, don't forget that it also has parts being built in what, 45 states? It's also effectively a giant bribe to various congresscritters.
Seriously, what are the odds of Canada - or any other first-world country - getting invaded these days? More specifically, why would anyone want to invade Canada? The people seem pretty friendly, haven't pissed anyone else off (or at least not much) and the winters are long and cold.
Well, the U.S. hasn't invaded them for a century or two, so their turn in the rotation is probably coming up again soon.
Blizzard jumped the shark years ago. The only people who might be legitimately excited by this news are stockholders, at the prospect of yet another franchise to milk cash from.
To be fair, one must also take into account that they have been actively working against and sabotaging Iranian nuclear efforts. The estimates may well be off, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Various U.S. and Israeli "insiders" have been warning of the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb since fracking *1984*!!! These so-called estimates have reached the status of pure fantasy. Iran may indeed some day build a nuclear weapon - in which case all of these estimates will have been just as accurate as Mr. Carroll's infamous stopped clock.
The United States began as an independent nation in 1776, and established its present system of government under the Constitution in 1789. Since that time there have been several periods of damaging corporate excess; The Gilded Age (1877-1900), The Roaring Twenties (1920-1928), and the one we're currently living through (1981-20??). That's 63 years out of the 237 years of the U.S.'s existence where the corporations have been arguably 'out of control'. You can quibble about details and dates, but the U.S. has not been subject to regulatory capture for the entirety of its existence.
So yes, I'm quite serious. Have you ever heard of competition law (aka. anti-trust law), the Glass–Steagall Act, or unionization (which worked much better when not kneecapped by Taft–Hartley)? Of course our government's record of reigning in corporate greed is far from perfect. Personally, I think we ought to eliminate for-profit corporations as they presently exist. But so long as we do have corporations and a government with the ability (although apparently not the will) to limit their excesses we might as well try to get it to do so, at least until we can come up with something better.
You're conflating two different things and confusing the issue. Bergmanson is speaking of using government power to *prevent* corporations from engaging in censorship. You are implying that any government attempt to exercise the power to stop corporate censorship will itself be creating a situation where the government can and will censor the internet itself - something that is not exactly accurate.
I find it disheartening how, whenever there is a semi-serious discussion of using government power to stop flagrant corporate abuse, someone inevitably hauls out the "OMG! We can't allow the government to have that much power! They'll abuse it and our freedom will suffer!" While I certainly am concerned about government tyranny and over-reach, I fail to understand why we settling for corporate tyranny and abuse instead is the only possible alternative. American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.
'Israel' has been claiming that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon "in under 36 months" or some other value of foo months, for over a decade. They've completely discredited themselves on this front, as has the United States.
On the one hand, yeah, pirate site complains about piracy, lol. On the other hand, TTVK Ry seem to be complete hypocrites and I can't really criticize TPB too much for exposing their hypocrisy. On the gripping hand, isn't there some better way to expose said hypocrisy than via the system that the Pirate Bay's very existence opposes? And, on a different tentacle completely how (if at all) is this different from Ron Paul, "Mr. Libertarian Free-Markets" trying to use the UN to seize a domain name he's unwilling to pay for? I disapproved of Representative Paul's actions, does that mean I'm logically/morally/ethically committed to seeing TPB as being in the wrong on this one? (FWIW, in general, I support TPB and am displeased with Ron Paul - I don't want to let either position color my thinking unduly.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not exactly a power droid user, but ad-blocking is absolutely something that will push me to go look outside of the google store. Is that really what they want to do?
We're rapidly approaching the point (assuming we're not already there) where a well-funded small group will be able to send a tailored package of bacteria to Mars and start trying to terraform it, with or without the permission or knowledge of the rest of the human race.
Yep. Obama basically wants a new, improved, all-American version of the Star Chamber.
You're missing the point.
Drones are getting a lot of mindshare because they're the context in which this debate is happening. But the debate is not about drones. It's about the White House's authority to kill Americans, on American soil, just because the President wants them dead.
In this instance, everyone with a brain should agree with Senator Paul -the idea of killing Americans (especially in America) without any real due process ought to be abhorrent to everyone.
This isn't about the morality of drone strikes. (Although that's certainly something that ought to be given far more serious consideration that it has been getting.) It's about the fundamental rule of law in the US. Is the President someone who can kill Americans, in America, at will, or not. Are there *any* limits on the Presidential power to kill at the President's whim?
You're missing the point. This isn't about whether SWAT teams need Hellfire missiles, launched from drones, or tanks, or urban assault mecha. It's about whether or not the President can decide, "Hey, I want so-and-so dead!" And then sign a paper, make a phone call, and have a CIA (or Air Force) Reaper drop a missile into his house. Rand Paul is arguing that should *never* be legal, and I agree with him.
but this is definitely a great moment for him. I hope he can keep it going until he forces an answer out of the White House.
This is how filibusters ought to be done!
Deathspawner implicitly concedes the justification of the underlying premise (file-sharing is evil and deserving of serious punishment) and then compounds it with the fallacy of relative privation, claiming "it could always be worse". I don't know if he's depressingly ignorant or a corporate tool, but either way, he's wrong.
You're making the mistake of assuming all dissent is worth intellectual engagement. The point of encouraging a boycott of Mr. Card's work is to help fight the belief that gay people are subhumans. I think he should be boycotted just as much as someone openly advocating slavery or mass murder ought to be boycotted.
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. . " http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Mr. Card seems to be under the impression that so long as he doesn't advocate stoning homosexuals to death in the town square, he cannot be a bigot.
He is wrong.
I'm not sure this is so much an American belief as something American corporations would desperately like their customers to believe.
The vast majority of high-priced C-level hiring seems to be an exercise in some sort of magical thinking. Corporations see a success, and make a superficial attempt to imitate it. Throwing millions of dollars at one (or a handful) of executives is much easier than trying to understand their own internal dynamics.
"Steve Jobs turned Apple around, so what we need to do to make billions is find and hire the next Steve Jobs!" All while completely ignoring what Jobs actually did, leading to a situation where they'll pay millions for whichever executive wore more black turtlenecks over the last five years.
It's Cargo Cultism. Nice to see that the Swiss are taking a step away from it.
While you're right about the F35 being mainly a way to make bank for aerospace contractors, don't forget that it also has parts being built in what, 45 states? It's also effectively a giant bribe to various congresscritters.
Seriously, what are the odds of Canada - or any other first-world country - getting invaded these days? More specifically, why would anyone want to invade Canada? The people seem pretty friendly, haven't pissed anyone else off (or at least not much) and the winters are long and cold.
Well, the U.S. hasn't invaded them for a century or two, so their turn in the rotation is probably coming up again soon.
Blizzard jumped the shark years ago. The only people who might be legitimately excited by this news are stockholders, at the prospect of yet another franchise to milk cash from.
Better this than giving it to the banks. And the U.S. government has handed them hundreds of billions.
To be fair, one must also take into account that they have been actively working against and sabotaging Iranian nuclear efforts. The estimates may well be off, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Various U.S. and Israeli "insiders" have been warning of the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb since fracking *1984*!!! These so-called estimates have reached the status of pure fantasy. Iran may indeed some day build a nuclear weapon - in which case all of these estimates will have been just as accurate as Mr. Carroll's infamous stopped clock.
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html
http://www.salon.com/2010/12/05/israeli_predictions_iranian_nukes/
The United States began as an independent nation in 1776, and established its present system of government under the Constitution in 1789. Since that time there have been several periods of damaging corporate excess; The Gilded Age (1877-1900), The Roaring Twenties (1920-1928), and the one we're currently living through (1981-20??). That's 63 years out of the 237 years of the U.S.'s existence where the corporations have been arguably 'out of control'. You can quibble about details and dates, but the U.S. has not been subject to regulatory capture for the entirety of its existence.
So yes, I'm quite serious. Have you ever heard of competition law (aka. anti-trust law), the Glass–Steagall Act, or unionization (which worked much better when not kneecapped by Taft–Hartley)? Of course our government's record of reigning in corporate greed is far from perfect. Personally, I think we ought to eliminate for-profit corporations as they presently exist. But so long as we do have corporations and a government with the ability (although apparently not the will) to limit their excesses
we might as well try to get it to do so, at least until we can come up with something better.
You're conflating two different things and confusing the issue. Bergmanson is speaking of using government power to *prevent* corporations from engaging in censorship. You are implying that any government attempt to exercise the power to stop corporate censorship will itself be creating a situation where the government can and will censor the internet itself - something that is not exactly accurate.
I find it disheartening how, whenever there is a semi-serious discussion of using government power to stop flagrant corporate abuse, someone inevitably hauls out the "OMG! We can't allow the government to have that much power! They'll abuse it and our freedom will suffer!" While I certainly am concerned about government tyranny and over-reach, I fail to understand why we settling for corporate tyranny and abuse instead is the only possible alternative. American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.
'Israel' has been claiming that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon "in under 36 months" or some other value of foo months, for over a decade. They've completely discredited themselves on this front, as has the United States.
and instead should be legally and scientifically classified as some sort of vermin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
And those of every other rent-extracting legacy megacorp along with them?
Or is the Firefox dev team still sure that they know better than I do, so that shouldn't be an option?
On the one hand, yeah, pirate site complains about piracy, lol. On the other hand, TTVK Ry seem to be complete hypocrites and I can't really criticize TPB too much for exposing their hypocrisy. On the gripping hand, isn't there some better way to expose said hypocrisy than via the system that the Pirate Bay's very existence opposes? And, on a different tentacle completely how (if at all) is this different from Ron Paul, "Mr. Libertarian Free-Markets" trying to use the UN to seize a domain name he's unwilling to pay for? I disapproved of Representative Paul's actions, does that mean I'm logically/morally/ethically committed to seeing TPB as being in the wrong on this one? (FWIW, in general, I support TPB and am displeased with Ron Paul - I don't want to let either position color my thinking unduly.)